Bio

Clinical Focus


  • Cancer > GI Oncology
  • Colon and Rectal Surgery (Specialty)
  • Colorectal Neoplasms
  • Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
  • Colon and Rectal Surgery

Academic Appointments


Administrative Appointments


  • Associate Program Director, General Surgery Training Program (2012 - Present)
  • UBMD Medical Director - E3, Stanford Health Care (2014 - Present)

Professional Education


  • Fellowship:Washington University in St Louis Registrar (2011) MO
  • Medical Education:Stanford university School of Medicine (2005) CA
  • Internship:Stanford Hospital and Clinics - Dept of Surgery (2006) CA
  • Residency:Stanford Hospital and Clinics - Dept of Surgery (2010) CA
  • Board Certification: Colon and Rectal Surgery, American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery (2012)
  • Board Certification: General Surgery, American Board of Surgery (2011)

Research & Scholarship

Clinical Trials


  • Efficacy and Safety of LifeSeal™ Kit for Colorectal Staple Line Sealing Not Recruiting

    LifeSeal™ Kit, surgical sealant designed for staple-line reinforcement that is applied over the anastomotic line to prevent bowel content leakage until full physiological function is restored. RATIONALE : Postoperative anastomotic leakage is one of the most devastating and feared complications in colorectal surgery. The risk of postoperative anastomotic leakage varies widely depending on the level of anastomosis while the risk is higher in low anastomosis. In order to best demonstrate the benefits of LifeSeal™ in providing staple line reinforcement and helping to reduce leaks, the study includes high risk anastomoses, defined as colorectal and coloanal anastomoses performed within 10 cm from the anal verge. STUDY DESIGN: This study is designed as a prospective, multi-center, multinational randomized, single-blind, double armed study PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of LifeSeal™ Kit as measured by the change in overall anastomotic leak rates in subjects undergoing low anterior resection with an anastomosis below 10 cm from the anal verge, over the first 17 weeks after surgery. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: The secondary objective of this study is to assess the incidence of post-operative leaks and additional benefits that could be related to the use of LifeSeal™ Kit such as reducing the severity and improving the outcome of a leak once it has occurred. In addition, the study will allow for collection and analysis of additional safety data and usability assessment of the device, medical resource utilization, and health related quality of life measures.

    Stanford is currently not accepting patients for this trial. For more information, please contact Cancer Clinical Trials Office (CCTO), 650-498-7061.

    View full details

  • Molecular Genetic and Pathological Studies of Anal Tumors Not Recruiting

    Study the Genetics of Anal Cancer

    Stanford is currently not accepting patients for this trial. For more information, please contact Moe Jalali, 650-724-4023.

    View full details

Publications

All Publications


  • Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK Benson, A. B., Venook, A. P., Al-Hawary, M. M., Cederquist, L., Chen, Y., Ciombor, K. K., Cohen, S., Cooper, H. S., Deming, D., Engstrom, P. F., Grem, J. L., Grothey, A., Hochster, H. S., Hoffe, S., Hunt, S., Kamel, A., Kirilcuk, N., Krishnamurthi, S., Messersmith, W. A., Meyerhardt, J., Mulcahy, M. F., Murphy, J. D., Nurkin, S., Saltz, L., Sharma, S., Shibata, D., Skibber, J. M., Sofocleous, C. T., Stoffel, E. M., Stotsky-Himelfarb, E., Willett, C. G., Wuthrick, E., Gregory, K. M., Gurski, L., Freedman-Cass, D. A. 2018; 16 (7): 874–901

    Abstract

    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.

