Browse

You are looking at 61 - 70 of 2,633 items for

Full access

Jennifer A. Lewis, Heidi Chen, Kathryn E. Weaver, Lucy B. Spalluto, Kim L. Sandler, Leora Horn, Robert S. Dittus, Pierre P. Massion, Christianne L. Roumie and Hilary A. Tindle

Background: Despite widespread recommendation and supportive policies, screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is incompletely implemented in the US healthcare system. Low provider knowledge of the lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines represents a potential barrier to implementation. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that low provider knowledge of guidelines is associated with less provider-reported screening with LDCT. Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed in a large academic medical center and affiliated Veterans Health Administration in the Mid-South United States that comprises hospital and community-based practices. Participants included general medicine providers and specialists who treat patients aged >50 years. The primary exposure was LCS guideline knowledge (US Preventive Services Task Force/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). High knowledge was defined as identifying 3 major screening eligibility criteria (55 years as initial age of screening eligibility, smoking status as current or former smoker, and smoking history of ≥30 pack-years), and low knowledge was defined as not identifying these 3 criteria. The primary outcome was self-reported LDCT order/referral within the past year, and the secondary outcome was screening chest radiograph. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of screening by knowledge. Results: Of 625 providers recruited, 407 (65%) responded, and 378 (60.5%) were analyzed. Overall, 233 providers (62%) demonstrated low LCS knowledge, and 224 (59%) reported ordering/referring for LDCT. The aOR of ordering/referring LDCT was less among providers with low knowledge (0.41; 95% CI, 0.24–0.71) than among those with high knowledge. More providers with low knowledge reported ordering screening chest radiographs (aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4–5.0) within the past year. Conclusions: Referring provider knowledge of LCS guidelines is low and directly proportional to the ordering rate for LDCT in an at-risk US population. Strategies to advance evidence-based LCS should incorporate provider education and system-level interventions to address gaps in provider knowledge.

Full access

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2019

Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines

Al B. Benson III, Michael I. D’Angelica, Daniel E. Abbott, Thomas A. Abrams, Steven R. Alberts, Daniel A. Anaya, Robert Anders, Chandrakanth Are, Daniel Brown, Daniel T. Chang, Jordan Cloyd, Anne M. Covey, William Hawkins, Renuka Iyer, Rojymon Jacob, Andreas Karachristos, R. Kate Kelley, Robin Kim, Manisha Palta, James O. Park, Vaibhav Sahai, Tracey Schefter, Jason K. Sicklick, Gagandeep Singh, Davendra Sohal, Stacey Stein, G. Gary Tian, Jean-Nicolas Vauthey, Alan P. Venook, Lydia J. Hammond and Susan D. Darlow

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.

Full access
Full access

Prashant Gabani, Emily Merfeld, Amar J. Srivastava, Ashley A. Weiner, Laura L. Ochoa, Dan Mullen, Maria A. Thomas, Julie A. Margenthaler, Amy E. Cyr, Lindsay L. Peterson, Michael J. Naughton, Cynthia Ma and Imran Zoberi

Background: This study evaluated factors predictive of locoregional recurrence (LRR) in women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy who do not experience pathologic complete response (pCR). Methods: This is a single-institution retrospective review of women with TNBC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy in 2000 through 2013. LRR was estimated between patients with and without pCR using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patient-, tumor-, and treatment-specific factors in patients without pCR were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards method to evaluate factors predictive of LRR. Log-rank statistics were then used to compare LRR among these risk factors. Results: A total of 153 patients with a median follow-up of 48.6 months were included. The 4-year overall survival and LRR were 70% and 15%, respectively, and the 4-year LRR in patients with pCR was 0% versus 22.0% in those without (P<.001). In patients without pCR, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI; hazard ratio, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.64–9.38; P=.002) and extranodal extension (ENE; hazard ratio, 3.32; 95% CI, 1.35–8.15; P=.009) were significant predictors of LRR in multivariable analysis. In these patients, the 4-year LRR with LVSI was 39.8% versus 15.0% without (P<.001). Similarly, the 4-year LRR was 48.1% with ENE versus 16.1% without (P=.002). In patients without pCR, the presence of both LVSI and ENE were associated with an even further increased risk of LRR compared with patients with either LVSI or ENE alone and those with neither LVSI nor ENE in the residual tumor (P<.001). Conclusions: In patients without pCR, the presence of LVSI and ENE increases the risk of LRR in TNBC. The risk of LRR is compounded when both LVSI and ENE are present in the same patient. Future clinical trials are warranted to lower the risk of LRR in these high-risk patients.

