Impact of a Molecular Sequencing Systematic at Diagnosis in Digestive Oncology: Experience of a French Center

Introduction: Tumor-based molecular profiling has increased in the area of precision medicine. Their routine use is still limited by accessibility, cost and availability of tumor material. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analysed the treatment received and the survival data of patients with digestive cancer who received molecular high-throughput sequencing (NGS) analyses at diagnosis. The primary objective of this single-center study was to compare the overall survival of patients who were treated with molecularly matched therapy with patients who received standard therapy. Median overall survival was calculated from initial disease diagnosis to death. Results: 528 patients were referred to the Digestive Oncology Department of the Timone Hospital in Marseille between January 2018, and November 2020 for management of digestive cancer and received high-throughput molecular sequencing. Among them, 461 patients had a digestive carcinoma (75 of them were excluded because of the presence of a GIST or a neuroendocrine tumor, a digestive localization of extra digestive cancer or the absence of follow-up in our center) and 275 had metastatic disease (synchronous or metachronous). For metastatic patients, actionable molecular alterations were identified in95 patients (43.5%) and for 13 patients (4.7%) a molecularly matched therapy was administered. There was no significant difference in median overall survival between patients who received matched therapy than patients who did not receive molecularly matched therapy (2.89 [95%CI 1.84 - 3.93] vs. 2.86 [95%CI 1.52 - 4.19], p=0.671). Conclusion: This study suggests that high-throughput genomics can improve management of patients. Although these results did not show a benefit in overall survival for tumors who harboured such actionable molecular alterations and who received molecularly matched therapy, than patients who did not receive molecularly matched therapy, they are promising. Randomized trials are needed to confirm that there is a benefit to treating patients with matched therapy based on NGS.

Do Clinical Trials Meet Current Care Needs? Views of Digestive Oncology Specialists in Galicia (Spain) Using the Delphi Method

Background: In recent years, abundant scientific evidence has been generated based on clinical trials (CT) in the field of oncology. The general objective of this paper is to find out the extent to which decision making is based on knowledge of the most recent CT. Its specific objectives are to pinpoint difficulties with decision making based on the CT performed and find out the motivations patients and clinicians have when taking part in a CT. Methodology: Combined, prospective study, based on the Delphi method. A lack of correspondence between the people who take part in CT and patients who come for consultation has been identified. A need for training in analysing and interpreting CT has also been identified and a lack of trust in the results of CT financed by the pharmaceutical industry itself has been perceived. Conclusions: There is a difficulty in selecting oncological treatment due to the lack of correspondence between the patients included in the CT and patients seen in consultation. In this process, real world data studies may be highly useful, as they may provide this group with greater training in interpreting CT and their results.

Digestive Oncology in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era

Introduction: Since the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been widespread concern regarding the possible delay in the diagnosis/treatment of cancer patients. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis, treatment, and outcome of patients with digestive cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective study including patients with an inaugural digestive cancer diagnosis discussed for the first time at our center during the weekly digestive oncology reunion (DOR) meeting. The study group was enlisted from March to August 2020, and a control group was sourced from the equivalent period of 2018. Patients with a previous digestive cancer diagnosis/discussion in the DOR were excluded. The following data were collected: demographics, referral origin, tumor staging, first DOR discussion timing, treatment, and outcome. Results: A total of 235 patients were included: 107 in the study group (65.4% male, mean age 71.59 years); 128 in the control group (54.7% male, mean age 68.16 years). The mean number of clinical discussions per week was higher in 2018 (13.65 vs. 10.67, p = 0.040), without a difference in the mean number of patients discussed for the first time (inaugural diagnosis) between groups (p = 0.670). In the 2020 study group, more patients were referred to DOR from the emergency room (ER), fewer from the outpatient clinic/hospital wards (p < 0.001), and more were referred after urgent surgery (p = 0.022). There was no difference in the mean waiting time from diagnosis to first DOR discussion (p = 0.087). Tumor staging in colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancer was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0897, p = 0.168, and p = 0.717). More patients in the study group presented with stage IV pancreatic cancer (p = 0.043). There was no difference in the time span from DOR until the beginning of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.680) or elective surgery (p = 0.198), or from surgery until adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.396). Also, there was no difference in 30-day mortality from the first DOR date between the groups (p = 0.742). Conclusion: During the COVID-19 era there was a reduced number of clinical discussions in the DOR, but the number of debated patients with an inaugural digestive cancer diagnosis was similar. In the study group more patients were referred to DOR from the ER, and were referred after urgent surgery, suggesting a delayed demand for clinical attention. Study group patients were not significantly affected by the pandemic regarding timely DOR discussion, beginning of treatment, or 30-day mortality, reflecting the maintenance of the quality of care for digestive cancer patients.

The “Fonds Georges Brohée” : a longstanding Belgian national initiative to stimulate research in hepatogastroenterology

The Fonds Brohée/Brohée fund was created in 1964 at the initiative of 16 Belgian physicians, in the memory of Georges Brohée, the founder of the Belgian Society of Gastroenterology in 1928 and of its Journal in 1933, first published under the name “Le Journal Belge de Gastro-entérologie”, then until today as “Acta Gastro-Enterologica Belgica”. The goal of the Fonds is to stimulate research in the field of gastroenterology in Belgium, by awarding a young researcher (< 40 years) for an outstanding work in the clinical, translational or fundamental setting. Since 1966, 26 remarkable works have been awarded in various areas of interest in gastrointestinal diseases, whether in IBD, functional disorders, digestive oncology and, last but not least, hepatology. Since the recognition of their work, many of the awardees have become recognized for their expertise well beyond Belgium. Hopefully, the Foundation will continue to thrive and flourish after 55 years, as the members of its board and its healthy finances will allow to continue to promote and encourage high-quality research by young hepato-gastroenterologists in Belgium.

