Comparison of guidelines for the management of rectal cancer
File(s)
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background
Overall survival from rectal cancer has almost doubled over the last 20 years. Following recommendations in management guidelines plays some part in this, but the extent of discrepancies between them has not been evaluated.
Methods
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, USA), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, Europe) and Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR, Japan) guidelines were examined and compared. These were chosen as representative of the countries with the highest incidences of rectal cancer and because no previous collaborations among societies were found.
Results
Overall agreement among societies was found regarding the definition of total mesorectal excision as the surgical standard, the administration of adjuvant therapy for stage III disease, indications for surgical resection for metastases and/or recurrent disease, and the treatment of peritoneal disease. Discrepancies emerged, in particular between Western and Japanese guidelines. The most significant differences involved the endoscopic approach to early cancer, extended lymph node dissection, adjuvant treatment for patients with stage I and II disease, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the specific management of metachronous disease, and restaging strategies.
Conclusion
There are major discrepancies among guidelines. These differences should constitute topics for further research.
Overall survival from rectal cancer has almost doubled over the last 20 years. Following recommendations in management guidelines plays some part in this, but the extent of discrepancies between them has not been evaluated.
Methods
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, USA), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, Europe) and Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR, Japan) guidelines were examined and compared. These were chosen as representative of the countries with the highest incidences of rectal cancer and because no previous collaborations among societies were found.
Results
Overall agreement among societies was found regarding the definition of total mesorectal excision as the surgical standard, the administration of adjuvant therapy for stage III disease, indications for surgical resection for metastases and/or recurrent disease, and the treatment of peritoneal disease. Discrepancies emerged, in particular between Western and Japanese guidelines. The most significant differences involved the endoscopic approach to early cancer, extended lymph node dissection, adjuvant treatment for patients with stage I and II disease, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the specific management of metachronous disease, and restaging strategies.
Conclusion
There are major discrepancies among guidelines. These differences should constitute topics for further research.
Date Issued
2018-12-01
Date Acceptance
2018-05-18
Citation
BJS Open, 2018, 2 (6), pp.433-451
ISSN
2474-9842
Publisher
Wiley
Start Page
433
End Page
451
Journal / Book Title
BJS Open
Volume
2
Issue
6
Copyright Statement
© 2018 The Authors. BJS Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Identifier
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30511044
PII: BJS588
Publication Status
Published online
Coverage Spatial
England
Date Publish Online
2018-07-27