Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 43 items for

  • Author: Richard J. Lee x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Current Status of MRI and PET in the NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer

Brandon R. Mason, James A. Eastham, Brian J. Davis, Lance A. Mynderse, Thomas J. Pugh, Richard J. Lee, and Joseph E. Ippolito

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a significant source of morbidity and mortality for men in the United States, with approximately 1 in 9 being diagnosed with PCa in their lifetime. The role of imaging in the evaluation of men with PCa has evolved and currently plays a central role in diagnosis, treatment planning, and evaluation of recurrence. Appropriate use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and MRI-guided transrectal ultrasound (MR-TRUS) biopsy increases the detection of clinically significant PCa while decreasing the detection of clinically insignificant PCa. This process may help patients with clinically insignificant PCa avoid the adverse effects of unnecessary therapy. In the setting of a known PCa, patients with low-grade disease can be observed using active surveillance, which often includes a combination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, serial mpMRI, and, if indicated, follow-up systematic and targeted TRUS-guided tissue sampling. mpMRI can provide important information in the posttreatment setting, but PET/CT is creating a paradigm shift in imaging standards for patients with locally recurrent and metastatic PCa. This article examines the strengths and limitations of mpMRI for initial PCa diagnosis, active surveillance, recurrent disease evaluation, and image-guided biopsies, and the use of PET/CT imaging in men with recurrent PCa. The goal of this review is to provide a rational basis for current NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for PCa as they pertain to the use of these advanced imaging modalities.

Full access

NCCN Task Force: Clinical Utility of PET in a Variety of Tumor Types

Donald A. Podoloff, Douglas W. Ball, Edgar Ben-Josef, Al B. Benson III, Steven J. Cohen, R. Edward Coleman, Dominique Delbeke, Maria Ho, David H. Ilson, Gregory P. Kalemkerian, Richard J. Lee, Jay S. Loeffler, Homer A. Macapinlac, Robert J. Morgan Jr., Barry Alan Siegel, Seema Singhal, Douglas S. Tyler, and Richard J. Wong

Use of PET is widespread and increasing in the United States, mainly for oncologic applications. In November 2006, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) gathered a panel of experts to review the literature and develop clinical recommendations for using PET scans in lymphoma and non–small cell lung, breast, and colorectal cancers. However, because its use is not restricted to these diseases, and evidence is accumulating for its application in other types of cancers, NCCN convened a second meeting in December 2008 to expand on the initial report. A multidisciplinary panel met to discuss the current data on PET application for various tumor types, including genitourinary, gynecologic, pancreatic, hepatobiliary, thyroid, brain, small cell lung, gastric, and esophageal cancers, and sarcoma and myeloma. This report summarizes the proceedings of this meeting, including discussions of the background of PET, the role of PET in oncology, principles of PET use, emerging applications, and possible future developments.

Full access

Association of Polypharmacy and Potentially Inappropriate Medications With Frailty Among Older Adults With Blood Cancers

Tammy T. Hshieh, Clark DuMontier, Timothy Jaung, Nupur E. Bahl, Chelsea E. Hawley, Lee Mozessohn, Richard M. Stone, Robert J. Soiffer, Jane A. Driver, and Gregory A. Abel

Background: Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are common among older adults with blood cancers, but their association with frailty and how to manage them optimally remain unclear. Patients and Methods: From 2015 to 2019, patients aged ≥75 years presenting for initial oncology consult underwent screening geriatric assessment. Patients were determined to be robust, prefrail, or frail via deficit accumulation and phenotypic approaches. We quantified each patient’s total number of medications and PIMs using the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS) and a scale we generated using the NCCN Medications of Concern called the Geriatric Oncology Potentially Inappropriate Medications (GO-PIM) scale. We assessed cross-sectional associations of PIMs with frailty in multivariable regression models adjusting for age, gender, and comorbidity. Results: Of 785 patients assessed, 603 (77%) were taking ≥5 medications and 421 (54%) were taking ≥8 medications; 201 (25%) were taking at least 1 PIM based on the ARS and 343 (44%) at least 1 PIM based on the GO-PIM scale. Among the 468 (60%) patients on active cancer treatment, taking ≥8 medications was associated with frailty (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.82; 95% CI, 1.92–4.17). With each additional medication, the odds of being prefrail or frail increased 8% (aOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04–1.12). With each 1-point increase on the ARS, the odds of being prefrail or frail increased 19% (aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03–1.39); with each additional PIM based on the GO-PIM scale, the odds increased 65% (aOR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.34–2.04). Conclusions: Polypharmacy and PIMs are prevalent among older patients with blood cancers; taking ≥8 medications is strongly associated with frailty. These data suggest careful medication reconciliation for this population may be helpful, and deprescribing when possible is high-yield, especially for PIMs on the GO-PIM scale.

