Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 24 items for

  • Author: Matthew Smith x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Adverse Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy: Defining the Problem and Promoting Health Among Men with Prostate Cancer

Philip J. Saylor and Matthew R. Smith

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) plays a central role in the management of men with locally advanced, recurrent, and metastatic prostate cancer. Because most men diagnosed with prostate cancer will die of something other than their cancer, treatment-related adverse effects are highly relevant to their long-term health. Benefits of ADT in each clinical setting must be weighed against ADT-related adverse effects. ADT is detrimental to several metabolic end points and to bone health. ADT has been prospectively shown to cause decreased lean muscle mass, increased fat mass, weight gain, increased cholesterol and triglycerides, insulin resistance, and loss of bone mineral density. In population-based analyses it has been associated with an increased incidence of diabetes, clinical fractures, and cardiovascular disease. Data-driven recommendations for managing these adverse effects are needed. Currently the authors advocate the use of adapted practice guidelines developed to prevent diabetes, fractures, and coronary heart disease in the general population.

Full access

SupportScreen: A Model for Improving Patient Outcomes

Matthew Loscalzo, Karen Clark, Jeff Dillehunt, Redmond Rinehart, Rex Strowbridge, and Daniel Smith

As demands on physician time mount, and patients and families increasingly expect accommodation and understanding of their specific, personal situations, care providers must boost efficiency and minimize the expense of their clinic processes and draw on connections with community resources. Third-party payors may also expect that the biopsychosocial needs of patients and families be addressed as an essential part of cancer care. Quality of care, cost, patient satisfaction, adherence to treatment, safety, and allocation of limited resources are all related to the identification and effective management of the psychosocial elements of cancer care. Experts suggest that health care has lagged far behind other industries in using technology to improve efficiency, and slow adoption of this technology means that critical information about the biopsychosocial needs of patients fails to reach the right professionals in a timely way. Systematic and automated screening can promote physician control in managing time, the efficiency of the clinical encounter, and rapid triage to other professionals and community resources.

Full access

The Science and Practice of Bone Health in Oncology: Managing Bone Loss and Metastasis in Patients With Solid Tumors

Allan Lipton, Robert Uzzo, Robert J. Amato, Georgiana K. Ellis, Behrooz Hakimian, G. David Roodman, and Matthew R. Smith

Cancer and its treatment can compromise bone health, leading to fracture, pain, loss of mobility, and hypercalcemia of malignancy. Bone metastasis occurs frequently in advanced prostate and breast cancers, and bony manifestations are commonplace in multiple myeloma. Osteoporosis and osteopenia may be consequences of androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer, aromatase inhibition for breast cancer, or chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure. Osteoporotic bone loss and bone metastasis ultimately share a pathophysiologic pathway that stimulates bone resorption by increasing the formation and activity of osteoclasts. Important mediators of pathologic bone metabolism include substances produced by osteoblasts, such as RANKL, the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand, which spurs osteoclast differentiation from myeloid cells. Available therapies are targeted to various steps in cascade of bone metastasis.

Full access

Financial Burdens of Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors and Outcomes

Grace L. Smith, Maria A. Lopez-Olivo, Pragati G. Advani, Matthew S. Ning, Yimin Geng, Sharon H. Giordano, and Robert J. Volk

Background: Patients with cancer experience financial toxicity from the costs of treatment, as well as material and psychologic stress related to this burden. A synthesized understanding of predictors and outcomes of the financial burdens associated with cancer care is needed to underpin strategic responses in oncology care. This study systematically reviewed risk factors and outcomes associated with financial burdens related to cancer treatment. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched from study inception through June 2018, and reference lists were scanned from studies of patient-level predictors and outcomes of financial burdens in US patients with cancer (aged ≥18 years). Two reviewers conducted screening, abstraction, and quality assessment. Variables associated with financial burdens were synthesized. When possible, pooled estimates of associations were calculated using random-effects models. Results: A total of 74 observational studies of financial burdens in 598,751 patients with cancer were identified, among which 49% of patients reported material or psychologic financial burdens (95% CI, 41%–56%). Socioeconomic predictors of worse financial burdens with treatment were lack of health insurance, lower income, unemployment, and younger age at cancer diagnosis. Compared with patients with health insurance, those who were uninsured demonstrated twice the odds of financial burdens (pooled odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% CI, 1.33–3.30). Financial burdens were most severe early in cancer treatment, did not differ by disease site, and were associated with worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and nearly twice the odds of cancer medication nonadherence (pooled OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.13–2.56). Only a single study demonstrated an association with increased mortality. Studies assessing the comparative effectiveness of interventions to mitigate financial burdens in patients with cancer were lacking. Conclusions: Evidence showed that financial burdens are common, disproportionately impacting younger and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with cancer, across disease sites, and are associated with worse treatment adherence and HRQoL. Available evidence helped identify vulnerable patients needing oncology provider engagement and response, but evidence is critically needed on the effectiveness of interventions designed to mitigate financial burden and impact.

Full access

The Evolution of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Clinical Trials: Application of the ASCO Framework for Assessing Value

Doreen A. Ezeife, Sunil Parimi, Ellen R. Cusano, Matthew K. Smith, Tony H. Truong, Soundouss Raissouni, Yongtao Lin, Jose G. Monzon, Haocheng Li, Vincent C. Tam, and Patricia A. Tang

Background: Phase III trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have collectively led to progressive advancements in patient outcomes over the past decades. This study characterizes the evolution of mCRC phase III trials through assessing the value of cancer therapy, as measured by the ASCO Value Framework. Methods: Phase III trial results of systemic therapy for mCRC published between 1980 and 2015 were identified, and their outcome, statistical significance, journal impact factor, and citation by the 2016 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for CRC were recorded. For each trial, the net health benefit (NHB) score was calculated using the June 2015 (original) and May 2016 (revised) ASCO Value Framework: Advanced Disease. Results: There were 114 mCRC phase III trials eligible for calculation of the NHB score. Using the revised framework, the median NHB score was 4.6 (range, −30 to 43.5); 12% of trials received bonus points. Trials with statistically significant results had higher NHB scores compared with nonsignificant trials (median NHB score, 21.6 vs 2.9; P<.0001). Clinical trials cited in the NCCN Guidelines had higher NHB scores than those not cited (median score, 8.0 vs 0.3; P=.02). In multivariate linear regression analysis, the only significant predictor of high NHB score was statistically significant studies. Conclusions: The median NHB score for mCRC phase III trials was 4.6. Higher NHB scores are associated with statistically significant studies and are cited in the NCCN Guidelines, a surrogate for practice-changing trials. The 2016 ASCO Value Framework may not fully capture the benefits on an individual patient level.

Full access

NCCN Task Force Report: Bone Health and Cancer Care

Richard L. Theriault, J. Sybil Biermann, Elizabeth Brown, Adam Brufsky, Laurence Demers, Ravinder K. Grewal, Theresa Guise, Rebecca Jackson, Kevin McEnery, Donald Podoloff, Peter Ravdin, Charles L. Shapiro, Matthew Smith, and Catherine H. Van Poznak

Higher incidences of osteoporosis and osteopenia are found in cancer patients, particularly in women receiving aromatase inhibitors or with chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure, or in men with prostate cancer and androgen deprivation therapy. Therefore, management of long-term bone health is emerging as an important aspect of comprehensive cancer care. Patients with cancer typically have a number of additional risk factors for osteoporosis that should prompt screening, regardless of patient age or sex. Maintaining bone health requires a broad knowledge base, including understanding underlying bone metabolism and how it is affected by both cancer itself and the drugs used to treat cancer, the effect of chemotherapy-induced menopause on bone health, bone markers and imaging techniques used to assess bone health, therapeutic strategies to maintain bone health, and treatment of bone metastases, including surgery for pathologic fractures. Multiple members of the healthcare team may need to be involved in education and care of the patient. This report summarizes discussion of these and other issues regarding bone health and cancer care from the NCCN Bone Health and Cancer Care Task Force meeting in early 2006. (JNCCN 2006;4(Suppl 2):S1-S24)

Full access

NCCN Task Force Report: Bone Health in Cancer Care

Julie R. Gralow, J. Sybil Biermann, Azeez Farooki, Monica N. Fornier, Robert F. Gagel, Rashmi N. Kumar, Charles L. Shapiro, Andrew Shields, Matthew R. Smith, Sandy Srinivas, and Catherine H. Van Poznak

Bone health and maintenance of bone integrity are important components of comprehensive cancer care in both early and late stages of disease. Risk factors for osteoporosis are increased in patients with cancer, including women with chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure, those treated with aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer, men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer, and patients undergoing glucocorticoid therapy. The skeleton is a common site of metastatic cancer recurrence, and skeletal-related events are the cause of significant morbidity. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a multidisciplinary task force on Bone Health in Cancer Care to discuss the progress made in identifying effective screening and therapeutic options for management of treatment-related bone loss; understanding the factors that result in bone metastases; managing skeletal metastases; and evolving strategies to reduce bone recurrences. This report summarizes presentations made at the meeting.

