RESUMEN
Advances in biomarker-driven therapies for patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) both provide opportunities to improve the treatment (and thus outcomes) for patients and pose new challenges for equitable care delivery. Over the last decade, the continuing development of new biomarker-driven therapies and evolving indications for their use have intensified the importance of interdisciplinary communication and coordination for patients with or suspected to have lung cancer. Multidisciplinary teams are challenged with completing comprehensive and timely biomarker testing and navigating the constantly evolving evidence base for a complex and time-sensitive disease. This guide provides context for the current state of comprehensive biomarker testing for NSCLC, reviews how biomarker testing integrates within the diagnostic continuum for patients, and illustrates best practices and common pitfalls that influence the success and timeliness of biomarker testing using a series of case scenarios.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/terapia , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/diagnóstico , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/terapia , Biomarcadores de TumorRESUMEN
Comprehensive biomarker testing is a crucial requirement for the optimal treatment of advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with emerging relevance in the adjuvant treatment setting. To advance its goal of ensuring optimal therapy for persons diagnosed with lung cancer, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) held The Summit on Optimizing Lung Cancer Biomarkers in Practice in September 2020 to align its partners toward the goal of ensuring comprehensive biomarker testing for all eligible patients with NSCLC. The ACS NLCRT's Strategic Plan for Advancing Comprehensive Biomarker Testing in NSCLC, a product of the summit, comprises actions to promote comprehensive biomarker testing for all eligible patients. The approach is multifaceted, including policy-level advocacy and the development and dissemination of targeted educational materials, clinical decision tools, and guides to patients, physicians, and payers aimed at ameliorating barriers to testing experienced by each of these groups. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The ACS NLCRT works to improve care for patients with lung cancer. The ACS NLCRT supports comprehensive biomarker testing as essential to determine treatment options for all eligible patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Many factors lead to some patients not receiving optimal biomarker testing. The ACS NLCRT held a collaborative summit and developed a strategic plan to achieve and promote comprehensive biomarker testing for all patients. These plans include developing educational materials and physician tools and advocating for national policies in support of biomarker testing.
RESUMEN
Accurate staging improves lung cancer survival by increasing the chances of delivering stage-appropriate therapy. However, there is underutilization of, and variability in, the use of guideline-recommended diagnostic tests used to stage lung cancer. Consequently, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) convened the Triage for Appropriate Treatment Task Group-a multidisciplinary expert and stakeholder panel-to identify knowledge and/or resource gaps contributing to guideline-discordant staging and make recommendations to overcome these gaps. The task group determined the following: Gap 1: facilitators of and barriers to guideline-concordant staging are incompletely understood; Recommendation 1: identify facilitators of and barriers to guideline-concordant lung cancer staging; Gap 2: the level of evidence supporting staging algorithms is low-to-moderate; Recommendation 2: prioritize comparative-effectiveness studies evaluating lung cancer staging; Gap 3: guideline recommendations vary across professional societies; Recommendation 3: harmonize guideline recommendations across professional societies; Gap 4: existing databases do not contain sufficient information to measure guideline-concordant staging; Recommendation 4: augment existing databases with the information required to measure guideline-concordant staging; Gap 5: health systems do not have a performance feedback mechanism for lung cancer staging; Recommendation 5: develop and implement a performance feedback mechanism for lung cancer staging; Gap 6: patients rarely self-advocate for guideline-concordant staging; Recommendation 6: increase opportunities for patient self-advocacy for guideline-concordant staging; and Gap 7: current health policies do not motivate guideline-concordant lung cancer staging; Recommendation 7: organize a representative working group under the ACS NLCRT that promotes policies that motivate guideline-concordant lung cancer staging. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Staging-determining the degree of cancer spread-is important because it helps clinicians choose the best cancer treatment. Receiving the best cancer treatment leads to the best possible patient outcomes. Practice guidelines are intended to help clinicians stage patients with lung cancer. However, lung cancer staging in the United States often varies from practice guideline recommendations. This report identifies seven opportunities to improve lung cancer staging.
