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 G.
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.
N1 - Funding Information:
Conflicts of interest: Working Group: Before initiation of this Clinical Practice Statement, all members of the working group were required to complete disclosure statements. These statements are maintained at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia, and pertinent disclosures are published with the report. The ASTRO Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement seeks to provide a broad disclosure of outside interests. Where a potential conflict is detected, remedial measures to address any potential conflict are taken and will be noted in the disclosure statement. Nancy Baxter, MD, PhD, receives research funding from Pfizer. Brian Czito, MD, receives research funding from Abbvie and serves on an advisory board for Pfizer. George Fisher, MD, PhD, receives research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Tercica, New Link Genetics, Polaris Group, and Advanced Accelerator Applications. Joseph Herman, MD, MSc, receives research funding from Nucletron. Theodore Hong, MD, serves on advisory boards for Novartis and Eisai. John Kim, MD, receives research funding from Philips. Parag Parikh, MD, receives research funding, honoraria, and travel expenses from Varian and research funding from Philips. He owns stock in Innovative Pulmonary Solutions and consults for Ethicon. The Best Practices Subcommittee chairs reviewed these disclosures and determined they do not present a conflict with respect to these members’ work on this Clinical Practice Statement. Expert Panel: Harvey Mamon, MD, PhD, received honoraria from UptoDate. Jeffrey Tokar, MD, consulted for Boston Scientific. He served on an advisory board for and received honoraria and travel expenses from Augmenix and was also a board member for the Center for GI Innovation and Technology and received patent fees. Richard Goldberg, MD, received research funding and honoraria from Sanofi and served on a data and safety monitoring board for Lilly. Salma Jabbour, MD, provided a talk for Abbott Laboratories.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 American Society for Radiation Oncology..
PY - 2016/5/1
Y1 - 2016/5/1
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
SN - 1879-8500
VL - 6
SP - 166
EP - 175
JO - Practical Radiation Oncology
JF - Practical Radiation Oncology
IS - 3
ER -