Blog
About

14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS FOR MULTIMODAL TREATMENT OF COLORECTAL LIVER METASTASES. MODULE 3: CONTROVERSIES AND UNRESECTABLE METASTASES Translated title: CONSENSO BRASILEIRO DE TRATAMENTO MULTIDISCIPLINAR DE METÁSTASE HEPÁTICA DE ORIGEM COLORRETAL MÓDULO 3: CONTROVÉRSIAS E METÁSTASES IRRESSECÁVEIS

      1 , 2 , 6 , 2 , 6 , 1 , 2 , 6 , 3 , 1 , 4 , 5 , 1 , 2 , 4 , 6 , 3 , 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 3 , 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 3 , 3 , * , 3 , 3 , 3 , 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 1 , 2 , 6 , 6 , 6 , 1 , 2 , 6 , 1 , 2 , 5 , 6

      Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva : ABCD

      Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva

      Colorectal neoplasms, Neoplasm metastasis, Drug therapy

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          In the last module of this consensus, controversial topics were discussed. Management of the disease after progression during first line chemotherapy was the first discussion. Next, the benefits of liver resection in the presence of extra-hepatic disease were debated, as soon as, the best sequence of treatment. Conversion chemotherapy in the presence of unresectable liver disease was also discussed in this module. Lastly, the approach to the unresectable disease was also discussed, focusing in the best chemotherapy regimens and hole of chemo-embolization.

          RESUMO

          Neste último módulo do consenso, abordou-se alguns temas controversos. O primeiro tópico discutido foi o manejo da doença após progressão na primeira linha de quimioterapia, com foco em se ainda haveria indicação cirúrgica neste cenário. A seguir, o painel debruçou-se sobre as situações de ressecção da doença hepática na presença de doença extra-hepática, assim como, qual a melhor sequência de tratamento. O tratamento de conversão para doença inicialmente irressecável também foi abordado neste módulo, incluindo as importantes definições de quando se pode esperar que a doença se torne ressecável e quais esquemas terapêuticos seriam mais efetivos à luz dos conhecimentos atuais sobre a biologia tumoral e taxas de resposta objetiva. Por último, o tratamento da doença não passível de ressecção foi discutida, focando-se nos melhores esquemas a serem empregados e seu sequenciamento, bem como o papel da quimioembolização no manejo destes pacientes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 198

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

          Assessment of the change in tumour burden is an important feature of the clinical evaluation of cancer therapeutics: both tumour shrinkage (objective response) and disease progression are useful endpoints in clinical trials. Since RECIST was published in 2000, many investigators, cooperative groups, industry and government authorities have adopted these criteria in the assessment of treatment outcomes. However, a number of questions and issues have arisen which have led to the development of a revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Evidence for changes, summarised in separate papers in this special issue, has come from assessment of a large data warehouse (>6500 patients), simulation studies and literature reviews. HIGHLIGHTS OF REVISED RECIST 1.1: Major changes include: Number of lesions to be assessed: based on evidence from numerous trial databases merged into a data warehouse for analysis purposes, the number of lesions required to assess tumour burden for response determination has been reduced from a maximum of 10 to a maximum of five total (and from five to two per organ, maximum). Assessment of pathological lymph nodes is now incorporated: nodes with a short axis of 15 mm are considered measurable and assessable as target lesions. The short axis measurement should be included in the sum of lesions in calculation of tumour response. Nodes that shrink to <10mm short axis are considered normal. Confirmation of response is required for trials with response primary endpoint but is no longer required in randomised studies since the control arm serves as appropriate means of interpretation of data. Disease progression is clarified in several aspects: in addition to the previous definition of progression in target disease of 20% increase in sum, a 5mm absolute increase is now required as well to guard against over calling PD when the total sum is very small. Furthermore, there is guidance offered on what constitutes 'unequivocal progression' of non-measurable/non-target disease, a source of confusion in the original RECIST guideline. Finally, a section on detection of new lesions, including the interpretation of FDG-PET scan assessment is included. Imaging guidance: the revised RECIST includes a new imaging appendix with updated recommendations on the optimal anatomical assessment of lesions. A key question considered by the RECIST Working Group in developing RECIST 1.1 was whether it was appropriate to move from anatomic unidimensional assessment of tumour burden to either volumetric anatomical assessment or to functional assessment with PET or MRI. It was concluded that, at present, there is not sufficient standardisation or evidence to abandon anatomical assessment of tumour burden. The only exception to this is in the use of FDG-PET imaging as an adjunct to determination of progression. As is detailed in the final paper in this special issue, the use of these promising newer approaches requires appropriate clinical validation studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer.

            Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor, has shown promising preclinical and clinical activity against metastatic colorectal cancer, particularly in combination with chemotherapy. Of 813 patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, we randomly assigned 402 to receive irinotecan, bolus fluorouracil, and leucovorin (IFL) plus bevacizumab (5 mg per kilogram of body weight every two weeks) and 411 to receive IFL plus placebo. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, the response rate, the duration of the response, safety, and the quality of life. The median duration of survival was 20.3 months in the group given IFL plus bevacizumab, as compared with 15.6 months in the group given IFL plus placebo, corresponding to a hazard ratio for death of 0.66 (P<0.001). The median duration of progression-free survival was 10.6 months in the group given IFL plus bevacizumab, as compared with 6.2 months in the group given IFL plus placebo (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.54; P<0.001); the corresponding rates of response were 44.8 percent and 34.8 percent (P=0.004). The median duration of the response was 10.4 months in the group given IFL plus bevacizumab, as compared with 7.1 months in the group given IFL plus placebo (hazard ratio for progression, 0.62; P=0.001). Grade 3 hypertension was more common during treatment with IFL plus bevacizumab than with IFL plus placebo (11.0 percent vs. 2.3 percent) but was easily managed. The addition of bevacizumab to fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy results in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

              We investigated the efficacy of cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer and sought associations between the mutation status of the KRAS gene in tumors and clinical response to cetuximab. We randomly assigned patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-positive colorectal cancer with unresectable metastases to receive FOLFIRI either alone or in combination with cetuximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival. A total of 599 patients received cetuximab plus FOLFIRI, and 599 received FOLFIRI alone. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival in the cetuximab-FOLFIRI group as compared with the FOLFIRI group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.99; P=0.048). There was no significant difference in the overall survival between the two treatment groups (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.07; P=0.31). There was a significant interaction between treatment group and KRAS mutation status for tumor response (P=0.03) but not for progression-free survival (P=0.07) or overall survival (P=0.44). The hazard ratio for progression-free survival among patients with wild-type-KRAS tumors was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.94), in favor of the cetuximab-FOLFIRI group. The following grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI than with FOLFIRI alone: skin reactions (which were grade 3 only) (in 19.7% vs. 0.2% of patients, P<0.001), infusion-related reactions (in 2.5% vs. 0%, P<0.001), and diarrhea (in 15.7% vs. 10.5%, P=0.008). First-line treatment with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI, as compared with FOLFIRI alone, reduced the risk of progression of metastatic colorectal cancer. The benefit of cetuximab was limited to patients with KRAS wild-type tumors. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00154102.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Arq Bras Cir Dig
                Arq Bras Cir Dig
                abcd
                Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva : ABCD
                Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgia Digestiva
                0102-6720
                2317-6326
                Jul-Sep 2016
                Jul-Sep 2016
                : 29
                : 3
                : 173-179
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Brazilian Chapter of the International Hepato-Pancreato Biliary Association (BC-IHPBA);
                [2 ]Brazilian Society of Surgical Oncology (BSSO);
                [3 ]Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (BSCO);
                [4 ]Brazilian College of Digestive Surgery (BCDS);
                [5 ]Brazilian College of Surgeons (BCS),
                [6 ]Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association - AHPBA;
                [* ]Member of the Brazilian Society of Interventional Radiology, Brazil
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Orlando Jorge Martins Torres E-mail: o.torres@ 123456uol.com.br

                Conflicts of interest: none

                Article
                10.1590/0102-6720201600030011
                5074669
                27759781

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License

                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 100, Pages: 7
                Categories
                Original Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article