Search Results

You are looking at 11 - 20 of 41 items for

  • Author: Al B. Benson III x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Mohamedtaki A. Tejani, Anna ter Veer, Dana Milne, Rebecca Ottesen, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Al B. Benson III, Deborah Schrag, Stephen Shibata, John Skibber, Martin Weiser, Neal Wilkinson and Steven J. Cohen

Appendiceal malignancies are rare and represent 1% of intestinal tumors in the United States. The role and efficacy of modern systemic therapy in advanced appendiceal adenocarcinoma has not been established. This study analyzed patients with recurrent or metastatic appendiceal adenocarcinoma in the database for Colorectal Cancer (CRC; 2005-2012). This database tracks longitudinal care for patients treated at 8 specialty centers across the Unites States. Study objectives were to describe and evaluate the efficacy of systemic therapy and investigate relationships with clinicopathologic features. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Of 248 patients with advanced appendiceal carcinoma, 112 (45%) received systemic therapy for measurable disease and are the focus of this report. The most common chemotherapy regimens included FOLFOX with or without bevacizumab (n=39 and n=37, respectively), FOLFIRI (n=15), and single-agent fluoro-pyrimidine (n=10). Among 99 patients evaluable for best response, 39 experienced a response (response rate [RR], 39%) and 36 (36%) had stable disease. The median PFS was 1.2 years (95% CI, 1.0-1.8) and median OS was 2.1 years (95% CI, 1.6-2.3). Patients with non-mucinous histology or high-grade tumors and those who underwent nondebulking surgery had worse PFS and OS. Treatment of advanced appendiceal adenocarcinoma at NCCN Member Institutions commonly incorporates agents used for CRC. RR, PFS, and OS are comparable to those achieved in the treatment of metastatic CRC. Poor prognostic factors include nonmucinous histology or high-grade tumors and history of nondebulking surgery.

Full access

Dorothy Romanus, Martin R. Weiser, John M. Skibber, Anna Ter Veer, Joyce C. Niland, John L. Wilson, Ashwani Rajput, Yu-Ning Wong, Al B. Benson III, Stephen Shibata and Deborah Schrag

Background

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Outcomes Database was created to assess concordance to evidence- and consensus-based guidelines and to measure adherence to quality measures on an ongoing basis. The Colorectal Cancer Database began in 2005 as a collaboration among 8 NCCN centers.

Methods

Newly diagnosed colon and rectal cancer patients presenting to 1 of 8 NCCN centers between September 1, 2005, and May 21, 2008, were eligible for analysis of concordance with NCCN treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer and with a set of quality metrics jointly developed by ASCO and NCCN in 2007. Adherence rates were determined for each metric. Center-specific rates were benchmarked against mean concordance rates for all participating centers.

Results

A total of 3443 patients were evaluable. Mean concordance rates with NCCN colorectal cancer guidelines and ASCO/NCCN quality measures were generally high (≥ 90%). However, relatively low mean concordance rates were noted for adjuvant chemotherapy treatment recommendations within 9 months of diagnosis of stage II to III rectal cancer (81%), and neoadjuvant chemoradiation in clinical T4 rectal primaries (83%). These low rates of concordance seemed to be consistent across centers.

Conclusions

Adherence to guidelines and quality measures is generally high at institutions participating in the NCCN colorectal cancer database. Lack of documentation, patient refusal, delayed treatment initiation, and lack of consensus about whether treatment was essential were the primary reasons for nonconcordance. Measurement of concordance and the reasons for nonconcordance enable participating centers to understand and improve their care delivery systems.