Full access

Current Practices for Screening and Management of Financial Distress at NCCN Member Institutions

Nandita Khera, Jessica Sugalski, Diana Krause, Richard Butterfield III, Nan Zhang, F. Marc Stewart, Robert W. Carlson, Joan M. Griffin, S. Yousuf Zafar, and Stephanie J. Lee

Background: Financial distress from medical treatment is an increasing concern. Healthcare organizations may have different levels of organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes of screening and management of patient financial distress. Patients and Methods: In November 2018, representatives from 17 (63%) of the 27 existing NCCN Member Institutions completed an online survey. The survey focused on screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes about such practices. Due to the lack of a validated questionnaire in this area, survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search and discussions among the study team, including NCCN Best Practices Committee representatives. Results: Responses showed that 76% of centers routinely screened for financial distress, mostly with social worker assessment (94%), and that 56% screened patients multiple times. All centers offered programs to help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers, and payment plans. Charity care was provided by 100% of the large centers (≥10,000 unique annual patients) but none of the small centers that responded (<10,000 unique annual patients; P=.008). Metrics to evaluate the impact of financial advocacy services included number of patients assisted, bad debt/charity write-offs, or patient satisfaction surveys. The effectiveness of institutional practices for screening and management of financial distress was reported as poor/very poor by 6% of respondents. Inadequate staffing and resources, limited budget, and lack of reimbursement were potential barriers in the provision of these services. A total of 94% agreed with the need for better integration of financial advocacy into oncology practice. Conclusions: Three-fourths of NCCN Member Institutions reported screening and management programs for financial distress, although the actual practices and range of services vary. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar programs and identify best practices in this area.

Full access

CLO20-041: Prognostic Factors in Major Salivary Gland Tumors Treated with Adjuvant Radiation Therapy

Jung Julie Kang, Hannah Verma, Kaveh Zakeri, Huili Wang, Dan Fan, Ming Fan, Anna Lee, Sarin Kitpanit, Linda Chen, Yao Yu, C. Jillian Tsai, Sean McBride, Nadeem Riaz, Daphna Gelblum, Alan S. Ho, Eric Sherman, Lara Dunn, Jay O. Boyle, Richard J. Wong, Ian Ganly, and Nancy Y. Lee

Full access

Breast Cancer, Version 3.2013

Richard L. Theriault, Robert W. Carlson, Craig Allred, Benjamin O. Anderson, Harold J. Burstein, Stephen B. Edge, William B. Farrar, Andres Forero, Sharon Hermes Giordano, Lori J. Goldstein, William J. Gradishar, Daniel F. Hayes, Clifford A. Hudis, Steven J. Isakoff, Britt-Marie E. Ljung, David A. Mankoff, P. Kelly Marcom, Ingrid A. Mayer, Beryl McCormick, Lori J. Pierce, Elizabeth C. Reed, Lee S. Schwartzberg, Mary Lou Smith, Hatem Soliman, George Somlo, John H. Ward, Antonio C. Wolff, Richard Zellars, Dorothy A. Shead, and Rashmi Kumar

These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the important updates specific to the management of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the 2013 version of the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Breast Cancer. These include new first-line and subsequent therapy options for patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Full access

Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

Robert J. Morgan Jr., Ronald D. Alvarez, Deborah K. Armstrong, Barry Boston, Robert A. Burger, Lee-may Chen, Larry Copeland, Marta Ann Crispens, David Gershenson, Heidi J. Gray, Perry W. Grigsby, Ardeshir Hakam, Laura J. Havrilesky, Carolyn Johnston, Shashikant Lele, Ursula A. Matulonis, David M. O'Malley, Richard T. Penson, Steven W. Remmenga, Paul Sabbatini, Russell J. Schilder, Julian C. Schink, Nelson Teng, and Theresa L. Werner

Full access

Ovarian Cancer, Version 3.2012

Robert J. Morgan, Ronald D. Alvarez, Deborah K. Armstrong, Robert A. Burger, Mariana Castells, Lee-may Chen, Larry Copeland, Marta Ann Crispens, David Gershenson, Heidi Gray, Ardeshir Hakam, Laura J. Havrilesky, Carolyn Johnston, Shashikant Lele, Lainie Martin, Ursula A. Matulonis, David M. O’Malley, Richard T. Penson, Steven W. Remmenga, Paul Sabbatini, Joseph T. Santoso, Russell J. Schilder, Julian Schink, Nelson Teng, Theresa L. Werner, Miranda Hughes, and Mary A. Dwyer

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the major updates for the 2012 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Ovarian Cancer by describing how and why the new recommendations were made. The 6 update topics were selected based on recent important updates in the guidelines and on debate among panel members about recent clinical trials, and include: 1) screening, 2) diagnostic tests for assessing pelvic masses, 3) primary treatment using neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 4) primary adjuvant treatment using bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy, 5) therapy for recurrent disease, and 6) management of drug/hypersensitivity reactions. These NCCN Guidelines Insights also discuss why some recommendations were not made (eg, panel members did not feel the new data warranted changing the guideline). See “Updates” in the NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer for a complete list of all the recent revisions.

Full access

Ovarian Cancer, Version 2.2013

Robert J. Morgan Jr, Ronald D. Alvarez, Deborah K. Armstrong, Robert A. Burger, Lee-may Chen, Larry Copeland, Marta Ann Crispens, David M. Gershenson, Heidi J. Gray, Ardeshir Hakam, Laura J. Havrilesky, Carolyn Johnston, Shashikant Lele, Lainie Martin, Ursula A. Matulonis, David M. O’Malley, Richard T. Penson, Matthew A. Powell, Steven W. Remmenga, Paul Sabbatini, Joseph T. Santoso, Julian C. Schink, Nelson Teng, Theresa L. Werner, Mary A. Dwyer, and Miranda Hughes

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the major updates to the 2013 NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer. Four updates were selected based on recent important updates in the guidelines and on debate among panel members about recent clinical trials. The topics include 1) intraperitoneal chemotherapy, 2) CA-125 monitoring for ovarian cancer recurrence, 3) surveillance recommendations for less common ovarian histopathologies, and 4) recent changes in therapy for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights also discuss why some recommendations were not made.

Full access

Ovarian Cancer, Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Robert J. Morgan Jr, Deborah K. Armstrong, Ronald D. Alvarez, Jamie N. Bakkum-Gamez, Kian Behbakht, Lee-may Chen, Larry Copeland, Marta Ann Crispens, Maria DeRosa, Oliver Dorigo, David M. Gershenson, Heidi J. Gray, Ardeshir Hakam, Laura J. Havrilesky, Carolyn Johnston, Shashikant Lele, Lainie Martin, Ursula A. Matulonis, David M. O'Malley, Richard T. Penson, Sanja Percac-Lima, Mario Pineda, Steven C. Plaxe, Matthew A. Powell, Elena Ratner, Steven W. Remmenga, Peter G. Rose, Paul Sabbatini, Joseph T. Santoso, Theresa L. Werner, Jennifer Burns, and Miranda Hughes

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer focuses on the less common ovarian histopathologies (LCOHs), because new algorithms were added for LCOHs and current algorithms were revised for the 2016 update. The new LCOHs algorithms include clear cell carcinomas, mucinous carcinomas, and grade 1 (low-grade) serous carcinomas/endometrioid epithelial carcinomas. The LCOHs also include carcinosarcomas (malignant mixed Müllerian tumors of the ovary), borderline epithelial tumors (also known as low malignant potential tumors), malignant sex cord-stromal tumors, and malignant germ cell tumors.