Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013: Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines.

16The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: JNCCN (Impact Factor: 4.18). 02/2013; 11(2):141-152.
Source: PubMed


The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer begin with the clinical presentation of the patient to the primary care physician or gastroenterologist and address diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, patient surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and survivorship. The NCCN Colon Cancer Panel meets annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions and to reevaluate and update their recommendations. In addition, the panel has interim conferences as new data necessitate. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Colon Cancer Panel's discussions surrounding metastatic colorectal cancer for the 2013 update of the guidelines. Importantly, changes were made to the continuum of care for patients with advanced or metastatic disease, including new drugs and an additional line of therapy.

1 Follower
22 Reads
  • Source
    • "Previously we have identified camptothecin, a topoisomerase-1 inhibitor, as an anticancer small molecule that can potently promote FOXO3 activity in cancer cells21. Irinotecan (CPT-11), a camptothecin derivative, exerts an anticancer effect on several types of cancer35, and is recommended by national guidelines as first or second line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer in both Europe and the U.S.3637. Irinotecan is a prodrug that requires carboxylesterases for conversion to the active metabolite SN-38 (7-Ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin), which is 100- to 1000-fold more active than irinotecan3839. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. Because the cytotoxic effects of conventional chemotherapies often harm normal tissue cells along with cancer cells, conventional chemotherapies cause many unwanted or intolerable side effects. Thus, there is an unmet medical need to establish a paradigm of chemotherapy-induced differentiation of cancer cells with tolerable side effects. Here we show that low-dose metformin or SN-38 inhibits cell growth or survival in ovarian and breast cancer cells and suppresses their tumor growth in vivo. Low-dose metformin or SN-38 increases FOXO3 nuclear localization as well as the amount of DNA damage markers and downregulates the expression of a cancer-stemness marker CD44 and other stemness markers, including Nanog, Oct-4, and c-Myc, in these cancer cells. This treatment also inhibits spheroid body-formation in 3-dimensional culture. In contrast, silencing FOXO3 diminishes all these cellular events when ovarian/breast cancer cells are treated with the mentioned drugs. These results suggest that low-dose metformin or SN-38 may reprogram these cancer cells into non-cancerous cells in a FOXO3-dependent manner, and may allow patients to overcome these cancers with minimal side effects.
    Scientific Reports 07/2014; 4. DOI:10.1038/srep05810 · 5.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "However, recent evidence shows that there are few choices regarding port-free chemotherapy, especially first-line chemotherapy, for advanced or metastatic CRC. Besides CapeOx with bevacizumab, the other recommendations for first-line chemotherapy for advanced or metastatic CRC in the NCCN guidelines include FOLFOX ± bevacizumab, FOLFIRI ± bevacizumab, FOLFIRI ± ant-EGFR antibody, 5-FU + leucovorin + bevacizumab and FOLFOXIRI; all require central venous port systems [82]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: With the recent advances in chemotherapy for colorectal cancer, the prognosis for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer has been significantly improved. The development of the implantable port system has also enabled patients to receive multiagent chemotherapy with a more satisfactory quality of life. Historically, chemotherapy using implantable port systems was begun to obtain an oncological benefit in the treatment of locoregional cancer. In the 1950s, there was an increasing interest in perfusion techniques for the application of chemotherapeutic agents, such as nitrogen mustard, in the locoregional treatment of metastatic cancer. Among them, the treatment of liver metastasis has interested oncologists for many years. On the other hand, implantable devices were developed during the intervening decades that have enabled patients with colorectal cancer with liver metastases to be treated effectively using hepatic arterial infusion; which became more common in the 1980s. The treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer increasingly requires a multimodal approach and multiple treatment options based not on convenience, but in terms of personalization and efficacy. Therefore, it is important to optimize the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapeutic agents. Implantable port systems for colorectal cancer patients have been essential for oncological practice, and the importance of these systems will remain unchanged in the near future.
    Surgery Today 07/2013; 44(8). DOI:10.1007/s00595-013-0672-8 · 1.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimsThe presence of a BRAF mutation is a strong marker for poor prognosis of colorectal carcinoma (CRC), and can be used as evidence of a sporadic mechanism of mismatch repair deficiency. BRAF mutation may also predict resistance to EGFR-targeted therapy. A BRAF V600E-specific antibody has recently become commercially available. The aim of this study was to determine whether immunohistochemistry can predict BRAF mutations in CRC. Methods and resultsImmunohistochemistry was performed on 52 genotyped CRC cases (17 BRAF mutant, 18 KRAS mutant, 17 BRAF/KRAS wild-type) with monoclonal antibody VE1. Cytoplasmic staining was observed in 71% of BRAF V600E mutant tumours (moderate or strong staining in 50% of these cases). Weak cytoplasmic staining was observed in 17% of KRAS mutant tumours and 35% of wild-type tumours. Non-specific nuclear staining was common. The sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemistry with VE1 for BRAF mutation were 71% and 74%, respectively; when only moderate or strong staining was considered to be positive, the specificity was 100%, but the sensitivity only 35%. Conclusions Immunohistochemistry with VE1 is not a useful surrogate for genotyping in CRC. Although moderate or strong cytoplasmic staining is specific for BRAF V600E mutations, this antibody is insufficiently sensitive to serve as an effective screening tool.
    Histopathology 03/2013; 63(2). DOI:10.1111/his.12154 · 3.45 Impact Factor
Show more