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.

Creation of a Quality Payment Program Measure for Mismatch Repair or Microsatellite Instability Biomarker Testing Status in Colorectal, Endometrial, Gastroesophageal, or Small Bowel Carcinoma.

CONTEXT.­: Quality measures that are supported by evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are preferred for assessing the quality of pathologists' practices. Careful testing of a measure ensures that scores obtained by that measure reflect the quality of a pathologist's practice. OBJECTIVE.­: To specify a new quality measure and to demonstrate through testing that it is suitable for measuring pathologists' appropriate incorporation of information regarding microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or mismatch repair (MMR) status in pathology reports for colorectal, endometrial, gastroesophageal, and small bowel carcinoma. DESIGN.­: The College of American Pathologists collaborated with the American Gastroenterological Association to specify and test the new measure. Face validity testing was used to investigate the validity of the measure. Feasibility testing was conducted to understand if data elements required by the measure specification were readily accessible. Signal-to-noise analysis was used to characterize the measure's reliability. RESULTS.­: Guideline recommendations for MSI and/or MMR testing supported specifications for the measure. Face validity testing indicated that the measure could distinguish the quality of care provided. Data elements required by the measure specification were found to be accessible, which supported the measure's feasibility. Reliability testing showed that differences in measure score were attributable to real differences in performance rather than random variation in scoring. CONCLUSIONS.­: The Mismatch Repair or Microsatellite Instability Biomarker Testing Status in Colorectal Carcinoma, Endometrial, Gastroesophageal, or Small Bowel Carcinoma measure was appropriately specified, and testing demonstrated that it is well suited for characterizing the quality of pathologists' communication of MMR and/or MSI status.

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.

EBV-Gastritis Preceded the Development of Nasopharyngeal EBV (+) Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma in a Patient With Ruxolitinib-Induced Immunosuppression.

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is acquired early in life as asymptomatic or symptomatic infectious mononucleosis (IM) and remains latent in a few B cells in most individuals. Pathologic EBV-reactivation affects immunosuppressed individuals and manifests as IM-like syndromes, polyclonal lymphoproliferative disorders, EBV-related lymphomas, and carcinomas. EBV-associated gastritis is an underrecognized and very rarely reported entity. We report a case of a 65-year-old woman with ruxolitinib-treated polycythemia vera, who developed EBV viremia and EBV gastritis. The patient improved after the ruxolitinib dose reduction and administration of antiviral therapy. A few months after discontinuation of the antiviral therapy the gastric symptoms recurred, numerous gastric ulcers were identified, and a nasopharyngeal mass was detected. A biopsy of the nasopharynx showed an EBV (+) diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Ruxolitinib was discontinued and the patient was started on rituximab monotherapy with a resolution of symptoms and pathologic improvement. Our case supports earlier reports of an association of ruxolitinib therapy with EBV complications. An early diagnosis of EBV gastritis in immunocompromised patients is important since the gastric infection may precede or co-exist with a developing EBV-associated malignancy. Our case and existing literature suggest that EBV gastritis in symptomatic patients with iatrogenic immunosuppression requires discontinuation of immunosuppressive therapy if feasible, treatment with antivirals, and close surveillance for possible evolving/concurrent EBV (+) malignancy.

Using Online Colorectal Cancer Risk Calculators to Guide Screening Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Several online calculators estimate colorectal cancer risk, but their consistency is unknown. Our objectives were to quantify the variation in predicted risk and to determine which calculators are best used in the clinical setting. METHODS: We used the Google search engine to identify online colorectal cancer risk calculators and assessed the output of each for 3 hypothetical screening scenarios (low-, average-, and high-risk), varied by age (50, 62, 75 years), sex, and race (Black, White), with risk levels based on risk-appropriate values for variables in each model. Estimated risks for models within a given scenario were rated as consistent or inconsistent based on comparison with either the absolute magnitude of difference or average lifetime risk of colorectal cancer. Summary statistics for consistent and inconsistent estimates were compared using chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: We identified 5 online colorectal cancer risk calculators. Inconsistencies were found in none of 5-year, 19% of 10-year, and 81% of lifetime colorectal cancer risk estimate comparisons (P < .001). For a 50-year-old, 22% of risk estimate comparisons were inconsistent, vs 33% for a 62-year-old, and 36% for a 75-year-old (P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Online colorectal cancer risk models are more consistent in predicting colorectal cancer risk for 5- and 10-year time frames compared with lifetime. For a US population, the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool is a rigorously developed calculator that can be used in the clinical setting to provide 5-year and lifetime risk estimates.

