Search Results

The treatment of stage II colon cancer is a controversial issue that has persisted for the past decade. Clinicians must understand that accurate assessment of risk factors is the key to identifying patients who will benefit from treatment. Pathologic staging for colon cancer is based on the American Joint Committee on Cancer 6th edition staging system. In addition, distinct pathologic factors characterize a patient at high risk for stage II disease. More recent retrospective data suggest that molecular markers and gene expression microarrays may be valuable as prognostic and predictive tests. Unfortunately, previous research studies were not powered to properly assess efficacy in stage II disease. However, 2 recent clinical trials, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-07 and MOSAIC, have provided more insight into defining the optimal treatment approach. With the development of the newer therapeutic agents, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab, ongoing trials such as Intergroup E5202 should help determine risk versus benefit of chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of stage II colon cancer.

The past 5 years have seen significant developments in the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). New chemotherapy agents with activity in CRC have demonstrated an improvement in survival for patients with advanced CRC. Studies now are focusing on combinations and sequences of chemotherapy agents to prolong survival in second- and even third-line therapies. Oral agents have been developed and are being studied in combination chemotherapy regimens. Development of oral combinations should maintain a survival advantage with the added benefit of convenience for the patient. Drugs designed to act on specific cellular protein targets have also shown activity and are being explored further. Researchers continue to pursue immunotherapy and vaccine therapy. Studies are now focusing on how best to use the available agents. These new agents and new combinations of agents and of approaches have led and should continue to lead to improved outcomes in the treatment of patients with CRC.

The development of treatment decision strategies to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II colon cancer continues to challenge many oncologists. Clearly, recurrence risk and prognosis for patients with stage II colon cancer can be variable, with subsets of patients with stage II disease at potentially higher risk than some with stage III. Adjuvant chemotherapy seems to produce a consistent relative risk reduction for recurrence across studies. Using clinical calculators to predict individual recurrence risk based on histopathologic and patient data allows this relative risk reduction to be translated into absolute benefit to the patient. In addition, gene expression assays in combination with these histopathologic data may further improve the accuracy of recurrence risk calculations and allow more accurate absolute benefit estimations. This absolute benefit should be discussed with the patient, taking into account the risk of morbidity from chemotherapy and individual preferences to arrive at a shared medical decision regarding adjuvant chemotherapy.

Abstract

Background: Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in oncology are vital for patient advocacy and funding research for rare cancers, young investigators, and innovative projects. However, some cancers may be underfunded relative to their burden. This study examined the alignment of cancer burden by histology with NPO funding for each histology. Patients and Methods: This nationwide, cross-sectional study conducted from October 2017 through February 2018 included all oncology NPOs with >$5 million in annual revenue. Total revenue from NPOs supporting individual cancer types with the incidence, mortality, and person-years of life lost (PYLL) for each cancer type was compared using scatter plots and Pearson correlation coefficients. Correlation of expenditure types (eg, fundraising, patient education) with revenue was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients. Effect of disease association with a stigmatized behavior (eg, lung cancer and smoking) was evaluated using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 119 cancer-related NPOs were included, generating approximately $6 billion in annual revenue in 2015. Cancers with the largest revenue were breast cancer ($460 million; 33.2%), leukemia ($201 million; 14.5%), pediatric cancers ($177 million; 12.8%), and lymphoma ($145 million; 10.5%). Breast cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, and pediatric cancers were all well funded compared with their incidence, mortality, and PYLL. Gastrointestinal (colorectal, pancreas, and hepatobiliary), gynecologic (ovarian, cervical, and endometrial), brain, and lung cancers were poorly funded in all 3 metrics. All cancers associated with a stigmatized behavior were poorly funded in at least 2 metrics. Increased spending on fundraising, administrative costs, patient education, and treatment was highly correlated with increased revenue (Pearson correlation coefficients all >0.92). Conclusions: NPO funding by cancer type is not proportionate with individual cancer burden on society. Disease stigma negatively impacts funding. A significant need exists to increase awareness and funding for many undersupported but common and highly lethal cancers.

Background: National Cancer Institute (NCI) and nonprofit organization (NPO) funding have driven recent advancements in oncology through research and advocacy. However, some cancers may be underfunded relative to their burden. This study examined the alignment of cancer burden by histology with NCI and NPO funding for each histology. Methods: The GuideStar database was used to find all cancer NPOs with >$5 million (M) in annual revenue (AR) using NTEE codes and 165 cancer-related search terms. Care delivery NPOs were excluded. NPOs were classified by the histology they support. AR was obtained from IRS Form 990s for each NPO. NCI funding allocation across histologies was obtained from the NCI Funded Research Portfolio data. Total funding for each histology was calculated by adding the NCI funding and the ARs for all NPOs in that histology. Cancer burden based on annual incidence, deaths, and person-years of life lost (PYLL) was obtained from SEER data. Comparison of total NCI and NPO funding with incidence, deaths, and PYLL of each histology was done using descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: 119 NPOs with total AR of $6 billion were included. 59 (50%) were histology agnostic and accounted for $4.6 billion (76.8%) of total AR. Cancers with the most NPOs were breast (13, 11%), pediatric (13, 11%), leukemia (4, 3.4%) and lung (4, 3.4%). There were no NPOs with AR >$5 M for esophageal, gastric, kidney, or bladder cancers. Cancers with the most combined NCI and NPO funding were breast ($1 billion), leukemia ($448 M), lung ($348 M), and prostate ($303 M). The ratios of combined NCI and NPO funding vs incidence, mortality, and PYLL are shown in Table 1. Cancers with the best funding vs incidence were leukemia, ovarian, and breast. Cancers with the best funding vs deaths were breast, leukemia, and melanoma. Cancers with the best funding vs PYLL were breast, leukemia, and prostate. Colon, liver, lung, and bladder cancers were poorly funded in all 3 metrics. The correlation coefficients between funding and incidence, deaths, and PYLL were 0.74, 0.34, and 0.36, respectively. Conclusions: There is substantial support for cancer research and advocacy in both the government and nonprofit sectors. While funding by cancer type was moderately proportional to incidence, it was poorly correlated with deaths and PYLL. There is significant need to increase awareness and support for many under-supported, but common and highly lethal cancers.