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
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.
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)
David S. Ettinger, Debra K. Armstrong, Sally Barbour, Michael J. Berger, Philip J. Bierman, Bob Bradbury, Georgianna Ellis, Steve Kirkegaard, Dwight D. Kloth, Mark G. Kris, Dean Lim, Michael Anne Markiewicz, Lida Nabati, Carli Nesheiwat, Hope S. Rugo, Steven M. Sorscher, Lisa Stucky-Marshal, Barbara Todaro, and Susan Urba
Donald A. Podoloff, Ranjana H. Advani, Craig Allred, Al B. Benson III, Elizabeth Brown, Harold J. Burstein, Robert W. Carlson, R. Edward Coleman, Myron S. Czuczman, Dominique Delbeke, Stephen B. Edge, David S. Ettinger, Frederic W. Grannis Jr., Bruce E. Hillner, John M. Hoffman, Krystyna Kiel, Ritsuko Komaki, Steven M. Larson, David A. Mankoff, Kenneth E. Rosenzweig, John M. Skibber, Joachim Yahalom, JQ Michael Yu, and Andrew D. Zelenetz
The use of positron emission tomography (PET) is increasing rapidly in the United States, with the most common use of PET scanning related to oncology. It is especially useful in the staging and management of lymphoma, lung cancer, and colorectal cancer, according to a panel of expert radiologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, nuclear medicine physicians, medical oncologists, and general internists convened in November 2006 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The Task Force was charged with reviewing existing data and developing clinical recommendations for the use of PET scans in the evaluation and management of breast cancer, colon cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and lymphoma. This report summarizes the proceedings of this meeting, including discussions of the background of PET, possible future developments, and the role of PET in oncology. (JNCCN 2007;5(Suppl 1):S1–S22)