1
|
Stearns V, Jegede OA, Chang VTS, Skaar TC, Berenberg JL, Nand R, Shafqat A, Jacobs NL, Luginbuhl W, Gilman P, Benson AB, Goodman JR, Buchschacher GL, Henry NL, Loprinzi CL, Flynn PJ, Mitchell EP, Fisch MJ, Sparano JA, Wagner LI. A Cohort Study to Evaluate Genetic Predictors for Aromatase Inhibitor Musculoskeletal Symptoms (AIMSS): Results from ECOG-ACRIN E1Z11. Clin Cancer Res 2024:743149. [PMID: 38640040 DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-23-2137] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2023] [Revised: 10/13/2023] [Accepted: 04/15/2024] [Indexed: 04/21/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Musculoskeletal Symptoms (AIMSS) are common and frequently lead to AI discontinuation. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in candidate genes have been associated with AIMSS and AI discontinuation. E1Z11 is a prospective cohort study designed to validate associations between 10 SNPs and AI discontinuation due to AIMSS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Postmenopausal women with stage I-III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer received anastrozole 1 mg daily and completed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to assess AIMSS (Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire; HAQ) at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. We estimated that 40% of participants would develop AIMSS, and 25% would discontinue AI treatment within 12 months. Enrollment of 1,000 women with a fixed number per racial strata provided 80% power to detect an effect size of 1.5-4. SNPs were in ESR1 (rs2234693, rs2347868, rs9340835), CYP19A1 (rs1062033, rs4646), TCL1A (rs11849538, rs2369049, rs7158782, rs7159713), and HTR2A (rs2296972). RESULTS Of 970 evaluable women, 43% developed AIMSS and 12% discontinued AI therapy within 12 months. While more Black and Asian women developed AIMSS compared to White women (49% vs 39%, p=0.017; 50% vs 39%, p=0.004, respectively), AI discontinuation rates were similar across groups. None of the SNPs were significantly associated with AIMSS or AI discontinuation in the overall population, or in distinct cohorts. The odds ratio for rs2296972 (HTR2A) approached significance for developing AIMSS. CONCLUSION We were unable to prospectively validate candidate SNPs previously associated with AI discontinuation due to AIMSS. Future analyses will explore additional genetic markers, PRO predictors of AIMSS, and differences by race.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vered Stearns
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States
| | | | | | - Todd C Skaar
- Indiana University Bloomington, Indianapolis, IN, United States
| | | | | | - Atif Shafqat
- Missouri Baptist Medical Center, St. Louis, MO, United States
| | | | - William Luginbuhl
- University of Pennsylvania Health System, West Chester, PA, United States
| | - Paul Gilman
- Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, PA, United States
| | - Al B Benson
- Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States
| | | | | | - N Lynn Henry
- University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI, United States
| | | | - Patrick J Flynn
- Metro Minnesota Clinical Oncology Research Consortium, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, United States
| | | | | | - Joseph A Sparano
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States
| | - Lynne I Wagner
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sahai V, Benson AB. Are We There Yet? - Alternating Chemotherapy Regimens in Pancreatic Cancer. NEJM Evid 2024; 3:EVIDe2300341. [PMID: 38320497 DOI: 10.1056/evide2300341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2024]
Abstract
In the randomized phase 2 SEQUENCE trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, reported in this issue of NEJM Evidence, the authors compared therapy with alternating FOLFOX and nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine chemotherapy versus standard-of-care, single-regimen nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine therapy.1 They were testing the idea that because most tumor cells express both basal and classic markers, alternating treatment would target both cell populations and thus confer a survival benefit. The trial, which enrolled 157 patients, met the primary end point of an overall survival rate at 12 months of 55.3% in the alternating treatment group compared with 35.4% in the standard-of-care group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vaibhav Sahai
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Al B Benson
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Braun-Inglis CM, Dressler EV, Myers JS, Benson AB, Flannery M, Good M, Denicoff A, Berenberg JL, DeTroye AT, O'Brien B, Kottschade L, Omatsu DA, Kittel CA, Nightingale CL, Foust M, Lesser GJ. Defining the Role of the Advanced Practice Provider Within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. JCO Oncol Pract 2024; 20:239-246. [PMID: 38175992 PMCID: PMC10911544 DOI: 10.1200/op.23.00501] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/10/2023] [Revised: 10/23/2023] [Accepted: 11/08/2023] [Indexed: 01/06/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual. METHODS The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP. RESULTS A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development. CONCLUSION Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Jamie S. Myers
- University of Kansas, School of Nursing, Kansas City, KS
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Carol A. Kittel
- Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| | | | - Melyssa Foust
- Gibbs Cancer Center and Research Institute at Pelham, Greer, SC
| | - Glenn J. Lesser
- Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Iams WT, Mackay M, Ben-Shachar R, Drews J, Manghnani K, Hockenberry AJ, Cristofanilli M, Nimeiri H, Guinney J, Benson AB. Concurrent Tissue and Circulating Tumor DNA Molecular Profiling to Detect Guideline-Based Targeted Mutations in a Multicancer Cohort. JAMA Netw Open 2024; 7:e2351700. [PMID: 38252441 PMCID: PMC10804266 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.51700] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2023] [Accepted: 11/26/2023] [Indexed: 01/23/2024] Open
Abstract
Importance Tissue-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) of solid tumors is the criterion standard for identifying somatic mutations that can be treated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-recommended targeted therapies. Sequencing of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can also identify tumor-derived mutations, and there is increasing clinical evidence supporting ctDNA testing as a diagnostic tool. The clinical value of concurrent tissue and ctDNA profiling has not been formally assessed in a large, multicancer cohort from heterogeneous clinical settings. Objective To evaluate whether patients concurrently tested with both tissue and ctDNA NGS testing have a higher rate of detection of guideline-based targeted mutations compared with tissue testing alone. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study comprised 3209 patients who underwent sequencing between May 2020, and December 2022, within the deidentified, Tempus multimodal database, consisting of linked molecular and clinical data. Included patients had stage IV disease (non-small cell lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or colorectal cancer) with sufficient tissue and blood sample quantities for analysis. Exposures Received results from tissue and plasma ctDNA genomic profiling, with biopsies and blood draws occurring within 30 days of one another. Main Outcomes and Measures Detection rates of guideline-based variants found uniquely by ctDNA and tissue profiling. Results The cohort of 3209 patients (median age at diagnosis of stage IV disease, 65.3 years [2.5%-97.5% range, 43.3-83.3 years]) who underwent concurrent tissue and ctDNA testing included 1693 women (52.8%). Overall, 1448 patients (45.1%) had a guideline-based variant detected. Of these patients, 9.3% (135 of 1448) had variants uniquely detected by ctDNA profiling, and 24.2% (351 of 1448) had variants uniquely detected by solid-tissue testing. Although largely concordant with one another, differences in the identification of actionable variants by either assay varied according to cancer type, gene, variant, and ctDNA burden. Of 352 patients with breast cancer, 20.2% (71 of 352) with actionable variants had unique findings in ctDNA profiling results. Most of these unique, actionable variants (55.0% [55 of 100]) were found in ESR1, resulting in a 24.7% increase (23 of 93) in the identification of patients harboring an ESR1 mutation relative to tissue testing alone. Conclusions and Relevance This study suggests that unique actionable biomarkers are detected by both concurrent tissue and ctDNA testing, with higher ctDNA identification among patients with breast cancer. Integration of concurrent NGS testing into the routine management of advanced solid cancers may expand the delivery of molecularly guided therapy and improve patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wade T. Iams
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Massimo Cristofanilli
- Sandra and Edward Meyer Cancer Center at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
- NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York
| | | | | | - Al B. Benson
- Department of Medicine, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zhu M, Benson AB. An update on pharmacotherapies for colorectal cancer: 2023 and beyond. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2024; 25:91-99. [PMID: 38224000 DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2024.2304654] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2023] [Accepted: 01/09/2024] [Indexed: 01/16/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent and lethal cancers worldwide. The treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is difficult, and mCRC has a survival rate of only 13-17% compared with 70-90% in locoregional CRC. There is ongoing research effort on pharmacotherapy for CRC to improve the treatment outcome. AREAS COVERED We reviewed the current literature and ongoing clinical trials on CRC pharmacotherapy, with a focus on targeted therapy based on the results of genetic testing. The pharmacotherapies covered in this article include novel agents targeting EGFR and EGFR-related pathways, agents targeting the VEGF pathway, immunotherapy options depending on the MMR/MSI status, and new therapies targeting genetic fusions such as NTRK. We also briefly discuss the value of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in treatment selection and response monitoring. EXPERT OPINION We advocate for the early and routine use of NGS to genetically characterize CRC to assist with pharmacotherapy selection. Targeted therapy is a promising field of ongoing research and improves CRC treatment outcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mengou Zhu
- Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Al B Benson
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Giantonio BJ, Catalano PJ, Meropol NJ, O'Dwyer PJ, Mitchell EP, Alberts SR, Schwartz MA, Benson AB. Bevacizumab in Combination With Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results From the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E3200. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:3670-3675. [PMID: 37459754 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.02761] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/20/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Antiangiogenic therapy with bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy improves survival in previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. This study was conducted to determine the effect of bevacizumab (at 10 mg/kg) on survival duration for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eight hundred twenty-nine metastatic colorectal cancer patients previously treated with a fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) with bevacizumab; FOLFOX4 without bevacizumab; or bevacizumab alone. The primary end point was overall survival, with additional determinations of progression-free survival, response, and toxicity. RESULTS The median duration of survival for the group treated with FOLFOX4 and bevacizumab was 12.9 months compared with 10.8 months for the group treated with FOLFOX4 alone (corresponding hazard ratio for death = 0.75; P = .0011), and 10.2 months for those treated with bevacizumab alone. The median progression-free survival for the group treated with FOLFOX4 in combination with bevacizumab was 7.3 months, compared with 4.7 months for the group treated with FOLFOX4 alone (corresponding hazard ratio for progression = 0.61; P < .0001), and 2.7 months for those treated with bevacizumab alone. The corresponding overall response rates were 22.7%, 8.6%, and 3.3%, respectively (P < .0001 for FOLFOX4 with bevacizumab v FOLFOX4 comparison). Bevacizumab was associated with hypertension, bleeding, and vomiting. CONCLUSION The addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin improves survival duration for patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bruce J Giantonio
- From the University of Pennsylvania; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, FL; and Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Paul J Catalano
- From the University of Pennsylvania; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, FL; and Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Neal J Meropol
- From the University of Pennsylvania; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, FL; and Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Peter J O'Dwyer
- From the University of Pennsylvania; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, FL; and Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Edith P Mitchell
- From the University of Pennsylvania; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, FL; and Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Steven R Alberts
- From the University of Pennsylvania; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, FL; and Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Michael A Schwartz
- From the University of Pennsylvania; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, FL; and Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Al B Benson
- From the University of Pennsylvania; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, FL; and Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Benson AB, D'Angelica MI, Abrams T, Abbott DE, Ahmed A, Anaya DA, Anders R, Are C, Bachini M, Binder D, Borad M, Bowlus C, Brown D, Burgoyne A, Castellanos J, Chahal P, Cloyd J, Covey AM, Glazer ES, Hawkins WG, Iyer R, Jacob R, Jennings L, Kelley RK, Kim R, Levine M, Palta M, Park JO, Raman S, Reddy S, Ronnekleiv-Kelly S, Sahai V, Singh G, Stein S, Turk A, Vauthey JN, Venook AP, Yopp A, McMillian N, Schonfeld R, Hochstetler C. NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Biliary Tract Cancers, Version 2.2023. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023; 21:694-704. [PMID: 37433432 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/13/2023]
Abstract
In 2023, the NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers were divided into 2 separate guidelines: Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Biliary Tract Cancers. The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts meets at least on an annual basis to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. These Guidelines Insights focus on some of the recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers as well as the newly published section on principles of molecular testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Al B Benson
- 1Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Robert Anders
- 7The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Prabhleen Chahal
- 16Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | - Jordan Cloyd
- 17The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | | | | | - William G Hawkins
- 19Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | - Lawrence Jennings
- 1Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | - R Kate Kelley
- 22UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | - Robin Kim
- 23Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah
| | - Matthew Levine
- 24Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Anita Turk
- 31Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | - Alan P Venook
- 22UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | - Adam Yopp
- 33UT Southwestern Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Chiorean EG, Chiaro MD, Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Benson AB, Cardin DB, Christensen JA, Chung V, Czito B, Dillhoff M, Donahue TR, Dotan E, Fountzilas C, Glazer ES, Hardacre J, Hawkins WG, Klute K, Ko AH, Kunstman JW, LoConte N, Lowy AM, Masood A, Moravek C, Nakakura EK, Narang AK, Nardo L, Obando J, Polanco PM, Reddy S, Reyngold M, Scaife C, Shen J, Truty MJ, Vollmer C, Wolff RA, Wolpin BM, Rn BM, Lubin S, Darlow SD. Ampullary Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023; 21:753-782. [PMID: 37433437 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/13/2023]
Abstract
Ampullary cancers refer to tumors originating from the ampulla of Vater (the ampulla, the intraduodenal portion of the bile duct, and the intraduodenal portion of the pancreatic duct), while periampullary cancers may arise from locations encompassing the head of the pancreas, distal bile duct, duodenum, or ampulla of Vater. Ampullary cancers are rare gastrointestinal malignancies, and prognosis varies greatly based on factors such as patient age, TNM classification, differentiation grade, and treatment modality received. Systemic therapy is used in all stages of ampullary cancer, including neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and first-line or subsequent-line therapy for locally advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease. Radiation therapy may be used in localized ampullary cancer, sometimes in combination with chemotherapy, but there is no high-level evidence to support its utility. Select tumors may be treated surgically. This article describes NCCN recommendations regarding management of ampullary adenocarcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | | | | | - Mary Dillhoff
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | | | | | | | | | - Jeffrey Hardacre
- Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | - William G Hawkins
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | - Andrew H Ko
- UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | | | | - Ashiq Masood
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | | - Amol K Narang
- The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, Azad N, Chen YJ, Ciombor KK, Cohen S, Cooper HS, Deming D, Garrido-Laguna I, Grem JL, Hecht JR, Hoffe S, Hubbard J, Hunt S, Hussan H, Jeck W, Johung KL, Joseph N, Kirilcuk N, Krishnamurthi S, Maratt J, Messersmith WA, Meyerhardt J, Miller ED, Mulcahy MF, Nurkin S, Overman MJ, Parikh A, Patel H, Pedersen K, Saltz L, Schneider C, Shibata D, Skibber JM, Sofocleous CT, Stotsky-Himelfarb E, Tavakkoli A, Willett CG, Williams G, Algieri F, Gurski L, Stehman K. Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2023; 21:653-677. [PMID: 37308125 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
This discussion summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is necessary. Primary treatment of perianal cancer and anal canal cancer are similar and include chemoradiation in most cases. Follow-up clinical evaluations are recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. Biopsy-proven evidence of locally recurrent or persistent disease after primary treatment may require surgical treatment. Systemic therapy is generally recommended for extrapelvic metastatic disease. Recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma include staging classification updates based on the 9th edition of the AJCC Staging System and updates to the systemic therapy recommendations based on new data that better define optimal treatment of patients with metastatic anal carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | - Alan P Venook
- UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | - Nilofer Azad
- The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Steven Hunt
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Smitha Krishnamurthi
- Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | - Jennifer Maratt
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | | - Eric D Miller
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | - Mary F Mulcahy
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | | | | | - Katrina Pedersen
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Chiec L, Benson AB. Disparities in gastrointestinal cancers. J Natl Med Assoc 2023; 115:S13-S18. [PMID: 37201999 DOI: 10.1016/j.jnma.2023.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2022] [Accepted: 02/01/2023] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren Chiec
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Kunz PL, Graham NT, Catalano PJ, Nimeiri HS, Fisher GA, Longacre TA, Suarez CJ, Martin BA, Yao JC, Kulke MH, Hendifar AE, Shanks JC, Shah MH, Zalupski MM, Schmulbach EL, Reidy-Lagunes DL, Strosberg JR, O'Dwyer PJ, Benson AB. Randomized Study of Temozolomide or Temozolomide and Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (ECOG-ACRIN E2211). J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:1359-1369. [PMID: 36260828 PMCID: PMC9995105 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.01013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 36.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2022] [Revised: 08/10/2022] [Accepted: 10/12/2022] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have few treatment options that yield objective responses. Retrospective and small prospective studies suggest that capecitabine and temozolomide are associated with high response rates (RRs) and long progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS E2211 was a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial comparing temozolomide versus capecitabine/temozolomide in patients with advanced low-grade or intermediate-grade pancreatic NETs. Key eligibility criteria included progression within the preceding 12 months and no prior temozolomide, dimethyl-triazeno-imidazole-carboxamide or dacarbazine, capecitabine or fluorouracil. The primary end point was PFS; secondary endpoints were overall survival, RR, safety, and methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) by immunohistochemistry and promoter methylation. RESULTS A total of 144 patients were enrolled between April 2013 and March 2016 to temozolomide (n = 72) or capecitabine and temozolomide (n = 72); the primary analysis population included 133 eligible patients. At the scheduled interim analysis in January 2018, the median PFS was 14.4 months for temozolomide versus 22.7 months for capecitabine/temozolomide (hazard ratio = 0.58), which was sufficient to reject the null hypothesis for the primary end point (stratified log-rank P = .022). In the final analysis (May 2021), the median overall survival was 53.8 months for temozolomide and 58.7 months for capecitabine/temozolomide (hazard ratio = 0.82, P = .42). MGMT deficiency was associated with response. CONCLUSION The combination of capecitabine/temozolomide was associated with a significant improvement in PFS compared with temozolomide alone in patients with advanced pancreatic NETs. The median PFS and RR observed with capecitabine/temozolomide are the highest reported in a randomized study for pancreatic NETs. MGMT deficiency was associated with response, and although routine MGMT testing is not recommended, it can be considered for select patients in need of objective response (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01824875).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Halla S. Nimeiri
- Robert H. Lurie Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | | | | | | | | | - James C. Yao
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Andrew E. Hendifar
- Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | | | - Manisha H. Shah
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH
| | | | | | | | | | - Peter J. O'Dwyer
- University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Al B. Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Morris VK, Kennedy EB, Baxter NN, Benson AB, Cercek A, Cho M, Ciombor KK, Cremolini C, Davis A, Deming DA, Fakih MG, Gholami S, Hong TS, Jaiyesimi I, Klute K, Lieu C, Sanoff H, Strickler JH, White S, Willis JA, Eng C. Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2023; 41:678-700. [PMID: 36252154 PMCID: PMC10506310 DOI: 10.1200/jco.22.01690] [Citation(s) in RCA: 99] [Impact Index Per Article: 99.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2022] [Accepted: 08/10/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To develop recommendations for treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS Five systematic reviews and 10 randomized controlled trials met the systematic review inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS Doublet chemotherapy should be offered, or triplet therapy may be offered to patients with previously untreated, initially unresectable mCRC, on the basis of included studies of chemotherapy in combination with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies. In the first-line setting, pembrolizumab is recommended for patients with mCRC and microsatellite instability-high or deficient mismatch repair tumors; chemotherapy and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy is recommended for microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair left-sided treatment-naive RAS wild-type mCRC; chemotherapy and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy is recommended for microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair RAS wild-type right-sided mCRC. Encorafenib plus cetuximab is recommended for patients with previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC that has progressed after at least one previous line of therapy. Cytoreductive surgery plus systemic chemotherapy may be recommended for selected patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases; however, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is not recommended. Stereotactic body radiation therapy may be recommended following systemic therapy for patients with oligometastases of the liver who are not considered candidates for resection. Selective internal radiation therapy is not routinely recommended for patients with unilobar or bilobar metastases of the liver. Perioperative chemotherapy or surgery alone should be offered to patients with mCRC who are candidates for potentially curative resection of liver metastases. Multidisciplinary team management and shared decision making are recommended. Qualifying statements with further details related to implementation of guideline recommendations are also included.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Van K Morris
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | | | - Nancy N Baxter
- Melbourne School of Population and Public Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Andrea Cercek
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Marwan G Fakih
- City of Hope Helford Clinical Research Hospital, Duarte, CA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Jason A Willis
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Cathy Eng
- Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Barrett NJ, Boehmer L, Schrag J, Benson AB, Green S, Hamroun-Yazid L, Howson A, Matin K, Oyer RA, Pierce L, Jeames SE, Winkfield K, Yang ES, Zwicker V, Bruinooge S, Hurley P, Williams JH, Guerra CE. An Assessment of the Feasibility and Utility of an ACCC-ASCO Implicit Bias Training Program to Enhance Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials. JCO Oncol Pract 2023; 19:e570-e580. [PMID: 36630671 DOI: 10.1200/op.22.00378] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Cancer trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity in the population of people with cancer in the United States. As a result of multiple system-, patient-, and provider-level factors, including implicit bias, cancer clinical trials are not consistently offered to all potentially eligible patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS ASCO and ACCC evaluated the utility (pre- and post-test knowledge changes) and feasibility (completion rates, curriculum satisfaction metrics, survey questions, and interviews) of a customized online training program combined with facilitated peer-to-peer discussion designed to help research teams identify their own implicit biases and develop strategies to mitigate them. Discussion focused on (1) specific elements of the training modules; (2) how to apply lessons learned; and (3) key considerations for developing a facilitation guide to support peer-to-peer discussions in cancer clinical research settings. We evaluated discussion via a qualitative assessment. RESULTS Participant completion rate was high: 49 of 50 participating cancer programs completed training; 126 of 129 participating individuals completed the training (98% response rate); and 119 completed the training and evaluations (92% response rate). Training increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 19%-45% across key concepts (eg, causes of health disparities) and increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 10%-31% about strategies/actions to address implicit bias and diversity concerns in cancer clinical trials. Knowledge increases were sustained at 6 weeks. Qualitative evaluation validated the utility and feasibility of facilitated peer-to-peer discussion. CONCLUSION The pilot implementation of the training program demonstrated excellent utility and feasibility. Our evaluation affirms that an online training designed to raise awareness about implicit bias and develop strategies to mitigate biases among cancer research teams is feasible and can be readily implemented in cancer research settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadine J Barrett
- Duke Clinical and Translational Science Institute and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC
| | - Leigh Boehmer
- Association of Community Cancer Centers, Rockville, MD
| | | | - Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Sybil Green
- American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA
| | | | | | | | - Randall A Oyer
- Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health Ann B Barshinger Cancer Institute, Lancaster, PA
| | | | | | - Karen Winkfield
- Meharry-Vanderbilt Alliance, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Eddy S Yang
- O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center at University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL
| | | | | | | | | | - Carmen E Guerra
- University of Pennsylvania Raymond and Ruth Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Kemeny MM, Zhao F, Forastiere AA, Catalano P, Hamilton SR, Miedema BW, Dawson NA, Weiner LM, Smith BD, Mason BA, Graziano SL, Gilman PB, Venook AP, Pinto HA, Whitehead RP, O’Dwyer PJ, Benson AB. Phase III Prospectively Randomized Trial of Perioperative 5-FU After Curative Resection for Colon Cancer: An Intergroup Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E1292). Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:1099-1109. [PMID: 36305992 PMCID: PMC9807536 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12705-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2021] [Accepted: 10/04/2022] [Indexed: 01/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Studies suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy should be initiated at the earliest possible time. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) and Intergroup evaluated the effect of perioperative fluorouracil (5-FU) on overall survival (OS) for colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS This phase III trial randomized patients to receive continuous infusional 5-FU for 7 days starting within 24 h after curative resection (arm A) or no perioperative 5-FU (arm B). Patients with Dukes' B3 and C disease received adjuvant chemotherapy per standard of care. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival in patients with Dukes' B3 and C disease. The secondary objective was to determine whether a week of perioperative infusion would affect survival in patients with Dukes' B2 colon cancer with no additional chemotherapy. RESULTS From August 1993 to May 2000, 859 patients were enrolled and 855 randomized (arm A: 427; arm B: 428). The trial was terminated early due to slow accrual. The median follow-up is 15.4 years (0.03-20.3 years). Among patients with Dukes' B3 and C disease, there was no statistically significant difference in OS [median 10.3 years (95% CI 8.4, 13.2) for perioperative chemotherapy and 9.3 years (95% CI 5.7, 12.3) for no perioperative therapy, one-sided log-rank p = 0.178, HR = 0.88 (95% CI 0.66, 1.16)] or disease-free survival (DFS). For patients with Dukes' B2 disease, there was also no significant difference in OS (median 16.1 versus 12.9 years) or DFS. There was no difference between treatment arms in operative complications. One week of continuous infusion of 5-FU was tolerable; 18% of arm A patients experienced grade 3 or greater toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M. Margaret Kemeny
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Queens Cancer Center of NYC Health + Hospitals/Queens, Jamaica, NY USA
| | - Fengmin Zhao
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute - ECOG-ACRIN Biostatistics Center, Boston, MA USA
| | - Arlene A. Forastiere
- John Hopkins University and Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD USA
| | - Paul Catalano
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute - ECOG-ACRIN Biostatistics Center, Boston, MA USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Alan P. Venook
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, USCF, San Francisco, CA USA
| | | | | | - Peter J. O’Dwyer
- University of Pennsylvania and Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Silver CM, Joung RH, Logan CD, Benson AB, Mahalingam D, D’Angelica MI, Bentrem DJ, Yang AD, Bilimoria KY, Merkow RP. Neoadjuvant therapy use and association with postoperative outcomes and overall survival in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Surg Oncol 2023; 127:90-98. [PMID: 36194064 PMCID: PMC9729397 DOI: 10.1002/jso.27112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2022] [Accepted: 09/18/2022] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Evidence for neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA) is limited. Our objectives were to: (1) characterize treatment trends, (2) identify factors associated with receipt of NAT, and (3) evaluate associations between NAT and postoperative outcomes. METHODS Retrospective cohort study of the National Cancer Database (2004-2017). Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between NAT and postoperative outcomes. Stratified analysis evaluated differences between surgery first, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT). RESULTS Among 8040 patients, 417 (5.2%) received NAT. NAT increased during the study period 2.9%-8.4% (p < 0.001). Factors associated with receipt of NAT included age <50 (vs. >75, odds ratio [OR] 4.32, p < 0.001) and stage 3 disease (vs. 1, OR 1.68, p = 0.01). Compared with surgery first, patients who received NAT had higher odds of R0 resection (OR 1.49, p = 0.01) and lower 30-day mortality (OR 0.51, p = 0.04). On stratified analysis, neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with differences in any outcomes. However, neoadjuvant CRT was associated with improvement in R0 resection (OR 3.52, <0.001) and median survival (47.8 vs. 25.3 months, log-rank < 0.001) compared to surgery first. CONCLUSIONS NAT, particularly neoadjuvant CRT, was associated with improved postoperative outcomes. These data suggest expanding the use of neoadjuvant CRT for eCCA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Casey M. Silver
- Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Rachel H. Joung
- Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Charles D. Logan
- Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Al B. Benson
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Devalingam Mahalingam
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Michael I. D’Angelica
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - David J. Bentrem
- Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Anthony D. Yang
- Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Karl Y. Bilimoria
- Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Ryan P. Merkow
- Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center, Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
- Department of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
McGarrah P, Hubbard J, Novotny PJ, Branda ME, Sargent DS, Morton RF, Fuchs CS, Benson AB, Williamson SK, Findlay BP, Alberts SR, Goldberg RM, Sloan JA. Baseline Quality of Life is a Strong and Independent Prognostic Factor for Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Control 2023; 30:10732748231185047. [PMID: 37339926 PMCID: PMC10286175 DOI: 10.1177/10732748231185047] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/22/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous studies have established that higher baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We examined the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline QOL. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 1 247 patients with mCRC participating in N9741 (comparing bolus 5-FU/LV, irinotecan [IFL] vs infusional 5-FU/leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] vs. irinotecan/oxaliplatin [IROX]) provided data at baseline on overall QOL using a single-item linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) 0-100 point scale. The association of OS according to clinically deficient (defined as CD-QOL, score 0-50) vs not clinically deficient (nCD-QOL, score 51-100) baseline QOL scores was tested. A multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to adjust for the effects of multiple baseline factors. An exploratory analysis was performed evaluating OS according to baseline QOL status among patients who did or did not receive second-line therapy. RESULTS Baseline QOL was a strong predictor of OS for the whole cohort (CD-QOL vs nCD-QOL: 11.2 months vs 18.4 months, P < .0001), and in each arm IFL 12.4 vs 15.1 months, FOLFOX 11.1 months vs 20.6 months, and IROX 8.9 months vs 18.1 months. Baseline QOL was associated with baseline performance status (PS) (P < .0001). After adjusting for PS and treatment arm, baseline QOL was still associated with OS (P = .017). CONCLUSIONS Baseline QOL is an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with mCRC. The demonstration that patient-assessed QOL and PS are independent prognostic indicators suggests that these assessments provide important complementary prognostic information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joleen Hubbard
- Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Paul J. Novotny
- Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Megan E. Branda
- Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Daniel S. Sargent
- Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Roscoe F. Morton
- North Central Cancer Treatment Group, Iowa Oncology Research Association, Des Moines, IA, USA
| | | | - Al B. Benson
- Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA; and ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Stephen K. Williamson
- SWOG Cancer Research Network, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | | | | | | | - Jeff A. Sloan
- Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Rajdev L, Lee JW, Libutti SK, Benson AB, Fisher GA, Kunz PL, Hendifar AE, Catalano P, O'Dwyer PJ. A phase II study of sapanisertib (TAK-228) a mTORC1/2 inhibitor in rapalog-resistant advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET): ECOG-ACRIN EA2161. Invest New Drugs 2022; 40:1306-1314. [PMID: 36264382 PMCID: PMC9795724 DOI: 10.1007/s10637-022-01311-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2022] [Accepted: 10/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
This was a two-stage phase II trial of a mTORC1/2 inhibitor (mTORC: mammalian target of rapamycin complex) Sapanisertib (TAK228) in patients with rapalog-resistant pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) (NCT02893930). Approved rapalogs such as everolimus inhibit mTORC1 and have limited clinical activity, possibly due to compensatory feedback loops. Sapanisertib addresses the potential for incomplete inhibition of the mTOR pathway through targeting of both mTORC1 and mTORC2, and thus to reverse resistance to earlier rapamycin analogues. In stage 1, patients received sapanisertib 3 mg by mouth once daily on a continuous dosing schedule in 28-day cycle. This trial adopted a two-stage design with the primary objective of evaluating objective tumor response. The first stage would recruit 13 patients in order to accrue 12 eligible and treated patients. If among the 12 eligible patients at least 1 patient had an objective response to therapy, the study would move to the second stage of accrual where 25 eligible and treated patients would be enrolled. This study activated on February 1, 2017, the required pre-determined number of patients (n = 13) had entered by November 5, 2018 for the first stage response evaluation. The accrual of this trial was formally terminated on December 27, 2019 as no response had been observed after the first stage accrual. Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events were reported in eight (61%) patients with hyperglycemia being the most frequent, in three patients (23%). Other toxicities noted in the trial included fatigue, rash diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. The median PFS was 5.19 months (95% CI [3.84, 9.30]) and the median OS was 20.44 months (95% CI [5.65, 22.54]). Due to the lack of responses in Stage 1 of the study, the study did not proceed to stage 2. Thus the potential to reverse resistance was not evident.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lakshmi Rajdev
- Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra, Hempstead, NY, USA.
| | - Ju-Whei Lee
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute - ECOG-ACRIN Biostatistics Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Paul Catalano
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute - ECOG-ACRIN Biostatistics Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Peter J O'Dwyer
- University of Pennsylvania/Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Soliman MA, Kelahan LC, Magnetta M, Savas H, Agrawal R, Avery RJ, Aouad P, Liu B, Xue Y, Chae YK, Salem R, Benson AB, Yaghmai V, Velichko YS. A Framework for Harmonization of Radiomics Data for Multicenter Studies and Clinical Trials. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2022; 6:e2200023. [PMID: 36332157 PMCID: PMC9668564 DOI: 10.1200/cci.22.00023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2022] [Revised: 07/01/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Variability in computed tomography images intrinsic to individual scanners limits the application of radiomics in clinical and research settings. The development of reproducible and generalizable radiomics-based models to assess lesions requires harmonization of data. The purpose of this study was to develop, test, and analyze the efficacy of a radiomics data harmonization model. MATERIALS AND METHODS Radiomic features from biopsy-proven untreated hepatic metastasis (N = 380) acquired from 167 unique patients with pancreatic, colon, and breast cancers were analyzed. Radiomic features from volume-match 551 samples of normal liver tissue and 188 hepatic cysts were included as references. A novel linear mixed effect model was used to identify effects associated with lesion size, tissue type, and scanner model. Six separate machine learning models were then used to test the effectiveness of radiomic feature harmonization using multivariate analysis. RESULTS Proposed model identifies and removes scanner-associated effects while preserving cancer-specific functional dependence of radiomic features on the tumor size. Data harmonization improves the performance of classification models by reducing the scanner-associated variability. For example, the multiclass logistic regression model, LogitBoost, demonstrated the improvement in sensitivity in the range from 15% to 40% for each type of liver metastasis, whereas the overall model accuracy and the kappa coefficient increased by 5% and 8% accordingly. CONCLUSION The model removed scanner-associated effects while preserving cancer-specific functional dependence of radiomic features.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Moataz A.S. Soliman
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Linda C. Kelahan
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Michael Magnetta
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Hatice Savas
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Rishi Agrawal
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Ryan J. Avery
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Pascale Aouad
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Benjamin Liu
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Yue Xue
- Department of Pathology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Young K. Chae
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Riad Salem
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Al B. Benson
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Vahid Yaghmai
- Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine UCI Health, University of California Irvine, Orange, CA
| | - Yuri S. Velichko
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Hao Z, Parasramka S, Chen Q, Jacob A, Huang B, Mullett T, Benson AB. Neoadjuvant Versus Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Metastatic Colon Cancer in Non-academic and Academic Programs. Oncologist 2022; 28:48-58. [PMID: 36200844 PMCID: PMC9847538 DOI: 10.1093/oncolo/oyac209] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2022] [Accepted: 09/09/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Overall survival advantage of chemotherapy before versus after metastasectomy of liver or lung lesion is not clear for colon cancer with synchronous liver or lung metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Adults 20 years or older with primary colon cancer and single organ metastatic disease either in the liver or lung at diagnosis were identified between 2010 and 2015 through the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Patients were categorized into 2 cohorts: pre-operative/peri-operative chemotherapy (neoadjuvant -[NAC]) or post-operative chemotherapy (adjuvant [AC]). Survivals and factors associated with were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS A total of 3038 patients with colon cancer with liver or lung metastases were identified. The percentage of patients receiving NAC had steadily increased from 12.29% to 28.31%, mostly in academic programs. On multivariate analysis, patients who received NAC had an overall survival advantage in the non-academic setting whereas no advantage is seen in the patients treated in the academic settings. The median overall survival for patients receiving NAC and AC was 47.24 months and 38.08 months, respectively. Factors associated with overall survival advantage in NAC patients treated in non-academic programs included age 20-49 years, CEA value of >30, right-sided colon primary, liver metastasis, and clear resection margins. CONCLUSIONS Metastatic colon cancer with single organ liver or lung lesions benefits from neoadjuvant chemotherapy, especially in -non-academic settings. The overall survival advantage in this setting has not been shown before.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhonglin Hao
- Corresponding author: Zhonglin Hao, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky; 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY 40536, USA;
| | - Saurabh Parasramka
- Department of Internal Medicine, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Quan Chen
- Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource Facility, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Aasems Jacob
- Department of Internal Medicine, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Bin Huang
- Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Shared Resource Facility, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA,Division of Cancer Biostatistics, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Timothy Mullett
- Department of Surgery, Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Al B Benson
- Department of Medicine, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, Azad N, Chen YJ, Ciombor KK, Cohen S, Cooper HS, Deming D, Garrido-Laguna I, Grem JL, Gunn A, Hecht JR, Hoffe S, Hubbard J, Hunt S, Jeck W, Johung KL, Kirilcuk N, Krishnamurthi S, Maratt JK, Messersmith WA, Meyerhardt J, Miller ED, Mulcahy MF, Nurkin S, Overman MJ, Parikh A, Patel H, Pedersen K, Saltz L, Schneider C, Shibata D, Skibber JM, Sofocleous CT, Stotsky-Himelfarb E, Tavakkoli A, Willett CG, Gregory K, Gurski L. Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2022; 20:1139-1167. [DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2022.0051] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a “watch-and-wait” nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org, covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Al B. Benson
- 1Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | - Nilofer Azad
- 4The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Steven Hunt
- 16Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | | | - Smitha Krishnamurthi
- 20Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | | | | | | | - Eric D. Miller
- 24The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | - Mary F. Mulcahy
- 1Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | | | | | - Katrina Pedersen
- 16Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Anna Tavakkoli
- 32UT Southwestern Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center; and
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Sinicrope FA, Shi Q, Catteau A, Poage GM, Zemla TJ, Mlecnik B, Benson AB, Gill S, Goldberg RM, Kahlenberg MS, Nair SG, Shields AF, Smyrk TC, Galon J, Alberts SR. Immunoscore Is Prognostic in Low-Risk and High-Risk Stage III Colon Carcinomas Treated With Adjuvant Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin in a Phase III Trial. JCO Precis Oncol 2022; 6:e2200010. [PMID: 35952316 PMCID: PMC9384943 DOI: 10.1200/po.22.00010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2022] [Revised: 05/31/2022] [Accepted: 06/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The recommended duration of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer is based on tumor classification into clinically low-risk (T1-3 N1) and high-risk (T4 or N2) groups. We determined whether Immunoscore can enhance prognostication within these risk groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with stage III colon carcinomas (N = 600) were randomly selected from the infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin arm of adjuvant trial NCCTG N0147 (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology). Tumors were evaluated for Immunoscore that quantifies CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell densities in the tumor center and invasive margin by digital image analysis. Disease-free survival (DFS) by Immunoscore was analyzed using a multivariable Cox regression model in each risk group with adjustment for covariates including KRAS, BRAFV600E, and mismatch repair status. RESULTS Of 559 cancers with Immunoscore data, 299 (53.5%) were classified as clinically low-risk (T1-3 N1) and 260 (46.5%) as clinically high-risk (T4 and/or N2). Among patients with low-risk tumors, those with Immunoscore-Low versus Immunoscore-High tumors had significantly worse 5-year DFS rates (77.5% v 91.8%; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.79; P = .037). Among patients with high-risk tumors, those with Immunoscore-Low versus Immunoscore-High tumors also had significantly worse DFS (55.3% v 70.3%; hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.47; P = .013). Tumors that were low-risk/Immunoscore-Low had similar outcomes as did tumors that were high-risk/Immunoscore-High (P = .174). Prognostication was significantly improved in multivariable models where Immunoscore was added to clinical risk parameters and limited biomarkers (likelihood ratio test P = .0003). CONCLUSION Immunoscore can refine patient prognosis beyond clinical risk group classification, suggesting its potential utility for adjuvant decision making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frank A. Sinicrope
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Qian Shi
- Alliance Statistics and Data Center, Rochester, MN
| | | | | | | | - Bernhard Mlecnik
- INSERM, UMRS 1138, Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology, Universite Paris Descartes, Paris, France
- Inovarion, Paris, France
| | | | - Sharlene Gill
- British Columbia Cancer Agency—Vancouver Cancer Center, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | | | | | | | | | - Thomas C. Smyrk
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Jerome Galon
- INSERM, UMRS 1138, Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology, Universite Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - Steven R. Alberts
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Goldberg RM, Adams R, Buyse M, Eng C, Grothey A, André T, Sobrero AF, Lichtman SM, Benson AB, Punt CJA, Maughan T, Burzykowski T, Sommeijer D, Saad ED, Shi Q, Coart E, Chibaudel B, Koopman M, Schmoll HJ, Yoshino T, Taieb J, Tebbutt NC, Zalcberg J, Tabernero J, Van Cutsem E, Matheson A, de Gramont A. Clinical Trial Endpoints in Metastatic Cancer: Using Individual Participant Data to Inform Future Trials Methodology. J Natl Cancer Inst 2022; 114:819-828. [PMID: 34865086 PMCID: PMC9194619 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2021] [Revised: 09/14/2021] [Accepted: 11/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Marc Buyse
- International Drug Development Institute (IDDI), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
- Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium
| | - Cathy Eng
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Axel Grothey
- West Cancer Center and Research Institute, Germantown, TN, USA
| | | | | | | | - Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | | | - Tim Maughan
- Gray Institute of Radiation Oncology and Biology, University of Oxford, UK
| | - Tomasz Burzykowski
- International Drug Development Institute (IDDI), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
- Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium
| | - Dirkje Sommeijer
- University of Amsterdam Academic Medical Centre and Flevohospital, Almere, the Netherlands
| | - Everardo D Saad
- International Drug Development Institute (IDDI), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
- Dendrix Research, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | | | - Elisabeth Coart
- International Drug Development Institute (IDDI), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
| | | | | | | | | | - Julien Taieb
- Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris, France
| | | | - John Zalcberg
- Monash University, School of Public Health, Australia
| | - Josep Tabernero
- Vall d’Hebron Hospital Campus and Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain
| | | | | | - Aimery de Gramont
- Hôpital Franco-Britannique, Paris, France
- Fondation ARCAD , Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Eng C, Ciombor KK, Cho M, Dorth JA, Rajdev LN, Horowitz DP, Gollub MJ, Jácome AA, Lockney NA, Muldoon RL, Washington MK, O'Brian BA, Benny A, Lebeck Lee CM, Benson AB, Goodman KA, Morris VK. Anal Cancer: Emerging Standards in a Rare Rare Disease. J Clin Oncol 2022; 40:2774-2788. [PMID: 35649196 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.02566] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
The social stigma surrounding an anal cancer diagnosis has traditionally prevented open discussions about this disease. However, as recent treatment options and an increasing rate of diagnoses are made worldwide, awareness is growing. In the United States alone, 9,090 individuals were expected to be diagnosed with anal cancer in 2021. The US annual incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the anus continues to increase by 2.7% yearly, whereas the mortality rate increases by 3.1%. The main risk factor for anal cancer is a human papillomavirus infection; those with chronic immunosuppression are also at risk. Patients with HIV are 19 times more likely to develop anal cancer compared with the general population. In this review, we have provided an overview of the carcinoma of the anal canal, the role of screening, advancements in radiation therapy, and current trials investigating acute and chronic treatment-related toxicities. This article is a comprehensive approach to presenting the existing data in an effort to encourage continuous international interest in anal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cathy Eng
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center/Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Kristen K Ciombor
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center/Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - May Cho
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California- Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, CA
| | - Jennifer A Dorth
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Seidman Cancer Center, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH
| | - Lakshmi N Rajdev
- Division for Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Northwell Health/Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, NY
| | - David P Horowitz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Marc J Gollub
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Alexandre A Jácome
- OncoBio Comprehensive Cancer Center, Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, Nova Lima, Brazil
| | - Natalie A Lockney
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Roberta L Muldoon
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Mary Kay Washington
- Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Brittany A O'Brian
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center/Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Amala Benny
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center/Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Cody M Lebeck Lee
- VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Department of Internal Medicine, Nashville, TN
| | - Al B Benson
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine and Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, IL
| | - Karyn A Goodman
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
| | - Van Karlyle Morris
