Search

Background: While the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer has rapidly evolved over the last few decades, many grey areas and highly debated topics remain that foster significant variation in clinical practice. We aimed to identify controversial points and evidence gaps in this disease setting by systematically comparing recommendations from national and international clinical guidelines.Methods: Twenty-six clinical questions reflecting practical challenges in the routine management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer patients were selected. Recommendations from the ESMO, NCCN, JSCCR, Australian and Ontario guidelines were extrapolated and compared using a 4-tier classification system (i.e., identical/very similar, similar, slightly different, different). Overall agreement between guidelines (i.e., substantial/complete disagreement, partial disagreement, partial agreement, substantial/complete agreement) was assessed for each clinical question and compared against the highest level of available evidence by using the χ2 statistic test.Results: Guidelines were in substantial/complete agreement, partial agreement, partial disagreement, and substantial/complete disagreement for 8 (30.8%), 2 (7.7%), 7 (26.9%), and 9 (34.6%) clinical questions, respectively. High level of evidence supported clinical recommendations in 3/10 cases (30%) where guidelines were in agreement and in 10/16 cases (62.5%) where guidelines were in disagreement (χ2 = 2.6, p = 0.106). Agreement was frequently reached for questions regarding diagnosis, staging, and radiology/pathology pro-forma reporting, while disagreement characterised most of the treatment-related topics.Conclusions: Substantial variation exists across clinical guidelines in the recommendations for the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer. This variation is only partly explained by the lack of supporting, high-level evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Refining the selection of metastatic colorectal cancer patients candidates for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies beyond RAS and BRAF testing is a challenge of precision oncology. Several uncommon genomic mechanisms of primary resistance, leading to activation of tyrosine kinase receptors other than EGFR or downstream signalling pathways, have been suggested by preclinical and retrospective studies. Patients and methods: We conducted this multicentre, prospective, case-control study to demonstrate the negative predictive impact of a panel of rare genomic alterations [PRESSING (PRimary rESiStance IN RAS and BRAF wild-typemetastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with anti-eGfr monoclonal antibodies) panel], including HER2/MET amplifications, ALK/ROS1/NTRK1-3/RET fusions and PIK3CA mutations. Hypothesizing a prevalence of candidate alterations of 15% and 0% in resistant and sensitive RAS and BRAF wild-type patients, respectively, with two-sided α and β errors of 0.05 and 0.20, 47 patients per group were needed. Results: Forty-seven patients per group were included. PRESSING panel alterations were significantly more frequent in resistant (24 out of 47, 51.1%) than in sensitive (1 out of 47, 2.1%) patients (P<0.001) and in right- (12 out of 29, 41.4%) than left-sided (13 out of 65, 20.0%) tumours (P=0.03). The predictive accuracy of PRESSING panel and sidedness was 75.3% and 70.2%, respectively. Among hyper-selected patients, right-sidedness was still associated with resistance (P=0.002). The predictive accuracy of the combined evaluation of PRESSING panel and sidedness was 80.4%. As a secondary analysis, 8 (17.0%) resistant and 0 sensitive patients showed microsatellite instability (P<0.001). Conclusion: The investigated panel of genomic alterations allows refining the selection of RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients candidates for anti-EGFRs, partially explaining and further corroborating the predictive ability of primary tumour sidedness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]