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 .

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have few treatment options that yield objective responses. Retrospective and small prospective studies suggest that capecitabine and temozolomide are associated with high response rates (RRs) and long progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: E2211 was a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial comparing temozolomide versus capecitabine/temozolomide in patients with advanced low-grade or intermediate-grade pancreatic NETs. Key eligibility criteria included progression within the preceding 12 months and no prior temozolomide, dimethyl-triazeno-imidazole-carboxamide or dacarbazine, capecitabine or fluorouracil. The primary end point was PFS; secondary endpoints were overall survival, RR, safety, and methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) by immunohistochemistry and promoter methylation. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were enrolled between April 2013 and March 2016 to temozolomide (n = 72) or capecitabine and temozolomide (n = 72); the primary analysis population included 133 eligible patients. At the scheduled interim analysis in January 2018, the median PFS was 14.4 months for temozolomide versus 22.7 months for capecitabine/temozolomide (hazard ratio = 0.58), which was sufficient to reject the null hypothesis for the primary end point (stratified log-rank P = .022). In the final analysis (May 2021), the median overall survival was 53.8 months for temozolomide and 58.7 months for capecitabine/temozolomide (hazard ratio = 0.82, P = .42). MGMT deficiency was associated with response. CONCLUSION: The combination of capecitabine/temozolomide was associated with a significant improvement in PFS compared with temozolomide alone in patients with advanced pancreatic NETs. The median PFS and RR observed with capecitabine/temozolomide are the highest reported in a randomized study for pancreatic NETs. MGMT deficiency was associated with response, and although routine MGMT testing is not recommended, it can be considered for select patients in need of objective response (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01824875 ).

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

Purpose: Alterations in the RAS and RAF pathway relate to epigenetic and epigenomic aberrations, and are important in colorectal carcinogenesis. KRAS mutation in metastatic colorectal cancer predicts resistance to anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted therapy (cetuximab or panitumumab). It remains uncertain, however, whether KRAS mutation predicts prognosis or clinical outcome of colon cancer patients independent of anti-EGFR therapy. Methods: We conducted a study of 508 cases identified among 1,264 patients with stage III colon cancer who enrolled in a randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin with or without irinotecan) in 1999-2001 (CALGB 89803). KRAS mutations were detected in 178 tumors (35%) by pyrosequencing. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models assessed the prognostic significance of KRAS mutation and adjusted for potential confounders including age, sex, tumor location, tumor/node stage, performance status, adjuvant chemotherapy arm, and microsatellite instability status. Results: Compared with patients with KRAS-wild-type tumors, patients with KRAS-mutated tumors did not experience any difference in disease-free, recurrence-free, or overall survival. The 5-year disease-free, recurrence-free, and overall survival rates (KRAS-mutated versus KRAS-wild-type patients) were 62% versus 63% (log-rank P = 0.89), 64% versus 66% (P = 0.84), and 75% versus 73% (P = 0.56), respectively. The effect of KRAS mutation on patient survival did not significantly differ according to clinical features, chemotherapy arm, or microsatellite instability status, and the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy assignment on outcome did not differ according to KRAS status. Conclusions: In this large trial of chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer patients, KRAS mutational status was not associated with any significant influence on disease-free or overall survival. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(23):7322–9)

The social stigma surrounding an anal cancer diagnosis has traditionally prevented open discussions about this disease. However, as recent treatment options and an increasing rate of diagnoses are made worldwide, awareness is growing. In the United States alone, 9,090 individuals were expected to be diagnosed with anal cancer in 2021. The US annual incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus continues to increase by 2.7% yearly, whereas the mortality rate increases by 3.1%. The main risk factor for anal cancer is a human papillomavirus infection; those with chronic immunosuppression are also at risk. Patients with HIV are 19 times more likely to develop anal cancer compared with the general population. In this review, we have provided an overview of the carcinoma of the anal canal, the role of screening, advancements in radiation therapy, and current trials investigating acute and chronic treatment–related toxicities. This article is a comprehensive approach to presenting the existing data in an effort to encourage continuous international interest in anal cancer.

PURPOSE: Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPC) remains a difficult-to-treat disease. Fluorouarcil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and leucovorin (FFX) is a standard first-line therapy for mPC for patients with a favorable performance status and good organ function. In a phase I study, devimistat (CPI-613) in combination with modified FFX (mFFX) was deemed safe and exhibited promising efficacy in mPC. METHODS: The AVENGER 500 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03504423 ) is a global, randomized phase III trial conducted at 74 sites across six countries to investigate the efficacy and safety of devimistat in combination with mFFX (experimental arm) compared with standard-dose FFX (control arm) in treatment-naïve patients with mPC. Treatment, administered in once-every-2-weeks cycles until disease progression or intolerable toxicity, included intravenous devimistat at 500 mg/m ² total per day on days 1 and 3 in the experimental arm. The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty-eight patients were randomly assigned (266 in the experimental arm and 262 in the control arm). The median OS was 11.10 months for devimistat plus mFFX versus 11.73 months for FFX (hazard ratio [HR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.18]; P = .655) and median progression-free survival was 7.8 months versus 8.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.29]; P = .94). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events with >10% frequency in the devimistat plus mFFX arm versus the FFX arm were neutropenia (29.0% v 34.5%), diarrhea (11.2% v 19.6%), hypokalemia (13.1% v 14.9%), anemia (13.9% v 13.6%), thrombocytopenia (11.6% v 13.6%), and fatigue (10.8% v 11.5%), respectively. CONCLUSION: Devimistat in combination with mFFX did not improve long- and short-term mPC patient outcomes compared with standard FFX. There were no new toxicity signals with the addition of devimistat.