Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author: Sanjay Reddy x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Leigh Selesner, Gabrielle Gauvin, Dorotea Mutabdzic, Eileen O’Halloran, Maxwell Kilcoyne, Kwan-Keat Ang, Jeffrey Farma, Elin Sigurdson, and Sanjay Reddy

Introduction: Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CS/HIPEC) has led to improved survival in select patients with peritoneal surface malignancies. Predicting the volume of disease and any unresectable disease is important for determining CS candidacy. Computed tomography (CT) scan is the preoperative assessment of choice, and diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) is also supported in the literature but has not been widely adopted. In this study, we report our experience comparing and evaluating the role of imaging and DL in the preoperative assessment of patients being considered for CS/HIPEC. Methods: Patients considered for CS/HIPEC at our tertiary cancer center between January 2012 and December 2017 were included. Diagnostic modality sensitivity and specificity were calculated by comparing findings on CT scan and DL to findings at the time of laparotomy and on final pathology. Specificity and sensitivity of the 2 modalities were compared using the McNemar Chi-square test. Results: Our analysis included 71 patients (60.5% male, mean age of 54.9) seen in consultation for CS/HIPEC. Primary cancer diagnosis was 57.7% colorectal cancer, 25.4% pseudomyxoma peritonei, 8.5% mesothelioma, and 8.5% adenocarcinoma of unknown primary. DL was done in 42.3% of patients (median time of 30 days between CT and DL) and an open procedure was done directly after CT in 39.4% (median interval time of 39 days). Findings of DL identified 70% as being unresectable and hence ineligible for HIPEC. The median interval time between 2 operations was 29 days (range, 16–42). When comparing diagnostic modalities to open surgery and final pathology, CT had a sensitivity and specificity of 48.2% and 76.4% and DL, 68.2% and 88.9%, respectively. DL was significantly more sensitive and specific than CT (χ2=5.54; P<.0186) at predicting ascites, small bowel, omental, liver, and lymph node involvement. Conclusion: Our results support the recommendation for performing DL prior to open exploration in patients considered for CS/HIPEC. In our cohort, DL was significantly more sensitive and specific than CT in predicting disease volume and distribution. While there is obviously greater risk to an invasive modality compared to non-invasive CT scan, routine performance of DL can potentially avoid laparotomy without CS/HIPEC in a large proportion of patients. These results will be used to inform the next phase of our study: a prospective clinical trial.

Full access

Ruben A. Mesa, Catriona Jamieson, Ravi Bhatia, Michael W. Deininger, Christopher D. Fletcher, Aaron T. Gerds, Ivana Gojo, Jason Gotlib, Krishna Gundabolu, Gabriela Hobbs, Brandon McMahon, Sanjay R. Mohan, Stephen Oh, Eric Padron, Nikolaos Papadantonakis, Philip Pancari, Nikolai Podoltsev, Raajit Rampal, Erik Ranheim, Vishnu Reddy, Lindsay A.M. Rein, Bart Scott, David S. Snyder, Brady L. Stein, Moshe Talpaz, Srdan Verstovsek, Martha Wadleigh, Eunice S. Wang, Mary Anne Bergman, Kristina M. Gregory, and Hema Sundar

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are a group of heterogeneous disorders of the hematopoietic system that include myelofibrosis (MF), polycythemia vera (PV), and essential thrombocythemia (ET). PV and ET are characterized by significant thrombohemorrhagic complications and a high risk of transformation to MF and acute myeloid leukemia. The diagnosis and management of PV and ET has evolved since the identification of mutations implicated in their pathogenesis. These NCCN Guideline Insights discuss the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the risk stratification, treatment, and special considerations for the management of PV and ET.

Full access

Al B. Benson, Michael I. D’Angelica, Daniel E. Abbott, Daniel A. Anaya, Robert Anders, Chandrakanth Are, Melinda Bachini, Mitesh Borad, Daniel Brown, Adam Burgoyne, Prabhleen Chahal, Daniel T. Chang, Jordan Cloyd, Anne M. Covey, Evan S. Glazer, Lipika Goyal, William G. Hawkins, Renuka Iyer, Rojymon Jacob, R. Kate Kelley, Robin Kim, Matthew Levine, Manisha Palta, James O. Park, Steven Raman, Sanjay Reddy, Vaibhav Sahai, Tracey Schefter, Gagandeep Singh, Stacey Stein, Jean-Nicolas Vauthey, Alan P. Venook, Adam Yopp, Nicole R. McMillian, Cindy Hochstetler, and Susan D. Darlow

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.