The optimal strategy to achieve palliation of malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) is unknown. This multi-institutional, prospective, randomized trial compares 2 established methods for controlling symptomatic unilateral MPEs. Patients with unilateral MPEs were randomized to either daily tunneled catheter drainage (TCD) or bedside talc pleurodesis (TP). This trial is patterned after a previous randomized trial that showed that bedside TP was equivalent to thoracoscopic TP (CALGB 9334). The primary end point of the current study was combined success: consistent/reliable drainage/pleurodesis, lung expansion, and 30-day survival. A secondary end point, survival with effusion control, was added retrospectively. This trial randomized 57 patients who were similar in terms of age (62 years), active chemotherapy (28%), and histologic diagnosis (lung, 63%; breast, 12%; other/unknown cancers, 25%) to either bedside TP or TCD. Combined success was higher with TCD (62%) than with TP (46%; odds ratio, 5.0; P = .064). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that patients treated with TCD had better 30-day activity without dyspnea scores (8.7 vs. 5.9; P = .036), especially in the subgroup with impaired expansion (9.1 vs. 4.6; P = .042). Patients who underwent TCD had better survival with effusion control at 30 days compared with those who underwent TP (82% vs. 52%, respectively; P = .024). In this prospective randomized trial, TCD achieved superior palliation of unilateral MPEs than TP, particularly in patients with trapped lungs.
Todd L. Demmy, Lin Gu, Jack E. Burkhalter, Eric M. Toloza, Thomas A. D'Amico, Susan Sutherland, Xiaofei Wang, Laura Archer, Linda J. Veit, Leslie Kohman and the Cancer and Leukemia Group B
Stanley J. Miller, Murad Alam, James Andersen, Daniel Berg, Christopher K. Bichakjian, Glen Bowen, Richard T. Cheney, L. Frank Glass, Roy C. Grekin, Dennis E. Hallahan, Anne Kessinger, Nancy Y. Lee, Nanette Liegeois, Daniel D. Lydiatt, Jeff Michalski, William H. Morrison, Kishwer S. Nehal, Kelly C. Nelson, Paul Nghiem, Thomas Olencki, Allan R. Oseroff, Clifford S. Perlis, E. William Rosenberg, Ashok R. Shaha, Marshall M. Urist and Linda C. Wang
Merkel Cell Carcinoma 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.OverviewMerkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare, aggressive cutaneous tumor that combines the local recurrence rates of infiltrative non-melanoma skin cancer along with the regional and distant metastatic rates of thick melanoma.1–16 Several large reviews document the development of local recurrence in 25% to 30% of all cases of MCC, regional disease in 52% to 59%, and distant metastatic disease in 34% to 36%.1,16,17 MCC has a mortality rate that exceeds that of melanoma;18 overall 5-year survival rates range from 30% to 64%.3,19 A history of extensive sun exposure is a risk factor for MCC. Older white men (≥ 65 years) are at higher risk for MCC, which tends to occur on the areas of the skin that are exposed to sun.20The NCCN Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer Panel has developed guidelines outlining treatment of...
Stanley J. Miller, Murad Alam, James Andersen, Daniel Berg, Christopher K. Bichakjian, Glen Bowen, Richard T. Cheney, L. Frank Glass, Roy C. Grekin, Anne Kessinger, Nancy Y. Lee, Nanette Liegeois, Daniel D. Lydiatt, Jeff Michalski, William H. Morrison, Kishwer S. Nehal, Kelly C. Nelson, Paul Nghiem, Thomas Olencki, Clifford S. Perlis, E. William Rosenberg, Ashok R. Shaha, Marshall M. Urist, Linda C. Wang and John A. Zic
OverviewBasal and squamous cell skin cancers, collectively known as non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC), are the most common skin cancers.1,2 More than 1 million cases of NMSC are estimated to be diagnosed each year in the United States and their incidence is rising rapidly.3,4 Basal cell carcinomas are approximately 4 to 5 times more common than squamous cell carcinomas. Although rarely metastatic, basal and squamous cell cancers can produce substantial local destruction along with disfigurement, and may involve extensive areas of soft tissue, cartilage, and bone. The estimated annual cost of treating these 2 diseases in the United States Medicare population exceeds $400 million.5 However, NMSCs generally have a good prognosis.The most significant environmental carcinogen for NMSC is sunlight.6 Thus, individuals in Hawaii are at much greater risk than those in the northern parts of the United States. Fair-skinned individuals who have received too much sun exposure are at the greatest risk for these cancers. Most of these tumors develop on sun-exposed skin sites. The most common sites are on the head and neck area. According to a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, long-term survivors of childhood and adolescent cancers who have undergone prior radiation therapy are also at risk for developing NMSC.7Actinic keratoses are sun-induced precancerous lesions.8,9 Bowen's disease is characterized by squamous cell carcinoma in situ lesions that occur predominantly in older persons.10 Both types of lesions, if untreated, can progress to invasive squamous cell carcinoma with the potential for metastasis.Skin cancer preventive...