Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorAugestad, Knut Magne
dc.contributor.authorLindsetmo, Rolv-Ole
dc.contributor.authorStulberg, J
dc.contributor.authorReynolds, H
dc.contributor.authorChampagne, B
dc.contributor.authorLeblanc, F
dc.contributor.authorHeriot, AG
dc.contributor.authorSenagore, A
dc.contributor.authorDelaney, C
dc.date.accessioned2012-03-12T09:17:47Z
dc.date.available2012-03-12T09:17:47Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.description.abstractIn a letter to the editor Dr. Hottenrott provides valuable comments on our survey describing international preoperative rectal cancer management. In our opinion, three key messages are derived from our survey: First, most surgeons agree to neoadjuvant treatment when there is an increased risk of finding histologically positive circumferential margins. In addition, we found more than 40 other indications for neoadjuvant treatment (see our Table 4). This emphasizes the need for an international agreement, as different indications for neoadjuvant treatment will select noncomparable groups of patients in outcome studies. Second, we have shown (see our Table 6) that multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings significantly influence several important decisions in preoperative rectal cancer management. Interestingly, centers with regular MDT have a higher rate of using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Odds Ratio [OR] = 3.62) and consider a threatened circumferential resection margin (CRM) as indication for neoadjuvant treatment (OR = 5.67). We believe that MDT improves preoperative management of rectal cancer by increasing adherence to national guidelines. Similar discussions in international rectal cancer societies are needed aiming towards an international consensus statement. Finally, our survey revealed sparse use (35% of all cases) of MRI. The goal for the radiologic examination in rectal cancer is to explore the tumor’s relation to nearby anatomical structures. This evaluation will conclude with TNM staging, important for chemoradiotheraphy, surgical treatment, and prognosis. Magnetic resonance imaging has a central role in this evaluation and should be the first choice radiologic modality. Not only is MRI crucial in detection of TNM stage but also plays a central role in determination of the tumor’s distance to the mesorectal fascia and the CRM. Magnetic resonance imaging has moderate sensitivity on T1 and T2 tumors, and should be supplemented with rectal ultrasound.en
dc.identifier.citationWorld Journal of Surgery 35(2011) s. 1418-1419en
dc.identifier.cristinIDFRIDAID 802200
dc.identifier.doidoi: 10.1007/s00268-011-1039-1
dc.identifier.issn0364-2313
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/3918
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-uit_munin_3640
dc.language.isoengen
dc.publisherSpringer Verlagen
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccess
dc.subjectVDP::Medical disciplines: 700::Clinical medical disciplines: 750::Oncology: 762en
dc.subjectVDP::Medisinske Fag: 700::Klinisk medisinske fag: 750::Onkologi: 762en
dc.titlePreoperative Rectal Cancer Management : Wide International Practice Makes Outcome Comparison Challenging : Replyen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen
dc.typePeer revieweden


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel