Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 19 items for

  • Author: Andres Forero x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Christos Vaklavas, John R. Ross, Lisle M. Nabell, Andres Forero, Martin J. Heslin, and Tina E. Wood

Advances in cancer genomics have led to the recognition of a growing number of high-penetrance single-gene cancer predisposition syndromes. Frequently, the suspicion for a hereditary syndrome is raised by a strongly positive family history. However, other features, such as younger-than-usual age at diagnosis and rare histology should also prompt consideration of a genetic syndrome. Common malignancies frequently show a positive family history without an eponymous syndrome being recognized. This article reports on a case with an unusual constellation of malignancies with distinctive pathologies, which raised suspicion for an eponymous cancer pre-disposition syndrome. Absent a positive family history, a de novo mutation—an alteration in a gene that is present for the first time in a family member as a result of a mutation in a germ cell of one of the parents or in the fertilized ovum—was suspected. The authors discuss indications for genetic counseling and testing, limitations, and the evidence that supports the recommendations as formulated by working groups and the NCCN. Most frequently, these recommendations are reasonable statements based on the natural history of the disease, but without population-based studies for many rare syndromes, the actual penetrance, variable expressivity, and actual associated cancer risk are unknown.

Full access

Gabrielle B. Rocque, Courtney P. Williams, Bradford E. Jackson, Stacey A. Ingram, Karian I. Halilova, Maria Pisu, Kelly M. Kenzik, Andres Azuero, Andres Forero, and Smita Bhatia

Background: The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) have directed the care of patients with cancer for >20 years. Payers are implementing guideline-based pathway programs that restrict reimbursement for non–guideline-based care to control costs, yet evidence regarding impact of guidelines on outcomes, including mortality, Medicare costs, and healthcare utilization, is limited. Patients and Methods: This analysis evaluated concordance of first treatment with NCCN Guidelines for women with de novo stage IV metastatic breast cancer (MBC) included within the SEER-Medicare linked database and diagnosed between 2007 and 2013. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between mortality and guideline concordance. Linear mixed-effects and generalized linear models were used to evaluate total cost to Medicare and rates of healthcare utilization by concordance status. Results: We found that 19% of patients (188/988) with de novo MBC received nonconcordant treatment. Patients receiving nonconcordant treatment were more likely to be younger and have hormone receptor–negative and HER2-positive MBC. The most common category of nonconcordant treatment was use of adjuvant regimens in the metastatic setting (40%). Adjusted mortality risk was similar for patients receiving concordant and nonconcordant treatments (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence limit [CL], 0.69, 1.05). When considering category of nonconcordance, patients receiving adjuvant regimens in the metastatic setting had a decreased risk of mortality (HR, 0.60; 95% CL, 0.43, 0.84). Nonconcordant treatments were associated with $1,867 higher average Medicare costs per month compared with concordant treatments (95% CL, $918, $2,817). Single-agent HER2-targeted therapy was the highest costing category of nonconcordance at $3,008 (95% CL, $1,014, $5,001). Healthcare utilization rates were similar for patients receiving concordant and nonconcordant treatments. Conclusions: Despite a lack of survival benefit, concordant care was associated with lower costs, suggesting potential benefit to increasing standardization of care. These findings may influence policy decisions regarding implementation of pathway programs as health systems transition to value-based models.

Full access

Colby J. Hyland, Flora Varghese, Christina Yau, Heather Beckwith, Katia Khoury, William Varnado, Gillian L. Hirst, Robert R. Flavell, A. Jo Chien, Douglas Yee, Claudine J. Isaacs, Andres Forero-Torres, Laura J. Esserman, and Michelle E. Melisko

