You are looking at 1 - 10 of 2,716 items for
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.
Henry Soo-Min Park
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.
Carolina Villanueva, Jenny Chang, Scott M. Bartell, Argyrios Ziogas, Robert Bristow and Verónica M. Vieira
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.
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.
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.
Puyao C. Li, Zilu Zhang, Angel M. Cronin and Rinaa S. Punglia
Background: Women with a history of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) are at increased risk for developing a second breast cancer (SBC). A prior meta-analysis of randomized studies of radiotherapy (RT) for DCIS has shown a trend toward increased breast cancer–specific mortality after SBC, but it did not have the power needed to detect a significant difference, due to a limited number of recurrences. This study sought to evaluate the impact of RT for DCIS on mortality after SBC in a larger cohort. Patients and Methods: Using the SEER database, 3,407 patients were identified who received breast-conserving therapy with or without RT for primary DCIS in 2000 through 2013 and subsequently developed a stage I–III invasive SBC within the same time period. Fine-Gray competing risk models were used to study the association between receipt of RT and mortality after SBC. Results: Prior RT was found to be associated with higher rates of breast cancer–specific mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.18–2.45; P=.005), even after controlling for cancer stage. Interaction analysis suggested that this risk trended higher in patients with ipsilateral versus contralateral SBC (HR, 2.07 vs 1.26; P=.16). Furthermore, compared with patients who developed contralateral SBC, those with ipsilateral SBC were younger (P<.001) and more often lacked estrogen receptor expression (P<.001). Conclusions: Patients who previously received RT for DCIS had higher mortality after developing an invasive SBC than those who did not receive RT. This finding may have implications for initial treatment decisions in the management of DCIS.
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
Robert J. Motzer, Eric Jonasch, M. Dror Michaelson, Lakshminarayanan Nandagopal, John L. Gore, Saby George, Ajjai Alva, Naomi Haas, Michael R. Harrison, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Jeffrey Sosman, Neeraj Agarwal, Sam Bhayani, Toni K. Choueiri, Brian A. Costello, Ithaar H. Derweesh, Thomas H. Gallagher, Steven L. Hancock, Christos Kyriakopoulos, Chad LaGrange, Elaine T. Lam, Clayton Lau, Bryan Lewis, Brandon Manley, Brittany McCreery, Andrew McDonald, Amir Mortazavi, Phillip M. Pierorazio, Lee Ponsky, Bruce G. Redman, Bradley Somer, Geoffrey Wile, Mary A. Dwyer, CGC, Lydia J. Hammond and Griselda Zuccarino-Catania
The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.