Although clinical management of colon cancer generally has not accounted for the primary tumor site, left-sided and right-sided colon cancers harbor different clinical and biologic characteristics. Right-sided colon cancers are more likely to have genome-wide hypermethylation via the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), hypermutated state via microsatellite instability, and BRAF mutation. There are also differential exposures to potential carcinogenic toxins and microbiota in the right and left colon. Gene expression analyses further shed light on distinct biologic subtypes of colorectal cancers (CRCs), with 4 consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) identified. Importantly, these subtypes are differentially distributed between right- and left-sided CRCs, with greater proportions of the “microsatellite unstable/immune” CMS1 and the “metabolic” CMS3 subtypes found in right-sided colon cancers. This review summarizes important biologic distinctions between right- and left-sided CRCs that likely impact prognosis and may predict for differential responses to biologic therapy. Given the inferior prognosis of stage III–IV right-sided CRCs and emerging data suggesting that anti–epidermal growth factor receptor antibody therapy is associated with worse survival in right-sided stage IV CRCs compared with left-sided cancers, these biologic differences between right- and left-sided CRCs provide critical context and may provide opportunities to personalize therapy.
Right Versus Left Colon Cancer Biology: Integrating the Consensus Molecular Subtypes
Michael S. Lee, David G. Menter, and Scott Kopetz
Understanding Comorbidity Profiles and Their Effect on Treatment and Survival in Patients With Colorectal Cancer
Erin E. Hahn, Michael K. Gould, Corrine E. Munoz-Plaza, Janet S. Lee, Carla Parry, and Ernest Shen
Background: Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) commonly present at an older age with multiple comorbid conditions and complex care needs at the time of diagnosis. Clusters of comorbid conditions, or profiles, have not been systematically identified in this patient population. This study aimed to identify clinically distinct comorbidity profiles in a large sample of patients with CRC from an integrated healthcare system, and to examine the effect of comorbidity profiles on treatment and survival. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify comorbidity profiles in a sample of 7,803 patients with CRC diagnosed between 2008 and 2013. We identified treatment received from electronic health records and used Cox proportional hazards analysis to examine the effect of comorbidity class on survival. We also examined the effect of comorbidity profile on receipt of guideline-recommended treatment. Results: Median age at diagnosis was 66 years, 52% of patients were male, and 48% were nonwhite. A plurality had stage 0–I disease (42%), with 22% stage II, 22% stage III, and 14% stage IV. More than half (59%) had ≤1 comorbid condition, whereas 19% had ≥4 comorbidities. LCA identified 4 distinct comorbidity classes. Classes were distinguished by the presence or absence of vascular and/or respiratory disease and diabetes with complications, as well as progressively greater Charlson comorbidity index scores. Comorbidity class was independently associated with treatment selection (P<.001) and survival (P<.001). Conclusions: Patients with CRC can be described by 4 distinct comorbidity profiles that are independent predictors of treatment and survival. These results provide insight into how comorbidities cluster within patients with CRC. This work represents a shift away from simple counting of comorbid conditions and toward a more nuanced understanding of how comorbidities cluster within groups of patients with CRC.
The Affordable Care Act: Where Are We Now? An NCCN Roundtable
Christian G. Downs, Liz Fowler, Michael Kolodziej, Lee H. Newcomer, Mohammed S. Ogaily, W. Thomas Purcell, John C. Winkelmann, and Clifford Goodman
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a transformational event for health care in the United States, with multiple impacts on health care, the economy, and society. Oncologists and other health care providers are already experiencing many changes—direct and indirect, anticipated and unanticipated. A distinguished and diverse panel assembled at the NCCN 19th Annual Conference to discuss the early phase of implementation of the ACA. The roundtable touched on early successes and stumbling blocks; the impact of the ACA on contemporary oncology practice and the new risk pool facing providers, payers, and patients; and some of the current and future challenges that lie ahead for all.
Tumor Board Conferences for Multidisciplinary Skin Cancer Management: A Survey of US Cancer Centers
Shoko Mori, Cristian Navarrete-Dechent, Tatyana A. Petukhova, Erica H. Lee, Anthony M. Rossi, Michael A. Postow, Lara A. Dunn, Benjamin R. Roman, Vivian T. Yin, Daniel G. Coit, Travis J. Hollmann, Klaus J. Busam, Kishwer S. Nehal, and Christopher A. Barker
Background: Tumor board conferences (TBCs) are used by oncologic specialists to review patient cases, exchange knowledge, and discuss options for cancer management. These multidisciplinary meetings are often a cornerstone of treatment at leading cancer centers and are required for accreditation by certain groups, such as the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer. Little is known regarding skin cancer TBCs. The objective of this study was to characterize the structure, function, and impact of existing skin cancer TBCs in the United States. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was administered to physician leaders of skin cancer TBCs at NCI-designated Comprehensive and Clinical Cancer Centers. Results: Of the 59 centers successfully contacted, 14 (24%) reported not having a conference where skin cancer cases were discussed, and 45 (76%) identified 53 physician leaders. A total of 38 physicians (72%) completed the survey. Half of the meeting leaders were medical and/or surgical oncologists, and dermatologists led one-third of meetings. TBCs had a moderate to significant impact on patient care according to 97% of respondents. All respondents indicated that the meetings enhanced communication among physicians and provided an opportunity for involved specialists and professionals to discuss cases. The most frequently cited barrier to organizing TBCs was determining a common available date and time for attendees (62%). The most common suggestion for improvement was to increase attendance, specialists, and/or motivation. Conclusions: Results showed overall consistency in meeting structure but variability in function, which may be a reflection of institutional resources and investment in the conference. Future directions include defining metrics to evaluate changes in diagnosis or management plan after tumor board discussion, attendance, clinical trial enrollment, and cost analysis. Results of this survey may aid other institutions striving to develop and refine skin cancer TBCs.
