Citations

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.

This discussion summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is necessary. Primary treatment of perianal cancer and anal canal cancer are similar and include chemoradiation in most cases. Follow-up clinical evaluations are recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. Biopsy-proven evidence of locally recurrent or persistent disease after primary treatment may require surgical treatment. Systemic therapy is generally recommended for extrapelvic metastatic disease. Recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma include staging classification updates based on the 9th edition of the AJCC Staging System and updates to the systemic therapy recommendations based on new data that better define optimal treatment of patients with metastatic anal carcinoma.

Background and objectives: Area of residence may adversely affect survival and outcomes in many cancers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of geographical and demographic disparities on survival of patients with colorectal cancer. Materials and methods: Data were obtained from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) colon, rectosigmoid, and rectal datasets. Patients were categorized by area of residence, namely, metropolitan (MA), urban (UA), or rural (RA). Sociodemographic and tumor-related data were collected and analyzed to evaluate variables affecting overall survival (OS). Results: In total, 973,139 patients between 2004 and 2013 were included in the study, of which 83%, 15%, and 2% were MA, UA, and RA residents, respectively. RA and UA patients were mostly white male with low income and no comorbidities. In univariate analysis, OS was worse for RA (hazard ratio [HR] 1.10) and UA (HR 1.06) colorectal cancer patients than that for MA colorectal cancer patients. In multivariate analysis revealed significant association between OS and geographic residence, with worse OS for RA (HR 1.02, p = 0.04) and UA (HR 1.01, p = 0.003) patients. Black (HR 1.14) and Native American (HR 1.17) patients had worse outcomes, while Asians (HR 0.8), women (HR 0.88), and patients with higher income had improved OS (HR 0.88). Conclusion: The differences in the OS for RA and UA patients with colorectal cancer were significantly driven by economic disparity. Area of residence represents an important factor independently limiting access to care, particularly in geographically isolated individuals.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a “watch-and-wait” nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org , covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation–positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org . Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

The NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines. These updates include clarifying the definition of rectum and differentiating the rectum from the sigmoid colon; the total neoadjuvant therapy approach for localized rectal cancer; and biomarker-targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, with a focus on new treatment options for patients with BRAF V600E– or HER2 amplification–positive disease.

e19047 Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths in the US. Area of residence affects survival in many cancers, though largely unknown in colorectal cancer. The purpose of this study is to evaluate disparities between the metropolitan, urban and rural populations and the impact on survival in colorectal cancer. Methods: Data was obtained from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) colon, rectosigmoid, and rectal data sets. Patients (pts) were categorized by area of residence: metropolitan (MA), urban (UA), or rural (RA). Gender, race, insurance status, income, marital status, and tumor related data was collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate variables affecting overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 973,139 pts, spanning 2004-2013 were included in the study, 83% MA, 15% UA, 2% RA. RA and UA pts were more likely to be white than MA pts (92.7 v 91.4% v 83%). RA and UA were more likely to have lower income, with slightly lesser amounts of women and pts with no comorbidities. Uninsured rates were similar (3.3%). On univariate analysis, OS was worse for RA (HR 1.10) and UA (1.06) pts, as compared with MA. On multivariate analysis, small differences persisted with worse OS for RA (HR 1.02, p = .043) and UA (HR 1.01, p = .003). Black (HR 1.14) and native American (HR 1.17) pts had worse outcomes, while Asian (HR 0.8) pts had improved OS. Women (HR 0.88) and pts with higher incomes ( > 46K or 63K) had improved OS (HR 0.88). Conclusions: This study identifies socio-demographic disparities in colorectal cancer outcomes. Pts from rural and urban areas had worse OS, even though the proportion of minority pts with poor outcomes was lower. The difference in OS for RA and UA remained statistically significant in multivariate analysis, though it was largely corrected when adjusting for influencing variables. Part of this difference may be due to economic disparities, as lower income was linked to worse OS. This can independently limit access to care, especially for geographically isolated individuals. Additional research efforts are needed in order for us to better understand the key issues facing and the optimal means to improve outcomes in at risk populations.

Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract that has increased in incidence across recent years. Often diagnosed at an advanced stage, outcomes for SBA are worse on average than for other related malignancies, including colorectal cancer. Due to the rarity of this disease, few studies have been done to direct optimal treatment, although recent data have shown that SBA responds to treatment differently than colorectal cancer, necessitating a separate approach to treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma were created to establish an evidence-based standard of care for patients with SBA. These guidelines provide recommendations on the workup of suspected SBA, primary treatment options, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, and systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Additionally, principles of imaging and endoscopy, pathologic review, surgery, radiation therapy, and survivorship are described.

Abstract The objective of this retrospective analysis was to describe the development and implementation of an anesthesiologist‐led multidisciplinary committee to evaluate high‐risk surgical patients in order to improve surgical appropriateness. The study was conducted in an anesthesia preoperative evaluation clinic at an academic comprehensive cancer center. One hundred sixty‐seven high‐risk surgical patients with cancer‐related diagnoses were evaluated and discussed at a High‐Risk Committee (HRC) meeting to determine surgical appropriateness and optimize perioperative care. The HRC is an anesthesiologist‐led model for multidisciplinary review of high‐risk patients developed at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. The group of high‐risk patients in which surgery was not performed had, on average, a greater percentage of hypertension, smoking history, dyspnea, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, renal failure, and sleep apnea than the group in whom surgery was performed. Only one of 107 high‐risk patients who had surgery died within the first 30 days after surgery. A smaller percentage of patients died in the group that had surgery versus the group in which surgery was canceled. For all patients discussed by the HRC, the mortality was less than 2% within the first 30 days after the HRC.