Hudson, Melissa M.

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 Appendix 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide guidance on the recommended management of cancer in pregnant patients. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The systematic review identified 450 eligible studies. Much of the evidence consisted of observational data, case series, and case reports. RECOMMENDATIONS Management of cancer during pregnancy should be grounded in a values-based informed-consent process outlining maternal and fetal risks and anticipated benefits. Diagnostic evaluation should follow the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle, with timing of diagnostic studies individualized based on urgency of cancer detection, potential dangers of delay, and the balance of risks to both the pregnant patient and her embryo or fetus. Due to significant risk of harm to the developing embryo and/or fetus, systemic therapy should be deferred until the second trimester. Methotrexate, hormonal therapies, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and all cellular therapies are contraindicated during pregnancy, regardless of gestational age. For patients who wish to continue their pregnancy, delivery should be planned at or after 37 weeks, with the final chemotherapy dose scheduled 2-4 weeks before birth. Referral to psychosocial support services is essential to address emotional and practical challenges, reduce distress, and support shared decision making. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

PURPOSE Recent studies reveal that 5%-18% of children with cancer harbor pathogenic variants in known cancer-predisposing genes. However, DNA damage repair (DDR) genes, which are frequently somatically altered in pediatric tumors, have not been systematically examined as a source of novel cancer-predisposing signals. METHODS To address this gap, we interrogated 189 DDR genes for presence of germline predisposing variants (PV) among 5,993 childhood cancer cases and 14,477 adult noncancer controls (discovery cohort). PV were determined using a tiered approach incorporating ClinVar annotations, InterVar classification, and in silico tools (REVEL, CADD, and MetaSVM). Using logistic and firth regression, we identified genes with PV statistically enriched in the germline of children with tumors and replicated findings among 1,497 additional childhood cancer cases across three independent cohorts. RESULTS Analysis across all cases with cancer revealed enrichment of TP53 PV. Cancer-specific analyses confirmed known associations including germline TP53 PV in adrenocortical carcinoma, high-grade glioma (HGG), and medulloblastoma (MB), PMS2 in HGG and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), MLH1 in HGG, BRCA2 in NHL, and BARD1 in neuroblastoma. In addition, four novel associations were uncovered, including BRCA1 in ependymoma, SPIDR in HGG, SMC5 in MB, and SMARCAL1 in osteosarcoma (OS). Importantly, the SMARCAL1 :OS association was significant in the discovery (6/230, 2.6%, false discovery rate [FDR] logistic = 0.0189) as well as all three replication cohorts (Childhood Cancer Survivor Study: 8/275, 2.9%; P Fisher < .0001; Cancer Predisposition Syndrome-German Childhood Cancer Registry: 4/135, 3%, P Fisher = .002; Individualized Therapy for Relapsed Malignancies in Childhood: 4/217, 1.8%, P Fisher = .012). The remaining wild-type SMARCAL1 allele was deleted in three of four OS tumors with available data. CONCLUSION Our study confirms the relevance DDR genetic variation in pediatric cancer risk and establishes SMARCAL1 as a novel OS predisposing gene, providing insights into tumor biology and creating opportunities to optimize care for patients with this challenging tumor.

AbstractThe adiposity influence on colorectal cancer prognosis remains poorly characterised. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis on post‐diagnosis adiposity measures (body mass index [BMI], waist circumference, waist‐to‐hip ratio, weight) or their changes and colorectal cancer outcomes. PubMed and Embase were searched through 28 February 2022. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were conducted when at least three studies had sufficient information. The quality of evidence was interpreted and graded by the Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) independent Expert Committee on Cancer Survivorship and Expert Panel. We reviewed 124 observational studies (85 publications). Meta‐analyses were possible for BMI and all‐cause mortality, colorectal cancer‐specific mortality, and cancer recurrence/disease‐free survival. Non‐linear meta‐analysis indicated a reverse J‐shaped association between BMI and colorectal cancer outcomes (nadir at BMI 28 kg/m2). The highest risk, relative to the nadir, was observed at both ends of the BMI distribution (18 and 38 kg/m2), namely 60% and 23% higher risk for all‐cause mortality; 95% and 26% for colorectal cancer‐specific mortality; and 37% and 24% for cancer recurrence/disease‐free survival, respectively. The higher risk with low BMI was attenuated in secondary analyses of RCTs (compared to cohort studies), among studies with longer follow‐up, and in women suggesting potential methodological limitations and/or altered physiological state. Descriptively synthesised studies on other adiposity‐outcome associations of interest were limited in number and methodological quality. All the associations were graded as limited (likelihood of causality: no conclusion) due to potential methodological limitations (reverse causation, confounding, selection bias). Additional well‐designed observational studies and interventional trials are needed to provide further clarification.

