PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Recent developments in esophageal cancer treatment, including studies exploring active surveillance following chemoradiotherapy, have led to a need for clear terminology and definitions regarding different multimodal treatment options.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to reach worldwide consensus on the definitions and semantics of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment.
METHODS: In total, 72 experts working in the field of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment were invited to participate in this Delphi study. The study comprised three Delphi surveys sent out by email and one online meeting. Input for the Delphi survey consisted of terminology obtained from a systematic literature search. Participants were asked to respond to open questions and to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with different statements. Consensus was reached when there was ≥75% agreement among respondents.
RESULTS: Forty-nine of 72 invited experts (68.1%) participated in the first online Delphi survey, 45 (62.5%) in the second survey, 21 (46.7%) of 45 in the online meeting, and 39 (86.7%) of 45 in the final survey. Consensus on neoadjuvant and definitive chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery was reached for 27 of 31 items (87%). No consensus was reached on follow-up after treatment with definitive chemoradiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached on most statements regarding terminology and definitions of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment. Implementing uniform criteria facilitates comparison of studies and promotes international research collaborations.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to reach worldwide consensus on the definitions and semantics of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment.
METHODS: In total, 72 experts working in the field of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment were invited to participate in this Delphi study. The study comprised three Delphi surveys sent out by email and one online meeting. Input for the Delphi survey consisted of terminology obtained from a systematic literature search. Participants were asked to respond to open questions and to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with different statements. Consensus was reached when there was ≥75% agreement among respondents.
RESULTS: Forty-nine of 72 invited experts (68.1%) participated in the first online Delphi survey, 45 (62.5%) in the second survey, 21 (46.7%) of 45 in the online meeting, and 39 (86.7%) of 45 in the final survey. Consensus on neoadjuvant and definitive chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery was reached for 27 of 31 items (87%). No consensus was reached on follow-up after treatment with definitive chemoradiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached on most statements regarding terminology and definitions of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment. Implementing uniform criteria facilitates comparison of studies and promotes international research collaborations.
摘要：
背景：食管癌治疗的最新进展，包括探索放化疗后主动监测的研究，导致需要关于不同多式联运治疗方案的明确术语和定义。
目的：本研究的目的是就多模式食管癌治疗的定义和语义达成全球共识。
方法：总共，72名在多模式食管癌治疗领域工作的专家被邀请参加这项德尔菲研究。该研究包括通过电子邮件发送的三项Delphi调查和一次在线会议。Delphi调查的输入包括从系统的文献检索中获得的术语。要求参与者回答悬而未决的问题，并指出他们是否同意或不同意不同的陈述。当受访者达成≥75%的共识时，就达成了共识。
结果：72位受邀专家中有49位（68.1％）参加了首次在线德尔菲调查，45（62.5%）在第二次调查中，在线会议中45人中有21人(46.7%)，在最后一次调查中，45人中有39人(86.7%)。31个项目中的27个（87％）达成了有或没有手术的新辅助和确定性放化疗共识。使用确定性放化疗治疗后的随访未达成共识。
结论：关于多模式食管癌治疗的术语和定义的大多数陈述达成共识。实施统一标准有利于研究比较，促进国际研究合作。
目的：本研究的目的是就多模式食管癌治疗的定义和语义达成全球共识。
方法：总共，72名在多模式食管癌治疗领域工作的专家被邀请参加这项德尔菲研究。该研究包括通过电子邮件发送的三项Delphi调查和一次在线会议。Delphi调查的输入包括从系统的文献检索中获得的术语。要求参与者回答悬而未决的问题，并指出他们是否同意或不同意不同的陈述。当受访者达成≥75%的共识时，就达成了共识。
结果：72位受邀专家中有49位（68.1％）参加了首次在线德尔菲调查，45（62.5%）在第二次调查中，在线会议中45人中有21人(46.7%)，在最后一次调查中，45人中有39人(86.7%)。31个项目中的27个（87％）达成了有或没有手术的新辅助和确定性放化疗共识。使用确定性放化疗治疗后的随访未达成共识。
结论：关于多模式食管癌治疗的术语和定义的大多数陈述达成共识。实施统一标准有利于研究比较，促进国际研究合作。