Full access

Sherif R. Z. Abdel-Misih, Lai Wei, Al B. Benson III, Steven Cohen, Lily Lai, John Skibber, Neal Wilkinson, Martin Weiser, Deborah Schrag and Tanios Bekaii-Saab

Background: Nodal status has long been considered pivotal to oncologic care, staging, and management. This has resulted in the establishment of rudimentary metrics regarding adequate lymph node yield in colon and rectal cancers for accurate cancer staging. In the era of neoadjuvant treatment, the implications of lymph node yield and status on patient outcomes remains unclear. Patient and Methods: This study included 1,680 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer from the NCCN prospective oncology database stratified into 3 groups based on preoperative therapy received: no neoadjuvant therapy, neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clinicopathologic characteristics and survival were compared between the groups, with univariate and multivariate analyses undertaken. Results: The clinicopathologic characteristics demonstrated statistically significant differences and heterogeneity among the 3 groups. The neoadjuvant chemoradiation group demonstrated the statistically lowest median lymph node yield (n=15) compared with 17 and 18 for no-neoadjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, respectively (P<.0001). Neoadjuvant treatment did impact survival, with chemoradiation demonstrating increased median overall survival of 42.7 compared with 37.3 and 26.6 months for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and no-neoadjuvant therapy, respectively (P<.0001). Patients with a yield of fewer than 12 lymph nodes had improved median overall survival of 43.3 months compared with 36.6 months in patients with 12 or more lymph nodes (P=.009). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that neither node yield nor status were predictors for overall survival. Discussion: This analysis reiterates that nodal yield in rectal cancer is multifactorial, with neoadjuvant therapy being a significant factor. Node yield and status were not significant predictors of overall survival. A nodal metric may not be clinically relevant in the era of neoadjuvant therapy, and guidelines for perioperative therapy may need reconsideration.

Full access

Alan P. Venook, Maria E. Arcila, Al B. Benson III, Donald A. Berry, David Ross Camidge, Robert W. Carlson, Toni K. Choueiri, Valerie Guild, Gregory P. Kalemkerian, Razelle Kurzrock, Christine M. Lovly, Amy E. McKee, Robert J. Morgan, Anthony J. Olszanski, Mary W. Redman, Vered Stearns, Joan McClure and Marian L. Birkeland

Defining treatment-susceptible or -resistant populations of patients with cancer through the use of genetically defined biomarkers has revolutionized cancer care in recent years for some disease/patient groups. Research continues to show that histologically defined diseases are diverse in their expression of unique mutations or other genetic alterations, however, which presents opportunities for the development of personalized cancer treatments, but increased difficulty in testing these therapies, because potential patient populations are divided into ever smaller numbers. To address some of the growing challenges in biomarker development and clinical trial design, NCCN assembled a group of experts across specialties and solid tumor disease types to begin to define the problems and to consider alternate ways of designing clinical trials in the era of multiple biomarkers and targeted therapies. Results from that discussion are presented, focusing on issues of clinical trial design from the perspective of statisticians, clinical researchers, regulators, pathologists, and information developers.

Full access

Donald A. Podoloff, Douglas W. Ball, Edgar Ben-Josef, Al B. Benson III, Steven J. Cohen, R. Edward Coleman, Dominique Delbeke, Maria Ho, David H. Ilson, Gregory P. Kalemkerian, Richard J. Lee, Jay S. Loeffler, Homer A. Macapinlac, Robert J. Morgan Jr., Barry Alan Siegel, Seema Singhal, Douglas S. Tyler and Richard J. Wong

Use of PET is widespread and increasing in the United States, mainly for oncologic applications. In November 2006, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) gathered a panel of experts to review the literature and develop clinical recommendations for using PET scans in lymphoma and non–small cell lung, breast, and colorectal cancers. However, because its use is not restricted to these diseases, and evidence is accumulating for its application in other types of cancers, NCCN convened a second meeting in December 2008 to expand on the initial report. A multidisciplinary panel met to discuss the current data on PET application for various tumor types, including genitourinary, gynecologic, pancreatic, hepatobiliary, thyroid, brain, small cell lung, gastric, and esophageal cancers, and sarcoma and myeloma. This report summarizes the proceedings of this meeting, including discussions of the background of PET, the role of PET in oncology, principles of PET use, emerging applications, and possible future developments.