Nutrition and physical activity: French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up (SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, AFC, SFP-APA, SFNCM, AFSOS)

This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the nutrition and physical activity (PA) management in digestive oncology. This collaborative work was produced under the auspices of all French medical and surgical societies involved in digestive oncology, nutrition and supportive care. It is based on published guidelines, recent literature review and expert opinions. Recommendations are graded according to the level of evidence. Malnutrition affects more than half of patients with digestive cancers and is often underdiagnosed. It has multiple negative consequences on survival, quality of life and risk of treatment complications. Consequently, in addition to anticancer treatments, supportive care including nutritional support and PA plays a central role in the management of digestive cancers. It is crucial to detect malnutrition (diagnostic criteria updated in 2019) early, to prevent it and to act against it at all stages of the cancer and at all times of the care pathway. In this context, we proposed recommendations for the evaluation and management in nutrition and PA in digestive oncology for each stage of the disease (perioperative setting, during radiation therapy, during systemic treatments, at the palliative phase, after cancer). Guidelines for nutrition and PA management aim at increasing awareness about malnutrition in oncology. They are continuously evolving and need to be regularly updated.

Nutrition and physical activity professional education in gastrointestinal oncology: a national multidisciplinary survey

ObjectivesSarcopenia, present in more than 50% of digestive oncology patients, has a negative impact on clinical outcomes. Nutrition and adapted physical activity are two major interventions for the management of sarcopenia. However, young hepato-gastroenterologists, oncologists and surgeons in France have limited awareness on these topics. We aimed to evaluate the need for training programmes of physicians (residents and senior doctors) involved in digestive oncology on nutrition and adapted physical activity.MethodsA 42-question survey was developed, by a working group of clinicians, dieticians and adapted physical activity teachers, to assess five areas related to demographics of respondents, nutrition practices, nutrition training, adapted physical activity practices and adapted physical activity training. The national survey was undertaken between April and July of 2019.Results230 physicians participated in the survey; 34% were hepato-gastroenterologists, 31% were oncologists, 23% were surgeons and 40% were residents. Sixty-one per cent of participants had received training in nutrition and only 21% in adapted physical activity. Ninety per cent of the physicians expressed their desire for more effective training on these two topics. Disparities in clinical practices were observed between hepato-gastroenterologists, oncologists and surgeons.ConclusionsMore initial and continuing training on nutrition and adapted physical activity is needed for French physicians in the current digestive oncology clinical practice.

Evaluation of the Decision-Making Mode during Digestive Oncology Multidisciplinary Meetings: a Prospective Study in a Moroccan Center

Introduction: The multidisciplinary team oncology meeting (MDT) has become a standard in oncology. The objective of this study was to evaluate the value of a validated tool, the Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making, in the evaluation of the decision-making mode during the digestive cancer MDT in order to reach recommendations for improvement. Results: Eight consecutive MDTs were observed (N = 228 patients). On average, 32 patients were discussed by MDT with an average of 2 min 55 s (interval: 30 s-10 min 16 s) per patient. A decision was reached in 84.6% of the cases. Although the medical information was judged to be of good quality, the psychosocial information (average 1.29) and the patients' point of view (average 1.03) were judged to be of low quality. For teamwork, the contribution of surgeons (average 4.56) and oncologists (average 3.99) was greater than radiologists (3.12), radiotherapists (1.74) and pathologists (1.02). Conclusions: The tool made it possible to identify a disparity in the quality of the different aspects of the information and in the participation of specialists, making it possible to identify specific improvement measures. Its regular use would improve the quality of patient care. Keywords: Decision making, Quality improvement, Multidisciplinary Concertation meeting, MDT-MODe, Morocco

Evaluation of the Decision-Making Mode during Digestive Oncology Multidisciplinary Meetings: a Prospective Study in a Moroccan Center

Introduction: The multidisciplinary team oncology meeting (MDT) has become a standard in oncology. The objective of this study was to evaluate the value of a validated tool, the Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making, in the evaluation of the decision-making mode during the digestive cancer MDT in order to reach recommendations for improvement. Results: Eight consecutive MDTs were observed (N = 228 patients). On average, 32 patients were discussed by MDT with an average of 2 min 55 s (interval: 30 s-10 min 16 s) per patient. A decision was reached in 84.6% of the cases. Although the medical information was judged to be of good quality, the psychosocial information (average 1.29) and the patients' point of view (average 1.03) were judged to be of low quality. For teamwork, the contribution of surgeons (average 4.56) and oncologists (average 3.99) was greater than radiologists (3.12), radiotherapists (1.74) and pathologists (1.02). Conclusions: The tool made it possible to identify a disparity in the quality of the different aspects of the information and in the participation of specialists, making it possible to identify specific improvement measures. Its regular use would improve the quality of patient care. Keywords: Decision making, Quality improvement, Multidisciplinary Concertation meeting, MDT-MODe, Morocco