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.

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.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cutaneous melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies and BRAF-targeted therapy. This article summarizes the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy as adjuvant treatment of resected disease and as treatment of unresectable or distant metastatic disease.

Purpose National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) receive treatment at centers with expertise, but whether provider experience affects survival is unknown. Patients and Methods The effect of institutional experience on overall survival (OS) in patients with stage III or IV HNC was investigated within a randomized trial of the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG 0129), which compared cisplatin concurrent with standard versus accelerated fractionation radiotherapy. As a surrogate for experience, institutions were classified as historically low- (HLACs) or high-accruing centers (HHACs) based on accrual to 21 RTOG HNC trials (1997 to 2002). The effect of accrual volume on OS was estimated by Cox proportional hazards models. Results Median RTOG accrual (1997 to 2002) at HLACs was four versus 65 patients at HHACs. Analysis included 471 patients in RTOG 0129 (2002 to 2005) with known human papillomavirus and smoking status. Patients at HLACs versus HHACs had better performance status (0: 62% v 52%; P = .04) and lower T stage (T4: 26.5% v 35.3%; P = .002) but were otherwise similar. Radiotherapy protocol deviations were higher at HLACs versus HHACs (18% v 6%; P < .001). When compared with HHACs, patients at HLACs had worse OS (5 years: 51.0% v 69.1%; P = .002). Treatment at HLACs was associated with increased death risk of 91% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.65) after adjustment for prognostic factors and 72% (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.40) after radiotherapy compliance adjustment. Conclusion OS is worse for patients with HNC treated at HLACs versus HHACs to cooperative group trials after accounting for radiotherapy protocol deviations. Institutional experience substantially influences survival in locally advanced HNC.