Management of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based guidance for clinicians who treat patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published from 2013 to 2023 was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews, phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies where applicable. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs, two systematic reviews, and one nonrandomized study met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Following assessment with magnetic resonance imaging, for patients with microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair locally advanced rectal cancer, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT; ie chemoradiation [CRT] and chemotherapy) should be offered as initial treatment for patients with tumors located in the lower rectum and/or patients who are at higher risk for local and/or distant metastases. Patients without higher-risk factors may discuss chemotherapy with selective CRT depending on extent of response, TNT, or neoadjuvant long-course CRT or short-course radiation. For patients who are candidates for TNT, the preferred timing for chemotherapy is after radiation, and neoadjuvant long-course CRT is preferred over short-course radiation therapy (RT), however short-course RT may also be a viable treatment option depending on circumstances. Nonoperative management may be discussed as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for patients who have a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. For patients whose tumors are microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient, immunotherapy is recommended.Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Plasma versus Tissue Tumor Mutational Burden as Biomarkers of Durvalumab plus Tremelimumab Response in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the CO.26 Trial.

PURPOSE: Tissue-derived tumor mutation burden (TMB) of ≥10 mutations/Mb is a histology-agnostic biomarker for the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) pembrolizumab. However, the dataset in which this was validated lacked colorectal cancers (CRC), and there is limited evidence for immunotherapy benefits in CRC using this threshold. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CO.26 was a randomized phase II study of 180 patients, comparing durvalumab and tremelimumab (D + T, n = 119 patients) versus best supportive care (BSC; n = 61 patients). ctDNA sequencing was available for 168 patients (n = 118 D + T; n = 50), of whom 165 had evaluable plasma TMB (pTMB). Tissue sequencing was available for 108 patients. Optimal thresholds for stratifying patients based on OS were determined using a minimal P value approach. This report includes the final OS analysis. RESULTS: Tissue TMB ≥10 mutations/Mb was not predictive of benefit from D + T compared with BSC in microsatellite stable (MSS) metastatic CRC [HR, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.28-1.80); P = 0.47]. No tissue TMB threshold could identify a high TMB group that benefited from ICI. By contrast, plasma TMB (pTMB) ≥28 mutations/Mb was predictive of benefit from D + T [HR, 0.34 (95% CI, 0.13-0.85); P = 0.022], as was clonal pTMB ≥10.6 mutations/Mb [HR, 0.10 (95% CI, 0.014-0.79); P = 0.029] and subclonal pTMB ≥25.9/Mb [HR, 0.20 (95% CI, 0.061-0.69); P = 0.010]. Higher pTMB was associated with length of time on cytotoxic agents (P = 0.021) and prior anti-EGFR exposure (P = 2.44 × 10-06). CONCLUSIONS: pTMB derived from either clonal or subclonal mutations may identify a group likely to benefit from immunotherapy, although validation is required. Tissue TMB provided no predictive utility for immunotherapy in this trial.

Impact of grade on workup of rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a retrospective cohort study : Grade impact on workup of rectal NETs.

BACKGROUND: Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (RNETs) are often discovered on screening colonoscopy. Indications for staging and definitive resection are inconsistent in current guidelines. We evaluated the role of grade in guiding staging and procedural decision-making. METHODS: Patients with biopsy confirmed RNETs between 2004 and 2015 were reviewed. Baseline characteristics, staging investigations (biochemical and imaging), and endoscopic/surgical treatment were recorded. Associations between grade, preoperative staging, interventions, and survival were determined using Fisher-Freeman-Halton Exact, log-rank, and Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Amongst 139 patients with RNETs, 9% were aged ≥ 75 years and 44% female. Tumor grade was: 73% grade 1 (G1), 18%, grade 2 (G2) and 9% grade 3 (G3). Staging investigations were performed in 52% of patients. All serum chromogranin A and 97% of 24-hour urine 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid tests were normal. The large majority of staging computed tomography (CT) scans were negative (76%) with subgroup analysis showing no G1 patients with CT identified distant disease compared with 38% of G2 and 50% of G3 patients (p < 0.001). G1 patients were more likely to achieve R0/R1 resections compared to G2 (95% vs. 50%, p < 0.001) and G1 patients had significantly better 5-year overall survival (G1: 98%, G2: 67%, G3: 10%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Tumor grade is important in preoperative workup and surgical decision-making. Biochemical staging may be omitted but staging CT should be considered for patients with grade ≥ 2 lesions. Anatomic resections should be considered for patients with grade 2 disease.

