For decades physicians have attempted to accurately predict post-treatment outcomes before performing prostate cancer interventions. Use of basic clinical factors, such as clinical T-stage, biopsy Gleason sum, and pretreatment prostate specific antigen, has allowed some level of prediction of pathologic and clinical outcomes. However, these basic tables and risk stratification schema provide a broad range of potential outcomes. The rapid growth of retrospective research in prostate cancer has yielded an abundance of additional potential prognostic factors that may influence outcomes of interest; however, incorporating and understanding the significance of these ever-expanding factors is difficult for even the most experienced physicians. Nomograms incorporate these factors (including treatment-specific) and assign them relative weights to provide a probability of the outcome of interest on a graphical scale. They distill large numbers of data into a manageable format and provide the probability of outcomes on a continuous scale rather than in categoric groups. However, because they require a computation to generate a probability, they are not amenable to memorization, which decreases ease of use. Furthermore, these numbers still have associated confidence intervals and the models are largely derived from retrospective data, which have inherent drawbacks. Clinicians and patients should still exercise due diligence when interpreting the results of these nomograms, and these prediction tools should not serve as a stand-alone substitute for clinical decision-making.
Andrew K. Lee and Christopher L. Amling
Lydia T. Madsen, Deborah A. Kuban, Seungtaek Choi, John W. Davis, Jeri Kim, Andrew K. Lee, Delora Domain, Larry Levy, Louis L. Pisters, Curtis A. Pettaway, John F. Ward, Christopher Logothetis, and Karen E. Hoffman
Clinical oncology trials are hampered by low accrual rates, with fewer than 5% of adult patients with cancer treated on study. Clinical trial enrollment was evaluated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center's Multidisciplinary Prostate Cancer Clinic (MPCC) to assess whether a clinical trial initiative, introduced in 2006, impacted enrollment. The trial initiative included posting trial-specific information in clinic, educating patients about appropriate clinical trial options during the treatment recommendation discussion, and providing patients with trial-specific educational information. The investigators evaluated the frequency of clinical trial enrollment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer seen in the MPCC from 2004 to 2008. Logistic regression evaluated the impact of patient characteristics and the clinical trial initiative on trial enrollment. The median age of the 1370 men was 64 years; 32% had low-risk, 49% had intermediate-risk, and 19% had high-risk disease. Overall, 74% enrolled in at least one trial and 29% enrolled in more than one trial. Trial enrollment increased from 39% before the initiative (127/326) to 84% (880/1044) after the trial initiative. Patient enrollment increased in laboratory studies (from 25% to 80%), quality-of-life studies (from 10% to 26%), and studies evaluating investigational treatments and systemic agents (from 6% to 15%) after the trial initiative. In multivariate analysis, younger men (P<.001) and men seen after implementation of the clinical trial initiative (P<.001) were more likely to enroll in trials. Clinical trial enrollment in the MPCC was substantially higher than that seen nationally in adult patients with cancer, and enrollment rates increased after the introduction of a clinical trial initiative.
Deborah K. Armstrong, Ronald D. Alvarez, Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez, Lisa Barroilhet, Kian Behbakht, Andrew Berchuck, Lee-may Chen, Mihaela Cristea, Maria DeRosa, Eric L. Eisenhauer, David M. Gershenson, Heidi J. Gray, Rachel Grisham, Ardeshir Hakam, Angela Jain, Amer Karam, Gottfried E. Konecny, Charles A. Leath III, Joyce Liu, Haider Mahdi, Lainie Martin, Daniela Matei, Michael McHale, Karen McLean, David S. Miller, David M. O’Malley, Sanja Percac-Lima, Elena Ratner, Steven W. Remmenga, Roberto Vargas, Theresa L. Werner, Emese Zsiros, Jennifer L. Burns, and Anita M. Engh
Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country’s fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
Robert J. Motzer, Eric Jonasch, M. Dror Michaelson, Lakshminarayanan Nandagopal, John L. Gore, Saby George, Ajjai Alva, Naomi Haas, Michael R. Harrison, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Jeffrey Sosman, Neeraj Agarwal, Sam Bhayani, Toni K. Choueiri, Brian A. Costello, Ithaar H. Derweesh, Thomas H. Gallagher, Steven L. Hancock, Christos Kyriakopoulos, Chad LaGrange, Elaine T. Lam, Clayton Lau, Bryan Lewis, Brandon Manley, Brittany McCreery, Andrew McDonald, Amir Mortazavi, Phillip M. Pierorazio, Lee Ponsky, Bruce G. Redman, Bradley Somer, Geoffrey Wile, Mary A. Dwyer, CGC, Lydia J. Hammond, and Griselda Zuccarino-Catania
The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
Deborah K. Armstrong, Ronald D. Alvarez, Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez, Lisa Barroilhet, Kian Behbakht, Andrew Berchuck, Jonathan S. Berek, Lee-may Chen, Mihaela Cristea, Marie DeRosa, Adam C. ElNaggar, David M. Gershenson, Heidi J. Gray, Ardeshir Hakam, Angela Jain, Carolyn Johnston, Charles A. Leath III, Joyce Liu, Haider Mahdi, Daniela Matei, Michael McHale, Karen McLean, David M. O’Malley, Richard T. Penson, Sanja Percac-Lima, Elena Ratner, Steven W. Remmenga, Paul Sabbatini, Theresa L. Werner, Emese Zsiros, Jennifer L. Burns, and Anita M. Engh
Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States, with less than half of patients living >5 years from diagnosis. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. The best outcomes are observed in patients whose primary treatment includes complete resection of all visible disease plus combination platinum-based chemotherapy. Research efforts are focused on primary neoadjuvant treatments that may improve resectability, as well as systemic therapies providing improved long-term survival. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to neoadjuvant chemotherapy recommendations, including the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the role of PARP inhibitors and bevacizumab as maintenance therapy options in select patients who have completed primary chemotherapy.