Appropriate customization of radiation therapy for stage II and III rectal cancer: Executive summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Statement using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

Karyn A. Goodman, Caroline E. Patton, George A. Fisher, Sarah E. Hoffe, Michael Haddock, Parag J. Parikh, John Kim, Nancy N. Baxter, Brian G. Czito, Theodore S. Hong, Joseph M. Herman, Christopher H. Crane, Karen E. Hoffman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To summarize results of a Clinical Practice Statement on radiation therapy for stage II-III rectal cancer, which addressed appropriate customization of (neo)adjuvant radiation therapy and use of non-surgical therapy for patients who are inoperable or refuse abdominoperineal resection. Methods and materials: The RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, Appropriateness Method was applied to combine current evidence with multidisciplinary expert opinion. A systematic literature review was conducted and used by the expert panel to rate appropriateness of radiation therapy options for different clinical scenarios. Treatments were categorized by median rating as Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate. Results: In the neoadjuvant setting, chemoradiation was rated Appropriate and the ratings indicated short-course radiation therapy, chemotherapy alone, and no neoadjuvant therapy are potential options in selected patients. However, neoadjuvant endorectal brachytherapy was rated Rarely Appropriate. For adjuvant therapy, chemoradiation (plus ≥. 4 months of chemotherapy) was rated Appropriate and chemotherapy alone May Be Appropriate for most scenarios. For medically inoperable patients, definitive external beam radiation therapy and chemotherapy alone were rated May Be Appropriate, whereas endorectal brachytherapy and chemoradiation plus endorectal brachytherapy were possible approaches for some scenarios. The last option, definitive chemoradiation, was rated Appropriate to May Be Appropriate based on performance status. Finally, for patients with low-lying tumors refusing abdominoperineal resection, definitive chemoradiation alone, chemoradiation plus endorectal brachytherapy, and chemoradiation plus external beam radiation therapy were all rated Appropriate. Conclusions: This Clinical Practice Statement demonstrated the central role of radiation therapy in stage II-III rectal cancer management and evaluated ways to better individualize its use in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and definitive settings. Ongoing trials may clarify areas of continuing uncertainty and allow further customization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPractical Radiation Oncology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Sep 11 2015

Fingerprint

Rectal Neoplasms
Radiotherapy
Brachytherapy
Drug Therapy
Neoadjuvant Therapy
Los Angeles
Expert Testimony
Uncertainty
Therapeutics
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Appropriate customization of radiation therapy for stage II and III rectal cancer : Executive summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Statement using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. / Goodman, Karyn A.; Patton, Caroline E.; Fisher, George A.; Hoffe, Sarah E.; Haddock, Michael; Parikh, Parag J.; Kim, John; Baxter, Nancy N.; Czito, Brian G.; Hong, Theodore S.; Herman, Joseph M.; Crane, Christopher H.; Hoffman, Karen E.

In: Practical Radiation Oncology, 11.09.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Goodman, Karyn A. ; Patton, Caroline E. ; Fisher, George A. ; Hoffe, Sarah E. ; Haddock, Michael ; Parikh, Parag J. ; Kim, John ; Baxter, Nancy N. ; Czito, Brian G. ; Hong, Theodore S. ; Herman, Joseph M. ; Crane, Christopher H. ; Hoffman, Karen E. / Appropriate customization of radiation therapy for stage II and III rectal cancer : Executive summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Statement using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. In: Practical Radiation Oncology. 2015.
@article{844fa594079d47e7954c14d4b03c8691,
title = "Appropriate customization of radiation therapy for stage II and III rectal cancer: Executive summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Statement using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method",
abstract = "Purpose: To summarize results of a Clinical Practice Statement on radiation therapy for stage II-III rectal cancer, which addressed appropriate customization of (neo)adjuvant radiation therapy and use of non-surgical therapy for patients who are inoperable or refuse abdominoperineal resection. Methods and materials: The RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, Appropriateness Method was applied to combine current evidence with multidisciplinary expert opinion. A systematic literature review was conducted and used by the expert panel to rate appropriateness of radiation therapy options for different clinical scenarios. Treatments were categorized by median rating as Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate. Results: In the neoadjuvant setting, chemoradiation was rated Appropriate and the ratings indicated short-course radiation therapy, chemotherapy alone, and no neoadjuvant therapy are potential options in selected patients. However, neoadjuvant endorectal brachytherapy was rated Rarely Appropriate. For adjuvant therapy, chemoradiation (plus ≥. 4 months of chemotherapy) was rated Appropriate and chemotherapy alone May Be Appropriate for most scenarios. For medically inoperable patients, definitive external beam radiation therapy and chemotherapy alone were rated May Be Appropriate, whereas endorectal brachytherapy and chemoradiation plus endorectal brachytherapy were possible approaches for some scenarios. The last option, definitive chemoradiation, was rated Appropriate to May Be Appropriate based on performance status. Finally, for patients with low-lying tumors refusing abdominoperineal resection, definitive chemoradiation alone, chemoradiation plus endorectal brachytherapy, and chemoradiation plus external beam radiation therapy were all rated Appropriate. Conclusions: This Clinical Practice Statement demonstrated the central role of radiation therapy in stage II-III rectal cancer management and evaluated ways to better individualize its use in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and definitive settings. Ongoing trials may clarify areas of continuing uncertainty and allow further customization.",
author = "Goodman, {Karyn A.} and Patton, {Caroline E.} and Fisher, {George A.} and Hoffe, {Sarah E.} and Michael Haddock and Parikh, {Parag J.} and John Kim and Baxter, {Nancy N.} and Czito, {Brian G.} and Hong, {Theodore S.} and Herman, {Joseph M.} and Crane, {Christopher H.} and Hoffman, {Karen E.}",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.prro.2015.11.014",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Practical Radiation Oncology",
issn = "1879-8500",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Appropriate customization of radiation therapy for stage II and III rectal cancer

