Salivary duct carcinoma (SDC) is a rare and aggressive malignancy for which limited data exist to guide treatment decisions. With the advent of advanced molecular testing and tumor genomic profiling, clinicians now have the ability to identify potential therapeutic targets in difficult-to-treat cancers such as SDC. This report presents a male patient with widely metastatic SDC found on targeted next-generation sequencing to have a BRAF p.V600E mutation. He experienced a prolonged and robust response to first-line systemic chemotherapy with dabrafenib and trametinib. During his response interval, new data emerged to justify subsequent treatment with both an immune checkpoint inhibitor and androgen blockade after his disease progressed. To our knowledge, this is the first report of frontline BRAF-directed therapy eliciting a response in metastatic SDC.
Victor T.G. Lin, Lisle M. Nabell, Sharon A. Spencer, William R. Carroll, Shuko Harada, and Eddy S. Yang
Rongbo Lin, Sunzhi Lin, Shuitu Feng, Qingyi Wu, Jianqian Fu, Fang Wang, Hui Li, Xiaofeng Li, Gaowang Zhang, Yongzhi Yao, Min Xin, Tianyang Lai, Xia Lv, Yigui Chen, Shangwang Yang, Yubiao Lin, Lixia Hong, Zhenyu Cai, Jianfeng Wang, Gen Lin, Shaowei Lin, Shen Zhao, Jinfeng Zhu, and Cheng Huang
Background: Opioid titration is necessary to achieve rapid, safe pain relief. Medication can be administered via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) or by a healthcare provider (non-PCA). We evaluated the efficacy of intravenous PCA versus non-PCA hydromorphone titration for severe cancer pain (≥7 at rest on the 11-point numeric rating scale [NRS]). Patients and Methods: Patients with severe cancer pain were randomized 1:1 to PCA or non-PCA titration, stratified by opioid-tolerant or opioid-naïve status. The PCA pump was set to no continuous dose, with a hydromorphone bolus dose 10% to 20% of the total previous 24-hour equianalgesic (for opioid-tolerant patients) or 0.5 mg (for opioid-naïve patients). For the non-PCA group, the initial hydromorphone bolus dose was identical to that in the PCA group, with the subsequent dose increased by 50% to 100% (for NRS unchanged or increased) or repeated at the current dose (for NRS 4–6). Hydromorphone delivery was initiated every 15 minutes (for NRS ≥4) or as needed (for NRS ≤3). The primary endpoint was time to successful titration (TST; time from first hydromorphone dose to first occurrence of NRS ≤3 in 2 consecutive 15-minute intervals). Results: Among 214 patients (PCA, n=106; non-PCA, n=108), median TSTs (95% CI) were 0.50 hours (0.25–0.50) and 0.79 hours (0.50–1.42) for the PCA and non-PCA groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.23–2.17; P=.001). TSTs in opioid-tolerant patients were 0.50 hours (0.25–0.75) and 1.00 hours (0.50–2.00) for the PCA and non-PCA groups, respectively (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.32–2.78; P=.003); in opioid-naive patients, TST was not significantly different for the PCA versus non-PCA groups (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.88–2.04; P=.162). Pain score (median NRS; interquartile range) over 24 hours was significantly lower in the PCA group (2.80; 2.15–3.22) than in the non-PCA group (3.00; 2.47–3.53; P=.020). PCA administration produces significantly higher patient satisfaction with pain control than non-PCA administration (P<.001). Conclusions: Intravenous hydromorphone titration for severe cancer pain was achieved more effectively with PCA than with non-PCA administration.
Wen-Zhuo He, Wan-Ming Hu, Fang Wang, Yu-Ming Rong, Lin Yang, Qian-Kun Xie, Yuan-Zhong Yang, Chang Jiang, Hui-Juan Qiu, Jia-Bin Lu, Bei Zhang, Pei-Rong Ding, Xiao-Jun Xia, Jian-Yong Shao, and Liang-Ping Xia
Background: Differences between the features of primary cancer and matched metastatic cancer have recently drawn attention in research. This study investigated the concordance in microsatellite instability (MSI) and mismatch repair (MMR) status between primary and corresponding metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Consecutive patients with metastatic CRC who had both primary and metastatic tumors diagnosed at our institution in January 2008 through December 2016 were identified. Immunohistochemistry was used to test the MMR status of both primary and matched metastatic tumors, and PCR analysis was performed to test MSI in patients with deficient MMR (dMMR) status. Results: A total of 369 patients were included. Of the 46 patients with MSI-high primary tumors, 37 (80.4%) also had MSI-high metastatic tumors, whereas 9 (19.6%) had microsatellite stable (MSS) metastatic tumors. A high concordance was found in patients with liver, lung, or distant lymph node metastases. Interestingly, the discrepancy was more likely to be limited to peritoneal (5/20) or ovarian (4/4) metastasis (chi-square test, P<.001). These organ-specific features were also found in the pooled analysis. Along with the change of MSI-high in primary cancer to MSS in metastatic cancer, lymphocyte infiltration decreased significantly (P=.008). However, the change did not influence survival; the median overall survival of MSI-high and MSS metastatic tumors was 21.3 and 21.6 months, respectively (P=.774). The discrepancy rate was 1.6% for patients with proficient MMR primary tumors. Conclusions: For patients with dMMR primary tumors, the concordance of MSI and MMR status in primary CRC and corresponding metastatic cancer is potentially organ-specific. High concordance is found in liver, lung, and distant lymph node metastases, whereas discrepancy is more likely to occur in peritoneal or ovarian metastasis. Rebiopsy to evaluate MSI-high/dMMR status might be needed during the course of anti–PD-1 therapy in cases of peritoneal or ovarian metastasis.
