The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was published in 2018, and covered the diagnosis, management, treatment and follow-up of early, intermediate and advanced disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2018 it was decided by both the ESMO and the Taiwan Oncology Society (TOS) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the Taiwan Joint Cancer Conference (TJCC) in May 2019 in Taipei. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2018 guidelines to take into account both the ethnic and the geographic differences in practice associated with the treatment of HCC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with intermediate and advanced/relapsed HCC representing the oncology societies of Taiwan (TOS), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO) Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS) and Singapore (SSO). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of the current treatment practices, the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

PURPOSE To provide resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on the treatment and follow-up of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. METHODS ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings. RESULTS Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines . NOTICE It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.

383 Background: The anti–PD-1 antibody pembro showed efficacy and manageable safety in the global phase 2 KEYNOTE-224 and phase 3 KEYNOTE-240 studies of patients (pts) with previously treated advanced HCC, a population of high unmet need. KEYNOTE-394 is a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study conducted in Asia to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pembro vs placebo, both given with BSC, as second-line therapy for previously treated advanced HCC (NCT03062358). Methods: Eligible pts in Asia with confirmed advanced HCC and progression on or intolerance to sorafenib or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to pembro 200 mg or placebo Q3W for ≤35 cycles plus BSC per local guidelines. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were PFS, ORR, DOR, DCR, and TTP, all assessed per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review, and safety. Treatment differences were assessed using the stratified log-rank test (OS and PFS) or the stratified Miettinen & Nurminen method (ORR). The P value boundary for OS superiority at final analysis (FA) was 0.019307. If OS was superior, PFS and ORR superiority at the second interim analysis (IA2; primary analysis timepoint for these endpoints) could be tested at boundaries of 0.013447 and 0.009139, respectively. Results: 453 pts were randomized to pembro (N = 300) or placebo (N = 153). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between arms; 90.7% had received sorafenib as first-line therapy. As of the June 30, 2021 cutoff date for FA, median study follow-up was 33.8 mo (range 18.7-49.0). At FA, pembro significantly improved OS vs placebo (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, P = 0.0180); median (95% CI) OS was 14.6 mo (12.6-18.0) for pembro vs 13.0 mo (10.5-15.1) for placebo and 24-mo OS rate was 34.3% vs 24.9%. At IA2, pembro significantly improved PFS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.92, P = 0.0032) and ORR (estimated difference 11.4%, 95% CI 6.7-16.0, P = 0.00004); median (95% CI) PFS was 2.6 mo (1.5-2.8) for pembro vs 2.3 mo (1.4-2.8) for placebo, 12-mo PFS rates were 15.9% vs 1.4%, and ORR was 12.7% vs 1.3%. At FA, ORR was 13.7% vs 1.3%, median DOR was 23.9 mo vs 5.6 mo, DCR was 52.7% vs 47.7%, and median TTP was 2.7 mo vs 1.7 mo (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.90). At FA, treatment-related AEs occurred in 66.9% of pts in the pembro arm and 49.7% in the placebo arm, including 14.4% and 5.9% with grade 3-5 events. 3 pts (1.0%) in the pembro arm and 0 in the placebo arm died of treatment-related AEs. Conclusions: Pembro plus BSC significantly improved OS, PFS, and ORR compared with placebo plus BSC as second-line therapy for patients from Asia with advanced HCC. The pembro safety profile was as expected. Overall, results were consistent with those previously observed in KEYNOTE-224 and KEYNOTE-240 and thus add to the body of evidence supporting the use of pembro as second-line therapy for advanced HCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03062358.

In vivo dosimetry is important during radiotherapy to ensure the accuracy of the dose delivered to the treatment volume. A dosimeter should be characterized based on its application before it is used for in vivo dosimetry. In this study, we characterize a new MOSFET‐based detector, the MOSkin detector, on surface for in vivo skin dosimetry. The advantages of the MOSkin detector are its water equivalent depth of measurement of 0.07 mm, small physical size with submicron dosimetric volume, and the ability to provide real‐time readout. A MOSkin detector was calibrated and the reproducibility, linearity, and response over a large dose range to different threshold voltages were determined. Surface dose on solid water phantom was measured using MOSkin detector and compared with Markus ionization chamber and GAFCHROMIC EBT2 film measurements. Dependence in the response of the MOSkin detector on the surface of solid water phantom was also tested for different (i) source to surface distances (SSDs); (ii) field sizes; (iii) surface dose; (iv) radiation incident angles; and (v) wedges. The MOSkin detector showed excellent reproducibility and linearity for dose range of 50 cGy to 300 cGy. The MOSkin detector showed reliable response to different SSDs, field sizes, surface, radiation incident angles, and wedges. The MOSkin detector is suitable for in vivo skin dosimetry.PACS number: 87.55.Qr

Stage III NSCLC represents a heterogeneous disease for which optimal treatment continues to pose a clinical challenge. Recent changes in the American Joint Commission on Cancer staging to the eighth edition has led to a shift in TNM stage grouping and redefined the subcategories (IIIA-C) in stage III NSCLC for better prognostication. Although concurrent chemoradiotherapy has remained standard-of-care for stage III NSCLC for almost 2 decades, contemporary considerations include the impact of different molecular subsets of NSCLC, and the roles of tyrosine kinase inhibitors post-definitive therapy and of immune checkpoint inhibitors following chemoradiotherapy. With rapid evolution of diagnostic algorithms and expanding treatment options, the need for interdisciplinary input involving multiple specialists (medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pulmonologists, radiologists, pathologists and thoracic surgeons) has become increasingly important. The unique demographics of Asian NSCLC pose further challenges when applying clinical trial data into clinical practice. This includes differences in smoking rates, prevalence of oncogenic driver mutations, and access to health care resources including molecular testing, prompting the need for critical review of existing data and identification of current gaps. In this expert consensus statement by the Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group, an interdisciplinary group of experts representing