T2 - Executive summary of an ASTRO Clinical Practice Statement using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method

AU - Goodman, Karyn A.

AU - Patton, Caroline E.

AU - Fisher, George A.

AU - Hoffe, Sarah E.

AU - Haddock, Michael

AU - Parikh, Parag J.

AU - Kim, John

AU - Baxter, Nancy N.

AU - Czito, Brian G.

AU - Hong, Theodore S.

AU - Herman, Joseph M.

AU - Crane, Christopher H.

AU - Hoffman, Karen E.

PY - 2015/9/11

Y1 - 2015/9/11

N2 - Purpose: To summarize results of a Clinical Practice Statement on radiation therapy for stage II-III rectal cancer, which addressed appropriate customization of (neo)adjuvant radiation therapy and use of non-surgical therapy for patients who are inoperable or refuse abdominoperineal resection. Methods and materials: The RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, Appropriateness Method was applied to combine current evidence with multidisciplinary expert opinion. A systematic literature review was conducted and used by the expert panel to rate appropriateness of radiation therapy options for different clinical scenarios. Treatments were categorized by median rating as Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate. Results: In the neoadjuvant setting, chemoradiation was rated Appropriate and the ratings indicated short-course radiation therapy, chemotherapy alone, and no neoadjuvant therapy are potential options in selected patients. However, neoadjuvant endorectal brachytherapy was rated Rarely Appropriate. For adjuvant therapy, chemoradiation (plus ≥. 4 months of chemotherapy) was rated Appropriate and chemotherapy alone May Be Appropriate for most scenarios. For medically inoperable patients, definitive external beam radiation therapy and chemotherapy alone were rated May Be Appropriate, whereas endorectal brachytherapy and chemoradiation plus endorectal brachytherapy were possible approaches for some scenarios. The last option, definitive chemoradiation, was rated Appropriate to May Be Appropriate based on performance status. Finally, for patients with low-lying tumors refusing abdominoperineal resection, definitive chemoradiation alone, chemoradiation plus endorectal brachytherapy, and chemoradiation plus external beam radiation therapy were all rated Appropriate. Conclusions: This Clinical Practice Statement demonstrated the central role of radiation therapy in stage II-III rectal cancer management and evaluated ways to better individualize its use in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and definitive settings. Ongoing trials may clarify areas of continuing uncertainty and allow further customization.

AB - Purpose: To summarize results of a Clinical Practice Statement on radiation therapy for stage II-III rectal cancer, which addressed appropriate customization of (neo)adjuvant radiation therapy and use of non-surgical therapy for patients who are inoperable or refuse abdominoperineal resection. Methods and materials: The RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, Appropriateness Method was applied to combine current evidence with multidisciplinary expert opinion. A systematic literature review was conducted and used by the expert panel to rate appropriateness of radiation therapy options for different clinical scenarios. Treatments were categorized by median rating as Appropriate, May Be Appropriate, or Rarely Appropriate. Results: In the neoadjuvant setting, chemoradiation was rated Appropriate and the ratings indicated short-course radiation therapy, chemotherapy alone, and no neoadjuvant therapy are potential options in selected patients. However, neoadjuvant endorectal brachytherapy was rated Rarely Appropriate. For adjuvant therapy, chemoradiation (plus ≥. 4 months of chemotherapy) was rated Appropriate and chemotherapy alone May Be Appropriate for most scenarios. For medically inoperable patients, definitive external beam radiation therapy and chemotherapy alone were rated May Be Appropriate, whereas endorectal brachytherapy and chemoradiation plus endorectal brachytherapy were possible approaches for some scenarios. The last option, definitive chemoradiation, was rated Appropriate to May Be Appropriate based on performance status. Finally, for patients with low-lying tumors refusing abdominoperineal resection, definitive chemoradiation alone, chemoradiation plus endorectal brachytherapy, and chemoradiation plus external beam radiation therapy were all rated Appropriate. Conclusions: This Clinical Practice Statement demonstrated the central role of radiation therapy in stage II-III rectal cancer management and evaluated ways to better individualize its use in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and definitive settings. Ongoing trials may clarify areas of continuing uncertainty and allow further customization.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84975783211&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84975783211&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prro.2015.11.014

DO - 10.1016/j.prro.2015.11.014

M3 - Article

C2 - 26922700

AN - SCOPUS:84975783211

JO - Practical Radiation Oncology

JF - Practical Radiation Oncology

SN - 1879-8500

ER -