Benson, Al B.

Abstract Oncology Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), including Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, Physician Assistants, and Clinical Pharmacists (CPs), play a vital role in delivering high-quality, patient-centered cancer care across the United States. Despite their widespread presence in oncology practices, APPs remain underutilized in cancer clinical research, representing a missed opportunity to expand trial access and improve patient outcomes. Clinical trials are essential to advancing oncology care, yet participation remains critically low among adult patients. Given Oncology APPs’ and CPs’ central role in cancer care delivery, their meaningful engagement in oncology clinical trial research is imperative as the standard of oncology care. This position article, with contributions from 5 professional societies, presents solutions and resources to barriers limiting APPs’ and CPs’ involvement in cancer clinical research, including gaps in education, role expectations, limited protected time, restrictive policies, insufficient financial support, and underrecognition of contributions. Integrating APPs and CPs more fully into the clinical research enterprise is essential to improving trial access, patient outcomes, closing equity gaps, and accelerating innovation in oncology care.

Abstract Background Adjuvant 5-FU monotherapy was previously the standard treatment for stage II/III rectal cancer. This study compared adjuvant FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV. Methods Eligible patients had T3-T4 N0 or Tany N1-3 rectal adenocarcinoma ≤12 cm from the anal verge and received pre-operative or postoperative 5-FU chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients were randomized to adjuvant FOLFIRI (8 cycles), FOLFOX (8 cycles), or 5-FU/LV weekly (6/8 weeks; 3 cycles). The trial planned to enroll 3,150 patients but was closed early following activation of an alternative adjuvant rectal cancer study including bevacizumab (E5204). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), sphincter preservation, tolerability, and quality of life (QOL). Results The trial enrolled 225 patients (179 randomized) before early closure. Grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 59%, with neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea being the most common. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, no significant OS or DFS differences were observed. The rate of sphincter preservation was numerically higher with FOLFIRI and FOLFOX versus 5-FU/LV, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion FOLFOX and FOLFIRI can be safely administered after CRT in rectal cancer patients safely with expected toxicities. Due to early trial closure and small sample size, the survival analysis was underpowered to detect a significant difference between regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00068692

The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers (BTCs) provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts is convened at least once annually to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. This manuscript focuses on the adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation treatment options for BTCs as well as the systemic treatment recommendations for patients with advanced BTCs.

PURPOSE Several lines of treatment can be used sequentially in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We investigated the evolution of patient/tumor characteristics and their prognostic impact across treatment lines to develop an overall prognostic score (OPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Individual patient data from 48 randomized trials were analyzed. The end point was overall survival (from random assignment to death). Missing data were imputed. The complete data set was then separated into construction (80%) and validation sets (20%). The Cox's model was used to define risk groups for survival using the OPS. The discrimination capability was assessed in each treatment-line via bootstrapping to obtain optimism-corrected calibration and discrimination C-indices. Internal validation was done in the validation set. RESULTS A total of 37,560 patients (26,974 in first-line [1L], 7,693 in second-line [2L], and 2,893 in third-line [3L]) were analyzed. Some clinical, biological, and molecular characteristics of patients/tumors included in therapeutic trials evolve over the lines. Seven independent prognostic variables were retained in the final multivariate model common to all lines: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, hemoglobin, platelet count, WBC/absolute neutrophil count ratio, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, and the number of metastatic sites. The OPS was used to define four patient subgroups with significantly different prognoses in 1L, 2L, and 3L, separately, with adequate C-indices: 0.65, 0.66, and 0.69 in the construction set and 0.65, 0.66, and 0.68 in the validation set, respectively. The OPS was not predictive, with 3L drugs ( v placebo) or subsequent line (2L/1L or 3L/2L) extending survival in all prognostic groups. CONCLUSION The same prognostic model using practical variables can be used before all treatment lines. The OPS could better stratify patients in future clinical trials and help to therapeutic decision in routine practice.

