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.

Geographic and Demographic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer: A National Cancer Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Area of residence may adversely affect survival and outcomes in many cancers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of geographical and demographic disparities on survival of patients with colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) colon, rectosigmoid, and rectal datasets. Patients were categorized by area of residence, namely, metropolitan (MA), urban (UA), or rural (RA). Sociodemographic and tumor-related data were collected and analyzed to evaluate variables affecting overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 973,139 patients between 2004 and 2013 were included in the study, of which 83%, 15%, and 2% were MA, UA, and RA residents, respectively. RA and UA patients were mostly white male with low income and no comorbidities. In univariate analysis, OS was worse for RA (hazard ratio [HR] 1.10) and UA (HR 1.06) colorectal cancer patients than that for MA colorectal cancer patients. In multivariate analysis revealed significant association between OS and geographic residence, with worse OS for RA (HR 1.02, p = 0.04) and UA (HR 1.01, p = 0.003) patients. Black (HR 1.14) and Native American (HR 1.17) patients had worse outcomes, while Asians (HR 0.8), women (HR 0.88), and patients with higher income had improved OS (HR 0.88). CONCLUSION: The differences in the OS for RA and UA patients with colorectal cancer were significantly driven by economic disparity. Area of residence represents an important factor independently limiting access to care, particularly in geographically isolated individuals.

Postoperative Restrictive Opioid Protocols and Durable Changes in Opioid Prescribing and Chronic Opioid Use.

Importance: Changes in postsurgical opioid prescribing practices may help reduce chronic opioid use in surgical patients. Objective: To investigate whether postsurgical acute pain across different surgical subspecialties can be managed effectively after hospital discharge with an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days and whether this reduction in prescribed opioids is associated with reduced new, persistent opioid use. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective cohort study with a case-control design, a restrictive opioid prescription protocol (ROPP) specifying an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days after discharge from surgery along with standardized patient education was implemented across all surgical services at a tertiary-care comprehensive cancer center. Participants were all patients who underwent surgery from August 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were the rate of compliance with the ROPP in each surgical service, the mean number of prescription days and refill requests, type of opioid prescribed, and rate of conversion to chronic opioid use determined via a state-run opioid prescription program. Postsurgical complications were also measured. Results: A total of 4068 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [13.8] years; 2528 women [62.1%]) were included, with 2017 in the pre-ROPP group (August 1, 2018, to January 31, 2019) and 2051 in the post-ROPP group (February 1, 2019, to July 31, 2019). The rate of compliance with the protocol was 95%. After implementation of the ROPP, mean opioid prescription days decreased from a mean (SD) of 3.9 (4.5) days in the pre-ROPP group to 1.9 (3.6) days in the post-ROPP group (P < .001). The ROPP implementation led to a 45% decrease in prescribed opioids after surgery (mean [SD], 157.22 [338.06] mean morphine milligram equivalents [MME] before ROPP vs 83.54 [395.70] MME after ROPP; P < .001). Patients in the post-ROPP cohort requested fewer refills (367 of 2051 [17.9%] vs 422 of 2017 [20.9%] in the pre-ROPP cohort; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in surgical complications. The conversion rate to chronic opioid use decreased following ROPP implementation among both opioid-naive patients with cancer (11.3% [143 of 1267] to 4.5% [118 of 2645]; P < .001) and those without cancer (6.1% [19 of 310] to 2.7% [16 of 600]; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, prescribing an opioid supply of 3 or fewer days to surgical patients after hospital discharge was feasible for most patients, led to a significant decrease in the number of opioids prescribed after surgery, and was associated with a significantly decreased conversion to long-term opioid use without concomitant increases in refill requests or significant compromises in surgical recovery.

Resolution of Paraneoplastic Lumbosacral Plexopathy in a Patient With Stage III Rectal Cancer after Curative Resection.