Full access

Jay Gong, Jeffrey P. Gregg, Weijie Ma, Ken Yoneda, Elizabeth H. Moore, Megan E. Daly, Yanhong Zhang, Melissa J. Williams and Tianhong Li

Histologic transformation from adenocarcinoma to squamous cell carcinoma in lung cancer has not been reported as a mechanism of resistance to ALK inhibition. This report describes the clinical course of a female former light smoker with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma whose tumor underwent histologic transformation from a well-differentiated lung adenocarcinoma to a well-differentiated lung squamous cell carcinoma in the same location at the left mainstem bronchus while maintaining the ALK fusion oncogene without any resistance mutations. After experiencing disease progression while on crizotinib, the patient participated in clinical trials that provided early access to the novel ALK inhibitors ceritinib and alectinib before they were commercially available. Tumor recurrence occurred at the primary and metastatic central nervous system sites (ie, brain and spine). At tumor progression, liquid biopsy and tumor genomic profiling of plasma cell-free DNA next-generation sequencing (NGS) provided an accurate diagnosis with a short turnaround time compared with the tissue-based targeted capture NGS. The patient received several courses of radiation primarily to the brain and spine during her disease course. Her disease did not respond to the immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab, and she died on home hospice approximately 4 years after diagnosis. This case supports the importance of both histopathologic assessment and comprehensive genomic profiling in selecting appropriate treatment for patients with refractory, metastatic, ALK oncogene–driven non–small cell lung cancer. Use of symptom-directed radiation in tandem with ALK inhibitors contributed to the disease and symptomatic control and prolonged survival in this patient.

Full access

Pamala A. Pawloski, Gabriel A. Brooks, Matthew E. Nielsen and Barbara A. Olson-Bullis

Background: Electronic health records are central to cancer care delivery. Electronic clinical decision support (CDS) systems can potentially improve cancer care quality and safety. However, little is known regarding the use of CDS systems in clinical oncology and their impact on patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed studies was performed to evaluate clinically relevant outcomes related to the use of CDS tools for the diagnosis, treatment, and supportive care of patients with cancer. Peer-reviewed studies published from 1995 through 2016 were included if they assessed clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), costs, or care delivery process measures. Results: Electronic database searches yielded 2,439 potentially eligible papers, with 24 studies included after final review. Most studies used an uncontrolled, pre-post intervention design. A total of 23 studies reported improvement in key study outcomes with use of oncology CDS systems, and 12 studies assessing the systems for computerized chemotherapy order entry demonstrated reductions in prescribing error rates, medication-related safety events, and workflow interruptions. The remaining studies examined oncology clinical pathways, guideline adherence, systems for collection and communication of PROs, and prescriber alerts. Conclusions: There is a paucity of data evaluating clinically relevant outcomes of CDS system implementation in oncology care. Currently available data suggest that these systems can have a positive impact on the quality of cancer care delivery. However, there is a critical need to rigorously evaluate CDS systems in oncology to better understand how they can be implemented to improve patient outcomes.

Full access

Margaret Tempero

Full access

Anuhya Kommalapati, Sri Harsha Tella, Adams Kusi Appiah, Lynette Smith and Apar Kishor Ganti

Background: There is significant heterogeneity in the treatment of stage IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study evaluated the therapeutic and survival disparities in patients with stage IIIA NSCLC based on the facility volume using the National Cancer Database. Methods: Patients with stage IIIA NSCLC diagnosed from 2004 through 2015 were included. Facilities were classified by tertiles based on mean patients treated per year, with low-volume facilities treating ≤8 patients, intermediate-volume treating 9 to 14 patients, and high-volume treating ≥15 patients. Cox multivariate analysis was used to determine the volume–outcome relationship. Results: Analysis included 83,673 patients treated at 1,319 facilities. Compared with patients treated at low-volume facilities, those treated at high-volume centers were more likely to be treated with surgical (25% vs 18%) and trimodality (12% vs 9%) therapies. In multivariate analysis, facility volume was independently associated with all-cause mortality (P<.0001). Median overall survival by facility volume was 15, 16, and 19 months for low-, intermediate-, and high-volume facilities, respectively (P<.001). Compared with patients treated at high-volume facilities, those treated at intermediate- and low-volume facilities had a significantly higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.07–1.11] and 1.11 [95% CI, 1.09–1.13], respectively). Conclusions: Patients treated for stage IIIA NSCLC at high-volume facilities were more likely to receive surgical and trimodality therapies and had a significant improvement in survival.