Effect of a genomic classifier on adjuvant radiation recommendations after prostate cancer surgery.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 151-151
Author(s):  
Ketan K. Badani ◽  
Darby J. S. Thompson ◽  
Christine Buerki ◽  
Amar Singh

151 Background: Clinical guidelines recommend adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) after radical prostatectomy in men with adverse pathological features. Practice patterns vary on use of ART. This prospective, multi-center study examines the effect of a genomic classifier (GC) on ART recommendations post-prostatectomy. Methods: A prospective, pre-post tumor-board–like survey was conducted to assess urologists’ treatment recommendations for ART as part of a clinical utility study; results are from a pre-specified interim analysis of 11 unique de-identified cases with adverse pathology. All case histories were based on patients treated by at least one of the urologists participating in the study. Patient age, pathological features, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen were presented to the respondents. Presentation of cases was randomized to minimize recall bias. For each case history, physician respondents first were asked to render an ART recommendation without knowledge of the GC findings (pre-GC); they were then asked to render an ART recommendation after GC findings were provided for the same cases (post-GC). Recommendations were made without knowledge of others’ responses. Results: Twelve urologists at 11 US institutions provided 132 adjuvant therapy recommendations. Pre-GC, ART was recommended in 56 (42%) cases. Thirty three percent (95% CI: 25-41%) of recommendations changed following review of GC results. Among pre-GC recommendations for ART, 39% (95% CI: 27-53%; n=22) changed to observation and among pre-GC recommendations for observation, 8% (95% CI: 3%-17%; n=5) changed to ART. Compared to observation, ART was 11.8 times (odds ratio 95% CI: 2.9 - 46.3) more likely to be recommended for cases with high risk GC scores. Adjuvant therapy recommendations were more strongly influenced by GC score (p=0.0006) than any clinical variable (all p>0.33) when both informed recommendations. Conclusions: Additional knowledge of the tumor’s genomic characteristics, as assessed by GC, results in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful change in treatment recommendations in patients indicated for adjuvant radiation therapy by current clinical guidelines.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 91-91
Author(s):  
Sarah Patricia Cate ◽  
Alyssa Gillego ◽  
Manjeet Chadha ◽  
John Rescigno ◽  
Paul R. Gliedman ◽  
...  

91 Background: The Oncotype Dx DCIS Score has been developed and validated for risk recurrence in ductal carcinoma in situ. It is a 12 gene assay performed on an individual patient’s tumor. The results give information about the 10 year risk of any in-breast event and the 10 year risk of an invasive breast cancer. The clinical validation study was based on patients enrolled in ECOG 5194. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the impact of the DCIS Score on recommendations for adjuvant radiation therapy. Methods: In this IRB approved study, 27 patients at our institution underwent evaluation with the DCIS Score from April 2012 to February 2013. All patients had specimens submitted for DCIS Scores. 14 patients had margins of 3 mm or greater. 12 patients had margins of 1 mm to 2.5 mm, and 1 patient had margins that were less than 1 mm from the DCIS. The mean age was 56.8 years, with a range of 40-79 years old. The DCIS Score is reported on a scale of 0-100. All patients underwent consultation with radiation oncology. The radiation oncologists formulated their preliminary recommendation prior to reviewing the patients’ DCIS Scores. The final recommendation for radiation treatment was rendered after reviewing the DCIS Score. We then compared the pre-DCIS Score and post-DCIS score treatment recommendations. Results: 21 patients (78%) were advised to have adjuvant radiation therapy. 6 patients (22%) were advised not to undergo adjuvant radiation based on their clinical and pathologic features. Although the DCIS Score did not change treatment recommendations for any patient in this study group, it did confirm initial treatment recommendations. For the patients who were advised not to have radiation, their DCIS Scores were 0-31. Conclusions: The DCIS Score is a validated tool to assess the local risk of recurrence for ductal carcinoma in situ. In our study population, the results of the DCIS Score did not alter treatment in any patient. It is important to note that in the 6 patients who were advised not to have radiation, the low DCIS Score confirmed the radiation oncologist’s perceived low risk of recurrence. In order to increase confidence in results of the DCIS Score, further studies need to be performed.


Urology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 807-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon P. Kim ◽  
Jon C. Tilburt ◽  
R. Jeffrey Karnes ◽  
Jeanette Y. Ziegenfuss ◽  
Leona C. Han ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 405-405
Author(s):  
Nishi Kothari ◽  
Richard D. Kim ◽  
Gregory M. Springett ◽  
Sarah E. Hoffe ◽  
Khaldoun Almhanna ◽  
...  

