Dataset Information

Comparative clinical benefits of systemic adjuvant therapy for paradigm solid tumors.

ABSTRACT: Adjuvant therapy employing cytotoxic chemotherapy, molecularly targeted agents, immunologic, and hormonal agents has shown a significant impact upon a variety of solid tumors. The principles that guide adjuvant therapy differ among various tumor types and specific modalities, but generally indicate a greater impact of therapy in the postsurgical setting of micrometastatic disease, for which adjuvant therapy is commonly pursued, vs. the setting of gross unresectable disease. This review of adjuvant therapies in current use for five major solid tumors highlights the rationale for current effective adjuvant therapy, and draws comparisons between the adjuvant regimens that have found application in solid tumors.

SUBMITTER: Kirkwood JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8555872 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative clinical benefits of systemic adjuvant therapy for paradigm solid tumors.

Kirkwood John M JM Tarhini Ahmad A Sparano Joseph A JA Patel Prapti P Schiller Joan H JH Vergo Maxwell T MT Benson Iii Al B AB Tawbi Hussein H

Cancer treatment reviews 20120419 1

Adjuvant therapy employing cytotoxic chemotherapy, molecularly targeted agents, immunologic, and hormonal agents has shown a significant impact upon a variety of solid tumors. The principles that guide adjuvant therapy differ among various tumor types and specific modalities, but generally indicate a greater impact of therapy in the postsurgical setting of micrometastatic disease, for which adjuvant therapy is commonly pursued, vs. the setting of gross unresectable disease. This review of adjuva ...[more]

PMID: 22520262

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTwo prominent organizations, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Quality Forum (NQF), have developed a cancer quality metric aimed at reducing systemic anticancer therapy administration at the end of life. This metric, NQF 0210 (patients receiving chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life), has been critiqued for focusing only on care for decedents and not including the broader population of patients who may benefit from treatment.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether the overall population of patients with metastatic cancer receiving care at practices with higher rates of oncologic therapy for very advanced disease experience longer survival.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide population-based cohort study used Flatiron Health, a deidentified electronic health record database of patients diagnosed with metastatic or advanced disease, to identify adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with 1 of 6 common cancers (breast cancer, colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial cancer) treated at health care practices from 2015 to 2019. Practices were stratified into quintiles based on retrospectively measured rates of NQF 0210, and overall survival was compared by disease type among all patients treated in each practice quintile from time of metastatic diagnosis using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to July 2023.ExposurePractice-level NQF 0210 quintiles.Main outcome and measureOverall survival.ResultsOf 78 446 patients (mean [SD] age, 67.3 [11.1] years; 52.2% female) across 144 practices, the most common cancer types were NSCLC (34 201 patients [43.6%]) and colorectal cancer (15 804 patients [20.1%]). Practice-level NQF 0210 rates varied from 10.9% (quintile 1) to 32.3% (quintile 5) for NSCLC and 6.8% (quintile 1) to 28.4% (quintile 5) for colorectal cancer. No statistically significant differences in survival were observed between patients treated at the highest and the lowest NQF 0210 quintiles. Compared with patients seen at practices in the lowest NQF 0210 quintiles, the hazard ratio for death among patients seen at the highest quintiles varied from 0.74 (95% CI, 0.55-0.99) for those with renal cell carcinoma to 1.41 (95% CI, 0.98-2.02) for those with urothelial cancer. These differences were not statistically significant after applying the Bonferroni-adjusted critical P = .008.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, patients with metastatic or advanced cancer treated at practices with higher NQF 0210 rates did not have improved survival. Future efforts should focus on helping oncologists identify when additional therapy is futile, developing goals of care communication skills, and aligning payment incentives with improved end-of-life care.

Project description:The incidence of brain metastases of solid tumors is increasing. Local treatment of brain metastases is generally straightforward: cranial radiotherapy (e.g., whole-brain radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery) or resection when feasible. However, treatment becomes more complex when brain metastases occur while other metastases, outside of the central nervous system, are being controlled with systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, or monoclonal antibodies). It is known that some anticancer agents can increase the risk for neurotoxicity when used concurrently with radiotherapy. Increased neurotoxicity decreases quality of life, which is undesirable in this predominantly palliative patient group. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to identify the compounds that should be temporarily discontinued when cranial radiotherapy is needed.This review summarizes the (neuro)toxicity data for combining systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, or monoclonal antibodies) with concurrent radiotherapy of brain metastases. Because only a limited amount of high-level data has been published, a risk assessment of each agent was done, taking into account the characteristics of each compound (e.g., lipophilicity) and the microenvironment of brain metastasis. The available trials suggest that only gemcitabine, erlotinib, and vemurafenib induce significant neurotoxicity when used concurrently with cranial radiotherapy. We conclude that for most systemic therapies, the currently available literature does not show an increase in neurotoxicity when these therapies are used concurrently with cranial radiotherapy. However, further studies are needed to confirm safety because there is no high-level evidence to permit definitive conclusions. The Oncologist 2017;22:222-235Implications for Practice: The treatment of symptomatic brain metastases diagnosed while patients are receiving systemic therapy continues to pose a dilemma to clinicians. Will concurrent treatment with cranial radiotherapy and systemic therapy (chemotherapeutics, molecular targeted agents, and monoclonal antibodies), used to control intra- and extracranial tumor load, increase the risk for neurotoxicity? This review addresses this clinically relevant question and evaluates the toxicity of combining systemic therapies with cranial radiotherapy, based on currently available literature, in order to determine the need to and interval to interrupt systemic treatment.

Dataset Information

Comparative clinical benefits of systemic adjuvant therapy for paradigm solid tumors.

Publications

Comparative clinical benefits of systemic adjuvant therapy for paradigm solid tumors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets