Advances in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An overview of the current and future therapeutic landscape for clinicians.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is the second most common primary liver tumor and remains a fatal malignancy in the majority of patients. Approximately 20%-30% of patients are eligible for resection, which is considered the only potentially curative treatment; and, after resection, a median survival of 53 months has been reported when sequenced with adjuvant capecitabine. For the 70%-80% of patients who present with locally unresectable or distant metastatic disease, systemic therapy may delay progression, but survival remains limited to approximately 1 year. For the past decade, doublet chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin has been considered the most effective first-line regimen, but results from the recent use of triplet regimens and even immunotherapy may shift the paradigm. More effective treatment strategies, including those that combine systemic therapy with locoregional therapies like radioembolization or hepatic artery infusion, have also been developed. Molecular therapies, including those that target fibroblast growth factor receptor and isocitrate dehydrogenase, have recently received US Food and Drug Administration approval for a defined role as second-line treatment for up to 40% of patients harboring these actionable genomic alterations, and whether they should be considered in the first-line setting is under investigation. Furthermore, as the oncology field seeks to expand indications for immunotherapy, recent data demonstrated that combining durvalumab with standard cytotoxic therapy improved survival in patients with ICC. This review focuses on the current and future strategies for ICC treatment, including a summary of the primary literature for each treatment modality and an algorithm that can be used to drive a personalized and multidisciplinary approach for patients with this challenging malignancy.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy with or without selective dismutase mimetic in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: an adaptive, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1b/2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) has the potential to ablate localised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Selective dismutase mimetics sensitise tumours while reducing normal tissue toxicity. This trial was designed to establish the efficacy and toxicity afforded by the selective dismutase mimetic avasopasem manganese when combined with ablative SBRT for localised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this adaptive, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1b/2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer who had received at least 3 months of chemotherapy and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were enrolled at six academic sites in the USA. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), with block randomisation (block sizes of 6-12) with a maximum of 24 patients per group, to receive daily avasopasem (90 mg) or placebo intravenously directly before (ie, within 180 min) SBRT (50, 55, or 60 Gy in five fractions, adaptively assigned in real time by Bayesian estimates of 90-day safety and efficacy). Patients and physicians were masked to treatment group allocation, but not to SBRT dose. The primary objective was to find the optimal dose of SBRT with avasopasem or placebo as determined by the late onset EffTox method. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03340974, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 25, 2018, and April 29, 2020, 47 patients were screened, of whom 42 were enrolled (median age was 71 years [IQR 63-75], 23 [55%] were male, 19 [45%] were female, 37 [88%] were White, three [7%] were Black, and one [2%] each were unknown or other races) and randomly assigned to avasopasem (n=24) or placebo (n=18); the placebo group was terminated early after failing to meet prespecified efficacy parameters. At data cutoff (June 28, 2021), the avasopasem group satisfied boundaries for both efficacy and toxicity. Late onset EffTox efficacy response was observed in 16 (89%) of 18 patients at 50 Gy and six (100%) of six patients at 55 Gy in the avasopasem group, and was observed in three (50%) of six patients at 50 Gy and nine (75%) of 12 patients at 55 Gy in the placebo group, and the Bayesian model recommended 50 Gy or 55 Gy in five fractions with avasopasem for further study. Serious adverse events of any cause were reported in three (17%) of 18 patients in the placebo group and six (25%) of 24 in the avasopasem group. In the placebo group, grade 3 adverse events within 90 days of SBRT were abdominal pain, acute cholangitis, pyrexia, increased blood lactic acid, and increased lipase (one [6%] each); no grade 4 events occurred. In the avasopasem group, grade 3-4 adverse events within 90 days of SBRT were acute kidney injury, increased blood alkaline phosphatase, haematoma, colitis, gastric obstruction, lung infection, abdominal abscess, post-surgical atrial fibrillation, and pneumonia leading to respiratory failure (one [4%] each).There were no treatment-related deaths but one late death in the avasopasem group due to sepsis in the setting of duodenal obstruction after off-study treatment was reported as potentially related to SBRT. INTERPRETATION: SBRT that uses 50 or 55 Gy in five fractions can be considered for patients with localised pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The addition of avasopasem might further enhance disease outcomes. A larger phase 2 trial (GRECO-2, NCT04698915) is underway to validate these results. FUNDING: Galera Therapeutics.

