Lee Jones

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage II colon cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS: Twenty-one observational studies and six randomized controlled trials met the systematic review inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) is not routinely recommended for patients with stage II colon cancer who are not in a high-risk subgroup. Patients with T4 tumors are at higher risk of recurrence and should be offered ACT, whereas patients with other high-risk factors, including sampling of fewer than 12 lymph nodes in the surgical specimen, perineural or lymphovascular invasion, poorly or undifferentiated tumor grade, intestinal obstruction, tumor perforation, or grade BD3 tumor budding, may be offered ACT. The addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidine-based ACT is not routinely recommended, but may be offered as a result of shared decision making. Patients with mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability tumors should not be routinely offered ACT; if the combination of mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability and high-risk factors results in a decision to offer ACT, oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is recommended. Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Cancer is a disease characterized by unrestrained cellular proliferation. In order to sustain growth, cancer cells undergo a complex metabolic rearrangement characterized by changes in metabolic pathways involved in energy production and biosynthetic processes. The relevance of the metabolic transformation of cancer cells has been recently included in the updated version of the review "Hallmarks of Cancer", where dysregulation of cellular metabolism was included as an emerging hallmark. While several lines of evidence suggest that metabolic rewiring is orchestrated by the concerted action of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes, in some circumstances altered metabolism can play a primary role in oncogenesis. Recently, mutations of cytosolic and mitochondrial enzymes involved in key metabolic pathways have been associated with hereditary and sporadic forms of cancer. Together, these results demonstrate that aberrant metabolism, once seen just as an epiphenomenon of oncogenic reprogramming, plays a key role in oncogenesis with the power to control both genetic and epigenetic events in cells. In this review, we discuss the relationship between metabolism and cancer, as part of a larger effort to identify a broad-spectrum of therapeutic approaches. We focus on major alterations in nutrient metabolism and the emerging link between metabolism and epigenetics. Finally, we discuss potential strategies to manipulate metabolism in cancer and tradeoffs that should be considered. More research on the suite of metabolic alterations in cancer holds the potential to discover novel approaches to treat it.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the United States (US) medical education system with the necessary, yet unprecedented Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) national recommendation to pause all student clinical rotations with in-person patient care. This study is a quantitative analysis investigating the educational and psychological effects of the pandemic on US medical students and their reactions to the AAMC recommendation in order to inform medical education policy. METHODS: The authors sent a cross-sectional survey via email to medical students in their clinical training years at six medical schools during the initial peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey questions aimed to evaluate students' perceptions of COVID-19's impact on medical education; ethical obligations during a pandemic; infection risk; anxiety and burnout; willingness and needed preparations to return to clinical rotations. RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-one (29.5%) students responded. Nearly all students (93.7%) were not involved in clinical rotations with in-person patient contact at the time the study was conducted. Reactions to being removed were mixed, with 75.8% feeling this was appropriate, 34.7% guilty, 33.5% disappointed, and 27.0% relieved. Most students (74.7%) agreed the pandemic had significantly disrupted their medical education, and believed they should continue with normal clinical rotations during this pandemic (61.3%). When asked if they would accept the risk of infection with COVID-19 if they returned to the clinical setting, 83.4% agreed. Students reported the pandemic had moderate effects on their stress and anxiety levels with 84.1% of respondents feeling at least somewhat anxious. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) (53.5%) was the most important factor to feel safe returning to clinical rotations, followed by adequate testing for infection (19.3%) and antibody testing (16.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the education of US medical students in their clinical training years. The majority of students wanted to return to clinical rotations and were willing to accept the risk of COVID-19 infection. Students were most concerned with having enough PPE if allowed to return to clinical activities.

IMPORTANCE: Sight is often considered to be the sense most valued by the general public, but there are limited empirical data to support this. This study provides empirical evidence for frequent assertions made by practitioners, researchers, and funding agencies that sight is the most valued sense. OBJECTIVE: To determine which senses are rated most valuable by the general public and quantify attitudes toward sight and hearing loss in particular. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted from March to April 2016 through a market research platform and captured a heterogeneous sample of 250 UK adults ages 22 to 80 years recruited in March 2016. The data were analyzed from October to December 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Participants were first asked to rank the 5 traditional senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste) plus 3 other senses (balance, temperature, and pain) in order of most valuable (8) to least valuable (1). Next, the fear of losing sight and hearing was investigated using a time tradeoff exercise. Participants chose between 10 years without sight/hearing vs varying amounts of perfect health (from 0-10 years). RESULTS: Of 250 participants, 141 (56.4%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 49.5 (14.6) years. Two hundred twenty participants (88%) ranked sight as their most valuable sense (mean [SD] rating, 7.8 [0.9]; 95% CI, 7.6-7.9). Hearing was ranked second (mean [SD] rating, 6.2 [1.3]; 95% CI 6.1-6.4) and balance third (mean [SD] rating, 4.9 [1.7]; 95% CI, 4.7-5.1). All 3 were ranked above the traditional senses of touch, taste, and smell (F7 = 928.4; P < .001). The time tradeoff exercise indicated that, on average, participants preferred 4.6 years (95% CI, 4.2-5.0) of perfect health over 10 years without sight and 6.8 years (95% CI, 6.5-7.2) of perfect health over 10 years without hearing (mean difference between sight and hearing, 2.2 years; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a cross-sectional survey of UK adults from the general public, sight was the most valued sense, followed by hearing. These results suggest that people would on average choose 4.6 years of perfect health over 10 years of life with complete sight loss, although how this generalizes to other parts of the world is unknown.

PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for duration of adjuvant chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin for patients with completely resected stage III colon cancer based on the results of trials of 3 months compared with 6 months of treatment. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of relevant studies. The guideline recommendations were based on the review of evidence by the Expert Panel. RESULTS: Pooled data from the six International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) Collaboration randomized controlled trials comprise the evidence base for these guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: The recommendations for therapy duration apply to patients with completely resected stage III colon cancer who are being offered adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine. Recommendations are informed by the findings of a recent pooled analysis of clinical trials that compared 6 months versus 3 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. For patients at a high risk of recurrence (T4 and/or N2), adjuvant chemotherapy should be offered for a duration of 6 months. For patients at a low risk of recurrence (T1, T2, or T3 and N1), either 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy or a shorter duration of 3 months may be offered on the basis of a potential reduction in adverse events and no significant difference in disease-free survival with the 3-month regimen. In determining duration of therapy, the Expert Panel recommends a shared decision-making approach, taking into account patient characteristics, values and preferences, and other factors and including a discussion of the potential for benefit and risks of harm associated with treatment duration. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .