Search Results

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) is characterized by the accumulation of abnormal lymphocytes in the blood, bone marrow, and lymphoid tissues, leading to a weakened immune system and an increased risk of infections for patients. The NCCN Guidelines for CLL/SLL underscore the need for a comprehensive evaluation of multiple factors to determine the most appropriate treatment approach for each patient. For frontline therapy, the selection process should consider the patient’s IGHV status, del(17p)/TP53 mutation status, age, and comorbidities. In choosing subsequent therapy, prior therapy, comorbidities, and resistance mutations should be considered. With no clear evidence of a functional cure, it is important to enroll patients in clinical trials when available.

In the era of newer, highly effective targeted therapies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), experts debated whether there is still a role for chemoimmunotherapy in the first-line setting for the treatment of this disease. In general, targeted therapies are preferred as first-line treatment for all patients, with the exception of low-risk patients [younger, fit patients with mutated IGHV who are candidates for fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/rituximab (FCR)]. About 37% of low-risk patients experience long-term durable remissions and remain stable after treatment with FCR for many years. Advantages of FCR over small molecule inhibitors include cost, fixed duration treatment, and long-term survival benefit. Disadvantages are an etimated 5% risk of developing myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia. Advantages of small molecule inhibitors are improvements in progression-free and overall survival and quality of life when compared with chemoimmunotherapy. Disadvantages of small molecule inhibitors are high cost and the need for continuous treatment. However, studies are underway to develop fixed duration regimens with combinations of small molecule inhibitors that aim to deepen remissions.

Appendiceal malignancies are rare and represent 1% of intestinal tumors in the United States. The role and efficacy of modern systemic therapy in advanced appendiceal adenocarcinoma has not been established. This study analyzed patients with recurrent or metastatic appendiceal adenocarcinoma in the database for Colorectal Cancer (CRC; 2005-2012). This database tracks longitudinal care for patients treated at 8 specialty centers across the Unites States. Study objectives were to describe and evaluate the efficacy of systemic therapy and investigate relationships with clinicopathologic features. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Of 248 patients with advanced appendiceal carcinoma, 112 (45%) received systemic therapy for measurable disease and are the focus of this report. The most common chemotherapy regimens included FOLFOX with or without bevacizumab (n=39 and n=37, respectively), FOLFIRI (n=15), and single-agent fluoro-pyrimidine (n=10). Among 99 patients evaluable for best response, 39 experienced a response (response rate [RR], 39%) and 36 (36%) had stable disease. The median PFS was 1.2 years (95% CI, 1.0-1.8) and median OS was 2.1 years (95% CI, 1.6-2.3). Patients with non-mucinous histology or high-grade tumors and those who underwent nondebulking surgery had worse PFS and OS. Treatment of advanced appendiceal adenocarcinoma at NCCN Member Institutions commonly incorporates agents used for CRC. RR, PFS, and OS are comparable to those achieved in the treatment of metastatic CRC. Poor prognostic factors include nonmucinous histology or high-grade tumors and history of nondebulking surgery.

Background: Because of screening mammography, the number of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) survivors has increased dramatically. DCIS survivors may face excess risk of second breast events (SBEs). However, little is known about SBE treatment or its relationship to initial DCIS care. Methods: Among a prospective cohort of women who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for DCIS from 1997 to 2008 at institutions participating in the NCCN Outcomes Database, we identified SBEs, described patterns of care for SBEs, and examined the association between DCIS treatment choice and SBE care. Using multivariable regression, we identified features associated with use of mastectomy, radiation therapy (RT), or antiestrogen therapy (AET) for SBEs. Results: Of 2,939 women who underwent BCS for DCIS, 83% received RT and 40% received AET. During the median follow-up of 4.2 years, 200 women (6.8%) developed an SBE (55% ipsilateral, 45% invasive). SBEs occurred in 6% of women who underwent RT for their initial DCIS versus 11% who did not. Local treatment for these events included BCS (10%), BCS/RT (30%), mastectomy (53%), or none (6%); only 28% of patients received AET. Independent predictors of RT or mastectomy for SBEs included younger age, shorter time to SBE diagnosis, and RT or AET for the initial DCIS. Conclusions: A sizable proportion of patients with SBEs were treated with mastectomy, most especially those who previously received RT for their initial DCIS and those who developed an ipsilateral SBE. Despite the occurrence of an SBE, relatively few patients received AET. Future studies should investigate optimal treatment approaches for SBEs, including the benefit of mastectomy versus lumpectomy for an ipsilateral SBE and the benefit of AET for a hormone-receptor–positive SBE contingent on AET use for the initial DCIS diagnosis.