Paraneoplastic syndromes are rare but possible manifestations of colorectal cancer. We present THE CASE of a 51-year-old female diagnosed with cT3N2 rectal adenocarcinoma who developed back pain and progressive muscle weakness during preoperative treatment. She had a rapid worsening in mobility and was ultimately ambulating with a wheelchair, despite physical therapy and conservative treatments. Extensive laboratory workup including onconeural antibodies was negative and her lower extremity electromyogram was suggestive of a subacute demyelinating lumbosacral plexopathy. After multidisciplinary discussion, the decision was made to proceed with curative resection. She had significant improvement in her weakness following resection, suggesting a paraneoplastic etiology. One year after resection, she remains free of disease and is ambulating comfortably. Onconeural antibodies can be a helpful diagnostic tool, but their absence does not rule out paraneoplastic disease. A high index of suspicion is necessary when assessing patients with atypical symptoms, particularly with the rise of colorectal cancer in young adults.

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.

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.

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.

Pathologic Complete Response Despite Nodal Yield Has Best Survival in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the ability of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCR) to diminish lymph node yield (LNY) and how that relationship is influenced by tumor response in patients undergoing proctectomy for locally advanced rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with rectal adenocarcinomas from 2004 to 2014. Patients that received nCR were compared with those that underwent surgery alone. LNY was stratified into <12 and ≥12 groups to determine their differences in stage specific overall survival. RESULTS: Of 56,812 patients 46.5% underwent surgery alone and 53.5% were administered nCR. There were more patients with LNY<12 in the nCR group compared to surgery alone, across all stages (44.1% versus 36.5%, P < 0.001). nCR improved OS regardless of LNY (P < 0.001). Although patients with LNY≥12 had improved overall survival, patients who had a pathologic complete response (pCR) achieved the greatest survival. In patients that did not achieve a pCR, LNY≥12 was a marker of improved OS but LNY did not impact OS in patients that attained pCR (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although nCR diminished LNY, LNY≥12 improved OS demonstrating the importance of quality total mesorectal excision. However, LNY did not impact patients that achieved pCR. These patients, who achieved the best OS, demonstrated that tumors' biologic response to nCR had the greatest impact on patient outcomes.

Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract that has increased in incidence across recent years. Often diagnosed at an advanced stage, outcomes for SBA are worse on average than for other related malignancies, including colorectal cancer. Due to the rarity of this disease, few studies have been done to direct optimal treatment, although recent data have shown that SBA responds to treatment differently than colorectal cancer, necessitating a separate approach to treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma were created to establish an evidence-based standard of care for patients with SBA. These guidelines provide recommendations on the workup of suspected SBA, primary treatment options, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, and systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Additionally, principles of imaging and endoscopy, pathologic review, surgery, radiation therapy, and survivorship are described.

Preoperative radiation as part of a multidisciplinary strategy for a medically inoperable patient with a bleeding colon cancer.

An 84-year-old man with a history of deep vein thrombosis on warfarin and coronary artery disease presented with haematochezia and was diagnosed with an ascending colon cancer. He was short of breath with lower extremity oedema at the initial surgical consultation. Evaluation revealed an acute exacerbation of congestive heart failure, and further workup and treatment were recommended by the cardiology team. After multidisciplinary discussion, he underwent radiation for the control of bleeding, followed by cardiac catheterisation and placement of a bare metal stent. The patient subsequently underwent robotic-assisted right hemicolectomy. Pathology demonstrated a complete response, and the patient recovered uneventfully. He is alive swith no evidence of disease recurrence 12 months after surgery and 18 months after initial diagnosis.

Nonoperative management after neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: A single institution experience over 5 years.

BACKGROUND: Nonoperative or "watch and wait" strategies have emerged as a potential option for patients with rectal cancer that obtain a complete clinic response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy. We sought to evaluate our patients that experienced a cCR and their outcomes after non-operative management. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients at our center with rectal cancer from 2012 to 2016. We then identified patients that had a documented "complete clinical response" of their tumors after different neoadjuvant treatments and underwent non-operative management. Patients were followed on a surveillance schedule that included physical exam, endoscopy and imaging. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients elected to undergo nonoperative management with a mean patient age of 67 years old. All patients were treated with neoadjuvant long course chemoradiotherapy. Seven patients were treated with initial induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and 11 received consolidation chemotherapy. During a median follow-up of 27.6 months, there were 6 (21%) recurrences (1 = local, 1 = local and distant, 4 distant). Of the 6 total recurrences, 5 patients were candidates for salvage surgical resection. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant treatment strategies may facilitate durable rates of cCR. Continued responses after these treatments could possibly enable more patients to undergo nonoperative management. We believe nonoperative management can be offered to patients seeking rectal preservation, but more research is required to select the appropriate patients. For those patients experiencing recurrence, the majority of patients can be salvaged surgically.

