Search

Background: The contemporary management and resectability of locally advanced lung cancer are undergoing significant changes as new data emerge regarding immunotherapy and targeted treatments. The objective of this document is to review the literature and present consensus among a group of multidisciplinary experts to guide the determination of resectability and management of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the context of contemporary evidence., Methods: The Society of Thoracic Surgeon Workforce on Thoracic Surgery assembled a multidisciplinary expert panel composed of thoracic surgeons and medical and radiation oncologists with established expertise in the management of lung cancer. A focused literature review was performed, and expert consensus statements were developed using a modified Delphi process to address 3 major themes: (1) assessing resectability and multidisciplinary management of locally advanced lung cancer, (2) neoadjuvant (including perioperative) therapy, and (3) adjuvant therapy., Results: A consensus was reached on 19 recommendations. These consensus statements reflect updated insights on resectability and multidisciplinary management of locally advanced lung cancer based on the latest literature and current clinical experience, mainly focusing on the appropriateness of surgical therapy and emerging data regarding neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies., Conclusions: Despite the complex decision-making process in managing locally advanced lung cancer, this expert panel agreed on several key recommendations. This document provides guidance for thoracic surgeons and other medical professionals in the optimal management of locally advanced lung cancer based on the most updated evidence and literature., Competing Interests: Disclosures Samuel S. Kim reports a relationship with Intuitive Surgical Inc that includes: funding grants and speaking and lecture fees. David T. Cooke reports a relationship with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co that includes: speaking and lecture fees. Biniam Kidane reports a relationship with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees; with Merck & Co Inc that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees; with Roche that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees; with Medtronic that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees; and with Olympus Corporation that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. Samuel S. Kim reports a relationship with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP that includes: consulting or advisory. Luis Tapia Vargas reports a relationship with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP that includes: consulting or advisory. Jyoti Patel reports a relationship with AbbVie Inc that includes: consulting or advisory; with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP that includes: consulting or advisory; with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co that includes: consulting or advisory; with Gilead Sciences Inc that includes: consulting or advisory; with Guardant Health Inc that includes: consulting or advisory; with Sanofi that includes: consulting or advisory; with Tempus that includes: consulting or advisory; with AnHeart Therapeutics that includes: consulting or advisory; with Blueprint Genetics that includes: consulting or advisory; and with Black Diamond Therapeutics that includes: consulting or advisory. Joel Neal reports a relationship with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP that includes: consulting or advisory; with Genetec Inc that includes: consulting or advisory; with Exelixis Inc that includes: consulting or advisory; with Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd that includes: consulting or advisory; with Eli Lilly and Company that includes: consulting or advisory; with Amgen Inc that includes: consulting or advisory; with Sanofi that includes: consulting or advisory; and with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co that includes: consulting or advisory. Joseph Shrager reports a relationship with AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP that includes: consulting or advisory and with Becton Dickinson and Company that includes: consulting or advisory. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Advances in the multidisciplinary care of early stage resectable NSCLC (rNSCLC) are emerging at an unprecedented pace. Numerous phase 3 trials produced results that have transformed patient outcomes for the better, yet these findings also require important modifications to the patient treatment journey trajectory and reorganization of care pathways. Perhaps, most notably, the need for multispecialty collaboration for this patient population has never been greater. These rapid advances have inevitably left us with important gaps in knowledge for which definitive answers will only become available in several years. To this end, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer commissioned a diverse multidisciplinary international expert panel to evaluate the current landscape and provide diagnostic, staging, and therapeutic recommendations for patients with rNSCLC, with particular emphasis on patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer-Union for International Cancer Control TNM eighth edition stages II and III disease. Using a team-based approach, we generated 19 recommendations, of which all but one achieved greater than 85% consensus among panel members. A public voting process was initiated, which successfully validated and provided qualitative nuance to our recommendations. Highlights include the following: (1) the critical importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the evaluation of patients with rNSCLC driven by shared clinical decision-making of a multispecialty team of expert providers; (2) biomarker testing for rNSCLC; (3) a preference for neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for stage III rNSCLC; (4) equipoise regarding the optimal management of patients with stage II between upfront surgery followed by adjuvant therapy and neoadjuvant or perioperative strategies; and (5) the robust preference for adjuvant targeted therapy for patients with rNSCLC and sensitizing EGFR and ALK tumor alterations. Our primary goals were to provide practical recommendations sensitive to the global differences in biology and resources for patients with rNSCLC and to provide expert consensus guidance tailored to the individualized patient needs, goals, and preferences in their cancer care journey as these are areas where physicians must make daily clinical decisions in the absence of definitive data. These recommendations will continue to evolve as the treatment landscape for rNSCLC expands and more knowledge is acquired on the best therapeutic approach in specific patient and disease subgroups., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Spicer reports receiving grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Roche, Regeneron, and Pfizer; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer; meeting support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; data safety monitoring board for AstraZeneca; and receipt of other services from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. Dr. Cascone reports receiving speaker fees and/or honoraria from the American Society for Clinical Oncology Post, AstraZeneca, Bio Ascend, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clinical Care Options, IDEOlogy Health, Medical Educator Consortium, Medscape, OncLive, PEAK Medical, PeerView, Physicians' Education Resource, Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and Targeted Oncology; advisory role/consulting fees from Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mark Foundation for Cancer Research, Merck, oNKo-innate, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, and Regeneron; and institutional research funding from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. Dr.Ahn reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Alpha Pharmaceuticals, Genxin, and Pfizer; and honoraria from Takeda, Roche, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boronoi, Arcus, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr.Dacic reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Medscape, outside the submitted work. Dr. Felip reports receiving consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point, and Daiichi Sankyo; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, and Touch Oncology; travel support from AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Roche; and other from Grifols as an independent member of the board, outside the submitted work. Dr. Forde reports receiving grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Regeneron, and BioNTech; consulting fees from Ascendis, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Curevac, Novartis, Regeneron, G1, Genlux, Genentech, Gritstone, Merck, Janssen, F Star, Sanofi, Amgen, Fosun, Teva, Synthekine, Flame, Iteos, and Tavotek. Dr. Higgins reports receiving grants or contracts from Jazz Pharmaceuticals, RefleXion Medicalx; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Janssen; positions on the NRG Oncology Board of Directors and RTOG Foundation Board of Directors; and stock or stock options in Picture Health. Dr. Kris reports receiving grant or contracts from BerGenBio, Merus, AstraZeneca, Mirati, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi, and Novartis; honoraria from Pfizer and AstraZeneca; and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Roche/Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mitsudomi reports receiving grants or contracts from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Pfizer, Ono, Daiichi Sankyo, and Eli Lilly; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Novartis, Chugai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Thermo Fisher, Roche Diagnostics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Taiho, Takeda, Janssen, Daiichi Sankyo, and Regeneron; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Taiho, Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Thermo Fisher, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Invitae, Guardant, Novartis, Amgen, Merck biopharma, and Kyorin; data safety monitoring board for Taiho Pharmaceutical, outside the submitted work. Dr. Provencio reports receiving grants or contracts from Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, Janssen, and Takeda; consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Takeda; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and meeting attendance support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, outside the submitted work. Dr. Senan reports receiving grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Bristol-Myers Squibb; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; honoraria from AstraZeneca; advisory board participation for AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and membership on ETOP scientific committee, outside the submitted work. Dr. Solomon reports receiving travel support from IASLC to attend meeting related to manuscript; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lily, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Amgen; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, and GlaxoSmithKline; unpaid leadership roles at the IASLC, Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia, and Cancer Council of Victoria. Dr. Tsao reports receiving travel support from IASLC to attend meeting related to manuscript; grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Lily; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, AbbVie, Regeneron, Sanofi, Daiichi Sankyo, and Lily; honoraria from AbbVie and Sanofi; and board of directors for IASLC. Dr. Tsuboi reports receiving grant from AstraZeneca KK, Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Bristol-Myers Squibb KK, Novartis Japan, BMG KK, MiRXES, and Johnson & Johnson Japan; honoraria from Amgen KK, Johnson & Johnson Japan, AstraZeneca KK, Eli Lilly Japan, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Taiho Pharma, Medtronic Japan, Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Merck Sharp & Dohme KK, Bristol-Myers Squibb KK, Daiichi Sanko KK, and Novalis; advisory committee participation for Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and AstraZeneca KK; and Board of Directors for Japan Lung Cancer Society (JLCS), Bronchology Committee Chair for JLCS, and Educational Committee working group chair for IASLC, outside the submitted work. Dr. Wakelee reports receiving grants or contracts from ACEA Biosciences, Arrys Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, SeaGen, Xcovery, and Helsinn; advisory board participation for AstraZeneca, Blueprint, Mirati, Merck, and Genentech/Roche; and leadership positions on the IASLC Board of Directors and ECOG-ACRIN executive committee. Dr. Wu reports receiving grants and contracts form AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Henqrui, and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi; and unpaid leadership role for Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group. Dr. Yang reports receiving personal fees and other from Amgen, Bayer Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck KGaA, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Takeda Oncology, and Yuhan Pharmaceuticals; grants, personal fees, and other from AstraZeneca; other from Eli Lilly; personal fees from Ono Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer; and other from JNJ, Puma Technology, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. Dr. Zhou reports receiving consulting fees from Innovent Biologics, Hengrui, Qila, and TopAlliance Biosciences; honoraria from Lily China, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Qilu, Hengrui, Innovent Biologics, Alice, C-Stone, LUYE Pharma, TopAlliance Biosciences, Amoy Diagnostics, and AnHeart. Dr. Kelly reports receiving grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Genentech and Bristol-Myers Squibb; and personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual. ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance ("Guidance") provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more .PURPOSETo provide evidence-based guidance for clinicians who treat patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.METHODSA systematic review of the literature published from 2013 to 2023 was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews, phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies where applicable.RESULTSTwelve RCTs, two systematic reviews, and one nonrandomized study met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.RECOMMENDATIONSFollowing assessment with magnetic resonance imaging, for patients with microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair locally advanced rectal cancer, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT; ie chemoradiation [CRT] and chemotherapy) should be offered as initial treatment for patients with tumors located in the lower rectum and/or patients who are at higher risk for local and/or distant metastases. Patients without higher-risk factors may discuss chemotherapy with selective CRT depending on extent of response, TNT, or neoadjuvant long-course CRT or short-course radiation. For patients who are candidates for TNT, the preferred timing for chemotherapy is after radiation, and neoadjuvant long-course CRT is preferred over short-course radiation therapy (RT), however short-course RT may also be a viable treatment option depending on circumstances. Nonoperative management may be discussed as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for patients who have a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. For patients whose tumors are microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient, immunotherapy is recommended.Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

