The Role of En Bloc Resection in the Modern Era for Primary Spine Tumors.

STUDY DESIGN: A literature review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to provide an overview of benign and malignant primary spine tumors and a balanced analysis of the benefits and limitations of (and alternatives to) surgical treatment with en bloc resection. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Primary spine tumors are rare but have the potential to cause severe morbidity, either from the disease itself or as a result of treatment. The prognosis, goals, and treatment options vary significantly with the specific disease entity. Appropriate initial management is critical; inappropriate surgery before definitive treatment can lead to recurrence and may render the patient incurable, as salvage options are often inferior. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed database for articles relevant to primary spine neoplasms and en bloc spine surgery. Institutional review board approval was not needed. RESULTS: Although Enneking-appropriate en bloc surgery can be highly morbid, it often provides the greatest chance for local control and/or patient survival. However, there is growing data to support modern radiotherapy as a feasible and less morbid approach to certain primary neoplasms that historically were considered radioresistant. CONCLUSIONS: Choosing the optimal approach to primary spine tumors is complex. A comprehensive and up-to-date assessment of the evidence is required to guide patient care and to balance the often-competing goals of prolonging life and preserving quality of life.

Underdiagnosis of iron deficiency anemia among patients with colorectal cancer: an examination of electronic medical records.

BACKGROUND: Timely diagnosis and management of iron deficiency anemia (IDA) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients improves overall quality of life and survival. This study assessed the proportion of CRC patients who were formally diagnosed with IDA and factors that predict a formal diagnosis of IDA and receiving iron therapy. METHODS: We retrieved electronic medical records (EMRs) of CRC patients from a large comprehensive cancer center in the Northeastern part of the United States (n = 499). We abstracted sociodemographic characteristics, relevant laboratory results, IDA diagnosis, and iron supplementation from the EMRs. We assessed relationships between participant characteristics, a diagnosis of IDA and receiving iron therapy through adjusted logistic regressions. RESULTS: IDA was formally diagnosed in 26 (5.2%) individuals judged by EMR documentation. Only 153 (30.7%) participants had iron laboratory results available. Among the 153 patients with iron panel data available, 113 (73.9%) had iron deficiency. Seventy-six had absolute iron deficiency as shown by ferritin levels below 100 ng/mL and iron saturation less than 20% and 37 had functional iron deficiency as shown by ferritin levels between 100 and 500 ng/mL and iron saturation less than 20%. 12% of all patients had documentation of iron therapy receipt. A formal diagnosis of IDA was not associated with any of the covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Iron deficiency anemia is under-diagnosed among CRC patients and most likely under-documented in clinical notes. Rates of iron repletion are low, suggesting that many patients with IDA are untreated. Future research should explore provider-level and other strategies for improving assessment and diagnosis of IDA among CRC patients.

Oncologist uptake of comprehensive genomic profile guided targeted therapy.

We describe the extent to which comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) results were used by oncologists to guide targeted therapy selection in a cohort of solid tumor patients tested as part of standard care at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center June 2016-June 2017, with adequate follow up through September 2018 (n = 620). Overall, 28.4% of CGP tests advised physicians about targeted therapy use supported by companion diagnostic or practice guideline evidence. Post-test targeted therapy uptake was highest for patients in active treatment at the time of order (86% versus 76% of treatment naïve patients), but also took longer to initiate (median 50 days versus 7 days for treatment naïve patients), with few patients (2.6%) receiving targeted agents prior to testing. 100% of patients with resistance variants did not receive targeted agents. Treatment naïve patients received immunotherapy as the most common alternative. When targeted therapy given off-label or in a trial was the best CGP option, (7%) of patients received it. Our data illustrate the appropriate and heterogeneous use of CGP by oncologists as a longitudinal treatment decision tool based on patient history and treatment needs, and that some patients may benefit from testing prior to initiation of other standard treatments.