Background: Metastatic staging imaging is not recommended for asymptomatic patients with stage I–II breast cancer. Greater distant metastatic disease risk may warrant baseline imaging in patients with stage II–III with high-risk biologic subtypes. NCCN Guidelines recommend considering CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis (CT CAP) and bone scan in appropriate patients. CT CAP and bone scan are considered standard of care (SoC), although PET/CT is a patient-centered alternative. Methods: Data were available for 799 high-risk patients with clinical stage II–III disease who initiated screening for the I-SPY2 trial at 4 institutions. A total of 564 complete records were reviewed to compare PET/CT versus SoC. Costs were determined from the payer perspective using the national 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and representative reimbursements to the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) measured cost of using PET/CT per percent of patients who avoided a false-positive (FP). Results: The de novo metastatic disease rate was 4.6%. Imaging varied across the 4 institutions (P<.0001). The FP rate was higher using SoC versus PET/CT (22.1% vs 11.1%; P=.0009). Mean time between incidental finding on baseline imaging to FP determination was 10.8 days. Mean time from diagnosis to chemotherapy initiation was 44.3 days with SoC versus 37.5 days with PET/CT (P=.0001). Mean cost per patient was $1,132 (SoC) versus $1,477 (PET/CT) using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, with an ICER of $31. Using representative reimbursements to UCSF, mean cost per patient was $1,236 (SoC) versus $1,073 (PET/CT) for Medicare, and $3,083 (SoC) versus $1,656 (PET/CT) for a private payer, with ICERs of −$15 and −$130, respectively. Conclusions: Considerable variation exists in metastatic staging practices. PET/CT reduced FP risk by half and decreased workup of incidental findings, allowing for earlier treatment start. PET/CT may be cost-effective, and at one institution was shown to be cost-saving. Better alignment is needed between hospital pricing strategies and payer coverage policies to deliver high-value care.

Full access

Richard T. Hoppe, Ranjana H. Advani, Weiyun Z. Ai, Richard F. Ambinder, Celeste M. Bello, Philip J. Bierman, Kristie A. Blum, Bouthaina Dabaja, Ysabel Duron, Andres Forero, Leo I. Gordon, Francisco J. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri, Ephraim P. Hochberg, David G. Maloney, David Mansur, Peter M. Mauch, Monika Metzger, Joseph O. Moore, David Morgan, Craig H. Moskowitz, Matthew Poppe, Barbara Pro, Lawrence Weiss, Jane N. Winter, and Joachim Yahalom

Full access

Robert W. Carlson, D. Craig Allred, Benjamin O. Anderson, Harold J. Burstein, W. Bradford Carter, Stephen B. Edge, John K. Erban, William B. Farrar, Andres Forero, Sharon Hermes Giordano, Lori J. Goldstein, William J. Gradishar, Daniel F. Hayes, Clifford A. Hudis, Britt-Marie Ljung, P. Kelly Marcom, Ingrid A. Mayer, Beryl McCormick, Lori J. Pierce, Elizabeth C. Reed, Mary Lou Smith, George Somlo, Neal S. Topham, John H. Ward, Eric P. Winer, and Antonio C. Wolff

Full access

Robert W. Carlson, D. Craig Allred, Benjamin O. Anderson, Harold J. Burstein, W. Bradford Carter, Stephen B. Edge, John K. Erban, William B. Farrar, Andres Forero, Sharon Hermes Giordano, Lori J. Goldstein, William J. Gradishar, Daniel F. Hayes, Clifford A. Hudis, Britt-Marie Ljung, David A. Mankoff, P. Kelly Marcom, Ingrid A. Mayer, Beryl McCormick, Lori J. Pierce, Elizabeth C. Reed, Jasgit Sachdev, Mary Lou Smith, George Somlo, John H. Ward, Antonio C. Wolff, and Richard Zellars

Full access

Andrew D. Zelenetz, Jeremy S. Abramson, Ranjana H. Advani, C. Babis Andreadis, John C. Byrd, Myron S. Czuczman, Luis Fayad, Andres Forero, Martha J. Glenn, Jon P. Gockerman, Leo I. Gordon, Nancy Lee Harris, Richard T. Hoppe, Steven M. Horwitz, Mark S. Kaminski, Youn H. Kim, Ann S. LaCasce, Tariq I. Mughal, Auyporn Nademanee, Pierluigi Porcu, Oliver Press, Leonard Prosnitz, Nashitha Reddy, Mitchell R. Smith, Lubomir Sokol, Lode Swinnen, Julie M. Vose, William G. Wierda, Joachim Yahalom, and Furhan Yunus