Comparing Survival After Resection, Ablation, and Radiation in Small Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatectomy is the cornerstone of curative-intent treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, in patients unable to be resected, data comparing efficacy of alternatives including thermal ablation and radiation therapy (RT) remain limited. Herein, we compared survival between resection and other liver-directed therapies for small ICC within a national cancer registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical stage I-III ICC < 3 cm diagnosed 2010-2018 who underwent resection, ablation, or RT were identified in the National Cancer Database. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: Of 545 patients, 297 (54.5%) underwent resection, 114 (20.9%) ablation, and 134 (24.6%) RT. Median OS was similar between resection and ablation [50.5 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 37.5-73.9; 39.5 months, 95% CI 28.7-58.4, p = 0.14], both exceeding that of RT (20.9 months, 95% CI 14.1-28.3). RT patients had high rates of stage III disease (10.4% RT vs. 1.8% ablation vs. 11.8% resection, p < 0.001), but the lowest rates of chemotherapy utilization (9.0% RT vs. 15.8% ablation vs. 38.7% resection, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, resection and ablation were associated with reduced mortality compared with RT [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.33-0.58 and HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.75, p < 0.001, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Resection and ablation were associated with improved survival in patients with ICC < 3 cm compared with RT. Acknowledging confounders, anatomic constraints of ablation, limitations of available data, and need for prospective study, these results favor ablation in small ICC where resection is not feasible.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Biliary Tract Cancers, Version 2.2023.

In 2023, the NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers were divided into 2 separate guidelines: Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Biliary Tract Cancers. The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts meets at least on an annual basis to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. These Guidelines Insights focus on some of the recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers as well as the newly published section on principles of molecular testing.

Implementation of machine learning in the clinic: challenges and lessons in prospective deployment from the System for High Intensity EvaLuation During Radiation Therapy (SHIELD-RT) randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have resulted in significant enthusiasm for their promise in healthcare. Despite this, prospective randomized controlled trials and successful clinical implementation remain limited. One clinical application of ML is mitigation of the increased risk for acute care during outpatient cancer therapy. We previously reported the results of the System for High Intensity EvaLuation During Radiation Therapy (SHIELD-RT) study (NCT04277650), which was a prospective, randomized quality improvement study demonstrating that ML based on electronic health record (EHR) data can direct supplemental clinical evaluations and reduce the rate of acute care during cancer radiotherapy with and without chemotherapy. The objective of this study is to report the workflow and operational challenges encountered during ML implementation on the SHIELD-RT study. RESULTS: Data extraction and manual review steps in the workflow represented significant time commitments for implementation of clinical ML on a prospective, randomized study. Barriers include limited data availability through the standard clinical workflow and commercial products, the need to aggregate data from multiple sources, and logistical challenges from altering the standard clinical workflow to deliver adaptive care. CONCLUSIONS: The SHIELD-RT study was an early randomized controlled study which enabled assessment of barriers to clinical ML implementation, specifically those which leverage the EHR. These challenges build on a growing body of literature and may provide lessons for future healthcare ML adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04277650. Registered 20 February 2020. Retrospectively registered quality improvement study.

Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

Mind the gap: Gendered publication trends in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Investigating scientific publication trends in the field of oncology may highlight opportunities for improved representation, mentorship, collaboration, and advancement for women. METHODS: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of Annals of Surgical Oncology; Cancer; International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP); JAMA Oncology; and Journal of Clinical Oncology in 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2017. Full name and degree credentials per author role (ie, first or senior author), article type, publication year, and citation metrics were collected. First names were used to identify author gender. RESULTS: Across 9189 articles, female representation rose between 1990 and 2017 (first authors: 17.7% in 1990, 36.6% in 2017; senior authors: 11.7% in 1990, 28.5% in 2017). For the 50 most cited articles per year, women comprised a smaller percent of first (26.5%) and senior (19.9%) authors. The average citation count was higher for male first (44.8 per article) and senior (47.1) authors compared to female first (39.7) and senior (44.1) authors. With male senior authors, the first author was more likely male (71.4% male; 25.0% female); with female senior authors, first authors were 50.2% male and 47.6% female. IJROBP had the lowest total female representation among first (25.1%) and senior (16.7%) authors. Women had more MDs with Masters degrees, whereas men held more MDs only and more MDs with PhDs. CONCLUSION: Despite positive trends, substantial gendered differences in oncology publications persist. Fostering more women in oncology research will benefit female representation at many levels of academia and improve productivity, collaboration, and recruitment, especially in technical fields such as radiation and surgical oncology.

