Citations

Objectives: Rates of locoregional recurrence and distant metastases are high following curative-intent resection for patients with localized pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Adjuvant therapies have been investigated with the intent to reduce the risk of recurrence and improve OS. The objective of this study is to update and summarize the current evidence for adjuvant therapy following surgical resection for nonmetastatic PDAC with a focus on high-level evidence and randomized controlled trials is provided. Methods: This multispecialty-led committee included gastrointestinal radiation and medical oncology, gastroenterology, radiology, and surgical oncology. Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design framework, evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA methodology. Eligible studies included prospective and retrospective (n≥25) studies published between January 1, 2013 and February 13, 2026, from Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, and Scopus 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: Of the 74 references used as evidence, 74 are categorized as therapeutic references. Study type and quality for the references were assessed, and included 31 well-designed studies (phase II randomized and phase III), 14 moderately well-designed studies that account for most common biases (matched cohort and phase II studies), 28 studies with design limitations (retrospective reviews), and 1 reference meta-analysis. Conclusions: This systematic review and guidelines provide up-to-date recommendations focusing on recent advancements for adjuvant treatment of resected PDAC using modern systemic therapy regimens and selective use of radiotherapy using modern techniques.

Abstract This literature‐based systematic review and associated guidelines provide evidence‐based paradigms for the management of locoregionally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). This multispecialty committee included gastrointestinal radiation and medical oncology, gastroenterology, radiology, and colorectal surgery. As is the standard, the previously described American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria methodology for this project was followed rigorously, with the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, and Study Design framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses methodology to assess the evidence. RAND/University of California Los Angeles consensus methodology (modified Delphi) was used to rate the appropriateness of treatment options. Published between January 1, 2013, and July 16, 2025, 116 peer‐reviewed trials provided the evidence: 10 were well‐designed randomized phase 2/3 trials, 29 were moderately well designed trials that accounted for most common biases (matched cohort and phase 2), 76 trials had design limitations (retrospective), and one was a meta‐analysis. Clinical cases were created as examples to illustrate current acceptable management of LRRC. Treatment and prognosis are influenced by prior therapy and the site(s) and extent of LRRC. The ability to achieve a margin‐negative surgical resection is the ultimate determinant of survival and local control. Preoperative systemic therapy, radiation therapy, or a combination of the two can facilitate tumor downsizing and improve the likelihood of a margin‐negative resection. An individualized multidisciplinary approach is required to ensure the best outcome. Although this review does not suggest a major alteration of current practice, it provides reassuring evidence of the importance of combined‐modality therapy.

Objectives: To summarize current evidence for radiotherapy in the treatment of OA. The population, intervention, comparator, and outcome questions included: What is the role of LDRT for treatment of OA?; What are risks of LDRT?; and What are the optimal RT techniques for OA? Methods: This multispecialty-led committee includes radiation oncologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and a patient advocate. Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design (PICOTS) framework, evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA methodology. Eligible studies included prospective and retrospective (n≥50) studies published between January 1, 2010, and May 10, 2025, from 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: Of the 548 articles identified using the search strategy, 44 were selected for inclusion. Eight additional studies were identified through backward citation searching. Ten well-designed studies accounting for biases, 15 moderately well-designed studies accounting for the most common biases, 18 studies with design limitations, 8 supplemental studies not useful as primary evidence, and 1 meta-analysis were included. Additional studies were included to provide context and were not used to guide recommendations. The results of this analysis demonstrate that LDRT results in an overall treatment response rate of 60% to 90%, with significant clinical benefits including pain reduction, increased joint mobility, and improved quality of life. Conclusions: This systematic review and consensus guidelines for LDRT treatment of OA are based on current evidence. Further high-quality studies are warranted.

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.

Objectives: The practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR), the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS), the American College of Nuclear Medicine (ACNM), the American Radium Society (ARS), the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI). This document summarizes current evidence-based guidelines for the administration of Yttrium radioembolic therapy to the liver, including training requirements, evidence-based guidelines for administration, and safe practice for administration. Methods: This practice parameter was revised according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/ClinicalResources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters—Interventional and Cardiovascular Radiology of the ACR Commission on Interventional and Cardiovascular, Committee on Practice Parameters and Technical Standards—Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging of the ACR Commission on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging and the Committee on Practice Parameters—Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ABS, the ACNM, the ARS, the SIR, and the SNMMI. Results: This review seeks not to be a comprehensive discussion of radiotherapy to the liver, but rather, seeks to provide a parameter for safe and effective therapy. We discuss the qualifications of physicians involved in this therapy, basic indications, contraindications, procedural work-up, safe-handling, and regulatory requirement for the administration of selective internal radiation therapy to patients that are likely to benefit. The goal of this document is not to define which patients are best treated by these therapies, as this is best determined for individual patients after multidisciplinary review. A consistent and evidence-based approach to therapy, however, would benefit all patients who are offered this therapy. This document seeks to provide a framework for current best practices for the administration of the 2 currently available radioembolization devices. Conclusions: As Yttrium-90 radiotherapy to the liver occupies a growing role in the treatment of primary and metastatic liver cancer, this review seeks to assist clinicians of all involved specialties to optimize the efficacy and safety of these procedures.

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: This practice parameter was revised collaboratively by the American College of Radiology (ACR), and American Radium Society (ARS). Image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT) uses various imaging modalities to maximize the accuracy and precision of radiation treatment delivery. Methods: This practice parameter was developed according to the process described under the heading The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee on Practice Parameters–Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. Results: This practice parameter for IGRT addresses qualifications and responsibilities of personnel, clinical IGRT implementation, documentation, quality control and improvement, safety, and patient education. Since the publication of the ACR–ASTRO Practice Parameter in 2019, there is now more clarity as to what criteria and parameters need to be documented in the medical record, a better appreciation of the large amount of imaging data, how to interpret such data, as well as the complex interactions of multiple systems in the implementation of IGRT. Conclusions: This practice parameter assists practitioners in the clinical use of IGRT. IGRT should complement and be used in combination with other quality assurance processes. IGRT is a rapidly evolving field, and practitioners should have a thorough understanding of its strengths and potential limitations.

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

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.