onc brain

About · curated by Nick Boehling, MD · @nb2276

2026-06-21

digest generated 2026-08-11

ARS appropriate use criteria for locoregionally recurrent rectal cancer: 116 references, 76 retrospective, combined-modality toward R0 resection reaffirmed.
Lower GI carries the only entry today, and it is a framework rather than a result: an updated modified-Delphi AUC for LRRC where preop RT and/or systemic therapy earn their place by raising the odds of an R0 resection. Authors state no major change to current practice. Per-question ratings and the reirradiation dose/technique recommendations are not in the source excerpt.

GI Lower

A consensus document, not a trial: appropriateness ratings for surgery, preop/periop therapy, NOM, RT/reirradiation and systemic therapy in recurrent rectal cancer, resting largely on retrospective evidence.

ARS Appropriate Use Criteria: Locoregionally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

TL;DRUpdated ARS appropriate use criteria for LRRC, built on 116 references (10 randomized phase 2/3), reaffirming combined-modality therapy toward R0 resection.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

The RT-relevant content sits in PICO question 4 (role of RT/reirradiation), but the excerpt stops before the appropriateness ratings, so dose, fractionation and reirradiation technique recommendations are not reported in source text. What is stated: preoperative RT, systemic therapy, or both are positioned as tools to raise the odds of an R0 resection, which frames RT as resectability-directed rather than definitive.

Monday clinic

In a previously irradiated patient with pelvic sidewall or presacral recurrence being staged for salvage, this frames preoperative RT or chemoRT as a means to margin-negative resection; it does not settle reirradiation dose or the nonoperative alternative.

The longer read
10 details 5 trials watching

Literature-based systematic review plus RAND/UCLA modified Delphi appropriateness rating, run under the standing ARS AUC methodology with PICOTS framing and PRISMA 2020 assessment. Two rounds of voting; ratings collapse to usually not appropriate, may be appropriate, usually appropriate.

Locoregionally recurrent rectal cancer. Eligible evidence was prospective observational, phase 2/3, and retrospective series of at least 25 patients, published January 1, 2013 to July 16, 2025, English language, animal studies excluded.

There is no efficacy endpoint. The output is an appropriateness rating per treatment option across five PICO questions: surgery, preoperative/perioperative therapy, nonoperative management, RT/reirradiation, and systemic therapy.

116 references carried the evidence: 10 well-designed randomized phase 2/3, 29 moderately well designed, 76 retrospective, 1 meta-analysis. The committee's stated conclusion is that margin-negative resection is the ultimate determinant of survival and local control, with preoperative systemic therapy, RT, or both used to facilitate it.

Study designn
Well-designed (randomized phase 2 and phase 3)10
Moderately well designed (matched cohort, phase 2)29
Design limitations (retrospective)76
Meta-analysis1
patients with locoregionally recurrent rectal cancer under multidisciplinary evaluation for salvage
Does not represent primary rectal cancer, or patients whose recurrence is managed for distant metastatic disease rather than pelvic control.

Two thirds of the evidence base (76 of 116) is retrospective, so a modified Delphi vote is doing work the trials cannot. The document is an executive summary: the per-scenario appropriateness grid, which is the part a reader would carry to tumor board, is not in the source excerpt available here.

The committee explicitly declines to move practice, framing the update as reassurance about combined-modality therapy rather than a new position. For a radiation oncologist the operative question is where RT sits relative to surgical resectability, and the summary answers it in one direction only: RT is a means to R0, not an alternative to it.

Sourced from Miller, Eric D. et al.

📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER Miller, Eric D.; Jethwa, Krishan R.; Dozois, Eric et al. · Cancer (2026-06)
Executive summary of American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria for the treatment of locoregionally recurrent rectal cancer
Abstract
Abstract This literature‐based systematic review and associated guidelines provide evidence‐based paradigms for the management of locoregionally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). This multispecialty committee included gastrointestinal radiation and medical oncology, gastroenterology, radiology, and colorectal surgery. As is the standard, the previously described American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria methodology for this project was followed rigorously, with the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, and Study Design framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses methodology to assess the evidence. RAND/University of California Los Angeles consensus methodology (modified Delphi) was used to rate the appropriateness of treatment options. Published between January 1, 2013, and July 16, 2025, 116 peer‐reviewed trials provided the evidence: 10 were well‐designed randomized phase 2/3 trials, 29 were moderately well designed trials that accounted for most common biases (matched cohort and phase 2), 76 trials had design limitations (retrospective), and one was a meta‐analysis. Clinical cases were created as examples to illustrate current acceptable management of LRRC. Treatment and prognosis are influenced by prior therapy and the site(s) and extent of LRRC. The ability to achieve a margin‐negative surgical resection is the ultimate determinant of survival and local control. Preoperative systemic therapy, radiation therapy, or a combination of the two can facilitate tumor downsizing and improve the likelihood of a margin‐negative resection. An individualized multidisciplinary approach is required to ensure the best outcome. Although this review does not suggest a major alteration of current practice, it provides reassuring evidence of the importance of combined‐modality therapy.
📝 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.70464