David G. Pfister, Kie-Kian Ang, David M. Brizel, Barbara A. Burtness, Anthony J. Cmelak, A. Dimitrios Colevas, Frank Dunphy, David W. Eisele, Jill Gilbert, Maura L. Gillison, Robert I. Haddad, Bruce H. Haughey, Wesley L. Hicks Jr., Ying J. Hitchcock, Merrill S. Kies, William M. Lydiatt, Ellie Maghami, Renato Martins, Thomas McCaffrey, Bharat B. Mittal, Harlan A. Pinto, John A. Ridge, Sandeep Samant, Giuseppe Sanguineti, David E. Schuller, Jatin P. Shah, Sharon Spencer, Andy Trotti III, Randal S. Weber, Gregory T. Wolf and Frank Worden
Michael H. Levy, Thomas Smith, Amy Alvarez-Perez, Anthony Back, Justin N. Baker, Susan Block, Shirley N. Codada, Shalini Dalal, Maria Dans, Jean S. Kutner, Elizabeth Kvale, Sumathi Misra, William Mitchell, Todd M. Sauer, David Spiegel, Linda Sutton, Robert M. Taylor, Jennifer Temel, Roma Tickoo, Susan G. Urba, Carin Van Zyl, Sharon M. Weinstein, Mary Anne Bergman and Jillian L. Scavone
The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN panel’s discussions and guideline updates from 2013 and 2014. These include modifications/additions to palliative care screening and assessment protocols, new considerations for discussing the benefits and risks of anticancer therapy, and approaches to advance care planning. Recent updates focus on enhanced patient-centered care and seek to promote earlier integration of palliative care and advance care planning in oncology.
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
R. Michael Tuttle, Douglas W. Ball, David Byrd, 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 C. 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
Eric Lu, George V. Thomas, Yiyi Chen, Alexander W. Wyatt, Paul Lloyd, Jack Youngren, David Quigley, Raymond Bergan, Shawna Bailey, Tomasz M. Beer, Felix Y. Feng, Eric J. Small and Joshi J. Alumkal
Background: PARP inhibition is a promising therapeutic strategy for the treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose tumors harbor homologous recombination DNA repair gene alterations. However, questions remain for many practicing clinicians about which patients are ideally suited for PARP inhibitor treatment. This report details our institutional experience using PARP inhibitor therapy in patients whose tumors harbored specific DNA repair gene alterations. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review to identify patients at Oregon Health & Science University who were treated with PARP inhibition. We identified 8 patients and determined the impact of the specific DNA repair gene alterations on tumor response and time on treatment with PARP inhibition. Results: A number of DNA repair gene alterations were identified. Three patients had pathogenic BRCA2 mutations and one had a BRCA2 mutation of uncertain significance. Conversely, the 4 other patients' tumors harbored alterations in other DNA repair genes, none of which were clearly pathogenic. A statistically significant difference in benefit was seen between patients whose tumors harbored BRCA2 gene alterations and those whose tumors did not, as measured by >50% decline in prostate-specific antigen levels (100% vs 0%; P=.03) and duration on therapy (31.4 vs 6.4 weeks; P=.03). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that not all DNA repair alterations are equally predictive of PARP inhibitor response. Importantly, all responding patients had tumors harboring BRCA2 DNA repair alterations, including one without a known pathogenic mutation. Conversely, among the 4 nonresponders, several DNA repair alterations in genes other than BRCA2 were identified that were not clearly pathogenic. This demonstrates the need to carefully examine the functional relevance of the DNA repair alterations identified, especially in genes other than BRCA2, when considering patients for PARP inhibitor treatment.
Thomas A. D’Amico, Lindsey A.M. Bandini, Alan Balch, Al B. Benson III, Stephen B. Edge, C. Lyn Fitzgerald, Robert J. Green, Wui-Jin Koh, Michael Kolodziej, Shaji Kumar, Neal J. Meropol, James L. Mohler, David Pfister, Ronald S. Walters and Robert W. Carlson
Although oncology care has evolved, outcome assessment remains a key challenge. Outcome measurement requires identification and adoption of a succinct list of metrics indicative of high-quality cancer care for use within and across healthcare systems. NCCN established an advisory committee, the NCCN Quality and Outcomes Committee, consisting of provider experts from NCCN Member Institutions and other stakeholders, including payers and patient advocacy, community oncology, and health information technology representatives, to review the existing quality landscape and identify contemporary, relevant cancer quality and outcomes measures by reevaluating validated measures for endorsement and proposing new measure concepts to fill crucial gaps. This manuscript reports on 22 measures and concepts; 15 that align with existing measures and 7 that are new.
Dawn Provenzale, Samir Gupta, Dennis J. Ahnen, Arnold J. Markowitz, Daniel C. Chung, Robert J. Mayer, Scott E. Regenbogen, Amie M. Blanco, Travis Bray, Gregory Cooper, Dayna S. Early, James M. Ford, Francis M. Giardiello, William Grady, Michael J. Hall, Amy L. Halverson, Stanley R. Hamilton, Heather Hampel, Jason B. Klapman, David W. Larson, Audrey J. Lazenby, Xavier Llor, Patrick M. Lynch, June Mikkelson, Reid M. Ness, Thomas P. Slavin Jr, Shajanpeter Sugandha, Jennifer M. Weiss, Mary A. Dwyer and Ndiya Ogba
The NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening outline various screening modalities as well as recommended screening strategies for individuals at average or increased-risk of developing sporadic CRC. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant data, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize 2018 updates to the NCCN Guidelines, with a primary focus on modalities used to screen individuals at average-risk for CRC.