Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/39009
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChan D.en
dc.contributor.authorMoody L.en
dc.contributor.authorMetz D.en
dc.contributor.authorSegelov E.en
dc.contributor.authorStrosberg J.en
dc.contributor.authorSingh S.en
dc.date.accessioned2021-05-14T13:19:23Zen
dc.date.available2021-05-14T13:19:23Zen
dc.date.copyright2017en
dc.date.created20171214en
dc.date.issued2017-12-14en
dc.identifier.citationAnnals of Oncology. Conference: 42nd ESMO Congress, ESMO 2017. Madrid Spain. 28 (Supplement 5) (pp v147), 2017. Date of Publication: September 2017.en
dc.identifier.issn1569-8041en
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/39009en
dc.description.abstractBackground: NETs are uncommon, and there is no consensus regarding the optimal follow-up frequency or modality after resection. Current follow-up guidelines for resected GEP-NETs are based on limited evidence and our large, international practice survey showed poor compliance by NET expert clinicians. A need for clear and practical guidelines was identified. Method(s): A RAND/UCLA appropriateness process was employed given the lack of published data. A systematic review was undertaken as well as a multi-national practice survey to understand current follow-up patterns. Results from two large retrospective reviews (Ontario, Canada and Tampa, Florida) examining outcome following curative surgery were obtained. An 18-member multidisciplinary international panel scored 193 clinical scenarios for appropriateness of timing of consultations and investigations for detecting recurrence on a 1-9 scale. At a face-to-face consensus conference, the final follow-up recommendations were developed. Result(s): Twelve studies were identified describing follow-up strategies post-resection, with only one comparing follow-up strategies. Data from our practice survey (n=163) and our population-based study (n=936) are separately reported. Based on the scenario scoring, the panel resolved 14 summary statements, with the major themes of (1) less frequent follow up visits and investigations within the first five years (2) longer follow up even beyond 10 years (3) different recommendations for pancreatic versus gastrointestinal NETs (4) identification of low risk subgroups where no routine followup was recommended (5) no role for any serum or urine biomarkers, or chest imaging (6) the need to evaluate functional imaging in follow-up. Conclusion(s): Streamlined, practical guidelines were developed for the follow-up of patients with resected GEP-NETs. These guidelines differ significantly from other current guidelines. The expert consensus was informed by previously unavailable large outcome datasets. Compliance, cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability will be evaluated in future studies.en
dc.languageenen
dc.languageEnglishen
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen
dc.titleFollow-up recommendations for completely resected gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs): Consensus guidelines from the Commonwealth NET collaboration (CommNETs) in conjunction with the North American NET Society (NANETS).en
dc.typeConference Abstracten
dc.identifier.affiliationOncology-
dc.type.studyortrialSystematic review and/or meta-analysis-
local.date.conferencestart2017-09-08en
dc.identifier.source619623335en
dc.identifier.institution(Singh, Chan) Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook HSC, Toronto, ON, Canada (Moody) IHPME, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada (Metz) Gastroenterology, University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States (Strosberg) GI Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States (Segelov) Medical Oncology, Monash University and Monash Health, Melbourne, Australiaen
dc.description.addressS. Singh, Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook HSC, Toronto, ON, Canadaen
dc.description.publicationstatusCONFERENCE ABSTRACTen
local.date.conferenceend2017-09-12en
dc.rights.statementCopyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.en
dc.identifier.affiliationext(Singh, Chan) Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, Sunnybrook HSC, Toronto, ON, Canada-
dc.identifier.affiliationext(Moody) IHPME, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada-
dc.identifier.affiliationext(Metz) Gastroenterology, University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States-
dc.identifier.affiliationext(Strosberg) GI Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, United States-
dc.identifier.affiliationmh(Segelov) Medical Oncology, Monash University and Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypeConference Abstract-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
crisitem.author.deptPaediatric - Nephrology-
crisitem.author.deptOncology-
Appears in Collections:Conferences
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

22
checked on Oct 5, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in Monash Health Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.