You are looking at 101 - 110 of 3,080 items for
Victoria Sopik, Vasily Giannakeas and Steven Narod
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
Neha Mehta-Shah, Steven M. Horwitz, Stephen Ansell, Weiyun Z. Ai, Jeffrey Barnes, Stefan K. Barta, Mark W. Clemens, Ahmet Dogan, Kristopher Fisher, Aaron M. Goodman, Gaurav Goyal, Joan Guitart, Ahmad Halwani, Bradley M. Haverkos, Richard T. Hoppe, Eric Jacobsen, Deepa Jagadeesh, Matthew A. Lunning, Amitkumar Mehta, Elise A. Olsen, Barbara Pro, Saurabh A. Rajguru, Satish Shanbhag, Aaron Shaver, Andrei Shustov, Lubomir Sokol, Pallawi Torka, Carlos Torres-Cabala, Ryan Wilcox, Basem M. William, Jasmine Zain, Mary A. Dwyer, Hema Sundar and Youn H. Kim
Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common subtype of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), and Sézary syndrome (SS) is a rare erythrodermic and leukemic subtype of CTCL characterized by significant blood involvement. Although early-stage disease can be effectively treated predominantly with skin-directed therapies, systemic therapy is often necessary for the treatment of advanced-stage disease. Systemic therapy options have evolved in recent years with the approval of novel agents such as romidepsin, brentuximab vedotin, and mogamulizumab. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the diagnosis and management of MF and SS (with a focus on systemic therapy).
Corey Cutler and Steven Z. Pavletic
Charles M. Balch and Catherine Harvey Sevier
Omar Abdel-Rahman, Hatim Karachiwala and Jacob C. Easaw
Background: This study assessed the patterns of opioid use among patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancers who were included in 8 clinical trials and evaluated the impact of opioid use on survival outcomes of included patients. Methods: Deidentified datasets from 8 clinical trials evaluating first-line systemic treatment of advanced gastrointestinal cancers were accessed from the Project Data Sphere platform (ClinicalTrial.gov identifiers: NCT01124786, NCT00844649, NCT00290966, NCT00678535, NCT00699374, NCT00272051, NCT00305188, and NCT00384176). These trials evaluated patients with pancreatic carcinoma, gastric carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and colorectal carcinoma. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate factors predicting the use of opioids. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were used to compare survival outcomes in each disease entity among patients who did or did not receive opioid treatment. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was then used to further assess the impact of opioid use on survival outcomes in each disease entity. Results: A total of 3,441 participants were included in the current analysis. The following factors predicted a higher probability of opioid use within logistic regression analysis: younger age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 0.990; 95% CI, 0.984–0.997; P=.004), nonwhite race (OR for white vs nonwhite, 0.749; 95% CI, 0.600–0.933; P=.010), higher ECOG score (OR for 1 vs 0, 1.751; 95% CI, 1.490–2.058; P<.001), and pancreatic primary site (OR for colorectal vs pancreatic, 0.241; 95% CI, 0.198–0.295; P<.001). Use of opioids was consistently associated with worse overall survival (OS) in Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of each disease entity (P=.008 for pancreatic cancer; P<.001 for gastric cancer, HCC, and colorectal cancer). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, opioid use was associated with worse OS among patients with pancreatic cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.245; 95% CI, 1.063–1.459; P=.007), gastric cancer (HR, 1.725; 95% CI, 1.403–2.122; P<.001), HCC (HR, 1.841; 95% CI, 1.480–2.290; P<.001), and colorectal cancer (HR, 1.651; 95% CI, 1.380–1.975; P<.001). Conclusions: Study findings suggest that opioid use is consistently associated with worse OS among patients with different gastrointestinal cancers. Further studies are needed to understand the underlying mechanisms of this observation and its potential implications.
Michael G. Milligan, Angel M. Cronin, Yolonda Colson, Kenneth Kehl, Debra N. Yeboa, Deborah Schrag and Aileen B. Chen
Background: Among patients diagnosed with stage IA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the incidence of occult brain metastasis is low, and several professional societies recommend against brain imaging for staging purposes. The goal of this study was to characterize the use of brain imaging among Medicare patients diagnosed with stage IA NSCLC. Methods: Using data from linked SEER-Medicare claims, we identified patients diagnosed with AJCC 8th edition stage IA NSCLC in 2004 through 2013. Patients were classified as having received brain imaging if they underwent head CT or brain MRI from 1 month before to 3 months after diagnosis. We identified factors associated with receipt of brain imaging using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Among 13,809 patients with stage IA NSCLC, 3,417 (25%) underwent brain imaging at time of diagnosis. The rate of brain imaging increased over time, from 23.5% in 2004 to 28.7% in 2013 (P=.0006). There was significant variation in the use of brain imaging across hospital service areas, with rates ranging from 0% to 64.0%. Factors associated with a greater likelihood of brain imaging included older age (odds ratios [ORs] of 1.16 for 70–74 years, 1.13 for 75–79 years, 1.31 for 80–84 years, and 1.46 for ≥85 years compared with 65–69 years; all P<.05), female sex (OR, 1.09; P<.05), black race (OR 1.23; P<.05), larger tumor size (ORs of 1.23 for 11–20 mm and 1.28 for 21–30 mm tumors vs 1–10 mm tumors; all P<.05), and higher modified Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score (OR, 1.28 for score >1 vs score of 0; P<.05). Conclusions: Roughly 1 in 4 patients with stage IA NSCLC received brain imaging at the time of diagnosis despite national recommendations against the practice. Although several patient factors are associated with receipt of brain imaging, there is significant geographic variation across the United States. Closer adherence to clinical guidelines is likely to result in more cost-effective care.
Emily J. Martin, Andrew R. Bruggeman, Vinit V. Nalawade, Reith R. Sarkar, Edmund M. Qiao, Brent S. Rose and James D. Murphy
Background: Patients with advanced esophageal cancer often experience pain and dysphagia, yet the optimal palliative management remains unclear. This retrospective study evaluated outcomes and adverse effects of palliative radiotherapy (RT) compared with esophageal stenting among a cohort of U.S. veterans with metastatic esophageal cancer. Patients and Methods: We identified 1,957 veterans in the United States with metastatic esophageal cancer who received palliative RT to the esophagus or esophageal stenting, and assessed the risks of severe adverse effects, including esophageal fistula formation, perforation, obstruction, hemorrhage, and esophagitis. We determined palliative efficacy by evaluating pain and dysphagia scores before and after intervention. Multivariable analyses were used to control for potential confounding factors. Results: In our cohort, 1,593 patients underwent RT and 364 underwent esophageal stenting. The cumulative incidence of any severe adverse effect at 6 months was higher among patients who received stents compared with those who received RT (21.7% vs 12.4%; P<.0010). In multivariable analysis, patients who received stents had an increased risk of any severe adverse effect, including fistula, perforation, and hemorrhage (all P<.0500). Multivariable analysis also showed that, compared with stenting, RT was associated with more rapid and durable pain relief (P<.0010) with no difference in relief of dysphagia over time when accounting for pretreatment dysphagia scores (P=.1029). Conclusions: Compared with esophageal stenting, RT was associated with a decreased risk of adverse effects, greater pain relief, and equivalent relief of moderate to severe dysphagia over time. Unmeasured patient- or tumor-related factors could have influenced the choice of intervention, thereby impacting our study outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the largest study to date analyzing the comparative risks and benefits of palliative RT and esophageal stenting among patients with metastatic esophageal cancer.