Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 7 of 7 items for

  • Author: George V. Thomas x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Belqis El Ferjani, Sheenu Chandwani, Meita Hirschmann, Seydeh Dibaj, Emily Roarty, Jianjun Zhang, Waree Rinsurnogkawong, Jeff Lewis, Jack Lee, Jack A. Roth, Stephen Swisher, John V. Heymach, Thomas Burke and George R. Simon

Background: NSCLC is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Recently reported clinical trials have firmly established the role of PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of patients (pts) with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC). We have established the prospective, observational, real-world Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Holistic Registry (ANCHoR) to understand how the advent of immunotherapy impacts treatment choices and clinical outcomes. Objectives: The aim of this analysis is to measure the impact of immunotherapy on the treatment choice for the first-line treatment of mNSCLC and to determine the link between PD-L1 expression and the treatment choices made in routine clinical practice at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDA). Methods: From May 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018, English-speaking pts with mNSCLC at MDA who provided written informed consent were enrolled in ANCHoR and longitudinally followed. The PD-L1 testing rates were captured and the treatment decisions made were also captured and tabulated. The time of data cutoff for this study is June 30, 2018. Results: Of the 296 pts enrolled in the registry at the time of data cutoff, there were 49.7% males, 82.1% white, 45.9% ≥65 years old, 69.3% smokers, 83.1% with an initial stage IV diagnosis, 87.2% with nonsquamous histology, 36.1% with bone metastasis, 29.4% with brain metastasis, 43.2% with 0–1 performance status, and 21.6% with a known EGFR or ALK mutation. A total of 233 pts had been tested for PD-L1 (78.7%). Predominant reasons for not testing (63 pts) include not having available tissue (26 pts) or the test was not requested by the physician (31 pts). As of June 30, 2018, 38.5% of patients received immunotherapy as first-line therapy either as a single agent (18.9%, 56 pts) or in combination with chemotherapy (19.6%, 58 pts). Only 35.8% of the patients received platinum doublet chemotherapy alone. Two pts received chemotherapy combined with an anti-angiogenesis agent (0.68%). Targeted therapy was utilized either as a single agent (20.6%) or in combination with immunotherapy (2.4%). Conclusion: Immunotherapy is now utilized as a single agent or in combination in more than one-third of patients with mNSCLC. These numbers are expected to increase as data from recently reported studies get incorporated into common clinical practice. Compared to historic experience, there has been a dramatic decline in the use of chemotherapy with an anti-angiogenesis agent.

Full access

Eric Lu, George V. Thomas, Yiyi Chen, Alexander W. Wyatt, Paul Lloyd, Jack Youngren, David Quigley, Raymond Bergan, Shawna Bailey, Tomasz M. Beer, Felix Y. Feng, Eric J. Small and Joshi J. Alumkal

Background: PARP inhibition is a promising therapeutic strategy for the treatment of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose tumors harbor homologous recombination DNA repair gene alterations. However, questions remain for many practicing clinicians about which patients are ideally suited for PARP inhibitor treatment. This report details our institutional experience using PARP inhibitor therapy in patients whose tumors harbored specific DNA repair gene alterations. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review to identify patients at Oregon Health & Science University who were treated with PARP inhibition. We identified 8 patients and determined the impact of the specific DNA repair gene alterations on tumor response and time on treatment with PARP inhibition. Results: A number of DNA repair gene alterations were identified. Three patients had pathogenic BRCA2 mutations and one had a BRCA2 mutation of uncertain significance. Conversely, the 4 other patients' tumors harbored alterations in other DNA repair genes, none of which were clearly pathogenic. A statistically significant difference in benefit was seen between patients whose tumors harbored BRCA2 gene alterations and those whose tumors did not, as measured by >50% decline in prostate-specific antigen levels (100% vs 0%; P=.03) and duration on therapy (31.4 vs 6.4 weeks; P=.03). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that not all DNA repair alterations are equally predictive of PARP inhibitor response. Importantly, all responding patients had tumors harboring BRCA2 DNA repair alterations, including one without a known pathogenic mutation. Conversely, among the 4 nonresponders, several DNA repair alterations in genes other than BRCA2 were identified that were not clearly pathogenic. This demonstrates the need to carefully examine the functional relevance of the DNA repair alterations identified, especially in genes other than BRCA2, when considering patients for PARP inhibitor treatment.

Full access

George D. Demetri, Scott Antonia, Robert S. Benjamin, Marilyn M. Bui, Ephraim S. Casper, Ernest U. Conrad III, Thomas F. DeLaney, Kristen N. Ganjoo, Martin J. Heslin, Raymond J. Hutchinson, John M. Kane III, G. Douglas Letson, Sean V. McGarry, Richard J. O'Donnell, I. Benjamin Paz, John D. Pfeifer, Raphael E. Pollock, R. Lor Randall, Richard F. Riedel, Karen D. Schupak, Herbert S. Schwartz, Katherine Thornton, Margaret von Mehren and Jeffrey Wayne

Full access

Margaret von Mehren, R. Lor Randall, Robert S. Benjamin, Sarah Boles, Marilyn M. Bui, Ephraim S. Casper, Ernest U. Conrad III, Thomas F. DeLaney, Kristen N. Ganjoo, Suzanne George, Ricardo J. Gonzalez, Martin J. Heslin, John M. Kane III, Joel Mayerson, Sean V. McGarry, Christian Meyer, Richard J. O’Donnell, Alberto S. Pappo, I. Benjamin Paz, John D. Pfeifer, Richard F. Riedel, Scott Schuetze, Karen D. Schupak, Herbert S. Schwartz, Brian A. Van Tine, Jeffrey D. Wayne, Mary Anne Bergman and Hema Sundar

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are the most common soft tissue sarcoma of the gastrointestinal tract, resulting most commonly from KIT or platelet-derived growth factor receptor α (PDGFRα)-activating mutations. These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight the important updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Soft Tissue Sarcoma specific to the management of patients with GIST experiencing disease progression while on imatinib and/or sunitinib.

Full access

Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Version 2.2012

Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines

Margaret von Mehren, Robert S. Benjamin, Marilyn M. Bui, Ephraim S. Casper, Ernest U. Conrad III, Thomas F. DeLaney, Kristen N. Ganjoo, Suzanne George, Ricardo Gonzalez, Martin J. Heslin, John M. Kane III, Joel Mayerson, Sean V. McGarry, Christian Meyer, Richard J. O'Donnell, Benjamin Paz, John D. Pfeifer, Raphael E. Pollock, R. Lor Randall, Richard F. Riedel, Scott Schuetze, Karen D. Schupak, Herbert S. Schwartz, Sridhar Shankar, Brian A. Van Tine, Jeffrey Wayne, Hema Sundar and Nicole R. McMillian

The major changes to the 2012 and 2011 NCCN Guidelines for Soft Tissue Sarcoma pertain to the management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and desmoid tumors (aggressive fibromatosis). Postoperative imatinib following complete resection for primary GIST with no preoperative imatinib is now included as a category 1 recommendation for patients with intermediate or high risk of recurrence. The panel also reaffirmed the recommendation for preoperative use of imatinib in patients with GISTs that are resectable with negative margins but associated with significant surgical morbidity. Observation was included as an option for patients with resectable desmoid tumors that are small and asymptomatic, not causing morbidity, pain, or functional limitation. Sorafenib is included as an option for systemic therapy for patients with desmoid tumors.

Full access

Margaret von Mehren, R. Lor Randall, Robert S. Benjamin, Sarah Boles, Marilyn M. Bui, Ephraim S. Casper, Ernest U. Conrad III, Thomas F. DeLaney, Kristen N. Ganjoo, Suzanne George, Ricardo J. Gonzalez, Martin J. Heslin, John M. Kane III, Joel Mayerson, Sean V. McGarry, Christian Meyer, Richard J. O’Donnell, Alberto S. Pappo, I. Benjamin Paz, John D. Pfeifer, Richard F. Riedel, Scott Schuetze, Karen D. Schupak, Herbert S. Schwartz, Brian A. Van Tine, Jeffrey D. Wayne, Mary Anne Bergman and Hema Sundar

These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the important updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Soft Tissue Sarcoma (STS) specific to the role of radiation therapy in the management of patients with retroperitoneal/intra-abdominal STS. The guidelines have also included recommendations for genetic testing and counseling for patients with a clinical and/or family history of genetic cancer syndromes associated with a predisposition for the development of STS.

Full access

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.