Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 21 items for

  • Author: Yi-Jen Chen x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Richard Li, Wei-Hsien Hou, Joseph Chao, Yanghee Woo, Scott Glaser, Arya Amini, Rebecca A. Nelson, and Yi-Jen Chen

Background: Limited data are available to guide management of patients with stage I–III gastric cancer not undergoing potentially curative surgical resection. We compared survival outcomes associated with chemotherapy alone versus chemoradiation (CRT) in the treatment of nonmetastatic gastric cancer. Methods: Patients with gastric adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2015 were identified using the National Cancer Database. Patients were excluded if they had surgery, metastatic disease, or T0, Tis, or T1a disease. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of CRT use. Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to compare overall survival (OS) between chemotherapy alone and CRT in overall and propensity score–matched cohorts. Results: We identified 4,795 patients with stage I–III gastric adenocarcinoma who did not undergo surgery, at a median follow-up of 11.8 months. A total of 3,316 patients (69.2%) received chemotherapy alone and 1,479 patients (30.8%) received CRT. Predictors of increased CRT use were age ≥65 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.68; 95% CI, 1.43–1.99; P<.001), Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score ≥2 (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.18–1.81), and treatment at a community facility (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07–1.51; P=.006). Patients receiving CRT had a 2-year OS rate of 28.3% compared with 21.5% among those receiving chemotherapy. Multivariate analysis showed that CRT was associated with improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77–0.89; P<.001). After propensity score matching, a persistent survival benefit was observed (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74–0.88; P<.001). Conclusions: In patients with stage I–III gastric cancer not undergoing surgical resection, CRT was associated with improved survival compared with chemotherapy alone. However, only 30.8% of patients received CRT in this setting.

Full access

Ashwin Shinde, Richard Li, Arya Amini, Yi-Jen Chen, Mihaela Cristea, Wenge Wang, Mark Wakabyashi, Ernest Han, Catheryn Yashar, Kevin Albuquerque, Sushil Beriwal, and Scott Glaser

Background: Vulvar cancer with pelvic nodal involvement is considered metastatic (M1) disease per AJCC staging. The role of definitive therapy and its resulting impact on survival have not been defined. Patients and Methods: Patients with pelvic lymph node–positive vulvar cancer diagnosed in 2009 through 2015 were evaluated from the National Cancer Database. Patients with known distant metastatic disease were excluded. Logistic regression was used to evaluate use of surgery and radiation therapy (RT). Overall survival (OS) was evaluated with log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards modeling (multivariate analysis [MVA]). A 2-month conditional landmark analysis was performed. Results: A total of 1,304 women met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 38 months for survivors. Chemotherapy, RT, and surgery were used in 54%, 74%, and 62% of patients, respectively. Surgery was associated with prolonged OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P<.001) but had multiple significant differences in baseline characteristics compared with nonsurgical patients. In patients managed nonsurgically, RT was associated with prolonged OS (HR, 0.66; P=.019) in MVA. In patients undergoing surgery, RT was associated with better OS (3-year OS, 55% vs 48%; P=.033). Factors predicting use of RT were identified. MVA revealed that RT was associated with prolonged OS (HR, 0.75; P=.004). Conclusions: In this cohort of women with vulvar cancer and positive pelvic lymph nodes, use of RT was associated with prolonged survival in those who did not undergo surgery. Surgery followed by adjuvant RT was associated with prolonged survival compared with surgery alone.

Full access

Richard Li, Ashwin Shinde, Marwan Fakih, Stephen Sentovich, Kurt Melstrom, Rebecca Nelson, Scott Glaser, Yi-Jen Chen, Karyn Goodman, and Arya Amini

Background: Anal adenocarcinoma is a rare malignancy with a poor prognosis, and no randomized data are available to guide management. Prior retrospective analyses offer differing conclusions on the benefit of surgical resection after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in these patients. We used the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to analyze survival outcomes in patients undergoing CRT with and without subsequent surgical resection. Methods: Patients with adenocarcinoma of the anus diagnosed in 2004 through 2015 were identified using the NCDB. Patients with metastatic disease and survival <90 days were excluded. We analyzed patients receiving CRT and stratified by receipt of surgical resection. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of use of surgery and to form a propensity score–matched cohort. Overall survival (OS) was compared between treatment strategies using Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: We identified 1,747 patients with anal adenocarcinoma receiving CRT, of whom 1,005 (58%) received surgery. Predictors of increased receipt of surgery included age <65 years, private insurance, overlapping involvement of the anus and rectum, N0 disease, and external-beam radiation dose ≥4,000 cGy. With a median follow-up of 3.5 years, 5-year OS was 61.1% in patients receiving CRT plus surgery compared with 39.8% in patients receiving CRT alone (log-rank P<.001). In multivariate analysis, surgery was associated with significantly improved OS (hazard ratio, −0.59; 95% CI, 0.50–0.68; P<.001). This survival benefit persisted in a propensity score–matched cohort (log-rank P<.001). Conclusions: In the largest series of anal adenocarcinoma cases to date, treatment with CRT followed by surgery was associated with a significant survival benefit compared with CRT alone in propensity score–matching analysis. Our findings support national guideline recommendations of neoadjuvant CRT followed by resection for patients with anal adenocarcinoma.

