Background: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the management of prostate cancer (PCa) results in an array of adverse effects, and exercise is one strategy to counter treatment-related musculoskeletal toxicities. This study assessed the prevalence of exercise responsiveness in men with PCa undergoing ADT in terms of body composition, muscle strength, and physical function. Methods: Prospective analyses were performed in 152 men (aged 43–90 years) with PCa receiving ADT who were engaged in resistance exercise combined with aerobic or impact training for 3 to 6 months. Whole-body lean mass and fat mass (FM), trunk FM, and appendicular skeletal muscle were assessed with dual x-ray absorptiometry; upper and lower body muscle strength were assessed with the one-repetition maximum; and physical function was assessed with a battery of tests (6-m usual, fast, and backward walk; 400-m walk; repeated chair rise; stair climb). Results: Significant improvements were seen (P<.01) in lean mass (0.4±1.4 kg [range, −2.8 to +4.1 kg]), appendicular skeletal muscle (0.2±0.8 kg [range, −1.9 to +1.9 kg]), and all measures of muscle strength (chest press, 2.9±5.8 kg [range, −12.5 to +37.5 kg]; leg press, 29.2±27.6 kg [range, −50.0 to +140.0 kg]) and physical function (from −0.1±0.5 s [range, +1.3 to −2.1 s] for the 6-m walk; to −8.6±15.2 s [range, +25.2 to −69.7 s] for the 400-m walk). An increase in FM was also noted (0.6±1.8 kg [range, −3.6 to +7.3 kg]; P<.01). A total of 21 men did not exhibit a favorable response in at least one body composition component, 10 did not experience improved muscle strength, and 2 did not have improved physical function. However, all patients responded in at least one of the areas, and 120 (79%) favorably responded in all 3 areas. Conclusions: Despite considerable heterogeneity, most men with PCa receiving ADT responded to resistance-based multimodal exercise, and therefore our findings indicate that this form of exercise can be confidently prescribed to produce beneficial effects during active treatment.
Dennis R. Taaffe, Robert U. Newton, Nigel Spry, David J. Joseph and Daniel A. Galvão
Susan O'Brien, Ellin Berman, Joseph O. Moore, Javier Pinilla-Ibarz, Jerald P. Radich, Paul J. Shami, B. Douglas Smith, David S. Snyder, Hema M. Sundar, Moshe Talpaz and Meir Wetzler
The advent of imatinib has dramatically improved outcomes in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). It has become the standard of care for all patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML based on its successful induction of durable responses in most patients. However, its use is complicated by the development of resistance in some patients. Dose escalation might overcome this resistance if detected early. The second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) dasatinib and nilotinib provide effective therapeutic options for managing patients resistant or intolerant to imatinib. Recent studies have shown that dasatinib and nilotinib provide quicker and potentially better responses than standard-dose imatinib when used as a first-line treatment. The goal of therapy for patients with CML is the achievement of a complete cytogenetic response, and eventually a major molecular response, to prevent disease progression to accelerated or blast phase. Selecting the appropriate TKI depends on many factors, including disease phase, primary or secondary resistance to TKI, the agent's side effect profile and its relative effectiveness against BCR-ABL mutations, and the patient's tolerance to therapy. In October 2010, NCCN organized a task force consisting of a panel of experts from NCCN Member Institutions with expertise in the management of patients with CML to discuss these issues. This report provides recommendations regarding the selection of TKI therapy for the management of patients with CML based on the evaluation of available published clinical data and expert opinion among the task force members.
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
Susan O'Brien, Ellin Berman, Hossein Borghaei, Daniel J. DeAngelo, Marcel P. Devetten, Steven Devine, Harry P. Erba, Jason Gotlib, Madan Jagasia, Joseph O. Moore, Tariq Mughal, Javier Pinilla-Ibarz, Jerald P. Radich, Neil P. Shah, Paul J. Shami, B. Douglas Smith, David S. Snyder, Martin S. Tallman, Moshe Talpaz and Meir Wetzler
Susan O'Brien, Camille N. Abboud, Mojtaba Akhtari, Jessica Altman, Ellin Berman, Daniel J. DeAngelo, Steven Devine, Amir T. Fathi, Jason Gotlib, Madan Jagasia, Joseph O. Moore, Javier Pinilla-Ibarz, Jerald P. Radich, Vishnu V.B. Reddy, Neil P. Shah, Paul J. Shami, B. Douglas Smith, David S. Snyder, Meir Wetzler and Furhan Yunus
Martine T.E. Puts, Schroder Sattar, Takami Fossat, Margaret I. Fitch, Geraldine J. Macdonald, Tina Hsu, Ewa Szumacher, Douglas A. Stephens, Joseph Robinson, David Macdonald, Andrew S. Choate, Eric Pitters, Barbara Liu, Lianne Jeffs, Katherine S. McGilton and Shabbir M.H. Alibhai
Background: Patient engagement in research may lead to better-designed studies and improved health outcomes. The objectives of this study were to identify the research priorities of older adults with cancer (OAWCs) and their caregivers and examine how to engage these individuals in research teams and what supports are needed. Methods: We conducted 3 public meetings and 7 focus groups to delineate research priorities and the supports needed to facilitate integration of OAWCs and their caregivers on research teams. Results: A total of 33 older adults and 19 caregivers attended a public meeting and 27 older adults and 17 caregivers participated in a focus group. Most of the OAWCs and their caregivers had never participated in research before. Three themes were identified from the focus groups: (1) motivation to be on a team; (2) ability to make meaningful contributions; and (3) logistical considerations to facilitate engagement. Most participants were motivated to be a research team member and be involved in all steps of research if it could benefit them or future patients and caregivers. OAWCs and their caregivers were highly motivated to improve outcomes. Required logistics included flexibility regarding time and location, accessibility to computer technology, transportation support, materials worded in lay language, and attending/having short training sessions, as well as the presence of peer support. Conclusions: OAWCs and their caregivers are very motivated and willing to participate in research and to be research team members. Logistics and the social aspects of being on a team are important.