Full access

William J. Gradishar, Benjamin O. Anderson, Sarah L. Blair, Harold J. Burstein, Amy Cyr, Anthony D. Elias, William B. Farrar, Andres Forero, Sharon Hermes Giordano, Lori J. Goldstein, Daniel F. Hayes, Clifford A. Hudis, Steven J. Isakoff, Britt-Marie E. Ljung, P. Kelly Marcom, Ingrid A. Mayer, Beryl McCormick, Robert S. Miller, Mark Pegram, Lori J. Pierce, Elizabeth C. Reed, Kilian E. Salerno, Lee S. Schwartzberg, Mary Lou Smith, Hatem Soliman, George Somlo, John H. Ward, Antonio C. Wolff, Richard Zellars, Dorothy A. Shead, and Rashmi Kumar

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States and is second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer death. The overall management of breast cancer includes the treatment of local disease with surgery, radiation therapy, or both, and the treatment of systemic disease with cytotoxic chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, biologic therapy, or combinations of these. The NCCN Guidelines specific to management of large clinical stage II and III tumors are discussed in this article. These guidelines are the work of the members of the NCCN Breast Cancer Panel. Expert medical clinical judgment is required to apply these guidelines in the context of an individual patient to provide optimal care. Although not stated at every decision point of the guidelines, patient participation in prospective clinical trials is the preferred option of treatment for all stages of breast cancer.

Full access

Richard T. Hoppe, Ranjana H. Advani, Weiyun Z. Ai, Richard F. Ambinder, Patricia Aoun, Celeste M. Bello, Cecil M. Benitez, Philip J. Bierman, Kristie A. Blum, Robert Chen, Bouthaina Dabaja, Andres Forero, Leo I. Gordon, Francisco J. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri, Ephraim P. Hochberg, Jiayi Huang, Patrick B. Johnston, Nadia Khan, David G. Maloney, Peter M. Mauch, Monika Metzger, Joseph O. Moore, David Morgan, Craig H. Moskowitz, Carolyn Mulroney, Matthew Poppe, Rachel Rabinovitch, Stuart Seropian, Christina Tsien, Jane N. Winter, Joachim Yahalom, Jennifer L. Burns, and Hema Sundar

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is an uncommon malignancy involving lymph nodes and the lymphatic system. Classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) and nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma are the 2 main types of HL. CHL accounts for most HL diagnosed in the Western countries. Chemotherapy or combined modality therapy, followed by restaging with PET/CT to assess treatment response using the Deauville criteria (5-point scale), is the standard initial treatment for patients with newly diagnosed CHL. Brentuximab vedotin, a CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate, has produced encouraging results in the treatment of relapsed or refractory disease. The potential long-term effects of treatment remain an important consideration, and long-term follow-up is essential after completion of treatment.

Full access

William J. Gradishar, Benjamin O. Anderson, Ron Balassanian, Sarah L. Blair, Harold J. Burstein, Amy Cyr, Anthony D. Elias, William B. Farrar, Andres Forero, Sharon Hermes Giordano, Matthew Goetz, Lori J. Goldstein, Clifford A. Hudis, Steven J. Isakoff, P. Kelly Marcom, Ingrid A. Mayer, Beryl McCormick, Meena Moran, Sameer A. Patel, Lori J. Pierce, Elizabeth C. Reed, Kilian E. Salerno, Lee S. Schwartzberg, Karen Lisa Smith, Mary Lou Smith, Hatem Soliman, George Somlo, Melinda Telli, John H. Ward, Dorothy A. Shead, and Rashmi Kumar

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States and is second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer death. The overall management of breast cancer includes the treatment of local disease with surgery, radiation therapy, or both, and the treatment of systemic disease with cytotoxic chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, biologic therapy, or combinations of these. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines discusses recommendations specific to the locoregional management of clinical stage I, II, and IIIA (T3N1M0) tumors.