The determination of an optimal treatment plan for an individual patient with rectal cancer is a complex process. In addition to decisions relating to the intent of rectal cancer surgery (ie, curative or palliative), consideration must also be given to the likely functional results of treatment, including the probability of maintaining or restoring normal bowel function/anal continence and preserving genitourinary functions. Particularly for patients with distal rectal cancer, finding a balance between curative-intent therapy while having minimal impact on quality of life can be challenging. Furthermore, the risk of pelvic recurrence is higher in patients with rectal cancer compared with those with colon cancer, and locally recurrent rectal cancer is associated with a poor prognosis. Careful patient selection and the use of sequenced multimodality therapy following a multidisciplinary approach is recommended. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, including the addition of endoscopic submucosal dissection as an option for early-stage rectal cancer, updates to the total neoadjuvant therapy approach based on the results of recent clinical trials, and the addition of a "watch-and-wait" nonoperative management approach for clinical complete responders to neoadjuvant therapy.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is a challenging disease that presents at an advanced stage and results in many symptoms that negatively influence patients' quality of life and reduce their ability to receive effective treatment. Early implementation of expert multidisciplinary care with nutritional support, exercise, and palliative care for both early-stage and advanced disease promises to maintain or improve the patients' physical, social, and psychological well-being, decrease aggressive interventions at the end of life, and ultimately improve survival. Moreover, advances in treatment strategies in the neoadjuvant and metastatic setting combined with novel therapeutic agents targeting the key drivers of the disease are leading to improvements in the care of patients with pancreatic cancer. Here, we emphasize the multidisciplinary supportive and therapeutic care of patients with PDA, review current guidelines and new developments of neoadjuvant and perioperative treatments for localized disease, as well as the treatment standards and the evolving field of precision oncology and immunotherapies for advanced PDA.

Purpose: To assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in female HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer patients., Data and Methods: We identified female patients aged ≥18 years with cT1-4N0-XM0, HR(+), and HER2(-) breast cancer from the National Cancer Database. The patients who underwent surgery first were categorized as "surgery-first," while those who received NET before surgery were classified as "NET." Propensity score-matching, Cox proportional-hazard model, variance inflation factors, and interaction analysis were employed to estimate the correlation between NET and survival outcomes., Results: Among 432,387 cases, 2914 NET patients and 2914 surgery-first patients were matched. Compared with the surgery-first group, the NET group received less adjuvant chemotherapy (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the NET group exhibited higher survival probabilities compared with the surgery-first group (3 years: 91.4% vs. 82.1%; 5 years: 82.1% vs. 66.8%). Multivariate Cox analysis indicated that NET was associated with improved OS (surgery-first vs. NET: HR 2.17, 95% CI: 1.93-2.44). Age over 55 years old, having public insurance, higher CDCC score, higher NSBR grade, ER(+)PR(-), and advanced clinical stage were related to worse OS (all p < 0.05). There was an interaction between age, race, income, and home and treatment regimen (all p < 0.05)., Conclusion: NET may be a more effective treatment procedure than surgery-first in female HR-positive/HER2-negative, non-metastatic breast cancer patients. Future clinical studies with more detailed data will provide higher-level evidence-based data., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: In the absence of evidence on whether neoadjuvant (NAC) or adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is more beneficial for various tumor treatments, economic evaluation (EE) can assist medical decision making. There is limited evidence on their cost-effectiveness and their prospective evaluation is less likely in the future. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis about EE for NAC versus AC in solid tumor help compare these therapies from various perspectives., Methods: Various databases were searched for studies published from inception to 2021. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines and economic-specific guidelines. The data were pooled using a random effects model when possible., Results: The retrieval identified 15 EE studies of NAC versus AC in 8 types of cancer. NAC is the dominant strategy for pancreatic, head and neck, rectal, prostate cancers and colorectal liver metastases. For ovarian cancer, NAC is cost-effective with a lower cost and higher or similar quality-adjusted life-year. There were no significant differences in cost and outcomes for lung cancer. For stage IV or high-risk patients with ovarian or prostate cancer, NAC was cost-effective but not for patients who were not high risk., Conclusions: The EEs results for NAC versus AC were inconsistent because of their different model structures, assumptions, cost inclusions, and a shortage of studies. There are multiple sources of heterogeneity across EEs evidence synthesis. More high-quality EE studies on NAC versus AC in initial cancer treatment are necessary., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2023 International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors and has a relatively poor prognosis. Lymph node involvement is considered the most important prognostic factor., Materials and Methods: During a retrospective cohort study, 132 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for resectable rectal cancer from 2010 to 2015 in Sina hospital were reviewed., Results: Multivariable analysis was performed and shown the clinical stage was not a representative factor for disease-free survival (P = 0.187), but Dworak Tumor Regression Grading were significantly associated with higher disease-free survival (P = 0.000) in stage II and stage III. The total number of retrieved lymph nodes and involved lymph nodes in the same clinical stage were statistically associated with higher mean disease-free survival in patients (P = 0.000 in both conditions)., Conclusion: In the same clinical stage, increasing the Dworak Tumor Regression Grading reduced the risk of rectal cancer recurrence. Increasing total number of retrieved lymph nodes and involved lymph nodes, 2.14 times and 3.87 times increased the risk of recurrence, respectively., Competing Interests: None

