Although the association of pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) and aplastic anemia with thymoma is well-known, acquired amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia (AAMT) is not a recognized paraneoplastic manifestation of thymoma. This report discusses a patient with recurrent thymoma complicated by myasthenia gravis, PRCA, and AAMT. Both PRCA and AAMT are diagnosed after a thymoma recurrence, 11 years after complete resection of the initial tumor and 9 months after chemotherapy for the relapsed disease. Both PRCA and AAMT responded to immunosuppression with cyclosporine, corticosteroid, and an abbreviated course of antithymocyte globulin, achieving a very good erythroid response and a complete remission for AAMT, suggesting that AAMT, although extremely rare, can be an immune-mediated paraneoplastic manifestation of thymoma.
Carl M. Gay, William N. William Jr, Sa A. Wang, and Thein Hlaing Oo
R. Michael Tuttle, Douglas W. Ball, David Byrd, Gilbert H. Daniels, Raza A. Dilawari, Gerard M. Doherty, Quan-Yang Duh, Hormoz Ehya, William B. Farrar, Robert I. Haddad, Fouad Kandeel, Richard T. Kloos, Peter Kopp, Dominick M. Lamonica, Thom R. Loree, William M. Lydiatt, Judith McCaffrey, John A. Olson Jr., Lee Parks, John A. Ridge, Jatin P. Shah, Steven I. Sherman, Cord Sturgeon, Steven G. Waguespack, Thomas N. Wang, and Lori J. Wirth
R. Michael Tuttle, Douglas W. Ball, David Byrd, Raza A. Dilawari, Gerard M. Doherty, Quan-Yang Duh, Hormoz Ehya, William B. Farrar, Robert I. Haddad, Fouad Kandeel, Richard T. Kloos, Peter Kopp, Dominick M. Lamonica, Thom R. Loree, William M. Lydiatt, Judith C. McCaffrey, John A. Olson Jr., Lee Parks, John A. Ridge, Jatin P. Shah, Steven I. Sherman, Cord Sturgeon, Steven G. Waguespack, Thomas N. Wang, and Lori J. Wirth
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.
Dominik J. Ose, Richard Viskochil, Andreana N. Holowatyj, Mikaela Larson, Dalton Wilson, William A. Dunson Jr, Vikrant G. Deshmukh, J. Ryan Butcher, Belinda R. Taylor, Kim Svoboda, Jennifer Leiser, Benjamin Tingey, Benjamin Haaland, David W. Wetter, Simon J. Fisher, Mia Hashibe, and Cornelia M. Ulrich
Background: This study aimed to understand the prevalence of prediabetes (preDM) and diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients with cancer overall and by tumor site, cancer treatment, and time point in the cancer continuum. Methods: This cohort study was conducted at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah. Patients with a first primary invasive cancer enrolled in the Total Cancer Care protocol between July 2016 and July 2018 were eligible. Prevalence of preDM and DM was based on ICD code, laboratory tests for hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, nonfasting blood glucose, or insulin prescription. Results: The final cohort comprised 3,512 patients with cancer, with a mean age of 57.8 years at cancer diagnosis. Of all patients, 49.1% (n=1,724) were female. At cancer diagnosis, the prevalence of preDM and DM was 6.0% (95% CI, 5.3%–6.8%) and 12.2% (95% CI, 11.2%–13.3%), respectively. One year after diagnosis the prevalence was 16.6% (95% CI, 15.4%–17.9%) and 25.0% (95% CI, 23.6%–26.4%), respectively. At the end of the observation period, the prevalence of preDM and DM was 21.2% (95% CI, 19.9%–22.6%) and 32.6% (95% CI, 31.1%–34.2%), respectively. Patients with myeloma (39.2%; 95% CI, 32.6%–46.2%) had the highest prevalence of preDM, and those with pancreatic cancer had the highest prevalence of DM (65.1%; 95% CI, 57.0%–72.3%). Patients who underwent chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or immunotherapy had a higher prevalence of preDM and DM compared with those who did not undergo these therapies. Conclusions: Every second patient with cancer experiences preDM or DM. It is essential to foster interprofessional collaboration and to develop evidence-based practice guidelines. A better understanding of the impact of cancer treatment on the development of preDM and DM remains critical.