The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for men choosing to participate in an early detection program for prostate cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight notable recent updates. Overall, the 2014 update represents a more streamlined and concise set of recommendations. The panel stratified the age ranges at which initiating testing for prostate cancer should be considered. Indications for biopsy include both a cutpoint and the use of multiple risk variables in combination. In addition to other biomarkers of specificity, the Prostate Health Index has been included to aid biopsy decisions in certain men, given recent FDA approvals.
You are looking at 11 - 20 of 20 items for
- Author: William W. Roberts x
- Refine by Access: All x
Peter R. Carroll, J. Kellogg Parsons, Gerald Andriole, Robert R. Bahnson, Daniel A. Barocas, William J. Catalona, Douglas M. Dahl, John W. Davis, Jonathan I. Epstein, Ruth B. Etzioni, Veda N. Giri, George P. Hemstreet III, Mark H. Kawachi, Paul H. Lange, Kevin R. Loughlin, William Lowrance, Paul Maroni, James Mohler, Todd M. Morgan, Robert B. Nadler, Michael Poch, Chuck Scales, Terrence M. Shanefelt, Andrew J. Vickers, Robert Wake, Dorothy A. Shead, and Maria Ho
Peter R. Carroll, J. Kellogg Parsons, Gerald Andriole, Robert R. Bahnson, Daniel A. Barocas, Erik P. Castle, William J. Catalona, Douglas M. Dahl, John W. Davis, Jonathan I. Epstein, Ruth B. Etzioni, Thomas Farrington, George P. Hemstreet III, Mark H. Kawachi, Paul H. Lange, Kevin R. Loughlin, William Lowrance, Paul Maroni, James Mohler, Todd M. Morgan, Robert B. Nadler, Michael Poch, Chuck Scales, Terrence M. Shaneyfelt, Marc C. Smaldone, Geoffrey Sonn, Preston Sprenke, Andrew J. Vickers, Robert Wake, Dorothy A. Shead, and Deborah Freedman-Cass
Prostate cancer represents a spectrum of disease that ranges from nonaggressive, slow-growing disease that may not require treatment to aggressive, fast-growing disease that does. The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide a set of sequential recommendations detailing a screening and evaluation strategy for maximizing the detection of prostate cancer that is potentially curable and that, if left undetected, represents a risk to the patient. The guidelines were developed for healthy men who have elected to participate in the early detection of prostate cancer, and they focus on minimizing unnecessary procedures and limiting the detection of indolent disease.
Peter R. Carroll, J. Kellogg Parsons, Gerald Andriole, Robert R. Bahnson, Erik P. Castle, William J. Catalona, Douglas M. Dahl, John W. Davis, Jonathan I. Epstein, Ruth B. Etzioni, Thomas Farrington, George P. Hemstreet III, Mark H. Kawachi, Simon Kim, Paul H. Lange, Kevin R. Loughlin, William Lowrance, Paul Maroni, James Mohler, Todd M. Morgan, Kelvin A. Moses, Robert B. Nadler, Michael Poch, Chuck Scales, Terrence M. Shaneyfelt, Marc C. Smaldone, Geoffrey Sonn, Preston Sprenkle, Andrew J. Vickers, Robert Wake, Dorothy A. Shead, and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for prostate cancer screening in healthy men who have elected to participate in an early detection program. The NCCN Guidelines focus on minimizing unnecessary procedures and limiting the detection of indolent disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Prostate Cancer Early Detection Panel's most significant discussions for the 2016 guideline update, which included issues surrounding screening in high-risk populations (ie, African Americans, BRCA1/2 mutation carriers), approaches to refine patient selection for initial and repeat biopsies, and approaches to improve biopsy specificity.
Razelle Kurzrock, A. Dimitrios Colevas, Anthony Olszanski, Wallace Akerley, Carlos L. Arteaga, William E. Carson III, Jeffrey W. Clark, John F. DiPersio, David S. Ettinger, Robert J. Morgan Jr, Lee S. Schwartzberg, Alan P. Venook, Christopher D. Gocke, Jonathan Tait, and F. Marc Stewart
Background: With advances such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) increasing understanding of the basis of cancer and its response to treatment, NCCN believes it is important to understand how molecular profiling/diagnostic testing is being performed and used at NCCN Member Institutions and their community affiliates. Methods: The NCCN Oncology Research Program's Investigator Steering Committee and the NCCN Best Practices Committee gathered baseline information on the use of cancer-related molecular testing at NCCN Member Institutions and community members of the NCCN Affiliate Research Consortium through 2 separate surveys distributed in December 2013 and September 2014, respectively. Results: A total of 24 NCCN Member Institutions and 8 affiliate sites provided quantitative and qualitative data. In the context of these surveys, “molecular profiling/diagnostics” was defined as a panel of at least 10 genes examined as a diagnostic DNA test in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–certified laboratory. Conclusions: Results indicated that molecular profiling/diagnostics are used at 100% of survey respondents' institutions to make patient care decisions. However, challenges relating to reimbursement, lack of data regarding actionable targets and targeted therapies, and access to drugs on or off clinical trials were cited as barriers to integration of molecular profiling into patient care. Frameworks for using molecular diagnostic results based on levels of evidence, alongside continued research into the predictive value of biomarkers and targeted therapies, are recommended to advance understanding of the role of genomic biomarkers. Greater evidence and consensus regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of molecular profiling may lead to broader insurance coverage and increased integration into patient care.
