Background: Previously identified patient-level risk factors for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) indicate several potential underlying pathogenic mechanisms, including bone marrow suppression, impaired neutrophil function, or disturbances of barrier function. This study evaluated whether additional clinical characteristics related to these pathogenic mechanisms were risk factors for FN. Patients and Methods: The study population included patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, or gastric cancer between 2000 and 2009 at Kaiser Permanente Southern California and treated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Those who received prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor or antibiotics were excluded. Potential risk factors of interest included surgery, radiation therapy, selected dermatologic/mucosal conditions, and use of antibiotics and corticosteroids. All data were collected using electronic medical records. Multivariable Cox models were used to evaluate associations between these factors and risk of FN in the first chemotherapy cycle, and adjusted using propensity score–based functions. Results: A total of 15,971 patients were included. Of these, 4.3% developed FN in the first chemotherapy cycle. Use of corticosteroids was significantly associated with increased risk of FN (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17–1.98). Selected dermatologic/mucosal conditions and intravenous antibiotic use were marginally associated with increased risk of FN (aHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.98–1.93, and 1.35; 95% CI, 0.97–1.87, respectively). Surgery, radiation therapy, and oral antibiotic use were not statistically significantly associated with FN. Conclusions: Dermatologic or mucosal conditions that might affect barrier integrity and use of corticosteroids and intravenous antibiotics prior to chemotherapy may increase risk of FN and should be considered in prophylaxis use and FN prediction modeling.
You are looking at 91 - 100 of 2,432 items
Leila Family, Yanli Li, Lie Hong Chen, John H. Page, Zandra K. Klippel and Chun Chao
Crystal S. Denlinger, Tara Sanft, K. Scott Baker, Gregory Broderick, Wendy Demark-Wahnefried, Debra L. Friedman, Mindy Goldman, Melissa Hudson, Nazanin Khakpour, Allison King, Divya Koura, Robin M. Lally, Terry S. Langbaum, Allison L. McDonough, Michelle Melisko, Jose G. Montoya, Kathi Mooney, Javid J. Moslehi, Tracey O'Connor, Linda Overholser, Electra D. Paskett, Jeffrey Peppercorn, William Pirl, M. Alma Rodriguez, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Paula Silverman, Sophia Smith, Karen L. Syrjala, Amye Tevaarwerk, Susan G. Urba, Mark T. Wakabayashi, Phyllis Zee, Nicole R. McMillian and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass
The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for common physical and psychosocial consequences of cancer and cancer treatment to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors of adult-onset cancer in the posttreatment period. This portion of the guidelines describes recommendations regarding the management of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity and lymphedema. In addition, recommendations regarding immunizations and the prevention of infections in cancer survivors are included.
Nikolaos A. Trikalinos, Amy Zhou, Maria B. Majella Doyle, Kathryn J. Fowler, Ashley Morton, Neeta Vachharajani, Manik Amin, Jesse W. Keller, William C. Chapman, Elizabeth M. Brunt and Benjamin R. Tan
Background: Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma tumors (cHCC-CCA) are a heterogeneous group of rare malignancies that have no established optimal treatment. Patients and Methods: We identified patients with cHCC-CCA treated at a tertiary center and retrospectively examined their histology, interventions, and outcomes. We calculated disease control rate (DCR), disease progression, overall survival, and progression-free survival (PFS) between treatment subgroups. Results: A total of 123 patients were evaluable. Interventions included resection, locoregional therapy, transplant, chemotherapy, and targeted agents. Ultimately, 68 patients received systemic treatment—57 with gemcitabine plus either 5-fluoropyrimidine (5-FU) or a platinum combination. Disease progression was more common in the gemcitabine/5-FU group versus gemcitabine/platinum (P=.028), whereas DCR favored gemcitabine/platinum (78.4% vs 38.5%; P=.0143). Median PFS from time of initial diagnosis favored the gemcitabine/platinum group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Targeted agents had minimal to no effect on survival metrics. Conclusions: Gemcitabine/platinum seems to be a superior regimen for patients with cHCC-CCA who require systemic treatment. Further studies are needed to clarify the regimen's efficacy and applicability in patient subgroups.
Frederick D. Tsai and Robert I. Haddad
Shoko Mori, Cristian Navarrete-Dechent, Tatyana A. Petukhova, Erica H. Lee, Anthony M. Rossi, Michael A. Postow, Lara A. Dunn, Benjamin R. Roman, Vivian T. Yin, Daniel G. Coit, Travis J. Hollmann, Klaus J. Busam, Kishwer S. Nehal and Christopher A. Barker
Background: Tumor board conferences (TBCs) are used by oncologic specialists to review patient cases, exchange knowledge, and discuss options for cancer management. These multidisciplinary meetings are often a cornerstone of treatment at leading cancer centers and are required for accreditation by certain groups, such as the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer. Little is known regarding skin cancer TBCs. The objective of this study was to characterize the structure, function, and impact of existing skin cancer TBCs in the United States. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to physician leaders of skin cancer TBCs at NCI-designated Comprehensive and Clinical Cancer Centers. Results: Of the 59 centers successfully contacted, 14 (24%) reported not having a conference where skin cancer cases were discussed, and 45 (76%) identified 53 physician leaders. A total of 38 physicians (72%) completed the survey. Half of the meeting leaders were medical and/or surgical oncologists, and dermatologists led one-third of meetings. TBCs had a moderate to significant impact on patient care according to 97% of respondents. All respondents indicated that the meetings enhanced communication among physicians and provided an opportunity for involved specialists and professionals to discuss cases. The most frequently cited barrier to organizing TBCs was determining a common available date and time for attendees (62%). The most common suggestion for improvement was to increase attendance, specialists, and/or motivation. Conclusions: Results showed overall consistency in meeting structure but variability in function, which may be a reflection of institutional resources and investment in the conference. Future directions include defining metrics to evaluate changes in diagnosis or management plan after tumor board discussion, attendance, clinical trial enrollment, and cost analysis. Results of this survey may aid other institutions striving to develop and refine skin cancer TBCs.
Ania Syrowatka, James A. Hanley, Daniala L. Weir, William G. Dixon, Ari N. Meguerditchian and Robyn Tamblyn
Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to identify the predictors of new-onset psychological distress available in routinely collected administrative health databases for women diagnosed with breast cancer. The secondary objective was to explore whether the predictors vary based on the period of cancer care. Methods: A population-based cohort study followed 16,495 female patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer who did not experience psychological distress during the 14 months before breast cancer surgery. The incidence of psychological distress was reported overall and by type of mental health problem. Time-varying Cox proportional hazards models were developed to identify predictors of new-onset psychological distress during 2 key periods of cancer care: (1) hospital-based treatment during which women undergo treatment with breast surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation, and (2) 1-year transitional survivorship when women begin follow-up care. Results: The incidence of psychological distress was 16% within each period. Anxiety was present in 85.1% and 65.5% of new cases during hospital-based treatment and transitional survivorship, respectively. Predictors during both periods were younger age, receipt of axillary lymph node dissection, rheumatologic disease, and baseline menopausal symptoms, as well as new opioid dispensations, emergency department visits, and hospital contacts that occurred during follow-up. Other predictors varied based on the period of cancer care. More advanced breast cancer and type of treatment were associated with onset of psychological distress during hospital-based treatment. Psychological distress during transitional survivorship was predicted by diagnosis of localized breast disease, shorter duration of hospital-based treatment, receipt of additional hospital-based treatment in survivorship, and newly diagnosed comorbidities or symptoms. Conclusions: This study identified the predictors of new-onset psychological distress available in routinely collected administrative health databases, and showed how predictors change between hospital-based treatment and transitional survivorship periods. The results highlight the importance of developing predictive models tailored to the period of cancer care.
