Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author: Susan McCullough x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity in Cancer Survivors: Predictors of Long-Term Patient Outcomes

Eva Battaglini, David Goldstein, Peter Grimison, Susan McCullough, Phil Mendoza-Jones, and Susanna B. Park

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN) is a major adverse effect of cancer treatment. However, its impact remains poorly understood. This study aimed to investigate the impact associated with CIPN on the lives of cancer survivors. Patients and Methods: A volunteer sample of 986 individuals who had received neurotoxic chemotherapy completed an anonymous, cross-sectional survey. Outcomes assessed included CIPN symptoms, pain, neuropathic pain, quality of life (QoL), physical activity, and comorbid health conditions via the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire. Results: Respondents had a mean age of 58 years (SD, 10.7), and 83.2% were female. Most were treated for breast (58.9%) or colorectal cancer (13.5%); had received docetaxel (32.7%), paclitaxel (31.6%), or oxaliplatin (12.5%); and had completed treatment 3.6 ± 3.5 years previously. We found that 76.5% of respondents reported current CIPN. Respondents reporting severe CIPN had poorer QoL, more comorbidities, and higher body mass index, and more often received multiple neurotoxic chemotherapies than those with mild CIPN. Respondents who completed the survey ≤1 year after completing chemotherapy did not differ in reported CIPN or pain compared with respondents who completed chemotherapy ≥6 years earlier. However, respondents who completed chemotherapy ≥6 years earlier reported better QoL. Multivariable linear regression analyses revealed predictors of CIPN severity as follows: F(7, 874) = 64.67; P<.001; R2 = 0.34, including pain (β = −0.36; P<.001), burning pain (β = 0.25; P<.001), sex (male sex associated with greater CIPN: β = 0.14; P<.001), years since completing chemotherapy (shorter time associated with greater CIPN; β = −0.10; P<.001), age (β = 0.80; P=.006), number of comorbid conditions (β = 0.07; P=.02), and body mass index (β = 0.07; P=.02). Conclusions: Respondents with a high CIPN symptom burden experienced poorer general health and QoL. Improvements in CIPN may be more likely soon after treatment. However, improvements in QoL may occur over time in those with chronic symptoms. CIPN seems to have lasting impacts on cancer survivors, and understanding risk factors is important to enable the design of further preventive and therapeutic management strategies.

Full access

Smoking Cessation, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Peter G. Shields, Laura Bierut, Douglas Arenberg, David Balis, Paul M. Cinciripini, James Davis, Donna Edmondson, Joy Feliciano, Brian Hitsman, Karen S. Hudmon, Michael T. Jaklitsch, Frank T. Leone, Pamela Ling, Danielle E. McCarthy, Michael K. Ong, Elyse R. Park, Judith Prochaska, Argelia J. Sandoval, Christine E. Sheffer, Sharon Spencer, Jamie L. Studts, Tawee Tanvetyanon, Hilary A. Tindle, Elisa Tong, Matthew Triplette, James Urbanic, Gregory Videtic, David Warner, C. Will Whitlock, Beth McCullough, and Susan Darlow

Although the harmful effects of smoking after a cancer diagnosis have been clearly demonstrated, many patients continue to smoke cigarettes during treatment and beyond. The NCCN Guidelines for Smoking Cessation emphasize the importance of smoking cessation in all patients with cancer and seek to establish evidence-based recommendations tailored to the unique needs and concerns of patients with cancer. The recommendations contained herein describe interventions for cessation of all combustible tobacco products (eg, cigarettes, cigars, hookah), including smokeless tobacco products. However, recommendations are based on studies of cigarette smoking. The NCCN Smoking Cessation Panel recommends that treatment plans for all patients with cancer who smoke include the following 3 tenets that should be done concurrently: (1) evidence-based motivational strategies and behavior therapy (counseling), which can be brief; (2) evidence-based pharmacotherapy; and (3) close follow-up with retreatment as needed.

Full access

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Merkel Cell Carcinoma, Version 1.2024

Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines

Chrysalyne D. Schmults, Rachel Blitzblau, Sumaira Z. Aasi, Murad Alam, Arya Amini, Kristin Bibee, Diana Bolotin, Jeremy Bordeaux, Pei-Ling Chen, Carlo M. Contreras, Dominick DiMaio, Jessica M. Donigan, Jeffrey M. Farma, Karthik Ghosh, Kelly Harms, Alan L. Ho, John Nicholas Lukens, Susan Manber, Lawrence Mark, Theresa Medina, Kishwer S. Nehal, Paul Nghiem, Kelly Olino, Soo Park, Tejesh Patel, Igor Puzanov, Jason Rich, Aleksandar Sekulic, Ashok R. Shaha, Divya Srivastava, Valencia Thomas, Courtney Tomblinson, Puja Venkat, Yaohui Gloria Xu, Siegrid Yu, Mehran Yusuf, Beth McCullough, and Sara Espinosa

The NCCN Guidelines for Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC) provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, clinical stage, and treatment options for patients. The panel meets annually to discuss updates to the guidelines based on comments from expert review from panel members, institutional review, as well as submissions from within NCCN and external organizations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the introduction of a new page for locally advanced disease in the setting of clinical node negative status, entitled “Clinical N0 Disease, Locally Advanced MCC.” This new algorithm page addresses locally advanced disease, and the panel clarifies the meaning behind the term “nonsurgical” by further defining locally advanced disease. In addition, the guideline includes the management of in-transit disease and updates to the systemic therapy options.

Full access

Ampullary Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

E. Gabriela Chiorean, Marco Del Chiaro, Margaret A. Tempero, Mokenge P. Malafa, Al B. Benson III, Dana B. Cardin, Jared A. Christensen, Vincent Chung, Brian Czito, Mary Dillhoff, Timothy R. Donahue, Efrat Dotan, Christos Fountzilas, Evan S. Glazer, Jeffrey Hardacre, William G. Hawkins, Kelsey Klute, Andrew H. Ko, John W. Kunstman, Noelle LoConte, Andrew M. Lowy, Ashiq Masood, Cassadie Moravek, Eric K. Nakakura, Amol K. Narang, Lorenzo Nardo, Jorge Obando, Patricio M. Polanco, Sushanth Reddy, Marsha Reyngold, Courtney Scaife, Jeanne Shen, Mark J. Truty, Charles Vollmer Jr, Robert A. Wolff, Brian M. Wolpin, Beth McCullough RN, Senem Lubin, and Susan D. Darlow

Ampullary cancers refer to tumors originating from the ampulla of Vater (the ampulla, the intraduodenal portion of the bile duct, and the intraduodenal portion of the pancreatic duct), while periampullary cancers may arise from locations encompassing the head of the pancreas, distal bile duct, duodenum, or ampulla of Vater. Ampullary cancers are rare gastrointestinal malignancies, and prognosis varies greatly based on factors such as patient age, TNM classification, differentiation grade, and treatment modality received. Systemic therapy is used in all stages of ampullary cancer, including neoadjuvant therapy, adjuvant therapy, and first-line or subsequent-line therapy for locally advanced, metastatic, and recurrent disease. Radiation therapy may be used in localized ampullary cancer, sometimes in combination with chemotherapy, but there is no high-level evidence to support its utility. Select tumors may be treated surgically. This article describes NCCN recommendations regarding management of ampullary adenocarcinoma.