NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Rectal Cancer, Version 3.2024.

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.

Colon Cancer, Version 3.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

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.

Safety and feasibility of establishing an adjuvant hepatic artery infusion program.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic artery infusion (HAI) is less frequently used in the adjuvant setting for resectable colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) due to concerns regarding toxicity. Our objective was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of establishing an adjuvant HAI program. METHODS: Patients who underwent HAI pump placement between January 2019 and February 2023 for CRLM were identified. Complications and HAI delivery were compared between patients who received HAI in the unresectable and adjuvant settings. RESULTS: Of 51 patients, 23 received HAI for unresectable CRLM and 28 in the adjuvant setting. Patients with unresectable CRLM more commonly had bilobar disease (n = 23/23 vs n = 18/28, p < 0.01) and more preoperative liver metastases (median 10 [IQR 6-15] vs 4 [IQR 3-7], p < 0.01). Biliary sclerosis was the most common complication (n = 2/23 vs n = 4/28); however, there were no differences in postoperative or HAI-specific complications. In the most recent two years, 0 patients in the unresectable group vs 2 patients in the adjuvant group developed biliary sclerosis. All patients were initiated on HAI with no difference in treatment times or dose reductions. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant HAI is safe and feasible for patients with resectable CRLM. HAI programs can carefully consider including patients with resectable CRLM if managed by an experienced multidisciplinary team with quality assurance controls in place.

Evolution of therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer.

Rectal cancer is a prevalent disease worldwide. The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Studies have been done to determine the best sequence of treatments to improve survival, cure rate and long term toxicity profile. In this paper, we will review the literature regarding the evolution of LARC treatment.

Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

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.

Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Cancers originating in the esophagus or esophagogastric junction constitute a major global health problem. Esophageal cancers are histologically classified as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma, which differ in their etiology, pathology, tumor location, therapeutics, and prognosis. In contrast to esophageal adenocarcinoma, which usually affects the lower esophagus, esophageal SCC is more likely to localize at or higher than the tracheal bifurcation. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1, has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on the management of recurrent or metastatic disease.

Paclitaxel With or Without Cixutumumab as Second-Line Treatment of Metastatic Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: A Randomized Phase II ECOG-ACRIN Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced esophageal cancer carry poor prognoses; limited data exist to guide second-line therapy in the metastatic setting. Paclitaxel has been used yet is associated with limited efficacy. There is preclinical evidence of synergy between paclitaxel and cixutumumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor. We conducted a randomized phase II trial of paclitaxel (arm A) versus paclitaxel plus cixutumumab (arm B) in the second-line for patients with metastatic esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers. METHODS: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); 87 patients (43 in arm A, 44 in arm B) were treated. RESULTS: Median PFS was 2.6 months in arm A [90% CL 1.8-3.5] and 2.3 months in arm B [90% 2.0-3.5], P = .86. Stable disease was observed in 29 (33%) patients. Objective response rates for Arms A and B were 12% [90% CI, 5-23%] and 14% [90% CI, 6-25%]. Median overall survival was 6.7 months [90% CL 4.9-9.5] in arm A and 7.2 months [90% CL 4.9-8.1] in arm B, P = 56. CONCLUSION: The addition of cixutumumab to paclitaxel in second-line therapy of metastatic esophageal/GEJ cancer was well tolerated but did not improve clinical outcomes relative to standard of care (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01142388).

Gastrointestinal malignancies in pregnancy.

Gastrointestinal malignancies, though uncommon in pregnancy, present several unique challenges with regards to diagnosis, staging, and treatment. Imaging the pregnant patient with a suspected or confirmed GI malignancy requires modifications to the radiologic modality of choice and protocol in order to minimize harm to the fetus, ensure accuracy in diagnosis and staging and guide treatment decisions. In this review article, we discuss the imaging approach to the pregnant patient with GI cancer, including safe radiologic modalities and modifications to imaging protocols. We also review the most common GI cancers encountered in pregnancy, including colorectal, pancreatic, gastric, and small bowel tumors, with emphasis to imaging findings, staging, and treatment considerations.

Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

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.

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization of Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Long-Term Follow-up for a 136-Patient Cohort.

