Fluorouracil Bolus Use in Infusional Regimens Among Oncologists-A Survey by Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumors.

PURPOSE: The utility of administering fluorouracil (5-FU) in bolus in regimens of infusional 5-FU has been questioned. We aimed to quantify the use of 5-FU bolus in infusional regimens for gastrointestinal malignancies among Brazilian oncologists. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional electronic survey composed of eight multiple-choice questions sent to Brazilian oncologists during 14 days in February 2021. The survey instrument collected demographic data of participants and assessed practices in terms of 5-FU bolus use. We evaluated the association of demographic variables and 5-FU prescribing patterns with Fisher's exact test (odds ratio [OR]). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 332 medical oncologists. Overall, 37% were experienced oncologists and 32% were gastrointestinal specialists. In the first-line metastatic and in the adjuvant settings, 40% and 67% of oncologists always prescribe 5-FU bolus in infusional regimens, respectively. Experienced oncologists more frequently omit 5-FU bolus when compared with early-career oncologists, both in the metastatic (41% v 26%; OR, 1.98; P = .005) and adjuvant settings (28% v 14%; OR, 2.32; P = .003). In addition, more GI specialists remove 5-FU bolus when compared with generalists, but only in the metastatic setting (44% v 25%; OR, 2.33; P = .001). GI specialists are more likely to consider that treatment efficacy is not affected by 5-FU bolus withdrawal than are generalists (89% v 75%; OR, 2.65; P = .003). Most respondents (67%) keep leucovorin at the same doses when omitting 5-FU bolus, and only 16% always recommend dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase testing. CONCLUSION: Our survey indicates that experience in oncology practice and percentage of time dedicated to treat GI cancers influence the prescription of 5-FU bolus in Brazil, with more frequent omission of it among experienced gastrointestinal specialists, particularly in the metastatic setting.

Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours' consensus guidelines for the management of oesophageal cancer.

Oesophageal cancer is among the ten most common types of cancer worldwide. More than 80% of the cases and deaths related to the disease occur in developing countries. Local socio-economic, epidemiologic and healthcare particularities led us to create a Brazilian guideline for the management of oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction (OGJ) carcinomas. The Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours invited 50 physicians with different backgrounds, including radiology, pathology, endoscopy, nuclear medicine, genetics, oncological surgery, radiotherapy and clinical oncology, to collaborate. This document was prepared based on an extensive review of topics related to heredity, diagnosis, staging, pathology, endoscopy, surgery, radiation, systemic therapy (including checkpoint inhibitors) and follow-up, which was followed by presentation, discussion and voting by the panel members. It provides updated evidence-based recommendations to guide clinical management of oesophageal and OGJ carcinomas in several scenarios and clinical settings.

Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumours' consensus guidelines for the management of gastric cancer.

Gastric cancer is among the ten most common types of cancer worldwide. Most cases and deaths related to the disease occur in developing countries. Local socio-economic, epidemiologic and healthcare particularities led us to create a Brazilian guideline for the management of gastric carcinomas. The Brazilian Group of Gastrointestinal Tumors (GTG) invited 50 physicians with different backgrounds, including radiology, pathology, endoscopy, nuclear medicine, genetics, oncological surgery, radiotherapy and clinical oncology, to collaborate. This document was prepared based on an extensive review of topics related to heredity, diagnosis, staging, pathology, endoscopy, surgery, radiation, systemic therapy and follow-up, which was followed by presentation, discussion, and voting by the panel members. It provides updated evidence-based recommendations to guide clinical management of gastric carcinomas in several scenarios and clinical settings.

Differences in Pathology and Mutation Status Among Colorectal Cancer Patients Younger Than, Older Than, and of Screening Age.

BACKGROUND: Screening protocols for colorectal cancer are broadly recommended and effective in reducing mortality. However, populations from different age groups can harbor distinct pathologic and molecular profiles that can also be influenced by screening and polyp resection, especially in older ages. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed tumors from stage IV colorectal cancer patients from a central pathology laboratory in Brazil that is a reference for mutational profiling countrywide. Patients were classified into age groups as follows: prescreening age (PrSA; < 45 years old), screening age (SA; 45-75 years old), and postscreening age (PoSA; > 75 years old). Every tumor was centrally reviewed by the pathologist. Groups were compared regarding clinicopathologic features, and the presence of RAS (renin-angiotensin system) and BRAF (v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B) mutations. RESULTS: We included 1635 patients (215 PrSA, 1213 SA, 207 PoSA). There was no difference among groups regarding sidedness (P = .65) and KRAS (Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene) mutations (P = .57). Stage IV disease at diagnosis (P = .04), the presence of a signet-ring cell component (P < .001), and poorly differentiated tumors (P = .02) were most common in young patients, while BRAF and NRAS (neuroblastoma RAS viral (v-ras) oncogene homolog) mutations were significantly more common among PoSA patients (P = .002 and .03, respectively). When divided by age decade, KRAS mutations seem to have a stable frequency among all ages, while the BRAF mutation rate increased with increasing age. CONCLUSION: BRAF mutations are more frequent among PoSA patients, and this seems to be a continuous trend. PrSA and PoSA patients seem to present a distinct profile from SA, including differences in molecular and pathologic aspects. These findings could impact the frequency of screening tests among different age groups.

Evidence-based recommendations for gastrointestinal cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Brazilian Gastrointestinal Tumours Group.

PURPOSE: As of 2020, the world is facing the great challenge of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. While the overall mortality is low, the virus is highly virulent and may infect millions of people worldwide. This will consequently burden health systems, particularly by those individuals considered to be at high risk of severe complications from COVID-19. Such risk factors include advanced age, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, diabetes and cancer. However, few data on the outcomes of cancer patients infected by SARS CoV-2 exist. Therefore, there is a lack of guidance on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic. We sought to propose specific recommendations about the management of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. METHODS: The Brazilian Gastrointestinal Tumours Group board of directors and members sought up-to-date scientific literature on each tumour type and discussed all recommendations by virtual meetings to provide evidence-based-and sometimes, expert opinion-recommendation statements. Our objectives were to recommend evidence-based approaches to both treat and minimise the risk of COVID-19 for cancer patients, and simultaneously propose how to decrease the use of hospital resources at a time these resources need to be available to treat COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Overall and tumour-specific recommendations were made by stage (including surgical, locoregional, radiotherapy, systemic treatments and follow-up strategies) for the most common gastrointestinal malignancies: esophagus, gastric, pancreas, bile duct, hepatocellular, colorectal, anal cancer and neuroendocrine tumours. CONCLUSIONS: Our recommendations emphasise the importance of treating cancer patients, using the best evidence available, while simultaneously taking into consideration the world-wide health resource hyperutilisation to treat non-cancer COVID-19 patients.