Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 3,454 items for

  • All content x
Clear All
Full access

Aida Bujosa, Consolación Moltó, Thomas J. Hwang, José Carlos Tapia, Kerstin N. Vokinger, Arnoud J. Templeton, Ignasi Gich, Agustí Barnadas, Eitan Amir, and Ariadna Tibau

Background: Most anticancer drugs are approved by regulatory agencies based on surrogate measures. This article explores the variables associated with overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), and substantial clinical benefit among anticancer drugs at the time of approval and in the postmarketing period. Methods: Anticancer drugs approved by the FDA between January 2006 and December 2015 and with postmarketing follow-up until April 2019 were identified. We evaluated trial-level data supporting approval and any updated OS and/or QoL data. We applied the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the ASCO Value Framework (ASCO-VF) to initial and follow-up studies. Results: We found that 58 drugs were approved for 96 indications based on 96 trials. At registration, approval was based on improved OS in 39 trials (41%) and improved QoL in 16 of 45 indications (36%). Postmarketing data showed an improvement in OS for 28 of 59 trials (47%) and in QoL for 22 of 48 indications (46%). At the time of approval, 25 of 94 (27%) and 26 of 80 scorable trials (33%) met substantial benefit thresholds using the ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF, respectively. In the postmarketing period, 37 of 69 (54%) and 35 of 65 (54%) trials met the substantial benefit thresholds. Drugs with companion diagnostics and immune checkpoint inhibitors were associated significantly with substantial clinical benefit. Conclusions: Compared with the time of approval, more anticancer drugs showed improved OS and QoL and met the ESMO-MCBS or ASCO-VF thresholds for substantial benefit over the course of postmarketing time. However, only approximately half of the trials met the threshold for substantial benefit. Companion diagnostic drugs and immunotherapy seemed to be associated with greater clinical benefit.

Full access

Anusha Ponduri, David Z. Liao, Nicolas F. Schlecht, Gregory Rosenblatt, Michael B. Prystowsky, Rafi Kabarriti, Madhur Garg, Thomas J. Ow, Bradley A. Schiff, Richard V. Smith, and Vikas Mehta

Background: Nonadherence to NCCN Guidelines during time from surgery to postoperative radiotherapy (S-PORT) can alter survival outcomes in head and neck squamous cell carcinomna (HNSCC). There is a need to validate this impact in an underserved urban population and to understand risk factors and reasons for delay. We sought to investigate the impact of delayed PORT with outcomes of overall survival (OS) in HNSCC, to analyze predictive factors of delayed PORT, and to identify reasons for delay. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in an urban, community-based academic center. A total of 184 patients with primary HNSCC were identified through the Montefiore Medical Center cancer registry who had been treated between March 1, 2005, and March 8, 2017, and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary exposure was S-PORT. OS, recurrence, and risk factors and reasons for treatment delay were the main outcomes and measures. Results: Among 184 patients with HNSCC treated with PORT, the median S-PORT was 48.5 days (interquartile range, 41–67 days). The S-PORT threshold that optimally differentiated worse OS outcomes was >50 days (46.7% of our cohort; n=86). Independent of other relevant factors, patients with HNSCC and S-PORT >50 days had worse OS (hazard ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.34–3.95) and greater recurrence (odds ratio, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.31–9.39). Predictors of delayed S-PORT included being underweight or obese, prolonged postoperative length of stay, and age >70 years. The most frequent reasons for PORT delay were complications related to surgery (22.09%), unrelated medical comorbidities (18.60%), and nonadherence/missed appointments (6.98%). Conclusions: Delayed PORT beyond 50 days after surgery was associated with decreased OS and greater recurrence. Identification of predictive factors and reasons for treatment delay helps to target at-risk patients and facilitates interventions in underserved populations.

Full access

Patrick A. Brown, Bijal Shah, Anjali Advani, Patricia Aoun, Michael W. Boyer, Patrick W. Burke, Daniel J. DeAngelo, Shira Dinner, Amir T. Fathi, Jordan Gauthier, Nitin Jain, Suzanne Kirby, Michaela Liedtke, Mark Litzow, Aaron Logan, Selina Luger, Lori J. Maness, Stephanie Massaro, Ryan J. Mattison, William May, Olalekan Oluwole, Jae Park, Amanda Przespolewski, Sravanti Rangaraju, Jeffrey E. Rubnitz, Geoffrey L. Uy, Madhuri Vusirikala, Matthew Wieduwilt, Beth Lynn, Ryan A. Berardi, Deborah A. Freedman-Cass, and Mallory Campbell

The NCCN Guidelines for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) focus on the classification of ALL subtypes based on immunophenotype and cytogenetic/molecular markers; risk assessment and stratification for risk-adapted therapy; treatment strategies for Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive and Ph-negative ALL for both adolescent and young adult and adult patients; and supportive care considerations. Given the complexity of ALL treatment regimens and the required supportive care measures, the NCCN ALL Panel recommends that patients be treated at a specialized cancer center with expertise in the management of ALL This portion of the Guidelines focuses on the management of Ph-positive and Ph-negative ALL in adolescents and young adults, and management in relapsed settings.