- Division of Cancer Medicine, Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Braun-Inglis C, Boehmer LM, Zitella LJ, Hoffner B, Shvetsov YB, Berenberg JL, Oyer RA, Benson AB. Role of Oncology Advanced Practitioners to Enhance Clinical Research. J Adv Pract Oncol 2022; 13:107-119. [PMID: 35369396 PMCID: PMC8955568 DOI: 10.6004/jadpro.2022.13.2.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Oncology advanced practitioners (APs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Advanced practitioners enhance value across the spectrum of cancer care. Research is an underdeveloped component of quality care, as well as an underdeveloped component of AP practice. Understanding research-related attitudes and roles of APs could lead to enhanced clinical trial accrual, conduct, and protocol development. Methods A nationwide survey addressing attitudes, beliefs, and roles of APs regarding clinical research was distributed by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) and Harborside in early 2020. Results 408 oncology APs completed the survey. Thirty-five percent practice in an academic setting and 62% in the community. Nearly all respondents believe clinical trials are important to improve care, and over 90% report clinical trials are available at their practice. About 80% report being comfortable discussing the topic of clinical trials with patients and are involved in the care of trial participants. Sixty percent are comfortable discussing available trials, and 38% routinely explore available trials with patients. While 70% report approaching eligible patients about trials, only 20% report doing so "a great deal" or "a lot." Ninety percent report that APs should play a role in clinical research, and 73% want to be more involved. Barriers identified to greater AP clinical trial involvement include lack of time, inadequate awareness of trial specifics, and a lack of a formal role in protocol development and leadership. Conclusions Advanced practitioners are engaged and interested in clinical trials and believe clinical research is important to improve cancer care. Multidisciplinary team integration, trials-related education, and policy change are needed to employ APs to their full potential within cancer clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christa Braun-Inglis
- From University of Hawaii School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene, Honolulu, Hawaii
- University of Hawaii Cancer Center, Honolulu, Hawaii
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Randall A. Oyer
- Ann B. Barshinger Cancer Institute, Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health, Lancaster, Pennsylvania
| | - Al B. Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Van Blarigan EL, Ou FS, Bainter TM, Fuchs CS, Niedzwiecki D, Zhang S, Saltz LB, Mayer RJ, Hantel A, Benson AB, Atienza D, Messino M, Kindler HL, Venook AP, Ogino S, Sanoff HK, Giovannucci EL, Ng K, Meyerhardt JA. Associations Between Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat With Risk of Recurrence and Mortality in Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e220145. [PMID: 35191970 PMCID: PMC8864503 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0145] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2021] [Accepted: 12/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Importance The American Cancer Society and American Institute for Cancer Research recommend that cancer survivors limit intake of red and processed meats. This recommendation is based on consistent associations between red and processed meat intake and cancer risk, particularly risk of colorectal cancer, but fewer data are available on red and processed meat intake after cancer diagnosis. Objectives To examine whether intake of unprocessed red meat or processed meat is associated with risk of cancer recurrence or mortality in patients with colon cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study used data from participants with stage III colon cancer enrolled in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 89803/Alliance) trial between 1999 and 2001. The clinical database for this analysis was frozen on November 9, 2009; the current data analyses were finalized in December 2021. Exposures Quartiles of unprocessed red meat and processed meat intake assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire during and 6 months after chemotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for risk of cancer recurrence or death and all-cause mortality. Results This study was conducted among 1011 patients with stage III colon cancer. The median (IQR) age at enrollment was 60 (51-69) years, 442 patients (44%) were women, and 899 patients (89%) were White. Over a median (IQR) follow-up period of 6.6 (1.9-7.5) years, we observed 305 deaths and 81 recurrences without death during follow-up (386 events combined). Intake of unprocessed red meat or processed meat after colon cancer diagnosis was not associated with risk of recurrence or mortality. The multivariable HRs comparing the highest vs lowest quartiles for cancer recurrence or death were 0.84 (95% CI, 0.58-1.23) for unprocessed red meat and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.75-1.47) for processed meat. For all-cause mortality, the corresponding HRs were 0.71 (95% CI, 0.47-1.07) for unprocessed red meat and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.72-1.51) for processed meat. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, postdiagnosis intake of unprocessed red meat or processed meat was not associated with risk of recurrence or death among patients with stage III colon cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erin L. Van Blarigan
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco
- Department of Urology, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco
| | - Fang-Shu Ou
- Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Tiffany M. Bainter
- Alliance Statistics and Data Management Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Charles S. Fuchs
- Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Donna Niedzwiecki
- Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Sui Zhang
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | | | | | - Al B. Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | | | - Michael Messino
- Southeast Clinical Oncology Research Consortium, Mission Hospitals, Inc, Asheville, North Carolina
| | - Hedy L. Kindler
- University of Chicago Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Alan P. Venook
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, California
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco
| | - Shuji Ogino
- Program in Molecular Pathology Epidemiology, Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
- Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, Cambridge
| | - Hanna K. Sanoff
- University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill
| | - Edward L. Giovannucci
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Kimmie Ng
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Kircher S, Braccio N, Gallagher K, Carlos R, Wagner L, Smith ML, Balch A, Benson AB. Meeting Patients Where They Are: Policy Platform for Telehealth and Cancer Care Delivery. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021; 19:1470-1474. [PMID: 34902826 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.7111] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
27
|
Brajcich BC, Benson AB, Gantt G, Eng OS, Marsh RW, Mulcahy MF, Polite BN, Shogan BD, Yang AD, Merkow RP. Management of colorectal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: Recommendations from a statewide multidisciplinary cancer collaborative. J Surg Oncol 2021; 125:560-563. [PMID: 34820843 PMCID: PMC9015333 DOI: 10.1002/jso.26758] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2021] [Accepted: 11/13/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
COVID‐19 has resulted in significant disruptions in cancer care. The Illinois Cancer Collaborative (ILCC), a statewide multidisciplinary cancer collaborative, has developed expert recommendations for triage and management of colorectal cancer when disruptions occur in usual care. Such recommendations would be applicable to future outbreaks of COVID‐19 or other large‐scale disruptions in cancer care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian C Brajcich
- Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center (SOQIC), Department of Surgery, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Al B Benson
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Gerald Gantt
- Department of Surgery, University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Oliver S Eng
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Robert W Marsh
- Department of Medical Oncology, NorthShore University HealthSystem, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Mary F Mulcahy
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Blase N Polite
- Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Benjamin D Shogan
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Anthony D Yang
- Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center (SOQIC), Department of Surgery, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Ryan P Merkow
- Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement Center (SOQIC), Department of Surgery, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Kelley RK, Joseph NM, Nimeiri HS, Hwang J, Kulik LM, Ngo Z, Behr SC, Onodera C, Zhang K, Bocobo AG, Benson AB, Venook AP, Gordan JD. Phase II Trial of the Combination of Temsirolimus and Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Tumor Mutation Profiling. Liver Cancer 2021; 10:561-571. [PMID: 34950179 PMCID: PMC8647100 DOI: 10.1159/000518297] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/10/2021] [Accepted: 07/01/2021] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway is upregulated in nearly half of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tumors and is associated with poor prognosis. In preclinical models of HCC, the combination of mTOR pathway inhibition with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib improves treatment efficacy. A prior phase I study of the allosteric mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus combined with sorafenib demonstrated acceptable safety at the recommended phase II dose. METHODS We conducted a single-arm, multicenter phase II trial of the combination of temsirolimus 10 mg intravenously weekly plus sorafenib 200 mg b.i.d. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP) with efficacy target of median TTP of at least 6 months; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, safety, and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) tumor marker response. Next-generation tumor sequencing was performed as an exploratory endpoint. RESULTS Twenty-nine patients were enrolled, including 48% with hepatitis C virus infection and 28% with hepatitis B virus; 86% had Barcelona clinic liver cancer stage C disease. Among 28 patients evaluable for efficacy, the median TTP was 3.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2, 5.3) months, with 14% of patients achieving TTP of at least 6 months. The median OS was 8.8 (95% CI: 6.8, 14.8) months. There were no complete or partial responses; 75% of patients had stable disease as best response. AFP decline by at least 50% was associated with prolonged TTP and OS. Serious adverse events occurred in 21%; the most common treatment-related adverse events of CTCAE grade 3 or higher were hypophosphatemia (36%), thrombocytopenia (14%), and rash (11%). There were no grade 5 events attributed to sorafenib or temsirolimus. Tumor next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed in a subgroup of 24 patients with adequate tumor samples. Tumor mTOR pathway mutations were identified in 42%. There was no association between tumor mutation profile and OS or TTP. CONCLUSIONS The combination of temsirolimus and sorafenib demonstrated acceptable safety but did not achieve the target threshold for efficacy in this phase II study. Tumor NGS including the presence of mTOR pathway mutations was not associated with treatment response in an exploratory subgroup analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robin K. Kelley
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center (HDFCCC), University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California, USA,*Robin K. Kelley,
| | - Nancy M. Joseph
- Department of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Halla S. Nimeiri
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Jimmy Hwang
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center (HDFCCC), University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Laura M. Kulik
- Division of Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Zoe Ngo
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center (HDFCCC), University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Spencer C. Behr
- Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Courtney Onodera
- Clinical Cancer Genomics Lab, UCSF Health, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Karen Zhang
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center (HDFCCC), University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California, USA,*Robin K. Kelley,
| | - Andrea G. Bocobo
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center (HDFCCC), University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Al B. Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Alan P. Venook
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center (HDFCCC), University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California, USA
| | - John D. Gordan
- Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center (HDFCCC), University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Benson AB, Carlos RC. Clinical trials as a path toward equity. Cancer 2021; 127:3717-3719. [PMID: 34374076 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33648] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2021] [Accepted: 04/21/2021] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Al B Benson
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Ruth C Carlos
- Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Loaiza‐Bonilla A, Benson AB, Grothey A, Karimi M, Klempner SJ, Lin D, Mahtani R, Soares HP. Use of Molecular Assays and Circulating Tumor DNA in Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: A Roundtable Discussion of the Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group. Oncologist 2021; 26:651-659. [PMID: 33650740 PMCID: PMC8342566 DOI: 10.1002/onco.13738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2020] [Accepted: 02/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
The use of genomic testing is rapidly emerging as an important clinical tool both for cancer diagnosis and for guiding treatment decisions in a wide range of malignancies, including gastrointestinal (GI) cancers such as colorectal cancer (CRC). Advances in technologies such as polymerase chain reaction and next-generation sequencing methods have made it possible to noninvasively screen for CRC through, for example, the use of blood- or stool-based testing, with high specificity. Tests are also available that can provide prognostic information beyond traditional clinicopathologic factors such as tumor size, grade, and nodal status, which can enable clinicians to more accurately risk stratify patients for recurrence. Lastly, in the setting of resected CRC, tests are now available that can detect circulating tumor DNA as a means for noninvasive minimal/molecular residual disease monitoring, thereby potentially guiding the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and/or escalating or de-escalating therapy. The Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group (GICTEG) recently convened a virtual meeting to discuss current issues related to genomic testing in GI cancer, with the goal of providing guidance on the use of these tests for the practicing community oncologist, for whom GI cancer may be only one of many tumor types encountered. This article provides a summary of the discussion and highlights the key opinions of the GICTEG on this topic. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Gastrointestinal Cancer Therapy Expert Group seeks to provide practical guidance and opinion on the treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies, including colorectal cancer (CRC), for the practicing community oncologist in situations for which guidelines from established bodies, such as the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology, may be less clear. In the present report, clinical guidance on the use of molecular assays for a range of clinical indications in CRC is presented, including the use of circulating tumor DNA to detect minimal/molecular residual disease in patients with successfully resected early-stage CRC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arturo Loaiza‐Bonilla
- Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Treatment Centers of AmericaPhiladelphiaPennsylvaniaUSA
| | - Al B. Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern UniversityChicagoIllinoisUSA
| | | | - Misagh Karimi
- Department of Medical Oncology & Therapeutics ResearchCity of Hope, Newport Beach, CaliforniaUSA
| | - Samuel J. Klempner
- Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General HospitalBostonMassachusettsUSA
| | - Daniel Lin
- Thomas Jefferson University HospitalPhiladelphiaPennsylvaniaUSA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Trosman JR, Weldon CB, Rapkin BD, Benson AB, Makower DF, Liang SY, Kulkarni SA, Perez CB, Lo SS, Krueger EA, Throckmorton AD, Gallagher C, Hoskins K, Schaeffer CM, Van Horn J, Schapira L, Ravelo A, Yu E, Gradishar WJ. Evaluation of the Novel 4R Oncology Care Planning Model in Breast Cancer: Impact on Patient Self-Management and Care Delivery in Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Centers. JCO Oncol Pract 2021; 17:e1202-e1214. [PMID: 34375560 DOI: 10.1200/op.21.00161] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Optimal cancer care requires patient self-management and coordinated timing and sequence of interdependent care. These are challenging, especially in safety-net settings treating underserved populations. We evaluated the 4R Oncology model (4R) of patient-facing care planning for impact on self-management and delivery of interdependent care at safety-net and non-safety-net institutions. METHODS Ten institutions (five safety-net and five non-safety-net) evaluated the 4R intervention from 2017 to 2020 with patients with stage 0-III breast cancer. Data on self-management and care delivery were collected via surveys and compared between the intervention cohort and the historical cohort (diagnosed before 4R launch). 4R usefulness was assessed within the intervention cohort. RESULTS Survey response rate was 63% (422/670) in intervention and 47% (466/992) in historical cohort. 4R usefulness was reported by 79.9% of patients receiving 4R and was higher for patients in safety-net than in non-safety-net centers (87.6%, 74.2%, P = .001). The intervention cohort measured significantly higher than historical cohort in five of seven self-management metrics, including clarity of care timing and sequence (71.3%, 55%, P < .001) and ability to manage care (78.9%, 72.1%, P = .02). Referrals to interdependent care were significantly higher in the intervention than in the historical cohort along all six metrics, including primary care consult (33.9%, 27.7%, P = .045) and flu vaccination (38.6%, 27.9%, P = .001). Referral completions were significantly higher in four of six metrics. For safety-net patients, improvements in most self-management and care delivery metrics were similar or higher than for non-safety-net patients, even after controlling for all other variables. CONCLUSION 4R Oncology was useful to patients and significantly improved self-management and delivery of interdependent care, but gaps remain. Model enhancements and further evaluations are needed for broad adoption. Patients in safety-net settings benefited from 4R at similar or higher rates than non-safety-net patients, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia R Trosman
- Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Glencoe, IL.,Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Christine B Weldon
- Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Glencoe, IL.,Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Bruce D Rapkin
- Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein Cancer Center, Bronx, NY.,Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY
| | - Al B Benson
- Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL.,Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | | | - Su-Ying Liang
- Sutter Health-Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA
| | - Swati A Kulkarni
- Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL.,Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | | | - Shelly S Lo
- Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, IL
| | | | | | | | - Kent Hoskins
- Division of Medical Oncology, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Cathleen M Schaeffer
- Division of Medical Oncology, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Jennifer Van Horn
- Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center, Loveland, CO, Formerly Cheyenne Regional Medical Center, Cheyenne, WY
| | - Lidia Schapira
- Stanford University and Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, CA
| | | | - Elaine Yu
- Genentech Inc, South San Francisco, CA
| | - William J Gradishar
- Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL.,Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Shah MH, Goldner WS, Benson AB, Bergsland E, Blaszkowsky LS, Brock P, Chan J, Das S, Dickson PV, Fanta P, Giordano T, Halfdanarson TR, Halperin D, He J, Heaney A, Heslin MJ, Kandeel F, Kardan A, Khan SA, Kuvshinoff BW, Lieu C, Miller K, Pillarisetty VG, Reidy D, Salgado SA, Shaheen S, Soares HP, Soulen MC, Strosberg JR, Sussman CR, Trikalinos NA, Uboha NA, Vijayvergia N, Wong T, Lynn B, Hochstetler C. Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021; 19:839-868. [PMID: 34340212 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 219] [Impact Index Per Article: 73.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Gland Tumors focus on the diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, paragangliomas, and multiple endocrine neoplasia. NETs are generally subclassified by site of origin, stage, and histologic characteristics. Appropriate diagnosis and treatment of NETs often involves collaboration between specialists in multiple disciplines, using specific biochemical, radiologic, and surgical methods. Specialists include pathologists, endocrinologists, radiologists (including nuclear medicine specialists), and medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists. These guidelines discuss the diagnosis and management of both sporadic and hereditary neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. This article is focused on the 2021 NCCN Guidelines principles of genetic risk assessment and counseling and recommendations for well-differentiated grade 3 NETs, poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, adrenal tumors, pheochromocytomas, and paragangliomas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manisha H Shah
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | | | - Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | - Pamela Brock
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | | | | | - Paxton V Dickson
- St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center
| | | | | | | | | | - Jin He
- The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins
| | | | | | | | - Arash Kardan
- Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Nikolaos A Trikalinos
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | | | - Beth Lynn
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
D'Amico TA, Bandini LAM, Balch A, Benson AB, Edge SB, Fitzgerald CL, Green RJ, Koh WJ, Kolodziej M, Kumar S, Meropol NJ, Mohler JL, Pfister D, Walters RS, Carlson RW. Quality Measurement in Cancer Care: A Review and Endorsement of High-Impact Measures and Concepts. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021; 18:250-259. [PMID: 32135508 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7536] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/19/2019] [Accepted: 01/10/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Although oncology care has evolved, outcome assessment remains a key challenge. Outcome measurement requires identification and adoption of a succinct list of metrics indicative of high-quality cancer care for use within and across healthcare systems. NCCN established an advisory committee, the NCCN Quality and Outcomes Committee, consisting of provider experts from NCCN Member Institutions and other stakeholders, including payers and patient advocacy, community oncology, and health information technology representatives, to review the existing quality landscape and identify contemporary, relevant cancer quality and outcomes measures by reevaluating validated measures for endorsement and proposing new measure concepts to fill crucial gaps. This manuscript reports on 22 measures and concepts; 15 that align with existing measures and 7 that are new.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Alan Balch
- The National Patient Advocate Foundation, Washington, DC
| | - Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Stephen B Edge
- Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York
| | - C Lyn Fitzgerald
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Wui-Jin Koh
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania
| | | | - Shaji Kumar
- Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - James L Mohler
- Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York
| | - David Pfister
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; and
| | - Ronald S Walters
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Robert W Carlson
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Overman M, Javle M, Davis RE, Vats P, Kumar-Sinha C, Xiao L, Mettu NB, Parra ER, Benson AB, Lopez CD, Munugalavadla V, Patel P, Tao L, Neelapu S, Maitra A. Randomized phase II study of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor acalabrutinib, alone or with pembrolizumab in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. J Immunother Cancer 2021; 8:jitc-2020-000587. [PMID: 32114502 PMCID: PMC7057435 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2020-000587] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The immunosuppressive desmoplastic stroma of pancreatic cancer represents a major hurdle to developing an effective immune response. Preclinical studies in pancreatic cancer have demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity with Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibition combined with programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1) blockade. Methods This was a phase II, multicenter, open-label, randomized (1:1) clinical trial evaluating the BTK inhibitor acalabrutinib, alone (monotherapy) or in combination with the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab (combination therapy). Eligible patients were adults with histologically confirmed metastatic or locally advanced unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) ≤1 who had received at least one prior systemic therapy. Oral acalabrutinib 100 mg twice daily was administered with or without intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg on day 1 of each 3-week cycle. Peripheral blood was analyzed for changes in immune markers, and tumors from exceptional responders were molecularly analyzed. Results A total of 77 patients were enrolled (37 monotherapy; 40 combination therapy) with a median age of 64 years; 77% had an ECOG PS of 1. The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1–6). Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 14.3% of patients in the monotherapy arm and 15.8% of those in the combination therapy arm. The overall response rate and disease control rate were 0% and 14.3% with monotherapy and 7.9% and 21.1% with combination therapy, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 1.4 months in both arms. Peripheral blood flow analysis demonstrated consistent reductions in granulocytic (CD15+) myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) over time. Two exceptional responders were found to be microsatellite stable with low tumor mutation burden, low neoantigen load and no defects in the homologous DNA repair pathway. Conclusions The combination of acalabrutinib and pembrolizumab was well tolerated, but limited clinical activity was seen with either acalabrutinib monotherapy or combination therapy. Peripheral reductions in MDSCs were seen. Efforts to understand and target the pancreatic tumor microenvironment should continue. Trial registration number NCT02362048.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Overman
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Milind Javle
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Richard E Davis
- Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Pankaj Vats
- Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Chandan Kumar-Sinha
- Michigan Center for Translational Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
| | - Lianchun Xiao
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Niharika B Mettu
- Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
| | - Edwin R Parra
- Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Al B Benson
- Department of Medicine, Hematology Oncology Division, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
| | - Charles D Lopez
- Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University Foundation, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | | | - Priti Patel
- Acerta Pharma LLC, Redwood City, California, USA
| | - Lin Tao
- Acerta Pharma LLC, Redwood City, California, USA
| | - Sattva Neelapu
- Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Anirban Maitra
- Department of Translational Molecular Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Benson AB, D'Angelica MI, Abbott DE, Anaya DA, Anders R, Are C, Bachini M, Borad M, Brown D, Burgoyne A, Chahal P, Chang DT, Cloyd J, Covey AM, Glazer ES, Goyal L, Hawkins WG, Iyer R, Jacob R, Kelley RK, Kim R, Levine M, Palta M, Park JO, Raman S, Reddy S, Sahai V, Schefter T, Singh G, Stein S, Vauthey JN, Venook AP, Yopp A, McMillian NR, Hochstetler C, Darlow SD. Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021; 19:541-565. [PMID: 34030131 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 395] [Impact Index Per Article: 131.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Al B Benson
- 1Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | | | - Robert Anders
- 5The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Prabhleen Chahal
- 11Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | | | - Jordan Cloyd
- 13The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | | | - Evan S Glazer
- 14St. Jude Children's Research HospitalThe University of Tennessee Health Science Center
| | | | - William G Hawkins
- 16Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | - R Kate Kelley
- 19UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | - Robin Kim
- 20Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah
| | - Matthew Levine
- 21Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania
| | | | - James O Park
- 23Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattle Cancer Care Alliance
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Alan P Venook
- 19UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | - Adam Yopp
- 31UT Southwestern Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center; and
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Al-Hawary M, Behrman SW, Benson AB, Cardin DB, Chiorean EG, Chung V, Czito B, Del Chiaro M, Dillhoff M, Donahue TR, Dotan E, Ferrone CR, Fountzilas C, Hardacre J, Hawkins WG, Klute K, Ko AH, Kunstman JW, LoConte N, Lowy AM, Moravek C, Nakakura EK, Narang AK, Obando J, Polanco PM, Reddy S, Reyngold M, Scaife C, Shen J, Vollmer C, Wolff RA, Wolpin BM, Lynn B, George GV. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021; 19:439-457. [PMID: 33845462 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 448] [Impact Index Per Article: 149.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death among men and women in the United States. A major challenge in treatment remains patients' advanced disease at diagnosis. The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma provides recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with pancreatic cancer. Although survival rates remain relatively unchanged, newer modalities of treatment, including targeted therapies, provide hope for improving patient outcomes. Sections of the manuscript have been updated to be concordant with the most recent update to the guidelines. This manuscript focuses on the available systemic therapy approaches, specifically the treatment options for locally advanced and metastatic disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Al B Benson
- 5Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Mary Dillhoff
- 11The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | | | | | | | | | - Jeffrey Hardacre
- 16Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | - William G Hawkins
- 17Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | - Andrew H Ko
- 1UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Amol K Narang
- 23The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Beth Lynn
- 32National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Chan H, Zhang L, Choti MA, Kulke M, Yao JC, Nakakura EK, Bloomston M, Benson AB, Shah MH, Strosberg JR, Bergsland EK, Van Loon K. Recurrence Patterns After Surgical Resection of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Analysis From the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Oncology Outcomes Database. Pancreas 2021; 50:506-512. [PMID: 33939661 PMCID: PMC8097723 DOI: 10.1097/mpa.0000000000001791] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEPNETs) recommend complete (R0) surgical resection of the primary tumor and metastases, if feasible. However, large multicenter studies of recurrence patterns of GEPNETs after resection have not been performed. METHODS Patients 18 years or older who presented to 7 participating National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions between 2004 and 2008 with a new diagnosis of a small bowel, pancreas, or colon/rectum neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and underwent R0 resection of the primary tumor, and synchronous metastases, if present, were included in this analysis. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to calculate recurrence rates and time-associated end points, respectively. RESULTS Of 294 patients with GEPNETs, 50% were male, 88% were White, and 99% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1. The median age was 55 years (range, 20-90). The median follow-up time from R0 resection was 62.1 months. Recurrence rates were 18% in small bowel NETs (n = 110), 26% in pancreatic NETs (n = 141), and 10% in colon/rectum NETs (n = 50). The frequency of surveillance imaging was highly variable. CONCLUSIONS R0 resection was associated with variable risk of recurrence across subtypes. Further research to inform refinement of guidelines for the appropriate duration of surveillance after R0 resection is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hilary Chan
- From the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Li Zhang
- From the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Michael A Choti
- The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD
| | | | - James C Yao
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Eric K Nakakura
- From the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Mark Bloomston
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Columbus, OH
| | - Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Manisha H Shah
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center-James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Columbus, OH
| | | | - Emily K Bergsland
- From the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| | - Katherine Van Loon
- From the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, Arain MA, Chen YJ, Ciombor KK, Cohen S, Cooper HS, Deming D, Farkas L, Garrido-Laguna I, Grem JL, Gunn A, Hecht JR, Hoffe S, Hubbard J, Hunt S, Johung KL, Kirilcuk N, Krishnamurthi S, Messersmith WA, Meyerhardt J, Miller ED, Mulcahy MF, Nurkin S, Overman MJ, Parikh A, Patel H, Pedersen K, Saltz L, Schneider C, Shibata D, Skibber JM, Sofocleous CT, Stoffel EM, Stotsky-Himelfarb E, Willett CG, Gregory KM, Gurski LA. Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021; 19:329-359. [PMID: 33724754 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 627] [Impact Index Per Article: 209.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation-positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | - Alan P Venook
- UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | | | | | | - Stacey Cohen
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
| | | | | | - Linda Farkas
- UT Southwestern Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Steven Hunt
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | - Smitha Krishnamurthi
- Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | | | | | - Eric D Miller
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | - Mary F Mulcahy
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | | | | | - Katrina Pedersen
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Sangaré L, Delli-Zotti K, Florea A, Rehn M, Benson AB, Lowe KA. An evaluation of RAS testing among metastatic colorectal cancer patients in the USA. Future Oncol 2021; 17:1653-1663. [PMID: 33629919 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2020-1075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Data on RAS testing practices prior to metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment initiation are lacking in the USA. Materials & methods: Flatiron data were utilized for patients diagnosed with mCRC between 2011 and 2017. Flatiron is a longitudinal, demographically and geographically diverse database representing data from over 1.5 million active US patients treated at 255 community and hospital-affiliated oncology clinics. Results: Among 17,387 mCRC patients 69% were RAS tested and 31% were never tested. Timing of RAS testing was as follows: 23% were tested at the time of their initial CRC diagnosis, 60% following mCRC diagnosis but prior to first line of treatment, 3% prior to third line, the remaining 14% were tested following third line. Conclusion: A third (31%) of patients failed to receive RAS testing, therefore all treatment options were unavailable to them. These data highlight how universal testing has not been achieved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Ana Florea
- Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85724, USA
| | | | - Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
| | - Kimberly A Lowe
- Center for Observational Research, One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, USA
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Shaunfield S, Webster KA, Kaiser K, Greene GJ, Yount SE, Lacson L, Benson AB, Halperin DM, Yao JC, Singh S, Feuilly M, Marteau F, Cella D. Development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Carcinoid Syndrome Symptom Index. Neuroendocrinology 2021; 111:850-862. [PMID: 32911478 DOI: 10.1159/000511482] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2020] [Accepted: 09/08/2020] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To develop a symptom-focused index to evaluate representative symptoms, treatment side effects, and emotional and functional well-being of patients with carcinoid syndrome (CS). METHODS The development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Carcinoid Syndrome Symptom Index (FACT-CSI) followed US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and involved the following: (a) literature review; (b) interviews with 14 CS patients; (c) interviews with 9 clinicians; and (d) instrument development involving input from a range of PRO measure development and CS experts. The resulting draft instrument underwent cognitive interviews with 7 CS patients. RESULTS Forty-six CS sources were reviewed. Analysis of patient interviews produced 23 patient-reported symptoms. The most frequently endorsed physical symptoms were flushing, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue, and food sensitivity/triggers. Seven priority CS emotional and functional themes were also identified by patients. Expert interviews revealed 12 unique priority symptoms - the most common being diarrhea, flushing, wheezing, edema, abdominal pain/cramping, fatigue, and 8 emotional and functional concerns. Through an iterative process of team and clinical collaborator meetings, data review, item reduction and measure revision, 24 items were selected for the draft symptom index representing symptoms, emotional concerns, global assessment of treatment side effects, and functional well-being. Cognitive interview results demonstrated strong content validity, including positive endorsement of item clarity (>86% across items), symptom relevance (>70% for most items), and overall measure content (86%). CONCLUSIONS The FACT-CSI is a content-relevant, symptom-focused index reflecting the highest priority and clinically relevant symptoms and concerns of people with CS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Shaunfield
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA,
| | - Kimberly A Webster
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Karen Kaiser
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - George J Greene
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Susan E Yount
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Leilani Lacson
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Al B Benson
- Department of Medical Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Daniel M Halperin
- Department Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - James C Yao
- Department Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Simron Singh
- Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Marion Feuilly
- Ipsen Pharma, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Boulogne Billancourt, France
| | - Florence Marteau
- Ipsen Pharma, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Boulogne Billancourt, France
| | - David Cella
- Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Van Cutsem E, Amonkar M, Fuchs CS, Alsina M, Özgüroğlu M, Bang YJ, Chung HC, Muro K, Goekkurt E, Benson AB, Sun W, Wainberg ZA, Norquist JM, Chen X, Shih CS, Shitara K. Correction to: Health-related quality of life in advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer with second-line pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-061. Gastric Cancer 2021; 24:1341. [PMID: 34536168 PMCID: PMC9172792 DOI: 10.1007/s10120-021-01248-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Eric Van Cutsem
- grid.410569.f0000 0004 0626 3338Department of Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven, 49 Herestraat, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Mayur Amonkar
- grid.417993.10000 0001 2260 0793Center for Observational and Real World Evidence, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ USA
| | - Charles S. Fuchs
- grid.47100.320000000419368710Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT USA
| | - Maria Alsina
- grid.7080.fDepartment of Medical Oncology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital and Institute of Oncology, University Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Mustafa Özgüroğlu
- grid.506076.20000 0004 1797 5496Department of Internal Medicine, Medical Oncology, and Clinical Trial Unit, Cerrahpaşa School of Medicine, Istanbul University–Cerrahpaşa, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Yung-Jue Bang
- grid.31501.360000 0004 0470 5905Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hyun Cheol Chung
- grid.15444.300000 0004 0470 5454Department of Medical Oncology, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Kei Muro
- grid.410800.d0000 0001 0722 8444Department of Clinical Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Eray Goekkurt
- grid.412315.0North-German Trial Center for Innovative Oncology, Hematology Oncology Practice Eppendorf, University Cancer Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Al B. Benson
- grid.16753.360000 0001 2299 3507Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL USA
| | - Weijing Sun
- grid.266515.30000 0001 2106 0692Department of Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology, University of Kansas, Westwood, KS USA
| | - Zev A. Wainberg
- grid.19006.3e0000 0000 9632 6718Department of Medicine and Hematology and Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA USA
| | - Josephine M. Norquist
- grid.417993.10000 0001 2260 0793Center for Observational and Real World Evidence, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ USA
| | - Xinqun Chen
- grid.417993.10000 0001 2260 0793Department of Medical Oncology, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ USA
| | - Chie-Schin Shih
- grid.417993.10000 0001 2260 0793Department of Medical Oncology, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ USA
| | - Kohei Shitara
- grid.272242.30000 0001 2168 5385Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chiba, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Dasari A, Morris VK, Allegra CJ, Atreya C, Benson AB, Boland P, Chung K, Copur MS, Corcoran RB, Deming DA, Dwyer A, Diehn M, Eng C, George TJ, Gollub MJ, Goodwin RA, Hamilton SR, Hechtman JF, Hochster H, Hong TS, Innocenti F, Iqbal A, Jacobs SA, Kennecke HF, Lee JJ, Lieu CH, Lenz HJ, Lindwasser OW, Montagut C, Odisio B, Ou FS, Porter L, Raghav K, Schrag D, Scott AJ, Shi Q, Strickler JH, Venook A, Yaeger R, Yothers G, You YN, Zell JA, Kopetz S. ctDNA applications and integration in colorectal cancer: an NCI Colon and Rectal-Anal Task Forces whitepaper. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2020; 17:757-770. [PMID: 32632268 PMCID: PMC7790747 DOI: 10.1038/s41571-020-0392-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 184] [Impact Index Per Article: 46.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/12/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
An increasing number of studies are describing potential uses of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) in the care of patients with colorectal cancer. Owing to this rapidly developing area of research, the Colon and Rectal-Anal Task Forces of the United States National Cancer Institute convened a panel of multidisciplinary experts to summarize current data on the utility of ctDNA in the management of colorectal cancer and to provide guidance in promoting the efficient development and integration of this technology into clinical care. The panel focused on four key areas in which ctDNA has the potential to change clinical practice, including the detection of minimal residual disease, the management of patients with rectal cancer, monitoring responses to therapy, and tracking clonal dynamics in response to targeted therapies and other systemic treatments. The panel also provides general guidelines with relevance for ctDNA-related research efforts, irrespective of indication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arvind Dasari
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| | - Van K Morris
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | | | - Chloe Atreya
- University of California at San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Al B Benson
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Patrick Boland
- Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Ki Chung
- Division of Hematology & Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
| | - Mehmet S Copur
- CHI Health St Francis Cancer Treatment Center, Grand Island, NE, USA
| | - Ryan B Corcoran
- Department of Medical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Dustin A Deming
- Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| | - Andrea Dwyer
- University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Maximilian Diehn
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Cathy Eng
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Thomas J George
- Department of Medicine, University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Marc J Gollub
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Stanley R Hamilton
- Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jaclyn F Hechtman
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Howard Hochster
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Theodore S Hong
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MD, USA
| | - Federico Innocenti
- Center for Pharmacogenomics and Individualized Therapy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Atif Iqbal
- Section of Colorectal Surgery, Division of Surgery, Dan L. Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Samuel A Jacobs
- National Adjuvant Surgical and Bowel Project Foundation/NRG Oncology, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Hagen F Kennecke
- Department of Oncology, Virginia Mason Cancer Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - James J Lee
- Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Hillman Cancer Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Christopher H Lieu
- Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Heinz-Josef Lenz
- Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California/Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - O Wolf Lindwasser
- Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Clara Montagut
- Hospital del Mar-Institut Hospital del Mar d'Investigacions Mèdiques, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Bruno Odisio
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Fang-Shu Ou
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Laura Porter
- Patient Advocate, NCI Colon Task Force, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Kanwal Raghav
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Deborah Schrag
- Division of Population Sciences, Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Aaron J Scott
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Banner University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ, USA
| | - Qian Shi
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - John H Strickler
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Alan Venook
- University of California at San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Rona Yaeger
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Greg Yothers
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Y Nancy You
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jason A Zell
- Department of Epidemiology, Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Scott Kopetz
- Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
Kircher SM, Mulcahy M, Kalyan A, Weldon CB, Trosman JR, Benson AB. Telemedicine in Oncology and Reimbursement Policy During COVID-19 and Beyond. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020; 19:1-7. [PMID: 32998106 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2020.7639] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2020] [Accepted: 08/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
The first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States was reported on January 20, 2020. As of September 17, 2020, there were more than 6.6 million confirmed cases and 196,277 deaths. Limited data are available on outcomes of immunocompromised patients, but early published reports from China indicate that those with cancer have a 3.5 times higher risk of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death than those without cancer. Because of the uncertain behavior of COVID-19, it has become imperative for practices to limit exposure to vulnerable patients. Telemedicine has been one of the cornerstones of caring for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review provides an overview of reimbursement policy by public and private payers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, describes implications in cancer care, and offers considerations for future reimbursement policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sheetal M Kircher
- 1Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago
- 2Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago; and
| | - Mary Mulcahy
- 1Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago
- 2Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago; and
| | - Aparna Kalyan
- 1Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago
- 2Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago; and
| | - Christine B Weldon
- 2Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago; and
- 3Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Glencoe, Illinois
| | - Julia R Trosman
- 2Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago; and
- 3Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Glencoe, Illinois
| | - Al B Benson
- 1Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago
- 2Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago; and
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Bitterman DS, Winter KA, Hong TS, Fuchs CS, Regine WF, Abrams RA, Safran H, Hoffman JP, Benson AB, Kasunic T, Mulcahy M, Strauss JF, DiPetrillo T, Stella PJ, Chen Y, Plastaras JP, Crane CH. Impact of Diabetes and Insulin Use on Prognosis in Patients With Resected Pancreatic Cancer: An Ancillary Analysis of NRG Oncology RTOG 9704. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2020; 109:201-211. [PMID: 32858111 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.042] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2020] [Revised: 07/31/2020] [Accepted: 08/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Diabetes mellitus (DM) has been proposed to be tumorigenic; however, prior studies of the association between DM and survival are conflicting. The goal of this ancillary analysis of RTOG 9704, a randomized controlled trial of adjuvant chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer, was to determine the prognostic effects of DM and insulin use on survival. METHODS AND MATERIALS Eligible patients from RTOG 9704 with available data on DM and insulin use were included. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and variable levels were compared using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were created to assess the associations among DM, insulin use, and body mass index phenotypes on outcomes. RESULTS Of 538 patients enrolled from 1998 to 2002, 238 patients were eligible with analyzable DM and insulin use data. Overall 34% of patients had DM and 66% did not. Of patients with DM, 64% had insulin-dependent DM, and 36% had non-insulin-dependent DM. On univariable analysis, neither DM nor insulin dependence were associated with OS or DFS (P > .05 for all). On multivariable analysis, neither DM, insulin use, nor body mass index were independently associated with OS or DFS. Nonwhite race (hazard ratio [HR], 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-3.50; P = .0014), nodal involvement (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.24-2.45; P = .0015), and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) ≥90 U/mL (HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 2.32-5.63; P < .001) were associated with decreased OS. Nonwhite race (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.05-2.63; P = .029) and CA19-9 ≥90 U/mL (HR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.85-4.40; P < .001) were associated with decreased DFS. CONCLUSIONS DM and insulin use were not associated with OS or DFS in patients with pancreatic cancer in this study. Race, nodal involvement, and increased CA19-9 were significant predictors of outcomes. These data might apply to the more modern use of neoadjuvant therapies for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kathryn A Winter
- NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Theodore S Hong
- Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - William F Regine
- University of Maryland/Greenebaum Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - James F Strauss
- Texas Health Resources Presbyterian Hospital Dallas (accrual under University of Texas/Presbyterian Hospital), Dallas, Texas
| | | | - Philip J Stella
- St. Joseph Mercy Hospital (accrual under Michigan Cancer Research Consortium CCOP), Ypsilanti, Michigan
| | | | - John P Plastaras
- University of Pennsylvania/Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Kamath SD, Kircher SM, Benson AB. Comparison of Cancer Burden and Nonprofit Organization Funding Reveals Disparities in Funding Across Cancer Types. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020; 17:849-854. [PMID: 31319386 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7280] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2018] [Accepted: 02/04/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in oncology are vital for patient advocacy and funding research for rare cancers, young investigators, and innovative projects. However, some cancers may be underfunded relative to their burden. This study examined the alignment of cancer burden by histology with NPO funding for each histology. PATIENTS AND METHODS This nationwide, cross-sectional study conducted from October 2017 through February 2018 included all oncology NPOs with >$5 million in annual revenue. Total revenue from NPOs supporting individual cancer types with the incidence, mortality, and person-years of life lost (PYLL) for each cancer type was compared using scatter plots and Pearson correlation coefficients. Correlation of expenditure types (eg, fundraising, patient education) with revenue was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Effect of disease association with a stigmatized behavior (eg, lung cancer and smoking) was evaluated using descriptive statistics. RESULTS A total of 119 cancer-related NPOs were included, generating approximately $6 billion in annual revenue in 2015. Cancers with the largest revenue were breast cancer ($460 million; 33.2%), leukemia ($201 million; 14.5%), pediatric cancers ($177 million; 12.8%), and lymphoma ($145 million; 10.5%). Breast cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, and pediatric cancers were all well funded compared with their incidence, mortality, and PYLL. Gastrointestinal (colorectal, pancreas, and hepatobiliary), gynecologic (ovarian, cervical, and endometrial), brain, and lung cancers were poorly funded in all 3 metrics. All cancers associated with a stigmatized behavior were poorly funded in at least 2 metrics. Increased spending on fundraising, administrative costs, patient education, and treatment was highly correlated with increased revenue (Pearson correlation coefficients all >0.92). CONCLUSIONS NPO funding by cancer type is not proportionate with individual cancer burden on society. Disease stigma negatively impacts funding. A significant need exists to increase awareness and funding for many undersupported but common and highly lethal cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suneel D Kamath
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and
| | - Sheetal M Kircher
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and.,Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Al B Benson
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and.,Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, Arain MA, Chen YJ, Ciombor KK, Cohen SA, Cooper HS, Deming DA, Garrido-Laguna I, Grem JL, Hoffe SE, Hubbard J, Hunt S, Kamel A, Kirilcuk N, Krishnamurthi S, Messersmith WA, Meyerhardt J, Miller ED, Mulcahy MF, Nurkin S, Overman MJ, Parikh A, Patel H, Pedersen KS, Saltz LB, Schneider C, Shibata D, Skibber JM, Sofocleous CT, Stoffel EM, Stotsky-Himelfarb E, Willett CG, Johnson-Chilla A, Gregory KM, Gurski LA. Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020; 17:1109-1133. [PMID: 31487687 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract that has increased in incidence across recent years. Often diagnosed at an advanced stage, outcomes for SBA are worse on average than for other related malignancies, including colorectal cancer. Due to the rarity of this disease, few studies have been done to direct optimal treatment, although recent data have shown that SBA responds to treatment differently than colorectal cancer, necessitating a separate approach to treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma were created to establish an evidence-based standard of care for patients with SBA. These guidelines provide recommendations on the workup of suspected SBA, primary treatment options, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, and systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Additionally, principles of imaging and endoscopy, pathologic review, surgery, radiation therapy, and survivorship are described.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | - Alan P Venook
- UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | | | | | | - Stacey A Cohen
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Steven Hunt
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | - Smitha Krishnamurthi
- Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | | | | | - Eric D Miller
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | - Mary F Mulcahy
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | | | | | - Katrina S Pedersen
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Li Y, Eresen A, Shangguan J, Yang J, Benson AB, Yaghmai V, Zhang Z. Preoperative prediction of perineural invasion and KRAS mutation in colon cancer using machine learning. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2020; 146:3165-3174. [PMID: 32779023 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-020-03354-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2020] [Accepted: 08/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE Preoperative prediction of perineural invasion (PNI) and Kirsten RAS (KRAS) mutation in colon cancer is critical for treatment planning and patient management. We developed machine learning models for diagnosis of PNI and KRAS mutation in colon cancer patients by interpreting preoperative CT. METHODS This retrospective study included 207 patients who received surgical resection in our institution. The underlying tumor characteristics were described by analyzing CT image texture quantitatively. The key radiomics features were determined with similarity analysis followed by RELIEFF method among 306 CT imaging features. Eight kernel-based support vector machines classifiers were constructed using individual (II, III, or IV) or multi-stage (II + III + IV) patient cohorts for predicting PNI and KRAS mutation. The model performances were evaluated using accuracy, receiver operating curve, and decision curve analyses. RESULTS Multi-stage classifiers obtained AUC of 0.793 and 0.862 for detecting PNI and KRAS mutation for test cohort. Moreover, individual-stage classifiers demonstrated significantly improved diagnostic performance at all stages (IIAUC: [0.86; 0.99], IIIAUC: [0.99; 0.99], and IVAUC: [1.00; 1.00], respectively, for PNI and KRAS mutation in test cohort). Besides, stage II tumor is better described with coarse texture features while more detailed features are required for better characterization of advanced-stage tumors (III and IV) for diagnoses of PNI or KRAS mutation. CONCLUSION Machine learning models developed using preoperative CT data can predict PNI and KRAS mutation in colon cancer patients with satisfactory performance. Individual-stage models better-characterized the relationship between CT features and PNI or KRAS mutation than multi-stage models and demonstrated good prediction scores.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yu Li
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China.,Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 737 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - Aydin Eresen
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 737 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.
| | - Junjie Shangguan
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 737 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - Jia Yang
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 737 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA
| | - Al B Benson
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.,Robert Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Vahid Yaghmai
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 737 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.,Robert Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.,Department of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Orange, Irvine, CA, USA
| | - Zhuoli Zhang
- Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 737 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA.,Robert Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Benson AB, D'Angelica MI, Abbott DE, Abrams TA, Alberts SR, Anaya DA, Anders R, Are C, Brown D, Chang DT, Cloyd J, Covey AM, Hawkins W, Iyer R, Jacob R, Karachristos A, Kelley RK, Kim R, Palta M, Park JO, Sahai V, Schefter T, Sicklick JK, Singh G, Sohal D, Stein S, Tian GG, Vauthey JN, Venook AP, Hammond LJ, Darlow SD. Guidelines Insights: Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2019. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020; 17:302-310. [PMID: 30959462 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 165] [Impact Index Per Article: 41.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the liver, gallbladder, and bile ducts. The NCCN Hepatobiliary Cancers 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 the panel's discussion and updated recommendations regarding systemic therapy for first-line and subsequent-line treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Al B Benson
- 1Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Robert Anders
- 7The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins
| | | | | | | | - Jordan Cloyd
- 11The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | | | - William Hawkins
- 12Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | - Rojymon Jacob
- 14University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | - R Kate Kelley
- 16UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | - Robin Kim
- 17Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah
| | | | - James O Park
- 19University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
| | | | | | | | | | - Davendra Sohal
- 24Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | | | - G Gary Tian
- 26St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center
| | | | - Alan P Venook
- 16UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Lanzi A, Sinicrope FA, Benson AB, Galon J. The consensus Immunoscore in phase 3 clinical trial (N0147) and impact on patient management decisions. Oncoimmunology 2020; 9:1796003. [PMID: 32934890 PMCID: PMC7466859 DOI: 10.1080/2162402x.2020.1796003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
The consensus Immunoscore is a routine assay quantifying the adaptive immune response within the tumor microenvironment. It has a prognostic value that has been confirmed in a phase 3 clinical trial (NCCTG N0147) in stage III colon cancers. Moreover, results from another phase 3 randomized trial revealed the predictive value of Immunoscore for response to adjuvant chemotherapy duration. These results highlight the clinical utility of Immunoscore. In its latest edition, the World Health Organization classification of Digestive System Tumors introduced for the first time the immune response as an essential and desirable diagnostic criterion for colorectal cancer. Within the tumor microenvironment, the immune response provides an important estimate of the risk of recurrence and death in colon cancer. The international validation of the prognostic value of the consensus Immunoscore together with its prognostic value in the N0147 trial and its predictive utility for response to chemotherapy in stage III patients provide valuable information for patient management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anastasia Lanzi
- INSERM, Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology, Cordeliers Research Center, Paris, France.,Equipe Labellisée Ligue Contre le Cancer, Paris, France.,Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Sorbonne Université, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | | | - A B Benson
- Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Jérôme Galon
- INSERM, Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology, Cordeliers Research Center, Paris, France.,Equipe Labellisée Ligue Contre le Cancer, Paris, France.,Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Sorbonne Université, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Tempero MA, Malafa MP, Chiorean EG, Czito B, Scaife C, Narang AK, Fountzilas C, Wolpin BM, Al-Hawary M, Asbun H, Behrman SW, Benson AB, Binder E, Cardin DB, Cha C, Chung V, Dillhoff M, Dotan E, Ferrone CR, Fisher G, Hardacre J, Hawkins WG, Ko AH, LoConte N, Lowy AM, Moravek C, Nakakura EK, O'Reilly EM, Obando J, Reddy S, Thayer S, Wolff RA, Burns JL, Zuccarino-Catania G. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2019. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2020; 17:202-210. [PMID: 30865919 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2019.0014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 241] [Impact Index Per Article: 60.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
The NCCN Guidelines for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma discuss the diagnosis and management of adenocarcinomas of the exocrine pancreas and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss important updates to the 2019 version of the guidelines, focusing on postoperative adjuvant treatment of patients with pancreatic cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Amol K Narang
- The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins
| | | | | | | | | | - Stephen W Behrman
- St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center
| | - Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | - Ellen Binder
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | | | | | - Mary Dillhoff
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | | | | | | | - Jeffrey Hardacre
- Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | - William G Hawkins
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | - Andrew H Ko
- UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Sushanth Reddy
- University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|