Back

Consensus Guideline for the Management of Colorectal Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases

PSM Writing Group, ; PSM Consortium Group, ; Turaga, K. K.

2024-05-09 oncology
10.1101/2024.05.07.24305476 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe peritoneum is a common site of metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC), yet controversy exists regarding optimal treatment strategies. These guidelines describe the results of a national consensus addressing the management of CRC with peritoneal metastases (CRC-PM). MethodsAn update of the 2018 Chicago Consensus Guidelines was conducted using a modified Delphi technique. Two rounds of voting were performed to assess agreement levels on two clinical management pathways regarding synchronous and metachronous CRC-PM. Supporting evidence was evaluated via rapid literature reviews. ResultsThe overall level of evidence was low in existing literature. Of 145 participants in the first round, 136 (96.8%) responded in the second round. Over 90% consensus was achieved in most pathway blocks. For both pathways, early referral to a peritoneal surface malignancy (PSM) center should be made for patients with CRC-PM. For the synchronous pathway, upfront cytoreductive surgery was de-emphasized in favor of systemic therapy. For the metachronous pathway, risk stratification via clinical and pathologic features was revised. For both pathways, surveillance strategies were added, including only a weak recommendation for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing given limited evidence of its utility in detecting and monitoring PM. ConclusionThe consensus-driven clinical pathways provide valuable guidance for the management of CRC-PM. There remains a need for high-quality evidence and prospective multicenter trials in this domain. SYNOPSISWe developed two consensus-driven clinical pathways for the management of colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases (CRC-PM), using a modified Delphi approach. Rapid reviews evaluating the optimal systemic therapy and the role of plasma-based liquid-biopsy for CRC-PM were conducted.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.3%
2
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.5%
3
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.0%
4
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.7%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.7%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.9%
7
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
8
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.0%
9
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.8%
10
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.8%
11
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
12
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
13
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.9%
14
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
15
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
16
Cancer Letters
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
17
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.3%
18
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
19
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
20
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
22
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%