Background: Differences between the features of primary cancer and matched metastatic cancer have recently drawn attention in research. This study investigated the concordance in microsatellite instability (MSI) and mismatch repair (MMR) status between primary and corresponding metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Consecutive patients with metastatic CRC who had both primary and metastatic tumors diagnosed at our institution in January 2008 through December 2016 were identified. Immunohistochemistry was used to test the MMR status of both primary and matched metastatic tumors, and PCR analysis was performed to test MSI in patients with deficient MMR (dMMR) status. Results: A total of 369 patients were included. Of the 46 patients with MSI-high primary tumors, 37 (80.4%) also had MSI-high metastatic tumors, whereas 9 (19.6%) had microsatellite stable (MSS) metastatic tumors. A high concordance was found in patients with liver, lung, or distant lymph node metastases. Interestingly, the discrepancy was more likely to be limited to peritoneal (5/20) or ovarian (4/4) metastasis (chi-square test, P<.001). These organ-specific features were also found in the pooled analysis. Along with the change of MSI-high in primary cancer to MSS in metastatic cancer, lymphocyte infiltration decreased significantly (P=.008). However, the change did not influence survival; the median overall survival of MSI-high and MSS metastatic tumors was 21.3 and 21.6 months, respectively (P=.774). The discrepancy rate was 1.6% for patients with proficient MMR primary tumors. Conclusions: For patients with dMMR primary tumors, the concordance of MSI and MMR status in primary CRC and corresponding metastatic cancer is potentially organ-specific. High concordance is found in liver, lung, and distant lymph node metastases, whereas discrepancy is more likely to occur in peritoneal or ovarian metastasis. Rebiopsy to evaluate MSI-high/dMMR status might be needed during the course of anti–PD-1 therapy in cases of peritoneal or ovarian metastasis.
You are looking at 81 - 90 of 2,779 items for
Wen-Zhuo He, Wan-Ming Hu, Fang Wang, Yu-Ming Rong, Lin Yang, Qian-Kun Xie, Yuan-Zhong Yang, Chang Jiang, Hui-Juan Qiu, Jia-Bin Lu, Bei Zhang, Pei-Rong Ding, Xiao-Jun Xia, Jian-Yong Shao and Liang-Ping Xia
Michelle B. Riba, Kristine A. Donovan, Barbara Andersen, IIana Braun, William S. Breitbart, Benjamin W. Brewer, Luke O. Buchmann, Matthew M. Clark, Molly Collins, Cheyenne Corbett, Stewart Fleishman, Sofia Garcia, Donna B. Greenberg, Rev. George F. Handzo, Laura Hoofring, Chao-Hui Huang, Robin Lally, Sara Martin, Lisa McGuffey, William Mitchell, Laura J. Morrison, Megan Pailler, Oxana Palesh, Francine Parnes, Janice P. Pazar, Laurel Ralston, Jaroslava Salman, Moreen M. Shannon-Dudley, Alan D. Valentine, Nicole R. McMillian and Susan D. Darlow
Distress is defined in the NCCN Guidelines for Distress Management as a multifactorial, unpleasant experience of a psychologic (ie, cognitive, behavioral, emotional), social, spiritual, and/or physical nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms, and its treatment. Early evaluation and screening for distress leads to early and timely management of psychologic distress, which in turn improves medical management. The panel for the Distress Management Guidelines recently added a new principles section including guidance on implementation of standards of psychosocial care for patients with cancer.
George Handzo, Jill M. Bowden and Stephen King
Spiritual care and chaplaincy have been part of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Distress Management since the first meeting of the panel in 1997, possibly the first time this degree of spiritual care and chaplaincy care integration occurred in cancer care. Since that time, the chaplaincy care section of the guidelines, especially chaplain assessment categories derived from a spiritual care assessment, have provided a major resource for healthcare chaplaincy and have served as a model for integrating chaplaincy into the overall team practice of healthcare. However, this section of the NCCN Guidelines has not been substantially updated since it was originally written. During those 20 years, the practice of healthcare chaplaincy and the research that supports it have grown substantially. In the last year, at the request of the panel, we have updated the chaplaincy care section to fully integrate recently published evidence in spiritual care in healthcare, adding more value to this important set of guidelines. Those updates appear in the 2019 version of the NCCN Guidelines. This article discusses the history of chaplaincy involvement in the NCCN Guidelines for Distress Management and the precedent it set for the integration of chaplaincy in other efforts that followed. Integration of this section of the Guidelines into the spiritual care practice at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is presented as an example of how these guidelines can be put into practice to improve patient care. Finally, a summary of the recent research by Drs. Kenneth Pargament and Julie Exline is presented as the foundation for the revised chaplain assessment categories and interventions.
