Background: More than 14,000 women in the United States die of ovarian cancer (OC) every year. Disparities in survival have been observed by race and socioeconomic status (SES), and vary spatially even after adjusting for treatment received. This study aimed to determine the impact of geographic location on receiving treatment adherent to the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for OC, independent of other predictors. Patients and Methods: Women diagnosed with all stages of epithelial OC (1996–2014) were identified through the California Cancer Registry. Generalized additive models, smoothing for residential location, were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for receiving nonadherent care throughout California. We assessed the impact of distance traveled for care, distance to closest high-quality hospital, race/ethnicity, and SES on receipt of quality care, adjusting for demographic and cancer characteristics and stratifying by disease stage. Results: Of 29,844 patients with OC, 11,419 (38.3%) received guideline-adherent care. ORs for nonadherent care were lower in northern California and higher in Kern and Los Angeles counties. Magnitudes of associations with location varied by stage (OR range, 0.45–2.19). Living farther from a high-quality hospital increased the odds of receiving nonadherent care (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07–1.29), but travel >32 km to receive care was associated with decreased odds (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70–0.84). American Indian/other women were more likely to travel greater distances to receive care. Women in the highest SES quintile, those with Medicare insurance, and women of non-Hispanic black race were less likely to travel far. Patients who were Asian/Pacific Islander lived the closest to a high-quality hospital. Conclusions: Among California women diagnosed with OC, living closer to a high-quality center was associated with receiving adherent care. Non-Hispanic black women were less likely to receive adherent care, and women with lower SES lived farthest from high-quality hospitals. Geographic location in California is an independent predictor of adherence to NCCN Guidelines for OC.
Carolina Villanueva, Jenny Chang, Scott M. Bartell, Argyrios Ziogas, Robert Bristow and Verónica M. Vieira
Suzanne M. Mahon
Families with hereditary risk for developing malignancy benefit from organized, coordinated care by a genetics professional. This report presents a case illustrating the potential errors that can occur when genetic care is fragmented and not coordinated, including ordering too much or not enough genetic testing, failing to communicate with the family who is at potential genetic risk, failing to communicate what the results of testing mean, and failing to recommend appropriate care, which may lead to psychosocial distress and late-detected cancers. This case highlights the complexities of genetic care and why management by a genetics professional results in more fiscally responsible care, appropriate genetic testing, and comprehensive care for all family members at risk.
Jeremy S. Abramson
Castleman disease is a heterogeneous nonmalignant lymphoproliferative disorder. Major distinctions include unicentric versus multicentric presentation; hyaline vascular, plasmacytic, or mixed pathology; and HHV8-associated (typically HIV-positive) versus idiopathic disease. At the NCCN 2019 Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies, Dr. Jeremy S. Abramson stated that rituximab is preferred as initial therapy for HHV8-positive disease, and chemotherapy can be added for patients with fulminant disease (antiretrovirals should always be used as well for those who are HIV-positive). Siltuximab is the preferred frontline therapy for idiopathic disease.
Andrew D. Zelenetz
Although complex, biologic agents are key components of modern therapy in multiple disciplines, particularly oncology. However, despite the fact that biosimilars (eg, filgrastim‐sndz, bevacizumab‐awwb, trastuzumab‐dkst, rituximab-abbs) have been approved in the United States, many clinicians are poorly informed about their unique pathway for approval. At the NCCN 2019 Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies, Dr. Andrew D. Zelenetz, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, outlined important issues regarding the use of biosimilars, including extrapolation, interchangeability, and naming.
Jorge J. Castillo
With so many recent advances in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, keeping abreast with current treatment recommendations can be challenging. Novel immunomodulators, proteasome inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, histone deacetylase inhibitors, and nuclear export inhibitors have all been added to the armamentarium, and the choice of which of these drugs or drug combinations to use depends on individual disease-related and patient-related factors, previous therapies, and treatment toxicities. At the NCCN 2019 Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies, Dr. Jorge J. Castillo provided an overview of the myriad treatments available for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, as well as therapies on the horizon.
Jennifer R. Brown and William G. Wierda
With the enormous progress made in treatment and management, many oncologists have called this the golden age of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). The past few years alone have seen the approval of multiple agents, including small molecule inhibitors that have led to longer, more durable periods of disease control. However, the introduction of these new drugs into the armamentarium has raised an important question regarding standard of care: is there still a role for chemoimmunotherapy in the first-line setting? At the NCCN 2019 Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies, Drs. William G. Wierda and Jennifer R. Brown presented opposing sides of the debate.
Yvonne A. Efebera and Nina Shah
The number of approved regimens for multiple myeloma has increased dramatically in recent years, improving progression-free and overall survival while also increasing the complexity of treatment decisions. Despite the plethora of options available, one fundamental treatment question remains: How long should initial therapy last? At the NCCN 2019 Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies, Drs. Yvonne A. Efebera and Nina Shah debated whether myeloma therapy should be time-limited or continue until disease progression.
Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum, Catheryn M. Yashar, Sarah Bean, Kristin Bradley, Susana M. Campos, Hye Sook Chon, Christina Chu, David Cohn, Marta Ann Crispens, Shari Damast, Oliver Dorigo, Patricia J. Eifel, Christine M. Fisher, Peter Frederick, David K. Gaffney, Ernest Han, Warner K. Huh, John R. Lurain III, Andrea Mariani, David Mutch, Christa Nagel, Larissa Nekhlyudov, Amanda Nickles Fader, Steven W. Remmenga, R. Kevin Reynolds, Rachel Sisodia, Todd Tillmanns, Stefanie Ueda, Emily Wyse, Nicole R. McMillian and Jillian Scavone
Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN), a subset of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), occurs when tumors develop in the cells that would normally form the placenta during pregnancy. The NCCN Guidelines for Gestational Trophoblastic Neoplasia provides treatment recommendations for various types of GTD including hydatidiform mole, persistent post-molar GTN, low-risk GTN, high-risk GTN, and intermediate trophoblastic tumor.
Immunotherapies targeting CD19 (blinatumomab) and CD22 (inotuzumab ozogamicin) have demonstrated higher complete response rates and improved survival compared with chemotherapy in relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), and are now standard of care in the relapsed setting. However, most adult patients still die of ALL despite these therapies, with or without hematopoietic stem cell transplant. At the NCCN 2019 Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies, Dr. Jae Park summarized clinical data from key trials of novel immunotherapies in ALL and reviewed evidence-based treatment approaches for adults with relapsed/refractory B‐cell ALL.