PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of published phase III randomized controlled trials (2007-2020) on systemic therapy for advanced HCC and provide recommended care options for this patient population. RESULTS: Nine phase III randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line treatment of most patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and following management of esophageal varices, when present, according to institutional guidelines. Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or lenvatinib may be offered as first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and ECOG PS 0-1. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, and until better data are available, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options for appropriate candidates include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, or ramucirumab (for patients with α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL), or atezo + bev where patients did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also reasonable options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Consideration of nivolumab + ipilimumab as an option for second-line therapy and third-line therapy is discussed. Further guidance on choosing between therapy options is included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Mobile technology has become a ubiquitous part of everyday life and is changing the way we offer clinical care and perform clinical research. We have unprecedented access to data for one’s self-care as well as for sharing with health care providers. Meeting the challenge posed by the influx of wearable device data requires a multidisciplinary team of researchers, clinicians, software developers, information technologists, and statisticians. Although the possibility of what can be achieved with the ever-evolving wearable technologies seems to be unlimited, regulatory agencies have provided a framework to establish standards for clinical applications, which will also affect research applications. Clinical programs and electronic medical records vendors should prepare to establish a framework to implement these technologies into clinicians’ workflow and to allow feedback to measure the impact on clinical outcome. In this article, we discuss how a new brand of multidisciplinary care is evolving around mobile health devices and present a vision of up-and-coming technology in this space.

Commercially available physical activity monitors provide clinicians an opportunity to obtain oncology patient health measures to an unprecedented degree. These devices can provide objective and quantifiable measures of physical activity, which are not subject to errors or bias of self-reporting or shorter duration of formal testing. Prior work on so-called quantified-self data was based on older-generation, research-grade accelerometers, which laid the foundation for consumer-based physical activity monitoring devices to be validated as a feasible and reliable tool in patients with cancer. Physical activity monitors are being used in chronic conditions including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, and obesity. Differing demographics, compounded with higher symptom and treatment burdens in patients with cancer, imply that additional work is needed to understand the unique strengths and weaknesses of physical activity monitors in this population. Oncology programs can systematically implement these tools into their workflows in an adaptable and iterative manner. Translating large amounts of data collected from an individual physical activity monitoring device into clinically relevant information requires sophisticated data compilation and reduction. In this article, we summarize the characteristics of older- and newer-generation physical activity monitors, review the validation of physical activity monitors with respect to health-related quality-of-life assessments, and describe the current role of these devices for the practicing oncologist. We also highlight the challenges and next steps needed for physical activity monitors to provide relevant information that can change the current state of oncology practice.