Background: Although the incidence of cervical cancer among younger Black women is now equivalent to that of White women, it is unknown whether the reduced incidence has affected survival rates among younger Black women. The goal of this study was to assess differences in survival by age and race. Patients and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the National Cancer Database to analyze women with nonmetastatic cervical cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2014. Women with unknown survival data and those who died within 3 months of diagnosis were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated interactions between age and race (Black vs non-Black) for presentation with stage I disease and receipt of optimal treatment. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to evaluate survival differences by age and race. Results: Of 55,659 women included, 16.4% were Black. Compared with their non-Black counterparts, fewer Black women presented with stage I disease (37.8% vs 47.8%; P<.01) and received optimal treatment (46.2% vs 58.3%; P<.01). Fewer Black women had private insurance if they were aged <65 years (39.6% vs 55.7%; P<.01), but not if they were aged ≥65 years (11.7% vs 12.4%; P=.43). According to multivariable logistic regression, Black women aged ≤39 years were less likely to present with stage I disease, with a significant interaction term between age and race (P<.01 for interaction). Disparities in overall survival by race were greatest for Black women aged ≤39 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.20–1.46; P<.01) but decreased with increasing age interval until no disparity was noted for women aged ≥65 years (P<.01 for interaction). Conclusions: Younger Black women with cervical cancer are at risk for presenting with higher-stage disease and having worse overall survival. These findings may be related to insurance-related disparities and inadequate follow-up for abnormal Papanicolaou test results. Younger Black women with cervical cancer may be a particularly vulnerable population.
Stephanie Alimena, Suvidya Lakshmi Pachigolla, Sarah Feldman, David Yang, Peter F. Orio III, Larissa Lee, and Martin King
Apostolia M. Tsimberidou, Alexandra M. Adamopoulos, Yang Ye, Sarina Piha-Paul, Filip Janku, Siqing Fu, David Hong, Gerald S. Falchook, Aung Naing, Jennifer Wheler, Adoneca Fortier, Razelle Kurzrock, and Kenneth R. Hess
Bendamustine, a cytotoxic alkylating agent, has shown promising results in solid tumors. An investigator-initiated phase I clinical trial of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent bevacizumab and bendamustine was conducted in patients with advanced cancer, because the 2 drugs have different mechanisms of antitumor activity and nonoverlapping toxicity. Patients were treated with escalating doses of intravenous bendamustine (70, 80, 90, and 100 mg/m2; days 1 and 2) and intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg/kg; days 1 and 15). A conventional “3 + 3” study design was used. Forty-two patients were treated: 23 women and 19 men. The median age was 60 years. Patients had received a median of 4 prior therapies (range, 1-10). The most common cancer types were colorectal (n=9), head and neck (n= 8), non-small cell lung (n=6), and breast (n=5). Overall, 117 cycles were administered (median per patient, 2; range, 1-8). No dose-limiting toxicities were noted during the escalation phase. Therefore, the highest dose (level 4) of bendamustine (100 mg/m2) was used in the expansion phase. The most common toxicities were fatigue (n=22), nausea (n=14), anorexia (n=9), and thrombocytopenia (n=7). Of 38 patients who were evaluable for response, 23 (61%) had stable disease, including 2 (5.2%) who had stable disease for 6 months or more (1 with adenoid cystic carcinoma and 1 with non-small cell lung cancer). This regimen of bendamustine (100 mg/m2) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) was well tolerated and yielded disease stabilization in selected heavily pretreated patients with advanced cancer.
Vinayak Muralidhar, Paul L. Nguyen, Brandon A. Mahal, David D. Yang, Kent W. Mouw, Brent S. Rose, Clair J. Beard, Jason A. Efstathiou, Neil E. Martin, Martin T. King, and Peter F. Orio III
Background: Management of patients with a very high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (≥98.0 ng/mL) but clinically localized (N0M0) prostate cancer is challenging. This study sought to determine practice patterns and outcomes among these patients. Patients and Methods: A total of 748,825 patients with prostate cancer from 2004 through 2012 were identified using the National Cancer Database. These patients were subdivided by PSA level (0–9.9, 10.0–19.9, 20.0–39.9, 40.0–59.9, 60.0–79.9, 80.0–97.9, and ≥98.0 ng/mL), nodal status (N0 vs N1), and distant metastases (M0 vs M1). Rates of locoregional treatment and 5-year overall survival (OS) in each group were determined. Survival was compared using Cox regression after adjusting for multiple patient-specific factors. Results: The rate of locoregional treatment for patients with N0M0 disease and PSA level ≥98.0 ng/mL was significantly lower than for those with N1M0 disease (52.6% vs 60.4%; P<.001) or N0M0 disease and PSA level <98.0 ng/mL (52.6% vs 86.6%; P<.001). The 5-year OS rate was similar for patients with N1M0 disease and those with N0M0 disease and a very high PSA level (63.2% vs 59.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.91; P=.063). The survival benefit associated with locoregional treatment was higher among those with N0M0 disease and a very high PSA level than among those with N1M0 disease (aHR, 0.28 vs 0.44; P<.001). Conclusions: Patients with clinical N0M0 disease and a very high PSA level (≥98.0 ng/mL) have outcomes similar to those with N1 disease but receive locoregional treatment at a lower rate. Future work is needed to investigate the utility of locoregional treatment in this population.