An Expert Consensus to Standardize Assessment of Bowel Cleansing for Clinical Trials of Bowel Preparations for Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite regular need for colonoscopy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation (BP) agents is rarely assessed in this population. Assessing BP quality with existing scales may be challenging in CD due to presence of inflammation, bowel resection, and strictures. AIMS: To provide recommendations for assessing BP quality in clinical trials for CD using a modified Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness process. METHODS: Based on systematic reviews and a literature search, 110 statements relating to BP quality assessment in CD were developed. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists rated the statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate using a 9-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Panelists considered it appropriate that central readers, either alone or with local assessment, score BP quality in clinical trials. Central readers should be trained on scoring BP quality and local endoscopists on performing high-quality video recording. Both endoscope insertion and withdrawal phases should be reviewed to score BP quality in each colonic segment and segments should align with endoscopic disease activity indices. The Harefield Cleansing Scale and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale were considered appropriate. The final score should be calculated as the average of all visualized segments. Both total and worst segment scores should also be assessed. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a framework for assessing BP quality in patients with CD based on expert feedback. This framework could support the development or refinement of BP quality scales and the integration of BP quality assessment in future CD studies.

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.

Identification of Lynch Syndrome.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant hereditary cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in any of the 4 DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, or deletions in EPCAM. LS leads to an increased risk of intestinal and extraintestinal cancers, of which colorectal and endometrial cancers are the most common. Individuals at risk for LS can be identified by using clinical criteria, prediction models, and universal tumor testing. Understanding each of these tools, including limitations and mimics of LS, is essential to the early identification of at-risk individuals.

Patients' Willingness to Share Limited Endoscopic Resources: A Brief Report on the Results of a Large Regional Survey.

Background. In some health care systems, patients face long wait times for screening colonoscopy. We sought to assess whether patients at low risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy so higher-risk peers could undergo colonoscopy sooner. Methods. We surveyed 1054 Veterans regarding their attitudes toward repeat colonoscopy and risk-based prioritization. We used multivariable regression to identify patient factors associated with willingness to delay screening for a higher-risk peer. Results. Despite a physician recommendation to stop screening, 29% of respondents reported being "not at all likely" to stop. However, 94% reported that they would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy for a higher-risk peer. Greater trust in physician and greater health literacy were positively associated with willingness to wait, while greater perceived threat of CRC and Black or Latino race/ethnicity were negatively associated with willingness to wait. Conclusion. Despite high enthusiasm for repeat screening, patients were willing to delay their own colonoscopy for higher-risk peers. Appealing to altruism could be effective when utilizing scarce resources.