AbstractLow physical activity and high sedentary behaviour have been clearly linked with colorectal cancer development, yet data on their potential role in colorectal cancer survival is limited. Better characterisation of these relationships is needed for the development of post‐diagnosis physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidance for colorectal cancer survivors. We searched PubMed and Embase through 28 February 2022 for studies assessing post‐diagnosis physical activity, and/or sedentary behaviour in relation to all‐cause and cause‐specific mortality and recurrence after colorectal cancer diagnosis. Total and recreational physical activity were assessed overall and by frequency, duration, intensity, and volume using categorical, linear, and non‐linear dose–response random‐effects meta‐analyses. The Global Cancer Update Programme (CUP Global) independent Expert Committee on Cancer Survivorship and Expert Panel interpreted and graded the likelihood of causality. We identified 16 observational studies on 82,220 non‐overlapping patients from six countries. Physical activity was consistently inversely associated with colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality outcomes, with 13%–60% estimated reductions in risk. Sedentary behaviour was positively associated with all‐cause mortality. The evidence had methodological limitations including potential confounding, selection bias and reverse causation, coupled with a limited number of studies for most associations. The CUP Global Expert panel concluded limited‐suggestive evidence for recreational physical activity with all‐cause mortality and cancer recurrence. Total physical activity and its specific domains and dimensions, and sedentary behaviour were all graded as limited‐no conclusion for all outcomes. Future research should focus on randomised trials, while observational studies should obtain objective and repeated physical activity measures and better adjustment for confounders.

AbstractBased on the World Cancer Research Fund Global Cancer Update Programme, we performed systematic reviews and meta‐analyses to investigate the association of post‐diagnosis adiposity, physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and dietary factors with colorectal cancer prognosis. We searched PubMed and Embase until 28th February, 2022. An independent expert committee and expert panel graded the quality of evidence. A total of 167 unique publications were reviewed, and all but five were observational studies. The quality of the evidence was graded conservatively due to the high risk of several biases. There was evidence of non‐linearity in the associations between body mass index and colorectal cancer prognosis. The associations appeared reverse J‐shaped, and the quality of this evidence was graded as limited (likelihood of causality: limited‐no conclusion). The evidence on recreational physical activity and lower risk of all‐cause mortality (relative risk [RR] highest vs. lowest: 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62–0.77) and recurrence/disease‐free survival (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70–0.92) was graded as limited‐suggestive. There was limited‐suggestive evidence for the associations between healthy dietary and/or lifestyle patterns (including diets that comprised plant‐based foods), intake of whole grains and coffee with lower risk of all‐cause mortality, and between unhealthy dietary patterns and intake of sugary drinks with higher risk of all‐cause mortality. The evidence for other exposures on colorectal cancer outcomes was sparse and graded as limited‐no conclusion. Analyses were conducted excluding cancer patients with metastases without substantial changes in the findings. Well‐designed intervention and cohort studies are needed to support the development of lifestyle recommendations for colorectal cancer patients.

