You are looking at 31 - 40 of 2,765 items for

  • All content x
Clear All
Full access

Margaret Tempero

Full access

Caijin Lin, Jiayi Wu, Shuning Ding, Chihwan Goh, Lisa Andriani, Shuangshuang Lu, Kunwei Shen and Li Zhu

Background: Patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer (MBC) constitute a heterogeneous group with different clinicopathologic characteristics and survival outcomes. Despite controversy regarding its prognostic value, primary tumor surgery may improve survival for selected patients. Patients and Methods: Patients with de novo MBC were identified using the SEER database and were then divided randomly into training and validation sets. A Fine-Gray competing risks model was developed to identify the variables associated with increased cancer-specific mortality in the training set. The M1 subdivision system was established based on the independent prognostic factors. Cumulative incidence curves were estimated and compared using Gray’s test. Results: Involvement of brain or liver and number of metastatic sites were identified as independent prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. The M1 category was subdivided into 3 subcategories: M1a, single site involvement except brain and liver; M1b, liver involvement only, or multiple site involvement except brain and liver; and M1c, brain involvement regardless of number of metastatic sites, or liver and other sites involvement except brain (M1b vs M1a: subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.48; 95% CI, 1.29–1.68; M1c vs M1a: SHR, 2.45; 95% CI, 2.18–2.75). Patients with the M1a subtype benefited most from primary tumor surgery in the adjusted competing risks model (M1a: SHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.48–0.67, M1b: SHR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47–0.83, and M1c: SHR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44–0.80), whereas benefits conferred by treatment with chemotherapy alone increased with the upstaging of metastatic disease (M1a: SHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62–0.83, M1b: SHR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44–0.68, and M1c: SHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.45–0.61). Conclusions: Subdivision of M1 stage facilitates prognosis prediction and treatment planning for patients with de novo MBC. Treatment offered should be decided in a coordinated multidisciplinary setting. Primary tumor surgery may play an important role in the management of selected patients.

Full access

Chunkit Fung, Paul C. Dinh Jr, Sophie D. Fossa and Lois B. Travis

Testicular cancer (TC) is the most common cancer among men aged 18 to 39 years. It is highly curable, with a 10-year relative survival approaching 95% due to effective cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Given the increasing incidence of TC and improved survival, TC survivors (TCS) now account for approximately 4% of all US male cancer survivors. They have also become a valuable cohort for adult-onset cancer survivorship research, given their prolonged survival. Commensurately, long-term treatment-related complications have emerged as important survivorship issues. These late effects include life-threatening conditions, such as second malignant neoplasms and cardiovascular disease. Moreover, TCS can also experience hearing loss, tinnitus, neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, pulmonary toxicity, hypogonadism, infertility, anxiety, depression, cognitive impairment, and chronic cancer-related fatigue. Characterization of the number and severity of long-term adverse health outcomes among TCS remains critical to develop risk-stratified, evidence-based follow-up guidelines and to inform the development of preventive measures and interventions. In addition, an improved understanding of the long-term effects of TC treatment on mortality due to noncancer causes and second malignant neoplasms remains paramount. Future research should focus on the continued development of large, well-characterized clinical cohorts of TCS for lifelong follow-up. These systematic, comprehensive approaches can provide the needed infrastructure for further investigation of long-term latency patterns of various medical and psychosocial morbidities and for more in-depth studies investigating associated etiopathogenetic pathways. Studies examining premature physiologic aging may also serve as new frontiers in TC survivorship research.

Full access

Timothy Gilligan, Daniel W. Lin, Rahul Aggarwal, David Chism, Nicholas Cost, Ithaar H. Derweesh, Hamid Emamekhoo, Darren R. Feldman, Daniel M. Geynisman, Steven L. Hancock, Chad LaGrange, Ellis G. Levine, Thomas Longo, Will Lowrance, Bradley McGregor, Paul Monk, Joel Picus, Phillip Pierorazio, Soroush Rais-Bahrami, Philip Saylor, Kanishka Sircar, David C. Smith, Katherine Tzou, Daniel Vaena, David Vaughn, Kosj Yamoah, Jonathan Yamzon, Alyse Johnson-Chilla, Jennifer Keller and Lenora A. Pluchino

Testicular cancer is relatively uncommon and accounts for <1% of all male tumors. However, it is the most common solid tumor in men between the ages of 20 and 34 years, and the global incidence has been steadily rising over the past several decades. Several risk factors for testicular cancer have been identified, including personal or family history of testicular cancer and cryptorchidism. Testicular germ cell tumors (GCTs) comprise 95% of malignant tumors arising in the testes and are categorized into 2 main histologic subtypes: seminoma and nonseminoma. Although nonseminoma is the more clinically aggressive tumor subtype, 5-year survival rates exceed 70% with current treatment options, even in patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Radical inguinal orchiectomy is the primary treatment for most patients with testicular GCTs. Postorchiectomy management is dictated by stage, histology, and risk classification; treatment options for nonseminoma include surveillance, systemic therapy, and nerve-sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Although rarely occurring, prognosis for patients with brain metastases remains poor, with >50% of patients dying within 1 year of diagnosis. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Testicular Cancer focuses on recommendations for the management of adult patients with nonseminomatous GCTs.

Full access

Rafael Bejar

Often unrecognized and underdiagnosed, myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a rare group of cancers in which the bone marrow fails to produce sufficient healthy blood cells. Although patients with lower-risk MDS can live for >5 years, those with high-risk disease that evolves into acute myeloid leukemia is associated with significantly lower overall survival. At the NCCN 2019 Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies, Dr. Rafael Bejar summarized current standard treatment options for patients with MDS and discussed the importance of genetic testing to identify mutations that may impact treatment. Finally, Dr. Bejar described emerging personalized treatment strategies for the management of this disease.

Full access

Sri Harsha Tella, Anuhya Kommalapati, Apar Kishor Ganti and Alissa S. Marr

Background: The advent of targeted therapies and immunomodulatory agents has revolutionized the management of advanced cutaneous malignant melanoma (MMel) by prolonging overall survival. This study evaluated the therapeutic and survival disparities among patients with advanced MMel based on hospital volume using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Methods: A retrospective analysis using regression models and Kaplan-Meier estimates was performed from the data obtained from the NCDB on patients with MMel diagnosed in 2004 through 2015. Results: A total of 40,676 patients with MMel were treated at 1,260 facilities. Multivariable analysis showed that facility volume was an independent predictor of overall survival (P<.0001). Compared with patients treated at high-volume facilities (tertile 3 [T3]), those with stage III disease (n=27,528) treated at intermediate- and low-volume facilities (T2 and T1, respectively) had a significantly higher risk of death (T2 hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09–1.20; T1 HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.17–1.29). Compared with patients treated at T3 facilities, those with stage IV disease (n=13,148) treated at lower-tertile facilities had a significantly higher risk of death (T2 HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10–1.21; T1 HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.23–1.36). Further, patients with stage IV disease treated at T3 facilities (vs T1 facilities) were more likely to receive chemotherapy (38% vs 28%) and immunotherapy (23% vs 10%) (P<.0001). Conclusions: Patients with advanced-stage MMel treated at high-volume facilities had significantly improved survival and were more likely to receive chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

Full access

Nicholas G. Zaorsky, Ying Zhang, Vonn Walter, Leila T. Tchelebi, Vernon M. Chinchilli and Niraj J. Gusani

Background: This retrospective cohort study sought to characterize the accrual of patients with cancer into clinical trials at the time of diagnosis and analyze the impact of accrual on survival. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients enrolled in clinical trials at their initial course of treatment for 46 cancers from 2004 through 2015. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the accrual of patients with cancer in clinical trials at diagnosis, and Kaplan-Meier graphical displays, log-rank tests, odds ratios, and stratified Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the impact of accrual on overall survival (OS). Strata were defined using 10 variables. Model-based adjusted survival curves of 2 groups were reverse-generated based on a Weibull distribution. Results: Of 12,097,681 patients in the NCDB, 11,576 (0.1%) were enrolled in trials. Patients in clinical trials typically had metastatic disease (30.9% vs 16.4%; P<.0001), were white (88.0% vs 84.8%; P<.0001), had private/managed care insurance (56.4% vs 41.8%; P<.0001), had fewer comorbidities (Charlson-Deyo score 0: 81.9% vs 75.7%; P<.0001, and Charlson-Deyo scores 1–3: 18.1% vs 24.3%; P<.0001) compared with those not in trials. At a median follow-up of 64 months, enrollment in a clinical trial was associated with improved OS in univariate and stratified analyses, with a median survival of 60.0 versus 52.5 months (hazard ratio, 0.876; 95% CI, 0.845–0.907; P<.0001). Stratified analysis with matched baseline characteristics between patients enrolled and not enrolled in a clinical trial showed superior OS at 5 years (95.0% vs 90.2%; P<.0001). Conclusions: Enrollment in clinical trials at first line of therapy in the United States is exceedingly low and favors young, healthy, white patients with metastatic disease and private insurance who are treated at academic medical centers. Patients with cancer treated in clinical trials live longer than those not treated in trials.