| |
CME Grand Rounds for Oncologists and Surgeons
Oncology Clinical Debates
in Colorectal Cancer: 2008
Target Audience
This activity has been designed to meet the educational needs of
academic and community-based medical and surgical oncologists and
surgeons in the United States.
Purpose
To educate oncologists on appropriate treatment planning for patients
with metastatic and locally advanced colorectal cancer (CRC).
Program Overview
Despite considerable progress in the treatment of colorectal cancer
(CRC), significant clinical questions abound. The role of new cytotoxics
and biologics has been well established, yet how they all work together
optimally across the treatment trajectory remains unclear. Discussion
of questions raised in response to recent data is vital to the
understanding of treatment sequencing, surgical/medical management
of liver-limited disease, and collaborative delivery of adjuvant therapy.
The resolution of these debates will greatly influence the treatment of
CRC in 2008 and beyond. It is critical for medical oncologists, surgical
oncologists, and general surgeons to be aware of these issues and to
understand available data supporting clinical decision-making and
optimization of patient outcomes.
Build Your Own CME Grand Rounds Program
The Institute for Medical Education & Research (IMER) is pleased to
offer your institution the opportunity to build a customized CME grand
rounds program using one or more of the following learning modules:
- Adjuvant Therapy
- Metastatic Disease With Potentially Curative Intent
- Metastatic Disease With Palliative Intent
Modules 1 and 2 are designated for 0.5 CME credits and module 3 is designated for 1.0 CME credits. In building your grand rounds
program, you may choose to incorporate one, two, or all three modules—for an educational activity
that is up to 2 hours in length and designated for 2.0 CME credits. Discussions will be moderated
by nationally recognized thought leaders in medical and surgical oncology.Your speaker will be
selected to best address the audience composition.
Module 1: Stage II/III Colorectal Cancer
Topics
- What is the definition of high-risk stage II CRC?
- Setting the surgical standard of evaluating 12 or more lymph nodes: A good or bad thing?
Learning Objectives
- Describe methods to identify patients with high-risk stage II CRCs that should receive adjuvant
treatment
- Outline optimal interdisciplinary treatment strategies for patients with CRC receiving adjuvant therapy
Module 2: Metastatic Disease With Potentially Curative Intent
Topics
- What is the definition of potentially resectable liver-limited disease?
- What is the role of ablation?
- Neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for liver-limited CRC? Which regimens are optimal?
- Role of resection of liver metastases in patients initially deemed to be unresectable
- Resection of metachronous liver metastases
- Resection of isolated nonhepatic sites of disease
Learning Objectives
- Compare neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for liver-limited CRC including which surgical technique and systemic
regimens are appropriate
- Identify appropriate drug sequencing and the continuation of agents following disease progression
Module 3: Metastatic Disease With Palliative Intent
Topics
- Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy: What are the practical clinical implications?
- Should anti-VEGF agents be administered beyond disease progression?
- Are planned chemotherapy “holidays” a good idea?
- What is the optimal management strategy for older patients with metastatic CRC and which clinical factors impact use of currently available agents?
- In light of recent data, how can peripheral neuropathy be managed while optimizing treatment efficacy and ensuring adherence?
- Should the primary tumor be resected in patients with metastatic disease?
- Cytoreductive approaches: Locoregional nonsurgical liver-directed therapies
Learning Objectives
- Identify appropriate drug sequencing and the continuation of agents following disease progression
- Explain the optimal medical management of older patients with metastatic CRC
- Describe individualized strategies to optimally manage side effects associated with CRC and its treatment
- Explain recent data on the effect of preplanned chemotherapy-free intervals and their implications of chronic toxicities
Jointly sponsored by:
This activity is supported by an independent educational grant from sanofi-aventis U.S. |
|
|
Additional CME Meetings on This Topic:
Program Agenda and Faculty
|
|
Axel Grothey, MD (Co-Chairman) Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
Steve R. Alberts, MD
Mayo Clinic
Carlos H. Roberto Becerra, MD
Baylor University Medical Center – TOPA
Johanna C. Bendell, MD
Sarah Cannon Research Institute
Al B. Benson III, MD, FACP
Northwestern University
Charles D. Blanke, MD, FACP
Vancouver Cancer Centre
Barbara A. Burtness, MD
Fox Chase Cancer Center
Cathy Eng, MD
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Daniel G. Haller, MD
University of Pennsylvania Medical Center
J. Randolph Hecht, MD
University of California, Los Angeles
Howard S. Hochster, MD
New York University Cancer Institute
David H. Ilson, MD
Weill Cornell Medical Center
David P. Kelsen, MD
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
George P. Kim, MD
Mayo Clinic College of Medicine
Heinz-Josef Lenz, MD
University of Southern California
John L. Marshall, MD
Georgetown University
Ramesh K. Ramanathan, MD
Scottsdale Clinical Research Institute & TGEN
Lee S. Rosen, MD
Premiere Oncology
Leonard B. Saltz, MD
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Alan P. Venook, MD
University of California, San Francisco |
Michael A. Choti, MD, MBA (Co-Chairman)
The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center
at Johns Hopkins
Eddie K. Abdalla, MD
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Syed A. Ahmad, MD
University of Cincinnati
Todd W. Bauer, MD
University of Virginia
Charles H. Cha, MD
Yale University School of Medicine
Michael I. D’Angelica, MD
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Yuman Fong, MD
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
William R. Jarnagin, MD
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Robert C.G. Martin, II, MD
University of Louisville James Graham Brown Cancer Center
Martin D. McCarter, MD
University of Colorado Health Science Center
Nipun B. Merchant, MD
Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Eric K. Nakakura, MD, PhD
UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
Alexander A. Parikh, MD
Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Richard D. Schulick, MD
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
David Shibata, MD
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center
Kenneth K. Tanabe, MD
Harvard Medical School
|
Modules 1 and 2 are designated for 0.5 CME credits and module 3 is designated for 1.0 CME credits. In building your grand rounds
program, you may choose to incorporate one, two, or all three modules—for an educational activity
that is up to 2 hours in length and designated for 2.0 CME credits. Discussions will be moderated
by nationally recognized thought leaders in medical and surgical oncology. Your speaker will be
selected to best address the audience composition.
Accreditation Statement
This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and Policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education
(ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of Postgraduate Institute for Medicine (PIM) and IMER. PIM is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical
education for physicians.
Credit Designation
PIM designates this educational activity for a maximum of 2.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ (0.5 for modules 1 and 2, and 1.0 for module 3). Physicians
should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
PIM requires instructors, planners, managers and other individuals who are in a position to control the content of this activity to disclose any real or apparent conflict
of interest they may have as related to the content of this activity. All identified conflicts of interest are thoroughly vetted by PIM for fair balance, scientific objectivity of
studies mentioned in the materials or used as the basis for content, and appropriateness of patient care recommendations.
|
|
