David S. Ettinger
David S. Ettinger
David S. Ettinger, Michael Kuettel, Jennifer Malin, Joan S. McClure, Mary Lou Smith, Andrew D. Zelenetz, and F. Marc Stewart
Much has changed in the treatment of cancer since the first NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) were rolled out for 8 different tumor types in November 1996. NCCN Guidelines now include involved algorithms often containing multiple treatment alternatives and detailed pathways of care that depend on more-specific patient characteristics and molecular tumor diagnostics. With 47 different individual NCCN panels, all members of the cancer care team are now better informed than ever to guide patients through the often complex decision-making required to improve the odds of successful outcomes. At the NCCN 20th Annual Conference, a distinguished panel assembled to take a closer look at these invaluable clinical practice guidelines, first glancing backward to how it all started and then forward to explore the key ingredients of trustworthy guidelines.
David S. Ettinger, Mark Agulnik, Justin M. M. Cates, Mihaela Cristea, Crystal S. Denlinger, Keith D. Eaton, Panagiotis M. Fidias, David Gierada, Jon P. Gockerman, Charles R. Handorf, Renuka Iyer, Renato Lenzi, John Phay, Asif Rashid, Leonard Saltz, Lawrence N. Shulman, Jeffrey B. Smerage, Gauri R. Varadhachary, Jonathan S. Zager, and Weining (Ken) Zhen
Ciara C. O'Sullivan, Holly K. Van Houten, Lindsey R. Sangaralingham, Alexis D. Leal, Shivani Shinde, Hongfang Liu, David Ettinger, Charles L. Loprinzi, and Kathryn J. Ruddy
Purpose: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is essential to preserve quality of life in patients with cancer receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Recently, new drugs (eg, fosaprepitant, and the newer neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists [NK1RAs] rolapitant and netupitant) and updated antiemetic guidelines have emerged. However, trends in real-world antiemetic use are understudied. Methods: We identified patients treated with an initial dose of HEC (either cisplatin or doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) from January 2006 to June 2016 using administrative claims data from a US commercial insurance database (OptumLabs). Antiemetic use was determined by identifying intravenous/oral/transdermal administration within ±1 day of the chemotherapy dose and/or prescription fill from 14 days before to 7 days after chemotherapy. We used descriptive statistics to present patient demographics, chemotherapy drugs administered, presence/absence of a central intravenous access device, and antiemetics used. Results: A total of 23,030 patients (67.3%) received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide and 11,206 (32.7%) received cisplatin. Dexamethasone and 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3RAs) were consistently used by 85% to 95% of patients, consistent with guideline recommendations. NK1RAs were underused early on, but use increased to approximately 80% in the most recently evaluated year. Fosaprepitant use increased precipitously starting in 2009, preceding a sharp decrease in aprepitant use beginning in 2011. Receipt of olanzapine, rolapitant, and netupitant was minimal throughout the study period. Conclusions: Dexamethasone and 5-HT3RAs were used by most patients receiving HEC, in accordance with guideline recommendations. NK1RA use was less adherent with guidelines.
Carrie Zornosa, Jonathan L. Vandergrift, Gregory P. Kalemkerian, David S. Ettinger, Michael S. Rabin, Mary Reid, Gregory A. Otterson, Marianna Koczywas, Thomas A. D'Amico, Joyce C. Niland, Rizvan Mamet, and Katherine M. Pisters
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) allow many systemic therapy options for patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis uses the NCCN NSCLC Outcomes Database to report on first-line therapy practice patterns and concordance with NCCN Guidelines. The analysis was limited to patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC between September 2006 and November 2009 at 1 of 8 participating NCCN Member Institutions. Patient characteristics, regimens used, and guidelines concordance were analyzed. Institutional variation and changes in practice over time were also measured. A total of 1717 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 1375 (80%) were treated with systemic therapy, most often in the form of a carboplatin-based doublet (51%) or carboplatin-based doublet with targeted therapy (17%). Overall, 76% of patients received care that was concordant with NCCN Guidelines. Among patients with good performance status (n = 167), the most common reasons for not receiving first-line therapy were that therapy was not recommended (39%) or death occurred before treatment (33%). The most common reason for receiving nonconcordant drug therapy was the administration of pemetrexed or erlotinib before its incorporation into the NCCN Guidelines for first-line therapy (53%). Most patients in this cohort received care that was concordant with NCCN Guidelines. The NSCLC Outcomes Database is a valuable resource for evaluating practice patterns and concordance with NCCN Guidelines among patients with NSCLC.