405 Background: Gallbladder cancer is a highly fatal disease with a high rate of recurrence even when diagnosed at an early stage. Because of its relative rarity, there are currently no established algorithms to guide therapy after cholecystectomy. To explore the value of adjuvant therapy with chemotherapy and radiation, we evaluated patients with resected gallbladder cancer treated at our institution. Methods: Patients diagnosed with gallbladder cancer who underwent cholecystectomy (simple or radical) between 2000 and 2010 were identified using our cancer registry. Retrospective chart review was performed for clinicopathologic data, including age, stage, grade, type of surgery, margin status, and type and duration of adjuvant therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Univariate (UVA) and multivariate (MVA) analysis was performed with Cox logistic regression analyses. Results: We identified 73 patients with a median followup for all patients of 28.2 months. The majority of patients were female (74%) and underwent radical cholecystectomy (64%). Positive margins and adjuvant radiation therapy were documented in 21% and 37%, respectively. The majority of patients did not receive any adjuvant therapy (53.4%). Median OS for all patients was 41.3 months. There was a survival benefit associated with patients undergoing radical cholecystectomy followed by adjuvant radiation (median OS 48.4 months vs. 22.3 months; HR 0.35; 95% CI: 0.13–0.98; p=0.0448) compared to simple cholecystectomy alone. On UVA, increasing age and positive margins were significantly associated with worse OS, while radical cholecystectomy was associated with improved OS. On MVA, increasing age, male gender, poorly differentiated tumor, and positive margins were associated with worse OS, while adjuvant radiation was associated with improved OS (p=0.0113). Conclusions: Our analysis supports the role for adjuvant radiation therapy in resected gallbladder cancer. Multi-institutional prospective studies should be performed to evaluate the optimal treatment strategy. Biomarker analysis might also help determine the subset of patients who would benefit from combined chemoradiation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ganesh M. Shankar ◽  
Michelle J. Clarke ◽  
Tamir Ailon ◽  
Laurence D. Rhines ◽  
Shreyaskumar R. Patel ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEPrimary osteosarcoma of the spine is a rare osseous neoplasm. While previously reported retrospective studies have demonstrated that overall patient survival is impacted mostly by en bloc resection and chemotherapy, the continued management of residual disease remains to be elucidated. This systematic review was designed to address the role of revision surgery and multimodal adjuvant therapy in cases in which en bloc excision is not initially achieved.METHODSA systematic literature search spanning the years 1966 to 2015 was performed on PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science to identify reports describing outcomes of patients who underwent biopsy alone, neurological decompression, or intralesional resection for osteosarcoma of the spine. Studies were reviewed qualitatively, and the clinical course of individual patients was aggregated for quantitative meta-analysis.RESULTSA total of 16 studies were identified for inclusion in the systematic review, of which 8 case reports were summarized qualitatively. These studies strongly support the role of chemotherapy for overall survival and moderately support adjuvant radiation therapy for local control. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant benefit in overall survival for performing revision tumor debulking (p = 0.01) and also for chemotherapy at relapse (p < 0.01). Adjuvant radiation therapy was associated with longer survival, although this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06).CONCLUSIONSWhile the initial therapeutic goal in the management of osteosarcoma of the spine is neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by en bloc marginal resection, this objective is not always achievable given anatomical constraints and other limitations at the time of initial clinical presentation. This systematic review supports the continued aggressive use of revision surgery and multimodal adjuvant therapy when possible to improve outcomes in patients who initially undergo subtotal debulking of osteosarcoma. A limitation of this systematic review is that lesions amenable to subsequent resection or tumors inherently more sensitive to adjuvants would exaggerate a therapeutic effect of these interventions when studied in a retrospective fashion.


Author(s):  
Philipp Dahm

This chapter summarizes the design, findings, and implications of a landmark trial of adjuvant radiation comparing men who had undergone radical prostatectomy with adverse pathological features (extracapsular tumor extension, positive surgical margins, and/or seminal vesicle invasion) and who were randomized to adjuvant local radiation therapy versus expectant management. Studies results favored adjuvant radiation therapy in terms of both metastasis-free survival and overall survival.


2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (4S) ◽  
pp. 279-280
Author(s):  
Jonathan Rubenstein ◽  
Misop Han ◽  
Sheila A. Hawkins ◽  
William J. Catalona

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document