Citations 3
Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)
Monahan, Kevin , Davies, Michael , Abulafi, Muti , Banerjea, Ayan , Nicholson, Brian D , Arasaradnam, Ramesh , Barker, Neil, Booth, Richard F. , Burling, David , Carten, Rachel , Kleijnen, Jos , Machesney, Michael , Pettman, Maria, Pipe, Jenny, Saker, L., Sharp, Linda , Stephenson, James A. , Steele, R. , Monahan, Kevin J , D'Souza, Nigel , East, James E , Sharp, Linda , Steele, Robert Jc , Benton, Sally C. , Booth, Richard, East, James E.
Gut | July 12, 2022 | Volume: 71 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 1939-1962
Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) has a high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). In a symptomatic population FIT may identify those patients who require colorectal investigation with the highest priority. FIT offers considerable advantages over the use of symptoms alone, as an objective measure of risk with a vastly superior positive predictive value for CRC, while conversely identifying a truly low risk cohort of patients. The aim of this guideline was to provide a clear strategy for the use of FIT in the diagnostic pathway of people with signs or symptoms of a suspected diagnosis of CRC. The guideline was jointly developed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland/British Society of Gastroenterology, specifically by a 21-member multidisciplinary guideline development group (GDG). A systematic review of 13 535 publications was undertaken to develop 23 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the triage of people with symptoms of a suspected CRC diagnosis in primary care. In order to achieve consensus among a broad group of key stakeholders, we completed an extended Delphi of the GDG, and also 61 other individuals across the UK and Ireland, including by members of the public, charities and primary and secondary care. Seventeen research recommendations were also prioritised to inform clinical management.
Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes
Collaborative, The Beyond TME, Antoniou, Anthony , Beynon, John, Bhangu, Aneel , Bose, Pradeep, Boyle, Kirsten, Branagan, Graham , Burling, David , Chang, George J. , Clark, Susan K. , Colquhoun, Patrick, Crane, Christopher H. , Darzi, Ara , Das, Prajnan , Delaney, Conor P. , Desai, Anant, Davies, Mark, Dozois, Eric J. , Fitzgerald, J.E.F. , Frizelle, Frank , George, Bruce , George, Mark, Georgiou, Panagiotis , Gupta, Arun , Harris, Dean , Hawkins, M. , Holm, Torbjörn, Hompes, Roel , Jeys, Lee , Jenkins, John T. , Kiran, Ravi P. , Koh, Cherry , Laurberg, Søren , Law, Wai Lun, Liberman, A. Sender , McArthur, D. Ray, Mirnezami, Alex H. , Moran, Brendan , Mortenson, Neil, Myers, Eddie, Nicholls, R. John, O’Connell, P. R. , O’Dwyer, Sarah , Oliver, Alex, Pallan, Arvind, Patel, Prashant , Patel, Uday , Radley, Simon, Ramsey, Kelvin , Rasmussen, P., Richard, Carole, Rutten, H.J.T. , Sagar, P. M. , Sebag‐Montefiore, David , Stocchi, Luca , Swallow, Carol J. , Tait, Diana , Tan, Emile , Tekkis, Paris, As, Nicholas van , Vuong, T. , Wiggers, Theo , Wilson, Malcolm , Winter, Desmond C. , Woodhouse, Christopher, Collaborative, The Beyond TME, Ali, Simak , Brown, Gina , Wilt, Johannes H.W. de , Desai, Anant , Dietz, David , Duff, Michael J. B. , Dziki, Adam Janusz , Glynne‐Jones, Rob , Goldin, Robert , Harji, Deena Pravin , Heriot, Alexander G. , Marshall, Michelle Berger , Radley, Simon, Solomon, Michael J. , Jeys, Lee M
British Journal of Surgery | June 21, 2013 | Volume: 100 | Issue: 8 | Pages: E1-E33
Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.
Consensus statement on the multidisciplinary management of patients with recurrent and primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes
Collaborative, The Beyond TME, Antoniou, Anthony , Beynon, John, Bose, Pradeep, Boyle, Kirsten, Branagan, Graham , Brown, Gina , Burling, David , Chang, George J. , Clark, Susan K. , Colquhoun, Patrick, Crane, Christopher H. , Darzi, Ara , Das, Prajnan , Wilt, Johannes H. W. de, Delaney, Conor P. , Desai, Anant, Davies, Mark, Dozois, Eric J. , Fitzgerald, J.E.F. , Frizelle, Frank , George, Bruce , George, Mark, Georgiou, Panagiotis , Glynne‐Jones, R., Goldin, Robert , Gupta, Arun , Harris, Dean , Hawkins, M. , Holm, Torbjörn, Jenkins, John T. , Kiran, Ravi P. , Laurberg, Søren , Law, Wai Lun, Liberman, A. Sender , McArthur, D. Ray, Mirnezami, Alex H. , Moran, Brendan , Mortenson, Neil, Myers, Eddie, Nicholls, R. John, O’Connell, P. R. , O’Dwyer, Sarah , Oliver, Alex, Pallan, Arvind, Patel, Prashant , Radley, Simon, Ramsey, Kelvin , Rasmussen, P., Richard, Carole, Rutten, H.J.T. , Sagar, P. M. , Sebag‐Montefiore, David , Solomon, Michael J. , Stocchi, Luca , Swallow, Carol J. , Tait, Diana , Tekkis, Paris, As, Nicholas van , Vuong, T. , Wiggers, Theo , Wilson, Malcolm , Winter, Desmond C. , Woodhouse, Christopher, Coombes, R. Charles , Collaborative, The Beyond TME, Ali, Simak , Bhangu, Aneel , Desai, Anant , Dietz, David , Duff, Michael J. B. , Dziki, Adam Janusz , Harji, Deena Pravin , Heriot, Alexander G. , Hompes, Roel , Jeys, Lee , Koh, Cherry , Marshall, Michelle Berger , Patel, Uday , Radley, Simon, Tan, Emile , Solomon, Michael J
British Journal of Surgery | June 10, 2013 | Volume: 100 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 1009-1014
Consensus abstract Background The management of primary rectal cancer beyond total mesorectal excision planes (PRC-bTME) and recurrent rectal cancer (RRC) is challenging. There is global variation in standards and no guidelines exist. To achieve cure most patients require extended, multivisceral, exenterative surgery, beyond conventional total mesorectal excision planes. The aim of the Beyond TME Group was to achieve consensus on the definitions and principles of management, and to identify areas of research priority. Methods Delphi methodology was used to achieve consensus. The Group consisted of invited experts from surgery, radiology, oncology and pathology. The process included two international dedicated discussion conferences, formal feedback, three rounds of editing and two rounds of anonymized web-based voting. Consensus was achieved with more than 80 per cent agreement; less than 80 per cent agreement indicated low consensus. During conferences held in September 2011 and March 2012, open discussion took place on areas in which there is a low level of consensus. Results The final consensus document included 51 voted statements, making recommendations on ten key areas of PRC-bTME and RRC. Consensus agreement was achieved on the recommendations of 49 statements, with 34 achieving consensus in over 95 per cent. The lowest level of consensus obtained was 76 per cent. There was clear identification of the need for referral to a specialist multidisciplinary team for diagnosis, assessment and further management. Conclusion The consensus process has provided guidance for the management of patients with PRC-bTME or RRC, taking into account global variations in surgical techniques and technology. It has further identified areas of research priority.