This article discusses state-of-the-art techniques for predicting risk of death after acute pulmonary embolism (PE), with special attention to how underlying malignancy adversely affects survival after an episode. Current methods of risk stratification generally categorize patients with PE as low-, moderate-, and high-risk for in-hospital adverse outcomes of respiratory failure, circulatory shock, and death. Published risk stratification studies find that patients with PE and an underlying malignancy have a worse prognosis, but no validated risk stratification criteria have been published specifically for these patients. Standard treatment is full-dose heparin followed by oral anticoagulation. The term escalated treatment refers to the use of systemic or intrapulmonary fibrinolytic agents, catheter-based treatment, or surgical embolectomy. Most patients with low-risk PE (normal vital signs and normal serum troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and normal echocardiography) are treated successfully with standard anticoagulation, and many can be treated as outpatients. In contrast, patients with high-risk PE (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg and no contraindications) often benefit from escalated treatment. Treatment decisions for patients with moderate-risk PE (normotension with evidence of right ventricular damage or dysfunction) are most controversial. Most patients in this category of risk recover with standard therapy, but some benefit from escalated treatment. Patients with cancer with an incidentally discovered PE should be risk stratified the same as those who have clinically suspected PE.
Jeffrey A. Kline and David W. Miller
David Scott Miller, Gini Fleming and Marcus E. Randall
The role of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in adjuvant management of optimally debulked endometrial cancer with extrauterine involvement is evolving. Recent studies have suggested an expanded role for chemotherapy and questioned the benefit of radiation therapy. Ongoing and planned clinical trials should provide clarification.
Jeffrey S. Montgomery, David C. Miller and Alon Z. Weizer
Bladder cancer is predominantly seen in elderly patients. With the aging United States population, the incidence and prevalence of bladder cancer are on the rise, heightening the relevance of this disease as a public health issue. Despite having one of the greatest average cancer treatment costs per patient, improvements in disease-specific survival have been subtle. Clinical guidelines based predominantly on expert opinion and randomized controlled studies offer some guidance, but adherence to these guidelines is lacking. Building awareness of quality indicators to optimize patient care represents an opportunity to improve bladder cancer outcomes. Although quality indicators exist for other disease states, widely accepted quality indicators for the management of bladder cancer have not yet been established. This article proposes an initial set of quality indicators for both non–muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive bladder cancer based on established clinical guidelines and the available literature.
James L. Mohler, Philip W. Kantoff, Andrew J. Armstrong, Robert R. Bahnson, Michael Cohen, Anthony Victor D’Amico, James A. Eastham, Charles A. Enke, Thomas A. Farrington, Celestia S. Higano, Eric Mark Horwitz, Christopher J. Kane, Mark H. Kawachi, Michael Kuettel, Timothy M. Kuzel, Richard J. Lee, Arnold W. Malcolm, David Miller, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Julio M. Pow-Sang, David Raben, Sylvia Richey, Mack Roach III, Eric Rohren, Stan Rosenfeld, Edward Schaeffer, Eric J. Small, Guru Sonpavde, Sandy Srinivas, Cy Stein, Seth A. Strope, Jonathan Tward, Dorothy A. Shead and Maria Ho
Prostate cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most common cancer in men in the United States. The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations on the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer based on clinical evidence and expert consensus. NCCN Panel guidance on treatment decisions for patients with localized disease is represented in this version. Significant updates for early disease include distinction between active surveillance and observation, a new section on principles of imaging, and revisions to radiation recommendations. The full version of these guidelines, including treatment of patients with advanced disease, can be found online at the NCCN website.
Maria Dans, Thomas Smith, Anthony Back, Justin N. Baker, Jessica R. Bauman, Anna C. Beck, Susan Block, Toby Campbell, Amy A. Case, Shalini Dalal, Howard Edwards, Thomas R. Fitch, Jennifer Kapo, Jean S. Kutner, Elizabeth Kvale, Charles Miller, Sumathi Misra, William Mitchell, Diane G. Portman, David Spiegel, Linda Sutton, Eytan Szmuilowicz, Jennifer Temel, Roma Tickoo, Susan G. Urba, Elizabeth Weinstein, Finly Zachariah, Mary Anne Bergman and Jillian L. Scavone
The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize and provide context for the updated guidelines recommendations regarding hospice and end-of-life (EOL) care. Updates for 2017 include revisions to and restructuring of the algorithms that address important EOL concerns. These recommendations were revised to provide clearer guidance for oncologists as they care for patients with cancer who are approaching the transition to EOL care. Recommendations for interventions and reassessment based on estimated life expectancy were streamlined and reprioritized to promote hospice referrals and improved EOL care.
