TY - JOUR
T1 - Processes of care in the multidisciplinary treatment of gastric cancer
T2 - Results of a RAND/UCLA expert panel
AU - Brar, Savtaj S.
AU - Mahar, Alyson L.
AU - Helyer, Lucy K.
AU - Swallow, Carol
AU - Law, Calvin
AU - Paszat, Lawrence
AU - Seevaratnam, Rajini
AU - Cardoso, Roberta
AU - McLeod, Robin
AU - Dixon, Matthew
AU - Yohanathan, Lavanya
AU - Lourenco, Laercio G.
AU - Bocicariu, Alina
AU - Bekaii-Saab, Tanios
AU - Chau, Ian
AU - Church, Neal
AU - Coit, Daniel
AU - Crane, Christopher H.
AU - Earle, Craig
AU - Mansfield, Paul
AU - Marcon, Norman
AU - Miner, Thomas
AU - Noh, Sung Hoon
AU - Porter, Geoff
AU - Posner, Mitchell C.
AU - Prachand, Vivek
AU - Sano, Takeshi
AU - Van De Velde, Cornelis
AU - Wong, Sandra
AU - Coburn, Natalie G.
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2015 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2014/1
Y1 - 2014/1
N2 - IMPORTANCE There is growing interest in reducing the variations and deficiencies in the multidisciplinary management of gastric cancer. OBJECTIVE To define optimal treatment strategies for gastric adenocarcinoma (GC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method involving a multidisciplinary expert panel of 16 physicians from 6 countries. INTERVENTIONS Gastrectomy, perioperative chemotherapy, adjuvant chemoradiation, surveillance endoscopy, and best supportive care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Panelists scored 416 scenarios regarding treatment scenarios for appropriateness from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores from 1 to 3 were considered inappropriate; 4 to 6, uncertain; and 7 to 9, appropriate. Agreement was reached when 12 of 16 panelists scored the scenario similarly. Appropriate scenarios agreed on were subsequently scored for necessity. RESULTS For patients with T1N0 disease, surgery alone was considered appropriate, while there was no agreement over surgery alone for patients T2N0 disease. Perioperative chemotherapy was appropriate for patients who had T1-2N2-3 or T3-4 GC without major symptoms. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was classified as appropriate for T1-2N1-3 or T3-4 proximal GC and necessary for T1-2N2-3 or T3-4 distal GC. There was no agreement regarding surveillance imaging and endoscopy following gastrectomy. Surveillance endoscopy was deemed to be appropriate after endoscopic resection. For patients with metastatic GC, surgical resection was considered inappropriate for those with no major symptoms, unless the disease was limited to positive cytology alone, in which case there was disagreement. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Patients with GC being treated with curative intent should be considered for multimodal treatment. For patients with incurable disease, surgical interventions should be considered only for the management of major bleeding or obstruction.
AB - IMPORTANCE There is growing interest in reducing the variations and deficiencies in the multidisciplinary management of gastric cancer. OBJECTIVE To define optimal treatment strategies for gastric adenocarcinoma (GC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method involving a multidisciplinary expert panel of 16 physicians from 6 countries. INTERVENTIONS Gastrectomy, perioperative chemotherapy, adjuvant chemoradiation, surveillance endoscopy, and best supportive care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Panelists scored 416 scenarios regarding treatment scenarios for appropriateness from 1 (highly inappropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Median appropriateness scores from 1 to 3 were considered inappropriate; 4 to 6, uncertain; and 7 to 9, appropriate. Agreement was reached when 12 of 16 panelists scored the scenario similarly. Appropriate scenarios agreed on were subsequently scored for necessity. RESULTS For patients with T1N0 disease, surgery alone was considered appropriate, while there was no agreement over surgery alone for patients T2N0 disease. Perioperative chemotherapy was appropriate for patients who had T1-2N2-3 or T3-4 GC without major symptoms. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy was classified as appropriate for T1-2N1-3 or T3-4 proximal GC and necessary for T1-2N2-3 or T3-4 distal GC. There was no agreement regarding surveillance imaging and endoscopy following gastrectomy. Surveillance endoscopy was deemed to be appropriate after endoscopic resection. For patients with metastatic GC, surgical resection was considered inappropriate for those with no major symptoms, unless the disease was limited to positive cytology alone, in which case there was disagreement. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Patients with GC being treated with curative intent should be considered for multimodal treatment. For patients with incurable disease, surgical interventions should be considered only for the management of major bleeding or obstruction.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892681723&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84892681723&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3959
DO - 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3959
M3 - Article
C2 - 24225775
AN - SCOPUS:84892681723
SN - 2168-6254
VL - 149
SP - 18
EP - 25
JO - JAMA Surgery
JF - JAMA Surgery
IS - 1
ER -
