Talha Mehmood and Thomas J. Smith
Eric Roeland, Charles Loprinzi, Timothy J. Moynihan, Thomas J. Smith, and Jennifer Temel
Anusha Ponduri, David Z. Liao, Nicolas F. Schlecht, Gregory Rosenblatt, Michael B. Prystowsky, Rafi Kabarriti, Madhur Garg, Thomas J. Ow, Bradley A. Schiff, Richard V. Smith, and Vikas Mehta
Background: Nonadherence to NCCN Guidelines during time from surgery to postoperative radiotherapy (S-PORT) can alter survival outcomes in head and neck squamous cell carcinomna (HNSCC). There is a need to validate this impact in an underserved urban population and to understand risk factors and reasons for delay. We sought to investigate the impact of delayed PORT with outcomes of overall survival (OS) in HNSCC, to analyze predictive factors of delayed PORT, and to identify reasons for delay. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in an urban, community-based academic center. A total of 184 patients with primary HNSCC were identified through the Montefiore Medical Center cancer registry who had been treated between March 1, 2005, and March 8, 2017, and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary exposure was S-PORT. OS, recurrence, and risk factors and reasons for treatment delay were the main outcomes and measures. Results: Among 184 patients with HNSCC treated with PORT, the median S-PORT was 48.5 days (interquartile range, 41–67 days). The S-PORT threshold that optimally differentiated worse OS outcomes was >50 days (46.7% of our cohort; n=86). Independent of other relevant factors, patients with HNSCC and S-PORT >50 days had worse OS (hazard ratio, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.34–3.95) and greater recurrence (odds ratio, 3.51; 95% CI, 1.31–9.39). Predictors of delayed S-PORT included being underweight or obese, prolonged postoperative length of stay, and age >70 years. The most frequent reasons for PORT delay were complications related to surgery (22.09%), unrelated medical comorbidities (18.60%), and nonadherence/missed appointments (6.98%). Conclusions: Delayed PORT beyond 50 days after surgery was associated with decreased OS and greater recurrence. Identification of predictive factors and reasons for treatment delay helps to target at-risk patients and facilitates interventions in underserved populations.
Michael H. Levy, Michael D. Adolph, Anthony Back, Susan Block, Shirley N. Codada, Shalini Dalal, Teresa L. Deshields, Elisabeth Dexter, Sydney M. Dy, Sara J. Knight, Sumathi Misra, Christine S. Ritchie, Todd M. Sauer, Thomas Smith, David Spiegel, Linda Sutton, Robert M. Taylor, Jennifer Temel, Jay Thomas, Roma Tickoo, Susan G. Urba, Jamie H. Von Roenn, Joseph L. Weems, Sharon M. Weinstein, Deborah A. Freedman-Cass, and Mary Anne Bergman
These guidelines were developed and updated by an interdisciplinary group of experts based on clinical experience and available scientific evidence. The goal of these guidelines is to help patients with cancer experience the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory by providing guidance for the primary oncology team for symptom screening, assessment, palliative care interventions, reassessment, and afterdeath care. Palliative care should be initiated by the primary oncology team and augmented by collaboration with an interdisciplinary team of palliative care experts.
Michael Levy, Thomas Smith, Amy Alvarez-Perez, Anthony Back, Justin N. Baker, Anna C. Beck, Susan Block, Shalini Dalal, Maria Dans, Thomas R. Fitch, Jennifer Kapo, Jean S. Kutner, Elizabeth Kvale, Sumathi Misra, William Mitchell, Diane G. Portman, Todd M. Sauer, David Spiegel, Linda Sutton, Eytan Szmuilowicz, Robert M. Taylor, Jennifer Temel, Roma Tickoo, Susan G. Urba, Elizabeth Weinstein, Finly Zachariah, Mary Anne Bergman, and Jillian L. Scavone
The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. The NCCN Guidelines are intended to provide guidance to the primary oncology team on the integration of palliative care into oncology. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel's recommendations seek to ensure that each patient experiences the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory. Accordingly, the NCCN Guidelines outline best practices for screening, assessment, palliative care interventions, reassessment, and after-death care.
Michael B. Streiff, Paula L. Bockenstedt, Spero R. Cataland, Carolyn Chesney, Charles Eby, John Fanikos, Annemarie E. Fogerty, Shuwei Gao, Samuel Z. Goldhaber, Hani Hassoun, Paul Hendrie, Bjorn Holmstrom, Nicole Kuderer, Jason T. Lee, Michael M. Millenson, Anne T. Neff, Thomas L. Ortel, Tanya Siddiqi, Judy L. Smith, Gary C. Yee, Anaadriana Zakarija, Nicole McMillian, and Maoko Naganuma
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a common and life-threatening complication among patients with cancer. Thromboprophylaxis can be used to prevent the occurrence of VTE in patients with cancer who are considered at high risk for developing this complication. Therefore, it is critical to recognize the various risk factors for VTE in patients with cancer. Risk assessment tools are available to help identify patients for whom discussions regarding the potential benefits and risks of thromboprophylaxis would be appropriate. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for VTE provide recommendations on risk evaluation, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.
