Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Lewis R. Roberts x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Jashodeep Datta, Matthew T. McMillan, Eric K. Shang, Ronac Mamtani, Russell S. Lewis Jr, Rachel R. Kelz, Ursina Teitelbaum, John P. Plastaras, Jeffrey A. Drebin, Douglas L. Fraker, Giorgos C. Karakousis and Robert E. Roses

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Gastric Cancer recommend adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy following after resection of gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) for patients who have not received neoadjuvant therapy. Despite frequent noncompliance with NCCN Guidelines nationally, risk factors underlying adjuvant therapy omission (ATom) have not been well characterized. We developed an internally validated preoperative instrument stratifying patients by incremental risk of ATom. The National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients with stage IB–III GA undergoing gastrectomy; those receiving neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Multivariable models identified factors associated with ATom between 2006 and 2011. Internal validation was performed using bootstrap analysis; model discrimination and calibration were assessed using k-fold cross-validation and Hosmer-Lemeshow procedures, respectively. Using weighted β-coefficients, a simplified Omission Risk Score (ORS) was created to stratify ATom risk. The impact of ATom on overall survival (OS) was examined in ORS risk-stratified cohorts. In 4,728 patients (median age, 70 years; 64.8% male), 53.7% had ATom. The bootstrap-validated model identified advancing age, comorbidity, underinsured/uninsured status, proximal tumor location, and clinical T1/2 and N0 tumors as independent ATom predictors, demonstrating good discrimination. The simplified ORS, stratifying patients into low-, moderate-, and high-risk categories, predicted incremental risk of ATom (30% vs 53% vs 80%, respectively) and progressive delay to adjuvant therapy initiation (median time, 51 vs 55 vs 61 days, respectively). Patients at moderate/high-risk of ATom demonstrated worsening risk-adjusted mortality compared with low-risk patients (median OS, 26.4 vs 29.2 months). This ORS may aid in rational selection of multimodality treatment sequence in GA.

Full access

Siddhartha Yadav, Sri Harsha Tella, Anuhya Kommalapati, Kristin Mara, Kritika Prasai, Mohamed Hamdy Mady, Mohamed Hassan, Rory L. Smoot, Sean P. Cleary, Mark J. Truty, Lewis R. Roberts and Amit Mahipal

Background: Current staging systems for gallbladder cancer (GBC) are primarily based on surgical pathology and therefore are not relevant for unresectable patients and those undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of GBC managed at a tertiary referral center (2000–2016) were included. Independent predictors of overall survival (OS) were identified using multivariable analysis (MVA). A combination of these variables was then assessed to identify a set of factors that provided maximal accuracy in predicting OS, and a nomogram and a new staging system were created based on these factors. Harrell’s C-statistic was calculated to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the nomogram and staging system. Results: A total of 528 patients were included in the final analysis. On MVA, factors predictive of poor OS were older age, ECOG performance status, hemoglobin level <9 g/dL, presence of metastases, and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level >200 U/L. A nomogram and a 4-tier staging system predictive of OS were created using age at diagnosis, ECOG status, tumor size, presence or absence of metastasis, and ALP level. The C-statistic for this novel staging system was 0.71 compared with 0.69 for the TNM staging system (P=.08). In patients who did not undergo surgery, the C-statistics of the novel and TNM staging systems were 0.60 and 0.51, respectively (P<.001). Conclusions: We created a novel, clinically based staging system for GBC based on nonoperative information at the time of diagnosis that was superior to the TNM staging system in predicting OS in patients who did not undergo surgery, and that performed on par with TNM staging in surgical patients.

Full access

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2020

Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines

Robert J. Motzer, Eric Jonasch, M. Dror Michaelson, Lakshminarayanan Nandagopal, John L. Gore, Saby George, Ajjai Alva, Naomi Haas, Michael R. Harrison, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Jeffrey Sosman, Neeraj Agarwal, Sam Bhayani, Toni K. Choueiri, Brian A. Costello, Ithaar H. Derweesh, Thomas H. Gallagher, Steven L. Hancock, Christos Kyriakopoulos, Chad LaGrange, Elaine T. Lam, Clayton Lau, Bryan Lewis, Brandon Manley, Brittany McCreery, Andrew McDonald, Amir Mortazavi, Phillip M. Pierorazio, Lee Ponsky, Bruce G. Redman, Bradley Somer, Geoffrey Wile, Mary A. Dwyer, CGC, Lydia J. Hammond and Griselda Zuccarino-Catania

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non–clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.