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 .

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based guidance for clinicians who treat patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published from 2013 to 2023 was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews, phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies where applicable. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs, two systematic reviews, and one nonrandomized study met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Following assessment with magnetic resonance imaging, for patients with microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair locally advanced rectal cancer, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT; ie chemoradiation [CRT] and chemotherapy) should be offered as initial treatment for patients with tumors located in the lower rectum and/or patients who are at higher risk for local and/or distant metastases. Patients without higher-risk factors may discuss chemotherapy with selective CRT depending on extent of response, TNT, or neoadjuvant long-course CRT or short-course radiation. For patients who are candidates for TNT, the preferred timing for chemotherapy is after radiation, and neoadjuvant long-course CRT is preferred over short-course radiation therapy (RT), however short-course RT may also be a viable treatment option depending on circumstances. Nonoperative management may be discussed as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for patients who have a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. For patients whose tumors are microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient, immunotherapy is recommended. Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Every year, cancer claims millions of lives around the globe. Unfortunately, model systems that accurately mimic human oncology - a requirement for the development of more effective therapies for these patients - remain elusive. Tumor development is an organ-specific process that involves modification of existing tissue features, recruitment of other cell types, and eventual metastasis to distant organs. Recently, tissue engineered microfluidic devices have emerged as a powerful in vitro tool to model human physiology and pathology with organ-specificity. These organ-on-chip platforms consist of cells cultured in 3D hydrogels and offer precise control over geometry, biological components, and physiochemical properties. Here, we review progress towards organ-specific microfluidic models of the primary and metastatic tumor microenvironments. Despite the field's infancy, these tumor-on-chip models have enabled discoveries about cancer immunobiology and response to therapy. Future work should focus on the development of autologous or multi-organ systems and inclusion of the immune system.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related death in the US. CRC frequently metastasizes to the liver and these patients have a particularly poor prognosis. The infiltration of immune cells into CRC tumors and liver metastases accurately predicts disease progression and patient survival. Despite the evident influence of immune cells in the CRC tumor microenvironment (TME), efforts to identify immunotherapies for CRC patients have been limited. Here, we argue that preclinical model systems that recapitulate key features of the tumor microenvironment—including tumor, stromal, and immune cells; the extracellular matrix; and the vasculature—are crucial for studies of immunity in the CRC TME and the utility of immunotherapies for CRC patients. We briefly review the discoveries, advantages, and disadvantages of current in vitro and in vivo model systems, including 2D cell culture models, 3D culture systems, murine models, and organ-on-a-chip technologies.

The peritoneum is the second most common site of metastasis in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Up to half of all patients that undergo curative-intent resection eventually develop peritoneal metastasis (PM), which accounts for significant morbidity and drives mortality. Despite recent advances in management, PM is associated with very poor prognosis, which is often measured in weeks to months. Clinical manifestations including bowel obstruction, ascites, and urinary obstruction have profound impact on quality of life. Even with relatively advanced disease, PM often remains occult on imaging and thus tend to be underdiagnosed and understudied. Many patients with peritoneal-only PM are excluded from clinical trials because response cannot be measured by standard radiographic criteria. Furthermore, as patients with PM are not eligible for surgical resection and low-volume peritoneal disease is often not amenable to percutaneous biopsy, tissue samples for peritoneal-specific translational studies are limited. Intraperitoneal therapeutics have been proposed as an attractive option for PM, as better penetration of tumor tissue can be achieved with less systemic toxicity compared with intravenous chemotherapy. Heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), typically combined with cytoreductive surgery (CRS), is an option for select patients with PM from gynecologic or gastrointestinal primary, and for patients with primary peritoneal mesothelioma. However, the incorporation of locoregional therapy for PM in patients with PDAC has been poorly studied given the aggressive nature of pancreatic cancer and overall poor prognosis. With recent advances in existing treatment options, there may be a subset of patients who may derive benefits from locoregional control with cytoreduction and/or intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Critically, additional work is needed to determine PM-favorable clinical and tumoral predictive biomarkers to identify patients who may benefit from a more aggressive approach. We describe the current state of management of patients with peritoneal metastasis from PDAC and review the available data exploring peritoneal-directed therapy with cytoreductive surgery and/or intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Low back pain (LBP) as a recurrent and costly health problem and one of the leading causes of disability, is common in nurses. It can have adverse effects on the quality of life of nurses and quality of care of patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Back School program on the LBP and functional disability of Iranian nurses. A quasi-experimental methodological design was utilized for this study. Participants were nurses with back pain who participated in the Back School program workshop and completed a self-report visual analogue scales and Roland-Morris Disability questionnaire that measuring LBP and functional disability. Data were analyzed descriptively and comparisons in LBP and functional disability made between groups with t-test for pre-intervention and analysis of covariance for after intervention. Sixty-four participants (16 males, 48 females) completed this survey. The study participants' mean age was 38.9 ± 8.1 years in intervention group and 38.1 ± 8.2 in control group. There were no significant differences in terms of pain (P = 0.575) and disability scores (P = 0.844) before intervention. Although, the intervention led to a decrease in the functional ability and LBP scores of the nurses (P<0.001) in the intervention group compared with that in the control group. Overall, Back School program as an educational strategy can reduce the LBP and functional disability in nurses. This program can be suitable for preventing of pain and functional disability among nurses working in hospital settings.