PURPOSE: Unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) signifies a poor prognosis with limited treatment options beyond systemic chemotherapy. This study's purpose was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and potential for downstaging to resection of yttrium-90 (Y90) radioembolization for treatment of unresectable ICC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2004 to 2020, 136 patients with unresectable ICC were treated with radioembolization at a single institution. Retrospective review was performed of a prospectively collected database. Outcomes were (1) biochemical and clinical toxicities, (2) local tumor response, (3) time to progression, and (4) overall survival (OS) after Y90. Univariate/multivariate survival analyses were performed. A subgroup analysis was performed to calculate post-resection recurrence and OS in patients downstaged to resection after Y90. RESULTS: Grade 3+ clinical and biochemical toxicities were 7.6% (n = 10) and 4.9% (n = 6), respectively. Best index lesion response was complete response in 2 (1.5%), partial response in 42 (32.1%), stable disease in 82 (62.6%), and progressive disease in 5 (3.8%) patients. Median OS was 14.2 months. Solitary tumor (P < 0.001), absence of vascular involvement (P = 0.009), and higher serum albumin (P < 0.001) were independently associated with improved OS. Eleven patients (8.1%) were downstaged to resection and 2 patients (1.5%) were bridged to transplant. R0-resection was achieved in 8/11 (72.7%). Post-resection median recurrence and OS were 26.3 months and 39.9 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Y90 has an acceptable safety profile and high local disease control rates for the treatment of unresectable ICC. Downstaging to resection with > 3 years survival supports the therapeutic role of Y90 for unresectable ICC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, single-arm single-center cohort study.

Selinexor in Advanced, Metastatic Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma: A Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS: SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461). RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.

Gastric Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Over 95% of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are typically classified based on anatomic location and histologic type. Gastric cancer generally carries a poor prognosis because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with localized gastric cancer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Gastric Cancer focuses on the management of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.

Management of colorectal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recommendations from a statewide multidisciplinary cancer collaborative.

COVID-19 has resulted in significant disruptions in cancer care. The Illinois Cancer Collaborative (ILCC), a statewide multidisciplinary cancer collaborative, has developed expert recommendations for triage and management of colorectal cancer when disruptions occur in usual care. Such recommendations would be applicable to future outbreaks of COVID-19 or other large-scale disruptions in cancer care.

Radioembolization With Chemotherapy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Randomized, Open-Label, International, Multicenter, Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: To study the impact of transarterial Yttrium-90 radioembolization (TARE) in combination with second-line systemic chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases (CLM). METHODS: In this international, multicenter, open-label phase III trial, patients with CLM who progressed on oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based first-line therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive second-line chemotherapy with or without TARE. The two primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and hepatic PFS (hPFS), assessed by blinded independent central review. Random assignment was performed using a web- or voice-based system stratified by unilobar or bilobar disease, oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based first-line chemotherapy, and KRAS mutation status. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-eight patients from 95 centers in North America, Europe, and Asia were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with or without TARE; this represents the intention-to-treat population and included 215 patients in the TARE plus chemotherapy group and 213 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; 1-sided P = .0013), with a median PFS of 8.0 (95% CI, 7.2 to 9.2) and 7.2 (95% CI, 5.7 to 7.6) months, respectively. The HR for hPFS was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.77; 1-sided P < .0001), with a median hPFS of 9.1 (95% CI, 7.8 to 9.7) and 7.2 (95% CI, 5.7 to 7.6) months, respectively. Objective response rates were 34.0% (95% CI, 28.0 to 40.5) and 21.1% (95% CI, 16.2 to 27.1; 1-sided P = .0019) for the TARE and chemotherapy groups, respectively. Median overall survival was 14.0 (95% CI, 11.8 to 15.5) and 14.4 months (95% CI, 12.8 to 16.4; 1-sided P = .7229) with a HR of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.32) for TARE and chemotherapy groups, respectively. Grade 3 adverse events were reported more frequently with TARE (68.4% v 49.3%). Both groups received full chemotherapy dose intensity. CONCLUSION: The addition of TARE to systemic therapy for second-line CLM led to longer PFS and hPFS. Further subset analyses are needed to better define the ideal patient population that would benefit from TARE.

Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

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.

Short-Term Risk of Performing Concurrent Procedures with Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump Placement.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic artery infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy is an advanced cancer therapy for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies. The risk of concurrent hepatic and/or colorectal operations with HAIP placement is unknown. Our objective was to characterize the short-term outcomes of concurrent surgery with HAIP placement. METHODS: The 2005-2017 ACS NSQIP dataset was queried for patients undergoing hepatic and colorectal operations with or without HAIP placement. Outcomes were compared for HAIP placement with different combined procedures. Patients who underwent procedures without HAIP placement were propensity score matched with those with HAIP placement. The primary outcome was 30-day death or serious morbidity (DSM). Secondary outcomes included infectious complications, wound complications, length of stay (LOS), and operative time. RESULTS: Of 467 patients who underwent HAIP placement, 83.9% had concurrent surgery. The rate of DSM was 10.7% for HAIP placement alone, 19.2% with concurrent minor hepatic procedures, 22.1% with concurrent colorectal resection, 23.2% with concurrent minor hepatic plus colorectal procedures, 28.4% with concurrent major hepatic resection, and 41.7% with concurrent major hepatic plus colorectal resection. On matched analyses, there was no difference in DSM, infectious, or wound complications for procedures with HAIP placement compared with the additional procedure alone, but operative time (294.7 vs 239.8 min, difference 54.9, 95% CI 42.8-67.0) and LOS (6 vs 5, IRR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08-1.33) were increased. CONCLUSIONS: HAIP placement is not associated with additional morbidity when performed with hepatic and/or colorectal surgery. Decisions regarding HAIP placement should consider the risks of concurrent operations, and patient- and disease-specific factors.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Rectal Cancer, Version 6.2020.

