Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author: Lisle M. Nabell x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Christos Vaklavas, John R. Ross, Lisle M. Nabell, Andres Forero, Martin J. Heslin and Tina E. Wood

Advances in cancer genomics have led to the recognition of a growing number of high-penetrance single-gene cancer predisposition syndromes. Frequently, the suspicion for a hereditary syndrome is raised by a strongly positive family history. However, other features, such as younger-than-usual age at diagnosis and rare histology should also prompt consideration of a genetic syndrome. Common malignancies frequently show a positive family history without an eponymous syndrome being recognized. This article reports on a case with an unusual constellation of malignancies with distinctive pathologies, which raised suspicion for an eponymous cancer pre-disposition syndrome. Absent a positive family history, a de novo mutation—an alteration in a gene that is present for the first time in a family member as a result of a mutation in a germ cell of one of the parents or in the fertilized ovum—was suspected. The authors discuss indications for genetic counseling and testing, limitations, and the evidence that supports the recommendations as formulated by working groups and the NCCN. Most frequently, these recommendations are reasonable statements based on the natural history of the disease, but without population-based studies for many rare syndromes, the actual penetrance, variable expressivity, and actual associated cancer risk are unknown.

Full access

Victor T.G. Lin, Lisle M. Nabell, Sharon A. Spencer, William R. Carroll, Shuko Harada and Eddy S. Yang

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.

Full access

Robert W. Carlson, D. Craig Allred, Benjamin O. Anderson, Harold J. Burstein, W. Bradford Carter, Stephen B. Edge, John K. Erban, William B. Farrar, Lori J. Goldstein, William J. Gradishar, Daniel F. Hayes, Clifford A. Hudis, Mohammad Jahanzeb, Krystyna Kiel, Britt-Marie Ljung, P. Kelly Marcom, Ingrid A. Mayer, Beryl McCormick, Lisle M. Nabell, Lori J. Pierce, Elizabeth C. Reed, Mary Lou Smith, George Somlo, Richard L. Theriault, Neal S. Topham, John H. Ward, Eric P. Winer and Antonio C. Wolff

Breast 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.The Breast Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines presented here are the work of the members of the NCCN Breast Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines Panel. Categories of evidence were assessed and are noted on the algorithms and in the text. Although not explicitly stated at every decision point of the Guidelines, patient participation in prospective clinical trials is the preferred option of treatment for all stages of breast cancer. The full breast cancer guidelines are not printed in this issue of JNCCN, but can be accessed online at www.nccn.org.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.OverviewThe American Cancer Society estimated that 184,450 new cases of invasive breast cancer would be diagnosed and 40,930 patients would die of the disease in the United States in 2008.1 In addition, approximately 67,770 women will be diagnosed with carcinoma in situ of the breast during the same...
Full access

Michael J. Berger, David S. Ettinger, Jonathan Aston, Sally Barbour, Jason Bergsbaken, Philip J. Bierman, Debra Brandt, Dawn E. Dolan, Georgiana Ellis, Eun Jeong Kim, Steve Kirkegaard, Dwight D. Kloth, Ruth Lagman, Dean Lim, Charles Loprinzi, Cynthia X. Ma, Victoria Maurer, Laura Boehnke Michaud, Lisle M. Nabell, Kim Noonan, Eric Roeland, Hope S. Rugo, Lee S. Schwartzberg, Bridget Scullion, John Timoney, Barbara Todaro, Susan G. Urba, Dorothy A. Shead and Miranda Hughes

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Antiemesis address all aspects of management for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Antiemesis, specifically those regarding carboplatin, granisetron, and olanzapine.