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is used to treat triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) prior to resection. Biomarkers that accurately predict a patient's response to NAC are needed to individualise therapy and avoid chemotoxicity from unnecessary chemotherapy. We performed whole-genome DNA methylation profiling on diagnostic TNBC biopsy samples from the Sequential Evaluation of Tumours Undergoing Preoperative (SETUP) NAC study. We found 9 significantly differentially methylated regions (DMRs) at diagnosis which were associated with response to NAC. We show that 4 of these DMRs are associated with TNBC overall survival (P < 0.05). Our results highlight the potential of DNA methylation biomarkers for predicting NAC response in TNBC., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The results of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) for locally advanced rectal cancers (LARC) cannot be extrapolated to signet-ring cell cancers (SRCC) that have an extremely aggressive biology., Methods: A retrospective study comparing long course chemoradiation (CTRT) against short course radiation (SCRT) and 12 weeks of chemotherapy for high-risk LARC. Primary endpoints were treatment failure and disease-free survival (DFS) RESULTS: CTRT was given to 74 (59.7%) and SCRT/Chemotherapy to 50 patients (40.3%). Additional chemotherapy was required in 54.1% and 28%, respectively. Except for nodal staging, no other MRI parameter down-staged. Treatment failures were seen in 33.9% and 25.8% had progression. The peritoneum was the commonest site of progression (59.4%). Of the patients that were surgically explored, 63.7% had R0 resections and pathological complete response was seen in 9.7%. At a median follow-up of 35 months, 56.5% had DFS events with a 3-year DFS of 39.5%. Recurrences were noted in 45.1% after curative resections and the 3-year OS/DFS of these patients were 67.2%/56.4%. On multivariate regression, the type of preoperative therapy did not influence treatment failures or DFS., Conclusions: SRCC is a very aggressive disease and none of the treatment strategies could show superiority over the other with very high peritoneal progression rates and relapses., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of topical ozone therapy as an adjuvant treatment in the healing of lower limb ulcers through a systematic literature review., Data Sources: Three databases were used to search for studies conducted in the period up to and including September 2020: PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science., Study Selection: The search identified 44 studies, 7 of which met the eligibility criteria and were evaluated., Data Extraction: Study design, study location, number of patients, patient age, type of control, wound type, intervention type, equipment used to generate ozone (ozone generation), evaluation methodology, and main results were extracted from each study., Data Synthesis: A total of 506 patients 18 years or older with chronic wounds, such as venous or diabetic ulcers, on the lower limbs were enrolled. The majority of studies addressed diabetic foot ulcers., Conclusions: The ozone therapy protocols demonstrated a healing effect in all included studies, and none reported adverse effects. This reinforces the need for more controlled and randomized clinical trials to determine the effectiveness of this treatment and establish clinical criteria for its use., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In recent years, before radical hysterectomy, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been administered to patients with locally advanced cervical cancer to shrink large tumors. It has been reported that this treatment significantly reduces the need for radiotherapy after surgery. The current study aimed to assess the outcome (survival, recurrence, and the need for adjuvant radiotherapy) of locally advanced cervical cancer in patients treated with NACT followed by radical hysterectomy and primary surgery., Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, the records of 258 patients with cervical cancer (stage IB2, IIA, or IIB), who referred to Imam Khomeini Hospital (Tehran, Iran) from 2007 to 2017 were evaluated. The patients were assigned into two groups; group A (n=58) included patients, who underwent radical hysterectomy and group B (n=44) included those, who underwent a radical hysterectomy after NACT. The outcome measures were the recurrence rate, five-year survival rate, and the need for adjuvant radiotherapy., Results: The median for overall survival time in group A and B was 113.65 and 112.88 months, respectively (P=0.970). There was no recurrence among patients with stage IB2 cervical cancer in group B, while the recurrence rate in group A was 19.5% with a median recurrence time of 59.13 months. Lymph node involvement was the only factor that affected patients' survival. The need for postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy in group B was lower than in group A (P=0.002)., Conclusion: NACT before the hysterectomy was found to reduce the need for postoperative radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer according to disease stages. As a direct result, adverse side effects and the recurrence rate were reduced, and the overall survival rate of patients with stage IIB cervical cancer was increased., (Copyright: © Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences.)

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common malignant tumor with a high morbidity and mortality in China and elsewhere in the world. Due to its tumor heterogeneity and distant metastasis, patients with HCC often have a poor prognosis. A surgical treatment such as a radical hepatectomy is still the treatment of choice for patients with HCC in current clinical practice. However, the high rate of recurrence and rate of metastasis after surgery diminishes the survival of and prognosis for these patients. In an era of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, the surgical treatment of HCC must change. This review focuses on the definition, feasibility, and criteria with which to evaluate neoadjuvant therapy for HCC in order to provide a new perspective on surgical treatment of HCC.

Importance: Apatinib is a novel treatment option for chemotherapy-refractory advanced gastric cancer (GC), but it has not been evaluated in patients with locally advanced GC., Objective: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of apatinib combined with S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) as a neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced GC., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective, single-group, open-label, phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted in 10 centers in southern China. Patients with M0 and either clinical T2 to T4 or N+ disease were enrolled between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed from December 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020., Interventions: Eligible patients received apatinib (500 mg orally once daily on days 1 to 21 and discontinued in the last cycle) plus SOX (S-1: 40-60 mg orally twice daily on days 1 to 14; oxaliplatin: 130 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1) every 3 weeks for 2 to 5 cycles. A D2 gastrectomy was performed 2 to 4 weeks after the last cycle., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was R0 resection rate. Secondary end points were the response rate, toxic effects, and surgical outcome., Results: A total of 48 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.2 [8.2] years; 37 men [77.1%]) were enrolled in this study. Forty patients underwent surgery (38 had gastrectomy, and 2 had exploratory laparotomy), with an R0 resection rate of 75.0% (95% CI, 60.4%-86.4%). The radiologic response rate was 75.0%, and T downstaging was observed in 16 of 44 patients (36.4%). The pathological response rate was 54.2% (95% CI, 39.2%-68.6%); moreover, this rate was significantly higher in patients who achieved a radiologic response compared with those who did not (12 [80.0%] vs 1 [20.0%]; P = .03) and in those who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status score of 0 (20 [76.9%] vs 10 [45.5%]; P = .03) or had tumors located in the upper one-third of the stomach (16 [61.5%] vs 7 [31.8%]; P = .04). Patients who achieved a pathological response (vs those who did not) had significantly less blood loss (median [range]: 60 [10-200] mL vs 80 [20-300] mL; P = .04) and significantly more lymph nodes harvested (median [range]: 40 [24-67] vs 32 [19-51]; P = .04) during surgery. Postoperative complications were observed in 7 of 38 patients (18.4%). Grade 3 toxic effects occurred in 16 of 48 patients (33.3%), and no grade 4 toxic effects or preoperative deaths were observed., Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized controlled trial found that apatinib combined with SOX was effective and had an acceptable safety profile as a neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced GC. A large-scale randomized clinical trial may be needed to confirm the findings., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03192735.