Survival Advantage With Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Locoregionally Advanced Rectal Cancer: A Veterans Health Administration Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) after chemoradiation (CRT) and surgery for locoregionally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) is a standard of care in the United States. This study examined the role, optimal regimen, and duration of AC using data from the largest integrated health system in the United States. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry, patients with stage II-III rectal cancer diagnosed in 2001 through 2011 who received neoadjuvant CRT and surgery with or without AC were identified. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank tests, and propensity score (PS) adjustment analysis were used to assess survival. RESULTS: A total of 866 patients were identified; 417 received AC and 449 did not (observation [OBS] group). Median follow-up was 109 months. Median disease-specific survival (DSS) was not reached. Six-year DSS was 73.7%; 79.5% for the AC group versus 68.0% for the OBS group. PS-matched analysis for DSS favored AC (P=.0002). Median overall survival (OS) was 90.8 months. Six-year OS was 56.7%; 64.3% for AC versus 49.6% for OBS. In PS-matched analysis, median OS was 117.4 months for AC and 74.3 months for OBS (P<.0001). A DSS advantage was seen when comparing ≥4 months with <4 months of AC (P=.023). No difference in DSS or OS was seen with single-agent versus multiagent AC. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of patients with LARC treated with neoadjuvant CRT and surgery, OS and DSS were improved among those treated with AC versus OBS. DSS benefits were seen with ≥4 months of AC. No additional benefit was observed with multiagent therapy. In the absence of phase III data, these findings support the use of AC for LARC.

Role of pelvic chemoradiation therapy in patients with initially metastatic anal canal cancer: A National Cancer Database review.

BACKGROUND: Although the management of localized anal canal squamous cell carcinomas is well established, the role of pelvic chemoradiation (CRT) in the treatment of patients presenting with synchronous metastatic (stage IV) disease is poorly defined. This study used a national cancer database to compare the overall survival (OS) rates of patients with synchronous metastatic disease receiving CRT to the pelvis and patients treated with chemotherapy (CT) alone. METHODS: This study included adult patients with anal canal squamous cell carcinomas presenting with synchronous metastases diagnosed from 2004 to 2012. Multiple imputation and 2:1 propensity score matching were used to create a matched data set for testing. The proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for the effect of the treatment group on OS. With only patients in the matched data set, the OS of the treatment groups was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method by treatment group. RESULTS: This study started with an unmatched data set of 978 patients, and 582 patients were selected for the matched data set: 388 in the CRT group and 194 in the CT-alone group. The HR for the group effect was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.92; P = .006). The median OS was 21.1 months in the CRT group (95% CI, 17.4-24.0 months) and 14.6 months in the CT group (95% CI, 12.2-18.4 months). The corresponding 5-year OS rates were 23% (95% CI, 18%-28%) and 14% (95% CI, 7%-21%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this large series analyzing OS in patients with stage IV anal cancer, CRT was associated with improved OS in comparison with CT alone. Because of the lack of prospective data in this setting, this evidence will help to guide treatment approaches in this group of patients.

Guidelines Insights: Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2019.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the liver, gallbladder, and bile ducts. The NCCN Hepatobiliary Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and updated recommendations regarding systemic therapy for first-line and subsequent-line treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Local Tumor Control and Patient Outcome Using Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: iRECIST as a Potential Substitute for Traditional Criteria.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether, compared with traditional criteria, the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 for immune-based therapeutics (iRECIST) improves prediction of local tumor control and survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Fifty-one HCC lesions (mean size, 3.1 cm) treated with SBRT in 41 patients (mean age, 67 years) were retrospectively included. Each patient underwent CT or MRI before SBRT and at least once after SBRT. Best overall response was categorized using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), iRECIST, World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria. Lesions were then classified as local tumor control (i.e., stable disease, partial response, or complete response) or local treatment failure (i.e., progressive disease) by each tumor response criteria. Proportions of local tumor control were compared using the McNemar exact test. The 1-year overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS. The median follow-up after SBRT was 21.0 months. The local tumor control rate was 94.1% (48/51) by iRECIST, 88.2% (45/51) by RECIST 1.1, 72.5% (37/51) by WHO criteria, 80.4% (41/51) by mRECIST, and 72.5% (37/51) by EASL criteria. The local tumor control rate was significantly higher according to iRECIST compared with WHO (p = 0.0010) and EASL (p = 0.0225) criteria. The 1-year survival rate for patients with local tumor control according to iRECIST (86.4%) was higher (although not statistically significant) compared with the 1-year survival rate for patients with local tumor control according to the other response criteria. CONCLUSION. iRECIST may provide more robust interpretation of HCC response after SBRT, yielding improved prediction of local tumor control and 1-year survival rates compared with traditional criteria.