Yu-Pei Chen, Ya-Qin Wang, Wen-Fei Li, Lei Chen, Cheng Xu, Tai-Xiang Lu, Ai-Hua Lin, Ji-Jin Yao, Yang-Chan Li, Ying Sun, Yan-Ping Mao, and Jun Ma
Background: Given the distinct biological characteristics and regional distribution of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) compared with other head and neck cancers, and uncertainties regarding therapeutic strategies, physicians require high-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to provide transparent recommendations for NPC treatment. This study aimed to critically appraise the quality of NPC CPGs and assess the consistency of their recommendations. Methods: We identified CPGs that provided recommendations on the diagnosis and management of NPC published up to December 2015. Four investigators independently appraised CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Key recommendations by CPGs were also evaluated. Results: A total of 7 CPGs were eligible for this study: 5 produced by professional organizations or governmental agencies and 2 were developed based on expert consensus. Of the 6 AGREE II domains, the applicability domain scored consistently low across CPGs (range, 13.5%–30.2%); no CPG achieved a score of >50% in all 6 domains. The scope and purpose domain (≥73.6% for 4 CPGs) and editorial independence domain (≥75.0% for 6 CPGs) scored highest. Of the 23 AGREE II items, 9 scored less than half of the points available in all 7 CPGs. The recommendations by CPGs were consistent in general; heterogeneity mainly existed among recommended therapeutic strategies. Conclusions: Variation exists in NPC CPG development processes and recommendations. Increased efforts are required to make comprehensive resources available to guide healthcare providers and enhance delivery of high-quality, evidence-based care for NPC. International collaboration is necessary to enable the development of high-quality and regionally relevant CPGs for NPC.
David S. Ettinger, Douglas E. Wood, Dara L. Aisner, Wallace Akerley, Jessica Bauman, Lucian R. Chirieac, Thomas A. D'Amico, Malcolm M. DeCamp, Thomas J. Dilling, Michael Dobelbower, Robert C. Doebele, Ramaswamy Govindan, Matthew A. Gubens, Mark Hennon, Leora Horn, Ritsuko Komaki, Rudy P. Lackner, Michael Lanuti, Ticiana A. Leal, Leah J. Leisch, Rogerio Lilenbaum, Jules Lin, Billy W. Loo Jr, Renato Martins, Gregory A. Otterson, Karen Reckamp, Gregory J. Riely, Steven E. Schild, Theresa A. Shapiro, James Stevenson, Scott J. Swanson, Kurt Tauer, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina Gregory, and Miranda Hughes
This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) focuses on targeted therapies and immunotherapies for metastatic NSCLC, because therapeutic recommendations are rapidly changing for metastatic disease. For example, new recommendations were added for atezolizumab, ceritinib, osimertinib, and pembrolizumab for the 2017 updates.
David S. Ettinger, Douglas E. Wood, Wallace Akerley, Lyudmila A. Bazhenova, Hossein Borghaei, David Ross Camidge, Richard T. Cheney, Lucian R. Chirieac, Thomas A. D’Amico, Todd L. Demmy, Thomas J. Dilling, Ramaswamy Govindan, Frederic W. Grannis Jr, Leora Horn, Thierry M. Jahan, Ritsuko Komaki, Mark G. Kris, Lee M. Krug, Rudy P. Lackner, Michael Lanuti, Rogerio Lilenbaum, Jules Lin, Billy W. Loo Jr, Renato Martins, Gregory A. Otterson, Jyoti D. Patel, Katherine M. Pisters, Karen Reckamp, Gregory J. Riely, Eric Rohren, Steven Schild, Theresa A. Shapiro, Scott J. Swanson, Kurt Tauer, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina Gregory, and Miranda Hughes
This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) focuses on the principles of radiation therapy (RT), which include the following: (1) general principles for early-stage, locally advanced, and advanced/metastatic NSCLC; (2) target volumes, prescription doses, and normal tissue dose constraints for early-stage, locally advanced, and advanced/palliative RT; and (3) RT simulation, planning, and delivery. Treatment recommendations should be made by a multidisciplinary team, including board-certified radiation oncologists who perform lung cancer RT as a prominent part of their practice.
