Rational follow-up after curative cancer resection
| dc.contributor.author | Furman, Matthew J. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lambert, Laura A. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Sullivan, Mary E. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Whalen, Giles F. | |
| dc.date | 2022-08-11T08:08:21.000 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-08-23T15:52:17Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-08-23T15:52:17Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013-03-20 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2013-07-08 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | J Clin Oncol. 2013 Mar 20;31(9):1130-3. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.4438. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.46.4438">Link to article on publisher's site</a> | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0732-183X (Linking) | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.4438 | |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 23358986 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/29102 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Cancer recurrence after complete resection of the primary tumor is dreaded by patients and physicians alike. Intensive follow-up after curative resection is considered a marker of good practice and frequently perceived as an antidote against recurrence by patients and families. A different perspective on which to predicate follow-up of patients with curatively treated cancer is to consider whether meaningful treatment options exist for recurrence. In cancers for which there are meaningful treatment options, it is reasonable to expect that more-intensive follow-up may improve survival. This commentary discusses this perspective in the context of the established literature in patients with colorectal and breast cancers, two cancers considered to have effective treatments for metastatic and recurrent disease as compared with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and pancreatic cancer, which do not. | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.relation | <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=23358986&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a> | |
| dc.relation.url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.46.4438 | |
| dc.subject | Breast Neoplasms | |
| dc.subject | Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung | |
| dc.subject | Colorectal Neoplasms | |
| dc.subject | Female | |
| dc.subject | Follow-Up Studies | |
| dc.subject | Humans | |
| dc.subject | Neoplasms | |
| dc.subject | Pancreatic Neoplasms | |
| dc.subject | Neoplasms | |
| dc.subject | Oncology | |
| dc.subject | Surgery | |
| dc.title | Rational follow-up after curative cancer resection | |
| dc.type | Journal Article | |
| dc.source.journaltitle | Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology | |
| dc.source.volume | 31 | |
| dc.source.issue | 9 | |
| dc.identifier.legacycoverpage | https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/faculty_pubs/133 | |
| dc.identifier.contextkey | 4295151 | |
| html.description.abstract | <p><p id="x-x-p-1">Cancer recurrence after complete resection of the primary tumor is dreaded by patients and physicians alike. Intensive follow-up after curative resection is considered a marker of good practice and frequently perceived as an antidote against recurrence by patients and families. A different perspective on which to predicate follow-up of patients with curatively treated cancer is to consider whether meaningful treatment options exist for recurrence. In cancers for which there are meaningful treatment options, it is reasonable to expect that more-intensive follow-up may improve survival. This commentary discusses this perspective in the context of the established literature in patients with colorectal and breast cancers, two cancers considered to have effective treatments for metastatic and recurrent disease as compared with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and pancreatic cancer, which do not.</p> | |
| dc.identifier.submissionpath | faculty_pubs/133 | |
| dc.contributor.department | Department of Surgery | |
| dc.source.pages | 1130-3 |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Prostate-specific antigen level, stage or Gleason score: which is best for predicting outcomes after radical prostatectomy, and does it vary by the outcome being measured? Results from Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital databaseOBJECTIVES: To assess the ability of preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, Gleason score and stage to predict prostate cancer outcomes beyond biochemical recurrence, specifically castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastases and prostate cancer-specific mortality in radical prostatectomy patients. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study of 2735 men in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital database treated by radical prostatectomy from 1988 to 2011 with data available on pathological stage, grade and preoperative prostate-specific antigen. We used Cox hazards analyses to examine the predictive accuracy (c-index) of the preoperative prostate-specific antigen (log-transformed), path Gleason score ( < /= 7, 3 + 4, 4 + 3 and 8-10) and path stage grouping (pT2 negative margins; pT2 positive margins; pT3a negative margins; pT3a positive margins; pT3b; vs positive nodes) to predict biochemical recurrence, castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastases and prostate cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Median follow up was 8.7 years, during which, 937 (34%) had biochemical recurrence, 108 (4%) castration-resistant prostate cancer, 127 (5%) metastases and 68 (2%) prostate cancer-specific mortality. For the outcomes of biochemical recurrence, castration-resistant prostate cancer, metastases and prostate cancer-specific mortality, the c-indices were, respectively: prostate-specific antigen 0.65, 0.66, 0.64 and 0.69; Gleason score 0.66, 0.83, 0.76 and 0.85; and pathological stage group 0.69, 0.76, 0.72 and 0.80. CONCLUSIONS: Gleason score can predict with very high accuracy prostate cancer-specific mortality in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Thus, Gleason score should be given more weight in nomograms to predict prostate cancer-specific mortality. Furthermore, men with a high Gleason score should be given special consideration for adjuvant treatment or referral to clinical trials because of a higher risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality.
-
Does quality of radiation therapy predict outcomes of multicenter cooperative group trials? A literature reviewCentral review of radiation therapy (RT) delivery within multicenter clinical trials was initiated in the early 1970s in the United States. Early quality assurance publications often focused on metrics related to process, logistics, and timing. Our objective was to review the available evidence supporting correlation of RT quality with clinical outcomes within cooperative group trials. A MEDLINE search was performed to identify multicenter studies that described central subjective assessment of RT protocol compliance (quality). Data abstracted included method of central review, definition of deviations, and clinical outcomes. Seventeen multicenter studies (1980-2012) were identified, plus one Patterns of Care Study. Disease sites were hematologic, head and neck, lung, breast, and pancreas. Between 0 and 97% of treatment plans received an overall grade of acceptable. In 7 trials, failure rates were significantly higher after inadequate versus adequate RT. Five of 9 and 2 of 5 trials reported significantly worse overall and progression-free survival after poor-quality RT, respectively. One reported a significant correlation, and 2 reported nonsignificant trends toward increased toxicity with noncompliant RT. Although more data are required, protocol-compliant RT may decrease failure rates and increase overall survival and likely contributes to the ability of collected data to answer the central trial question.
-
The effect of radiation timing on patients with high-risk features of parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma: an analysis of IRS-IV and D9803PURPOSE: Radiation therapy remains an essential treatment for patients with parameningeal rhabdomyosarcoma (PMRMS), and early radiation therapy may improve local control for patients with intracranial extension (ICE). METHODS AND MATERIALS: To address the role of radiation therapy timing in PMRMS in the current era, we reviewed the outcome from 2 recent clinical trials for intermediate-risk RMS: Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS)-IV and Children's Oncology Group (COG) D9803. The PMRMS patients on IRS-IV with any high-risk features (cranial nerve palsy [CNP], cranial base bony erosion [CBBE], or ICE) were treated immediately at day 0, and PMRMS patients without any of these 3 features received week 6-9 radiation therapy. The D9803 PMRMS patients with ICE received day 0 X-Ray Therapy (XRT) as well; however, those with either CNP or CBBE had XRT at week 12. RESULTS: Compared with the 198 PMRMS patients from IRS-IV, the 192 PMRMS patients from D9803 had no difference (P < .05) in 5-year local failure (19% vs 19%), failure-free-survival (70% vs 67%), or overall survival (75% vs 73%) in aggregate. The 5-year local failure rates by subset did not differ when patients were classified as having no risk features (None, 15% vs 19%, P = .25), cranial nerve palsy/cranial base of skull erosion (CNP/CBBE, 15% vs 28%, P = .22), or intracranial extension (ICE, 21% vs 15%, P = .27). The D9083 patients were more likely to have received initial staging by magnetic resonance imaging (71% vs 53%). CONCLUSIONS: These data support that a delay in radiation therapy for high-risk PMRMS features of CNP/CBBE does not compromise clinical outcomes.