Jerald P. Radich, Michael Deininger, Camille N. Abboud, Jessica K. Altman, Ellin Berman, Ravi Bhatia, Bhavana Bhatnagar, Peter Curtin, Daniel J. DeAngelo, Jason Gotlib, Gabriela Hobbs, Madan Jagasia, Hagop M. Kantarjian, Lori Maness, Leland Metheny, Joseph O. Moore, Arnel Pallera, Philip Pancari, Mrinal Patnaik, Enkhtsetseg Purev, Michal G. Rose, Neil P. Shah, B. Douglas Smith, David S. Snyder, Kendra L. Sweet, Moshe Talpaz, James Thompson, David T. Yang, Kristina M. Gregory and Hema Sundar
Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is defined by the presence of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph), resulting from a reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 [t(9;22] that gives rise to a BCR-ABL1 fusion gene. CML occurs in 3 different phases (chronic, accelerated, and blast phase) and is usually diagnosed in the chronic phase. Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy is a highly effective first-line treatment option for all patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase CML (CP-CML). The selection TKI therapy should be based on the risk score, toxicity profile of TKI, patient's age, ability to tolerate therapy, and the presence of comorbid conditions. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with CP-CML.
Richard T. Hoppe, Ranjana H. Advani, Weiyun Z. Ai, Richard F. Ambinder, Patricia Aoun, Celeste M. Bello, Philip J. Bierman, Kristie A. Blum, Robert Chen, 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, Jane N. Winter, Joachim Yahalom and Hema Sundar
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) include the clinical management of classical HL and lymphocyte-predominant HL (LPHL). Major changes have been incorporated into these guidelines since their inception. In the 2012 NCCN Guidelines for HL, PET scans are not recommended for interim restaging of patients with stage I to II favorable disease. After reevaluating the available evidence on the use of interim PET imaging, the panel recommends the use of diagnostic CT scan of involved sites for interim restaging after completion of chemotherapy for this group of patients. Maintenance rituximab for 2 years is included as an option for patients with stage IB to IIB or stage III to IV LPHL treated with rituximab alone in the first-line setting. Brentuximab vedotin is included as an option for patients with progressive disease or relapsed disease after second-line chemotherapy or high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell rescue.
Robert J. Morgan Jr, Deborah K. Armstrong, Ronald D. Alvarez, Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez, Kian Behbakht, Lee-may Chen, Larry Copeland, Marta Ann Crispens, Maria DeRosa, Oliver Dorigo, David M. Gershenson, Heidi J. Gray, Ardeshir Hakam, Laura J. Havrilesky, Carolyn Johnston, Shashikant Lele, Lainie Martin, Ursula A. Matulonis, David M. O'Malley, Richard T. Penson, Sanja Percac-Lima, Mario Pineda, Steven C. Plaxe, Matthew A. Powell, Elena Ratner, Steven W. Remmenga, Peter G. Rose, Paul Sabbatini, Joseph T. Santoso, Theresa L. Werner, Jennifer Burns and Miranda Hughes
This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer focuses on the less common ovarian histopathologies (LCOHs), because new algorithms were added for LCOHs and current algorithms were revised for the 2016 update. The new LCOHs algorithms include clear cell carcinomas, mucinous carcinomas, and grade 1 (low-grade) serous carcinomas/endometrioid epithelial carcinomas. The LCOHs also include carcinosarcomas (malignant mixed Müllerian tumors of the ovary), borderline epithelial tumors (also known as low malignant potential tumors), malignant sex cord-stromal tumors, and malignant germ cell tumors.
Robert J. Morgan Jr, Ronald D. Alvarez, Deborah K. Armstrong, Robert A. Burger, Lee-may Chen, Larry Copeland, Marta Ann Crispens, David M. Gershenson, Heidi J. Gray, Ardeshir Hakam, Laura J. Havrilesky, Carolyn Johnston, Shashikant Lele, Lainie Martin, Ursula A. Matulonis, David M. O’Malley, Richard T. Penson, Matthew A. Powell, Steven W. Remmenga, Paul Sabbatini, Joseph T. Santoso, Julian C. Schink, Nelson Teng, Theresa L. Werner, Mary A. Dwyer and Miranda Hughes
These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the major updates to the 2013 NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer. Four updates were selected based on recent important updates in the guidelines and on debate among panel members about recent clinical trials. The topics include 1) intraperitoneal chemotherapy, 2) CA-125 monitoring for ovarian cancer recurrence, 3) surveillance recommendations for less common ovarian histopathologies, and 4) recent changes in therapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights also discuss why some recommendations were not made.