The multidisciplinary rectal cancer treatment: main convergences, controversial aspects and investigational areas which support the need for an European Consensus.
OBJECTIVE
During the past decades staging and treatment of rectal cancer are used different in Europe and in North America. To promote a process to integrate the daily practice with the best evidence of the literature an International Conference was organized in Italy. Agreement between Experts, Centres, and specialists who participated in the Conference are reported.


METHODS
Five aspects were analyzed and a questionnaire was tailored for this purpose. The questionnaire had 159 questions. During the Conference, at the beginning of each Session, the moderators showed the answers from the Experts and the Centres, and, at the end of the session, the audience voted in all controversial issues. Agreements were scored at three levels: minimum, if it was between 51 and 74% of votes for each group; moderate, between 75 and 94%; large, more than 94%.


RESULTS
The main results are: staging: endoanal ultrasound was considered as mandatory in T staging, in the evaluation of sphincter infiltration, and in the restaging of T after chemoradiotherapy (chRT). Magnetic Resonance Imaging is mandatory in the evaluation of mesorectal fascia infiltration. Endoscopy had a moderate agreement for the definition of tumour location, and the barium enema as optional. Digital rectal examination is complementary for staging and PET-CT investigational for T, N and yT staging. Preoperative radiotherapy: for T4 stage chRT was always the preferred treatment, often with moderate agreement, for any tumour location and N status. For T3, chRT received the same agreement except for high location and N0-N1. For T2 stage, N2 and positive nodes outside the mesorectum, chRT received minimum agreement for low and middle tumours; for high tumours only positive nodes outside the mesorectum was agreed upon. Preoperative radiotherapy, negative specimen and sphincter preservation: chRT was agreed by many for all T stages and N presentations of lower third tumours, except for T1-2 N0-N1. Postoperative treatments: the selection for these treatments often received moderate agreement according to the infiltration of surrounding organs, positive nodal status and circumferential radial margins. Therapy of metastatic disease: an agreement was found for FOLFOX as first-line therapy and for FOLFIRI as second-line, although comparative studies show similar activity of FOLFOX and FOLFIRI regimens.


CONCLUSIONS
This process represents an expertise opinion process that may contribute to increased scientific debate and to promote the development of 'guidelines', 'clinical recommendations' and ultimately a Consensus on the evolving approach to rectal cancer treatment.
Valentini
Vincenzo
V
Cattedra di Radioterapia, Università Cattolica S.Cuore, Rome, Italy. vvalentini@rm.unicatt.it
Glimelius
Bengt
B
Minsky
Bruce D
BD
Van Cutsem
Eric
E
Bartelink
Hanry
H
Beets-Tan
Regina G H
RG
Gerard
Jean-Pierre
JP
Kosmidis
Paris
P
Pahlman
Lars
L
Picciocchi
Aurelio
A
Quirke
Phil
P
Tepper
Joel
J
Tonato
Maurizio
M
Van de Velde
Cornelius J
CJ
Cellini
Numa
N
Latini
Paolo
P
D000971:Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D017024:Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; D016099:Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D006801:Humans; D007391:International Cooperation; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D009367:Neoplasm Staging / Q000379:methods*; D018579:Patient Selection; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D018714:Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; D012004:Rectal Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology* / Q000628:therapy*