    View details for DOI 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0061

    View details for Web of Science ID 000438786300010

    View details for PubMedID 30006429

  • Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2018 JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK Benson, A. B., Venook, A. P., Al-Hawary, M. M., Cederquist, L., Chen, Y., Ciombor, K. K., Cohen, S., Cooper, H. S., Deming, D., Engstrom, P. F., Grem, J. L., Grothey, A., Hochster, H. S., Hoffe, S., Hunt, S., Kamel, A., Kirilcuk, N., Krishnamurthi, S., Messersmith, W. A., Meyerhardt, J., Mulcahy, M. F., Murphy, J. D., Nurkin, S., Saltz, L., Sharma, S., Shibata, D., Skibber, J. M., Sofocleous, C. T., Stoffel, E. M., Stotsky-Himelfarb, E., Willett, C. G., Wuthrick, E., Gregory, K. M., Freedman-Cass, D. A. 2018; 16 (7): 852–71

    Abstract

    The NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma provide recommendations for the management of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal or perianal region. Primary treatment of anal cancer usually includes chemoradiation, although certain lesions can be treated with margin-negative local excision alone. Disease surveillance is recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is essential for optimal patient care.

    View details for DOI 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0060

    View details for Web of Science ID 000438786300009

    View details for PubMedID 30006428

  • NCCN Guidelines (R) Insights Colon Cancer, Version 2.2018 Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK Benson, A. B., Venook, A. P., Al-Hawary, M. M., Cederquist, L., Chen, Y., Ciombor, K. K., Cohen, S., Cooper, H. S., Deming, D., Engstrom, P. F., Garrido-Laguna, I., Grem, J. L., Grothey, A., Hochster, H. S., Hoffe, S., Hunt, S., Kamel, A., Kirilcuk, N., Krishnamurthi, S., Messersmith, W. A., Meyerhardt, J., Miller, E. D., Mulcahy, M. F., Murphy, J. D., Nurkin, S., Saltz, L., Sharma, S., Shibata, D., Skibber, J. M., Sofocleous, C. T., Stoffel, E. M., Stotsky-Himelfarb, E., Willett, C. G., Wuthrick, E., Gregory, K. M., Freedman-Cass, D. A. 2018; 16 (4): 359–69

    Abstract

    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 BRAF V600E mutation-positive metastatic colorectal cancer with regimens containing vemurafenib.

    View details for DOI 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0021

    View details for Web of Science ID 000429534300005

    View details for PubMedID 29632055

  • Colon Cancer, Version 1.2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK Benson, A. B., Venook, A. P., Cederquist, L., Chan, E., Chen, Y., Cooper, H. S., Deming, D., Engstrom, P. F., Enzinger, P. C., Fichera, A., Grem, J. L., Grothey, A., Hochster, H. S., Hoffe, S., Hunt, S., Kamel, A., Kirilcuk, N., Krishnamurthi, S., Messersmith, W. A., Mulcahy, M. F., Murphy, J. D., Nurkin, S., Saltz, L., Sharma, S., Shibata, D., Skibber, J. M., Sofocleous, C. T., Stoffel, E. M., Stotsky-Himelfarb, E., Willett, C. G., Wu, C. S., Gregory, K. M., Freedman-Cass, D. 2017; 15 (3): 370-398

    Abstract

    This portion of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer focuses on the use of systemic therapy in metastatic disease. Considerations for treatment selection among 32 different monotherapies and combination regimens in up to 7 lines of therapy have included treatment history, extent of disease, goals of treatment, the efficacy and toxicity profiles of the regimens, KRAS/NRAS mutational status, and patient comorbidities and preferences. Location of the primary tumor, the BRAF mutation status, and tumor microsatellite stability should also be considered in treatment decisions.

    View details for Web of Science ID 000395889300010

    View details for PubMedID 28275037

  • Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2015. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Benson, A. B., Venook, A. P., Bekaii-Saab, T., Chan, E., Chen, Y., Cooper, H. S., Engstrom, P. F., Enzinger, P. C., Fenton, M. J., Fuchs, C. S., Grem, J. L., Grothey, A., Hochster, H. S., Hunt, S., Kamel, A., Kirilcuk, N., Leong, L. A., Lin, E., Messersmith, W. A., Mulcahy, M. F., Murphy, J. D., Nurkin, S., Rohren, E., Ryan, D. P., Saltz, L., Sharma, S., Shibata, D., Skibber, J. M., Sofocleous, C. T., Stoffel, E. M., Stotsky-Himelfarb, E., Willett, C. G., Gregory, K. M., Freedman-Cass, D. 2015; 13 (6): 719-728

    Abstract

    The NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer begin with the clinical presentation of the patient to the primary care physician or gastroenterologist and address diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, posttreatment surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and survivorship. The NCCN Rectal Cancer Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points from the 2015 NCCN Rectal Cancer Panel meeting. Major discussion topics this year were perioperative therapy options and surveillance for patients with stage I through III disease.