Full access

A Randomized Phase II Study of Cetuximab Every 2 Weeks at Either 500 or 750 mg/m2 for Patients With Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancer

Matthew G. Fury, Eric Sherman, Donna Lisa, Neeraj Agarwal, Kenneth Algazy, Bruce Brockstein, Corey Langer, Dean Lim, Ranee Mehra, Sandeep K. Rajan, Susan Korte, Brynna Lipson, Furhan Yunus, Tawee Tanvetyanon, Stephanie Smith-Marrone, Kenneth Ng, Han Xiao, Sofia Haque, and David G. Pfister

Cetuximab is typically administered on a weekly schedule for patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC). This study explores cetuximab administered every 2 weeks (q2w). In this multicenter randomized prospective phase II study, eligible patients (≤2 prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens for recurrent or metastatic disease; ECOG performance status ≤2) were randomized to receive cetuximab q2w at 500 mg/m2 (Group A) or 750 mg/m2 (Group B). The primary end point was response rate (RECIST 1.0). Sixty-one patients were enrolled: 35 in Group A and 26 in Group B, which was closed early for lack of efficacy. Confirmed partial response rates were 11% for Group A (4/35) and 8% for Group B (2/26) according to intention to treat analysis. Partial responses occurred only among patients whose primary tumors were in the oral cavity or larynx. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were similar for both groups (PFS, 2.2 and 2.0 months; OS, 7.0 and 9.4 months; Groups A and B, respectively). The most common cetuximab-related adverse events (all grades) among treated subjects included rash, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia. Cetuximab, 500 mg/m2, q2w achieves similar efficacy as conventional dosing for patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. Escalating the dose to 750 mg/m2 q2w offers no obvious therapeutic advantage.

Full access

Invasive Breast Cancer Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

William J. Gradishar, Benjamin O. Anderson, Ron Balassanian, Sarah L. Blair, Harold J. Burstein, Amy Cyr, Anthony D. Elias, William B. Farrar, Andres Forero, Sharon Hermes Giordano, Matthew Goetz, Lori J. Goldstein, Clifford A. Hudis, Steven J. Isakoff, P. Kelly Marcom, Ingrid A. Mayer, Beryl McCormick, Meena Moran, Sameer A. Patel, Lori J. Pierce, Elizabeth C. Reed, Kilian E. Salerno, Lee S. Schwartzberg, Karen Lisa Smith, Mary Lou Smith, Hatem Soliman, George Somlo, Melinda Telli, John H. Ward, Dorothy A. Shead, and Rashmi Kumar

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States and is second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer death. The overall management of breast cancer includes the treatment of local disease with surgery, radiation therapy, or both, and the treatment of systemic disease with cytotoxic chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, biologic therapy, or combinations of these. This article outlines the NCCN Guidelines specific to breast cancer that is locoregional (restricted to one region of the body), and discusses the management of clinical stage I, II, and IIIA (T3N1M0) tumors. For NCCN Guidelines on systemic adjuvant therapy after locoregional management of clinical stage I, II and IIIA (T3N1M0) and for management for other clinical stages of breast cancer, see the complete version of these guidelines at NCCN.org.

Full access

Breast Cancer Version 2.2015

William J. Gradishar, Benjamin O. Anderson, Ron Balassanian, Sarah L. Blair, Harold J. Burstein, Amy Cyr, Anthony D. Elias, William B. Farrar, Andres Forero, Sharon Hermes Giordano, Matthew Goetz, Lori J. Goldstein, Clifford A. Hudis, Steven J. Isakoff, P. Kelly Marcom, Ingrid A. Mayer, Beryl McCormick, Meena Moran, Sameer A. Patel, Lori J. Pierce, Elizabeth C. Reed, Kilian E. Salerno, Lee S. Schwartzberg, Karen Lisa Smith, Mary Lou Smith, Hatem Soliman, George Somlo, Melinda Telli, John H. Ward, Dorothy A. Shead, and Rashmi Kumar

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States and is second only to lung cancer as a cause of cancer death. The overall management of breast cancer includes the treatment of local disease with surgery, radiation therapy, or both, and the treatment of systemic disease with cytotoxic chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, biologic therapy, or combinations of these. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines discusses recommendations specific to the locoregional management of clinical stage I, II, and IIIA (T3N1M0) tumors.