Symptom Burden and Time from Symptom Onset to Cancer Diagnosis in Patients with Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.

Background: The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is decreasing in individuals >50 years due to organised screening but has increased for younger individuals. We characterized symptoms and their timing before diagnosis in young individuals. Methods: We identified all patients diagnosed with CRC between 1990-2017 in British Columbia, Canada. Individuals <50 years (n = 2544, EoCRC) and a matched cohort >50 (n = 2570, LoCRC) underwent chart review to identify CRC related symptoms at diagnosis and determine time from symptom onset to diagnosis. Results: Across all stages of CRC, EoCRC presented with significantly more symptoms than LoCRC (Stage 1 mean ± SD: 1.3 ± 0.9 vs. 0.7 ± 0.9, p = 0.0008; Stage 4: 3.3 ± 1.5 vs. 2.3 ± 1.7, p < 0.0001). Greater symptom burden at diagnosis was associated with worse survival in both EoCRC (p < 0.0001) and LoCRC (p < 0.0001). When controlling for cancer stage, both age (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.8-1.0, p = 0.008) and increasing symptom number were independently associated with worse survival in multivariate models. Conclusions: Patients with EoCRC present with a greater number of symptoms of longer duration than LoCRC; however, time from patient reported symptom onset was not associated with worse outcomes.

Transverse Colon Primary Tumor Location as a Biomarker in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of CCTG/AGITG CO.17 and CO.20 Randomized Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Sidedness is prognostic and predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Transverse colon has been historically excluded from several analyses of sidedness and the optimal division between left- and right-sided colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated transverse colon primary tumor location as a biomarker in mCRC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Pooled analysis of CCTG/AGITG CO.17 and CO.20 trials of cetuximab in chemotherapy-refractory mCRC. Outcomes of patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type (WT) mCRC from CO.17 and KRAS WT mCRC from CO.20 were analyzed according to location. RESULTS: A total of 553 patients were analyzed, 32 (5.8%) with cancers from the transverse, 101 (18.3%) from right, and 420 from (75.9%) left colon. Transverse mCRC failed to reach significant benefit from cetuximab versus best supportive care (BSC) for overall survival [OS; median, 5.9 vs. 2.1 months; HR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28-1.42; P=0.26] and progression-free survival (PFS; median, 1.8 vs. 1.3 months; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.26-1.28; P=0.16). Analyzing exclusively patients randomized to cetuximab, right-sided and transverse had comparable outcomes for OS (median, 5.6 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50-1.34; P=0.43) and PFS (median, 1.9 vs. 1.8 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.26; P=0.31). Patients with left-sided mCRC had superior outcomes with cetuximab compared with transverse for OS (median, 9.7 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.67; P=0.0002) and PFS (median, 3.8 vs. 1.8 months; HR, 0,49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.76; P=0.001). Location was not prognostic in patients treated with BSC alone. CONCLUSIONS: Transverse mCRC has comparable prognostic and predictive features with right-sided mCRC.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Access to Cancer Surgery: Analysis of Surgical Wait Times in British Columbia, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spread, efforts were made to preserve resources for the anticipated surge of COVID-19 patients in British Columbia, Canada. However, the relationship between COVID-19 hospitalizations and access to cancer surgery is unclear. In this project, we analyze the impact of COVID-19 patient volumes on wait time for cancer surgery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using population-based datasets of regional surgical wait times and COVID-19 patient volumes. Weekly median wait times for urgent, nonurgent, cancer, and noncancer surgeries, and maximum volumes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were studied. The results were qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: A sustained association between weekly median wait time for priority and other cancer surgeries and increase hospital COVID-19 patient volumes was not qualitatively discernable. In response to the first phase of COVID-19 patient volumes, relative to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels, wait time were shortened for urgent cancer surgery but increased for nonurgent surgeries. During the second phase, for all diagnostic groups, wait times returned to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels. During the third phase, wait times for all surgeries increased. CONCLUSION: Cancer surgery access may have been influenced by other factors, such as policy directives and local resource issues, independent of hospitalized COVID-19 patient volumes. The initial access limitations gradually improved with provincial and institutional resilience, and vaccine rollout.