    View details for PubMedID 26085388

  • Insulin increases the release of proinflammatory mediators 63rd Annual Meeting of the American-Association-for-the-Surgery-of-Trauma Brundage, S. I., Kirilcuk, N. N., Lam, J. C., Spain, D. A., Zautke, N. A. LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2008: 367–72

    Abstract

    Strict glucose control with insulin is associated with decreased mortality in a mixed patient population in the intensive care unit. Controversy exists regarding the relative benefits of glucose control versus a direct advantageous effect of exogenous insulin. As a combined medical/surgical population differs significantly from the critically injured patient primed for secondary insult, our purpose was to determine the influence of insulin on activated macrophages. Our hypothesis was that insulin would directly abrogate the inflammatory cascade.Differentiated human monocytic THP-1 cells were stimulated with endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide [LPS], 100 ng/mL) for 6 hours. Cells were treated +/-10(-7) M insulin for 1 hour and 24 hours. Total RNA was isolated and gene expression for TNF-alpha and IL-6 performed using Q-RT-PCR. Supernatants were assayed for TNF-alpha and IL-6 protein by ELISA.At 1 hour, compared with macrophages treated with LPS alone, macrophages treated with insulin produced significantly more TNF-alpha protein (11.4 +/- 5.9 pg/mL vs. 32.5 +/- 3.1 pg/mL; p < 0.03). At 24 hours compared with macrophages treated with LPS alone, macrophages treated with insulin produced significantly more TNF-alpha protein (83 +/- 2.02 pg/mL vs. 114 +/- 6.54 pg/mL; p < 0.01). However, gene expression of TNF-alpha and IL-6 was not different in LPS stimulated macrophages with and without insulin treatment at both 1 hour and 24 hours.Contrary to our hypothesis, insulin does not have direct anti-inflammatory properties in this experimental model. In fact, insulin increases proinflammatory cytokine protein levels from activated macrophages.

    View details for DOI 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181801cc0

    View details for Web of Science ID 000258461600026

    View details for PubMedID 18695473

  • Endovascular management of a gunshot wound to the thoracic aorta 35th Annual Meeting of the Western-Trauma-Association Fang, T. D., Peterson, D. A., Kirilcuk, N. N., Dicker, R. A., Spain, D. A., Brundage, S. I. LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. 2006: 204–8

    View details for Web of Science ID 000235066300046

    View details for PubMedID 16456457

  • Are temporary inferior vena cava filters really temporary? 57th Annual Meeting of the Southwestern-Surgical-Congress Kirilcuk, N. N., Herget, E. J., Dicker, R. A., Spain, D. A., Hellinger, J. C., Brundage, S. I. EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. 2005: 858–63

    Abstract

    Despite significant risk for venous thromboembolism, severely injured trauma patients often are not candidates for prophylaxis or treatment with anticoagulation. Long-term inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are associated with increased risk of postphlebitic syndrome. Retrievable IVC filters potentially offer a better solution, but only if the filter is removed; our hypothesis is that the most of them are not.This retrospective study queried a level I trauma registry for IVC filter insertion from September 1997 through June 2004.One IVC filter was placed before the availability of retrievable filters in 2001. Since 2001, 27 filters have been placed, indicating a change in practice patterns. Filters were placed for prophylaxis (n = 11) or for therapy in patients with pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (n = 17). Of 23 temporary filters, only 8 (35%) were removed.Surgeons must critically evaluate indications for IVC filter insertion, develop standard criteria for placement, and implement protocols to ensure timely removal of temporary IVC filters.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.08.009

    View details for Web of Science ID 000233759800007

    View details for PubMedID 16307934