Clinical oncology trials are hampered by low accrual rates, with fewer than 5% of adult patients with cancer treated on study. Clinical trial enrollment was evaluated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center's Multidisciplinary Prostate Cancer Clinic (MPCC) to assess whether a clinical trial initiative, introduced in 2006, impacted enrollment. The trial initiative included posting trial-specific information in clinic, educating patients about appropriate clinical trial options during the treatment recommendation discussion, and providing patients with trial-specific educational information. The investigators evaluated the frequency of clinical trial enrollment for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer seen in the MPCC from 2004 to 2008. Logistic regression evaluated the impact of patient characteristics and the clinical trial initiative on trial enrollment. The median age of the 1370 men was 64 years; 32% had low-risk, 49% had intermediate-risk, and 19% had high-risk disease. Overall, 74% enrolled in at least one trial and 29% enrolled in more than one trial. Trial enrollment increased from 39% before the initiative (127/326) to 84% (880/1044) after the trial initiative. Patient enrollment increased in laboratory studies (from 25% to 80%), quality-of-life studies (from 10% to 26%), and studies evaluating investigational treatments and systemic agents (from 6% to 15%) after the trial initiative. In multivariate analysis, younger men (P<.001) and men seen after implementation of the clinical trial initiative (P<.001) were more likely to enroll in trials. Clinical trial enrollment in the MPCC was substantially higher than that seen nationally in adult patients with cancer, and enrollment rates increased after the introduction of a clinical trial initiative.
Lydia T. Madsen, Deborah A. Kuban, Seungtaek Choi, John W. Davis, Jeri Kim, Andrew K. Lee, Delora Domain, Larry Levy, Louis L. Pisters, Curtis A. Pettaway, John F. Ward, Christopher Logothetis and Karen E. Hoffman
Sriram Yennurajalingam, Nizar M. Tannir, Janet L. Williams, Zhanni Lu, Kenneth R. Hess, Susan Frisbee-Hume, Helen L. House, Zita Dubauskas Lim, Kyu-Hyoung Lim, Gabriel Lopez, Akhila Reddy, Ahsan Azhar, Angelique Wong, Sunil M. Patel, Deborah A. Kuban, Ahmed Omar Kaseb, Lorenzo Cohen and Eduardo Bruera
Background: Despite the high frequency, severity, and effects of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer, limited treatment options are available. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of oral Panax ginseng extract (PG) and placebo on CRF. Secondary objectives were to determine the effects of PG on QoL, mood, and function. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CRF ≥4/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were eligible. Based on a pilot study, we randomized patients to receive either 400 mg of standardized PG twice daily or a matching placebo for 28 days. The primary end point was change in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) subscale from baseline to day 29. Results: Of 127 patients, 112 (88.2%) were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F subscale scores at baseline, day 15, and day 29 were 22.4 (10.1), 29.9 (10.6), and 30.1 (11.6) for PG (P<.001), and 24.0 (9.4), 30.0 (10.1), and 30.4 (11.5) for placebo (P<.001). Mean (SD) improvement in the FACIT-F subscale at day 29 was not significantly different in the PG than in the placebo group (7.5 [12.7] vs 6.5 [9.9]; P=.67). QoL, anxiety, depression, symptoms, and functional scores were not significantly different between the PG and placebo groups. Improvement in the FACIT-F subscale correlated with baseline scores (P=.0005), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale results (P=.032), and sex (P=.023). There were fewer any-grade toxicities in the PG versus placebo group (28/63 vs 33/64; P=.024). Conclusions: Both PG and placebo result in significant improvement in CRF. PG was not significantly superior to placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. There is no justification to recommend the use of PG for CRF. Further studies are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375114.
Peter E. Clark, Neeraj Agarwal, Matthew C. Biagioli, Mario A. Eisenberger, Richard E. Greenberg, Harry W. Herr, Brant A. Inman, Deborah A. Kuban, Timothy M. Kuzel, Subodh M. Lele, Jeff Michalski, Lance C. Pagliaro, Sumanta K. Pal, Anthony Patterson, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Kamal S. Pohar, Michael P. Porter, Jerome P. Richie, Wade J. Sexton, William U. Shipley, Eric J. Small, Philippe E. Spiess, Donald L. Trump, Geoffrey Wile, Timothy G. Wilson, Mary Dwyer and Maria Ho
Bladder cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the United States. Urothelial carcinoma that originates from the urinary bladder is the most common subtype. These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) provide recommendations on the diagnosis and management of non–muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. This version of the guidelines provides extensive reorganization and updates on the principles of chemotherapy management.
Peter E. Clark, Philippe E. Spiess, Neeraj Agarwal, Matthew C. Biagioli, Mario A. Eisenberger, Richard E. Greenberg, Harry W. Herr, Brant A. Inman, Deborah A. Kuban, Timothy M. Kuzel, Subodh M. Lele, Jeff Michalski, Lance Pagliaro, Sumanta K. Pal, Anthony Patterson, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Kamal S. Pohar, Michael P. Porter, Jerome P. Richie, Wade J. Sexton, William U. Shipley, Eric J. Small, Donald L. Trump, Geoffrey Wile, Timothy G. Wilson, Mary Dwyer and Maria Ho
Squamous cell carcinoma of the penis represents approximately 0.5% of all cancers among men in the United States and other developed countries. Although rare, it is associated with significant disfigurement, and only half of the patients survive beyond 5 years. Proper evaluation of both the primary lesion and lymph nodes is critical, because nodal involvement is the most important factor of survival. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Penile Cancer provide recommendations on the diagnosis and management of this devastating disease based on evidence and expert consensus.