Full access

Paul F. Engstrom, Juan Pablo Arnoletti, Al B. Benson III, Jordan D. Berlin, J. Michael Berry, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Raza A. Dilawari, Dayna S. Early, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, James Fleshman Jr., Charles Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, James A. Knol, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Mary F. Mulcahy, Eric Rohren, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, William Small Jr., Constantinos Sofocleous, James Thomas, Alan P. Venook and Christopher Willett

Overview An estimated 5290 new cases (2100 men and 3190 women) of anal cancer (involving the anus, anal canal, or anorectum) will occur in the United States in 2009, accounting for approximately 1.9% of digestive system cancers, and an estimated 710 deaths due to anal cancer. Although considered to be a rare type of cancer, the incidence rate of invasive anal carcinoma in the United States increased by approximately 1.6-fold for men and 1.5-fold for women from 1973-1979 to 1994-2000 (see Risk Factors, facing page). This manuscript summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. Other types of cancers occurring in the anal region are addressed in other NCCN guidelines (i.e., anal adenocarcinoma and anal melanoma are managed according to the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology on Rectal Cancer and Melanoma, respectively). Except where noted, the recommendations in these guidelines are classified as category 2A, meaning that uniform NCCN consensus was present among the panel based on lower-level evidence that the recommendation is appropriate. The panel unanimously endorses patient participation in a clinical trial over standard or accepted therapy. Risk Factors Anal carcinoma has been associated with human papilloma virus (HPV) infection (anal-genital warts); history of receptive anal intercourse or sexually transmitted disease; history of cervical, vulvar, or vaginal cancer; immunosuppression after solid organ transplantation or HIV infection; and smoking. Currently, the association between anal carcinoma and persistent infection with a high-risk form...
Full access

Matthew H. Kulke, Manisha H. Shah, Al B. Benson III, Emily Bergsland, Jordan D. Berlin, Lawrence S. Blaszkowsky, Lyska Emerson, Paul F. Engstrom, Paul Fanta, Thomas Giordano, Whitney S. Goldner, Thorvardur R. Halfdanarson, Martin J. Heslin, Fouad Kandeel, Pamela L. Kunz, Boris W. Kuvshinoff II, Christopher Lieu, Jeffrey F. Moley, Gitonga Munene, Venu G. Pillarisetty, Leonard Saltz, Julie Ann Sosa, Jonathan R. Strosberg, Jean-Nicolas Vauthey, Christopher Wolfgang, James C. Yao, Jennifer Burns and Deborah Freedman-Cass

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) comprise a broad family of tumors that may or may not be associated with symptoms attributable to hormonal hypersecretion. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Neuroendocrine Tumors discuss the diagnosis and management of both sporadic and hereditary NETs. This selection from the guidelines focuses on sporadic NETs of the pancreas, gastrointestinal tract, lung, and thymus.

Full access

Al B. Benson III, Thomas A. Abrams, Edgar Ben-Josef, P. Mark Bloomston, Jean F. Botha, Bryan M. Clary, Anne Covey, Steven A. Curley, Michael I. D'Angelica, Rene Davila, William D. Ensminger, John F. Gibbs, Daniel Laheru, Mokenge P. Malafa, Jorge Marrero, Steven G. Meranze, Sean J. Mulvihill, James O. Park, James A. Posey, Jasgit Sachdev, Riad Salem, Elin R. Sigurdson, Constantinos Sofocleous, Jean-Nicolas Vauthey, Alan P. Venook, Laura Williams Goff, Yun Yen and Andrew X. Zhu