This study aimed to identify the pathological outcomes and survival benefits of neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) combined with radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) administered to patients with high-risk prostate cancer (HRPCa). We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing NHT plus RP or RT with RP or RT alone, administered to patients with HRPCa. We used a random-effects model to compute risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and quantified heterogeneity using the I "2" statistic. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. We selected 16 studies. NHT before RP significantly decreased lymph node involvement (risk ratio [RR] = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.56-0.87) and increased the rates of pathological downstaging (RR = 2.62, 95% CI: 1.22-5.61) and organ-confinement (RR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.54-3.25), but did not improve overall survival and biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS). The administration of NHT before RT to patients with HRPCa was associated with significant benefits for cancer-specific survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68), disease-free survival (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.44-0.60), and bPFS (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.46-0.64). Short-term NHT combined with RT administered to patients with HRPCa conferred significant improvements. Although the advantage of local control was observed when NHT was administered before RP, there was no significant survival benefit associated with HRPCa. Therefore, short-term NHT combined with RT is recommended for implementation in standard clinical practice but not for patients who undergo RP., Competing Interests: None

Aim: To describe real-world breast cancer medications among reproductive-age women. Patients & methods: Using data from a Japanese claims database, anticancer prescriptions were classified into seven categories of amenorrhea risk based on fertility preservation guidelines. Results: We identified 2999 women with records of breast cancer and anticancer prescription from 2005 to 2018. The proportions of prescriptions were as follows: high, 4.1-12.9%; intermediate: 6.0-16.3%; low: 0.4-2.3%; very low/no: 0.3-12.2%; unknown: 33.9-45.5%; unlisted combination: 12.2-23.4%; and unlisted drug: 12.5-26.7%. The common drugs in the unknown category were trastuzumab (n = 1527), docetaxel (n = 1014), and paclitaxel (n = 995). For medications unlisted in the guidelines, various drugs and drug combinations were observed. Conclusion: Numerous anticancer drugs are currently being prescribed with insufficient evidence regarding amenorrhea risk.

Background: COVID-19 outbreak was declared as a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Over the last 3 months, the pandemic has challenged the diagnosis and treatment of all cancer, including rectal cancer. Constraints in resources call for a change in the treatment strategy without compromising efficacy., Recent Findings: Delivery of shorter treatment schedules for radiotherapy offers advantages like short overall treatment time, improved throughput on the machine, improved compliance and reduced risk of transmission of COVID 19. Other strategies include delaying surgery, reducing the intensity of chemotherapy and adoption of organ preservation approach., Conclusion: The curative treatment of rectal cancer should not be hindered during the COVID pandemic, and modifications in the multi-modality treatment will help achieve quality care., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Adenosquamous carcinoma (ASC) of the pancreas is a rare form of malignancy with a poor prognosis. We herein report our case series with review of the contemporary literature., Methods: With institutional review board approval, we identified 23 patients with pancreatic ASC., Results: ASC was more common in women (61%), with a median age of 73 y at presentation. The tumor was in the head of the pancreas in 65% of cases. Six cases (26%) had resectable disease, three (13%) were borderline resectable, and eight (34.7%) were locally advanced or metastatic. First-line treatment included pancreatic resection in eight cases (34.8%), concurrent neoadjuvant chemoradiation in three (13%), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in two (8.7%). Most resected tumors had pathological T3 stage (80%). Pathological nodal disease was demonstrated in 60%, and margins were positive in three cases. Complete pathological response was not observed, although fibrosis presented in only one case (10%). Eventually, twenty patients developed metastatic disease. Overall survival is 11.5 [95% confidence interval 6, 14.5] months., Conclusions: ASC demonstrates a more aggressive malignant phenotype and carries a worse prognosis. Oncological resection is the mainstay of treatment. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation is an emerging approach in the management of ASC that has been extrapolated from the adenocarcinoma neoadjuvant trials., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer refers to systemic therapy administered prior to definitive surgery. It was originally developed for patients with locally advanced breast cancer (stage III) with the intention of downstaging unresectable tumors, and decreasing the extent of surgical intervention, including axillary lymph node dissection. For patients with inflammatory breast cancer, neoadjuvant therapy is considered a standard of care. Increasingly, the neoadjuvant setting is being utilized to accelerate drug development and approval in triple negative breast cancer, a diverse and aggressive subgroup for which no approved targeted therapies are currently available. This review discusses the use of pathologic complete response as a clinical trial endpoint, the use of imaging and biomarkers to predict response to therapy, and standard of care treatment for triple negative breast cancer. Finally, we review novel targets and drug trials in the neoadjuvant setting., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Primary systemic therapy is increasingly used in the treatment of patients with early-stage breast cancer, but few guidelines specifically address optimal locoregional therapies. Therefore, we established an international consortium to discuss clinical evidence and to provide expert advice on technical management of patients with early-stage breast cancer. The steering committee prepared six working packages to address all major clinical questions from diagnosis to surgery. During a consensus meeting that included members from European scientific oncology societies, clinical trial groups, and patient advocates, statements were discussed and voted on. A consensus was reached in 42% of statements, a majority in 38%, and no decision in 21%. Based on these findings, the panel developed clinical guidance recommendations and a toolbox to overcome many clinical and technical requirements associated with the diagnosis, response assessment, surgical planning, and surgery of patients with early-stage breast cancer. This guidance could convince clinicians and patients of the major clinical advancements purported by primary systemic therapy, the use of less extensive and more targeted surgery to improve the lives of patients with breast cancer., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Liver transplantation remains the main curative treatment method for hepatocellular carcinoma. There are several criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma to be eligible for liver transplantation, and it depends on main transplantation centers worldwide. Locoregional treatments and downstaging protocols are used for either to achieve these criteria or to prevent drop outs on the transplant waiting lists. But who can benefit from these bridging therapies effectively for the main purpose of curative treatment? Main contraindications are known for locoregional treatments like cirrhosis or low hepatic function, total main portal vein occlusion, and extrahepatic metastasis. HCCs, which are confined to liver but have high tumor burden, remains the main controversial issue., Aim: On this aspect, we reviewed the literature for downstaging protocols for hepatocellular carcinoma with their effect on survival and recurrence rates after liver transplantation., Conclusion: Although candidates for downstaging is still controversial, with the absence of main contraindications, LRT can be applied to selected HCCs, which have a certain degree of tumor burden.

Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery is the recommended approach in the last years for stage II and III rectal cancer with the intention to decrease the risk of local recurrence. However, fewer patients benefit from this strategy in terms of overall survival and long-term adverse outcomes because T3 rectal cancer has a broad range of prognosis, as shown by recent publications. Many patients with cT3 rectal cancer have a substantial risk of overtreatment with long-term toxicity related to radiotherapy that could be avoided in a subset group of cT3 tumors with good prognosis. These findings raised the question of whether all cT3 rectal cancer should receive preoperative radiotherapy and if a selected cT3 subgroup could be treated by surgery alone. This review addresses the rationale of selecting good prognosis cT3 rectal cancer for surgery alone and analyzes the data to support this recommendation., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The objective of this document is to formalize a degraded mode management for patients with thoracic cancers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The proposals are based on those of the French High Council for Public Health, on published data outside the context of COVID-19, and on a concerted analysis of the risk-benefit ratio for our patients by a panel of experts specialized on thoracic oncology under the aegis of the French-Language Society of Pulmonology (SPLF)/French-language oncology group. These proposals are evolving (10 April 2020) according to the situations encountered, which will enrich it, and are to be adapted to our institutional organisations and to the evolution of resources during the COVID-19 epidemic. Patients with symptoms and/or COVID-19+ are not discussed in this document and are managed within the framework of specific channels., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Approximately 20% of all breast cancers overexpress the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Targeting breast cancer through this vital oncogenic protein has been a major step towards improved patient outcomes. Today, several anti-HER2 agents are in clinical use including: the monoclonal antibodies trastuzumab and pertuzumab; the small molecule inhibitors lapatinib, neratinib, and tucatinib; and the antibody-drug conjugates ado-trastuzumab emtansine and trastuzumab deruxtecan, in some jurisdictions. In addition, several trastuzumab biosimilars have recently been granted regulatory approval in North America and the EU, and are enhancing patient access to HER2-directed therapy. The various agents differ greatly in their side-effect profiles and approved indications, from neoadjuvant and adjuvant use in early disease, to first- and later-line use in metastatic disease. This review discusses the current treatment recommendations for the use of anti-HER2 agents alone and in combination, examines the latest advances in HER2-targeted drugs and how they may be best applied in clinical practice, and provides guidance on optimal sequencing of the growing array of therapeutic options for HER2-positive breast cancer.

Objective: Ultra-radical surgery to achieve complete resection in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) has been widely accepted without strong supporting data. Our objective was to assess overall survival after a structured shift to an ultra-radical upfront surgical treatment algorithm and to investigate changes in the distribution of primary treatments after this shift., Patients and Methods: In this population-based cohort study, all women with suspected EOC in the Stockholm-Gotland region of Sweden reported to the Swedish Quality Registry for Gynecologic Cancer (SQRGC) and National Cancer Registry (NCR) were selected in two 3-year cohorts, based on year of diagnosis (before (cohort1) or after (cohort 2) change in surgical treatment algorithm) and followed for at least three years. 5-year overall survival (OS) in non-surgically and surgically treated women was analyzed. Moreover, proportional distribution of primary treatment was evaluated., Results: 752 women were included in the final analysis (n = 364 and 388 in cohort 1 and 2 respectively) with a median follow-up of 29 and 27 months. The complete resection rate increased from 37 to 67% (p ≤ 0.001) as well as proportion non-surgically treated women, 24 to 33%. No improvement in OS was observed in non-surgically (HR 0.76 (95% CI, 0.58-1.01); p = 0.06) or surgically treated (HR 0.94 (95% CI, 0.75-1.18); p = 0.59) women, even when complete resection was achieved (HR 1.31 (95% CI, 0.89-1.92); p = 0.17)., Conclusion: A shift to ultra-radical upfront surgery in EOC did not improve survival despite a significant increase in complete resection rate. Identifying the limitations of surgical treatment remains a challenge., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology published its first clinical guidelines for uterine cervical cancer in 2007 which has been revised twice in 2011 and 2017. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the first guideline publication on the therapeutic trend and patient outcome by analyzing uterine cervical cancer cases registered to the cancer registry organized by the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology., Methods: Data of uterine cervical cancer cases registered to the cancer registry from 2000 to 2012 were provided. Epidemiological and clinical trend were analyzed by the Chi-squared test with subsequent standardized residual analysis. Overall survival among the patients registered between 2004 and 2009 was analyzed using the Fine and Gray competing risk model., Results: 68,707 cases were registered during the study period. A trend analysis revealed that the guideline publication may have led to a decrease in neoadjuvant chemotherapy in parallel with an increase in radiation therapy mainly in stage II and III patients undergoing primary treatment. A survival analysis indicated that the introduction of the guideline may have improved overall survival among stage III uterine cervical cancer patients, even though a significant difference was not observed in all of the cases., Conclusions: This study demonstrated the potential influence of the guideline publication on the clinical trend and patient outcome. As this is the first assessment of the guideline for uterine cervical cancer in Japan, continuous evaluation is necessary to further comprehend the significance of this guideline., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose regarding to this study., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in patients with rectal cancer carries a high risk of adverse effects. The aim of this study was to examine the selective application of nCRT based on patient risk profile, as determined by MRI, to find the optimal range between undertreatment and overtreatment., Study Design: In this prospective multicenter observational study, nCRT before total mesorectal excision (TME) was indicated in high-risk patients with involved or threatened mesorectal fascia (≤1 mm), or cT4 or cT3 carcinomas of the lower rectal third. All other patients received primary surgery., Results: Of the 1,093 patients, 878 (80.3%) were treated according to the protocol, 526 patients (59.9%) underwent primary surgery, and 352 patients (40.1%) underwent nCRT followed by surgery. The 3-year locoregional recurrence (LR) rate was 3.1%. Of 604 patients with clinical stages II and III, 267 (44.2%) had primary surgery; 337 (55.8%) received nCRT followed by TME. The 3-year LR rate was 3.9%, without significant differences between groups. In patients with clinical stages II and III who underwent primary surgery, 27.3% were diagnosed with pathological stage I., Conclusions: The results justify the restriction of nCRT to high-risk patients with rectal cancer classified by pretreatment MRI. Provided that a high-quality MRI diagnosis, TME surgery, and standardized examination of the resected specimen are performed, nCRT, with its adverse effects, costs, and treatment time can be avoided in more than 40% of patients with stage II or III rectal cancer with minimal risk of undertreatment. (clinicaltrials.gov NCT325649)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Today, the rapid outbreak of COVID-19 is the leading health issue. Patients with cancer are at high risk for the development of morbidities of COVID-19. Hence, oncology centers need to provide organ-based recommendations for optimal management of cancer in the COVID-19 era., Methods: In this article, we have provided the recommendations on management of locally advanced rectal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic based on our experience in Shohada-e Tajrish Hospital, Iran., Results: We recommend that patients with locally advanced rectal cancer should be managed in an individualized manner in combination with local conditions related to COVID-19., Conclusion: Our recommendation may provide a guide for oncology centers of developing countries for better management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Importance: For patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, neoadjuvant chemoradiation has been shown to improve long-term outcomes, but the treatment response varies among patients. Accurate pretreatment prediction of response remains an urgent need., Objective: To determine whether peritumoral radiomics features derived from baseline computed tomography images could provide valuable information about neoadjuvant chemoradiation response and enhance the ability of intratumoral radiomics to estimate pathological complete response., Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 231 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, who underwent baseline contrast-enhanced computed tomography and received neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery at 2 institutions in China, were consecutively included. This diagnostic study used single-institution data between April 2007 and December 2018 to extract radiomics features from intratumoral and peritumoral regions and established intratumoral, peritumoral, and combined radiomics models using different classifiers. External validation was conducted using independent data collected from another hospital during the same period. Radiogenomics analysis using gene expression profile was done in a subgroup of the training set for pathophysiological explanation. Data were analyzed from June to December 2019., Exposures: Computed tomography-based radiomics., Main Outcomes and Measures: The discriminative performances of radiomics models were measured by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve., Results: Among the 231 patients included (192 men [83.1%]; mean [SD] age, 59.8 [8.7] years), the optimal intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics models yielded similar areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.730 (95% CI, 0.609-0.850) and 0.734 (0.613-0.854), respectively. The combined model was composed of 7 intratumoral and 6 peritumoral features and achieved better discriminative performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.852 (95% CI, 0.753-0.951), accuracy of 84.3%, sensitivity of 90.3%, and specificity of 79.5% in the test set. Gene sets associated with the combined model mainly involved lymphocyte-mediated immunity. The association of peritumoral area with response identification might be partially attributed to type I interferon-related biological process., Conclusions and Relevance: A combination of peritumoral radiomics features appears to improve the predictive performance of intratumoral radiomics to estimate pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. This study underlines the significant application of peritumoral radiomics to assess treatment response in clinical practice.

