Background: Conflicting data exist on the benefit of chemotherapy in the management of high-risk soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Use of chemotherapy may be dependent on patient, tumor, and facility characteristics. This study sought to identify these factors and compare survival between treatment groups. Patients and Methods: Patients with stage III STS were identified from the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB) from 1998 to 2012. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors that influenced the probability of receiving chemotherapy. In a subset of patients, we determined the relationship between chemotherapy use and overall survival, using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analysis with propensity score adjustment. We also examined the effect of chemotherapy by histologic subgroup using interaction models. Results: A total of 16,370 patients were included (N=5,377 for survival analysis). Patients who were younger than 40 years; male; privately insured; earned a higher income; had no comorbidities; had synovial sarcoma, angiosarcoma or “other” histology; and whose tumors were high-grade, greater than 10 cm, or from the lower extremity were significantly more likely to receive chemotherapy. Median unadjusted overall survival (OS) in the nonchemotherapy and chemotherapy groups was 51.3 and 82.7 months, respectively (P<.001). On adjusted analysis, the survival benefit remained significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; P=.004). The benefit was particularly strong in the undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) group on adjustment, with a median OS of 49.1 and 77.8 months for nonchemotherapy versus chemotherapy, respectively (HR, 0.77; P=.02). Conclusions: In addition to expected tumor and patient factors, histology, location of primary tumor, and socioeconomic status are associated with receipt/nonreceipt of chemotherapy in stage III STS. Chemotherapy use was associated with improved OS in the overall population, and specifically in the UPS subgroup.
Sujana Movva, Margaret von Mehren, Eric A. Ross, and Elizabeth Handorf
Martin J. Edelman, Crystal S. Denlinger, Eric A. Ross, and Margaret von Mehren
Neal J. Meropol, Joanne S. Buzaglo, Jennifer Millard, Nevena Damjanov, Suzanne M. Miller, Caroline Ridgway, Eric A. Ross, John D. Sprandio, and Perry Watts
Although clinical trial research is required for the development of improved treatment strategies, very few cancer patients participate in these studies. The purpose of this study was to describe psychosocial barriers to clinical trial participation among oncologists and their cancer patients. A survey was distributed to all medical oncologists in Pennsylvania and a subset of their patients. Relevant background information and assessment of practical and psychosocial barriers to clinical trial participation were assessed. Among 137 oncologists and 170 patients who completed the surveys, 84% of patients were aware of clinical trials, and oncologists and patients generally agreed that clinical trials are important to improving cancer treatment. However, oncologists and patients were more likely to consider clinical trials in advanced or refractory disease. When considering 7 potential barriers to clinical trials, random assignment and fear of receiving a placebo were ranked highly by both patients and oncologists. Patients identified fear of side effects as the greatest barrier to clinical trial participation, whereas oncologists ranked this psychosocial barrier as least important to their patients. Overall, the study found that although oncologists and patients are aware of clinical trials and have favorable attitudes toward them, psychosocial barriers exist for patients that may impact participation in clinical trials. Furthermore, important discrepancies exist between the perceptions of oncologists and those of patients regarding what the psychosocial barriers are. We concluded that characterizing oncologist and patient perceived barriers can help improve communication and decision making about clinical trials, such that participation may be optimized.
Vinod Ravi, Eric M. Sanford, Wei-Lien Wang, Jeffrey S. Ross, Naveen Ramesh, Andrew Futreal, Shreyaskumar Patel, Phillip J. Stephens, Vincent A. Miller, and Siraj M. Ali
Background: Angiosarcoma is a malignant neoplastic disease originating from or differentiating toward vascular endothelium, for which systemic pharmacologic treatment has limited durability. The molecular oncogenesis of angiosarcoma is often linked to inappropriate activations of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) family members, which presents an opportunity for the use of therapy that selectively targets the machinery of vascular signaling. Methods: Hybridization capture of 3,320 exons of 182 cancer-related genes and the introns of 14 genes frequently rearranged in cancer was applied to more than 50 ng of DNA extracted from a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded biopsy of recurrent angiosarcoma and was sequenced to high, uniform coverage of 939x. Results: The angiosarcoma harbored amplifications of VEGFR2 (KDR) of 8 copies and VEGFR3 (FLT4) of 16 copies. The patient was initially treated with sorafenib, an inhibitor of VEGFR2, and developed progressive disease. The patient then received pazopanib, an inhibitor of VEGFR2 and VEGFR3 and experienced a potent antitumor response resulting in clinically stable disease for 6 months. Conclusions: This exceptional response to pazopanib treatment suggests that a subset of patients with angiosarcoma with genomic alterations in vascular signaling genes may respond well to pazopanib.
David S. Ettinger, Douglas E. Wood, Wallace Akerley, Lyudmila A. Bazhenova, Hossein Borghaei, David Ross Camidge, Richard T. Cheney, Lucian R. Chirieac, Thomas A. D’Amico, Todd L. Demmy, Thomas J. Dilling, Ramaswamy Govindan, Frederic W. Grannis Jr, Leora Horn, Thierry M. Jahan, Ritsuko Komaki, Mark G. Kris, Lee M. Krug, Rudy P. Lackner, Michael Lanuti, Rogerio Lilenbaum, Jules Lin, Billy W. Loo Jr, Renato Martins, Gregory A. Otterson, Jyoti D. Patel, Katherine M. Pisters, Karen Reckamp, Gregory J. Riely, Eric Rohren, Steven Schild, Theresa A. Shapiro, Scott J. Swanson, Kurt Tauer, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina Gregory, and Miranda Hughes
This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) focuses on the principles of radiation therapy (RT), which include the following: (1) general principles for early-stage, locally advanced, and advanced/metastatic NSCLC; (2) target volumes, prescription doses, and normal tissue dose constraints for early-stage, locally advanced, and advanced/palliative RT; and (3) RT simulation, planning, and delivery. Treatment recommendations should be made by a multidisciplinary team, including board-certified radiation oncologists who perform lung cancer RT as a prominent part of their practice.
Rebecca M. Shulman, David S. Weinberg, Eric A. Ross, Karen Ruth, Glenn F. Rall, Anthony J. Olszanski, James Helstrom, Michael J. Hall, Julia Judd, David Y.T. Chen, Robert G. Uzzo, Timothy P. Dougherty, Riley Williams, Daniel M. Geynisman, Carolyn Y. Fang, Richard I. Fisher, Marshall Strother, Erica Huelsmann, Sunil Adige, Peter D. Whooley, Kevin Zarrabi, Brinda Gupta, Pritish Iyer, Melissa McShane, Hilario Yankey, Charles T. Lee, Nina Burbure, Lauren E. Laderman, Julie Giurintano, Samuel Reiss, and Eric M. Horwitz
Background: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. Patients and Methods: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. Results: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. Conclusions: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.
David S. Ettinger, Douglas E. Wood, Wallace Akerley, Lyudmila A. Bazhenova, Hossein Borghaei, David Ross Camidge, Richard T. Cheney, Lucian R. Chirieac, Thomas A. D’Amico, Todd L. Demmy, Thomas J. Dilling, M. Chris Dobelbower, Ramaswamy Govindan, Frederic W. Grannis Jr, Leora Horn, Thierry M. Jahan, Ritsuko Komaki, Lee M. Krug, Rudy P. Lackner, Michael Lanuti, Rogerio Lilenbaum, Jules Lin, Billy W. Loo Jr, Renato Martins, Gregory A. Otterson, Jyoti D. Patel, Katherine M. Pisters, Karen Reckamp, Gregory J. Riely, Eric Rohren, Steven E. Schild, Theresa A. Shapiro, Scott J. Swanson, Kurt Tauer, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina Gregory, and Miranda Hughes
These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the 2015 NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Appropriate targeted therapy is very effective in patients with advanced NSCLC who have specific genetic alterations. Therefore, it is important to test tumor tissue from patients with advanced NSCLC to determine whether they have genetic alterations that make them candidates for specific targeted therapies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe the different testing methods currently available for determining whether patients have genetic alterations in the 2 most commonly actionable genetic alterations, notably anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements and sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.