Impact of Primary Disease Site of Involvement by Early-Stage Follicular Lymphoma on Patient Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Follicular lymphoma is a common non-Hodgkin lymphoma that can start in a diverse array of tissues throughout the body. While the majority of patients may be able to live many years with this disease, cure remains very difficult to achieve. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the impact of follicular lymphoma primary disease site in early-stage disease on patient outcomes using a large national database. METHODS: Baseline demographic and disease data for patients diagnosed with follicular lymphoma from 2000-2015 was identified and extracted from the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Primary disease sites were grouped into one of two cohorts: nodal disease (lymph nodes and spleen) and extranodal disease (everything else). Analysis was performed using summary statistics, Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox-proportional hazards models for univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 13,400 patients were included in the final analysis and the majority were non-Hispanic white (81%), with stage I (63%), and nodal FL (79%). Median overall survival for nodal disease was 15.1 years [95% CI (14.6-15.6)] while median overall survival for extranodal disease was 15.8 years [95% CI (14.9-16.3)]. Overall survival was slightly better for patients with extranodal disease [HR = 0.89, 95% CI (0.84-0.96); p-value = 0.00012]. This finding remained consistent after controlling for age and race [HR = 0.84, 95% CI (0.79-0.90); p-value <0.0001]. CONCLUSIONS: The primary site of involvement by early-stage follicular lymphoma may have an impact on patient outcomes and warrants further investigation.

Impact of primary organ site of involvement by peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified on survival.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) is a rare, highly heterogeneous group of mature T-cell neoplasms that historically has been associated with poor outcomes. We sought to investigate the influence of primary disease site on PTCL-NOS outcomes using a large national cancer registry. METHODS: Baseline clinical and demographic data including primary organ of involvement and Ann Arbor disease stage were extracted from the SEER database. Patients were grouped into nine organ system groups and compared to nodal disease acting as a control. Cox regression models were utilized for adjusted survival analyses. RESULTS: A total of 3095 patients were identified in the SEER database and included in the final analysis. The median age was 61 and a majority of patients were male (60%) and identified as non-Hispanic white (68%). A plurality of patients had stage IV disease (32%). Lymph nodes and spleen were the most common primary disease sites (67%), while central nervous system was the least common (1%). Patients with early-stage PTCL-NOS of the gastrointestinal/genitourinary systems had worse overall survival [HR = 1.97 (1.50-2.59); p < 0.001] and lymphoma-specific survival [HR = 1.74 (1.26-2.40); p < 0.001] which was statistically significant even after adjusting for other variables. Early-stage PTCL-NOS of the central nervous system also had worse overall survival [HR = 1.90 (1.11-3.27); p = 0.020] and lymphoma-specific survival [HR = 2.11 (1.17-3.80); p = 0.013]. Early-stage PTCL-NOS of the skin had better overall survival [HR = 0.54 (0.42-0.68); p < 0.001] and lymphoma-specific survival [HR = 0.388 (0.28-0.53); p < 0.001] which was statistically significant even after adjustments. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest an association between primary organ involved by PTCL-NOS and both overall and lymphoma-specific survival even after adjusting for common variables. These results warrant validation in future prospective studies.

Impact of Race and Age and their Interaction on Survival Outcomes in Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Advances in treatment for patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) have led to improved patient outcomes but the magnitude of these disparities remains understudied with regards to improved survival outcomes. We sought to describe changes in DLBCL survival trends over time and explore potential differential survival patterns by patients' race/ethnicity and age. METHODS: We utilized the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to identify patients diagnosed with DLBCL from 1980 to 009 and determined 5-year survival outcomes for all patients, categorizing patients by year of diagnosis. We used descriptive statistics and logistic regression, adjusting for stage and year of diagnosis, to describe changes in 5-year survival rates over time by race/ethnicity and age. RESULTS: We identified 43,564 patients with DLBCL eligible for this study. Median age was 67 years (ages: 18-64 = 44.2%, 65-79 = 37.1%, 80 + = 18.7%). Most patients were male (53.4%) and had advanced stage III/IV disease (40.0%). Most patients were White race (81.4%), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (API) (6.3%), Black (6.3%), Hispanic (5.4%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) (0.05%). Overall, the 5-year survival rate improved from 35.1% in 1980 to 52.4% in 2009 across all races and age groups (odds ratio [OR] for 5-year survival with increasing year of diagnosis = 1.05, P < .001). Patients in racial/ethnic minority groups (API: OR = 0.86, P < .0001; Black: OR = 0.57, P < .0001; AIAN: OR = 0.51, P = .008; Hispanic: 0.76, P = 0.291) and older adults (ages 65-79: OR = 0.43, P < .0001; ages 80+: OR = 0.13, P < .0001) had lower 5-year survival rates after adjusting for race, age, stage, and diagnosis year. We found consistent improvement in the odds of 5-year survival for year of diagnosis across all race and ethnicity groups (White: OR = 1.05, P < .001; API: OR = 1.04, P < .001; Black: OR = 1.06, p<.001; AIAN: OR = 1.05, P < .001; Hispanic: OR = 1.05, P < .005) and age groups (ages 18-64: OR = 1.06, P < .001; ages 65-79: OR = 1.04, P < .001; ages 80+: OR = 1.04, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with DLBCL experienced improvements in 5-year survival rates from 1980 to 2009, despite persistently lower survival among patients in racial/ethnic minority groups and older adults.

