Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

ePoster Display

1865P - Impact of multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) in the treatment of liver-limited metastasis from colorectal cancer (LMCRC)

Date

16 Sep 2021

Session

ePoster Display

Topics

Therapy

Tumour Site

Colon and Rectal Cancer

Presenters

Tiago Felismino

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2021) 32 (suppl_5): S1237-S1256. 10.1016/annonc/annonc701

Authors

P.T. Guimarães1, F. Coimbra2, C.A. Mello1, T.C. Felismino2

Author affiliations

  • 1 Clinical Oncology, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center - Fundacao Antonio Prudente, 01509-900 - Sao Paulo/BR
  • 2 Medical Oncology, A. C. Camargo Cancer Center, 01509-010 - Sao Paulo/BR

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1865P

Background

MTB is a valuable tool in complex cases, since they involve different medical fields aiming for comprehensive decision-making process. Our aims are to describe MTB decisions in complex LMCRC, to analyze decisions compliance and evaluate outcomes.

Methods

This is retrospective analysis of medical files of patients (PTS) diagnosed with LMCRC discussed at single center, weekly basis MTB from Jan 2019 to Dec 2020. Descriptive statistics was used for demographic and treatment characteristics and MTB decisions. Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test.

Results

Out of 1033 cases discussed at MTB, 63 met the inclusion criteria. Median age was 56.5yo (range 32 – 81), 61.9% were male, ECOG was 0-1 in 96.8%. Regarding sidedness: 81% and 19% were left and right respectively. Synchronous metastasis was present in 69.8% and wild-type RAS was found in 52.4% and MSI-H in 4.8%. At time of MTB, 68.3% and 4.8% had realized first or second-line chemotherapy (CT) respectively. No previous therapy was described in 19% and 7.9% had received adjuvant CT. Previous hepatic resections occurred in 20.6%. After MTB, liver resection was suggested for 44.5%. Preoperative CT followed by surgery for 23.8%. Non-surgical treatments were offered for 17.5% and palliative CT for 14.3%. Decisions from the MTB were implemented in 93.6%. Reason for not performing (N=4) were: one for disease progression, one for bureaucratic problems and two for other reasons. Median follow-up time was 17.2m. At date of analysis, 31 PTS (49.2%) had relapsed or progressed and 8 had died. Restricting for PTS who underwent MTB decision (N=59), mPFS was 14.71m. In resected cases (N=40), who were discussed at the onset of liver metastasis diagnosis (without CT in the metastatic setting) had mPFS not reached, while who were discussed after first or second-line had mPFS of 9.39m (p 0.002). R0 resections were reached in 92.5%. Evaluating the 30-day postoperative mortality, there was one death. mPFS for palliative CT was 6.83m.

Conclusions

In our analysis the adherence to, MTB recommendation was high and PTS selected for surgery presented a prolonged PFS. Our data suggest that selection of PTS for liver metastasis resection in a MTB discussion should occur early in the course of treatment.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

AC Camargo Cancer Center.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.