Background: It is estimated that around 15-30% of patients with early stage colon cancer benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We are currently not capable of upfront selection of patients who benefit from chemotherapy, which indicates the need for additional predictive markers for response to chemotherapy. It has been shown that the consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs), defined by RNA-profiling, have prognostic and/or predictive value. Due to postoperative timing of chemotherapy in current guidelines, tumor response to chemotherapy per CMS is not known, which makes the differentiation between the prognostic and predictive value impossible. Therefore, we propose to assess the tumor response per CMS in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy setting. This will provide us with clear data on the predictive value for chemotherapy response of the CMSs., Methods: In this prospective, single arm, multicenter intervention study, 262 patients with resectable microsatellite stable cT3-4NxM0 colon cancer will be treated with two courses of neoadjuvant and two courses of adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin. The primary endpoint is the pathological tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy per CMS. Secondary endpoints are radiological tumor response, the prognostic value of these responses for recurrence free survival and overall survival and the differences in CMS classification of the same tumor before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The study is scheduled to be performed in 8-10 Dutch hospitals. The first patient was included in February 2020., Discussion: Patient selection for adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage colon cancer is far from optimal. The CMS classification is a promising new biomarker, but a solid chemotherapy response assessment per subtype is lacking. In this study we will investigate whether CMS classification can be of added value in clinical decision making by analyzing the predictive value for chemotherapy response. This study can provide the results necessary to proceed to future studies in which (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy may be withhold in patients with a specific CMS subtype, who show no benefit from chemotherapy and for whom possible new treatments can be investigated., Trial Registration: This study has been registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL8177) at 11-26-2019, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8177 . The study has been approved by the medical ethics committee Utrecht (MEC18/712).

Expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in breast cancer defines a subset of patients (∼15%-20%) who are candidates for anti-HER2 therapies, most notably, trastuzumab, pertuzumab, antibody drug conjugates (eg, T-DM1), and tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) drugs (eg, lapatinib and neratinib), all of which have dramatically changed the prognosis for this aggressive subtype of breast cancer. A roundtable meeting of the Breast Cancer Therapy Expert Group (BCTEG) was convened in March 2018 in an effort to discuss and clarify, from the perspective of the practicing community oncologist, recent developments in the diagnosis and treatment of HER2-positive (HER2 + ) breast cancer. Members of the group selected 4 key topics for discussion prior to the meeting, including diagnosis of HER2 + disease, and its treatment in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings. Approved testing methods, such as immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization, are used to demonstrate overexpression and/or amplification of HER2 in breast tumors, and established clinical guidelines are used to appropriately define treatment plans for patients with HER2 + disease. The panel acknowledges a range of treatment options now available for treatment of HER2 + breast cancer in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and advanced/metastatic settings, although it is noted that many controversies remain, including the optimal sequence of therapies, the most appropriate treatment(s) for subsets of patients with HER2 + disease (eg, hormone receptor-negative or -positive/HER2 + ), and uncertainties surrounding the diagnosis and definition of HER2 + disease. The current report summarizes the discussion of the BCTEG panel on this topic., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of preoperative T/N stage using MRI in lower and middle rectal cancer patients and the impacts on clinical decision-making., Patients and Methods: There were 354 patients recruited from May 2017 to February 2019. MRI was performed within 2 weeks before surgery. Histopathologic results were evaluated for the postoperative T/N stage and MRI diagnostic accuracy was assessed based on the postoperative histopathologic results. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and Kappa values were used to evaluate MRI diagnostic accuracy and analysis consistency compared with postoperative histopathologic staging., Results: Overall MRI diagnostic accuracy was 78.2% and 56.8% for T1-4 and N0-2 staging. The Kappa values were 0.625 and 0.323 for T1-4 and N0-2 staging, respectively. After combination, MRI diagnostic accuracy was 85% and 69.5% for T and N staging. The Kappa values were 0.693 and 0.4 for T and N staging. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for treatment decision-making was 79.1%., Conclusion: MRI enables a highly accurate preoperative assessment of T stage but only a fairly accurate preoperative assessment of the N stage for rectal cancer with surgery. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for treatment decision-making is promising.

Liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma has been an absolute contraindication worldwide due to poor results. However, in recent years and thanks to improvements of patient management and treatments of this cancer, this indication has been revisited. This consensus paper, approved by the International Liver Transplant Society, aims to provide a collection of expert opinions, consensus, and best practices surrounding liver transplantation for cholangiocarcinoma.

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are heterogeneous, and the incidence of NETs is rapidly increasing. We observed different survival in patients with rectal NETs and rectosigmoid junction NETs, which are treated similarly. We included patients with rectal and rectosigmoid junction NETs from the SEER database. The 5-year survival was set as the end-point. 6675 patients with rectal NETs and 329 patients with rectosigmoid junction NETs, were eligible for the analysis. Initially, the survival analyses suggested that the 5-year survival significantly differed between the patients with rectal and rectosigmoid junction NETs (HR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.95; P = .01). Tumor differentiation, an invasion deeper than T2, and lymph node and distant metastases were still important risk factors affecting survival for both location. While, the males showed better survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.55-0.88; P < .01) and primary tumor surgery had no benefits (P = .56) for patients with rectosigmoid junction NETs. The factors that predict regional lymph node metastases varied by location. In rectal NETs, invasion deeper than T1 and a tumor larger than 1 cm could significantly increase the risk of regional lymph node metastases (all OR > 5, P < .01). In rectosigmoid junction NETs, the risk of regional lymph node metastases was considered significantly higher with invasion deeper than T1 (all OR > 5, P < .01) and a tumor larger than 2 cm (OR = 31.32, 95% CI 2.53-387.57; P < .01). We advocate a clear and consistent definition of the rectosigmoid junction for future studies, and more studies are needed to determine the reason underlying differences between rectum and rectosigmoid junction., (© 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Rectal cancer requires a multidisciplinary and multimodality treatment approach. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide a framework for delivering consistent, evidence-based health care. We compared provincial/territorial CPGs across Canada to identify areas of variability and evaluate their quality., Methods: We retrieved CPGs from Canadian organizations responsible for cancer care oversight and evaluated their quality and developmental methodology using the AGREE-II instrument. Recommendations for diagnostic and staging investigations, treatment by stage, and post-treatment surveillance of stage I–III rectal cancers were abstracted and compared., Results: We identified 7 sets of CPGs for analysis, varying in content, presentation, quality, and year last updated. Differences were noted in locoregional staging: 4 recommended magnetic resonance imaging over endorectal ultrasonography, 2 recommended either modality, and 3 specified scenarios for one over the other. Recommendations also varied for use of staging computed tomography of the chest versus chest radiography and for surgical management and indications for transanal excision. Recommendations for neoadjuvant therapy in stage II/III disease also differed: 3 guidelines recommended long-course chemoradiation over short-course radiation therapy alone, while 3 others recommended short-course radiation in specific clinical scenarios. Adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II/III disease was uniformly recommended, with variable protocols. The use of proctosigmoidoscopy and interval/duration of endoscopic post-treatment surveillance varied among guidelines., Conclusion: Canadian CPGs vary in their recommendations for staging, treatment, and surveillance of rectal cancer. Some of these differences reflect areas with limited definitive evidence. Consistent guidelines with uniform implementation across provinces/territories may lead to more equitable care to patients., Competing Interests: None declared., (© 2020 Joule Inc. or its licensors)