James L. Mohler, Philip W. Kantoff, Andrew J. Armstrong, Robert R. Bahnson, Michael Cohen, Anthony Victor D’Amico, James A. Eastham, Charles A. Enke, Thomas A. Farrington, Celestia S. Higano, Eric Mark Horwitz, Mark H. Kawachi, Michael Kuettel, Richard J. Lee, Gary R. MacVicar, Arnold W. Malcolm, David Miller, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Julio M. Pow-Sang, Sylvia Richey, Mack Roach III, Eric Rohren, Stan Rosenfeld, Eric J. Small, Sandy Srinivas, Cy Stein, Seth A. Strope, Jonathan Tward, Patrick C. Walsh, Dorothy A. Shead and Maria Ho
The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations on the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer. This report highlights notable recent updates. Radium-223 dichloride is a first-in-class radiopharmaceutical that recently received approval for the treatment of patients with symptomatic bone metastases and no known visceral disease. It received a category 1 recommendation as both a first-line and second-line option. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel also revised recommendations on the choice of intermittent or continuous androgen deprivation therapy based on recent phase III clinical data comparing the 2 strategies in the nonmetastatic and metastatic settings.
James L. Mohler, Andrew J. Armstrong, Robert R. Bahnson, Barry Boston, J. Erik Busby, Anthony Victor D’Amico, James A. Eastham, Charles A. Enke, Thomas Farrington, Celestia S. Higano, Eric Mark Horwitz, Philip W. Kantoff, Mark H. Kawachi, Michael Kuettel, Richard J. Lee, Gary R. MacVicar, Arnold W. Malcolm, David Miller, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Julio M. Pow-Sang, Mack Roach III, Eric Rohren, Stan Rosenfeld, Sandy Srinivas, Seth A. Strope, Jonathan Tward, Przemyslaw Twardowski, Patrick C. Walsh, Maria Ho and Dorothy A. Shead
The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Prostate Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight notable recent updates. Abiraterone acetate is a first-in-class hormonal agent that represents a new standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-recurrent prostate cancer who have previously received docetaxel (category 1 recommendation). Abiraterone acetate also received category 2B recommendations in the prechemotherapy setting for asymptomatic patients or symptomatic patients who are not candidates for docetaxel. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel also added new indications for existing agents, including the option of sipuleucel-T as second-line therapy. In addition, brachytherapy in combination with external beam radiation therapy with or without androgen deprivation therapy is now an alternative for patients with high-risk localized tumors or locally advanced disease.
Joseph Abi Jaoude, Ramez Kouzy, Walker Mainwaring, Timothy A. Lin, Austin B. Miller, Amit Jethanandani, Andres F. Espinoza, Dario Pasalic, Vivek Verma, Noam A. VanderWalde, Benjamin D. Smith, Grace L. Smith, C. David Fuller, Prajnan Das, Bruce D. Minsky, Claus Rödel, Emmanouil Fokas, Reshma Jagsi, Charles R. Thomas Jr, Ishwaria M. Subbiah, Cullen M. Taniguchi and Ethan B. Ludmir
Background: Patients with good performance status (PS) tend to be favored in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), possibly limiting the generalizability of trial findings. We aimed to characterize trial-related factors associated with the use of PS eligibility criteria and analyze patient accrual breakdown by PS. Methods: Adult, therapeutic, multiarm phase III cancer-specific RCTs were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov. PS data were extracted from articles. Trials with a PS restriction ECOG score ≤1 were identified. Factors associated with PS restriction were determined, and the use of PS restrictions was analyzed over time. Results: In total, 600 trials were included and 238,213 patients had PS data. Of those trials, 527 studies (87.8%) specified a PS restriction cutoff, with 237 (39.5%) having a strict inclusion criterion (ECOG PS ≤1). Enrollment criteria restrictions based on PS (ECOG PS ≤1) were more common among industry-supported trials (P<.001) and lung cancer trials (P<.001). Nearly half of trials that led to FDA approval included strict PS restrictions. Most patients enrolled across all trials had an ECOG PS of 0 to 1 (96.3%). Even among trials that allowed patients with ECOG PS ≥2, only 8.1% of those enrolled had a poor PS. Trials of lung, breast, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary cancers all included <5% of patients with poor PS. Finally, only 4.7% of patients enrolled in trials that led to subsequent FDA approval had poor PS. Conclusions: Use of PS restrictions in oncologic RCTs is pervasive, and exceedingly few patients with poor PS are enrolled. The selective accrual of healthier patients has the potential to severely limit and bias trial results. Future trials should consider a wider cancer population with close toxicity monitoring to ensure the generalizability of results while maintaining patient safety.
