Use of Molecular Assays and Circulating Tumor DNA in Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: A Roundtable Discussion of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group.

The use of genomic testing is rapidly emerging as an important clinical tool both for cancer diagnosis and for guiding treatment decisions in a wide range of malignancies, including gastrointestinal (GI) cancers such as colorectal cancer (CRC). Advances in technologies such as polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing methods have made it possible to noninvasively screen for CRC through, for example, the use of blood- or stool-based testing, with high specificity. Tests are also available that can provide prognostic information beyond traditional clinicopathologic factors such as tumor size, grade, and nodal status, which can enable clinicians to more accurately risk stratify patients for recurrence. Lastly, in the setting of resected CRC, tests are now available that can detect circulating tumor DNA as a means for noninvasive minimal/molecular residual disease monitoring, thereby potentially guiding the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and/or escalating or de-escalating therapy. The Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group (GICTEG) recently convened a virtual meeting to discuss current issues related to genomic testing in GI cancer, with the goal of providing guidance on the use of these tests for the practicing community oncologist, for whom GI cancer may be only one of many tumor types encountered. This article provides a summary of the discussion and highlights the key opinions of the GICTEG on this topic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group seeks to provide practical guidance and opinion on the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies, including colorectal cancer (CRC), for the practicing community oncologist in situations for which guidelines from established bodies, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, may be less clear. In the present report, clinical guidance on the use of molecular assays for a range of clinical indications in CRC is presented, including the use of circulating tumor DNA to detect minimal/molecular residual disease in patients with successfully resected early-stage CRC.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Improves Survival in Patients with Clinical T4b Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network included neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a treatment option for patients with clinical T4b colon cancer. However, there is little published data on the survival impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer. METHODS: Adult patients with non-metastatic clinically staged T3 or T4 colon cancer who underwent surgical resection were identified from the National Cancer Data Base between 2006 and 2014. Treatment was categorized as neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Overall survival was compared between the two groups using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 27,575 patients that met inclusion criteria, 26,654 (97%) were treated with surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy and 921 (3%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. After propensity score matching, patients with T4b colon cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a 23% lower risk of death at 3 years compared to patients that had adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.98; p = 0.04). However, neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not demonstrate a similar significant benefit for patients with T3 and T4a disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clinical T4b colon cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy may have an improved survival compared to those who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Further prospective investigation is warranted.

Safety of cupping during bevacizumab therapy.

OBJECTIVES: This study reports on the safety of the complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practice of cupping in a patient undergoing concomitant therapy with bevacizumab for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and raises awareness of the need for improved communication between CAM practitioners and oncologists during the care of patients with cancer. The practice of cupping generates local hyperemia, disrupts superficial vasculature in the dermis, and leads to cutaneous lesions including circular erythema, edema, and subsequently ecchymosis. There are no data on the safety of cupping in patients being treated with bevacizumab. DESIGN: This is a single-institution case report. SETTINGS/LOCATION: The setting for this study was a tertiary-care academic medical center. CONCLUSIONS: A patient with advanced NSCLC received four cycles of carboplatin AUC 6, paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2), and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg, and was continued on every-3-week maintenance bevacizumab 15 mg/kg. The patient underwent glass dry cupping during cycle six of maintenance bevacizumab treatment without overt cutaneous adverse events or bleeding. The patient did not realize he should have communicated his cupping plans or recent bevacizumab treatment with his providers.

Complementary and alternative medicines in prostate cancer: from bench to bedside?

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common among adults, and recent reports suggest that 25%-50% of prostate cancer (PCa) patients use at least one CAM modality. The most common CAM modalities used by PCa patients are vitamin and herbal preparations with purported antitumor effects despite only modest underlying preclinical or clinical evidence of efficacy. In this review we provide a brief overview of the basic scientific and clinical studies underlying the most common herbal and vitamin preparations including common antioxidants, pomegranate extract, green tea, turmeric, resveratrol, silibinin, and herbal combination preparations. When available, prostate cancer clinical trial data are reviewed. Importantly, we have compared the concentration of these agents used in in vitro experiments to that likely to be achievable in humans. From the available data we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of CAMs for the treatment of prostate cancer patients outside of a clinical trial. The purpose of this review is to more rigorously evaluate CAM therapy in prostate cancer and educate oncologists and patients. This review focuses on examples from the general classes of agents in common use.