Lee, Percy

Objectives: To summarize recent high-quality trials and provide an update to the original 2022 American College of Radiology Appropriate Use Criteria for Treatment of Locoregional Gastric Adenocarcinoma. This multi-specialty-led committee included gastrointestinal radiation and medical oncology, gastroenterology, radiology, and surgical oncology. Methods: Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing, and study design framework, the evidence was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective Phase II/II trials and select retrospective studies published between 5/1/2020 and 8/1/2025 in the Embase, Medline, and Pubmed databases. Study type and quality were assessed. Well-established RAND-UCLA consensus methodology (modified Delphi) was used to rate the appropriateness of the treatment options. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include adjuvant FLOT chemotherapy for localized gastric adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant FLOT and surgery, poCT or perioperative chemoimmunotherapy for localized gastric adenocarcinoma, adjuvant chemotherapy +/− CRT for localized gastric adenocarcinoma that undergoes upfront surgery, and systemic therapy alone for localized gastric adenocarcinoma in a medically inoperable patient. Conclusions: This updated ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the multimodality treatment of resectable gastric adenocarcinoma.

ABSTRACT Background Multimodality therapy incorporating a combination of cytoreductive surgery (CRS), intraperitoneal (IP) and systemic therapy continues to evolve for peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) However, treatment and outcomes vary depending on tumor of origin. Aims To develop Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) guidelines to facilitate treatment decision‐making for patients with PC based on available evidence. Materials and Methods The American Radium Society (ARS) multidisciplinary expert panel performed a comprehensive systematic review. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used. These studies were used to inform the expert panel, which then rated the appropriateness of various treatments in seven representative clinical scenarios through a well‐established modified Delphi consensus methodology. Results Treatment of PC is often treated with a combination of CRS and IP ± systemic chemotherapy but specific recommendations exist for different tumor types and outcomes vary. Discussion Treatment of PC is complex and varies depending on origin of primary tumor and extent of disease. These AUC assist in patient and treatment selection for different clinical scenarios. Conclusion A summary of recommendations is outlined to guide practitioners on the management of PC from different tumor origins.

Objectives: Esophageal cancer (EC) often presents with dysphagia due to tumor obstruction. Esophageal stenting has the potential of palliating dysphagia, improving nutrition, preventing aspiration, and improving quality of life (QoL) but may be associated with risks. The present systematic review and guidelines are intended to assist treatment decision-making when considering stent placement in patients with EC based on the available evidence. Methods: Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design framework, the evidence was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective phase II-III trials and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2010 and December 3, 2024 in the Ovid Medline database. These references were assessed by American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) methodology. RAND-UCLA consensus methodology was used to rate the appropriateness of the use of stents. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include (1) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with early-stage EC in whom upfront surgery is planned; (2) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with locally-advanced EC in whom neoadjuvant/perioperative therapy and esophagectomy or definitive chemoradiation is planned; (3) esophageal stenting may be appropriate in the setting of metastatic EC, especially in patients with short life expectancy with limited treatment options; (4) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for benign stricture following curative-intent therapy; (5) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for locally recurrent tumor in the setting of prior radiation; and (6) esophageal stenting is usually appropriate for management of tracheoesophageal fistula before curative-intent treatment. Conclusions: This ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the use of esophageal stents in patients with EC provides based on available evidence.