Current guidelines recommend cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to radical cystectomy as the preferred treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Nevertheless, for multiple reasons compliance with this guideline recommendation is low. This is particularly evident in clinical T2 bladder cancer, where controversy exists regarding the role of proceeding with radical cystectomy alone. Novel biomarkers such as molecular phenotype and DNA damage repair and response gene alterations may be able to predict who will respond to cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This clinical problem is discussed, and a recommendation is made given the current state of the art. PATIENT SUMMARY: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival for patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. In the future, perhaps validated biomarkers may predict who should and should not receive this treatment., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is underutilized in bladder cancer patients who undergo radical cystectomy. However, the quality of regimens used in this setting remains largely unknown., Objective: To determine utilization treatment patterns and survival outcomes according to regimens administered., Design, Setting, and Patients: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database to identify patients diagnosed with clinical stage TII-IV bladder cancer from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2011., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: Temporal trends were assessed using the Cochran-Armitage test. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors for neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare overall survival according to regimens administered., Results and Limitations: Of 2738 patients treated with radical cystectomy, 344 (12.6%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The agents most commonly used were gemcitabine (72.3%), cisplatin (55.2%), and carboplatin (31.1%). The regimens most commonly used were gemcitabine-cisplatin (45.3%), gemcitabine-carboplatin (24.1%), and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (M-VAC; 6.7%). Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy more than tripled during the study period, from 5.7% in 2001 to 17.3% in 2011 (p<0.001). The quality of the regimen administered impacted survival outcomes, as M-VAC use was significantly associated with better overall survival among patients diagnosed with stage II bladder cancer (hazard ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.86; p=0.030]. Limitations include the limited ability of retrospective analysis to control for selection bias., Conclusions: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was underused, and the quality of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens administered for bladder cancer was inconsistent with guideline recommendations. These findings are important when interpreting population-based data on the use of chemotherapy and extrapolating survival outcomes., Patient Summary: In a large population-based study, 12.6% of patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, half of whom received guideline-recommended regimens. The quality of the regimen impacted survival outcomes, as use of cisplatin-based chemotherapy was significantly associated with better overall survival among patients diagnosed with stage II bladder cancer. However, <1% of radical cystectomy patients received this regimen., (Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Preoperative long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and short-course radiotherapy (SCR) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) were found to have equivalent outcomes in 3 randomized trials. SCR has not been widely adopted in the United States (US). Three-dimensional (3D) treatment planning is standard, whereas intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is controversial. In this study, we assessed the economic impact of fractionation scheme and planning method for payers in the US., Materials and Methods: We performed a population-based analysis of the total cost of radiotherapy for LARC in the US annually. The national annual target population was calculated using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Radiotherapy costs were based on billing codes and 2018 pricing by Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System., Results: We estimate that 12,945 patients with LARC are treated with radiotherapy annually in the US. The cost of CRT with 3D or IMRT is US $15,882 and $23,745 per patient, respectively. With SCR, the cost with 3D or IMRT is $5,458 and $7,323 per patient, respectively. The use of SCR would lead to 53% to 77% annual savings of $106,168,871 to $232,105,727 compared with CRT. IMRT increases the total cost of treatment by 34% to 50%, and if adopted widely, would lead to an excess cost of $24,152,134 and $101,784,723 annually with SCR and CRT, respectively., Conclusions: SCR may have the potential to save approximately US $106 to t232 million annually in the US, likely without impacting outcomes. Lack of evidence showing benefit with costly IMRT should limit its use to clinical trials. It would be reasonable for public and private payers to consider which type of radiation is most suited to reimbursement., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Management of rectal cancer has become more complex with multimodality therapy (neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery) and this has led to the need to organize multidisciplinary teams. The aim of this study was to report on the planning, implementation and evaluation of an integrated care pathway for neoadjuvant treatment of middle and lower rectal cancer., Design and Setting: This was a cross-sectional post-implementation study that was carried out at a public university cancer center., Methods: The Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was used to identify resources and activities; link results from activities and outcomes with expected goals; and originate indicators and outcome measurements., Results: The logic model identified four activities: stakeholders' engagement, clinical pathway development, information technology improvements and training programs; and three categories of outcomes: access to care, effectiveness and organizational outcomes. The measurements involved 218 patients, among whom 66.3% had their first consultation within 15 days after admission; 75.2% underwent surgery < 14 weeks after the end of neoadjuvant treatment and 72.7% completed the treatment in < 189 days. There was 100% adherence to the protocol for the regimen of 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin., Conclusions: The logic model was useful for evaluating the implementation of the integrated care pathways and for identifying measurements to be made in future outcome studies.

Background: Many older patients don't receive appropriate oncological treatment. Our aim was to analyse whether there are age differences in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and preoperative radiotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer., Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted in 22 hospitals including 1157 patients with stage III colon or stage II/III rectal cancer who underwent surgery. Primary outcomes were the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer and preoperative radiotherapy for stage II/III rectal cancer. Generalised estimating equations were used to adjust for education, living arrangements, area deprivation, comorbidity and clinical tumour characteristics., Results: In colon cancer 92% of patients aged under 65 years, 77% of those aged 65 to 80 years and 27% of those aged over 80 years received adjuvant chemotherapy (χ 2 trends  < 0.001). In rectal cancer preoperative radiotherapy was used in 68% of patients aged under 65 years, 60% of those aged 65 to 80 years, and 42% of those aged over 80 years (χ 2 trends  < 0.001). Adjusting by comorbidity level, tumour characteristics and socioeconomic level, the odds ratio of use of chemotherapy compared with those under age 65, was 0.3 (0.1-0.6) and 0.04 (0.02-0.09) for those aged 65 to 80 and those aged over 80, respectively; similarly, the odds ratio of use of preoperative radiotherapy was 0.9 (0.6-1.4) and 0.5 (0.3-0.8) compared with those under 65 years of age., Conclusions: The probability of older patients with colorectal cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy and preoperative radiotherapy is lower than that of younger patients; many of them are not receiving the treatments recommended by clinical practice guidelines. Differences in comorbidity, tumour characteristics, curative resection, and socioeconomic factors do not explain this lower probability of treatment. Research is needed to identify the role of physical and cognitive functional status, doctors' attitudes, and preferences of patients and their relatives, in the use of adjuvant therapies.

