Background: Inaccurate risk classification and the burden of unnecessary biopsies are a challenge due to the limited ability of current risk assessment tools and modalities to diagnose prostate cancer (PCa) and distinguish indolent from aggressive disease. This systematic review assesses newly developed tests and interventions with high evidence of clinical utility that might be adopted in clinical practice during PCa management before initial and repeat biopsy, after positive biopsy, and after radical treatment. Methods: The Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies pertaining to the clinical utility of PCa diagnostic tests. Outcomes of interest were (1) a measure of the percentage of altered decision-making, (2) decrease in number of unnecessary biopsies, (3) decrease or increase in treatment intensity, and (4) risk reclassification after test results. Results: The search yielded 2,940 articles, of which 46 met the inclusion criteria. We found clinical utility evidence on the Prostate Health Index (PHI), 4Kscore test, MRI, OncotypeDX, Decipher test, Prolaris, ConfirmMDx, Progensa PCA3, NADiA ProsVue, and ProMark. No evidence was identified for Prostarix, ProstaVysion, Prostate Core Mitomic Test, and Mi-Prostate Score. The interventions demonstrated their clinical utility in terms of change in treatment recommendations, decrease/increase in interventional treatment, decrease in biopsy, and risk reclassification. At diagnosis after a positive biopsy, ProMark, OncotypeDX, Prolaris, and MRI guided the use of active surveillance. Use of NADiA ProsVue, Decipher, and Prolaris aided in the decision to add adjuvant therapy post-prostatectomy. PHI, 4Kscore, and MRI used prior initial and repeat biopsies, and ConfirmMDx and Progensa PCA3 used prior repeat biopsies to improve prediction of biopsy outcome, allowing a decrease in unnecessary biopsies. Conclusions: This systematic review suggests that implementation of these tests in clinical practice could effectuate personalized treatment of PCa. Further clinical and economic evaluation studies of long-term PCa outcomes are warranted to provide further guidance.
You are looking at 71 - 80 of 2,432 items
Ghadeer Olleik, Wassim Kassouf, Armen Aprikian, Jason Hu, Marie Vanhuyse, Fabio Cury, Stuart Peacock, Elin Bonnevier, Ebba Palenius and Alice Dragomir
Melissa Magrath, Edward Yang, Chul Ahn, Christian A. Mayorga, Purva Gopal, Caitlin C. Murphy, Samir Gupta, Deepak Agrawal, Ethan A. Halm, Eric K. Borton, Celette Sugg Skinner and Amit G. Singal
Background: Surveillance colonoscopy is required in patients with polyps due to an elevated colorectal cancer (CRC) risk; however, studies suggest substantial overuse and underuse of surveillance colonoscopy. The goal of this study was to characterize guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations after implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR)–based Colonoscopy Pathology Reporting and Clinical Decision Support System (CoRS). Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy at a safety-net healthcare system before (n=1,822) and after (n=1,320) implementation of CoRS in December 2013. Recommendations were classified as guideline-adherent or nonadherent according to the US Multi-Society Task Force on CRC. We defined surveillance recommendations shorter and longer than guideline recommendations as potential overuse and underuse, respectively. We used multivariable generalized linear mixed models to identify correlates of guideline-adherent recommendations. Results: The proportion of guideline-adherent surveillance recommendations was significantly higher post-CoRS than pre-CoRS (84.6% vs 77.4%; P<.001), with fewer recommendations for potential overuse and underuse. In the post-CoRS period, CoRS was used for 89.8% of cases and, compared with cases for which it was not used, was associated with a higher proportion of guideline-adherent recommendations (87.0% vs 63.4%; RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.23–1.42). In multivariable analysis, surveillance recommendations were also more likely to be guideline-adherent in patients with adenomas but less likely among those with fair bowel preparation and those with family history of CRC. Of 203 nonadherent recommendations, 70.4% were considered potential overuse, 20.2% potential underuse, and 9.4% were not provided surveillance recommendations. Conclusions: An EMR-based CoRS was widely used and significantly improved guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations.
Michael B. Streiff, Bjorn Holmstrom, Dana Angelini, Aneel Ashrani, Paula L. Bockenstedt, Carolyn Chesney, John Fanikos, Randolph B. Fenninger, Annemarie E. Fogerty, Shuwei Gao, Samuel Z. Goldhaber, Krishna Gundabolu, Paul Hendrie, Alfred I. Lee, Jason T. Lee, Janelle Mann, Brandon McMahon, Michael M. Millenson, Colleen Morton, Thomas L. Ortel, Sadat Ozair, Rita Paschal, Sanford Shattil, Tanya Siddiqi, Kristi J. Smock, Gerald Soff, Tzu-Fei Wang, Eliot Williams, Anaadriana Zakarija, Lydia Hammond, Mary A. Dwyer and Anita M. Engh
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in patients with cancer and increases morbidity and mortality. VTE prevention and treatment are more complex in patients with cancer. The NCCN Guidelines for Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolic Disease outline strategies for treatment and prevention of VTE in adult patients diagnosed with cancer or in whom cancer is clinically suspected. These NCCN Guidelines Insights explain recent changes in anticoagulants recommended for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE.