David E. Gerber, Thomas Y. Sheffield, M. Shaalan Beg, Erin L. Williams, Valerie L. Clark, Yang Xie, M.E. Blair Holbein, Celette Sugg Skinner, and Simon J. Craddock Lee
Background: During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the FDA and NIH altered clinical trial requirements to protect participants and manage study conduct. Given their detailed knowledge of research protocols and regular contact with patients, clinicians, and sponsors, clinical research professionals offer important perspectives on these changes. Methods: We developed and distributed an anonymous survey assessing COVID-19–related clinical trial adjustment experiences, perceptions, and recommendations to Clinical Research Office personnel at the Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center. Responses were compared using the Fisher exact test. Results: A total of 94 of 109 contacted research personnel (87%) responded. Among these individuals, 58% had >5 years’ professional experience in clinical research, and 56% had personal experience with a COVID-19–related change. Respondents perceived that these changes had a positive impact on patient safety; treatment efficacy; patient and staff experience; and communication with patients, investigators, and sponsors. More than 90% felt that positive changes should be continued after COVID-19. For remote consent, telehealth, therapy shipment, off-site diagnostics, and remote monitoring, individuals with personal experience with the specific change and individuals with >5 years’ professional experience were numerically more likely to recommend continuing the adjustment, and these differences were significant for telehealth (P=.04) and therapy shipment (P=.02). Conclusions: Clinical research professionals perceive that COVID-19–related clinical trial adjustments positively impact multiple aspects of study conduct. Those with greatest experience—both specific to COVID-19–related changes and more generally—are more likely to recommend that these adjustments continue in the future.
Douglas E. Wood, George A. Eapen, David S. Ettinger, Lifang Hou, David Jackman, Ella Kazerooni, Donald Klippenstein, Rudy P. Lackner, Lorriana Leard, Ann N. C. Leung, Pierre P. Massion, Bryan F. Meyers, Reginald F. Munden, Gregory A. Otterson, Kimberly Peairs, Sudhakar Pipavath, Christie Pratt-Pozo, Chakravarthy Reddy, Mary E. Reid, Arnold J. Rotter, Matthew B. Schabath, Lecia V. Sequist, Betty C. Tong, William D. Travis, Michael Unger, and Stephen C. Yang
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.
Douglas E. Wood, Ella A. Kazerooni, Scott L. Baum, George A. Eapen, David S. Ettinger, Lifang Hou, David M. Jackman, Donald Klippenstein, Rohit Kumar, Rudy P. Lackner, Lorriana E. Leard, Inga T. Lennes, Ann N.C. Leung, Samir S. Makani, Pierre P. Massion, Peter Mazzone, Robert E. Merritt, Bryan F. Meyers, David E. Midthun, Sudhakar Pipavath, Christie Pratt, Chakravarthy Reddy, Mary E. Reid, Arnold J. Rotter, Peter B. Sachs, Matthew B. Schabath, Mark L. Schiebler, Betty C. Tong, William D. Travis, Benjamin Wei, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina M. Gregory, and Miranda Hughes
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States and worldwide. Early detection of lung cancer is an important opportunity for decreasing mortality. Data support using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest to screen select patients who are at high risk for lung cancer. Lung screening is covered under the Affordable Care Act for individuals with high-risk factors. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) covers annual screening LDCT for appropriate Medicare beneficiaries at high risk for lung cancer if they also receive counseling and participate in shared decision-making before screening. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening provides recommendations for initial and subsequent LDCT screening and provides more detail about LDCT screening. This manuscript focuses on identifying patients at high risk for lung cancer who are candidates for LDCT of the chest and on evaluating initial screening findings.
Robert I. Haddad, William M. Lydiatt, Douglas W. Ball, Naifa Lamki Busaidy, David Byrd, Glenda Callender, Paxton Dickson, Quan-Yang Duh, Hormoz Ehya, Megan Haymart, Carl Hoh, Jason P. Hunt, Andrei Iagaru, Fouad Kandeel, Peter Kopp, Dominick M. Lamonica, Judith C. McCaffrey, Jeffrey F. Moley, Lee Parks, Christopher D. Raeburn, John A. Ridge, Matthew D. Ringel, Randall P. Scheri, Jatin P. Shah, Robert C. Smallridge, Cord Sturgeon, Thomas N. Wang, Lori J. Wirth, Karin G. Hoffmann, and Miranda Hughes
This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Thyroid Carcinoma focuses on anaplastic carcinoma because substantial changes were made to the systemic therapy recommendations for the 2015 update. Dosages and frequency of administration are now provided, docetaxel/doxorubicin regimens were added, and single-agent cisplatin was deleted because it is not recommended for patients with advanced or metastatic anaplastic thyroid cancer.