Surgical Management of Advanced Pelvic Cancer. Группа авторов

patients who receive neoadjuvant treatment, response evaluation can be challenging due to the difficulties in distinguishing between malignant and fibrotic changes. Visualizing and assessing complete remission or downsizing of the tumor after neoadjuvant treatment, may alter the surgical planning in highly selected cases the surgical planning. Complete remission after (chemo)radiation cannot be predicted reliably with non‐invasive imaging techniques, because of the spatial limitations to detecting microscopic tumor residue [17]. Even magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can result in false positive predictions. Addition of diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) to standard MRI makes detection more accurate. Overall, an experienced radiologist with considerable expertise is an essential part of the complex cancer MDTM [18–20].

      Pathological Assessment

      All resected specimens should be examined by an experienced histopathologist and results must be discussed in the complex cancer MDTM. The role of the pathologist includes advanced pelvic cancer specimen quality, lymph node and margin status. Reporting these findings should be done by the use of structured reports [21–22].

Complex Cancer MDTM Outcomes

      All participants should have ample experience with this complex and heterogeneous group of patients. In the case of a treatment plan with curative intent, the surgeon proposes a strategy with as little harm as possible. This proposal often includes induction therapy with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both. The medical oncologist and radiation oncologist usually want specific aspects clarified, often involving prior medical history or imaging. The radiologist is frequently asked to specify some aspects of scans that were presented earlier. In cases of non‐curative treatment, the initiative lies with the medical oncologist. The possibilities for enrolment in a clinical trial should be discussed, and when enrolment is possible, the relevant trial will be included in the MDTM outcome advice. The discussion on an individual patient ends with the chair declaring what he or she thinks the consensus of the MDTM is, after which the secretary notes the final conclusion.

      Summary Box

       Increased complexity of modern cancer care requires a multidisciplinary approach.

       Combining the knowledge of different specificities makes the MDTM an excellent learning environment enhance cancer care.

       A lack of defined protocols in locally advanced and recurrent pelvic cancer endorses the necessity for a centralized multidisciplinary approach.

References

      1 1 Fennell, M.L., Prabhu Das, I., Clauser, S. et al. (2010). The organization of multidisciplinary care teams: modeling internal and external influences on cancer care quality. J. Natl Cancer Inst. Monogr 2010 (40): 72–80.

      2 2 Kelly, S.L., Jackson, J.E., Hickey, B.E. et al. (2013). Multidisciplinary clinic care improves adherence to best practice in head and neck cancer. Am. J. Otolaryngol 34 (1): 57–60.

      3 3 Korman, H., Lanni, T.J., Shah, C. et al. (2013). Impact of a prostate multidisciplinary clinic program on patient treatment decisions and on adherence to NCCN guidelines: the William Beaumont Hospital experience. Am. J. Clin. Oncol 36 (2): 121–125.

      4 4 Prades, J., Remue, E., van Hoof, E., and Borras, J.M. (2015). Is it worth reorganising cancer services on the basis of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs)? A systematic review of the objectives and organisation of MDTs and their impact on patient outcomes. Health Policy 119 (4): 464–474.

      5 5 Raine, R., Wallace, I., Nic a’ Bháird, C. et al. (2014). Improving the effectiveness of multidisciplinary team meetings for patients with chronic diseases: a prospective observational study. Health Serv. Deliv. Res. 2.37.

      6 6 Taplin, S.H., Weaver, S., Salas, E. et al. (2015). Reviewing cancer care team effectiveness. J. Oncol. Pract 11 (3): 239–246.

      7 7 Fleissig, A., Jenkins, V., Catt, S., and Fallowfield, L. (2006). Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK? Lancet Oncol 7 (11): 935–943.

      8 8 Kurpad, R., Kim, W., Rathmell, W.K. et al. (2011). A multidisciplinary approach to the management of urologic malignancies: does it influence diagnostic and treatment decisions? Urol. Oncol.Semin. Orig. Invest 29 (4): 378–382.

      9 9 Oxenberg, J., Papenfuss, W., Esemuede, I. et al. (2015). Multidisciplinary cancer conferences for gastrointestinal malignancies result in measureable treatment changes: a prospective study of 149 consecutive patients. Ann. Surg. Oncol 22 (5): 1533–1539.

      10 10 Snelgrove, R.C., Subendran, J., Jhaveri, K. et al. (2015). Effect of multidisciplinary cancer conference on treatment plan for patients with primary rectal cancer. Dis. Colon Rectum 58 (7): 653–658.

      11 11 van Hagen, P., Spaander, M.C.W., van der Gaast, A. et al. (2013). Impact of a multidisciplinary tumour board meeting for upper‐GI malignancies on clinical decision making: a prospective cohort study. Int. J. Clin. Oncol 18 (2): 214–219.

      12 12 Wheless, S.A., McKinney, K.A., and Zanation, A.M. (2010). A prospective study of the clinical impact of a multidisciplinary head and neck tumor board. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 143 (5): 650–654.

      13 13 Jung, S.M., Hong, Y.S., Kim, T.W. et al. (2018). Impact of a multidisciplinary team approach for managing advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer. World J. Surg 42 (7): 2227–2233.

      14 14 Pillay, B., Wootten, A.C., Crowe, H. et al. (2016). The impact of multidisciplinary team meetings on patient assessment, management and outcomes in oncology settings: a systematic review of the literature. Cancer Treatm. Rev 42: 56–72.

      15 15 Palmer, G., Martling, A., Cedermark, B., and Holm, T. (2011). Preoperative tumour staging with multidisciplinary team assessment improves the outcome in locally advanced primary rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 13 (12): 1361–1369.

      16 16 Samenwerking SO. Normeringsrapport SONCOS 2018, versie 6. Utrecht: SONCOS.

      17 17 Barbaro, B., Fiorucci, C., Tebala, C. et al. (2009). Locally advanced rectal cancer: MR imaging in prediction of response after preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Radiology 250 (3): 730–739.

      18 18 Curvo‐Semedo, L., Lambregts, D.M.J., Maas, M. et al. (2012). Diffusion‐weighted MRI in rectal cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient as a potential noninvasive marker of tumor aggressiveness. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 35 (6): 1365–1371.

      19 19 Kim, S.H., Lee, J.M., Hong, S.H. et al. (2009). Locally advanced rectal cancer: added value of diffusion‐weighted MR imaging in the evaluation of tumor response to neoadjuvant chemo‐ and radiation therapy. Radiology 253 (1): 116–125.

      20 20 Lambregts, D.M., Vandecaveye, V., Barbaro, B. et al. (2011). Diffusion‐weighted MRI for selection of complete responders after chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer: a multicenter study. Ann. Surg. Oncol 18 (8): 2224–2231.

      21 21 Loughrey MB, Quirke P, Shepherd NA (2014). Standards and datasets for reporting cancers. Dataset for colorectal cancer histopathology reports. London: Royal College of Pathologists.

      22 22 von Karsa, L., Patnick, J., Segnan, N. et al. (2013). European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy 45 (1): 51–59.

3 Preoperative Assessment of Tumor Anatomy and Surgical Resectability

       Akash M. Mehta1, David Burling2, and John T. Jenkins1

       1 Department of Surgery, Complex Cancer Clinic, St. Mark’s Hospital, London, UK

       2 Department of Gastro-Intestinal Radiology, Complex Cancer Clinic, St. Mark’s Hospital, London, UK

Background