Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network最新文献

The NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer/Fallopian Tube Cancer/Primary Peritoneal Cancer provide multidisciplinary diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment recommendations for this disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail how the evolution of the use of PARP inhibitors as maintenance and single-agent regimens for the treatment of ovarian cancer informed panel recommendations in the guidelines.

Background: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a highly heterogeneous disease. The CBCSG010 trial is a prospective and multicenter phase III clinical trial confirming that adding adjuvant capecitabine significantly improved the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate in patients with TNBC by 5.9%. In this study, we attempted to identify the specific population that benefited from adjuvant therapy.

Methods: In this retrospective exploratory analysis, we performed RNA sequencing of tumor tissues from patients with TNBC in the CBCSG010 clinical trial. A single-sample gene set enrichment analysis algorithm and survival analysis were performed to characterize the intrinsic molecular features of the TNBC microenvironment and assess the associations between immune-related gene expression levels or immune cell counts with capecitabine treatment efficacy. Additionally, we performed immunohistochemical staining of 2 markers, PD-L1 and CD8, and hematoxylin-eosin staining of stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens to validate findings from bioinformatics analyses.

Results: We found that patients with TNBC with high immune-infiltration treated with capecitabine were more likely to have a better prognosis. We used a cutoff of ≥25 combined positive score (CPS) of PD-L1, ≥10% positive sTILs, and ≥10% positive cells of CD8 to define the "immune-hot" patients. Among immune-hot patients, Kaplan-Meier curves showed that 5-year DFS rates were 96.9% and 79.4% in the capecitabine and control groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.52; P=.049 in favor of capecitabine). In the capecitabine group, the 5-year DFS rate was higher for immune-hot patients than for immune-cold patients (96.9% vs 76.4%; hazard ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.29; P=.028).

Conclusions: Our study suggested that immune-hot patients with TNBC are more likely to benefit from adjuvant capecitabine, and that combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy may be expected to be more effective in immune-hot patients.

CAR T-cell therapy is a recent therapeutic advancement that has transformed the management of relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). To date, there are 2 FDA-approved CAR-T products for R/R B-ALL: tisagenlecleucel in patients aged <26 years and brexucabtagene autoleucel in those aged ≥18 years. This review summarizes the pivotal clinical trials that led to FDA approval of these 2 products and highlight emerging data addressing key questions pertinent to CAR-T utilization in the rapidly evolving landscape of R/R ALL management. These include optimal sequencing of CAR-T among other novel immunotherapeutic agents, the role of consolidation and maintenance following CAR-T, novel CAR-T constructs currently under clinical development, and strategies to optimize use of commercially available CAR-T products to improve patient outcomes.

Background: Cancer survivors experience a high prevalence of functional impairments. Rehabilitation interventions include an expansive array of services that can help optimize function, address pain, decrease symptom burden, and improve quality of life. Nonetheless, rehabilitation services remain underutilized. Thus, it is important to enhance the understanding of and establish guidelines for specific rehabilitation disciplines and interventions.

Methods: This is a gap analysis of rehabilitation recommendations in published oncology guidelines from selected nationally recognized organizations. Symptom-specific guidelines and cancer type-specific guidelines were analyzed for inclusion of common functional impairments (fatigue, pain, peripheral neuropathy, cognitive dysfunction, and lymphedema) and the rehabilitation discipline recommendations.

Results: The prevalence of recommendations for rehabilitation in cancer type-specific guidelines was 29%, and was higher in symptom-specific guidelines at 60%. However, the frequency of specific rehabilitation disciplines (physiatry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology, and rehabilitation psychology/neuropsychology) was notably lower. Overall rehabilitation was mentioned in 33% and physiatry in 18%. Nonrehabilitation specialties were recommended in 18% of the guidelines. No specialty referral was endorsed in 53% of guidelines in which 1 of 5 symptoms were discussed. This highlights the relative paucity of recommendations for specific rehabilitation disciplines in oncology guidelines. The more general term "rehabilitation" was included more frequently but lacks critical guidance for oncology providers. Other crucial rehabilitation services may be underrecognized and underutilized. Rehabilitation specialists must work to improve patient access and the presence of indicated specific rehabilitation disciplines and goals within guidelines.

