Choices of Therapeutic Strategies for Colorectal Liver Metastases Among Expert Liver Surgeons: A Throw of the Dice?
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2020
11 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
25
8
2020
medline:
11
11
2020
entrez:
25
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To test the degree of agreement in selecting therapeutic options for patients suffering from colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) among surgical experts around the globe. Only few areas in medicine have seen so many novel therapeutic options over the past decades as for liver tumors. Significant variations may therefore exist regarding the choices of treatment, even among experts, which may confuse both the medical community and patients. Ten cases of CRLM with different levels of complexity were presented to 43 expert liver surgeons from 23 countries and 4 continents. Experts were defined as experienced surgeons with academic contributions to the field of liver tumors. Experts provided information on their medical education and current practice in liver surgery and transplantation. Using an online platform, they chose their strategy in treating each case from defined multiple choices with added comments. Inter-rater agreement among experts and cases was calculated using free-marginal multirater kappa methodology. A similar, but adjusted survey was presented to 60 general surgeons from Asia, Europe, and North America to test their attitude in treating or referring complex patients to expert centers. Thirty-eight (88%) experts completed the evaluation. Most of them are in leading positions (92%) with a median clinical experience of 25 years. Agreement on therapeutic strategies among them was none to minimal in more than half of the cases with kappa varying from 0.00 to 0.39. Many general surgeons may not refer the complex cases to expert centers, including in Europe, where they also engage in complex liver surgeries. Considerable inconsistencies of decision-making exist among expert surgeons when choosing a therapeutic strategy for CRLM. This might confuse both patients and referring physicians and indicate that an international high-level consensus statements and widely accepted guidelines are needed.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To test the degree of agreement in selecting therapeutic options for patients suffering from colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) among surgical experts around the globe.
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND
Only few areas in medicine have seen so many novel therapeutic options over the past decades as for liver tumors. Significant variations may therefore exist regarding the choices of treatment, even among experts, which may confuse both the medical community and patients.
METHODS
Ten cases of CRLM with different levels of complexity were presented to 43 expert liver surgeons from 23 countries and 4 continents. Experts were defined as experienced surgeons with academic contributions to the field of liver tumors. Experts provided information on their medical education and current practice in liver surgery and transplantation. Using an online platform, they chose their strategy in treating each case from defined multiple choices with added comments. Inter-rater agreement among experts and cases was calculated using free-marginal multirater kappa methodology. A similar, but adjusted survey was presented to 60 general surgeons from Asia, Europe, and North America to test their attitude in treating or referring complex patients to expert centers.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight (88%) experts completed the evaluation. Most of them are in leading positions (92%) with a median clinical experience of 25 years. Agreement on therapeutic strategies among them was none to minimal in more than half of the cases with kappa varying from 0.00 to 0.39. Many general surgeons may not refer the complex cases to expert centers, including in Europe, where they also engage in complex liver surgeries.
CONCLUSIONS
Considerable inconsistencies of decision-making exist among expert surgeons when choosing a therapeutic strategy for CRLM. This might confuse both patients and referring physicians and indicate that an international high-level consensus statements and widely accepted guidelines are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32833764
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004331
pii: 00000658-202011000-00008
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
715-722Références
Wang K, Liu W, Yan X-L, et al. Long-term postoperative survival prediction in patients with colorectal liver metastasis. Oncotarget 2017; 8:79927–79934.
Clavien P-A, Petrowsky H, DeOliveira ML, et al. Strategies for safer liver surgery and partial liver transplantation. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1545–1559.
Petrowsky H, Fritsch R, Guckenberger M, et al. Modern therapeutic approaches for malignant liver tumours. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; [published online ahead of print]. doi:10.1038/s41575-020-0314-8.
doi: 10.1038/s41575-020-0314-8
Clavien P-A, Oberkofler CE, Raptis DA, et al. What is critical for liver surgery and partial liver transplantation: Size or quality? Hepatology 2010; 52:715–729.
Clavien PA. Hepatic Vein Embolization for Safer Liver Surgery. Insignificant novelty or a breakthrough? Ann Surg 2020; 272:206–209.
Kron P, Linecker M, Jones RP, et al. Ablation or resection for colorectal liver metastases? A systematic review of the literature. Front Oncol 2019; 9:1052.
Dueland S, Syversveen T, Solheim JM, et al. Survival following liver transplantation for patients with nonresectable liver-only colorectal metastases. Ann Surg 2020; 271:212–218.
Oberkofler CE, Hamming JF, Staiger RD, et al. Procedural surgical RCTs in daily practice: do surgeons adopt or is it just a waste of time? Ann Surg 2019; 270:727–734.
Aubin JM, Bressan AK, Grondin SC, et al. Assessing resectability of colorectal liver metastases: how do different subspecialties interpret the same data? Can J Surg 2018; 61:251–256.
Huiskens J, Bolhuis K, Engelbrecht MR, et al. Outcomes of resectability assessment of the Dutch colorectal cancer group liver metastases expert panel. J Am Coll Surg 2019; 229:523–532. e2.
Warrens MJ. Inequalities between multi-rater kappas. Adv Data Anal Classif 2010; 4:271–286.
McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012; 22:276–282.
Randolph JJ. Online Kappa Calculator [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://justus.randolph.name/kappa. 2008; 271-228. Accessed May 15, 2020.
Shih T-H, Xitao Fan X. Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a meta-analysis. Field Methods 2008; 20:249–271.
Cunningham CT, Quan H, Hemmelgarn B, et al. Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015; 15:32.
Dekker E, Tanis PJ, Vleugels JLA, et al. Colorectal cancer. Lancet (London, England) 2019; 394:1467–1480.
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R, et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2016; 27:1386–1422.
Vallance AE, vanderMeulen J, Kuryba A, et al. Impact of hepatobiliary service centralization on treatment and outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer and liver metastases. Br J Surg 2017; 104:918–925.
Altieri MS, Yang J, Yin D, et al. Presence of a fellowship improves perioperative outcomes following hepatopancreatobiliary procedures. Surg Endosc 2017; 31:2918–2924.
Kennedy GT, McMillan MT, Sprys MH, et al. The influence of fellowship training on the practice of pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB (Oxford) 2016; 18:965–978.
Truong JL, Cyr DP, Lam-McCulloch J, et al. Consensus and controversy in hepatic surgery: a survey of Canadian surgeons. J Surg Oncol 2014; 110:947–951.
El Amrani M, Lenne X, Clement G, et al. Specificity of procedure volume and its association with postoperative mortality in digestive cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2019; 270:775–782.
Vonlanthen R, Lodge P, Barkun JS, et al. Toward a consensus on centralization in surgery. Ann Surg 2018; 268:712–724.