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.
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
Michael J. Hassett, Wei Jiang, Melissa E. Hughes, Stephen Edge, Sara H. Javid, Joyce C. Niland, Richard Theriault, Yu-Ning Wong, Deborah Schrag and Rinaa S. Punglia
Background: Because of screening mammography, the number of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) survivors has increased dramatically. DCIS survivors may face excess risk of second breast events (SBEs). However, little is known about SBE treatment or its relationship to initial DCIS care. Methods: Among a prospective cohort of women who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for DCIS from 1997 to 2008 at institutions participating in the NCCN Outcomes Database, we identified SBEs, described patterns of care for SBEs, and examined the association between DCIS treatment choice and SBE care. Using multivariable regression, we identified features associated with use of mastectomy, radiation therapy (RT), or antiestrogen therapy (AET) for SBEs. Results: Of 2,939 women who underwent BCS for DCIS, 83% received RT and 40% received AET. During the median follow-up of 4.2 years, 200 women (6.8%) developed an SBE (55% ipsilateral, 45% invasive). SBEs occurred in 6% of women who underwent RT for their initial DCIS versus 11% who did not. Local treatment for these events included BCS (10%), BCS/RT (30%), mastectomy (53%), or none (6%); only 28% of patients received AET. Independent predictors of RT or mastectomy for SBEs included younger age, shorter time to SBE diagnosis, and RT or AET for the initial DCIS. Conclusions: A sizable proportion of patients with SBEs were treated with mastectomy, most especially those who previously received RT for their initial DCIS and those who developed an ipsilateral SBE. Despite the occurrence of an SBE, relatively few patients received AET. Future studies should investigate optimal treatment approaches for SBEs, including the benefit of mastectomy versus lumpectomy for an ipsilateral SBE and the benefit of AET for a hormone-receptor–positive SBE contingent on AET use for the initial DCIS diagnosis.
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
Robert I. Haddad, Christian Nasr, Lindsay Bischoff, Naifa Lamki Busaidy, David Byrd, Glenda Callender, Paxton Dickson, Quan-Yang Duh, Hormoz Ehya, Whitney Goldner, Megan Haymart, Carl Hoh, Jason P. Hunt, Andrei Iagaru, Fouad Kandeel, Peter Kopp, Dominick M. Lamonica, Bryan McIver, Christopher D. Raeburn, John A. Ridge, Matthew D. Ringel, Randall P. Scheri, Jatin P. Shah, Rebecca Sippel, Robert C. Smallridge, Cord Sturgeon, Thomas N. Wang, Lori J. Wirth, Richard J. Wong, Alyse Johnson-Chilla, Karin G. Hoffmann and Lisa A. Gurski
The NCCN Guidelines for Thyroid Carcinoma provide recommendations for the management of different types of thyroid carcinoma, including papillary, follicular, Hürthle cell, medullary, and anaplastic carcinomas. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent updates to the guidelines, including the expanding role of molecular testing for differentiated thyroid carcinoma, implications of the new pathologic diagnosis of noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features, and the addition of a new targeted therapy option for BRAF V600E–mutated anaplastic thyroid carcinoma.