Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 8 of 8 items for

  • Author: Robert J. Hamilton x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Mohammad Abu Zaid, Paul C. Dinh Jr, Patrick O. Monahan, Chunkit Fung, Omar El-Charif, Darren R. Feldman, Robert J. Hamilton, David J. Vaughn, Clair J. Beard, Ryan Cook, Sandra Althouse, Shirin Ardeshir-Rouhani-Fard, Howard D. Sesso, Robert Huddart, Taisei Mushiroda, Michiaki Kubo, M. Eileen Dolan, Lawrence H. Einhorn, Sophie D. Fossa, Lois B. Travis and for the Platinum Study Group

Background: This study examined the prevalence of hypogonadism, its clinical and genetic risk factors, and its relationship to adverse health outcomes (AHOs) in North American testicular cancer survivors (TCS) after modern platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: Eligible TCS were <55 years of age at diagnosis and treated with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Participants underwent physical examinations and completed questionnaires regarding 15 AHOs and health behaviors. Hypogonadism was defined as serum testosterone levels ≤3.0 ng/mL or use of testosterone replacement therapy. We investigated the role of 2 single nucleotide polymorphisms (rs6258 and rs12150660) in the sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) locus implicated in increased hypogonadism risk in the general population. Results: Of 491 TCS (median age at assessment, 38.2 years; range, 18.7–68.4 years), 38.5% had hypogonadism. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis identified hypogonadism risk factors, including age at clinical evaluation (odds ratio [OR], 1.42 per 10-year increase; P= .006) and body mass index of 25 to <30 kg/m2 (OR, 2.08; P= .011) or ≥30 kg/m2 (OR, 2.36; P= .005) compared with <25 kg/m2. TCS with ≥2 risk alleles for the SHBG SNPs had a marginally significant increased hypogonadism risk (OR, 1.45; P= .09). Vigorous-intensity physical activity appeared protective (OR, 0.66; P= .07). Type of cisplatin-based chemotherapy regimen and socioeconomic factors did not correlate with hypogonadism. Compared with TCS without hypogonadism, those with hypogonadism were more likely to report ≥2 AHOs (65% vs 51%; P= .003), to take medications for hypercholesterolemia (20.1% vs 6.0%; P<.001) or hypertension (18.5% vs 10.6%; P= .013), and to report erectile dysfunction (19.6% vs 11.9%; P= .018) or peripheral neuropathy (30.7% vs 22.5%; P= .041). A marginally significant trend for increased use of prescription medications for either diabetes (5.8% vs 2.6%; P= .07) or anxiety/depression (14.8% vs 9.3%; P= .06) was observed. Conclusions: At a relatively young median age, more than one-third of TCS have hypogonadism, which is significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk factors, and erectile dysfunction. Providers should screen TCS for hypogonadism and treat symptomatic patients.

Full access

Mohammad Abu Zaid, Wambui G. Gathirua-Mwangi, Chunkit Fung, Patrick O. Monahan, Omar El-Charif, Annalynn M. Williams, Darren R. Feldman, Robert J. Hamilton, David J. Vaughn, Clair J. Beard, Ryan Cook, Sandra K. Althouse, Shirin Ardeshir-Rouhani-Fard, Paul C. Dinh Jr, Howard D. Sesso, Lawrence H. Einhorn, Sophie D. Fossa, Lois B. Travis and for the Platinum Study Group

