Nouveautés et perspectives dans la prise en charge des cancers colorectaux et gastriques avancés [News and perspectives in the treatment of advanced gastric and colorectal cancers].

Colorectal and gastric cancers are the fourth and third leading causes of cancer death world-wide. Unfortunately, gastric cancer is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage after becoming metastatic in distant sites, so that palliative therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Major progress in the understanding of the biology, the development of valid biomarkers and molecular targeted drugs have improved the treatment options and prognosis of both cancers significantly in the last years. Here, we review the current standards of care for patients with advanced and metastatic colorectal and gastric cancer and outline the perspectives for the future.

International comparison of the German evidence-based S3-guidelines on the diagnosis and multimodal treatment of early and locally advanced gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines are essential in implementing and maintaining nationwide stage-specific diagnostic and therapeutic standards. In 2011, the first German expert consensus guideline defined the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of early and locally advanced esophagogastric cancers. Here, we compare this guideline with other national guidelines as well as current literature. METHODS: The German S3-guideline used an approved development process with de novo literature research, international guideline adaptation, or good clinical practice. Other recent evidence-based national guidelines and current references were compared with German recommendations. RESULTS: In the German S3 and other Western guidelines, adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) are classified according to formerly defined AEG I-III subgroups due to the high surgical impact. To stage local disease, computed tomography of the chest and abdomen and endosonography are reinforced. In contrast, laparoscopy is optional for staging. Mucosal cancers (T1a) should be endoscopically resected "en-bloc" to allow complete histological evaluation of lateral and basal margins. For locally advanced cancers of the stomach or esophagogastric junction (≥T3N+), preferred treatment is preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy. Preoperative radiochemotherapy is an evidence-based alternative for large AEG type I-II tumors (≥T3N+). Additionally, some experts recommend treating T2 tumors with a similar approach, mainly because pretherapeutic staging is often considered to be unreliable. CONCLUSIONS: The German S3 guideline represents an up-to-date European position with regard to diagnosis, staging, and treatment recommendations for patients with locally advanced esophagogastric cancer. Effects of perioperative chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy are still to be investigated for adenocarcinoma of the cardia and the lower esophagus.

Prognostic factors for progression-free and overall survival in advanced biliary tract cancer.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancer is an uncommon cancer with a poor outcome. We assembled data from the National Cancer Research Institute (UK) ABC-02 study and 10 international studies to determine prognostic outcome characteristics for patients with advanced disease. METHODS: Multivariable analyses of the final dataset from the ABC-02 study were carried out. All variables were simultaneously included in a Cox proportional hazards model, and backward elimination was used to produce the final model (using a significance level of 10%), in which the selected variables were associated independently with outcome. This score was validated externally by receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis using the independent international dataset. RESULTS: A total of 410 patients were included from the ABC-02 study and 753 from the international dataset. An overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) Cox model was derived from the ABC-02 study. White blood cells, haemoglobin, disease status, bilirubin, neutrophils, gender, and performance status were considered prognostic for survival (all with P < 0.10). Patients with metastatic disease {hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-2.02]} and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 2 had worse survival [HR 2.24 (95% CI 1.53-3.28)]. In a dataset restricted to patients who received cisplatin and gemcitabine with ECOG PS 0 and 1, only haemoglobin, disease status, bilirubin, and neutrophils were associated with PFS and OS. ROC analysis suggested the models generated from the ABC-02 study had a limited prognostic value [6-month PFS: area under the curve (AUC) 62% (95% CI 57-68); 1-year OS: AUC 64% (95% CI 58-69)]. CONCLUSION: These data propose a set of prognostic criteria for outcome in advanced biliary tract cancer derived from the ABC-02 study that are validated in an international dataset. Although these findings establish the benchmark for the prognostic evaluation of patients with ABC and confirm the value of longheld clinical observations, the ability of the model to correctly predict prognosis is limited and needs to be improved through identification of additional clinical and molecular markers.

The role of advanced nursing in lung cancer: A framework based development.

PURPOSE: Advanced Practice Lung Cancer Nurses (APLCN) are well-established in several countries but their role has yet to be established in Switzerland. Developing an innovative nursing role requires a structured approach to guide successful implementation and to meet the overarching goal of improved nursing sensitive patient outcomes. The "Participatory, Evidence-based, Patient-focused process, for guiding the development, implementation, and evaluation of advanced practice nursing" (PEPPA framework) is one approach that was developed in the context of the Canadian health system. The purpose of this article is to describe the development of an APLCN model at a Swiss Academic Medical Center as part of a specialized Thoracic Cancer Center and to evaluate the applicability of PEPPA framework in this process. METHOD: In order to develop and implement the APLCN role, we applied the first seven phases of the PEPPA framework. RESULTS: This article spreads the applicability of the PEPPA framework for an APLCN development. This framework allowed us to i) identify key components of an APLCN model responsive to lung cancer patients' health needs, ii) identify role facilitators and barriers, iii) implement the APLCN role and iv) design a feasibility study of this new role. CONCLUSIONS: The PEPPA framework provides a structured process for implementing novel Advanced Practice Nursing roles in a local context, particularly where such roles are in their infancy. Two key points in the process include assessing patients' health needs and involving key stakeholders.