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current State and Future Opportunities.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is a rising cause of morbidity and mortality in the USA and around the world. Surgical resection and liver transplantation are the preferred management strategies; however, less than 30% of patients are eligible for surgery. Stereotactic body radiation therapy is a promising local treatment option for non-surgical candidates. Local control rates between 95 and 100% have been reported at 1-2 years post-treatment, and classical radiation-induced liver disease described with conventional radiation is an unlikely complication from stereotactic radiotherapy. Enrollment in randomized trials will be essential in establishing the role of stereotactic radiation in treatment paradigms for hepatocellular carcinoma.

The role of external beam radiotherapy in the treatment of hepatocellular cancer.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing in incidence and mortality. Although the prognosis remains poor, long-term survival has improved from 3% in 1970 to an 18% 5-year survival rate today. This is likely because of the introduction of well tolerated, oral antiviral therapies for hepatitis C. Curative options for patients with HCC are often limited by underlying liver dysfunction/cirrhosis and medical comorbidities. Less than one-third of patients are candidates for surgery, which is the current gold standard for cure. Nonsurgical treatments include embolotherapies, percutaneous ablation, and ablative radiation. Technological advances in radiation delivery in the past several decades now allow for safe and effective ablative doses to the liver. Conformal techniques allow for both dose escalation to target volumes and normal tissue sparing. Multiple retrospective and prospective studies have demonstrated that hypofractionated image-guided radiation therapy, used as monotherapy or in combination with other liver-directed therapies, can provide excellent local control that is cost effective. Therefore, as the HCC treatment paradigm continues to evolve, ablative radiation treatment has moved from a palliative treatment to both a "bridge to transplant" and a definitive treatment.

The Selective Use of Radiation Therapy in Rectal Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Colorectal cancer has a high global incidence, and standard treatment employs a multimodality approach. In addition to cure, minimizing treatment-related toxicity and improving the therapeutic ratio is a common goal. The following article addresses the potential of omitting radiotherapy in select rectal cancer patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Omission of radiotherapy in rectal cancer is analyzed in the context of historical findings, as well as more recent data describing risk stratification of stage II-III disease, surgical optimization, imaging limitations, improvement in systemic chemotherapeutic agents, and contemporary studies evaluating selective omission of radiotherapy. A subset of rectal cancer patients exists that may be considered low to intermediate risk for locoregional recurrence. With appropriate staging, surgical technique, and possibly improved systemic therapy, it may be feasible to selectively omit radiotherapy in these patients. Current imaging limitations as well as evidence of increased locoregional recurrence following radiotherapy omission lend us to continue supporting the standard treatment of approach of neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy followed by surgical resection until additional improvements and prospective evidence can support otherwise.

Total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: An emerging option.

