Robert J. Morgan Jr
Robert J. Morgan Jr.
Benjamin E. Greer, Wui-Jin Koh, Nadeem Abu-Rustum, Michael A. Bookman, Robert E. Bristow, Susana M. Campos, Kathleen R. Cho, Larry Copeland, Marta Ann Crispens, Patricia J. Eifel, Warner K. Huh, Wainwright Jaggernauth, Daniel S. Kapp, John J. Kavanagh, John R. Lurain III, Mark Morgan, Robert J. Morgan Jr, C. Bethan Powell, Steven W. Remmenga, R. Kevin Reynolds, Angeles Alvarez Secord, William Small Jr and Nelson Teng
Robert A. Figlin, Elizabeth Brown, Andrew J. Armstrong, Wallace Akerley, Al B. Benson III, Harold J. Burstein, David S. Ettinger, Phillip G. Febbo, Matthew G. Fury, Gary R. Hudes, Merrill S. Kies, Eunice L. Kwak, Robert J. Morgan Jr., Joanne Mortimer, Karen Reckamp, Alan P. Venook, Frank Worden and Yun Yen
The mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) protein complex functions as an integration center for various intracellular signaling pathways involving cell cycle progression, proliferation, and angiogenesis. These pathways are frequently dysregulated in cancer, and therefore mTOR inhibition is a potentially important antitumor target. Commercially available mTOR inhibitors include rapamycin (i.e., sirolimus) and temsirolimus. Other agents under investigation include everolimus and deforolimus. mTOR inhibition has been studied in various solid tumors, including breast, gynecologic, gastrointestinal, prostate, lung, and head and neck cancers. Studies have focused on mTOR inhibition as a monotherapy or in combination with other drugs based on the principle that inhibiting as many targets as possible reduces the emergence of drug resistance. Temsirolimus is currently the only mTOR inhibitor that is specifically labeled for treatment of solid tumors. However, preclinical studies and early-phase trials are rapidly evolving. Additionally, research is further defining the complicated mTOR pathways and how they may be disordered in specific malignancies. To address these issues, NCCN convened a task force to review the underlying physiology of mTOR and related cellular pathways, and to review the current status of research of mTOR inhibition in solid tumors. (JNCCN 2008;6[Suppl 5]:S1—S20)
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.
Benjamin E. Greer, Wui-Jin Koh, Nadeem R. Abu-Rustum, Sachin M. Apte, Susana M. Campos, John Chan, Kathleen R. Cho, Larry Copeland, Marta Ann Crispens, Nefertiti DuPont, Patricia J. Eifel, David K. Gaffney, Warner K. Huh, Daniel S. Kapp, John R. Lurain III, Lainie Martin, Mark A. Morgan, Robert J. Morgan Jr., David Mutch, Steven W. Remmenga, R. Kevin Reynolds, William Small Jr., Nelson Teng and Fidel A. Valea
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
Razelle Kurzrock, A. Dimitrios Colevas, Anthony Olszanski, Wallace Akerley, Carlos L. Arteaga, William E. Carson III, Jeffrey W. Clark, John F. DiPersio, David S. Ettinger, Robert J. Morgan Jr, Lee S. Schwartzberg, Alan P. Venook, Christopher D. Gocke, Jonathan Tait and F. Marc Stewart
Background: With advances such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) increasing understanding of the basis of cancer and its response to treatment, NCCN believes it is important to understand how molecular profiling/diagnostic testing is being performed and used at NCCN Member Institutions and their community affiliates. Methods: The NCCN Oncology Research Program's Investigator Steering Committee and the NCCN Best Practices Committee gathered baseline information on the use of cancer-related molecular testing at NCCN Member Institutions and community members of the NCCN Affiliate Research Consortium through 2 separate surveys distributed in December 2013 and September 2014, respectively. Results: A total of 24 NCCN Member Institutions and 8 affiliate sites provided quantitative and qualitative data. In the context of these surveys, “molecular profiling/diagnostics” was defined as a panel of at least 10 genes examined as a diagnostic DNA test in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)–certified laboratory. Conclusions: Results indicated that molecular profiling/diagnostics are used at 100% of survey respondents' institutions to make patient care decisions. However, challenges relating to reimbursement, lack of data regarding actionable targets and targeted therapies, and access to drugs on or off clinical trials were cited as barriers to integration of molecular profiling into patient care. Frameworks for using molecular diagnostic results based on levels of evidence, alongside continued research into the predictive value of biomarkers and targeted therapies, are recommended to advance understanding of the role of genomic biomarkers. Greater evidence and consensus regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of molecular profiling may lead to broader insurance coverage and increased integration into patient care.
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.