Full access

Paul F. Engstrom, Juan Pablo Arnoletti, Al B. Benson III, Jordan D. Berlin, J. Michael Berry, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Raza A. Dilawari, Dayna S. Early, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, James Fleshman Jr., Charles Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, James A. Knol, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Mary F. Mulcahy, Eric Rohren, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, William Small Jr., Constantinos Sofocleous, James Thomas, Alan P. Venook, and Christopher Willett

Full access

Paul F. Engstrom, Juan Pablo Arnoletti, Al B. Benson III, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Anne Covey, Raza A. Dilawari, Dayna S. Early, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, James Fleshman Jr., Charles Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Krystyna Kiel, James A. Knol, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Mary F. Mulcahy, Sujata Rao, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, Constantinos Sofocleous, James Thomas, Alan P. Venook, and Christopher Willett

Full access

Paul F. Engstrom, Juan Pablo Arnoletti, Al B. Benson III, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Anne Covey, Raza A. Dilawari, Dayna S. Early, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, James Fleshman Jr., Charles Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Krystyna Kiel, James A. Knol, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Mary F. Mulcahy, Sujata Rao, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, Constantinos Sofocleous, James Thomas, Alan P. Venook, and Christopher Willett

Full access

Al B. Benson III, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Emily Chan, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Paul F. Engstrom, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, Charles S. Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Steven Hunt, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Michael G. Martin, Kilian Salerno May, Mary F. Mulcahy, Kate Murphy, Eric Rohren, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, Sunil Sharma, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, William Small Jr, Constantinos T. Sofocleous, Alan P. Venook, Christopher G. Willett, Deborah A. Freedman-Cass, and Kristina M. Gregory

These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology provide recommendations for the management of rectal cancer, beginning with the clinical presentation of the patient to the primary care physician or gastroenterologist through diagnosis, pathologic staging, neoadjuvant treatment, surgical management, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and survivorship. This discussion focuses on localized disease. The NCCN Rectal Cancer Panel believes that a multidisciplinary approach, including representation from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology, is necessary for treating patients with rectal cancer.

Full access

Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2012

Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines

Al B. Benson III, J. Pablo Arnoletti, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Emily Chan, Yi-Jen Chen, Michael A. Choti, Harry S. Cooper, Raza A. Dilawari, Paul F. Engstrom, Peter C. Enzinger, Marwan G. Fakih, James W. Fleshman Jr., Charles S. Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Kilian Salerno May, Mary F. Mulcahy, Kate Murphy, Eric Rohren, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, Sunil Sharma, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, William Small Jr., Constantinos T. Sofocleous, Alan P. Venook, Christopher Willett, and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass

The workup and management of squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease, are addressed in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Anal Carcinoma. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of major discussion points of the 2012 NCCN Anal Carcinoma Panel meeting. In summary, the panel made 4 significant changes to the 2012 NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma: 1) local radiation therapy was added as an option for the treatment of patients with metastatic disease; 2) multifield technique is now preferred over anteroposterior-posteroanterior (AP-PA) technique for radiation delivery and the AP-PA technique is no longer recommended as the standard of care; 3) PET/CT should now be considered for radiation therapy planning; and 4) a section on risk reduction was added to the discussion section. In addition, the panel discussed the use of PET/CT for the workup of anal canal cancer and decided to maintain the recommendation that it can be considered in this setting. They also discussed the use of PET/CT for the workup of anal margin cancer and for the assessment of treatment response. They reaffirmed their recommendation that PET/CT is not appropriate in these settings.

Full access

Al B. Benson III, Alan P. Venook, Tanios Bekaii-Saab, Emily Chan, Yi-Jen Chen, Harry S. Cooper, Paul F. Engstrom, Peter C. Enzinger, Moon J. Fenton, Charles S. Fuchs, Jean L. Grem, Steven Hunt, Ahmed Kamel, Lucille A. Leong, Edward Lin, Wells Messersmith, Mary F. Mulcahy, James D. Murphy, Steven Nurkin, Eric Rohren, David P. Ryan, Leonard Saltz, Sunil Sharma, David Shibata, John M. Skibber, Constantinos T. Sofocleous, Elena M. Stoffel, Eden Stotsky-Himelfarb, Christopher G. Willett, Kristina M. Gregory, and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass

The NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer address diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, posttreatment surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease,and survivorship. This portion of the guidelines focuses on the use of systemic therapy in metastatic disease. The management of metastatic colorectal cancer involves a continuum of care in which patients are exposed sequentially to a variety of active agents, either in combinations or as single agents. Choice of therapy is based on the goals of treatment, the type and timing of prior therapy, the different efficacy and toxicity profiles of the drugs, the mutational status of the tumor, and patient preference.