Read the full review for this F1000Prime recommended article: Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews and 10 randomized controlled trials met the systematic review inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: Doublet chemotherapy should be offered, or triplet therapy may be offered to patients with previously untreated, initially unresectable mCRC, on the basis of included studies of chemotherapy in combination with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies. In the first-line setting, pembrolizumab is recommended for patients with mCRC and microsatellite instability-high or deficient mismatch repair tumors; chemotherapy and anti–epidermal growth factor receptor therapy is recommended for microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair left-sided treatment-naive RAS wild-type mCRC; chemotherapy and anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy is recommended for microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair RAS wild-type right-sided mCRC. Encorafenib plus cetuximab is recommended for patients with previously treated BRAF V600E–mutant mCRC that has progressed after at least one previous line of therapy. Cytoreductive surgery plus systemic chemotherapy may be recommended for selected patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases; however, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is not recommended. Stereotactic body radiation therapy may be recommended following systemic therapy for patients with oligometastases of the liver who are not considered candidates for resection. Selective internal radiation therapy is not routinely recommended for patients with unilobar or bilobar metastases of the liver. Perioperative chemotherapy or surgery alone should be offered to patients with mCRC who are candidates for potentially curative resection of liver metastases. Multidisciplinary team management and shared decision making are recommended. Qualifying statements with further details related to implementation of guideline recommendations are also included. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Evidence from observational studies that the use of surgical safety checklists results in striking improvements in surgical outcomes led to the rapid adoption of such checklists worldwide. However, the effect of mandatory adoption of surgical safety checklists is unclear. A policy encouraging the universal adoption of checklists by hospitals in Ontario, Canada, provided a natural experiment to assess the effectiveness of checklists in typical practice settings.

Background: Adequate lymph node evaluation is required for proper staging of colorectal cancer, and the number of lymph nodes examined is associated with survival. According to current guidelines, the recommended minimum number of lymph nodes examined to ensure adequate sampling is 12. We used data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program to determine the proportion of colorectal cancer patients in the United States who receive adequate lymph node evaluation. Methods: For 116 995 adults with colorectal adenocarcinoma, diagnosed from 1988 through 2001, who underwent radical surgery and did not receive neoadjuvant radiation, we evaluated the number of lymph nodes, the likelihood of receiving adequate lymph node evaluation (i.e., at least 12 lymph nodes examined), and the influence of tumor and patient factors on lymph node evaluation. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Among all patients, the median number of lymph nodes examined was nine. Only 37% of all patients received adequate lymph node evaluation. The proportion of patients receiving adequate lymph node evaluation increased from 32% in 1988 to 44% in 2001 (P_trend<.001, Cochran–Armitage test). Advanced tumor stage was statistically significantly associated with adequate lymph node evaluation (odds ratio [OR] of receiving adequate lymph node evaluation=2.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.18 to 2.35). Older patients (≥71 years, OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.44 to 0.47) were less likely to receive adequate lymph node evaluation than younger patients, and those with left-sided (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.44 to 0.47) or rectal (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.50 to 0.54) cancers were less likely to receive adequate lymph node evaluation than patients with right-sided cancers. In all analyses, geographic location was an important predictor of adequate lymph node evaluation, which ranged from 33% to 53%, depending on geographic location. Conclusions: In 2001, the majority of patients with colorectal cancer still received inadequate lymph node evaluation. The association of demographic variables, particularly patient age and geographic location, with adequate lymph node evaluation indicates that local surgical and pathology practice patterns may affect adequacy of lymph node evaluation.