Talha Mehmood and Thomas J. Smith
Anke Wind, Francisco Rocha Gonçalves, Edit Marosi, Lucia da Pieve, Monica Groza, Marco Asioli, Marco Albini and Wim van Harten
Background: Structuring cancer care into pathways can reduce variability in clinical practice and improve patient outcomes. International benchmarking can help centers with regard to development, implementation, and evaluation. A further step in the development of multidisciplinary care is to organize care in integrated practice units (IPUs), encompassing the whole pathway and relevant organizational aspects. However, research on this topic is limited. This article describes the development and results of a benchmark tool for cancer care pathways and explores IPU development in cancer centers. Methods: The benchmark tool was developed according to a 13-step benchmarking method and piloted in 7 European cancer centers. Centers provided data and site visits were performed to understand the context in which the cancer center operates and to clarify additional questions. Benchmark data were structured into pathway development and evaluation and assessed against key IPU features. Results: Benchmark results showed that most centers have formalized multidisciplinary pathways and that care teams differed in composition, and found almost 2-fold differences in mammography use efficiency. Suggestions for improvement included positioning pathways formally and structurally evaluating outcomes at a sufficiently high frequency. Based on the benchmark, 3 centers indicating that they had a breast cancer IPU were scored differently on implementation. Overall, we found that centers in Europe are in various stages of development of pathways and IPUs, ranging from an informal pathway structure to a full IPU-type of organization. Conclusions: A benchmark tool for care pathways was successfully developed and tested, and is available in an open format. Our tool allows for the assessment of pathway organization and can be used to assess the status of IPU development. Opportunities for improvement were identified regarding the organization of care pathways and the development toward IPUs. Three centers are in varying degrees of implementation and can be characterized as breast cancer IPUs. Organizing cancer care in an IPU could yield multiple performance improvements.
Ndiya Ogba, Nicole M. Arwood, Nancy L. Bartlett, Mara Bloom, Patrick Brown, Christine Brown, Elizabeth Lihua Budde, Robert Carlson, Stephanie Farnia, Terry J. Fry, Morgan Garber, Rebecca A. Gardner, Lauren Gurschick, Patricia Kropf, Jeff J. Reitan, Craig Sauter, Bijal Shah, Elizabeth J. Shpall and Steven T. Rosen
Patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) cancers have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. The recent approval of 2 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) autologous T-cell products for R/R B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treatment is setting the stage for what is possible in other diseases. However, there are important factors that must be considered, including patient selection, toxicity management, and costs associated with CAR T-cell therapy. To begin to address these issues, NCCN organized a task force consisting of a multidisciplinary panel of experts in oncology, cancer center administration, and health policy, which met for the first time in March 2018. This report describes the current state of CAR T-cell therapy and future strategies that should be considered as the application of this novel immunotherapy expands and evolves.
Jerald P. Radich, Michael Deininger, Camille N. Abboud, Jessica K. Altman, Ellin Berman, Ravi Bhatia, Bhavana Bhatnagar, Peter Curtin, Daniel J. DeAngelo, Jason Gotlib, Gabriela Hobbs, Madan Jagasia, Hagop M. Kantarjian, Lori Maness, Leland Metheny, Joseph O. Moore, Arnel Pallera, Philip Pancari, Mrinal Patnaik, Enkhtsetseg Purev, Michal G. Rose, Neil P. Shah, B. Douglas Smith, David S. Snyder, Kendra L. Sweet, Moshe Talpaz, James Thompson, David T. Yang, Kristina M. Gregory and Hema Sundar
Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is defined by the presence of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph), resulting from a reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 [t(9;22] that gives rise to a BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. CML occurs in 3 different phases (chronic, accelerated, and blast phase) and is usually diagnosed in the chronic phase. Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy is a highly effective first-line treatment option for all patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML (CP-CML). The selection TKI therapy should be based on the risk score, toxicity profile of TKI, patient's age, ability to tolerate therapy, and the presence of comorbid conditions. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with CP-CML.