Objectives: Cervical esophageal cancer (CEC) is an uncommon malignancy accounting for <5% of all esophageal carcinomas. Treatment of CEC varies and is adapted from established regimens used for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or the lower esophageal and head and neck. The present systematic review and guidelines are intended to assist treatment decision making for patients with CEC based on the available evidence. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, and Study Design (PICOTS) framework, the evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective Phase II to III trials and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2013 and February 23, 2024 in the Ovid Medline database. These references were assessed through the American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) methodology. A systematic review PRISMA 2020 checklist confirmed the completion of essential elements. RAND-UCLA consensus methodology was used by the expert panel to rate the appropriateness of the treatment options. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include (1) larynx preservation using endoscopic resection (EMR or ESD) alone for the typical case with pT1a cN0 cM0 CEC, (2) definitive CRT for the typical case with cT1bN0M0 in patients who cannot undergo endoscopic resection, (3) larynx-preserving using definitive CRT (with or without induction chemotherapy) for the typical case with nonmetastatic locally advanced CEC (advanced T-stage tumors or involved lymph nodes), with surgery reserved for those patients with incomplete response or locoregional recurrence. Conclusions: This ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the management of SCC of the cervical esophagus provides based on available evidence. Topics that warrant further investigation include optimization of (1) patient selection; (2) multimodality therapies including chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted agents; (3) radiation dose, schedule, and treatment volume; and (4) supportive care for patients with CEC. Ongoing trials continue to improve outcomes for patients with CEC.

For patients with locoregionally confined pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), margin-negative surgical resection is the only known curative treatment; however, the majority of patients are not operable candidates at initial diagnosis. Among patients with resectable disease who undergo surgery alone, the 5-year survival remains poor. Adjuvant therapies, including systemic therapy or chemoradiation, are utilized as they improve locoregional control and overall survival. There has been increasing interest in the use of neoadjuvant therapy to obtain early control of occult metastatic disease, allow local tumor response to facilitate margin-negative resection, and provide a test of time and biology to assist with the selection of candidates most likely to benefit from radical surgical resection. However, limited guidance exists regarding the relative effectiveness of treatment options. In this systematic review, the American Radium Society multidisciplinary gastrointestinal expert panel convened to develop Appropriate Use Criteria evaluating the evidence regarding neoadjuvant treatment for patients with PDAC, including surgery, systemic therapy, and radiotherapy, in terms of oncologic outcomes and quality of life. The evidence was assessed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study (PICOS) design framework and “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included phases 2 to 3 trials, meta-analyses, and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2012 and December 30, 2022 in the Ovid Medline database. A summary of recommendations based on the available literature is outlined to guide practitioners in the management of patients with PDAC.

AbstractThe liver is a common site of cancer metastases. Systemic therapy is widely accepted as the standard treatment for liver metastases (LM), although select patients with liver oligometastases may be candidates for potentially curative liver resection. Recent data support the role of nonsurgical local therapies such as ablation, external beam radiotherapy, embolization, and hepatic artery infusion therapy for management of LM. Additionally, for patients with advanced, symptomatic LM, local therapies may provide palliative benefit. The American Radium Society gastrointestinal expert panel, including members representing radiation oncology, interventional radiology, surgical oncology, and medical oncology, performed a systemic review and developed Appropriate Use Criteria for the use of nonsurgical local therapies for LM. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses methodology was used. These studies were used to inform the expert panel, which then rated the appropriateness of various treatments in seven representative clinical scenarios through a well‐established consensus methodology (modified Delphi). A summary of recommendations is outlined to guide practitioners on the use of nonsurgical local therapies for patients with LM.

Although uncommon, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC) is a deadly malignancy, and the treatment approaches remain controversial. While surgery remains the only cure, few patients are candidates for resection up front, and there are high rates of both local and distant failure following resection. Herein, we systematically review the available evidence regarding treatment approaches for patients with EHCC, including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. The evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study design (PICOS) framework. A summary of recommendations based on the available literature is outlined for specific clinical scenarios encountered by providers in the clinic to guide the management of these patients.