Joseph Abi Jaoude, Ramez Kouzy, Walker Mainwaring, Timothy A. Lin, Austin B. Miller, Amit Jethanandani, Andres F. Espinoza, Dario Pasalic, Vivek Verma, Noam A. VanderWalde, Benjamin D. Smith, Grace L. Smith, C. David Fuller, Prajnan Das, Bruce D. Minsky, Claus Rödel, Emmanouil Fokas, Reshma Jagsi, Charles R. Thomas Jr, Ishwaria M. Subbiah, Cullen M. Taniguchi, and Ethan B. Ludmir
Background: Patients with good performance status (PS) tend to be favored in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), possibly limiting the generalizability of trial findings. We aimed to characterize trial-related factors associated with the use of PS eligibility criteria and analyze patient accrual breakdown by PS. Methods: Adult, therapeutic, multiarm phase III cancer-specific RCTs were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov. PS data were extracted from articles. Trials with a PS restriction ECOG score ≤1 were identified. Factors associated with PS restriction were determined, and the use of PS restrictions was analyzed over time. Results: In total, 600 trials were included and 238,213 patients had PS data. Of those trials, 527 studies (87.8%) specified a PS restriction cutoff, with 237 (39.5%) having a strict inclusion criterion (ECOG PS ≤1). Enrollment criteria restrictions based on PS (ECOG PS ≤1) were more common among industry-supported trials (P<.001) and lung cancer trials (P<.001). Nearly half of trials that led to FDA approval included strict PS restrictions. Most patients enrolled across all trials had an ECOG PS of 0 to 1 (96.3%). Even among trials that allowed patients with ECOG PS ≥2, only 8.1% of those enrolled had a poor PS. Trials of lung, breast, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary cancers all included <5% of patients with poor PS. Finally, only 4.7% of patients enrolled in trials that led to subsequent FDA approval had poor PS. Conclusions: Use of PS restrictions in oncologic RCTs is pervasive, and exceedingly few patients with poor PS are enrolled. The selective accrual of healthier patients has the potential to severely limit and bias trial results. Future trials should consider a wider cancer population with close toxicity monitoring to ensure the generalizability of results while maintaining patient safety.
Therese B. Bevers, Benjamin O. Anderson, Ermelinda Bonaccio, Sandra Buys, Mary B. Daly, Peter J. Dempsey, William B. Farrar, Irving Fleming, Judy E. Garber, Randall E. Harris, Alexandra S. Heerdt, Mark Helvie, John G. Huff, Nazanin Khakpour, Seema A. Khan, Helen Krontiras, Gary Lyman, Elizabeth Rafferty, Sara Shaw, Mary Lou Smith, Theodore N. Tsangaris, Cheryl Williams, and Thomas Yankeelov
Michael H. Levy, Thomas Smith, Amy Alvarez-Perez, Anthony Back, Justin N. Baker, Susan Block, Shirley N. Codada, Shalini Dalal, Maria Dans, Jean S. Kutner, Elizabeth Kvale, Sumathi Misra, William Mitchell, Todd M. Sauer, David Spiegel, Linda Sutton, Robert M. Taylor, Jennifer Temel, Roma Tickoo, Susan G. Urba, Carin Van Zyl, Sharon M. Weinstein, Mary Anne Bergman, and Jillian L. Scavone
The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN panel’s discussions and guideline updates from 2013 and 2014. These include modifications/additions to palliative care screening and assessment protocols, new considerations for discussing the benefits and risks of anticancer therapy, and approaches to advance care planning. Recent updates focus on enhanced patient-centered care and seek to promote earlier integration of palliative care and advance care planning in oncology.
Ann M. Berger, Kathi Mooney, Amy Alvarez-Perez, William S. Breitbart, Kristen M. Carpenter, David Cella, Charles Cleeland, Efrat Dotan, Mario A. Eisenberger, Carmen P. Escalante, Paul B. Jacobsen, Catherine Jankowski, Thomas LeBlanc, Jennifer A. Ligibel, Elizabeth Trice Loggers, Belinda Mandrell, Barbara A. Murphy, Oxana Palesh, William F. Pirl, Steven C. Plaxe, Michelle B. Riba, Hope S. Rugo, Carolina Salvador, Lynne I. Wagner, Nina D. Wagner-Johnston, Finly J. Zachariah, Mary Anne Bergman, and Courtney Smith
Cancer-related fatigue is defined as a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of physical, emotional, and/or cognitive tiredness or exhaustion related to cancer or cancer treatment that is not proportional to recent activity and interferes with usual functioning. It is one of the most common side effects in patients with cancer. Fatigue has been shown to be a consequence of active treatment, but it may also persist into posttreatment periods. Furthermore, difficulties in end-of-life care can be compounded by fatigue. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cancer-Related Fatigue provide guidance on screening for fatigue and recommendations for interventions based on the stage of treatment. Interventions may include education and counseling, general strategies for the management of fatigue, and specific nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions. Fatigue is a frequently underreported complication in patients with cancer and, when reported, is responsible for reduced quality of life. Therefore, routine screening to identify fatigue is an important component in improving the quality of life for patients living with cancer.