Mark A. Helvie and Therese B. Bevers
Breast cancer remains the most common nonskin cancer among women and a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Early detection through screening and advances in treatment have contributed to a 39% mortality reduction in the United States since 1990. The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis recommend annual mammographic screening for average-risk women beginning at age 40 years. Mammographic screening and subsequent treatment reduces breast cancer mortality based on a wide range of studies. This article highlights NCCN's position on screening mammography and the screening controversy.
Daphne Y. Lichtensztajn, John T. Leppert, James D. Brooks, Sumit A. Shah, Weiva Sieh, Benjamin I. Chung, Scarlett L. Gomez and Iona Cheng
Background: The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology recommend definitive therapy for all men with high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) who have a life expectancy >5 years or who are symptomatic. However, the application of these guidelines may vary among ethnic groups. We compared receipt of guideline-concordant treatment between Latino and non-Latino white men in California. Methods: California Cancer Registry data were used to identify 2,421 Latino and 8,636 non-Latino white men diagnosed with high-risk localized PCa from 2010 through 2014. The association of clinical and sociodemographic factors with definitive treatment was examined using logistic regression, overall and by ethnicity. Results: Latinos were less likely than non-Latino whites to receive definitive treatment before (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71–0.88) and after adjusting for age and tumor characteristics (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75–0.95). Additional adjustment for sociodemographic factors eliminated the disparity. However, the association with treatment differed by ethnicity for several factors. Latino men with no health insurance were considerably less likely to receive definitive treatment relative to insured Latino men (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23–0.49), an association that was more pronounced than among non-Latino whites (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47–0.83). Intermediate-versus high-grade disease was associated with lower odds of definitive treatment in Latinos (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59–0.97) but not non-Latino whites. Younger age and care at NCI-designated Cancer Centers were significantly associated with receipt of definitive treatment in non-Latino whites but not in Latinos. Conclusions: California Latino men diagnosed with localized high-risk PCa are at increased risk for undertreatment. The observed treatment disparity is largely explained by sociodemographic factors, suggesting it may be ameliorated through targeted outreach, such as that aimed at younger and underinsured Latino men.
Benjamin M. Parsons, Dipesh Uprety, Angela L. Smith, Andrew J. Borgert and Leah L. Dietrich
Background: Despite the paucity of evidence supporting chemotherapy in the treatment of node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer measuring <2 cm, use of trastuzumab-based chemotherapy has increased over the past decade. Therefore, we used the National Cancer Database to evaluate the use and impact of chemotherapy on survival in this population. Methods: We identified female patients aged 18 to 70 years with node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer measuring <2 cm. A propensity-matched cohort model was used to control for risk factors known to influence survival. Primary end points assessed were receipt of chemotherapy and overall survival (OS). Results: In our propensity-matched cohort model (n=8,222), adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) was associated with a lower 5-year OS rate in T1mi breast cancer (n=626; 89.1% [95% CI, 81.8%–93.5%] vs 99.1% [96.6%–99.8%]), no significant effect in T1a disease (n=2,901; 95.4% [93.2%–96.9%] vs 96.9% [94.1%–98.3%]), and improved 5-year OS in T1b (n=2,340; 97.1% [95.1%–98.4%] vs 92.3% [88.5%–94.9%]) and T1c tumors (n=2,355; 95.9% [93.5%–97.5%] vs 91.5% [88.4%–93.9%]). In the entire cohort of 21,148 patients who met the inclusion criteria, ACT was associated with lower 5-year OS in T1mi (89.6% [83.7%–93.4%] vs 98.1% [96.6%–98.9%]) and T1a tumors (94.9% [92.9%–96.3%] vs 96.5% [94.6%–97.7%]), and improved 5-year OS in T1b (96.8% [95.6%–97.7%] vs 92.3% [88.7%–94.8%]) and T1c tumors (95.8% [94.9%–96.5%] vs 91.6% [88.5%–93.9%]). Increased use of ACT was observed over the study period. From 2010 to 2013, annual treatment rates were 71.5%, 72.4%, 73.3%, and 74.4%, respectively (trend test, P<.0001). Conclusions: Our data support the use of ACT for HER2-positive, node-negative T1b and T1c breast cancer, whereas no benefit was observed for ACT in T1mi and T1a HER2-positive, node-negative breast cancer. Although use of ACT is increasing in node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer <2 cm, our findings caution against its use in the smallest of these tumors (T1mi and T1a) due to lack of survival benefit.