Background: Testicular cancer survivors (TCS) are at significantly increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), with metabolic syndrome (MetS) an established risk factor. No study has addressed clinical and genetic MetS risk factors in North American TCS. Patients and Methods: TCS were aged <55 years at diagnosis and received first-line chemotherapy. Patients underwent physical examination, and had lipid panels, testosterone, and soluble cell adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1) evaluated. A single nucleotide polymorphism in rs523349 (5-α-reductase gene, SRD5A2), recently implicated in MetS risk, was genotyped. Using standard criteria, MetS was defined as ≥3 of the following: hypertension, abdominal obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, and diabetes. Matched controls were derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Results: We evaluated 486 TCS (median age, 38.1 years). TCS had a higher prevalence of hypertension versus controls (43.2% vs 30.7%; P<.001) but were less likely to have decreased HDL levels (23.7% vs 34.8%; P<.001) or abdominal obesity (28.2% vs 40.1%; P<.001). Overall MetS frequency was similar in TCS and controls (21.0% vs 22.4%; P=.59), did not differ by treatment (P=.20), and was not related to rs523349 (P=.61). For other CVD risk factors, TCS were significantly more likely to have elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels (17.7% vs 9.3%; P<.001), total cholesterol levels (26.3% vs 11.1%; P<.001), and body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 (75.1% vs 69.1%; P=.04). On multivariate analysis, age at evaluation (P<.001), testosterone level ≤3.0 ng/mL (odds ratio [OR], 2.06; P=.005), and elevated sICAM-1 level (ORhighest vs lowest quartile, 3.58; P=.001) were significantly associated with MetS. Conclusions and Recommendations: Metabolic abnormalities in TCS are characterized by hypertension and increased LDL and total cholesterol levels but lower rates of decreased HDL levels and abdominal obesity, signifying possible shifts in fat distribution and fat metabolism. These changes are accompanied by hypogonadism and inflammation. TCS have a high prevalence of CVD risk factors that may not be entirely captured by standard MetS criteria. Cancer treatment–associated MetS requires further characterization.

Full access

Dawn Provenzale, Samir Gupta, Dennis J. Ahnen, Travis Bray, Jamie A. Cannon, Gregory Cooper, Donald S. David, Dayna S. Early, Deborah Erwin, James M. Ford, Francis M. Giardiello, William Grady, Amy L. Halverson, Stanley R. Hamilton, Heather Hampel, Mohammad K. Ismail, Jason B. Klapman, David W. Larson, Audrey J. Lazenby, Patrick M. Lynch, Robert J. Mayer, Reid M. Ness, Scott E. Regenbogen, Niloy Jewel Samadder, Moshe Shike, Gideon Steinbach, David Weinberg, Mary Dwyer and Susan Darlow

This is a focused update highlighting the most current NCCN Guidelines for diagnosis and management of Lynch syndrome. Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer, usually resulting from a germline mutation in 1 of 4 DNA mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2), or deletions in the EPCAM promoter. Patients with Lynch syndrome are at an increased lifetime risk, compared with the general population, for colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, and other cancers, including of the stomach and ovary. As of 2016, the panel recommends screening all patients with colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome and provides recommendations for surveillance for early detection and prevention of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers.

Full access

Randall W. Burt, James S. Barthel, Kelli Bullard Dunn, Donald S. David, Ernesto Drelichman, James M. Ford, Francis M. Giardiello, Stephen B. Gruber, Amy L. Halverson, Stanley R. Hamilton, Mohammad K. Ismail, Kory Jasperson, Audrey J. Lazenby, Patrick M. Lynch, Edward W. Martin Jr., Robert J. Mayer, Reid M. Ness, Dawn Provenzale, M. Sambasiva Rao, Moshe Shike, Gideon Steinbach, Jonathan P. Terdiman and David Weinberg

OverviewColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most frequently diagnosed cancer in men and women in the United States. In 2009, an estimated 106,100 new cases of colon cancer and 40,870 new cases of rectal cancer will occur in the United States, and 49,920 people will die of colon and rectal cancers. Patients with lo-calized colon cancer have a 90% 5-year survival rate.CRC mortality can be reduced through early diagnosis and cancer prevention with polypectomy. Therefore, the goal of CRC screening is to detect cancer at an early, curable stage and to detect and remove clinically significant adenomas. Screening tests that can detect both early cancer and adenomatous polyps are encouraged, although the panel recognizes that patient preference and resource accessibility play a large role in test selection.Curent technology falls into 2 broad categories: structural and stool/fecal-based tests. Although some techniques are better established than others, panelists agreed that any screening is better than none.Structural Screening TestsStructural tests are able to detect both early cancer and adenomatous polyps using endoscopic or radiologic imaging. These have several limitations, including their relative invasiveness, the need for dietary preparation and bowel cleansing, and the time dedicated to the examination (typically a day). Endoscopic examinations require informed consent and sedation, and have related risks, including perforation and bleeding. Recently, a large cohort study of 53,220 Medicare patients between ages 66 and 95 years showed that risk for adverse events after colonoscopy increases with age.ColonoscopyColonoscopy is the most complete...
Full access