R. Michael Tuttle, Douglas W. Ball, David Byrd, Gilbert H. Daniels, Raza A. Dilawari, Gerard M. Doherty, Quan-Yang Duh, Hormoz Ehya, William B. Farrar, Robert I. Haddad, Fouad Kandeel, Richard T. Kloos, Peter Kopp, Dominick M. Lamonica, Thom R. Loree, William M. Lydiatt, Judith McCaffrey, John A. Olson Jr., Lee Parks, John A. Ridge, Jatin P. Shah, Steven I. Sherman, Cord Sturgeon, Steven G. Waguespack, Thomas N. Wang, and Lori J. Wirth
Daniel G. Coit, John A. Thompson, Alain Algazi, Robert Andtbacka, Christopher K. Bichakjian, William E. Carson III, Gregory A. Daniels, Dominick DiMaio, Ryan C. Fields, Martin D. Fleming, Brian Gastman, Rene Gonzalez, Valerie Guild, Douglas Johnson, Richard W. Joseph, Julie R. Lange, Mary C. Martini, Miguel A. Materin, Anthony J. Olszanski, Patrick Ott, Aparna Priyanath Gupta, Merrick I. Ross, April K. Salama, Joseph Skitzki, Susan M. Swetter, Kenneth K. Tanabe, Javier F. Torres-Roca, Vijay Trisal, Marshall M. Urist, Nicole McMillian, and Anita Engh
The NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on a number of novel agents and treatment regimens. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy in patients with metastatic or unresectable melanoma.
Robert W. Carlson, Susan Moench, Arti Hurria, Lodovico Balducci, Harold J. Burstein, Lori J. Goldstein, William J. Gradishar, Kevin S. Hughes, Mohammad Jahanzeb, Stuart M. Lichtman, Lawrence B. Marks, Joan S. McClure, Beryl McCormick, Lisle M. Nabell, Lori J. Pierce, Mary Lou Smith, Neal S. Topham, Tiffany A. Traina, John H. Ward, and Eric P. Winer
Breast cancer is common in older women, and the segment of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older is growing rapidly. Consequently, awareness is increasing of the need to identify breast cancer treatment recommendations to assure optimal, individualized treatment of older women with breast cancer. However, the development of these recommendations is limited by the heterogeneous nature of this population with respect to functional status, social support, life expectancy, and the presence of comorbidities, and by the underrepresentation of older patients with breast cancer in randomized clinical trials. The NCCN Breast Cancer in the Older Woman Task Force was convened to provide a forum for framing relevant questions on topics that impact older women with early-stage, locally advanced, and metastatic breast cancer. The task force is a multidisciplinary panel of 18 experts in breast cancer representing medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, plastic surgery, and patient advocacy. All task force members were from NCCN institutions and were identified and invited solely by NCCN. Members were charged with identifying evidence relevant to their specific expertise. During a 2-day meeting, individual members provided didactic presentations; these presentations were followed by extensive discussions during which areas of consensus and controversy were identified on topics such as defining the “older” breast cancer patient; geriatric assessment tools in the oncology setting; attitudes of older patients with breast cancer and their physicians; tumor biology in older versus younger women with breast cancer; implementation of specific interventions in older patients with breast cancer, such as curative surgery, surgical axillary staging, radiation therapy, reconstructive surgery, endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, HER2-directed therapy, and supportive therapies; and areas requiring future studies. (JNCCN 2008;6[Suppl 4]:S1–S25)
Therese B. Bevers, Deborah K. Armstrong, Banu Arun, Robert W. Carlson, Kenneth H. Cowan, Mary B. Daly, Irvin Fleming, Judy E. Garber, Mary Gemignani, William J. Gradishar, Helen Krontiras, Swati Kulkarni, Christine Laronga, Loretta Loftus, Deborah J. MacDonald, Martin C. Mahoney, Sofia D. Merajver, Ingrid Meszoely, Lisa Newman, Elizabeth Pritchard, Victoria Seewaldt, Rena V. Sellin, Charles L. Shapiro, and John H. Ward
Robert W. Carlson, Elizabeth Brown, Harold J. Burstein, William J. Gradishar, Clifford A. Hudis, Charles Loprinzi, Eleftherios Paul Mamounas, Edith A. Perez, Kathleen Pritchard, Peter Ravdin, Abram Recht, George Somlo, Richard L. Theriault, Eric P. Winer, Antonio C. Wolff, and for the NCCN Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer Task Force
