Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 14 items for

  • Author: Eric M. Horwitz x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Gleason Scoring at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: What’s The Difference?

Natasha C. Townsend, Karen Ruth, Tahseen Al-Saleem, Eric M. Horwitz, Mark Sobczak, Robert G. Uzzo, Rosalia Viterbo, and Mark K. Buyyounouski

This study attempted to determine whether the Gleason score (GS) assigned at a comprehensive cancer center better predicts risk of biochemical failure (BF) after prostate radiotherapy compared with the GS of the referring institution (RI). Between 1994 and 2007, 1649 men received radiotherapy for prostate cancer at Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC). The Cox proportional hazard regression was used for inferences about the relationship of time to BF and GS. Harrell’s C-index (HCI) was used to assess concordance in the Cox regression between predicted and observed events. The discordance rate was 26% for any change in either major or minor Gleason pattern. In the RI GS 2 through 6 group, 79 (8%) patients were upgraded to GS 7. Twenty percent of patients with RI GS 7 were downgraded and 2% were upgraded. In the RI GS 8 through 9 group, 58% were downgraded to GS 6 (12%) or GS 7 (88%). The FCCC GS altered the NCCN risk group assignment in 144 men (9%): 92 (64%) men to lower risk and 52 (36%) to higher risk. FCCC GS was a stronger predictor of BF; the hazard ratios for GS 2 through 6 (ref), 3+4, 4+3, and 8 through 9 were 1.00 (ref), 1.82, 4.14, and 2.92, respectively. In contrast, the hazard ratios for the RI GS were 1.00 (ref), 1.53, 2.44, and 1.76, respectively. FCCC GS (HCI=0.76) had improved performance compared with RI GS (HCI=0.74). Changes in GS were common and the GS assigned by a comprehensive cancer center provided better BF risk stratification and prognostication for patients. Changes in GS may impact treatment recommendations in 9% to 26% of patients.

Full access

Use of Postprostatectomy Radiation Therapy at an NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center

Jeffrey M. Martin, Tianyu Li, Matthew E. Johnson, Colin T. Murphy, Alan G. Howald, Marc C. Smaldone, Alexander Kutikov, David Y.T. Chen, Rosalia Viterbo, Richard E. Greenberg, Robert G. Uzzo, and Eric M. Horwitz

Purpose: Characterize use of postprostatectomy radiation (PPRT) for patients with prostate cancer at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Methods: We queried our prospective prostate cancer database for patients treated with 60 to 68 Gy of radiation therapy (RT) to the prostate bed after prostatectomy from 2003 to 2011. Prostatectomy cases were obtained from billing records. Patients with an intact prostate treated with definitive RT served as a control for the change in volume of patients with prostate cancer treated in the department. Chi-square analysis assessed differences between adjuvant and salvage RT cohorts. Spearman correlation assessed yearly trends in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at the time of referral for RT. Linear regression models tested trends for number of PPRT cases, prostatectomies, and patients with intact prostate receiving radiation across years. Results: PPRT was used to treat 475 men at Fox Chase Cancer Center from 2003 to 2011 (83 adjuvant and 392 salvage). Over time, an increased proportion of patients receiving RT to the prostate were treated with PPRT. No increase was seen in the proportion of patients treated with adjuvant RT compared with salvage RT (P=.5). Patients receiving adjuvant RT were younger, had higher pathologic Gleason score, pathologic T stage, and rates of positive margins than those receiving salvage RT. Pre-RT PSA values were inversely correlated with year (P=.005). The number of patients referred for salvage RT with a PSA of 0.5 ng/mL or less increased significantly from 7.9% in 2003 to 26.6% in 2011 (P=.002). Conclusions: A larger proportion of patients treated with RT for localized prostate cancer are now receiving PPRT. No increase was seen in the proportion of patients treated with adjuvant RT. Over time, patients with lower PSAs were referred for salvage RT.

Full access

Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2014

James L. Mohler, Philip W. Kantoff, Andrew J. Armstrong, Robert R. Bahnson, Michael Cohen, Anthony Victor D’Amico, James A. Eastham, Charles A. Enke, Thomas A. Farrington, Celestia S. Higano, Eric Mark Horwitz, Christopher J. Kane, Mark H. Kawachi, Michael Kuettel, Timothy M. Kuzel, Richard J. Lee, Arnold W. Malcolm, David Miller, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Julio M. Pow-Sang, David Raben, Sylvia Richey, Mack Roach III, Eric Rohren, Stan Rosenfeld, Edward Schaeffer, Eric J. Small, Guru Sonpavde, Sandy Srinivas, Cy Stein, Seth A. Strope, Jonathan Tward, Dorothy A. Shead, and Maria Ho

Prostate cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most common cancer in men in the United States. The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations on the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer based on clinical evidence and expert consensus. NCCN Panel guidance on treatment decisions for patients with localized disease is represented in this version. Significant updates for early disease include distinction between active surveillance and observation, a new section on principles of imaging, and revisions to radiation recommendations. The full version of these guidelines, including treatment of patients with advanced disease, can be found online at the NCCN website.

Full access

Prostate Cancer

James Mohler, Robert R. Bahnson, Barry Boston, J. Erik Busby, Anthony D'Amico, James A. Eastham, Charles A. Enke, Daniel George, Eric Mark Horwitz, Robert P. Huben, Philip Kantoff, Mark Kawachi, Michael Kuettel, Paul H. Lange, Gary MacVicar, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Julio M. Pow-Sang, Mack Roach III, Eric Rohren, Bruce J. Roth, Dennis C. Shrieve, Matthew R. Smith, Sandy Srinivas, Przemyslaw Twardowski, and Patrick C. Walsh

Full access

Adverse Events Reported by Patients With Cancer After Administration of a 2-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

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.

Full access

Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2014

James L. Mohler, Philip W. Kantoff, Andrew J. Armstrong, Robert R. Bahnson, Michael Cohen, Anthony Victor D’Amico, James A. Eastham, Charles A. Enke, Thomas A. Farrington, Celestia S. Higano, Eric Mark Horwitz, Mark H. Kawachi, Michael Kuettel, Richard J. Lee, Gary R. MacVicar, Arnold W. Malcolm, David Miller, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Julio M. Pow-Sang, Sylvia Richey, Mack Roach III, Eric Rohren, Stan Rosenfeld, Eric J. Small, Sandy Srinivas, Cy Stein, Seth A. Strope, Jonathan Tward, Patrick C. Walsh, Dorothy A. Shead, and Maria Ho

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations on the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer. This report highlights notable recent updates. Radium-223 dichloride is a first-in-class radiopharmaceutical that recently received approval for the treatment of patients with symptomatic bone metastases and no known visceral disease. It received a category 1 recommendation as both a first-line and second-line option. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel also revised recommendations on the choice of intermittent or continuous androgen deprivation therapy based on recent phase III clinical data comparing the 2 strategies in the nonmetastatic and metastatic settings.

Full access

Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2016

James L. Mohler, Andrew J. Armstrong, Robert R. Bahnson, Anthony Victor D'Amico, Brian J. Davis, James A. Eastham, Charles A. Enke, Thomas A. Farrington, Celestia S. Higano, Eric M. Horwitz, Michael Hurwitz, Christopher J. Kane, Mark H. Kawachi, Michael Kuettel, Richard J. Lee, Joshua J. Meeks, David F. Penson, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Julio M. Pow-Sang, David Raben, Sylvia Richey, Mack Roach III, Stan Rosenfeld, Edward Schaeffer, Ted A. Skolarus, Eric J. Small, Guru Sonpavde, Sandy Srinivas, Seth A. Strope, Jonathan Tward, Dorothy A. Shead, and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after an initial diagnosis of prostate cancer and management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring, treatment of recurrent disease, and systemic therapy for metastatic castration-recurrent prostate cancer also are included. This article summarizes the NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel's most significant discussions for the 2016 update of the guidelines, which include refinement of risk stratification methods and new options for the treatment of men with high-risk and very-high-risk disease and progressive castration-naïve disease.

Full access

Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

James L. Mohler, Emmanuel S. Antonarakis, Andrew J. Armstrong, Anthony V. D’Amico, Brian J. Davis, Tanya Dorff, James A. Eastham, Charles A. Enke, Thomas A. Farrington, Celestia S. Higano, Eric Mark Horwitz, Michael Hurwitz, Joseph E. Ippolito, Christopher J. Kane, Michael R. Kuettel, Joshua M. Lang, Jesse McKenney, George Netto, David F. Penson, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Julio M. Pow-Sang, Thomas J. Pugh, Sylvia Richey, Mack Roach III, Stan Rosenfeld, Edward Schaeffer, Ahmad Shabsigh, Eric J. Small, Daniel E. Spratt, Sandy Srinivas, Jonathan Tward, Dorothy A. Shead, and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations regarding diagnosis, risk stratification and workup, treatment options for localized disease, and management of recurrent and advanced disease for clinicians who treat patients with prostate cancer. The portions of the guidelines included herein focus on the roles of germline and somatic genetic testing, risk stratification with nomograms and tumor multigene molecular testing, androgen deprivation therapy, secondary hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy in patients with prostate cancer.

Full access

T-Cell Lymphomas, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Steven M. Horwitz, Stephen Ansell, Weiyun Z. Ai, Jeffrey Barnes, Stefan K. Barta, Jonathan Brammer, Mark W. Clemens, Ahmet Dogan, Francine Foss, Paola Ghione, Aaron M. Goodman, Joan Guitart, Ahmad Halwani, Bradley M. Haverkos, Richard T. Hoppe, Eric Jacobsen, Deepa Jagadeesh, Allison Jones, Avyakta Kallam, Youn H. Kim, Kiran Kumar, Neha Mehta-Shah, Elise A. Olsen, Saurabh A. Rajguru, Sima Rozati, Jonathan Said, Aaron Shaver, Lauren Shea, Michi M. Shinohara, Lubomir Sokol, Carlos Torres-Cabala, Ryan Wilcox, Peggy Wu, Jasmine Zain, Mary Dwyer, and Hema Sundar

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) are a heterogeneous group of lymphoproliferative disorders arising from mature T cells, accounting for about 10% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas. PTCL-not otherwise specified is the most common subtype, followed by angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphoma kinase–negative, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma. This discussion section focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of PTCLs as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for T-Cell Lymphomas.

Full access

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Primary Cutaneous Lymphomas, Version 2.2020

Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines

Neha Mehta-Shah, Steven M. Horwitz, Stephen Ansell, Weiyun Z. Ai, Jeffrey Barnes, Stefan K. Barta, Mark W. Clemens, Ahmet Dogan, Kristopher Fisher, Aaron M. Goodman, Gaurav Goyal, Joan Guitart, Ahmad Halwani, Bradley M. Haverkos, Richard T. Hoppe, Eric Jacobsen, Deepa Jagadeesh, Matthew A. Lunning, Amitkumar Mehta, Elise A. Olsen, Barbara Pro, Saurabh A. Rajguru, Satish Shanbhag, Aaron Shaver, Andrei Shustov, Lubomir Sokol, Pallawi Torka, Carlos Torres-Cabala, Ryan Wilcox, Basem M. William, Jasmine Zain, Mary A. Dwyer, Hema Sundar, and Youn H. Kim

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common subtype of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), and Sézary syndrome (SS) is a rare erythrodermic and leukemic subtype of CTCL characterized by significant blood involvement. Although early-stage disease can be effectively treated predominantly with skin-directed therapies, systemic therapy is often necessary for the treatment of advanced-stage disease. Systemic therapy options have evolved in recent years with the approval of novel agents such as romidepsin, brentuximab vedotin, and mogamulizumab. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the diagnosis and management of MF and SS (with a focus on systemic therapy).