RESUMEN
Lung nodules are frequently detected on low-dose computed tomography scans performed for lung cancer screening and incidentally detected on imaging performed for other reasons. There is wide variability in how lung nodules are managed by general practitioners and subspecialists, with high rates of guideline-discordant care. This may be due in part to the level of evidence underlying current practice guideline recommendations (primarily based on findings from uncontrolled studies of diagnostic accuracy). The primary aims of lung nodule management are to minimize harms of diagnostic evaluations while expediting the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of lung cancer. Potentially useful tools such as lung cancer probability calculators, automated methods to identify patients with nodules in the electronic health record, and multidisciplinary team evaluation are often underused due to limited availability, accessibility, and/or provider knowledge. Finally, relatively little attention has been paid to identifying and reducing disparities among individuals with screening-detected or incidentally detected lung nodules. This contribution to the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable Strategic Plan aims to identify and describe these knowledge gaps in lung nodule management and propose recommendations to advance clinical practice and research. Major themes that are addressed include improving the quality of evidence supporting lung nodule evaluation guidelines, strategically leveraging information technology, and placing emphasis on equitable approaches to nodule management. The recommendations outlined in this strategic plan, when carried out through interdisciplinary efforts with a focus on health equity, ultimately aim to improve early detection and reduce the morbidity and mortality of lung cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung nodules may be identified on chest scans of individuals who undergo lung cancer screening (screening-detected nodules) or among patients for whom a scan was performed for another reason (incidental nodules). Although the vast majority of lung nodules are not lung cancer, it is important to have evidence-based, standardized approaches to the evaluation and management of a lung nodule. The primary aims of lung nodule management are to diagnose lung cancer while it is still in an early stage and to avoid unnecessary procedures and other harms.
RESUMEN
Comprehensive biomarker testing for patients with non-small cell lung cancer is critical for selecting appropriate targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Ensuring timely ordering, processing, and reporting is key to optimizing patient outcomes. However, various factors can prevent or delay patients from being offered the option of treatment selection based on comprehensive biomarker testing. These factors include problems with access to testing, tissue adequacy, turnaround time, and health insurance coverage and billing practices. Turnaround time depends on several logistical and tissue handling factors, which involve institutional policies, processes, resources, testing methodology, and testing algorithms that vary across different practices. In this article, the authors identify key factors that prolong biomarker testing turnaround time, propose strategies to reduce it, and present a process map to aid physicians and key organizational stakeholders in improving testing efficiency.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30âdays. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes. METHODS: We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30âdays: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10âdays of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations. RESULTS: The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Apendicectomía , Apendicitis , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Apendicitis/tratamiento farmacológico , Apendicitis/cirugía , Percepción , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Cancers originating in the esophagus or esophagogastric junction constitute a major global health problem. Esophageal cancers are histologically classified as squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma, which differ in their etiology, pathology, tumor location, therapeutics, and prognosis. In contrast to esophageal adenocarcinoma, which usually affects the lower esophagus, esophageal SCC is more likely to localize at or higher than the tracheal bifurcation. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1, has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with locally advanced esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on the management of recurrent or metastatic disease.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas , Neoplasias Esofágicas , Neoplasias Primarias Secundarias , Humanos , Calidad de Vida , Neoplasias Esofágicas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Esofágicas/genética , Neoplasias Esofágicas/terapia , Adenocarcinoma/diagnóstico , Adenocarcinoma/genética , Adenocarcinoma/terapia , Unión Esofagogástrica/patología , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/patología , Neoplasias Primarias Secundarias/patologíaRESUMEN
Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Over 95% of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which are typically classified based on anatomic location and histologic type. Gastric cancer generally carries a poor prognosis because it is often diagnosed at an advanced stage. Systemic therapy can provide palliation, improved survival, and enhanced quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The implementation of biomarker testing, especially analysis of HER2 status, microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and the expression of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), has had a significant impact on clinical practice and patient care. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in clinical trials for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Palliative management, which may include systemic therapy, chemoradiation, and/or best supportive care, is recommended for all patients with unresectable or metastatic cancer. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with localized gastric cancer. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Gastric Cancer focuses on the management of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic disease.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Gástricas , Adenocarcinoma/patología , Humanos , Oncología Médica , Inestabilidad de Microsatélites , Calidad de Vida , Neoplasias Gástricas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Gástricas/genética , Neoplasias Gástricas/patología , Neoplasias Gástricas/terapiaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Selecting appropriate management for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) is predicated on accurate clinical staging information. Inaccurate information could lead to inappropriate treatment and suboptimal survival. We investigated the relationship between staging accuracy, treatment, and survival. METHODS: This was a national cohort study of EA patients in the National Cancer Data Base (2006-2015) treated with upfront resection or neoadjuvant therapy (NAT). Clinical and pathological staging information was used to ascertain staging concordance for each patient. For NAT patients, Bayesian analysis was used to account for potential downstaging. We evaluated the association between staging concordance, receipt of NAT, and survival through hierarchical logistic regression and multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 7635 EA patients treated at 877 hospitals, 3038 had upfront resection and 4597 NAT followed by surgery. Relative to accurately staged patients, understaging was associated with a lower likelihood (odds ratio [OR] 0.04 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.05) while overstaging was associated with a greater likelihood of receiving NAT (OR 1.98 [1.53-2.56]). Relative to upfront surgery, treatment of cT1N0 patients with NAT was associated with a higher risk of death (HR 3.08 [2.36-4.02]). For accurately or overstaged cT3-T4 patients, NAT was associated with a lower risk of death whether downstaging occurred (ypN0 disease-HR 0.67 [0.49-0.92]; N+ disease-HR 0.55 [0.45-0.66]) or not (ypN + disease-HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.65-0.93]). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical understaging is associated with receipt of NAT which in turn may have a stage-specific impact on patients' survival regardless of treatment response. Guidelines should account for the possibility of inaccurate clinical staging.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Neoplasias Esofágicas , Teorema de Bayes , Estudios de Cohortes , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patología , Humanos , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Estudios Retrospectivos , Tasa de SupervivenciaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality after bariatric surgery. Roughly 80% of VTEs occur post-discharge. The frequency of post-discharge heparin (PDH) prophylaxis use is unknown, and evidence about benefits and risks is limited. We aimed to determine the rate of use of PDH prophylaxis and evaluate its relationship with VTE and bleeding events. METHODS: Using the Truven Health MarketScan® database, we performed a retrospective cohort study (2007-2015) of adult patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy or gastric bypass. We determined PDH prophylaxis from outpatient pharmacy claims, and post-discharge 90-day VTE and bleeding events from outpatient and inpatient claims. We used propensity score-adjusted regression models to mitigate confounding bias. RESULTS: Among 43,493 patients (median age 45 years; 78% women; 77% laparoscopic gastric bypass, 17% laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, 6% open gastric bypass), 6% received PDH prophylaxis. Overall, 224 patients (0.52%) experienced VTEs, and 806 patients (1.85%) experienced bleeding. The unadjusted VTE rate did not differ between patients who did and did not receive PDH prophylaxis (0.39% vs. 0.52%, respectively; p = 0.347). The unadjusted bleeding rate was higher for the PDH prophylaxis group (2.74% vs. 1.80%, p < 0.001). In our adjusted analysis, a 23% lower risk of VTE in the PDH prophylaxis group was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 1.46), whereas the 47% higher risk of bleeding was statistically significant (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.88). CONCLUSIONS: PDH prophylaxis after bariatric surgery is uncommon. In our analysis, use was not associated with a lower VTE risk but was associated with a higher bleeding risk.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Bariátrica , Tromboembolia Venosa , Adulto , Cuidados Posteriores , Anticoagulantes/efectos adversos , Cirugía Bariátrica/efectos adversos , Femenino , Heparina/efectos adversos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Alta del Paciente , Estudios Retrospectivos , Tromboembolia Venosa/epidemiología , Tromboembolia Venosa/etiología , Tromboembolia Venosa/prevención & controlRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the number of US hospitals that would meet "Take the Volume Pledge" (TVP) volume thresholds and compare outcomes at hospitals meeting and not meeting TVP thresholds. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: TVP aims to regionalize complex cancer resections to hospitals meeting established annual average volume thresholds. There is little data describing the potential impact on patient access if this initiative were broadly implemented or the relationship between these volume thresholds and quality of oncologic care. METHODS: Hospitals in the National Cancer Database (2006-2012) performing esophagectomy (n = 968), proctectomy (n = 1250), or pancreatectomy (n = 1068) were categorized based on frequency meeting TVP thresholds: always low volume (LV); low annual average and intermittently low volume (ILV); high annual average and intermittently high volume (IHV); always high volume (HV). Multivariable generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate the association between hospital TVP category, oncologic care processes, and perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Few hospitals met annual TVP thresholds (HV or IHV)-esophagectomy 1.6%; proctectomy 19.7%; pancreatectomy 6.6%. The majority of esophagectomy (77.8%) and pancreatectomy (53.4%) and 48.1% of proctectomy patients received care at hospitals not meeting annual TVP thresholds (LV or ILV). While performance for all three procedures was generally better at ILV, IHV, and HV hospitals relative to LV hospitals, there were few differences (none of which were consistent) when comparing ILV, IHV, and HV hospitals to each other. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Few hospitals would meet TVP volume thresholds for complex cancer resections with little difference in outcomes between ILV, IHV, and HV hospitals. While a policy to regionalize complex surgical care may have merit, it could also compromise patient autonomy and limit access to care if patients are unable or unwilling to travel.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo/estadística & datos numéricos , Neoplasias Gastrointestinales/cirugía , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Anciano , Femenino , Hospitales de Alto Volumen , Hospitales de Bajo Volumen , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Utilización de Procedimientos y Técnicas , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Esophageal cancer is the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common histology in Eastern Europe and Asia, and adenocarcinoma is most common in North America and Western Europe. Surgery is a major component of treatment of locally advanced resectable esophageal and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer, and randomized trials have shown that the addition of preoperative chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy to surgery significantly improves survival. Targeted therapies including trastuzumab, ramucirumab, and pembrolizumab have produced encouraging results in the treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic disease. Multidisciplinary team management is essential for all patients with esophageal and EGJ cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers focuses on recommendations for the management of locally advanced and metastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and EGJ.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma/epidemiología , Neoplasias Esofágicas/epidemiología , Unión Esofagogástrica/patología , Guías como Asunto , Adenocarcinoma/tratamiento farmacológico , Adenocarcinoma/patología , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Quimioradioterapia Adyuvante , Terapia Combinada , Neoplasias Esofágicas/clasificación , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patología , Neoplasias Esofágicas/terapia , Humanos , Oncología Médica , RamucirumabRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Minimal knowledge exists regarding the outcome, prognosis and optimal treatment strategy for patients with pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas (LCNEC) due to their rarity. We aimed to identify factors affecting survival and recurrence after resection to inform current treatment strategies. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 72 patients who had undergone a curative resection for LCNEC in 8 centers between 2000 and 2015. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify the factors influencing recurrence, disease-specific survival and overall survival. These included age, gender, previous malignancy, ECOG performance status, symptoms at diagnosis, extent of resection, extent of lymphadenectomy, additional chemo- and/or radiotherapy, tumor location, tumor size, pT, pleural invasion, pN and pStage. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 47 (95%CI 41-79) months; 5-year disease-specific and overall survival rates were 57.6% (95%CI 41.3-70.9) and 47.4% (95%CI 32.3-61.1). There were 22 systemic recurrences and 12 loco-regional recurrences. Tumor size was an independent prognostic factor for systemic recurrence [HR: 1.20 (95%CI 1.01-1.41); p = 0.03] with a threshold value of 3 cm (AUC = 0.71). For tumors ≤3 cm and >3 cm, 5-year freedom from systemic recurrence was 79.2% (95%CI 43.6-93.6) and 38.2% (95%CI 20.6-55.6) (p < 0.001) and 5-year disease-specific survival was 60.7% (95%CI 35.1-78.8) and 54.2% (95%CI 32.6-71.6) (p = 0.31), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients with surgically resected LCNEC will develop systemic recurrence after resection. Patients with tumors >3 cm have a significantly higher rate of systemic recurrence suggesting that adjuvant chemotherapy should be considered after complete resection of LCNEC >3 cm, even in the absence of nodal involvement.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Células Grandes/cirugía , Carcinoma Neuroendocrino/cirugía , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/cirugía , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/patología , Carga Tumoral , Anciano , Carcinoma de Células Grandes/secundario , Carcinoma Neuroendocrino/secundario , Femenino , Humanos , Escisión del Ganglio Linfático , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Tasa de SupervivenciaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of receiving care at high minimally invasive surgery (MIS)-utilizing hospitals BACKGROUND:: MIS techniques are used across surgical specialties. The extent of MIS utilization for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer resection and impact of receiving care at high utilizing hospitals is unclear. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 137,581 surgically resected esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, hepatobiliary, colon, and rectal cancer patients within the National Cancer Data Base (2010-2013). Disease-specific, hospital-level, reliability-adjusted MIS utilization rates were calculated to evaluate perioperative outcomes. Among patients for whom adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) was indicated, the association between days to AC and hospital MIS utilization was examined using generalized estimating equations. Association with risk of death was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Disease-specific MIS use increased significantly [42.0%-68.3% increase; trend test, P < 0.001 for all except hepatobiliary (P = 0.007)] over time. Most hospitals [range-30.3% (colon); 92.9% (pancreatic)] were low utilizers (≤30% of cases). Higher MIS utilization is associated with increased lymph nodes examined (P < 0.001, all) and shorter length of stay (P < 0.001, all). Each 10% increase in MIS utilization is associated with fewer days to AC [3.