Clarke, Callisia N

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 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. PURPOSE To develop a clinical practice guideline and recommendations for symptom management of patients with well-differentiated grade 1 to grade 3 metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop a clinical practice guideline by reviewing the literature for relevant guidelines, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies to develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS The literature review identified eight guidelines, 19 systematic reviews, and three RCTs that informed the development of guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations are included for carcinoid syndrome, carcinoid heart disease and carcinoid crisis, and functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor syndromes. Recommendations are provided for surgical management, liver-directed therapy, and systemic therapy options, as well as palliative care. Limited guidance is provided for sequencing of interventions. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

AbstractBackgroundCytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) is increasingly performed for peritoneal surface malignancies but remains associated with significant morbidity. Scant research is available regarding the impact of insurance status on postoperative outcomes.MethodsPatients undergoing CRS/HIPEC between 2000 and 2017 at 12 participating sites in the US HIPEC Collaborative were identified. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare the baseline characteristics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes of patients with government, private, or no insurance.ResultsAmong 2268 patients, 699 (30.8%) had government insurance, 1453 (64.0%) had private, and 116 (5.1%) were uninsured. Patients with government insurance were older, more likely to be non‐white, and comorbid (p < 0.05). Patients with government (OR: 2.25, CI: 1.50−3.36, p < 0.001) and private (OR: 1.69, CI: 1.15−2.49, p = 0.008) insurance had an increased risk of complications on univariate analysis. There was no independent relationship on multivariate analysis. An American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3 or 4, peritoneal carcinomatosis index score >15, completeness of cytoreduction score >1, and nonhome discharge were factors independently associated with a postoperative complication.ConclusionWhile there were differences in postoperative outcomes between the three insurance groups on univariate analysis, there was no independent association between insurance status and postoperative complications after CRS/HIPEC.

AbstractBackgroundWhile parenchymal hepatic metastases were previously considered a contraindication to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), liver resection (LR) is increasingly performed with CRS/HIPEC.MethodsPatients from the US HIPEC Collaborative (2000–2017) with invasive appendiceal or colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing primary, curative intent CRS/HIPEC with CC0‐1 resection were included. LR was defined as a formal parenchymal resection. Primary endpoints were postoperative complications and overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 658 patients were included. About 83 (15%) underwent LR of colorectal (58%) or invasive appendiceal (42%) metastases. LR patients had more complications (81% vs. 60%; p = .001), greater number of complications (2.3 vs. 1.5; p < .001) per patient and required more reoperations (22% vs. 11%; p = .007) and readmissions (39% vs. 25%; p = .014) than non‐LR patients. LR patients had decreased OS (2‐year OS 62% vs. 79%, p < .001), even when accounting for peritoneal carcinomatosis index and histology type. Preoperative factors associated with decreased OS on multivariable analysis in LR patients included age < 60 years (HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.10–11.81), colorectal histology (HR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.69–12.65), and multiple liver tumors (HR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.21–9.85) (all p < .05). When assigning one point for each factor, there was an incremental decrease in 2‐year survival as the risk score increased from 0 to 3 (0: 100%; 1: 91%; 2: 58%; 3: 0%).ConclusionsAs CRS/HIPEC + LR has become more common, we created a simple risk score to stratify patients considered for CRS/HIPEC + LR. These data aid in striking the balance between an increased perioperative complication profile with the potential for improvement in OS.

AbstractBackgroundVariations in care have been demonstrated both within and among institutions in many clinical settings. By standardizing perioperative practices, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways reduce variation in perioperative care. We sought to characterize the variation in cytoreductive surgery (CRS)/heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) perioperative practices among experienced US medical centers.MethodsData from the US HIPEC Collaborative represents a retrospective multi‐institutional cohort study of CRS and CRS/HIPEC procedures performed from 12 major academic institutions. Patient characteristics and perioperative practices were reported and compared. Institutional variation was analyzed using hierarchical mixed‐effects linear (continuous outcomes) or logistic (binary outcomes) regression models.ResultsA total of 2372 operations were included. CRS/HIPEC was performed most commonly for appendiceal histologies (64.2%). The rate of complications (overall 56.3%, range: 31.8‐70.9) and readmissions (overall 20.6%, range: 8.9‐33.3) varied by institution (P < .001). Institution‐level variation in perioperative practice patterns existed among measured ERAS pathway process/outcomes (P < .001). The percentages of variation with each process/outcome measure attributable solely to institutional practices ranged from 0.6% to 66.6%.ConclusionsSignificant variation exists in the perioperative care of patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC at major US academic institutions. These findings provide a strong rationale for the investigation of best practices in CRS/HIPEC patients.