Standardization of the Definition and Surgical Management of Splenic Flexure Carcinoma by an International Expert Consensus Using the Delphi Technique: Room for Improvement?

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of splenic flexure carcinoma remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish an expert international consensus on splenic flexure carcinoma management. DESIGN: A 3-round online-based Delphi study was conducted between September 2020 and April 2021. SETTING: The first round included 18 experts from 12 different countries. For the second and third rounds, each expert in the first round was asked to invite 2 more colorectal surgeons (n = 47). Out of 47 invited experts, 89% (n = 42) participated in the second and third rounds of the consensus. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 35 questions were created and sent via the online questionnaire tool. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels of recommendation based on voting concordance were graded as follows: more than 75% agreement was defined as strong, between 50% and 75% as moderate, and below 50% as weak. RESULTS: There was moderate consensus on the definition of splenic flexure (55%) as 10 cm from either side where the distal transverse colon turns into the proximal descending colon. Also, experts recommended an abdominopelvic CT scan plus intraoperative exploration (moderate consensus, 72%) for tumor localization and cancer registry. Segmental colectomy was the preferred technique for the management of splenic flexure carcinoma in the elective setting (72%). Moderate consensus was achieved on the technique of complete mesocolic excision and central vascular ligation principles for splenic flexure carcinoma (74%). Only strong consensus was achieved on the surgical approach for minimally invasive surgery (88%). LIMITATIONS: Subjective decisions are based on individual expert clinical experience and not evidence based. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first internationally conducted Delphi consensus study regarding splenic flexure carcinoma. The definition of splenic flexure remains ambiguous. To more effectively compare oncologic outcomes among different cancer registries, guidelines need to be developed to standardize each domain and avoid arbitrary definitions.