Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 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, Susan Moench, Arti Hurria, Lodovico Balducci, Harold J. Burstein, Lori J. Goldstein, William J. Gradishar, Kevin S. Hughes, Mohammad Jahanzeb, Stuart M. Lichtman, Lawrence B. Marks, Joan S. McClure, Beryl McCormick, Lisle M. Nabell, Lori J. Pierce, Mary Lou Smith, Neal S. Topham, Tiffany A. Traina, John H. Ward and Eric P. Winer

Breast cancer is common in older women, and the segment of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older is growing rapidly. Consequently, awareness is increasing of the need to identify breast cancer treatment recommendations to assure optimal, individualized treatment of older women with breast cancer. However, the development of these recommendations is limited by the heterogeneous nature of this population with respect to functional status, social support, life expectancy, and the presence of comorbidities, and by the underrepresentation of older patients with breast cancer in randomized clinical trials. The NCCN Breast Cancer in the Older Woman Task Force was convened to provide a forum for framing relevant questions on topics that impact older women with early-stage, locally advanced, and metastatic breast cancer. The task force is a multidisciplinary panel of 18 experts in breast cancer representing medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, geriatric oncology, geriatrics, plastic surgery, and patient advocacy. All task force members were from NCCN institutions and were identified and invited solely by NCCN. Members were charged with identifying evidence relevant to their specific expertise. During a 2-day meeting, individual members provided didactic presentations; these presentations were followed by extensive discussions during which areas of consensus and controversy were identified on topics such as defining the “older” breast cancer patient; geriatric assessment tools in the oncology setting; attitudes of older patients with breast cancer and their physicians; tumor biology in older versus younger women with breast cancer; implementation of specific interventions in older patients with breast cancer, such as curative surgery, surgical axillary staging, radiation therapy, reconstructive surgery, endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, HER2-directed therapy, and supportive therapies; and areas requiring future studies. (JNCCN 2008;6[Suppl 4]:S1–S25)

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 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. 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. Overview The 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

Robert A. Swarm, Judith A. Paice, Doralina L. Anghelescu, Madhuri Are, Justine Yang Bruce, Sorin Buga, Marcin Chwistek, Charles Cleeland, David Craig, Ellin Gafford, Heather Greenlee, Eric Hansen, Arif H. Kamal, Mihir M. Kamdar, Susan LeGrand, Sean Mackey, M. Rachel McDowell, Natalie Moryl, Lisle M. Nabell, Suzanne Nesbit, BCPS, Nina O’Connor, Michael W. Rabow, Elizabeth Rickerson, Rebecca Shatsky, Jill Sindt, Susan G. Urba, Jeanie M. Youngwerth, Lydia J. Hammond and Lisa A. Gurski

In recent years, the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Adult Cancer Pain have undergone substantial revisions focusing on the appropriate and safe prescription of opioid analgesics, optimization of nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant medications, and integration of nonpharmacologic methods of cancer pain management. This selection highlights some of these changes, covering topics on management of adult cancer pain including pharmacologic interventions, nonpharmacologic interventions, and treatment of specific cancer pain syndromes. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Adult Cancer Pain addresses additional aspects of this topic, including pathophysiologic classification of cancer pain syndromes, comprehensive pain assessment, management of pain crisis, ongoing care for cancer pain, pain in cancer survivors, and specialty consultations.

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.