Abstract The role of diet in colorectal cancer prognosis is not well understood and specific lifestyle recommendations are lacking. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal observational studies on post‐diagnosis dietary factors, supplement use and colorectal cancer survival outcomes in PubMed and Embase from inception until 28th February 2022. Random‐effects dose–response meta‐analyses were conducted when at least three studies had sufficient information. The evidence was interpreted and graded by the CUP Global independent Expert Committee on Cancer Survivorship and Expert Panel. Five RCTs and 35 observational studies were included (30,242 cases, over 8700 all‐cause and 2100 colorectal cancer deaths, 3700 progression, recurrence, or disease‐free events). Meta‐analyses, including 3–10 observational studies each, were conducted for: whole grains, nuts/peanuts, red and processed meat, dairy products, sugary drinks, artificially sweetened beverages, coffee, alcohol, dietary glycaemic load/index, insulin load/index, marine omega‐3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, supplemental calcium, circulating 25‐hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and all‐cause mortality; for alcohol, supplemental calcium, circulating 25(OH)D and colorectal cancer‐specific mortality; and for circulating 25(OH)D and recurrence/disease‐free survival. The overall evidence was graded as ‘limited’. The inverse associations between healthy dietary and/or lifestyle patterns (including diets that comprised plant‐based foods), whole grains, total, caffeinated, or decaffeinated coffee and all‐cause mortality and the positive associations between unhealthy dietary patterns, sugary drinks and all‐cause mortality provided ‘limited—suggestive’ evidence. All other exposure‐outcome associations provided ‘limited—no conclusion’ evidence. Additional, well‐conducted cohort studies and carefully designed RCTs are needed to develop specific lifestyle recommendations for colorectal cancer survivors.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals address the complex and varied needs of cancer survivors. The NCCN Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for psychosocial and physical problems resulting from adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthy behaviors and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize recent guideline updates and panel discussions pertaining to sleep disorders, fatigue, and cognitive function in cancer survivors.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors to ensure that the survivors’ complex and varied needs are addressed. The NCCN Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for the consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote physical activity, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes updates to the NCCN Guidelines pertaining to preventive health for cancer survivors, including recommendations about alcohol consumption and vaccinations.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors to ensure that each survivor’s complex and varied needs are addressed. The Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthful lifestyle behaviors, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes the recommendations regarding employment and return to work for cancer survivors that were added in the 2021 version of the NCCN Guidelines.

Abstract Purpose: Low-dose tamoxifen reduces breast cancer risk, but remains untested in chest-irradiated cancer survivors—a population with breast cancer risk comparable with BRCA mutation carriers. We hypothesized that low-dose tamoxifen would be safe and efficacious in reducing radiation-related breast cancer risk. Patients and Methods: We conducted an investigator-initiated, randomized, phase IIb, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial (FDA IND107367) between 2010 and 2016 at 15 U.S. sites. Eligibility included ≥12 Gy of chest radiation by age 40 years and age at enrollment ≥25 years. Patients were randomized 1:1 to low-dose tamoxifen (5 mg/day) or identical placebo tablets for 2 years. The primary endpoint was mammographic dense area at baseline, 1 and 2 years. IGF-1 plays a role in breast carcinogenesis; circulating IGF-1 and IGF-BP3 levels at baseline, 1 and 2 years served as secondary endpoints. Results: Seventy-two participants (low-dose tamoxifen: n = 34, placebo: n = 38) enrolled at a median age of 43.8 years (35–49) were evaluable. They had received chest radiation at a median dose of 30.3 Gy. Compared with the placebo arm, the low-dose tamoxifen arm participants had significantly lower mammographic dense area (P = 0.02) and IGF1 levels (P &lt; 0.0001), and higher IGFBP-3 levels (P = 0.02). There was no difference in toxicity biomarkers (serum bone-specific alkaline phosphatase, lipids, and antithrombin III; urine N-telopeptide cross-links) between the treatment arms. We did not identify any grade 3–4 adverse events related to low-dose tamoxifen. Conclusions: In this randomized trial in chest-irradiated cancer survivors, we find that low-dose tamoxifen is effective in reducing established biomarkers of breast cancer risk and could serve as a risk-reduction strategy.