Abdul-Rahman Jazieh, Hanaa Bamefleh, Ahmet Demirkazik, Rabab Mohamed Gaafar, Fady B. Geara, Mansur Javaid, Jamal Khader, Kian Khodadad, Walid Omar, Ahmed Saadeddin, Hassan Al Sabe, Mohammad Behgam Shadmehr, Amgad El Sherif, Najam Uddin, Mohammad Jahanzeb, and David Ettinger
A lung cancer committee from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region was established to modify the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) on Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer to create a platform for standard care in the region. The committee comprised different experts in thoracic oncology from the region, including the disciplines of medical and clinical oncology, radiation oncology, thoracic surgery, pulmonary medicine, radiology, and pathology. The committee reviewed version 2 of the 2009 NCCN Guidelines on Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer and identified recommendations requiring modification for the region using published evidence and relevant experience. These suggested modifications were discussed among the group and with a United States–based NCCN expert for approval. The recommended modifications, with justification and references, were categorized based on the NCCN Guidelines flow. This article describes these recommended modifications. The process of adapting the first NCCN-based guidelines in the region is a step toward helping to improve lung cancer care in the region and encouraging networking and collaboration.
Razelle Kurzrock, A. Dimitrios Colevas, Anthony Olszanski, Wallace Akerley, Carlos L. Arteaga, William E. Carson III, Jeffrey W. Clark, John F. DiPersio, David S. Ettinger, Robert J. Morgan Jr, Lee S. Schwartzberg, Alan P. Venook, Christopher D. Gocke, Jonathan Tait, and F. Marc Stewart
Background: With advances such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) increasing understanding of the basis of cancer and its response to treatment, NCCN believes it is important to understand how molecular profiling/diagnostic testing is being performed and used at NCCN Member Institutions and their community affiliates. Methods: The NCCN Oncology Research Program's Investigator Steering Committee and the NCCN Best Practices Committee gathered baseline information on the use of cancer-related molecular testing at NCCN Member Institutions and community members of the NCCN Affiliate Research Consortium through 2 separate surveys distributed in December 2013 and September 2014, respectively. Results: A total of 24 NCCN Member Institutions and 8 affiliate sites provided quantitative and qualitative data. In the context of these surveys, “molecular profiling/diagnostics” was defined as a panel of at least 10 genes examined as a diagnostic DNA test in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–certified laboratory. Conclusions: Results indicated that molecular profiling/diagnostics are used at 100% of survey respondents' institutions to make patient care decisions. However, challenges relating to reimbursement, lack of data regarding actionable targets and targeted therapies, and access to drugs on or off clinical trials were cited as barriers to integration of molecular profiling into patient care. Frameworks for using molecular diagnostic results based on levels of evidence, alongside continued research into the predictive value of biomarkers and targeted therapies, are recommended to advance understanding of the role of genomic biomarkers. Greater evidence and consensus regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of molecular profiling may lead to broader insurance coverage and increased integration into patient care.
Robert A. Figlin, Elizabeth Brown, Andrew J. Armstrong, Wallace Akerley, Al B. Benson III, Harold J. Burstein, David S. Ettinger, Phillip G. Febbo, Matthew G. Fury, Gary R. Hudes, Merrill S. Kies, Eunice L. Kwak, Robert J. Morgan Jr., Joanne Mortimer, Karen Reckamp, Alan P. Venook, Frank Worden, and Yun Yen
The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) protein complex functions as an integration center for various intracellular signaling pathways involving cell cycle progression, proliferation, and angiogenesis. These pathways are frequently dysregulated in cancer, and therefore mTOR inhibition is a potentially important antitumor target. Commercially available mTOR inhibitors include rapamycin (i.e., sirolimus) and temsirolimus. Other agents under investigation include everolimus and deforolimus. mTOR inhibition has been studied in various solid tumors, including breast, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, prostate, lung, and head and neck cancers. Studies have focused on mTOR inhibition as a monotherapy or in combination with other drugs based on the principle that inhibiting as many targets as possible reduces the emergence of drug resistance. Temsirolimus is currently the only mTOR inhibitor that is specifically labeled for treatment of solid tumors. However, preclinical studies and early-phase trials are rapidly evolving. Additionally, research is further defining the complicated mTOR pathways and how they may be disordered in specific malignancies. To address these issues, NCCN convened a task force to review the underlying physiology of mTOR and related cellular pathways, and to review the current status of research of mTOR inhibition in solid tumors. (JNCCN 2008;6[Suppl 5]:S1—S20)