Conclusions: Most oncology guidelines do not include specific recommendations for rehabilitation disciplines. However, including specific rehabilitation disciplines is more common in symptom-specific guidelines. With a stronger evidence base and increased involvement of rehabilitation specialists in guideline development, rehabilitation recommendations in oncologic guidelines may be more precise, leading to improved utilization of rehabilitation services to optimize function and quality of life.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) provide recommendations for management of ALL, with a focus on the classification of ALL subtypes based on immunophenotype and cytogenetic/molecular markers; risk assessment and stratification for risk-adapted therapy; treatment strategies for Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive and Ph-negative ALL for both adolescent and young adult and adult patients; and supportive care considerations. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for ALL focuses on treatment recommendations for adults with newly diagnosed Ph-negative ALL based on current evidence.

Background: Disparities in ovarian cancer survival for African American women are multifactorial. We evaluated racial and ethnic differences in time to ovarian cancer surgery in members of an integrated health care system.

Patients and methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified women diagnosed with invasive epithelial-type ovarian cancer between January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, at an integrated health care system in the United States. We extracted data on cancer-related variables and sociodemographic variables from the health care system's cancer registry and electronic health records. We included patients who received ovarian cancer surgery without neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We defined time to surgery as the number of days between diagnostic imaging study and surgery. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate crude and adjusted association of race and ethnicity with time to surgery.

Results: Of 872 patients included, 55.1% were non-Hispanic White (hereafter, White), 24.9% were Hispanic, 14.6% were Asian/Pacific Islander (PI)/Native American, and 5.5% were African American. Median age at diagnosis was 59.0 years. African American patients were diagnosed at an older age and were more likely to come from deprived neighborhoods than other racial and ethnic groups. Median time to surgery was longer for African American patients compared with White, Hispanic, and Asian/PI/Native American patients (median days: 27.5 vs 21.0, 24.5, and 26.0, respectively; P<.0001). In adjusted models, the likelihood of having received surgery at any given time post diagnostic imaging was 31% lower for African American patients compared with White patients (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51-0.93). This likelihood was also lower for Hispanic and Asian/PI/Native American patients, but not statistically significant.

Conclusions: Our findings showed that patients with ovarian cancer from racial and ethnic minorities had a lower likelihood of having received surgery at any given time post diagnostic imaging compared with White patients, demonstrating that racial and ethnic differences exist in time to ovarian cancer surgery in patients with relatively equal access to care.

Background: 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) is a major component of gastrointestinal cancer treatments. In multidrug regimens such as FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and FOLFIRINOX, 5-FU is commonly administered as a bolus followed by an infusion. However, the pharmacologic rationale for incorporating the 5-FU bolus in these regimens is unclear, and there are other effective regimens for gastrointestinal cancers that do not include the bolus. The purpose of this study was to determine whether omission of the 5-FU bolus was associated with a difference in survival and toxicity.

Methods: A real-world database from Flatiron Health was queried for patients with advanced colorectal, gastroesophageal, and pancreatic cancers who received first-line FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and FOLFIRINOX regimens. Cox proportional hazards and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to compare survival outcomes between patients who received the 5-FU bolus and those who did not. Inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) analysis was performed to adjust for treatment selection bias.

Results: This study included 11,765 patients with advanced colorectal (n=8,670), gastroesophageal (n=1,481), and pancreatic (n=1,614) cancers. Among all first-line 5-FU multidrug regimens, 10,148 (86.3%) patients received a 5-FU bolus and 1,617 (13.7%) did not. After IPTW analysis, we found that omitting the bolus was not associated with a decrease in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.07; P=.74). However, omitting the bolus was associated with reductions in neutropenia (10.7% vs 22.7%; P<.01), thrombocytopenia (11.2% vs 16.1%; P<.01), and use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors after treatment (19.6% vs 29.1%; P<.01).

Conclusions: After adjusting for baseline clinical factors, we found that omission of the 5-FU bolus from FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and FOLFIRINOX regimens was not associated with decreased survival, but resulted in decreased toxicity and possible health care savings.