ACR Appropriateness Criteria® rectal cancer: metastatic disease at presentation

Karyn A. Goodman, Sarah A. Milgrom, Joseph M. Herman, May Abdel-Wahab, Nilofer Azad, A. William Blackstock, Prajnan Das, Theodore S. Hong, Salma K. Jabbour, William E. Jones, Andre A. Konski, Albert C. Koong, Rachit Kumar, Miguel Rodriguez-Bigas, William Small, Charles R. Thomas, W. Warren Suh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The management of rectal cancer in patients with metastatic disease at presentation is highly variable. There are no phase III trials addressing therapeutic approaches, and the optimal sequencing of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery remains unresolved. Although chemoradiation is standard for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer, its role in the metastatic setting is controversial. Omitting chemoradiation may not be appropriate in all stage IV patients, particularly those with symptomatic primary tumors. Moreover, outcomes in this setting are vastly different, as some treatments carry the potential for cure in selected patients, while others are purely palliative. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application, by the panel, of a well-established consensus methodology (Modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used as the basis for recommending imaging or treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)878-871
Number of pages8
JournalOncology
Volume28
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Rectal Neoplasms
Guidelines
Expert Testimony
Therapeutics
Radiology
Radiotherapy
Drug Therapy
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Goodman, K. A., Milgrom, S. A., Herman, J. M., Abdel-Wahab, M., Azad, N., Blackstock, A. W., ... Suh, W. W. (2014). ACR Appropriateness Criteria® rectal cancer: metastatic disease at presentation. Oncology, 28(10), 878-871.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® rectal cancer : metastatic disease at presentation. / Goodman, Karyn A.; Milgrom, Sarah A.; Herman, Joseph M.; Abdel-Wahab, May; Azad, Nilofer; Blackstock, A. William; Das, Prajnan; Hong, Theodore S.; Jabbour, Salma K.; Jones, William E.; Konski, Andre A.; Koong, Albert C.; Kumar, Rachit; Rodriguez-Bigas, Miguel; Small, William; Thomas, Charles R.; Suh, W. Warren.

In: Oncology, Vol. 28, No. 10, 01.10.2014, p. 878-871.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Goodman, KA, Milgrom, SA, Herman, JM, Abdel-Wahab, M, Azad, N, Blackstock, AW, Das, P, Hong, TS, Jabbour, SK, Jones, WE, Konski, AA, Koong, AC, Kumar, R, Rodriguez-Bigas, M, Small, W, Thomas, CR & Suh, WW 2014, 'ACR Appropriateness Criteria® rectal cancer: metastatic disease at presentation', Oncology, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 878-871.
Goodman KA, Milgrom SA, Herman JM, Abdel-Wahab M, Azad N, Blackstock AW et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® rectal cancer: metastatic disease at presentation. Oncology. 2014 Oct 1;28(10):878-871.
Goodman, Karyn A. ; Milgrom, Sarah A. ; Herman, Joseph M. ; Abdel-Wahab, May ; Azad, Nilofer ; Blackstock, A. William ; Das, Prajnan ; Hong, Theodore S. ; Jabbour, Salma K. ; Jones, William E. ; Konski, Andre A. ; Koong, Albert C. ; Kumar, Rachit ; Rodriguez-Bigas, Miguel ; Small, William ; Thomas, Charles R. ; Suh, W. Warren. / ACR Appropriateness Criteria® rectal cancer : metastatic disease at presentation. In: Oncology. 2014 ; Vol. 28, No. 10. pp. 878-871.
@article{4dd3c4622e8b43c88a6587d4d4a2626a,
title = "ACR Appropriateness Criteria{\circledR} rectal cancer: metastatic disease at presentation",
abstract = "The management of rectal cancer in patients with metastatic disease at presentation is highly variable. There are no phase III trials addressing therapeutic approaches, and the optimal sequencing of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery remains unresolved. Although chemoradiation is standard for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer, its role in the metastatic setting is controversial. Omitting chemoradiation may not be appropriate in all stage IV patients, particularly those with symptomatic primary tumors. Moreover, outcomes in this setting are vastly different, as some treatments carry the potential for cure in selected patients, while others are purely palliative. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application, by the panel, of a well-established consensus methodology (Modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used as the basis for recommending imaging or treatment.",
author = "Goodman, {Karyn A.} and Milgrom, {Sarah A.} and Herman, {Joseph M.} and May Abdel-Wahab and Nilofer Azad and Blackstock, {A. William} and Prajnan Das and Hong, {Theodore S.} and Jabbour, {Salma K.} and Jones, {William E.} and Konski, {Andre A.} and Koong, {Albert C.} and Rachit Kumar and Miguel Rodriguez-Bigas and William Small and Thomas, {Charles R.} and Suh, {W. Warren}",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "878--871",
journal = "Oncology",
issn = "0890-9091",
publisher = "UBM Medica Healthcare Publications",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - ACR Appropriateness Criteria® rectal cancer

T2 - metastatic disease at presentation

AU - Goodman, Karyn A.

AU - Milgrom, Sarah A.

AU - Herman, Joseph M.

AU - Abdel-Wahab, May

AU - Azad, Nilofer

AU - Blackstock, A. William

AU - Das, Prajnan

AU - Hong, Theodore S.

AU - Jabbour, Salma K.

AU - Jones, William E.

AU - Konski, Andre A.

AU - Koong, Albert C.

AU - Kumar, Rachit

AU - Rodriguez-Bigas, Miguel

AU - Small, William

AU - Thomas, Charles R.

AU - Suh, W. Warren

PY - 2014/10/1

Y1 - 2014/10/1

N2 - The management of rectal cancer in patients with metastatic disease at presentation is highly variable. There are no phase III trials addressing therapeutic approaches, and the optimal sequencing of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery remains unresolved. Although chemoradiation is standard for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer, its role in the metastatic setting is controversial. Omitting chemoradiation may not be appropriate in all stage IV patients, particularly those with symptomatic primary tumors. Moreover, outcomes in this setting are vastly different, as some treatments carry the potential for cure in selected patients, while others are purely palliative. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application, by the panel, of a well-established consensus methodology (Modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used as the basis for recommending imaging or treatment.

AB - The management of rectal cancer in patients with metastatic disease at presentation is highly variable. There are no phase III trials addressing therapeutic approaches, and the optimal sequencing of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery remains unresolved. Although chemoradiation is standard for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer, its role in the metastatic setting is controversial. Omitting chemoradiation may not be appropriate in all stage IV patients, particularly those with symptomatic primary tumors. Moreover, outcomes in this setting are vastly different, as some treatments carry the potential for cure in selected patients, while others are purely palliative. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every 3 years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application, by the panel, of a well-established consensus methodology (Modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures. In instances in which evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used as the basis for recommending imaging or treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925232472&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925232472&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 25323613

VL - 28

SP - 878

EP - 871

JO - Oncology

JF - Oncology

SN - 0890-9091

IS - 10

ER -