Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 50 items for

  • Author: James Thomas x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Ravi A. Madan, Thomas Schwaab and James L. Gulley

Sipuleucel-T is a therapeutic cancer vaccine that has shown improved survival in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. As a first-in-class agent, it has been met with both fan-fare and controversy. A broad review of immune-based therapies may reveal the delayed clinical impact of sipuleucel-T to be a class effect. As new strategies of immune-based therapy are developed, their effects can be optimized through better understanding of how they affect disease differently from more standard therapeutics. Furthermore, combination therapy with agents that can either work synergistically with immune-activating therapies or deplete immune-regulating cells may result in more vigorous immune responses and improved clinical outcomes. In addition, therapeutic vaccines may be ideal candidates to safely combine with standard-of-care therapies because of their nonoverlapping toxicity profile. The ultimate role of immunotherapy may not be to supplant standard therapies, but rather to work in concert with them to maximize clinical benefit for patients.

Full access

Monira Alwhaibi, Usha Sambamoorthi, Suresh Madhavan, Thomas Bias, Kimberly Kelly and James Walkup

Background: Elderly individuals (age >65 years) with cancer are at high risk for newly diagnosed depression after a cancer diagnosis. It is not known whether the risk of newly diagnosed depression varies by cancer type. Purpose: To examine the variations in the risk of newly diagnosed depression by cancer type among elderly individuals with cancer. Methods: This study used a retrospective cohort study design and data from the linked SEER-Medicare files. Elderly individuals (age >65 years) with incident breast, colorectal (CRC), and prostate cancers diagnosed between 2007 and 2011 (N=53,821) were followed for 12 months after cancer diagnosis. Depression diagnosis was identified during the 12-month follow-up period after cancer diagnosis using the ICD-9-Clinical Modification. Complementary log–log regression was used to examine the association between cancer type and risk of newly diagnosed depression after adjusting for other risk factors for depression. Results: We found a significantly higher percentage of newly diagnosed depression among women with CRC compared with those with breast cancer (5.8% vs 3.9%), and among men with CRC compared with those with prostate cancer (3.4% vs 1.6%). In the adjusted analysis, women with CRC had a 28.0% higher risk of newly diagnosed depression compared with women with breast cancer (adjusted risk ratio [ARR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.12–1.46) and men with CRC had a 104.0% higher risk of newly diagnosed depression compared with those with prostate cancer (ARR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.65–2.51). Conclusions: Our findings identified cancer types associated with a high risk of newly diagnosed depression after cancer diagnosis, who might benefit from routine depression screening to help in its early detection and treatment.

Full access

Thomas J. Pugh, Bao-Ngoc Nguyen, James E. Kanke, Jennifer L. Johnson and Karen E. Hoffman

Definitive radiation therapy is the preferred treatment for many men with prostate cancer. Several modalities are used for radiation treatment delivery, including 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy, proton beam therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy, high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy, and low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy. This article reviews technologic advances that have enhanced radiation delivery and describes contemporary radiation treatment techniques for prostate cancer.

Full access

Brandon R. Mason, James A. Eastham, Brian J. Davis, Lance A. Mynderse, Thomas J. Pugh, Richard J. Lee and Joseph E. Ippolito

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant source of morbidity and mortality for men in the United States, with approximately 1 in 9 being diagnosed with PCa in their lifetime. The role of imaging in the evaluation of men with PCa has evolved and currently plays a central role in diagnosis, treatment planning, and evaluation of recurrence. Appropriate use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-guided transrectal ultrasound (MR-TRUS) biopsy increases the detection of clinically significant PCa while decreasing the detection of clinically insignificant PCa. This process may help patients with clinically insignificant PCa avoid the adverse effects of unnecessary therapy. In the setting of a known PCa, patients with low-grade disease can be observed using active surveillance, which often includes a combination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, serial mpMRI, and, if indicated, follow-up systematic and targeted TRUS-guided tissue sampling. mpMRI can provide important information in the posttreatment setting, but PET/CT is creating a paradigm shift in imaging standards for patients with locally recurrent and metastatic PCa. This article examines the strengths and limitations of mpMRI for initial PCa diagnosis, active surveillance, recurrent disease evaluation, and image-guided biopsies, and the use of PET/CT imaging in men with recurrent PCa. The goal of this review is to provide a rational basis for current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for PCa as they pertain to the use of these advanced imaging modalities.