Grace L. Smith, Maria A. Lopez-Olivo, Pragati G. Advani, Matthew S. Ning, Yimin Geng, Sharon H. Giordano and Robert J. Volk
Background: Patients with cancer experience financial toxicity from the costs of treatment, as well as material and psychologic stress related to this burden. A synthesized understanding of predictors and outcomes of the financial burdens associated with cancer care is needed to underpin strategic responses in oncology care. This study systematically reviewed risk factors and outcomes associated with financial burdens related to cancer treatment. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from study inception through June 2018, and reference lists were scanned from studies of patient-level predictors and outcomes of financial burdens in US patients with cancer (aged ≥18 years). Two reviewers conducted screening, abstraction, and quality assessment. Variables associated with financial burdens were synthesized. When possible, pooled estimates of associations were calculated using random-effects models. Results: A total of 74 observational studies of financial burdens in 598,751 patients with cancer were identified, among which 49% of patients reported material or psychologic financial burdens (95% CI, 41%–56%). Socioeconomic predictors of worse financial burdens with treatment were lack of health insurance, lower income, unemployment, and younger age at cancer diagnosis. Compared with patients with health insurance, those who were uninsured demonstrated twice the odds of financial burdens (pooled odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% CI, 1.33–3.30). Financial burdens were most severe early in cancer treatment, did not differ by disease site, and were associated with worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and nearly twice the odds of cancer medication nonadherence (pooled OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13–2.56). Only a single study demonstrated an association with increased mortality. Studies assessing the comparative effectiveness of interventions to mitigate financial burdens in patients with cancer were lacking. Conclusions: Evidence showed that financial burdens are common, disproportionately impacting younger and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with cancer, across disease sites, and are associated with worse treatment adherence and HRQoL. Available evidence helped identify vulnerable patients needing oncology provider engagement and response, but evidence is critically needed on the effectiveness of interventions designed to mitigate financial burden and impact.
Courtney P. Williams, Andres Azuero, Kelly M. Kenzik, Maria Pisu, Ryan D. Nipp, Smita Bhatia and Gabrielle B. Rocque
Background: Treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that is not concordant with the NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer has been associated with higher healthcare utilization and payer costs. However, a significant knowledge gap exists regarding the impact of guideline-discordant care on patient cost responsibility. This study examined this question among patients with MBC in the year postdiagnosis. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from the SEER-Medicare linked database from 2000 through 2013. Guideline discordance, defined by year-specific NCCN Guidelines, was assessed for first-line antineoplastic treatment and grouped into discrete categories. Patient cost responsibility (deductibles, coinsurance, copayments) in women with MBC were summed for all medical care received in the year postdiagnosis. The difference in patient cost responsibility by guideline discordance status was estimated using linear mixed-effect models. Results: Of 3,709 patients with MBC surviving at least 1 year postdiagnosis, 17.6% (n=651) received guideline-discordant treatment. Median cost responsibility in the year postdiagnosis for patients receiving guideline-discordant treatment was $7,421 (interquartile range [IQR], $4,359–$12,983) versus $5,171 (IQR, $3,006–$8,483) for those receiving guideline-concordant care. In adjusted models, guideline-discordant treatment was significantly associated with $1,841 higher patient costs in the first year from index diagnosis date (95% CI, $1,280–$2,401) compared with guideline-concordant care. Patient cost responsibility differed by category of guideline discordance, with those receiving nonapproved bevacizumab having the highest cost responsibility (β=$3,330; 95% CI, $1,711–$4,948). Conclusions: Deviations from current treatment guidelines may have implications on patient healthcare cost responsibility. Additional research is needed to fully understand the mechanisms underlying how guideline deviation leads to greater costs for patients with MBC.