Myeloid Growth Factors
Jeffrey Crawford, James Armitage, Lodovico Balducci, Pamela Sue Becker, Douglas W. Blayney, Spero R. Cataland, Mark L. Heaney, Susan Hudock, Dwight D. Kloth, David J. Kuter, Gary H. Lyman, Brandon McMahon, Hope S. Rugo, Ayman A. Saad, Lee S. Schwartzberg, Sepideh Shayani, David P. Steensma, Mahsa Talbott, Saroj Vadhan-Raj, Peter Westervelt, Michael Westmoreland, Mary Dwyer, and Maria Ho
Febrile neutropenia, a common side effect of myelosuppressive chemotherapy in patients with cancer, can result in prolonged hospitalization and broad-spectrum antibiotic use, often prompting treatment delays or dose reductions of drug regimens. Prophylactic use of myeloid growth factors (mainly the colony-stimulating factors filgrastim and pegfilgrastim) in patients of heightened risk can reduce the severity and duration of febrile neutropenia. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Myeloid Growth Factors provide recommendations on the use of these agents mainly in the oncology setting based on clinical evidence and expert consensus. This version includes revisions surrounding the issue of timing of pegfilgrastim administration. It also includes new sections on tbo-filgrastim, a recently approved agent that is biologically similar to filgrastim, and the role of myeloid growth factors in the hematopoietic cell transplant setting
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Antiemesis, Version 2.2017
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.
Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2014
James L. Mohler, Philip W. Kantoff, Andrew J. Armstrong, Robert R. Bahnson, Michael Cohen, Anthony Victor D’Amico, James A. Eastham, Charles A. Enke, Thomas A. Farrington, Celestia S. Higano, Eric Mark Horwitz, Mark H. Kawachi, Michael Kuettel, Richard J. Lee, Gary R. MacVicar, Arnold W. Malcolm, David Miller, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Julio M. Pow-Sang, Sylvia Richey, Mack Roach III, Eric Rohren, Stan Rosenfeld, Eric J. Small, Sandy Srinivas, Cy Stein, Seth A. Strope, Jonathan Tward, Patrick C. Walsh, Dorothy A. Shead, and Maria Ho
The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations on the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer. This report highlights notable recent updates. Radium-223 dichloride is a first-in-class radiopharmaceutical that recently received approval for the treatment of patients with symptomatic bone metastases and no known visceral disease. It received a category 1 recommendation as both a first-line and second-line option. The NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel also revised recommendations on the choice of intermittent or continuous androgen deprivation therapy based on recent phase III clinical data comparing the 2 strategies in the nonmetastatic and metastatic settings.
Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 5.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
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.
Prostate Cancer, Version 1.2016
James L. Mohler, Andrew J. Armstrong, Robert R. Bahnson, Anthony Victor D'Amico, Brian J. Davis, James A. Eastham, Charles A. Enke, Thomas A. Farrington, Celestia S. Higano, Eric M. Horwitz, Michael Hurwitz, Christopher J. Kane, Mark H. Kawachi, Michael Kuettel, Richard J. Lee, Joshua J. Meeks, David F. Penson, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Julio M. Pow-Sang, David Raben, Sylvia Richey, Mack Roach III, Stan Rosenfeld, Edward Schaeffer, Ted A. Skolarus, Eric J. Small, Guru Sonpavde, Sandy Srinivas, Seth A. Strope, Jonathan Tward, Dorothy A. Shead, and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass
The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer address staging and risk assessment after an initial diagnosis of prostate cancer and management options for localized, regional, and metastatic disease. Recommendations for disease monitoring, treatment of recurrent disease, and systemic therapy for metastatic castration-recurrent prostate cancer also are included. This article summarizes the NCCN Prostate Cancer Panel's most significant discussions for the 2016 update of the guidelines, which include refinement of risk stratification methods and new options for the treatment of men with high-risk and very-high-risk disease and progressive castration-naïve disease.
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 5.2018
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.