Schneider, Charles John

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.

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.

1007 Background: Determining optimal adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer depends on efficacy and toxicity. We sought to determine if T is equivalent to AC but with reduced toxicity. Methods: Pts with operable breast cancer with 0-3 positive nodes were enrolled on a 2x2 factorial design study which addressed (1) superiority of 6 vs. 4 cycles of therapy (previously reported, Shulman, JCO 2012) and (2) equivalence of single-agent T to standard AC, defined as upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) of hazard ratio (HR) of T vs. AC < 1.30 for the primary endpoint of relapse-free survival (RFS). A planned target of 567 RFS events required 4,646 pts with 4 yrs FU. At activation in 2002, T (80mg/m2) was q1wk for 12 or 18 wks and AC (60/600 mg/m2) was q3wk for 4 or 6 cycles. In 2003 (570 pts enrolled) schedules were revised to 4 or 6 cycles q2wk for both T (175 mg/m2) and AC. The 6-cycle arms were dropped in 2008 (3,171 pts enrolled) due to slow accrual. Relative effectiveness of T to AC is shown by hazard ratio (HR). Logrank p-values are measures of discordance but are not relevant for the equivalence question and are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Results: After enrolling 3,871 pts, the study closed in 2010 due to slowing accrual. With a median follow-up of 6.1 yrs there are 437 RFS events. The HR of 1.26 (95% CI: 1.05-1.53; p = 0.02) does not allow a conclusion of equivalence of T with AC. With 266 deaths the HR for overall survival (OS) is 1.27 (95% CI=1.00-1.62; p = 0.05), favoring AC. The estimated absolute advantage of AC at 5 yrs is 3% (91 vs. 88%) for RFS and 1% (95 vs. 94%) for OS. All 9 treatment-related deaths were in pts receiving AC and are included in the survival analysis. The incidence of Grade 3+ toxicity for AC vs T was 33% vs. 4% for hematologic toxicity and 36% vs 22% for non-hematologic toxicity. Conclusions: This trial did not show equivalence of T to AC, a conclusion that is very unlikely to change with additional follow-up. T was less toxic than AC. Clinical trial information: CDR0000069444/NCT00041119.

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.

PurposeOptimal adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer balances efficacy and toxicity. We sought to determine whether single-agent paclitaxel (T) was inferior to doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC), when each was administered for four or six cycles of therapy, and whether it offered less toxicity.Patients and MethodsPatients with operable breast cancer with 0 to 3 positive nodes were enrolled onto the study to address the noninferiority of single-agent T to AC, defined as the one-sided 95% upper-bound CI (UCB) of hazard ratio (HR) of T versus AC less than 1.30 for the primary end point of relapse-free survival (RFS). As a 2 × 2 factorial design, duration of therapy was also addressed and was previously reported.ResultsWith 3,871 patients enrolled onto the trial, a median follow-up period of 6.1 years, and 437 RFS events, we achieved an HR of 1.26 (one sided 95% UCB, 1.48; favoring AC does not allow a conclusion of noninferiority of T with AC; UCB > 1.3). With 266 patient deaths, the HR for overall survival (OS) was 1.27 favoring AC (UCB, 1.56). The estimated absolute advantage of AC at 5 years is 3% for RFS (91 v 88%) and 1% for OS (95 v 94%). All nine treatment-related deaths were patients receiving AC and are included in the analyses of both RFS and OS. Hematologic toxicity was more common in patients treated with AC, and neuropathy was more common in patients treated with T.ConclusionThis trial did not show noninferiority of T to AC, a conclusion that is unlikely to change with additional events and follow-up. T was less toxic than AC.

PurposeThe ideal duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with lower risk primary breast cancer is not known. Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 40101 was conducted using a phase III factorial design to define whether six cycles of a chemotherapy regimen are superior to four cycles. We also sought to determine whether paclitaxel (T) is as efficacious as doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC), but with reduced toxicity.Patients and MethodsBetween 2002 and 2008, the study enrolled women with operable breast cancer and zero to three positive nodes. Patients were randomly assigned to either four or six cycles of either AC or T. Study stratifiers were estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (ER/PgR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and menopausal status. After 2003, all treatment was administered in dose-dense fashion. The primary efficacy end point was relapse-free survival (RFS).ResultsA total of 3,171 patients were enrolled; 94% were node-negative and 6% had one to three positive nodes. At a median follow-up of 5.3 years, the 4-year RFS was 90.9% and 91.8% for six and four cycles, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of six to four cycles regarding RFS was 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.28; P = .77). The 4-year OS was 95.3% and 96.3% for six and four cycles, respectively, with an HR of six to four cycles of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.49; P = .44). There was no interaction between treatment duration and chemotherapy regimen, ER/PgR, or HER2 status on RFS or OS.ConclusionFor women with resected primary breast cancer and zero to three positive nodes, we found no evidence that extending chemotherapy regimens of AC or single-agent T from four to six cycles improves clinical outcome.