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has benefited from improved surgical techniques and from the implementation of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT), which have markedly decreased the rates of local recurrence. However, distant metastatic disease remains the most significant cause of death for these patients. Although adjuvant chemotherapy (ChT) after neoadjuvant CRT and definitive surgery is commonly recommended, the value of adjuvant systemic therapy remains less clear. Trials evaluating adjuvant ChT for rectal cancer have been handicapped by poor compliance rates and inconsistent survival results. Shifting systemic therapy delivery to the neoadjuvant setting has the promise to improve compliance rates, reduce toxicity, and decrease distant relapse rates. Recently, multiple prospective trials have reported on the use of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) for patients with LARC, incorporating both ChT and CRT in the neoadjuvant setting. Here, the authors review the promising results from those trials. Because the studies have largely focused on pathologic outcomes (primarily pathologic complete response rates), ongoing phase 2 and 3 trials are now underway assessing the long-term disease-related outcomes with TNT. In addition to improving survival, TNT has the potential to increase the pool of patients with LARC who are eligible for organ preservation, which is also being evaluated. Cancer 2017;123:1497-1506. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiation remains strongly favored over short-course radiotherapy by radiation oncologists in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Short-course radiotherapy (SC-RT) and long-course chemoradiotherapy (LC-CRT) are accepted neoadjuvant treatments of rectal cancer. In the current study, the authors surveyed US radiation oncologists to assess practice patterns and attitudes regarding SC-RT and LC-CRT for patients with rectal cancer. METHODS: The authors distributed a survey to 1701 radiation oncologists regarding treatment of neoadjuvant rectal cancer. Respondents were asked questions regarding the number of patients with rectal cancer treated, preference for SC-RT versus LC-CRT, and factors influencing regimen choice. RESULTS: Of 1659 contactable physicians, 182 responses (11%) were received. Approximately 83% treated at least 5 patients with rectal cancer annually. The majority of responding radiation oncologists (96%) preferred neoadjuvant LC-CRT for the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and 44% never used SC-RT. Among radiation oncologists using SC-RT, respondents indicated they would not recommend this regimen for patients with low (74%) or bulky tumors (70%) and/or concern for a positive circumferential surgical resection margin (69%). The most frequent reasons for not offering SC-RT were insufficient downstaging for sphincter preservation (53%) and a desire for longer follow-up (45%). Many radiation oncologists indicated they would prescribe SC-RT for patients not receiving chemotherapy (62%) or patients with a geographic barrier to receiving LC-CRT (82%). Patient comorbidities appeared to influence regimen preferences for 79% of respondents. Approximately 20% of respondents indicated that altered oncology care reimbursement using capitated payment by diagnosis would impact their consideration of SC-RT. CONCLUSIONS: US radiation oncologists rarely use neoadjuvant SC-RT despite 3 randomized controlled trials demonstrating no significant differences in outcome compared with LC-CRT. Further research is necessary to determine whether longer follow-up coupled with the benefits of lower cost, increased patient convenience, and lower acute toxicity will increase the adoption of SC-RT by radiation oncologists in the United States. Cancer 2017;123:1434-1441. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 1.2017.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the liver, gallbladder, and bile ducts. The NCCN Hepatobiliary Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding locoregional therapy for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Nonoperative management of rectal cancer.

Surgery has long been the primary curative modality for localized rectal cancer. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation has significantly improved local control rates and, in a significant minority, eradicated all disease. Patients who achieve a pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant therapy have an excellent prognosis, although the combination treatment is associated with long-term morbidity. Because of this, a nonoperative management (NOM) strategy has been pursued to preserve sphincter function in select patients. Clinical and radiographic findings are used to identify patients achieving a clinical complete response to chemoradiation, and they are then followed with intensive surveillance. Incomplete, nonresponding and those demonstrating local progression are referred for salvage with standard surgery. Habr-Gama and colleagues have published extensively on this treatment strategy and have laid the groundwork for this approach. This watch-and-wait strategy has evolved over time, and several groups have now reported their results, including recent prospective experiences. Although initial results appear promising, several significant challenges remain for NOM of rectal cancer. Further study is warranted before routine implementation in the clinic.

Role of Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Locally Advanced Colonic Carcinoma in the Modern Chemotherapy Era.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) in the treatment of resected, locally advanced colon cancer is unclear. One randomized controlled trial (Intergroup-0130) addressed this question but failed to meet its accrual goals. Since this trial, few attempts have been made to reassess the role of RT in this clinical setting. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with non-metastatic, American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition stage T4 colonic adenocarcinoma were treated at our institution between 2000 and 2013. All underwent curative-intent surgery. Sixteen patients underwent resection only, 33 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy (ChT), and 13 patients received adjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT). RESULTS: Patients receiving adjuvant CRT were more likely to have T4b (vs. T4a) disease and were more likely to undergo R1 or R2 resection compared with those receiving adjuvant ChT alone. Despite this, multivariate analysis demonstrated that treatment with adjuvant CRT (vs. adjuvant ChT) enhanced locoregional control and disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0.044 and 0.145, respectively; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant RT for T4 colon cancers may be appropriate in select patients, specifically those with T4b lesions and/or residual disease following resection.