Treatment recommendations to cancer patients in the context of FDA guidance for next generation sequencing.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval of next generation sequencing (NGS) by the FDA is advancing the use of genomic-based precision medicine for the therapeutic management of cancer as standard care. Recent FDA guidance for the classification of genomic variants based on clinical evidence to aid clinicians in understanding the actionability of identified variants provided by comprehensive NGS panels has also been set forth. In this retrospective analysis, we interpreted and applied the FDA variant classification guidance to comprehensive NGS testing performed for advanced cancer patients and assessed oncologist agreement with NGS test treatment recommendations. METHODS: NGS comprehensive genomic profiling was performed in a CLIA certified lab (657 completed tests for 646 patients treated at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center) between June 2016 and June 2017. Physician treatment recommendations made within 120 days post-test were gathered from tested patients' medical records and classified as targeted therapy, precision medicine clinical trial, immunotherapy, hormonal therapy, chemotherapy/radiation, surgery, transplant, or non-therapeutic (hospice, surveillance, or palliative care). Agreement between NGS test report targeted therapy recommendations based on the FDA variant classification and physician targeted therapy treatment recommendations were evaluated. RESULTS: Excluding variants contraindicating targeted therapy (i.e., KRAS or NRAS mutations), at least one variant with FDA level 1 companion diagnostic supporting evidence as the most actionable was identified in 14% of tests, with physicians most frequently recommending targeted therapy (48%) for patients with these results. This stands in contrast to physicians recommending targeted therapy based on test results with FDA level 2 (practice guideline) or FDA level 3 (clinical trial or off label) evidence as the most actionable result (11 and 4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found an appropriate "dose-response" relationship between the strength of clinical evidence supporting biomarker-directed targeted therapy based on application of FDA guidance for NGS test variant classification, and subsequent treatment recommendations made by treating physicians. In view of recent changes at FDA, it is paramount to define regulatory grounds and medical policy coverage for NGS testing based on this guidance.

Systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: beyond sorafenib.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains the second leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. In 2007, sorafenib became the first Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved first line systemic treatment for HCC, however, it confers only modest benefit in median overall survival (mOS) and comes with significant side effects. This review article will explore systemic treatments for incurable HCC beyond sorafenib. It will pay particular emphasis to various kinase inhibitors, immunotherapies, and new data on combination therapies.

Intraoperative 32P high-dose rate brachytherapy of the dura for recurrent primary and metastatic intracranial and spinal tumors.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of spinal and intracranial tumors with dural involvement is complicated by radiation tolerance of sensitive structures, especially in the setting of previous treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether intraoperative brachytherapy with short-range sources allows therapeutic dose delivery without damaging sensitive structures. METHODS: The median doses of previous treatment were 3000 cGy (range, 1800-7200 cGy) for 8 patients with primary/recurrent and 17 patients with metastatic spinal tumors and 5040 cGy (range, 1300-6040 cGy) for 5 patients with locally recurrent and 2 patients with metastatic intracranial tumors. Patients underwent gross total or maximal resection of the tumor and were then treated with an intraoperative brachytherapy plaque consisting of a flexible silicone film incorporating P. A dose of 1000 cGy was delivered to a depth of 1 mm; the percent depth dose was less than 1% at 4 mm from the prescription depth. Median postoperative radiation doses of 2700 cGy (range, 1800-3000 cGy) were delivered to 15 spinal tumor patients and 3000 cGy (range, 1800-3000 cGy) to 3 intracranial tumor patients. The median follow-up was 4.4 months (range, 2.6-23.3 months) for spinal tumor patients and 5.3 months (range, 0.7-16.2) for intracranial tumor patients. RESULTS: At 6-month follow-up, for all spinal tumor patients, local progression-free survival and overall survival rates were both 83.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 62.3%-94.3%); for all intracranial tumor patients, the local progression-free survival rate was 62.5% (95% CI: 23.8%-90.9%) and the overall survival rate was 66.7% (95% CI: 26.7%-92.9%). There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications secondary to radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Use of the P brachytherapy plaque is technically simple and not associated with increased risk of complications, even after multiple radiation courses. Local control rates were more than 80% in patients with proven radiation-resistant spinal disease.

Prospective identification of risk factors for wound infection after lower extremity oncologic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are frequent causes of morbidity and mortality after orthopaedic oncologic procedures. This study was conducted to identify the surgical site infection rate following a lower extremity or pelvic procedure and assess the risk factors for acquiring SSI by direct observation of orthopaedic oncology patients' wounds at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: One hundred ten consecutive patients were prospectively studied. The surveillance of surgical site infections was carried out by a surgeon-trained nurse from the Infectious Disease Service. Nineteen variables were analyzed as risk factors. RESULTS: The overall SSI rate was 13.6% (15 of 110). Excluding those patients with known preoperative infections, the SSI rate was 9.5% (10 of 105). Two statistically significant risk factors for surgical site infection in these patients emerged in the multivariate analysis: blood transfusion (P =.007) and obesity (P =.016). Procedure category was significant in univariate analysis only. Preoperative length of stay, length of procedure, prior adjuvant treatment (chemotherapy or radiotherapy), prior surgery, and use of an implant or allograft were not statistically significant risk factors for wound infection. Antibiotic usage patterns did not influence SSI rate. CONCLUSIONS: Blood transfusion and obesity should be considered individual risk factors for the development of wound infection in patients having orthopaedic oncologic procedures.