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-5.3) for MIS gastric; 3.3 ([0.7-5.8) for open gastric; 1.1 (0.3-2.0) days for open colon]. An association between MIS utilization and risk of death was observed for colon [Q2-hazard ratio (HR) 0.96 (0.89-1.02); Q3-HR 0.91 (0.86-0.98); Q4-HR 0.87 (0.82-0.93)] and rectal cancer [Q2-HR 0.89 (0.76-1.05); Q3-HR 0.84 (0.82-0.97); Q4-HR 0.86 (0.74-0.98)]. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals treating GI malignancies are low MIS utilizers. Our findings may reflect real-world MIS effectiveness for oncologic resection and could be useful for identifying hospitals with infrastructure and/or processes beneficial for multimodality cancer care.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Gastrointestinales/cirugía , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/tendencias , Utilización de Procedimientos y Técnicas/tendencias , Adenocarcinoma/mortalidad , Adenocarcinoma/cirugía , Neoplasias de los Conductos Biliares/mortalidad , Neoplasias de los Conductos Biliares/cirugía , Conductos Biliares Intrahepáticos , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/mortalidad , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/cirugía , Colangiocarcinoma/mortalidad , Colangiocarcinoma/cirugía , Neoplasias Gastrointestinales/mortalidad , Humanos , Neoplasias Hepáticas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Hepáticas/cirugía , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is associated with improved overall survival for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, and to evaluate how pathologic disease response to neoadjuvant treatment impacts this effect. BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation is currently the preferred management approach for locoregional esophageal cancer. Although there is interest in the use of AC, the benefit of systemic therapy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is unclear. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy in the National Cancer Data Base (2006-2012). RESULTS: Among 3592 patients with esophageal cancer (84.7% adenocarcinoma, 15.2% squamous cell carcinoma), 335 (9.3%) were treated with AC. AC was not associated with a significantly lower risk of death among patients with no residual disease (ypT0N0) or residual non-nodal disease (ypT+N0). Among patients with residual nodal disease (ypTanyN+), AC was associated with a 30% lower risk of death in the overall cohort [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, (0.57-0.85)] and among those with adenocarcinoma [HR 0.69 (0.57-0.85)]. Using a 90-day postoperative landmark, findings were similar. Among patients with postoperative length of stay ≤10 days and no unplanned readmission, AC was associated with approximately 40% lower risk of death among patients with residual nodal disease [overall cohort, HR 0.63 (0.48-0.84); adenocarcinoma, HR 0.66 (0.49-0.88)]. CONCLUSIONS: AC after neoadjuvant chemoradiation and esophagectomy is associated with improved survival in patients with residual nodal disease. Our findings suggest AC may provide additional benefit for esophageal cancer patients, and merits further investigation.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma/terapia , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/terapia , Quimioradioterapia , Quimioterapia Adyuvante , Neoplasias Esofágicas/terapia , Esofagectomía , Terapia Neoadyuvante , Adenocarcinoma/mortalidad , Adenocarcinoma/patología , Anciano , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/mortalidad , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas/patología , Neoplasias Esofágicas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patología , Femenino , Humanos , Ganglios Linfáticos/patología , Metástasis Linfática , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Neoplasia Residual/patología , Neoplasia Residual/terapia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Análisis de SupervivenciaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to present the dosimetry, feasibility, and preliminary clinical results of a novel pencil beam scanning (PBS) posterior beam technique of proton treatment for esophageal cancer in the setting of trimodality therapy. METHODS: From February 2014 to June 2015, 13 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer (T3-4N0-2M0; 11 adenocarcinoma, 2 squamous cell carcinoma) were treated with trimodality therapy (neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy). Eight patients were treated with uniform scanning (US) and 5 patients were treated with a single posterior-anterior (PA) beam PBS technique with volumetric rescanning for motion mitigation. Comparison planning with PBS was performed using three plans: AP/PA beam arrangement; PA plus left posterior oblique (LPO) beams, and a single PA beam. Patient outcomes, including pathologic response and toxicity, were evaluated. RESULTS: All 13 patients completed chemoradiation to 50.4 Gy (relative biological effectiveness, RBE) and 12 patients underwent surgery. All 12 surgical patients had an R0 resection and pathologic complete response was seen in 25 %. Compared with AP/PA plans, PA plans have a lower mean heart (14.10 vs. 24.49 Gy, P < 0.01), mean stomach (22.95 vs. 31.33 Gy, P = 0.038), and mean liver dose (3.79 vs. 5.75 Gy, P = 0.004). Compared to the PA/LPO plan, the PA plan reduced the lung dose: mean lung dose (4.96 vs. 7.15 Gy, P = 0.020) and percentage volume of lung receiving 20 Gy (V20; 10 vs. 17 %, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Proton therapy with a single PA beam PBS technique for preoperative treatment of esophageal cancer appears safe and feasible.