Hepatobiliary Cancers Clinical Practice Guidelines in OncologyNCCN Categories of Evidence and ConsensusCategory 1: The recommendation is based on high-level evidence (e.g., randomized controlled trials) and there is uniform NCCN consensus.Category 2A: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is uniform NCCN consensus.Category 2B: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is nonuniform NCCN consensus (but no major disagreement).Category 3: The recommendation is based on any level of evidence but reflects major disagreement.All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.Clinical trials: The NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.OverviewHepatobiliary cancers are highly lethal. In 2008, approximately 21,370 persons in the United States were estimated to be diagnosed with liver or intrahepatic bile duct cancer and 9520 with gallbladder cancer or other biliary tract cancer. Furthermore, approximately 18,410 deaths from liver or intrahepatic bile duct cancer and 3340 deaths from gallbladder cancer or other biliary tract cancer were estimated to occur.1The types of hepatobiliary cancers covered in these guidelines include hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. By definition, these guidelines cannot incorporate all possible clinical variations and are not intended to replace good clinical judgment or individualization of treatments. Although not explicitly stated at every decision point of the guidelines, patient participation in prospective clinical trials is the preferred option for treatment of hepatobiliary cancers.HCCRisk Factors and...
Full access

Paul F. Engstrom, Juan Pablo Arnoletti, Al B. Benson III, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Anne Covey, Raza A. Dilawari, Dayna S. Early, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, James Fleshman Jr., Charles Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Krystyna Kiel, James A. Knol, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Mary F. Mulcahy, Sujata Rao, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, Constantinos Sofocleous, James Thomas, Alan P. Venook and Christopher Willett

Colon Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus Category 1: The recommendation is based on high-level evidence (e.g., randomized controlled trials) and there is uniform NCCN consensus. Category 2A: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is uniform NCCN consensus. Category 2B: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is nonuniform NCCN consensus (but no major disagreement). Category 3: The recommendation is based on any level of evidence but reflects major disagreement. All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted. Clinical trials: The NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged. Overview Colorectal cancer is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2009, an estimated 106,100 new cases of colon and 40,870 cases of rectal cancer will occur. During the same year, it is estimated that 49,920 people will die from colon and rectal cancer.1 Despite these statistics, mortality from colon cancer has decreased slightly over the past 30 years, possibly due to earlier diagnosis through screening and better treatment modalities. This manuscript summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for managing colon cancer. The guidelines begin with clinical presentation to the primary care physician or gastroenterologist and address diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, adjuvant treatment, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and patient surveillance. When reviewing these guidelines, clinicians should be aware of...
Full access

Margaret A. Tempero, J. Pablo Arnoletti, Stephen Behrman, Edgar Ben-Josef, Al B. Benson III, Jordan D. Berlin, John L. Cameron, Ephraim S. Casper, Steven J. Cohen, Michelle Duff, Joshua D.I. Ellenhorn, William G. Hawkins, John P. Hoffman, Boris W. Kuvshinoff II, Mokenge P. Malafa, Peter Muscarella II, Eric K. Nakakura, Aaron R. Sasson, Sarah P. Thayer, Douglas S. Tyler, Robert S. Warren, Samuel Whiting, Christopher Willett and Robert A. Wolff

OverviewAn estimated 36,800 people will die of pancreatic cancer in the United States in 2010.1 This disease is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death among men and women in the United States.1 Its peak incidence occurs in the seventh and eighth decades of life. Although incidence is roughly equal for the sexes, African Americans seem to have a higher incidence of pancreatic cancer than white Americans.2 These guidelines only discuss tumors of the exocrine pancreas; neuroendocrine tumors are not included.By definition, these NCCN Guidelines cannot incorporate all possible clinical variations and are not intended to replace good clinical judgment or individualization of treatments. Exceptions to the rule were discussed among the panel members during development of these guidelines. A 5% rule (omitting clinical scenarios that constitute fewer than 5% of all cases) was used to eliminate uncommon clinical occurrences or conditions from these guidelines. The panel unanimously endorses participation in a clinical trial as the preferred option over standard or accepted therapy.Risk Factors and Genetic PredispositionAlthough the associated increase in risk is small, the development of pancreatic cancer is firmly linked to cigarette smoking.3–5 Some evidence shows that increased consumption of red meat and dairy products is associated with an elevation in pancreatic cancer risk,6 although other studies have failed to identify dietary risk factors.4 An increased body mass index is also associated with increased risk.7–9 Occupational exposure to chemicals, such as beta-naphthylamine and benzidine, is also associated with an increased risk of pancreatic...