Pain Management in Oncology Patients Amidst the Opioid Epidemic: How To Minimize Non-Medical Opioid Use.

The opioid epidemic continues to be a significant public health concern. On the surface, it appears difficult to understate the profound consequences and unnecessary loss of life at the hands of the opioid crisis throughout the 2010s. This reality should not dissuade rigorous attention toward those who have suffered unnecessarily due to an overreaching backlash toward the opioid crisis. Oncology patients have been significantly impacted on both ends of the opioid crisis. Like other populations, cancer patients were first affected during the initial surge of opioid availability, prescription, and use at the beginning of the crisis, where opioid abuse and overdose negatively impacted cancer patient populations at similar rates as the general population. Yet, cancer patients were perhaps even more heavily affected during secondary events after the initial crisis, as opioid restrictions and the stigmatization, undoubtedly beneficial in many spaces, of opioid use became prevalent across the American society. During this second period of the opioid crisis (loosely from 2013 to the present day after the Veterans Health Administration Opioid Safety Initiative started), restrictions on opioids have significantly decreased the use and access of opioids for cancer patients. Management of pain, in general, is a complex topic, and cancer pain is no exception. Cancer patients may experience pain related to the disease itself, its treatment, or other comorbidities. This review aims to clarify the impact of reducing opioid use on cancer patients over the past eight years. We summarize the challenges facing providers as they attempt to manage cancer-related pain. Additionally, we propose tools for best practices to reduce the unnecessary suffering of cancer patients and protect against the overuse and abuse of opioids.

Research Staff Perspectives on Cancer Clinical Trials and Barriers to Recruitment: A Qualitative Research.

Background Clinical trials are key elements of the processes that account for many of the recent advances in cancer care. Unfortunately, they are becoming more challenging to conduct. Furthermore, a large number of clinical trials in oncology close early due to poor accrual. To identify opportunities for continued improvement in clinical trial enrollment, we sought to identify the obstacles encountered by our clinical trial research staff in these activities. Methods This is a prospective qualitative study, using Grounded Theory Methodology that was concluded at Stephenson Cancer Center (SCC). SCC has been the lead accruer to National Cancer Institute-Lead Academic Participating Sites (NCI-LAPS) trials over the past three years, and in addition, fields investigator-initiated and industry-sponsored trials. We conducted a survey of our research staff including all research nurses and disease site coordinators who participate in recruitment, screening, consenting, data collection, and compliance for interventional clinical trials. We then performed a follow-up meeting with our research coordinators to clarify responses. The study objectives were to highlight common barriers to recruiting adult cancer patients, encountered by research coordinators from all disease sites and to propose effective solutions to identified barriers. Results We are reporting our results of investigating barriers to clinical trials enrollment from a new perspective. The most commonly reported obstacles for clinical trials enrollment from our research staff's perspective were categorized into five themes: clinical trials protocol, communication barriers and cultural beliefs, financial barriers, patients' comorbidities and performance status, and physicians' commitment. Conclusions Although assessing barriers encountered by clinical research staff is an infrequently used metric for improving clinical trial enrollment, it provides an important perspective in the field. Implementing interventions to improve clinical trial feasibility and accrual is critical to improving cancer care.