The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Rectal Cancer address diagnosis, staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, disease surveillance, and survivorship in patients with rectal cancer. This portion of the guidelines focuses on the management of localized disease, which involves careful patient selection for curative-intent treatment options that sequence multimodality therapy usually comprised of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgical resection.

Image-guided tumor ablation has become a well-established hallmark of local cancer therapy. The breadth of options available in this growing field increases the need for standardization of terminology and reporting criteria to facilitate effective communication of ideas and appropriate comparison among treatments that use different technologies, such as chemical (eg, ethanol or acetic acid) ablation, thermal therapies (eg, radiofrequency, laser, microwave, focused ultrasound, and cryoablation) and newer ablative modalities such as irreversible electroporation. This updated consensus document provides a framework that will facilitate the clearest communication among investigators regarding ablative technologies. An appropriate vehicle is proposed for reporting the various aspects of image-guided ablation therapy including classification of therapies, procedure terms, descriptors of imaging guidance, and terminology for imaging and pathologic findings. Methods are addressed for standardizing reporting of technique, follow-up, complications, and clinical results. As noted in the original document from 2003, adherence to the recommendations will improve the precision of communications in this field, leading to more accurate comparison of technologies and results, and ultimately to improved patient outcomes.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation–positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

The NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer provide recommendations regarding diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and survivorship. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Colon Cancer Panel discussions for the 2018 update of the guidelines regarding risk stratification and adjuvant treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer, and treatment of V600E mutation-positive metastatic colorectal cancer with regimens containing vemurafenib.

OverviewColorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2016, an estimated 95,270 new cases of colon cancer and approximately 39,220 cases of rectal cancer will occur. During the same year, an estimated 49,190 people will die of colon and rectal cancer combined. AbstractThis portion of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer focuses on the use of systemic therapy in metastatic disease. Considerations for treatment selection among 32 different monotherapies and combination regimens in up to 7 lines of therapy have included treatment history, extent of disease, goals of treatment, the efficacy and toxicity profiles of the regimens, KRAS/NRAS mutational status, and patient comorbidities and preferences. Location of the primary tumor, the BRAF mutation status, and tumor microsatellite stability should also be considered in treatment decisions. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2017;15(3): 370-398 NCCN Categories of Evidence and ConsensusCategory 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate. These guidelines are also available on the Internet. For the latest update, visit NCCN.org.

ablation in comparison with other available treatments (97,98).

Radiology: Volume 278: Number 2-February 2016 n radiology.rsna.org 601 Purpose:To identify predictors of oncologic outcomes after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CLMs) and to describe and evaluate a modified clinical risk score (CRS) adapted for ablation as a patient stratification and prognostic tool. Materials and Methods:This study consisted of a HIPAA-compliant institutional review board-approved retrospective review of data in 162 patients with 233 CLMs treated with percutaneous RFA between December 2002 and December 2012. Contrast material-enhanced CT was used to assess technique effectiveness 4-8 weeks after RFA. Patients were followed up with contrast-enhanced CT every 2-4 months. Overall survival (OS) and local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS) were calculated from the time of RFA by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank tests and Cox regression models were used for univariate and multivariate analysis to identify predictors of outcomes. Results:Technique effectiveness was 94% (218 of 233). Median LTPFS was 26 months. At univariate analysis, predictors of shorter LTPFS were tumor size greater than 3 cm (P , .001), ablation margin size of 5 mm or less (P , .001), high modified CRS (P = .009), male sex (P = .03), and no history of prior hepatectomy (P = .04) or hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (P = .01). At multivariate analysis, only tumor size greater than 3 cm (P = .01) and margin size of 5 mm or less (P , .001) were independent predictors of shorter LTPFS. Median and 5-year OS were 36 months and 31%. At univariate analysis, predictors of shorter OS were tumor size larger than 3 cm (P = .005), carcinoembryonic antigen level greater than 30 ng/mL (P = .003), high modified CRS (P = .02), and extrahepatic disease (EHD) (P , .001). At multivariate analysis, tumor size greater than 3 cm (P = .006) and more than one site of EHD (P , .001) were independent predictors of shorter OS. Conclusion:Tumor size of less than 3 cm and ablation margins greater than 5 mm are essential for satisfactory local tumor control. Tumor size of more than 3 cm and the presence of more than one site of EHD are associated with shorter OS.q RSNA, 2015

The NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with rectal cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines. These updates include clarifying the definition of rectum and differentiating the rectum from the sigmoid colon; the total neoadjuvant therapy approach for localized rectal cancer; and biomarker-targeted therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, with a focus on new treatment options for patients with BRAF V600E– or HER2 amplification–positive disease.