The benefits of laparoscopy in benign diseases are quite clear. Patients generally can expect smaller incisions, less narcotic usage, quicker return of bowel function, and shorter hospitalizations. The benefits of laparoscopy in oncologic surgery are less clear, and laparoscopic oncology surgery has many critics. Early reports of long surgical times, high operating room costs, and alarming rates of port-site recurrences after laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer all but stopped this less-invasive approach outside the confines of clinical protocols. As the results of larger retrospective studies began to refute these earlier detrimental claims, prospective randomized trials began to take a foothold. In this article, we review these randomized trials with particular attention to the perioperative effects of laparoscopic colectomy and the short-term oncologic outcomes.
Mark Bloomston, Henry Kaufman, John Winston, Mark Arnold and Edward Martin
Randall W. Burt, James S. Barthel, Kelli Bullard Dunn, Donald S. David, Ernesto Drelichman, James M. Ford, Francis M. Giardiello, Stephen B. Gruber, Amy L. Halverson, Stanley R. Hamilton, Mohammad K. Ismail, Kory Jasperson, Audrey J. Lazenby, Patrick M. Lynch, Edward W. Martin Jr., Robert J. Mayer, Reid M. Ness, Dawn Provenzale, M. Sambasiva Rao, Moshe Shike, Gideon Steinbach, Jonathan P. Terdiman and David Weinberg
Gabrielle B. Rocque, Richard A. Taylor, Aras Acemgil, Xuelin Li, Maria Pisu, Kelly Kenzik, Bradford E. Jackson, Karina I. Halilova, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, Karen Meneses, Yufeng Li, Michelle Y. Martin, Carol Chambless, Nedra Lisovicz, Mona Fouad, Edward E. Partridge, Elizabeth A. Kvale and the Patient Care Connect Group
Background: There is growing interest in psychosocial care and evaluating distress in patients with cancer. As of 2015, the Commission on Cancer requires cancer centers to screen patients for distress, but the optimal approach to implementation remains unclear. Methods: We assessed the feasibility and impact of using distress assessments to frame lay navigator interactions with geriatric patients with cancer who were enrolled in navigation between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. Results: Of the 5,121 patients enrolled in our lay patient navigation program, 4,520 (88%) completed at least one assessment using a standardized distress tool (DT). Navigators used the tool to structure both formal and informal distress assessments. Of all patients, 24% reported distress scores of 4 or greater and 5.5% reported distress scores of 8 or greater. The most common sources of distress at initial assessment were pain, balance/mobility difficulties, and fatigue. Minority patients reported similar sources of distress as the overall program population, with increased relative distress related to logistical issues, such as transportation and financial/insurance questions. Patients were more likely to ask for help with questions about insurance/financial needs (79%), transportation (76%), and knowledge deficits about diet/nutrition (76%) and diagnosis (66%) when these items contributed to distress. Conclusions: Lay navigators were able to routinely screen for patient distress at a high degree of penetration using a structured distress assessment.
Margaret von Mehren, R. Lor Randall, Robert S. Benjamin, Sarah Boles, Marilyn M. Bui, Kristen N. Ganjoo, Suzanne George, Ricardo J. Gonzalez, Martin J. Heslin, John M. Kane III, Vicki Keedy, Edward Kim, Henry Koon, Joel Mayerson, Martin McCarter, Sean V. McGarry, Christian Meyer, Zachary S. Morris, Richard J. O'Donnell, Alberto S. Pappo, I. Benjamin Paz, Ivy A. Petersen, John D. Pfeifer, Richard F. Riedel, Bernice Ruo, Scott Schuetze, William D. Tap, Jeffrey D. Wayne, Mary Anne Bergman and Jillian L. Scavone
Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are rare solid tumors of mesenchymal cell origin that display a heterogenous mix of clinical and pathologic characteristics. STS can develop from fat, muscle, nerves, blood vessels, and other connective tissues. The evaluation and treatment of patients with STS requires a multidisciplinary team with demonstrated expertise in the management of these tumors. The complete NCCN Guidelines for STS provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of extremity/superficial trunk/head and neck STS, as well as intra-abdominal/retroperitoneal STS, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, desmoid tumors, and rhabdomyosarcoma. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines discusses general principles for the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of STS of the extremities, superficial trunk, or head and neck; outlines treatment recommendations by disease stage; and reviews the evidence to support the guidelines recommendations.
Al B. Benson III, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Emily Chan, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Paul F. Engstrom, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, Charles S. Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Steven Hunt, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Michael G. Martin, Kilian Salerno May, Mary F. Mulcahy, Kate Murphy, Eric Rohren, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, Sunil Sharma, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, William Small Jr, Constantinos T. Sofocleous, Alan P. Venook, Christopher G. Willett, Deborah A. Freedman-Cass and Kristina M. Gregory
These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology provide recommendations for the management of rectal cancer, beginning with the clinical presentation of the patient to the primary care physician or gastroenterologist through diagnosis, pathologic staging, neoadjuvant treatment, surgical management, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and survivorship. This discussion focuses on localized disease. The NCCN Rectal Cancer Panel believes that a multidisciplinary approach, including representation from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology, is necessary for treating patients with rectal cancer.