Randall W. Burt, Jamie A. Cannon, Donald S. David, Dayna S. Early, James M. Ford, Francis M. Giardiello, Amy L. Halverson, Stanley R. Hamilton, Heather Hampel, Mohammad K. Ismail, Kory Jasperson, Jason B. Klapman, Audrey J. Lazenby, Patrick M. Lynch, Robert J. Mayer, Reid M. Ness, Dawn Provenzale, M. Sambasiva Rao, Moshe Shike, Gideon Steinbach, Jonathan P. Terdiman, David Weinberg, Mary Dwyer and Deborah Freedman-Cass

Mortality from colorectal cancer can be reduced by early diagnosis and by cancer prevention through polypectomy. These NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening describe various colorectal screening modalities and recommended screening schedules for patients at average or increased risk of developing colorectal cancer. In addition, the guidelines provide recommendations for the management of patients with high-risk colorectal cancer syndromes, including Lynch syndrome. Screening approaches for Lynch syndrome are also described.

Full access

Samir Gupta, Dawn Provenzale, Scott E. Regenbogen, Heather Hampel, Thomas P. Slavin Jr, Michael J. Hall, Xavier Llor, Daniel C. Chung, Dennis J. Ahnen, Travis Bray, Gregory Cooper, Dayna S. Early, James M. Ford, Francis M. Giardiello, William Grady, Amy L. Halverson, Stanley R. Hamilton, Jason B. Klapman, David W. Larson, Audrey J. Lazenby, Patrick M. Lynch, Arnold J. Markowitz, Robert J. Mayer, Reid M. Ness, Niloy Jewel Samadder, Moshe Shike, Shajanpeter Sugandha, Jennifer M. Weiss, Mary A. Dwyer and Ndiya Ogba

The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal provide recommendations for the management of patients with high-risk syndromes associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). The NCCN Panel for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal meets at least annually to assess comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant data, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on genes newly associated with CRC risk on multigene panels, the associated evidence, and currently recommended management strategies.

Full access

Dawn Provenzale, Samir Gupta, Dennis J. Ahnen, Arnold J. Markowitz, Daniel C. Chung, Robert J. Mayer, Scott E. Regenbogen, Amie M. Blanco, Travis Bray, Gregory Cooper, Dayna S. Early, James M. Ford, Francis M. Giardiello, William Grady, Michael J. Hall, Amy L. Halverson, Stanley R. Hamilton, Heather Hampel, Jason B. Klapman, David W. Larson, Audrey J. Lazenby, Xavier Llor, Patrick M. Lynch, June Mikkelson, Reid M. Ness, Thomas P. Slavin Jr, Shajanpeter Sugandha, Jennifer M. Weiss, Mary A. Dwyer and Ndiya Ogba

The NCCN Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening outline various screening modalities as well as recommended screening strategies for individuals at average or increased-risk of developing sporadic CRC. The NCCN panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant data, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize 2018 updates to the NCCN Guidelines, with a primary focus on modalities used to screen individuals at average-risk for CRC.

Full access

Dawn Provenzale, Kory Jasperson, Dennis J. Ahnen, Harry Aslanian, Travis Bray, Jamie A. Cannon, Donald S. David, Dayna S. Early, Deborah Erwin, James M. Ford, Francis M. Giardiello, Samir Gupta, Amy L. Halverson, Stanley R. Hamilton, Heather Hampel, Mohammad K. Ismail, Jason B. Klapman, David W. Larson, Audrey J. Lazenby, Patrick M. Lynch, Robert J. Mayer, Reid M. Ness, M. Sambasiva Rao, Scott E. Regenbogen, Moshe Shike, Gideon Steinbach, David Weinberg, Mary A. Dwyer, Deborah A. Freedman-Cass and Susan Darlow

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colorectal Cancer Screening provide recommendations for selecting individuals for colorectal cancer screening, and for evaluation and follow-up of colon polyps. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize major discussion points of the 2015 NCCN Colorectal Cancer Screening panel meeting. Major discussion topics this year were the state of evidence for CT colonography and stool DNA testing, bowel preparation procedures for colonoscopy, and guidelines for patients with a positive family history of colorectal cancer.