Full access

Efrat Dotan, Louise C. Walter, Ilene S. Browner, Katherine Clifton, Harvey Jay Cohen, Martine Extermann, Cary Gross, Sumati Gupta, Genevieve Hollis, Joleen Hubbard, Reshma Jagsi, Nancy L. Keating, Elizabeth Kessler, Thuy Koll, Beatriz Korc-Grodzicki, June M. McKoy, Sumi Misra, Dominic Moon, Tracey O’Connor, Cynthia Owusu, Ashley Rosko, Marcia Russell, Mina Sedrak, Fareeha Siddiqui, Amy Stella, Derek L. Stirewalt, Ishwaria M. Subbiah, William P. Tew, Grant R. Williams, Liz Hollinger, Giby V. George, and Hema Sundar

The NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology address specific issues related to the management of cancer in older adults, including screening and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), assessing the risks and benefits of treatment, preventing or decreasing complications from therapy, and managing patients deemed to be at high risk for treatment-related toxicity. CGA is a multidisciplinary, in-depth evaluation that assesses the objective health of the older adult while evaluating multiple domains, which may affect cancer prognosis and treatment choices. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines providing specific practical framework for the use of CGA when evaluating older adults with cancer.

Full access
Full access

Terrell Johnson, Michelle McMurry-Heath, Ted Okon, David Rubin, and Robert W. Carlson

The cost of delivering high-quality healthcare in America now consumes 17.7% of the nation’s gross domestic product according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Health Expenditure Data. With costs threatening to disrupt accessible and equitable care for patients, policymakers are reassessing all matters and functions of the healthcare system to excise waste, redundancies, and costly services. To explore this subjects’ impact on oncology, NCCN hosted the NCCN Policy Summit: Innovative Solutions to Drive Down Healthcare Costs: Implications for Access to High Quality Cancer Care. This virtual summit featured multidisciplinary panel discussions and keynote addresses. Seeking to address barriers to low-cost, high-quality cancer care, panelists and keynotes presented innovative policy solutions to sustain high-quality oncologic care at lower costs to the health system. This article encapsulates the discussions held during the summit and expounds upon salient points where appropriate.

Full access

Rofieda R. Alwaqfi, Megan I. Samuelson, Natalya N. Guseva, Michelle Ouyang, Aaron D. Bossler, and Deqin Ma

Recurrent GLI1 gene fusions have been recently described in a subset of soft tissue tumors showing a distinct monotonous epithelioid morphology with a rich capillary network and frequent S100 protein expression. Three different fusion partners—ACTB, MALAT1, and PTCH1—have been reported with the PTCH1-GLI1 fusion from 2 patients only, both with head and neck tumors. Herein, we report for the first time a PTCH1-GLI1 fusion in a primary ovarian tumor from a female patient aged 54 years who presented with a 21-cm right ovarian mass and mesenteric metastasis. The tumor was diagnosed as “favor malignant melanoma” based on histologic examination and extensive immunohistochemistry studies. The patient received 4 cycles of pembrolizumab and 2 cycles of trabectedin but developed multiple metastases. A next-generation sequencing-based assay detected a PTCH1-GLI1 fusion, which led to a revised pathologic diagnosis and a change of the patient’s management. The patient was switched to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) pazopanib to target the sonic hedgehog pathway. Her disease was stable 49 months post TKI therapy. Our case report is the first to show that a tumor with GLI1 oncogenic activation was sensitive to a TKI. The morphologic and immunohistochemistry similarities of our patient’s tumor to other recently described tumors harboring GLI1 fusions suggest that these tumors may all belong to the same entity of GLI1 fusion–positive neoplasms and may be treated similarly.

Full access

Margaret Tempero

Full access

Yu Tian, Elham Kharazmi, Hermann Brenner, Xing Xu, Kristina Sundquist, Jan Sundquist, and Mahdi Fallah

Background: The aim of this study was to explore the risk of invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) in relatives of patients with colorectal carcinoma in situ (CCIS), which is lacking in the literature. Patients and Methods: We collected data from Swedish family-cancer datasets and calculated standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and cumulative risk of CRC in family histories of CCIS in first- and second-degree relatives. Family history was defined as a dynamic (time-dependent) variable allowing for changes during the follow-up period from 1958 to 2015. Of 12,829,251 individuals with available genealogical data, 173,796 were diagnosed with CRC and 40,558 with CCIS. Results: The lifetime (0–79 years) cumulative risk of CRC in first-degree relatives of patients with CCIS was 6.5%, which represents a 1.6-fold (95% CI, 1.5–1.7; n=752) increased risk. A similarly increased lifetime cumulative risk (6.7%) was found among first-degree relatives of patients with CRC (SIR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.6–1.7; n=6,965). An increased risk of CRC was also found in half-siblings of patients with CCIS (SIR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1–3.0; n=18) and also in half-siblings of patients with CRC (SIR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3–2.1; n=78). Moreover, the increased risk of CRC was higher for younger age at diagnosis of CCIS in the affected first-degree relative and for younger age at diagnosis of CRC in the index person. Conclusions: Results of this study show that first-degree relatives and half-siblings of patients with CCIS have an increased risk of CRC, which is comparable in magnitude to the risk of those with a family history of invasive CRC. These findings extend available evidence on familial risk of CRC and may help to refine guidelines and recommendations for CRC screening.