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.

Clinical impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer (CCC19): a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness. METHODS: In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57-76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53-2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07-2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03-2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33-15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11-7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77-9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79-4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07-0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28-0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. INTERPRETATION: Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments. FUNDING: American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.

Failure to administer recommended chemotherapy: acceptable variation or cancer care quality blind spot?

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy quality measures consider hospitals compliant when chemotherapy is recommended, even if it is not received. This may mask shortcomings in cancer care delivery. Objectives of this study were to (1) identify patient factors associated with failure to receive recommended chemotherapy without a documented contraindication and (2) assess hospital variation in failure to administer recommended chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients from 2005 to 2015 with breast, colon and lung cancers who failed to receive recommended chemotherapy were identified using the National Cancer Database. Hospital-level rates of failure to administer recommended chemotherapy were calculated, and patient and hospital factors associated with failure to receive recommended chemotherapy were identified by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 183 148 patients at 1281 hospitals were analysed. Overall, 3.5% of patients with breast, 6.6% with colon and 10.7% with lung cancers failed to receive recommended chemotherapy. Patients were less likely to receive recommended chemotherapy in all cancers if uninsured or on Medicaid (p<0.05), as were non-Hispanic black patients with both breast and colon cancer (p<0.001). Significant hospital variation was observed, with hospital-level rates of failure to administer recommended chemotherapy as high as 21.8% in breast, 40.2% in colon and 40.0% in lung cancers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Though overall rates are low, failure to receive recommended chemotherapy is associated with sociodemographic factors. Hospital variation in failure to administer recommended chemotherapy is masked by current quality measure definitions and may define a significant and unmeasured difference in hospital quality.

Phase II Study of Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy with Oxaliplatin, Infusional 5-Fluorouracil, and Cetuximab Followed by Postoperative Docetaxel and Cetuximab in Patients with Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus: A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E2205).

BACKGROUND: A standard approach to treating resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma is chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery; however, recurrence is common. To improve this, we designed a single-arm, phase II trial that added an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, cetuximab (C), to CRT, with the hypothesis that EGFR inhibition would improve pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We aimed to increase the pCR rate from 25% to 45%. A Simon two-stage design (α and ß of 0.10) required pCR/enrolled 5/18 for stage 1 and 14/40 total. CRT: oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 days 1, 15, and 29; infusional 5-fluorouracil 180 mg/m2 /24 hours × 35 days; C 400 mg/m2 day 1 then 250 mg/m2 days 8, 15, 22, and 29 and radiation (intensity modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] allowed) 180 cGy/day × 25 fractions (Monday through Friday). Following esophagectomy, adjuvant chemotherapy (CT): weekly docetaxel 35 mg/m2 and C 250 mg/m2 5 out of 6 weeks for two cycles. RESULTS: Of 21 eligible patients enrolled, 17 had surgery; 4 died before operation (due to pulmonary embolism 4 days after CRT, G3 diarrhea, progressive disease during CRT, sepsis/hypoxia during CRT, and acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS]). pCR = 7/17. Three postoperative deaths due to ARDS resulted in seven total study-related deaths. Of the 14 remaining patients, 12 started and completed adjuvant CT. Two of seven patients with pCR died, both of ARDS. Out of the 21 eligible subjects in this study, 13 have died and 8 remain alive. The use of IMRT did not correlate with ARDS. CONCLUSION: This regimen demonstrated promising activity. Toxicity was significant, with seven study-related deaths leading to closure after stage 1. All postoperative deaths were due to ARDS. This regimen is not recommended. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Esophageal cancer is a disease with a high death rate. The current treatment involves giving chemotherapy plus radiation followed by surgery, but this cures only a quarter of patients. In order to improve survival, better treatments are needed. This trial evaluated the addition of a novel drug, cetuximab, to chemotherapy plus radiation. Unfortunately, the side effects were too great and the study was stopped early.