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 clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgement. 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). PURPOSE To provide evidence-based guidance for clinicians who treat patients with stage I-III anal cancer. METHODS A systematic review of the literature conducted by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center provided the evidence base for this guideline. An ASCO Expert Panel reviewed this evidence and came to consensus on a set of evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS The systematic review contained three randomized controlled trials and three nonrandomized studies of interventions that were relevant to the guideline topic and informed the recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS Mitomycin-C (MMC) with a fluoropyrimidine (fluorouracil [FU] or capecitabine) is recommended as the radiosensitizing component of chemoradiation (CRT) for anal cancer; the Expert Panel recognizes that capecitabine is often used as an orally administered alternative to FU and is currently being used in ongoing clinical trials. Cisplatin with FU is an additional chemotherapy combination that may be recommended as radiosensitizing chemotherapy. Because of the myelosuppression associated with MMC, the preferable regimen for patients with immunosuppression is cisplatin and FU. Cisplatin is not recommended for patients with renal dysfunction, significant neuropathy, or hearing loss, and there is no evidence to recommend substituting carboplatin for cisplatin. Dose and schedule options for recommended chemotherapy agents are included within the full text of the guideline. Routine induction chemotherapy before CRT and additional chemotherapy after CRT are not recommended for patients with localized anal cancer. Additional information is available at 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.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Management of disseminated metastatic CRC involves various active drugs, either in combination or as single agents. The choice of therapy is based on consideration of the goals of therapy, the type and timing of prior therapy, the mutational profile of the tumor, and the differing toxicity profiles of the constituent drugs. This manuscript summarizes the data supporting the systemic therapy options recommended for metastatic CRC in the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer.

Abstract Purpose: Aromatase inhibitor (AI)–associated musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS) are common and frequently lead to AI discontinuation. SNPs in candidate genes have been associated with AIMSS and AI discontinuation. E1Z11 is a prospective cohort study designed to validate the association between 10 SNPs and AI discontinuation due to AIMSS. Patients and Methods: Postmenopausal women with stage I to III hormone receptor–positive breast cancer received anastrozole 1 mg daily and completed patient-reported outcome measures to assess AIMSS (Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire) at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. We estimated that 40% of participants would develop AIMSS and 25% would discontinue AI treatment within 12 months. Enrollment of 1,000 women with a fixed number per racial stratum provided 80% power to detect an effect size of 1.5 to 4. SNPs were found in ESR1 (rs2234693, rs2347868, and rs9340835), CYP19A1 (rs1062033 and rs4646), TCL1A (rs11849538, rs2369049, rs7158782, and rs7159713), and HTR2A (rs2296972). Results: Of the 970 evaluable women, 43% developed AIMSS and 12% discontinued AI therapy within 12 months. Although more Black and Asian women developed AIMSS than White women (49% vs. 39%, P = 0.017; 50% vs. 39%, P = 0.004, respectively), the AI discontinuation rates were similar across groups. None of the SNPs were significantly associated with AIMSS or AI discontinuation in the overall population or in distinct cohorts. The OR for rs2296972 (HTR2A) approached significance for developing AIMSS. Conclusions: We were unable to prospectively validate candidate SNPs previously associated with AI discontinuation due to AIMSS. Future analyses will explore additional genetic markers, patient-reported outcome predictors of AIMSS, and differences by race.

PURPOSE Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual. METHODS The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP. RESULTS A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development. CONCLUSION Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.

Purpose Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Antiangiogenic therapy with bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy improves survival in previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. This study was conducted to determine the effect of bevacizumab (at 10 mg/kg) on survival duration for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Eight hundred twenty-nine metastatic colorectal cancer patients previously treated with a fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) with bevacizumab; FOLFOX4 without bevacizumab; or bevacizumab alone. The primary end point was overall survival, with additional determinations of progression-free survival, response, and toxicity. Results The median duration of survival for the group treated with FOLFOX4 and bevacizumab was 12.9 months compared with 10.8 months for the group treated with FOLFOX4 alone (corresponding hazard ratio for death = 0.75; P = .0011), and 10.2 months for those treated with bevacizumab alone. The median progression-free survival for the group treated with FOLFOX4 in combination with bevacizumab was 7.3 months, compared with 4.7 months for the group treated with FOLFOX4 alone (corresponding hazard ratio for progression = 0.61; P < .0001), and 2.7 months for those treated with bevacizumab alone. The corresponding overall response rates were 22.7%, 8.6%, and 3.3%, respectively ( P < .0001 for FOLFOX4 with bevacizumab v FOLFOX4 comparison). Bevacizumab was associated with hypertension, bleeding, and vomiting. Conclusion The addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin improves survival duration for patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer.