Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 22 items for

  • Author: Kenneth Roberts x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Paul G. Richardson, Jacob P. Laubach, Robert L. Schlossman, Constantine Mitsiades and Kenneth Anderson

Peripheral neuropathy (PN) and asthenia (fatigue) occur as both disease- and treatment-related complications in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Risk factors for treatment-related PN, which has an estimated incidence of 37% to 83% among patients with MM, include therapy duration, dose intensity, cumulative dose, and the presence of preexisting neuropathy. Asthenia is the most common adverse effect of treatment, occurring in approximately 76% to 96% of patients receiving therapy. The severity of PN and asthenia can range from mild to potentially debilitating. These conditions can be dose limiting; they may interfere with optimizing duration of therapy and may also substantially affect patient quality of life. Regular screening and monitoring, combined with patient education and effective management strategies, can reduce the risk of these treatment-related complications, as well as their consequences.

Full access

Erin Currin, Lanell M. Peterson, Erin K. Schubert, Jeanne M. Link, Kenneth A. Krohn, Robert B. Livingston, David A. Mankoff and Hannah M. Linden

Changes in estrogen receptor (ER) expression over the course of therapy may affect response to endocrine therapy. However, measuring temporal changes in ER expression requires serial biopsies, which are impractical and poorly tolerated by most patients. Functional ER imaging using 18F-fluoroestradiol (FES)-PET provides a noninvasive measure of regional ER expression and is ideally suited to serial studies. Additionally, lack of measurable FES uptake in metastatic sites of disease predict tumor progression in patients with ER-positive primary tumors treated with endocrine therapy. This report presents a case of restored sensitivity to endocrine therapy in a patient with bone-dominant breast cancer who underwent serial observational FES-PET imaging over the course of several treatments at our center, demonstrating the temporal heterogeneity of regional ER expression. Although loss and restoration of endocrine sensitivity in patients who have undergone prior hormonal and cytotoxic treatments has been reported, this is, to our knowledge, the first time the accompanying changes in ER expression have been documented by molecular imaging.

Full access

Jacob P. Laubach, Constantine S. Mitsiades, Anuj Mahindra, Marlise R. Luskin, Jacalyn Rosenblatt, Irene M. Ghobrial, Robert L. Schlossman, David Avigan, Noopur Raje, Nikhil C. Munshi, Kenneth C. Anderson and Paul G. Richardson

Despite significant progress in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) over the past decade, this disease remains incurable and almost all patients ultimately experience relapse and become refractory to treatment over time. However, the outlook for patients with relapsed MM has improved markedly with the use of the immunomodulatory drugs thalidomide and lenalidomide, and the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. Moreover, the development of new drug classes based on preclinical rationale and the introduction of next-generation agents is likely to further expand treatment options and improve outcomes for relapsed MM.

Full access

Jacob P. Laubach, Constantine S. Mitsiades, Anuj Mahindra, Robert L. Schlossman, Teru Hideshima, Dharminder Chauhan, Nicole A. Carreau, Irene M. Ghobrial, Noopur Raje, Nikhil C. Munshi, Kenneth C. Anderson and Paul G. Richardson

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a clonal B-cell malignancy characterized by aberrant expansion of plasma cells within bone marrow and extramedullary sites. In 2009, 20,580 new cases of MM and 10,580 deaths from the disease occurred in the United States. Treatment traditionally consists of systemic chemotherapy, with adjunctive use of radiation or surgery in selected cases associated with extramedullary disease. The therapeutic landscape in MM has changed markedly in the past decade with the introduction of the novel immunomodulatory agents thalidomide and lenalidomide, and the first-in-class proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. Although MM remains an incurable malignancy, new approaches to therapy incorporating these agents have produced significantly higher response rates and improved intervals of both progression-free and overall survival in the context of randomized, controlled trials. In aggregate, the use of novel therapies in MM has been associated with substantial improvements in patient outcome.

Full access

J. Sybil Biermann, Douglas R. Adkins, Robert S. Benjamin, Brian Brigman, Warren Chow, Ernest U. Conrad III, Deborah A. Frassica, Frank J. Frassica, Suzanne George, Kenneth R. Hande, Francis J. Hornicek, G. Douglas Letson, Joel Mayerson, Sean V. McGarry, Brian McGrath, Carol D. Morris, Richard J. O'Donnell, R. Lor Randall, Victor M. Santana, Robert L. Satcher, Herrick J. Siegel, Neeta Somaiah and Alan W. Yasko

Full access

J. Sybil Biermann, Douglas R. Adkins, Mark Agulnik, Robert S. Benjamin, Brian Brigman, James E. Butrynski, David Cheong, Warren Chow, William T. Curry, Deborah A. Frassica, Frank J. Frassica, Kenneth R. Hande, Francis J. Hornicek, Robin L. Jones, Joel Mayerson, Sean V. McGarry, Brian McGrath, Carol D. Morris, Richard J. O'Donnell, R. Lor Randall, Victor M. Santana, Robert L. Satcher, Herrick J. Siegel, Margaret von Mehren, Mary Anne Bergman and Hema Sundar

Primary bone cancers are extremely rare neoplasms, accounting for fewer than 0.2% of all cancers. The evaluation and treatment of patients with bone cancers requires a multidisciplinary team of physicians, including musculoskeletal, medical, and radiation oncologists, and surgeons and radiologists with demonstrated expertise in the management of these tumors. Long-term surveillance and follow-up are necessary for the management of treatment late effects related to surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. These guidelines discuss the management of chordoma, giant cell tumor of the bone, and osteosarcoma.

Full access

Mary B. Daly, Jennifer E. Axilbund, Saundra Buys, Beth Crawford, Carolyn D. Farrell, Susan Friedman, Judy E. Garber, Salil Goorha, Stephen B. Gruber, Heather Hampel, Virginia Kaklamani, Wendy Kohlmann, Allison Kurian, Jennifer Litton, P. Kelly Marcom, Robert Nussbaum, Kenneth Offit, Tuya Pal, Boris Pasche, Robert Pilarski, Gwen Reiser, Kristen Mahoney Shannon, Jeffrey R. Smith, Elizabeth Swisher and Jeffrey N. Weitzel

Overview All cancers develop as a result of mutations in certain genes, such as those involved in the regulation of cell growth and/or DNA repair,1,2 but not all of these mutations are inherited from a parent. For example, sporadic mutations can occur in somatic/tumor cells only, and de novo mutations can occur for the first time in a germ cell (i.e., egg or sperm) or in the fertilized egg itself during early embryogenesis. However, family studies have long documented an increased risk for several forms of cancer among first-degree (i.e., parents, siblings, and children) and second-degree relatives (i.e., grandparents, aunts or uncles, grandchildren, and nieces or nephews) of affected individuals. These individuals may have an increased susceptibility to cancer as the result of 1 or more gene mutations present in parental germline cells; cancers developing in these individuals may be classified as hereditary or familial cancers. Hereditary cancers are often characterized by mutations associated with a high probability of cancer development (i.e., a high penetrance genotype), vertical transmission through either mother or father, and an association with other types of tumors.3,4 They often have an early age of onset and exhibit an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern (i.e., occur when the individual has a mutation in only 1 copy of a gene). Familial cancers share only some features of hereditary cancers. For example, although familial breast cancers occur in a given family more frequently than in the general population, they generally do not exhibit the inheritance patterns or onset age consistent...
Full access

Therese B. Bevers, Deborah K. Armstrong, Banu Arun, Robert W. Carlson, Kenneth H. Cowan, Mary B. Daly, Irvin Fleming, Judy E. Garber, Mary Gemignani, William J. Gradishar, Helen Krontiras, Swati Kulkarni, Christine Laronga, Loretta Loftus, Deborah J. MacDonald, Martin C. Mahoney, Sofia D. Merajver, Ingrid Meszoely, Lisa Newman, Elizabeth Pritchard, Victoria Seewaldt, Rena V. Sellin, Charles L. Shapiro and John H. Ward

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in American women with 209,060 and 54,010 estimated cases of invasive breast cancer and female carcinoma in situ, respectively, in 2010. Approximately 39,840 women will die of breast cancer in the United States in 2010.1 Risk factors for the development of breast cancer can be grouped into categories, including familial/genetic factors (family history, known or suspected BRCA1/2, TP53, PTEN, or other gene mutation associated with breast cancer risk); factors related to demographics (e.g., age, ethnicity/race); reproductive history (age at menarche, parity, age at first live birth, age at menopause); environmental factors (prior thoracic irradiation before age 30 years [e.g., to treat Hodgkin disease], hormone replacement therapy [HRT], alcohol consumption); and other factors (e.g., number of breast biopsies, atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ [LCIS], breast density, body mass index). Estimating breast cancer risk for the individual woman is difficult, and most breast cancers are not attributable to risk factors other than female gender and increased age. The development of effective strategies for the reduction of breast cancer incidence has also been difficult because few of the existing risk factors are modifiable and some of the potentially modifiable risk factors have social implications extending beyond concerns for breast cancer (e.g., age at first live birth). Nevertheless, effective breast cancer risk reduction agents/strategies, such as tamoxifen, raloxifene, and risk reduction surgery, have been identified. However, women and their physicians who are considering interventions to reduce risk for breast cancer must balance the demonstrated...
Full access

Daniel G. Coit, Robert Andtbacka, Christopher K. Bichakjian, Raza A. Dilawari, Dominick DiMaio, Valerie Guild, Allan C. Halpern, F. Stephen Hodi, Mohammed Kashani-Sabet, Julie R. Lange, Anne Lind, Lainie Martin, Mary C. Martini, Scott K. Pruitt, Merrick I. Ross, Stephen F. Sener, Susan M. Swetter, Kenneth K. Tanabe, John A. Thompson, Vijay Trisal, Marshall M. Urist, Jeffrey Weber and Michael K. Wong

Melanoma 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. In 2008, an estimated 62,480 new cases of melanoma will have been diagnosed and approximately 8420 patients will have died of the disease in the United States.1 However, these projections for new cases may represent a substantial underestimation, because many superficial and in situ melanomas treated in the outpatient setting are not reported. The incidence of melanoma continues to increase dramatically. Melanoma is increasing in men more rapidly than any other malignancy and more rapidly in women than any other malignancy except lung cancer. For someone born in the United States in 2005, the lifetime risk for developing melanoma may be as high as 1 in 55.2 Melanoma ranks second to adult leukemia in terms of loss of years of potential life, per death. The median age at diagnosis is 59 years. Risk factors for melanoma include...
Full access

Daniel G. Coit, Robert Andtbacka, Christopher J. Anker, Christopher K. Bichakjian, William E. Carson III, Adil Daud, Raza A. Dilawari, Dominick DiMaio, Valerie Guild, Allan C. Halpern, F. Stephen Hodi Jr., Mark C. Kelley, Nikhil I. Khushalani, Ragini R. Kudchadkar, Julie R. Lange, Anne Lind, Mary C. Martini, Anthony J. Olszanski, Scott K. Pruitt, Merrick I. Ross, Susan M. Swetter, Kenneth K. Tanabe, John A. Thompson, Vijay Trisal and Marshall M. Urist