A novel anesthesiologist-led multidisciplinary model for evaluating high-risk surgical patients at a comprehensive cancer center.

The objective of this retrospective analysis was to describe the development and implementation of an anesthesiologist-led multidisciplinary committee to evaluate high-risk surgical patients in order to improve surgical appropriateness. The study was conducted in an anesthesia preoperative evaluation clinic at an academic comprehensive cancer center. One hundred sixty-seven high-risk surgical patients with cancer-related diagnoses were evaluated and discussed at a High-Risk Committee (HRC) meeting to determine surgical appropriateness and optimize perioperative care. The HRC is an anesthesiologist-led model for multidisciplinary review of high-risk patients developed at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. The group of high-risk patients in which surgery was not performed had, on average, a greater percentage of hypertension, smoking history, dyspnea, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, renal failure, and sleep apnea than the group in whom surgery was performed. Only one of 107 high-risk patients who had surgery died within the first 30 days after surgery. A smaller percentage of patients died in the group that had surgery versus the group in which surgery was canceled. For all patients discussed by the HRC, the mortality was less than 2% within the first 30 days after the HRC.

Association of Clinicopathologic and Molecular Markers on Stage-specific Survival of Right Versus Left Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that variability in molecular markers correlates with poorer survival outcomes in patients with right-sided colon cancer (RCC) compared with left-sided colon cancer (LCC). However, several studies have shown conflicting results when examined stage for stage. We examined RCC and LCC to assess for differences in histopathologic features and overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with RCC and LCC from 2004 to 2013. A propensity-adjusted analysis evaluating the association between the primary site and OS was performed. RESULTS: Of the 422,443 patients identified, 54.7% had RCC and 45.3% had LCC. For all stages, the patients with RCC were older, had more poorly differentiated tumors, and had a greater degree of microsatellite instability compared with those with LCC. Patients with RCC also had more KRAS mutations than did those with LCC. RCC patients had poorer 3- and 5-year OS at all stages, especially stage 3 (62% vs. 73% and 50% vs. 62%, respectively; P < .001). The median OS was 77.5 months for LCC and 62.3 months for RCC (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The present study is one of the largest studies demonstrating that RCC and LCC are different biologic entities. Patients with RCC had significantly greater rates of microsatellite instability for all stages, which has been previously shown to be prognostically advantageous. However, the results of the present study showed poorer OS at every disease stage for RCC compared with LCC. These factors have important implications for the further use of targeted therapies in the treatment of advanced colon cancer.

Disparities in major surgery for esophagogastric cancer among hospitals by case volume.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to characterize disparities among centers performing major surgery for esophageal or gastric cancer stratified by case volume. METHODS: The National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) was queried for cases of esophagectomy or total gastrectomy. Centers were compared based on number of cases during 2004-2013: low volume [1-99], middle [100-200], and high [>200]. RESULTS: For esophagectomy, 17,547 patients were included; 73.5% were treated in low volume centers, 14.6% in middle, and 11.9% in high. For gastrectomy, 20,059 patients were included, with 87.5%, 8.3%, and 4.3%, respectively. Patients treated at low volume centers were more likely to be of racial/ethnic minorities, uninsured, and have lower socioeconomic status. Overall survival (OS) was superior for patients treated at high volume centers. On multivariable analysis for either procedure, a higher number of disparate factors was identified in the low and middle volume centers compared to the high volume centers, which were associated with poorer OS. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified higher numbers of disparate patient factors associated with low/middle volume centers compared to high volume centers, which were associated with worse OS, and further makes the case for performance of esophagectomy and total gastrectomy at high volume centers.

Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma provide recommendations for the management of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal or perianal region. Primary treatment of anal cancer usually includes chemoradiation, although certain lesions can be treated with margin-negative local excision alone. Disease surveillance is recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is essential for optimal patient care.

Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Rectal Cancer address diagnosis, staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, disease surveillance, and survivorship in patients with rectal cancer. This portion of the guidelines focuses on the management of localized disease, which involves careful patient selection for curative-intent treatment options that sequence multimodality therapy usually comprised of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgical resection.