Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations for adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage II colon cancer.

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice.

RESULTS

Twenty-one observational studies and six randomized controlled trials met the systematic review inclusion criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) is not routinely recommended for patients with stage II colon cancer who are not in a high-risk subgroup. Patients with T4 tumors are at higher risk of recurrence and should be offered ACT, whereas patients with other high-risk factors, including sampling of fewer than 12 lymph nodes in the surgical specimen, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, poorly or undifferentiated tumor grade, intestinal obstruction, tumor perforation, or grade BD3 tumor budding, may be offered ACT. The addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidine-based ACT is not routinely recommended, but may be offered as a result of shared decision making. Patients with mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability tumors should not be routinely offered ACT; if the combination of mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability and high-risk factors results in a decision to offer ACT, oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is recommended. Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Related collections

Most cited references 65

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Cancer Statistics, 2021

Rebecca Siegel, Kimberly D Miller, Hannah Fuchs … (2021)

Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence. Incidence data (through 2017) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2018) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2021, 1,898,160 new cancer cases and 608,570 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. After increasing for most of the 20th century, the cancer death rate has fallen continuously from its peak in 1991 through 2018, for a total decline of 31%, because of reductions in smoking and improvements in early detection and treatment. This translates to 3.2 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred if peak rates had persisted. Long-term declines in mortality for the 4 leading cancers have halted for prostate cancer and slowed for breast and colorectal cancers, but accelerated for lung cancer, which accounted for almost one-half of the total mortality decline from 2014 to 2018. The pace of the annual decline in lung cancer mortality doubled from 3.1% during 2009 through 2013 to 5.5% during 2014 through 2018 in men, from 1.8% to 4.4% in women, and from 2.4% to 5% overall. This trend coincides with steady declines in incidence (2.2%-2.3%) but rapid gains in survival specifically for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). For example, NSCLC 2-year relative survival increased from 34% for persons diagnosed during 2009 through 2010 to 42% during 2015 through 2016, including absolute increases of 5% to 6% for every stage of diagnosis; survival for small cell lung cancer remained at 14% to 15%. Improved treatment accelerated progress against lung cancer and drove a record drop in overall cancer mortality, despite slowing momentum for other common cancers.

0 comments Cited 7192 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Defective mismatch repair as a predictive marker for lack of efficacy of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy in colon cancer.

Daniel Sargent, Silvia Marsoni, Geneviève Monges … (2010)

Prior reports have indicated that patients with colon cancer who demonstrate high-level microsatellite instability (MSI-H) or defective DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) have improved survival and receive no benefit from fluorouracil (FU) -based adjuvant therapy compared with patients who have microsatellite-stable or proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) tumors. We examined MMR status as a predictor of adjuvant therapy benefit in patients with stages II and III colon cancer. MSI assay or immunohistochemistry for MMR proteins were performed on 457 patients who were previously randomly assigned to FU-based therapy (either FU + levamisole or FU + leucovorin; n = 229) versus no postsurgical treatment (n = 228). Data were subsequently pooled with data from a previous analysis. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Overall, 70 (15%) of 457 patients exhibited dMMR. Adjuvant therapy significantly improved DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.93; P = .02) in patients with pMMR tumors. Patients with dMMR tumors receiving FU had no improvement in DFS (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.42 to 2.91; P = .85) compared with those randomly assigned to surgery alone. In the pooled data set of 1,027 patients (n = 165 with dMMR), these findings were maintained; in patients with stage II disease and with dMMR tumors, treatment was associated with reduced overall survival (HR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.02 to 8.54; P = .04). Patient stratification by MMR status may provide a more tailored approach to colon cancer adjuvant therapy. These data support MMR status assessment for patients being considered for FU therapy alone and consideration of MMR status in treatment decision making.