Outcome Measures for Interventions to Reduce Inappropriate Chronic Drugs: A Narrative Review.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate prescribing is a highly important problem, given the growing aging multimorbid population with associated polypharmacy. An increasing number of studies have recently developed and tested interventions to withdraw inappropriate drugs, a process called deprescribing. However, we still lack complete information on the types and prevalence of measures used to assess the success of such interventions. OBJECTIVE: To categorize and synthesize the full spectrum of measures used in intervention studies focused on reducing inappropriate prescribing of chronic drugs in adults, to standardize measurements in future studies and help researchers design studies inclusive of the important measure types. DESIGN: We searched Ovid/MEDLINE to identify intervention studies focused on deprescribing chronic drugs in adults, published between 2010 and 2019. MEASUREMENTS: We extracted data on study characteristics, intervention components, and outcome measures. We categorized and synthesized the measures using a comprehensive and systematic framework, separating measures of intended and unintended consequences. RESULTS: Most (90/93) studies used measures of appropriate prescribing, such as drug cessation or dose reduction. The following measures were used infrequently across studies: patient-reported experience, preferences, and outcome (12 (13%), 2 (2%), and 25 (27%) studies, respectively); provider-reported experience (11 (12%) studies); patient-provider interaction (4 (4%) studies); and measures of unintended consequences (24 (26%) studies). Studies varied in the type and number of measures assessed, ranging from 1 to 20 different measures by study. CONCLUSION: To ensure initiation, success, and long-term sustainability of deprescribing, it is important to assess the success of intervention studies using clinically relevant patient- and provider-centered measures. This categorized synthesis of outcome measures used in deprescribing studies may facilitate implementation of important measure types (e.g., patient-reported measures and measures of unintended consequences) in future studies. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2390-2398, 2020.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions in the Opportunistic Setting.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality have decreased in the United States in recent decades, largely through opportunistic screening. Although certain organizations have improved internal screening rates by implementing programmatic screening, most of the United States undergoes opportunistic screening. Much effort and resources have been expended comparing screening tests to determine the most effective; however, deeper analysis of the US population has revealed subsets of ethnicities may be grossly underscreened. The most effective screening test remains the test that is completed and adhered to, and a better question may concern the best method of discussing screening.

Measures Used to Assess the Impact of Interventions to Reduce Low-Value Care: a Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: Studies of interventions to reduce low-value care are increasingly common. However, little is known about how the effects of such interventions are measured. OBJECTIVE: To characterize measures used to assess interventions to reduce low-value care. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies published between 2010 and 2016 that examined the effects of interventions to reduce low-value care. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, interventions, and measures. We then developed a framework to classify measures into the following categories: utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered), outcome (e.g., mortality), appropriateness (e.g., overuse of antibiotics), patient-reported (e.g., satisfaction), provider-reported (e.g., satisfaction), patient-provider interaction (e.g., informed decision-making elements), value, and cost. We also determined whether each measure was designed to assess unintended consequences. FINDINGS: A total of 1805 studies were identified, of which 101 published and 16 ongoing studies were included. Of published studies (N = 101), 68% included at least one measure of utilization, 41% of an outcome, 52% of appropriateness, 36% of cost, 8% patient-reported, and 3% provider-reported. Funded studies were more likely to use patient-reported measures (17% vs 0%). Of ongoing studies (registered trials) (N = 16), 69% included at least one measure of utilization, 75% of an outcome, 50% of appropriateness, 19% of cost, 50% patient-reported, 13% provider-reported, and 6% patient-provider interaction. Of published studies, 34% included at least one measure of an unintended consequence as compared to 63% of ongoing studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Most published studies focused on reductions in utilization rather than on clinically meaningful measures (e.g., improvements in appropriateness, patient-reported outcomes) or unintended consequences. Investigators should systematically incorporate more clinically meaningful measures into their study designs, and sponsors should develop standardized guidance for the evaluation of interventions to reduce low-value care.

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy in Older Adults.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this chapter is to highlight current recommendations regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and to review the available literature in order to help inform decision-making in this age group. RECENT FINDINGS: Age is a risk factor for CRC; however, older adults with a history of prior screening are at lower risk for CRC compared to those who have never been screened. Decision-making for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy in older adults is complex and several factors including age, screening history, comorbidities, functional status, bowel preparation, prior experiences, preferences, and barriers need to be considered when weighing risks and benefits. Recent guidelines have started to incorporate life expectancy and prior screening history into their recommendations; however, how to incorporate these factors into actual clinical practice is less clear. There are limited data on the relative benefits of screening and surveillance in older adults and therefore, at this time, decision-making should be individualized and incorporate patient preferences in addition to medical factors.