C. Anthony Blau, Arturo B. Ramirez, Sibel Blau, Colin C. Pritchard, Michael O. Dorschner, Stephen C. Schmechel, Timothy J. Martins, Elisabeth M. Mahen, Kimberly A. Burton, Vitalina M. Komashko, Amie J. Radenbaugh, Katy Dougherty, Anju Thomas, Christopher P. Miller, James Annis, Jonathan R. Fromm, Chaozhong Song, Elizabeth Chang, Kellie Howard, Sharon Austin, Rodney A. Schmidt, Michael L. Linenberger, Pamela S. Becker, Francis M. Senecal, Brigham H. Mecham, Su-In Lee, Anup Madan, Roy Ronen, Janusz Dutkowski, Shelly Heimfeld, Brent L. Wood, Jackie L. Stilwell, Eric P. Kaldjian, David Haussler and Jingchun Zhu
Accelerating cancer research is expected to require new types of clinical trials. This report describes the Intensive Trial of OMics in Cancer (ITOMIC) and a participant with triple-negative breast cancer metastatic to bone, who had markedly elevated circulating tumor cells (CTCs) that were monitored 48 times over 9 months. A total of 32 researchers from 14 institutions were engaged in the patient's evaluation; 20 researchers had no prior involvement in patient care and 18 were recruited specifically for this patient. Whole-exome sequencing of 3 bone marrow samples demonstrated a novel ROS1 variant that was estimated to be present in most or all tumor cells. After an initial response to cisplatin, a hypothesis of crizotinib sensitivity was disproven. Leukapheresis followed by partial CTC enrichment allowed for the development of a differential high-throughput drug screen and demonstrated sensitivity to investigational BH3-mimetic inhibitors of BCL-2 that could not be tested in the patient because requests to the pharmaceutical sponsors were denied. The number and size of CTC clusters correlated with clinical status and eventually death. Focusing the expertise of a distributed network of investigators on an intensively monitored patient with cancer can generate high-resolution views of the natural history of cancer and suggest new opportunities for therapy. Optimization requires access to investigational drugs.
Al B. Benson III, Alan P. Venook, Mahmoud M. Al-Hawary, Mustafa A. Arain, Yi-Jen Chen, Kristen K. Ciombor, Stacey A. Cohen, Harry S. Cooper, Dustin A. Deming, Ignacio Garrido-Laguna, Jean L. Grem, Sarah E. Hoffe, Joleen Hubbard, Steven Hunt, Ahmed Kamel, Natalie Kirilcuk, Smitha Krishnamurthi, Wells A. Messersmith, Jeffrey Meyerhardt, Eric D. Miller, Mary F. Mulcahy, Steven Nurkin, Michael J. Overman, Aparna Parikh, Hitendra Patel, Katrina S. Pedersen, Leonard B. Saltz, Charles Schneider, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, Constantinos T. Sofocleous, Elena M. Stoffel, Eden Stotsky-Himelfarb, Christopher G. Willett, Alyse Johnson-Chilla, Kristina M. Gregory and Lisa A. Gurski
Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract that has increased in incidence across recent years. Often diagnosed at an advanced stage, outcomes for SBA are worse on average than for other related malignancies, including colorectal cancer. Due to the rarity of this disease, few studies have been done to direct optimal treatment, although recent data have shown that SBA responds to treatment differently than colorectal cancer, necessitating a separate approach to treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma were created to establish an evidence-based standard of care for patients with SBA. These guidelines provide recommendations on the workup of suspected SBA, primary treatment options, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, and systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Additionally, principles of imaging and endoscopy, pathologic review, surgery, radiation therapy, and survivorship are described.