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) first published the NCCN Breast Cancer Treatment Guidelines in 1996. The Guidelines address the treatment of all stages of breast cancer across the spectrum of patient care and have been updated yearly. Adjuvant therapy for breast cancer has undergone an especially rapid evolution over the past few years. Therefore, the NCCN Breast Cancer Guidelines Panel was supplemented by additional experts to form the Adjuvant Therapy Task Force to provide a forum for an extended discussion and expanded input to the adjuvant therapy recommendations for the Breast Cancer Treatment Guidelines. Issues discussed included methods of risk-stratification for recurrence; how biologic markers such as HER2 status, quantitative estrogen receptor, or genetic markers can be incorporated as prognostic or predictive factors; and how age, menopausal status, and estrogen receptor levels impact benefits from chemotherapy and endocrine therapy. Additionally, the task force discussed the strategies for use of aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal women and the potential incorporation of trastuzumab into adjuvant therapy of women with HER2/neu positive breast cancer. This supplement summarizes the background data and ensuing discussion from the Adjvuant Task Force meeting. (JNCCN 2006;4[suppl 1]:S-1–S-26)
Robert W. Carlson, Susan J. Moench, M. Elizabeth H. Hammond, Edith A. Perez, Harold J. Burstein, D. Craig Allred, Charles L. Vogel, Lori J. Goldstein, George Somlo, William J. Gradishar, Clifford A. Hudis, Mohammad Jahanzeb, Azadeh Stark, Antonio C. Wolff, Michael F. Press, Eric P. Winer, Soonmyung Paik, Britt-Marie Ljung, and for the NCCN HER2 Testing in Breast Cancer Task Force
The NCCN HER2 Testing in Breast Cancer Task Force was convened to critically evaluate the ability of the level of HER2 expression or gene amplification in breast cancer tumors to serve as a prognostic and a predictive factor in the metastatic and adjuvant settings, to assess the reliability of the methods of measuring HER2 expression or gene amplification in the laboratory, and to make recommendations regarding the interpretation of test results. The Task Force is a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts in breast cancer representing the disciplines of medical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, epidemiology, and patient advocacy. Invited members included members of the NCCN Breast Cancer Panel and other needed experts selected solely by the NCCN. During a 2-day meeting, individual task force members provided didactic presentations critically evaluating important aspects of HER2 biology and epidemiology: HER2 as a prognostic and predictive factor; results from clinical trials in which trastuzumab was used as a targeted therapy against HER2 in the adjuvant and metastatic settings; the available testing methodologies for HER2, including sensitivity, specificity, and ability to provide prognostic and predictive information; and the principles on which HER2 testing should be based. Each task force member was charged with identifying evidence relevant to their specific expertise and presentation. Following the presentations, an evidence-based consensus approach was used to formulate recommendations relating to the pathologic and clinical application of the evidence to breast cancer patient evaluation and care. In areas of controversy, this process extended beyond the meeting to achieve consensus. The Task Force concluded that accurate assignment of the HER2 status of invasive breast cancer is essential to clinical decision making in the treatment of breast cancer in both adjuvant and metastatic settings. Formal validation and concordance testing should be performed and reported by laboratories performing HER2 testing for clinical purposes. If appropriate quality control/ assurance procedures are in place, either immunohistochemistry (IHC) or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) methods may be used. A tumor with an IHC score of 0 or1+, an average HER2 gene/chromosome 17 ratio of less than 1.8, or an average number of HER2 gene copies/cell of 4 or less as determined by FISH is considered to be HER2 negative. A tumor with an IHC score of 3+, an average HER2 gene/chromosome 17 ratio of greater than 2.2 by FISH, or an average number of HER2 gene copies/cell of 6 or greater is considered HER2 positive. A tumor with an IHC score of 2+ should be further tested using FISH, with HER2 status determined by the FISH result. Tumor samples with an average HER2 gene/chromosome ratio of 1.8 to 2.2 or average number of HER2 gene copies/cell in the range of greater than 4 to less than 6 are considered to be borderline, and strategies to assign the HER2 status of such samples are proposed. (JNCCN 2006;4(Suppl 3):S1–S22)