Richard Li, Ashwin Shinde, Marwan Fakih, Stephen Sentovich, Kurt Melstrom, Rebecca Nelson, Scott Glaser, Yi-Jen Chen, Karyn Goodman and Arya Amini
Background: Anal adenocarcinoma is a rare malignancy with a poor prognosis, and no randomized data are available to guide management. Prior retrospective analyses offer differing conclusions on the benefit of surgical resection after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in these patients. We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to analyze survival outcomes in patients undergoing CRT with and without subsequent surgical resection. Methods: Patients with adenocarcinoma of the anus diagnosed in 2004 through 2015 were identified using the NCDB. Patients with metastatic disease and survival <90 days were excluded. We analyzed patients receiving CRT and stratified by receipt of surgical resection. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of use of surgery and to form a propensity score–matched cohort. Overall survival (OS) was compared between treatment strategies using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: We identified 1,747 patients with anal adenocarcinoma receiving CRT, of whom 1,005 (58%) received surgery. Predictors of increased receipt of surgery included age <65 years, private insurance, overlapping involvement of the anus and rectum, N0 disease, and external-beam radiation dose ≥4,000 cGy. With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, 5-year OS was 61.1% in patients receiving CRT plus surgery compared with 39.8% in patients receiving CRT alone (log-rank P<.001). In multivariate analysis, surgery was associated with significantly improved OS (hazard ratio, −0.59; 95% CI, 0.50–0.68; P<.001). This survival benefit persisted in a propensity score–matched cohort (log-rank P<.001). Conclusions: In the largest series of anal adenocarcinoma cases to date, treatment with CRT followed by surgery was associated with a significant survival benefit compared with CRT alone in propensity score–matching analysis. Our findings support national guideline recommendations of neoadjuvant CRT followed by resection for patients with anal adenocarcinoma.
Matthew P. Banegas, Donna R. Rivera, Maureen C. O’Keeffe-Rosetti, Nikki M. Carroll, Pamala A. Pawloski, David C. Tabano, Mara M. Epstein, Kai Yeung, Mark C. Hornbrook, Christine Lu and Debra P. Ritzwoller
Background: Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been the standard of care for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) since 2001. However, few studies have evaluated changes in the treatment landscape of CML over time. This study assessed the long-term treatment patterns of oral anticancer therapies among patients with CML. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients newly diagnosed with CML between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2016, from 10 integrated healthcare systems. The proportion of patients treated with 5 FDA-approved oral TKI agents—bosutinib, dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib, and ponatinib—in the 12 months after diagnosis were measured, overall and by year, between 2000 and 2017. We assessed the use of each oral agent through the fourth-line setting. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the odds of receiving any oral agent, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Among 853 patients with CML, 81% received an oral agent between 2000 and 2017. Use of non-oral therapies decreased from 100% in 2000 to 5% in 2005, coinciding with imatinib uptake from 65% in 2001 to 98% in 2005. Approximately 28% of patients switched to a second-line agent, 9% switched to a third-line agent, and 2% switched to a fourth-line agent. Adjusted analysis showed that age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, and comorbidity burden were statistically significantly associated with odds of receiving an oral agent. Conclusions: A dramatic shift was seen in CML treatments away from traditional, nonoral chemotherapy toward use of novel oral TKIs between 2000 and 2017. As the costs of oral anticancer agents reach new highs, studies assessing the long-term health and financial outcomes among patients with CML are warranted.
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
Shaji K. Kumar, Natalie S. Callander, Jens Hillengass, Michaela Liedtke, Muhamed Baljevic, Erica Campagnaro, Jorge J. Castillo, Jason C. Chandler, Robert F. Cornell, Caitlin Costello, Yvonne Efebera, Matthew Faiman, Alfred Garfall, Kelly Godby, Leona Holmberg, Myo Htut, Carol Ann Huff, Yubin Kang, Ola Landgren, Ehsan Malek, Thomas Martin, James Omel, Noopur Raje, Douglas Sborov, Seema Singhal, Keith Stockerl-Goldstein, Carlyn Tan, Donna Weber, Alyse Johnson-Chilla, Jennifer Keller and Rashmi Kumar
The NCCN Guidelines for Multiple Myeloma provide recommendations for diagnosis, workup, treatment, follow-up, and supportive care for patients with monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance, solitary plasmacytoma, smoldering myeloma, and multiple myeloma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight some of the important updates and changes in the 1.2020 version of the NCCN Guidelines for Multiple Myeloma.