Li-Ting Liu, Qiu-Yan Chen, Lin-Quan Tang, Shan-Shan Guo, Ling Guo, Hao-Yuan Mo, Yang Li, Qing-Nan Tang, Xue-Song Sun, Yu-Jing Liang, Chong Zhao, Xiang Guo, Chao-Nan Qian, Mu-Sheng Zeng, Jin-Xin Bei, Ming-Huang Hong, Jian-Yong Shao, Ying Sun, Jun Ma, and Hai-Qiang Mai
Background: The goal of this study was to explore the value of adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) with different risks of treatment failure. Patients and Methods: A total of 2,263 eligible patients with stage III–IVb NPC treated with CCRT ± NACT or ACT were included in this retrospective study. Distant metastasis–free survival (DMFS), overall survival, and progression-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences were compared using the log-rank test. Results: Patients in the low-risk group (stage N0–1 disease and Epstein-Barr virus [EBV] DNA <4,000 copies/mL) who received NACT followed by CCRT achieved significantly better 5-year DMFS than those treated with CCRT alone (96.2% vs 91.3%; P= .008). Multivariate analyses also demonstrated that additional NACT was the only independent prognostic factor for DMFS (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22–0.80; P=.009). In both the intermediate-risk group (stage N0–1 disease and EBV DNA ≥4,000 copies/mL and stage N2–3 disease and EBV DNA <4,000 copies/mL) and the high-risk group (stage N2–3 disease and EBV DNA ≥4,000 copies/mL), comparison of NACT or ACT + CCRT versus CCRT alone indicated no significantly better survival for all end points. Conclusions: The addition of NACT to CCRT could reduce distant failure in patients with low risk of treatment failure.
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
David S. Ettinger, Douglas E. Wood, Charu Aggarwal, Dara L. Aisner, Wallace Akerley, Jessica R. Bauman, Ankit Bharat, Debora S. Bruno, Joe Y. Chang, Lucian R. Chirieac, Thomas A. D’Amico, Thomas J. Dilling, Michael Dobelbower, Scott Gettinger, Ramaswamy Govindan, Matthew A. Gubens, Mark Hennon, Leora Horn, Rudy P. Lackner, Michael Lanuti, Ticiana A. Leal, Jules Lin, Billy W. Loo Jr, Renato G. Martins, Gregory A. Otterson, Sandip P. Patel, Karen L. Reckamp, Gregory J. Riely, Steven E. Schild, Theresa A. Shapiro, James Stevenson, Scott J. Swanson, Kurt W. Tauer, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina Gregory, OCN, and Miranda Hughes
The NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in immunotherapy. For the 2020 update, all of the systemic therapy regimens have been categorized using a new preference stratification system; certain regimens are now recommended as “preferred interventions,” whereas others are categorized as either “other recommended interventions” or “useful under certain circumstances.”
David S. Ettinger, Douglas E. Wood, Wallace Akerley, Lyudmila A. Bazhenova, Hossein Borghaei, David Ross Camidge, Richard T. Cheney, Lucian R. Chirieac, Thomas A. D'Amico, Thomas J. Dilling, M. Chris Dobelbower, Ramaswamy Govindan, Mark Hennon, Leora Horn, Thierry M. Jahan, Ritsuko Komaki, Rudy P. Lackner, Michael Lanuti, Rogerio Lilenbaum, Jules Lin, Billy W. Loo Jr., Renato Martins, Gregory A. Otterson, Jyoti D. Patel, Katherine M. Pisters, Karen Reckamp, Gregory J. Riely, Steven E. Schild, Theresa A. Shapiro, Neelesh Sharma, James Stevenson, Scott J. Swanson, Kurt Tauer, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina Gregory, and Miranda Hughes
These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in the 2016 NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC; Versions 1–4). These NCCN Guidelines Insights will discuss new immunotherapeutic agents, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab, for patients with metastatic NSCLC. For the 2016 update, the NCCN panel recommends immune checkpoint inhibitors as preferred agents (in the absence of contraindications) for second-line and beyond (subsequent) therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC (both squamous and nonsquamous histologies). Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are preferred based on improved overall survival rates, higher response rates, longer duration of response, and fewer adverse events when compared with docetaxel therapy.
David S. Ettinger, Dara L. Aisner, Douglas E. Wood, Wallace Akerley, Jessica Bauman, Joe Y. Chang, Lucian R. Chirieac, Thomas A. D'Amico, Thomas J. Dilling, Michael Dobelbower, Ramaswamy Govindan, Matthew A. Gubens, Mark Hennon, Leora Horn, Rudy P. Lackner, Michael Lanuti, Ticiana A. Leal, Rogerio Lilenbaum, Jules Lin, Billy W. Loo Jr, Renato Martins, Gregory A. Otterson, Sandip P. Patel, Karen Reckamp, Gregory J. Riely, Steven E. Schild, Theresa A. Shapiro, James Stevenson, Scott J. Swanson, Kurt Tauer, Stephen C. Yang, Kristina Gregory, and Miranda Hughes
The NCCN Guidelines for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the targeted therapy and immunotherapy sections in the NCCN Guidelines. For the 2018 update, a new section on biomarkers was added.