Introduction: Contemporary guidelines recommend cystectomy with neoadjuvant or adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy given with curative intent for patients with resectable muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). However, rates and appropriateness of perioperative chemotherapy utilization remain unclear. We therefore sought to characterize use of perioperative chemotherapy in older radical cystectomy MIBC patients and examine factors associated with use., Methods: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified patients with MIBC diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 and treated with radical cystectomy. We classified patients into 3 treatment groups: cystectomy alone, neoadjuvant, or adjuvant chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was classified by regimen. We then fit a multinomial multivariable logistic regression model to assess association between patient factors with the receipt of each treatment., Results: We identified 3,826 eligible patients. The majority (484; 65%) received cystectomy alone. Neoadjuvant (676; 18% overall, 69% cisplatin-based), and adjuvant chemotherapy (666, 17% overall, 55% cisplatin-based) were used in similar proportions of cystectomy patients. Over the study period, the odds of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy decreased by 7.5%, whereas neoadjuvant therapy increased by 27.5% (both P < 0.001). There was an increase in use of cisplatin-based regimens in the neoadjuvant setting (35 to 72%, P < 0.001), but not the adjuvant setting. Female gender, lower comorbidity, married status, and lower stage disease were associated with greater odds of receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (all P < 0.05)., Conclusion: From 2004 to 2013 use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for MIBC increased while use of adjuvant chemotherapy decreased. Future studies examining barriers to appropriate chemotherapy use, and the comparative effectiveness of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy are warranted., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Precise staging of esophageal cancer (EC) is important for selection of optimal treatment option and prognostication. Aim of this study was to assess the role of 18FDG PET/CT in staging and response evaluation to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCR) in EC patients using standardized imaging protocol. Material and methods: This prospective study was conducted at PET/CT Section of Department of Radiology, Aga Khan University Hospital Karachi, Pakistan from July 2017 till February 2018. We included 34 biopsy proven EC patients who had 18FDG PET/CT and CT of neck, chest and abdomen as part of initial staging. Eleven patients had post-nCR 18FDG PET/CT using standardized imaging protocol as per EANM guidelines. CT and PET/CT based staging was compared. Based on PERCIST criteria, response evaluation was assessed using change in highest SUVmax (%ΔSUVmax) in baseline and follow-up scans (primary lesion, node or extra-nodal metastases). Results: Mean age of cohort was 57 ± 14 years (23 males and 11 females) having adenocarcinoma (AC) in 23 and squamous cell cancer (SCC) in 11 patients. Mean 18FDG dose, uptake time and hepatic SUVmean for baseline scans were 169 ±54 MBq, 65 ±10 minute and 1.91 ± 0.49 which were within ± 10%, ± 15% and ± 20% for follow-up scans in 11 patients respectively. Mean size (craniocaudal dimension in mm) and SUVmax of primary tumor was 56 ±27 mm and 13.4 ± 4.7. Based on 18FDG PET/CT findings, patients were categorized into N0 (10/34), N1 (09/34), N2 (11/34) and N3 (04/34) while 11/32 had stage IV disease. No significant difference was seen in AC and SCC groups. CT found stage IV disease in 3/34 (09%) while PET/CT found in 11/34 (32%; p value: 0.019) cases. PET/CT showed concordance with CT in 41% while discordance (all with upstaging) seen in 59%. On follow-up PET/CT, complete metabolic response was seen in 5/11 (45%) and partial metabolic response was noted in 6/11 (55% - p value non-significant) patients. Median %ΔSUVmax over primary lesions was 49.84% (-32.69 -100%) while over nodal sites it was 41.18% (-82.60 -100%). Conclusion: We conclude that 18FDG PET/CT was found a sensitive tool in initial staging of EC. Compared with CT, it had higher diagnostic accuracy for distant nodal and extra-nodal metastasis. %ΔSUVmax between baseline and post-nCR studies acquired with standardized protocol had changed management in more than half of our patients. For response evaluation in EC more studies with standardized 18FDG PET/CT imaging protocols are warranted.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. However, this modality is facing more and more challenges. The research progress on this issue around the world can be summarized into three aspects. The first is to increase the intensity of treatment to obtain better tumor regression, such as adding a second drug during the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, prolonging the interval and receiving sufficient chemotherapy before surgery. Current research data are not sufficient to support strategies for adding drugs or receiving sufficient chemotherapy before surgery, but it may be worth looking forward to adding irinotecan during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and an appropriate extension of the interval before surgery may also be a good option. Secondly, we can reduce the intensity of treatment to improve the quality of life of patients with a non-inferior clinical outcome, such as non-surgical approach, local excision rather than total mesorectal excision and removal of preoperative radiotherapy. The data of the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD) suggest that patients with a Watch & Wait strategy have similar long-term survival outcomes as those who have undergone surgery and have pathologic complete response, meanwhile the data are still inadequate to support using local excision instead of total mesorectal excision, or removal of preoperative radiotherapy strategies. Finally, to achieve a precise individual treatment, some potential biomarkers are investigated via genomics, metabolomics and radiomics. But so far, there is no recognized biomarker for clinical treatment in the field of neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer. This article summarizes the clinical research progress of locally advanced rectal cancer in recent years from the above three aspects.

Background: For clinically appropriate early-stage breast cancer patients, reflex criteria for Oncotype DX ordering ("the intervention") were implemented at our comprehensive cancer center, which reduced time-to-adjuvant chemotherapy initiation. Our objective was to evaluate Oncotype DX ordering practices and chemotherapy use before and after implementation of the intervention., Materials and Methods: We examined medical records for 498 patients who had definitive breast cancer surgery at our center. The post-intervention cohort consisted of 232 consecutive patients who had Oncotype DX testing after reflex criteria implementation. This group was compared to a retrospective cohort of 266 patients who were diagnosed and treated prior to reflex criteria implementation, including patients who did and did not have Oncotype DX ordered. Factors associated with Oncotype DX ordering pre- and post-intervention were examined. We used multivariate logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with chemotherapy receipt among patients with Oncotype DX testing., Results: The distribution of Oncotype DX scores, the proportion of those having Oncotype DX testing (28.9% vs. 34.1%) and those receiving chemotherapy (14.3% vs. 19.4%), did not significantly change between pre- and post-intervention groups. Age ≤65 years, stage II, grade 2, 1-3+ nodes, and tumor size >2 cm were associated with higher odds of Oncotype DX testing. Among patients having Oncotype DX testing, node status and Oncotype DX scores were significantly associated with chemotherapy receipt., Conclusion: Our criteria for reflex Oncotype DX ordering appropriately targeted patients for whom Oncotype DX would typically be ordered by providers. No significant change in the rate of Oncotype DX ordering or chemotherapy use was observed after reflex testing implementation., Implications for Practice: This study demonstrates that implementing multidisciplinary consensus reflex criteria for Oncotype DX ordering maintains a stable Oncotype DX ordering rate and chemotherapy rate, mirroring what was observed in a specific clinical practice, while decreasing treatment delays due to additional testing. These reflex criteria appropriately capture patients who would likely have had Oncotype DX ordered by their providers and for whom the test results are predicted to influence management. This intervention serves as a potential model for other large integrated, multidisciplinary oncology centers to institute processes targeting patient populations most likely to benefit from genomic assay testing, while mitigating treatment delays., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Aims: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation reduces tumour volume and improves the R0 resection rate, followed by extended survival for patients with advanced oesophageal cancer. The degree of tumour regression has high prognostic relevance. To date, there is still no generally accepted tumour regression grading system. The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic discrimination power of different histological regression grading systems: (i) the fibrosis/tumour ratio within the primary tumour (Mandard classification), (ii) the percentage of residual vital tumour cells (VTC) compared to the original primary tumour (Cologne Regression) and (iii) the ypT category, in patients with cT3 carcinoma of the oesophagus after neoadjuvant chemoradiation., Methods and Results: This study included 216 patients with oesophageal cancer clinically staged as cT3NxM0 and treated from 2009 to 2012 with standardised chemoradiation followed by oesophagectomy [median age 62 years, 176 (81%) male and 138 (64%) adenocarcinoma patients]. The subgroup frequencies of the three classification systems were ypT category: ypT0 = 18%, ypT1 = 14%, ypT2 = 23%, ypT3 = 44%, ypT4 = 1%; Mandard classification: TRG1 = 18%, TRG2 = 26%, TRG3 = 24%, TRG4 = 30%, TRG5 = 2%; and Cologne Regression Scale: no tumour = 18%, 1-10% VTC = 27%, 10-50% VTC = 26% and >50% VTC = 29%. The Mandard and Cologne Regression classifications showed better prognostic differentiation for the subgroups than the ypT category. The four-tiered Cologne Regression system had a good prognostic relevance. Comparing results of the re-evaluated Cologne Regression classification with the classification by routine pathological report showed very good inter-rater agreement, with kappa value 0.891., Conclusion: Compared to the original primary tumour, the tumour regression grading system using the percentage of residual vital tumour has prognostic relevance., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)