Asunto(s)
Quimioradioterapia/métodos , Neoplasias Esofágicas/terapia , Terapia de Protones/métodos , Traumatismos por Radiación/prevención & control , Radiometría/métodos , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patología , Estudios de Factibilidad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Terapia de Protones/efectos adversos , Traumatismos por Radiación/etiología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Gastric cancer is the fifth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of death from cancer in the world. Several advances have been made in the staging procedures, imaging techniques, and treatment approaches. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Gastric Cancer provide an evidence- and consensus-based treatment approach for the management of patients with gastric cancer. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for staging, assessment of HER2 overexpression, systemic therapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease, and best supportive care for the prevention and management of symptoms due to advanced disease.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Gástricas , Humanos , Neoplasias Gástricas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Gástricas/terapiaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The importance of imaging surveillance after treatment for lung cancer is not well characterized. We examined the association between initial guideline recommended imaging surveillance and survival among early-stage resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data (1995-2010). Surgically resected patients, with stage I and II NSCLC, were categorized by imaging received during the initial surveillance period (4-8 mo) after surgery. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary treatment interventions were examined as intermediary outcomes. RESULTS: Most (88%) patients had at least one outpatient clinic visit, and 24% received an initial computerized tomography (CT) during the first surveillance period. Five-year survival by initial surveillance imaging was 61% for CT, 58% for chest radiography, and 60% for no imaging. After adjustment, initial CT was not associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.14). On subgroup analysis, restricted to patients with demonstrated initial postoperative follow-up, CT was associated with a lower overall risk of death for stage I patients (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98), but not for stage II (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71-1.42). There was no significant difference in rates of secondary interventions predicted by type of initial imaging surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Initial surveillance CT is not associated with improved overall or lung cancer-specific survival among early-stage NSCLC patients undergoing surgical resection. Stage I patients with early follow-up may represent a subpopulation that benefits from initial surveillance although this may be influenced by healthy patient selection bias.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/mortalidad , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidad , Neumonectomía , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/diagnóstico por imagen , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/patología , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/cirugía , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pulmonares/patología , Neoplasias Pulmonares/cirugía , Masculino , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Cuidados Posoperatorios , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Estudios Retrospectivos , Programa de VERF , Análisis de SupervivenciaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) is an accepted approach for distal esophageal (DE) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers. Its reported weaknesses are limited loco-regional resection and high anastomotic leak rates. We have used laparoscopic assistance to perform a THE (LapTHE) as our preferred method of resection for GEJ and DE cancers for over 20 years. Our unique approach and experience may provide technical insights and perhaps superior outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed all patients who underwent LapTHE for DE and GEJ malignancy over 10 years (2011-2020). We included 6 principles in our approach: (1) minimize dissection trauma using laparoscopy; (2) routine Kocher maneuver; (3) division of lesser sac adhesions exposing the entire gastroepiploic arcade; (4) gaining excess conduit mobility, allowing resection of proximal stomach, and performing the anastomosis with a well perfused stomach; (5) stapled side-to-side anastomosis; and (6) routine feeding jejunostomy and early oral diet. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-seven patients were included in the analysis. The median number of lymph nodes procured was 19 (range 5-49). Negative margins were achieved in all cases (95% confidence interval [CI] 98-100%). Median hospital stay was 7 days. Overall major complication rate was 24% (17-32%), 90-day mortality was 2.0% (0.4-5.8%), and reoperation was 5.4% (2.4-10%). Three patients (2.0%, 0.4-5.8%) developed anastomotic leaks. Median follow-up was 901 days (range 52-5240). Nine patients (6.1%, 2.8-11%) developed anastomotic strictures. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of LapTHE for DE and GEJ cancers and inclusion of these six operative principles allow for a low rate of anastomotic complications relative to national benchmarks.