Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author: A. Karim Kader x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Metastasis and Mortality in Men With Low- and Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance

P. Travis Courtney, Rishi Deka, Nikhil V. Kotha, Daniel R. Cherry, Mia A. Salans, Tyler J. Nelson, Abhishek Kumar, Elaine Luterstein, Anthony T. Yip, Vinit Nalawade, J. Kellogg Parsons, A. Karim Kader, Tyler F. Stewart, and Brent S. Rose

Background: Active surveillance (AS) is a safe treatment option for men with low-risk, localized prostate cancer. However, the safety of AS for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer remains unclear. Patients and Methods: We identified men with NCCN-classified low-risk and favorable and unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosed between 2001 and 2015 and initially managed with AS in the Veterans Health Administration. We analyzed progression to definitive treatment, metastasis, prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM), and all-cause mortality using cumulative incidences and multivariable competing-risks regression. Results: The cohort included 9,733 men, of whom 1,007 (10.3%) had intermediate-risk disease (773 [76.8%] favorable, 234 [23.2%] unfavorable), followed for a median of 7.6 years. The 10-year cumulative incidence of metastasis was significantly higher for patients with favorable (9.6%; 95% CI, 7.1%–12.5%; P<.001) and unfavorable intermediate-risk disease (19.2%; 95% CI, 13.4%–25.9%; P<.001) than for those with low-risk disease (1.5%; 95% CI, 1.2%–1.9%). The 10-year cumulative incidence of PCSM was also significantly higher for patients with favorable (3.7%; 95% CI, 2.3%–5.7%; P<.001) and unfavorable intermediate-risk disease (11.8%; 95% CI, 6.8%–18.4%; P<.001) than for those with low-risk disease (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.8%–1.4%). In multivariable competing-risks regression, favorable and unfavorable intermediate-risk patients had significantly increased risks of metastasis and PCSM compared with low-risk patients (all P<.001). Conclusions: Compared with low-risk patients, those with favorable and unfavorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer managed with AS are at increased risk of metastasis and PCSM. AS may be an appropriate option for carefully selected patients with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer, though identification of appropriate candidates and AS protocols should be tested in future prospective studies.

Full access

Bladder Cancer, Version 5.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Philippe E. Spiess, Neeraj Agarwal, Rick Bangs, Stephen A. Boorjian, Mark K. Buyyounouski, Peter E. Clark, Tracy M. Downs, Jason A. Efstathiou, Thomas W. Flaig, Terence Friedlander, Richard E. Greenberg, Khurshid A. Guru, Noah Hahn, Harry W. Herr, Christopher Hoimes, Brant A. Inman, Masahito Jimbo, A. Karim Kader, Subodh M. Lele, Joshua J. Meeks, Jeff Michalski, Jeffrey S. Montgomery, Lance C. Pagliaro, Sumanta K. Pal, Anthony Patterson, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Kamal S. Pohar, Michael P. Porter, Mark A. Preston, Wade J. Sexton, Arlene O. Siefker-Radtke, Guru Sonpavde, Jonathan Tward, Geoffrey Wile, Mary A. Dwyer, and Lisa A. Gurski

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on systemic therapy for muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, as substantial revisions were made in the 2017 updates, such as new recommendations for nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer addresses additional aspects of the management of bladder cancer, including non–muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer and nonurothelial histologies, as well as staging, evaluation, and follow-up.

Full access

Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Thomas W. Flaig, Philippe E. Spiess, Neeraj Agarwal, Rick Bangs, Stephen A. Boorjian, Mark K. Buyyounouski, Sam Chang, Tracy M. Downs, Jason A. Efstathiou, Terence Friedlander, Richard E. Greenberg, Khurshid A. Guru, Thomas Guzzo, Harry W. Herr, Jean Hoffman-Censits, Christopher Hoimes, Brant A. Inman, Masahito Jimbo, A. Karim Kader, Subodh M. Lele, Jeff Michalski, Jeffrey S. Montgomery, Lakshminarayanan Nandagopal, Lance C. Pagliaro, Sumanta K. Pal, Anthony Patterson, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Kamal S. Pohar, Mark A. Preston, Wade J. Sexton, Arlene O. Siefker-Radtke, Jonathan Tward, Jonathan L. Wright, Lisa A. Gurski, and Alyse Johnson-Chilla

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on the clinical presentation and workup of suspected bladder cancer, treatment of non–muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, and treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer because important updates have recently been made to these sections. Some important updates include recommendations for optimal treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage and details about biomarker testing for advanced or metastatic disease. The systemic therapy recommendations for second-line or subsequent therapies have also been revised. Treatment and management of muscle-invasive, nonmetastatic disease is covered in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include treatment of nonurothelial histologies and recommendations for nonbladder urinary tract cancers such as upper tract urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, and primary carcinoma of the urethra.

Full access

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 5.2018

Thomas W. Flaig, Philippe E. Spiess, Neeraj Agarwal, Rick Bangs, Stephen A. Boorjian, Mark K. Buyyounouski, Tracy M. Downs, Jason A. Efstathiou, Terence Friedlander, Richard E. Greenberg, Khurshid A. Guru, Noah Hahn, Harry W. Herr, Christopher Hoimes, Brant A. Inman, Masahito Jimbo, A. Karim Kader, Subodh M. Lele, Joshua J. Meeks, Jeff Michalski, Jeffrey S. Montgomery, Lance C. Pagliaro, Sumanta K. Pal, Anthony Patterson, Daniel P. Petrylak, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Kamal S. Pohar, Michael P. Porter, Mark A. Preston, Wade J. Sexton, Arlene O. Siefker-Radtke, Jonathan Tward, Geoffrey Wile, Alyse Johnson-Chilla, Mary A. Dwyer, and Lisa A. Gurski

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss important updates to the 2018 version of the guidelines, including implications of the 8th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual on treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and incorporating newly approved immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies into treatment options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease.

Full access

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 2.2016

Peter E. Clark, Philippe E. Spiess, Neeraj Agarwal, Rick Bangs, Stephen A. Boorjian, Mark K. Buyyounouski, Jason A. Efstathiou, Thomas W. Flaig, Terence Friedlander, Richard E. Greenberg, Khurshid A. Guru, Noah Hahn, Harry W. Herr, Christopher Hoimes, Brant A. Inman, A. Karim Kader, Adam S. Kibel, Timothy M. Kuzel, Subodh M. Lele, Joshua J. Meeks, Jeff Michalski, Jeffrey S. Montgomery, Lance C. Pagliaro, Sumanta K. Pal, Anthony Patterson, Daniel Petrylak, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Kamal S. Pohar, Michael P. Porter, Wade J. Sexton, Arlene O. Siefker-Radtke, Guru Sonpavde, Jonathan Tward, Geoffrey Wile, Mary A. Dwyer, and Courtney Smith

These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the major recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer based on the review of the evidence in conjunction with the expert opinion of the panel. Recent updates include (1) refining the recommendation of intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin, (2) strengthening the recommendations for perioperative systemic chemotherapy, and (3) incorporating immunotherapy into second-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights further discuss factors that affect integration of these recommendations into clinical practice.