AbstractPurposeMobile lung tumors are increasingly being treated with ablative radiotherapy, for which precise motion management is essential. In‐room stereoscopic radiography systems are able to guide ablative radiotherapy for stationary cranial lesions but not optimally for lung tumors unless fiducial markers are inserted. We propose augmenting stereoscopic radiographic systems with multiple small x‐ray sources to provide the capability of imaging with stereoscopic, single frame tomosynthesis.MethodsIn single frame tomosynthesis, nine x‐ray sources are placed in a 3 × 3 configuration and energized simultaneously. The beams from these sources are collimated so that they converge on the tumor and then diverge to illuminate nine non‐overlapping sectors on the detector. These nine sector images are averaged together and filtered to create the tomosynthesis effect. Single frame tomosynthesis is intended to be an alternative imaging mode for existing stereoscopic systems with a field of view that is three times smaller and a temporal resolution equal to the frame rate of the detector. We simulated stereoscopic tomosynthesis and radiography using Monte Carlo techniques on 60 patients with early‐stage lung cancer from the NSCLC‐Radiomics dataset. Two board‐certified radiation oncologists reviewed these simulated images and rated them on a 4‐point scale (1: tumor not visible; 2: tumor visible but inadequate for motion management; 3: tumor visible and adequate for motion management; 4: tumor visibility excellent). Each tumor was independently presented four times (two viewing angles from radiography and two viewing angles from tomosynthesis) in a blinded fashion over two reading sessions.ResultsThe fraction of tumors that were rated as adequate or excellent for motion management (scores 3 or 4) from at least one viewing angle was 53% using radiography and 90% using tomosynthesis. From both viewing angles, the corresponding fractions were 7% for radiography and 48% for tomosynthesis. Readers agreed exactly on 62% of images and within 1 point on 98% of images. The acquisition technique was estimated to be 75 mAs at 120 kVp per treatment fraction assuming one verification image per breath, approximately one order of magnitude less than a standard dose cone beam CT.Conclusions Stereoscopic tomosynthesis may provide a noninvasive, low dose, intrafraction motion verification technique for lung tumors treated by ablative radiotherapy. The system architecture is compatible with real‐time video capture at 30 frames per second. Simulations suggest that most, but not all, lung tumors can be adequately visualized from at least one viewing angle.

BACKGROUNDStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is the standard of care for patients with nonoperative, early‐stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) measuring < 5 cm, but its use among patients with tumors measuring ≥5 cm is considerably less defined, with the existing literature limited to small, single‐institution reports. The current multi‐institutional study reported outcomes evaluating the largest such population reported to date.METHODSClinical/treatment characteristics, outcomes, toxicities, and patterns of failure were assessed in patients with primary NSCLC measuring ≥5 cm without evidence of distant/lymph node metastasis who underwent SBRT using ≤5 fractions. Statistics included Kaplan‐Meier survival analyses and univariate/multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.RESULTSA total of 92 patients treated from 2004 through 2016 were analyzed from 12 institutions. The median follow‐up was 12 months (15 months in survivors). The median age and tumor size among the patients were 73 years (range, 50‐95 years) and 5.4 cm (range, 5.0‐7.5 cm), respectively. The median dose/fractionation was 50 Gray/5 fractions. The actuarial local control rates at 1 year and 2 years were 95.7% and 73.2%, respectively. The disease‐free survival rate was 72.1% and 53.5%, respectively, at 1 year and 2 years. The 1‐year and 2‐year disease‐specific survival rates were 95.5% and 78.6%, respectively. The median, 1‐year, and 2‐year overall survival rates were 21.4 months, 76.2%, and 46.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, lung cancer history and pre‐SBRT positron emission tomography maximum standardized uptake value were found to be associated with overall survival. Posttreatment failures were most commonly distant (33% of all disease recurrences), followed by local (26%) and those occurring elsewhere in the lung (23%). Three patients had isolated local failures. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities included 1 case (1%) and 4 cases (4%) of grade 3 dermatitis and radiation pneumonitis, respectively (toxicities were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). Grades 2 to 5 radiation pneumonitis occurred in 11% of patients. One patient with a tumor measuring 7.5 cm and a smoking history of 150 pack‐years died of radiation pneumonitis.CONCLUSIONSThe results of the current study, which is the largest study of patients with NSCLC measuring ≥5 cm reported to date, indicate that SBRT is a safe and efficacious option. Cancer 2017;123:688–696. © 2016 American Cancer Society.