Full access

Paul F. Engstrom, Juan Pablo Arnoletti, Al B. Benson III, Jordan D. Berlin, J. Michael Berry, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Raza A. Dilawari, Dayna S. Early, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, James Fleshman Jr., Charles Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, James A. Knol, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Mary F. Mulcahy, Eric Rohren, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, William Small Jr., Constantinos Sofocleous, James Thomas, Alan P. Venook and Christopher Willett

Overview An estimated 5290 new cases (2100 men and 3190 women) of anal cancer (involving the anus, anal canal, or anorectum) will occur in the United States in 2009, accounting for approximately 1.9% of digestive system cancers, and an estimated 710 deaths due to anal cancer. Although considered to be a rare type of cancer, the incidence rate of invasive anal carcinoma in the United States increased by approximately 1.6-fold for men and 1.5-fold for women from 1973-1979 to 1994-2000 (see Risk Factors, facing page). This manuscript summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. Other types of cancers occurring in the anal region are addressed in other NCCN guidelines (i.e., anal adenocarcinoma and anal melanoma are managed according to the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology on Rectal Cancer and Melanoma, respectively). Except where noted, the recommendations in these guidelines are classified as category 2A, meaning that uniform NCCN consensus was present among the panel based on lower-level evidence that the recommendation is appropriate. The panel unanimously endorses patient participation in a clinical trial over standard or accepted therapy. Risk Factors Anal carcinoma has been associated with human papilloma virus (HPV) infection (anal-genital warts); history of receptive anal intercourse or sexually transmitted disease; history of cervical, vulvar, or vaginal cancer; immunosuppression after solid organ transplantation or HIV infection; and smoking. Currently, the association between anal carcinoma and persistent infection with a high-risk form...
Full access

Paul F. Engstrom, Juan Pablo Arnoletti, Al B. Benson III, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Anne Covey, Raza A. Dilawari, Dayna S. Early, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, James Fleshman Jr., Charles Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Krystyna Kiel, James A. Knol, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Mary F. Mulcahy, Sujata Rao, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, Constantinos Sofocleous, James Thomas, Alan P. Venook and Christopher Willett

Colon Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines in OncologyNCCN Categories of Evidence and ConsensusCategory 1: The recommendation is based on high-level evidence (e.g., randomized controlled trials) and there is uniform NCCN consensus.Category 2A: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is uniform NCCN consensus.Category 2B: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is nonuniform NCCN consensus (but no major disagreement).Category 3: The recommendation is based on any level of evidence but reflects major disagreement.All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.Clinical trials: The NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.OverviewColorectal cancer is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2009, an estimated 106,100 new cases of colon and 40,870 cases of rectal cancer will occur. During the same year, it is estimated that 49,920 people will die from colon and rectal cancer.1 Despite these statistics, mortality from colon cancer has decreased slightly over the past 30 years, possibly due to earlier diagnosis through screening and better treatment modalities.This manuscript summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for managing colon cancer. The guidelines begin with clinical presentation to the primary care physician or gastroenterologist and address diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, adjuvant treatment, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and patient surveillance. When reviewing these guidelines, clinicians should be aware of...
Full access

Paul F. Engstrom, Juan Pablo Arnoletti, Al B. Benson III, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Anne Covey, Raza A. Dilawari, Dayna S. Early, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, James Fleshman Jr., Charles Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Krystyna Kiel, James A. Knol, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Mary F. Mulcahy, Sujata Rao, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, Constantinos Sofocleous, James Thomas, Alan P. Venook and Christopher Willett

Rectal Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus Category 1: The recommendation is based on high-level evidence (e.g., randomized controlled trials) and there is uniform NCCN consensus. Category 2A: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is uniform NCCN consensus. Category 2B: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is nonuniform NCCN consensus (but no major disagreement). Category 3: The recommendation is based on any level of evidence but reflects major disagreement. All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted. Clinical trials: The NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged. Overview In 2009 an estimated 40,870 new cases of rectal cancer will occur in the United States (23,580 cases in men; 17,290 cases in women). During the same year, an estimated 49,920 people will die from rectal and colon cancers.1 Although colorectal cancer is ranked as the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, mortality from colorectal cancer has decreased during the past 30 years. This decrease may be due to earlier diagnosis through screening and better treatment modalities. The recommendations in these clinical practice guidelines are classified as category 2A except where noted, meaning that there is uniform NCCN consensus, based on lower-level evidence (including...
Full access

Jaffer A. Ajani, James S. Barthel, David J. Bentrem, Thomas A. D'Amico, Prajnan Das, Crystal S. Denlinger, Charles S. Fuchs, Hans Gerdes, Robert E. Glasgow, James A. Hayman, Wayne L. Hofstetter, David H. Ilson, Rajesh N. Keswani, Lawrence R. Kleinberg, W. Michael Korn, A. Craig Lockhart, Mary F. Mulcahy, Mark B. Orringer, Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, James A. Posey, Aaron R. Sasson, Walter J. Scott, Stephen Shibata, Vivian E. M. Strong, Thomas K. Varghese Jr., Graham Warren, Mary Kay Washington, Christopher Willett and Cameron D. Wright

Full access

Al B. Benson III, Thomas A. Abrams, Edgar Ben-Josef, P. Mark Bloomston, Jean F. Botha, Bryan M. Clary, Anne Covey, Steven A. Curley, Michael I. D'Angelica, Rene Davila, William D. Ensminger, John F. Gibbs, Daniel Laheru, Mokenge P. Malafa, Jorge Marrero, Steven G. Meranze, Sean J. Mulvihill, James O. Park, James A. Posey, Jasgit Sachdev, Riad Salem, Elin R. Sigurdson, Constantinos Sofocleous, Jean-Nicolas Vauthey, Alan P. Venook, Laura Williams Goff, Yun Yen and Andrew X. Zhu

Hepatobiliary Cancers Clinical Practice Guidelines in OncologyNCCN Categories of Evidence and ConsensusCategory 1: The recommendation is based on high-level evidence (e.g., randomized controlled trials) and there is uniform NCCN consensus.Category 2A: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is uniform NCCN consensus.Category 2B: The recommendation is based on lower-level evidence and there is nonuniform NCCN consensus (but no major disagreement).Category 3: The recommendation is based on any level of evidence but reflects major disagreement.All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.Clinical trials: The NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.OverviewHepatobiliary cancers are highly lethal. In 2008, approximately 21,370 persons in the United States were estimated to be diagnosed with liver or intrahepatic bile duct cancer and 9520 with gallbladder cancer or other biliary tract cancer. Furthermore, approximately 18,410 deaths from liver or intrahepatic bile duct cancer and 3340 deaths from gallbladder cancer or other biliary tract cancer were estimated to occur.1The types of hepatobiliary cancers covered in these guidelines include hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. By definition, these guidelines cannot incorporate all possible clinical variations and are not intended to replace good clinical judgment or individualization of treatments. Although not explicitly stated at every decision point of the guidelines, patient participation in prospective clinical trials is the preferred option for treatment of hepatobiliary cancers.HCCRisk Factors and...
Full access

Jaffer A. Ajani, David J. Bentrem, Stephen Besh, Thomas A. D’Amico, Prajnan Das, Crystal Denlinger, Marwan G. Fakih, Charles S. Fuchs, Hans Gerdes, Robert E. Glasgow, James A. Hayman, Wayne L. Hofstetter, David H. Ilson, Rajesh N. Keswani, Lawrence R. Kleinberg, W. Michael Korn, A. Craig Lockhart, Kenneth Meredith, Mary F. Mulcahy, Mark B. Orringer, James A. Posey, Aaron R. Sasson, Walter J. Scott, Vivian E. Strong, Thomas K. Varghese Jr, Graham Warren, Mary Kay Washington, Christopher Willett, Cameron D. Wright, Nicole R. McMillian and Hema Sundar

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Gastric Cancer provide evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for a multidisciplinary approach for the management of patients with gastric cancer. For patients with resectable locoregional cancer, the guidelines recommend gastrectomy with a D1+ or a modified D2 lymph node dissection (performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centers). Postoperative chemoradiation is the preferred option after complete gastric resection for patients with T3-T4 tumors and node-positive T1-T2 tumors. Postoperative chemotherapy is included as an option after a modified D2 lymph node dissection for this group of patients. Trastuzumab with chemotherapy is recommended as first-line therapy for patients with HER2-positive advanced or metastatic cancer, confirmed by immunohistochemistry and, if needed, by fluorescence in situ hybridization for IHC 2+.