1
|
Keller S, Yule S, Smink DS, Zagarese V, Safford S, Valea FA, Beldi G, Henrickson Parker S. Alone Together: Is Strain Experienced Concurrently by Members of Operating Room Teams?: An Event-based Study. Ann Surg Open 2023; 4:e333. [PMID: 37746629 PMCID: PMC10513207 DOI: 10.1097/as9.0000000000000333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 08/11/2023] [Indexed: 09/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective To identify which strain episodes are concurrently reported by several team members; to identify triggers of strain experienced by operating room (OR) team members during the intraoperative phase. Summary OR teams are confronted with many sources of strain. However, most studies investigate strain on a general, rather than an event-based level, which does not allow to determine if strain episodes are experienced concurrently by different team members. Methods We conducted an event-based, observational study, at an academic medical center in North America and included 113 operations performed in 5 surgical departments (general, vascular, pediatric, gynecology, and trauma/acute care). Strain episodes were assessed with a guided-recall method. Immediately after operations, participants mentally recalled the operation, described the strain episodes experienced and their content. Results Based on 731 guided recalls, 461 strain episodes were reported; these refer to 312 unique strain episodes. Overall, 75% of strain episodes were experienced by a single team member only. Among different categories of unique strain episodes, those triggered by task complexity, issues with material, or others' behaviors were typically experienced by 1 team member only. However, acute patient issues (n = 167) and observations of others' strain (n = 12) (respectively, 58.5%; P < 0.001 and 83.3%; P < 0.001) were often experienced by 2 or more team members. Conclusions and relevance OR team members are likely to experience strain alone, unless patient safety is at stake. This may jeopardize the building of a shared understanding among OR team members.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandra Keller
- From the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA
- Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Steven Yule
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA
- STRATUS Center for Medical Simulation, Boston, MA
- Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
- Department of Clinical Surgery, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
| | - Douglas S. Smink
- Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA
- Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | | | - Shawn Safford
- Division of Paediatric Surgery, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA
- Center for Simulation, Research and Patient Safety, Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, VA
| | - Fidel A. Valea
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, VA
| | - Guido Beldi
- Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Sarah Henrickson Parker
- From the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA
- Department of Psychology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
- Center for Simulation, Research and Patient Safety, Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, VA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Huh WK, Valea FA, Chalas E, Blank SV. Houston, We Have a Problem: How Changes in Gynecologic Oncology Represent Broader Concerns for the Future of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 142:1-3. [PMID: 37290095 DOI: 10.1097/aog.0000000000005242] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Warner K Huh
- Warner K. Huh is from the UAB Heersink School of Medicine, Birmingham, Alabama; . Fidel A. Valea is from the Northwell Health, Zucker School of Medicine, New Hyde Park, New York. Eva Chalas is from the NYU Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, New York. Stephanie V. Blank is from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Breitkopf D, Banks E, Chelmow D, Lara-Torre E, McCue K, Ogburn T, Pfeifer S, Anderson T, Valea FA. Levels of Gynecologic Care: A Task Force Consensus Statement. Obstet Gynecol 2023; 141:1036-1045. [PMID: 37486649 DOI: 10.1097/aog.0000000000005173] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2022] [Accepted: 02/16/2023] [Indexed: 07/25/2023]
Abstract
Systems of care have been established for obstetrics, trauma, and neonatology. An American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Presidential Task Force was established to develop a care system for gynecologic surgery. A group of experts who represent diverse perspectives in gynecologic practice proposed definitions of levels of gynecologic care using the Delphi method. The goal is to improve the quality of gynecologic surgical care performed in the United States by providing a framework of minimal institutional requirements for each level. Subgroups developed draft criteria for each level of care. The entire Task Force then met to reach consensus regarding the levels of care final definitions and parameters. The levels of gynecologic care framework focuses on systems of care by considering institutional resources and expertise, providing guidance on the provision of care in appropriate level facilities. These levels were defined by the ability to care for patients of increasing risk, complexity, and comorbidities, organizing gynecologic care around hospital capability. This framework can also be used to inform the escalation of care to appropriate facilities by identifying patients at risk and guiding them to facilities with the skills, expertise, and capabilities to safely and effectively meet their needs. The levels of gynecologic care framework is intended for use by patients, hospitals, and clinicians in the United States to guide where elective surgery can be done most safely and effectively by specialists and subspecialists in obstetrics and gynecology. The key features of the levels of gynecologic care include ensuring provision of risk-appropriate care and regionalization of care by facility capabilities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Breitkopf
- Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota, New York University Long Island School of Medicine, Mineola, New York, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, Virginia, Virginia Tech-Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Sacramento, California, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine, Edinburg, Texas, Weill-Cornell School of Medicine, New York, New York, Vanderbilt School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, and Zucker School of Medicine/Northwell Health Cancer Institute, New Hyde Park, New York
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Borden LE, Locklear TM, Grider DJ, Osborne JL, Saks EJ, Valea FA, Iglesias DA. Endometrial Cancer Characteristics and Risk of Recurrence. Am J Clin Pathol 2022; 157:90-97. [PMID: 34463332 DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqab100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2021] [Accepted: 05/09/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To describe clinicopathologic characteristics and survival outcomes of endometrial adenocarcinomas stratified by mismatch repair (MMR) status. METHODS Single-institution, retrospective study of all women with endometrioid adenocarcinomas treated from January 2012 through December 2017. Patients were categorized into one of three groups based on MMR testing: intact MMR expression (MMR+), probable MMR mutation (MMR-), or MLH1 hypermethylation (hMLH1+). Demographics, pathologic characteristics, recurrence rates, and survival differences were analyzed. RESULTS In total, 316 women were included in the analysis: 235 (74.4%) patients in the MMR+ group, 10 (3.1%) in the MMR- group, and 71 (22.5%) in the hMLH1+ group. Patients with hMLH1+ were significantly older, exhibited higher-grade histology and presence of lymphovascular space invasion, and were more likely to have received adjuvant treatment. The early stage hMLH1+ patients were more likely to recur (15.3% hMLH1+ vs 2.3% MMR+ vs 12.5% MMR-, P < .001). Hypermethylation remained a significant predictor of recurrence in multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 5.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-16.86; P = .008). Recurrence-free survival was significantly reduced in early stage hMLH1+ (hazard ratio, 7.40; 95% CI, 2.80-21.62; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Women with hMLH1+ endometrial cancer have worse prognostic features and recur more frequently, even in patients traditionally considered low risk for recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Tonja M Locklear
- Department of Health Analytics, Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, VA, USA
| | | | - Janet L Osborne
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA,USA
| | - Erin J Saks
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA,USA
| | - Fidel A Valea
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA,USA
| | - David A Iglesias
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Virginia Tech Carilion, Roanoke, VA,USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Howell EP, Fischer J, Valea FA, Davidson BA. Communication Matters: a Survey Study of Communication Didactics in Obstetrics/Gynecology Residency. Med Sci Educ 2020; 30:1069-1076. [PMID: 34457769 PMCID: PMC8368866 DOI: 10.1007/s40670-020-01017-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Delivery of excellent patient care hinges on effective communication. Improved communication between physicians, patients, and colleagues can facilitate shared decision-making and foster successful interprofessional teams. Despite the importance of this skill, little is understood about the status or acceptability of dedicated communication training during obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) residency. OBJECTIVE To explore the national landscape of dedicated communication didactics during OB/GYN training. METHODS Residents and program directors (PDs) at ACGME-accredited programs were emailed anonymized surveys. Survey responses pertaining to communication didactics and trainee experiences were evaluated using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests. RESULTS Of 143 PDs, 45 responded (31.5%). Although the total number of residents receiving our survey is unattainable, our 215 resident respondents can be estimated to represent at least 4.4% of trainees. 98.1% of residents reported challenging clinical communication at least monthly, with many reporting this weekly (47.9%) and daily (30.0%). A majority of PDs (77.8%) and residents (67.0%) endorsed interest in communication training. 62.2% of programs reported formally teaching communication skills. Certain topics were infrequently taught yet cited by residents as particularly challenging-such as "diffusing conflict" and "angry patient or family members." PDs tended to significantly overestimate trainee competence in conducting difficult conversations with both patients (p = 0.0003) and interdisciplinary colleagues (p < 0.0001), as compared with resident self-assessments. CONCLUSIONS Residents encounter frequent challenging communications interactions, and often feel inadequately equipped to navigate them. Dedicated didactics may provide a critical component to optimally educating of the next generation of trainees within OB/GYN and more broadly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth P. Howell
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC USA
| | - Jonathan Fischer
- Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Duke University, Durham, NC USA
| | - Fidel A. Valea
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Carilion Clinic and Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA USA
| | - Brittany A. Davidson
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, DUMC Box 3079, Durham, NC 27710 USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gaillard SL, Andreano KJ, Gay LM, Steiner M, Jorgensen MS, Davidson BA, Havrilesky LJ, Alvarez Secord A, Valea FA, Colon-Otero G, Zajchowski DA, Chang CY, McDonnell DP, Berchuck A, Elvin JA. Constitutively active ESR1 mutations in gynecologic malignancies and clinical response to estrogen-receptor directed therapies. Gynecol Oncol 2019; 154:199-206. [PMID: 30987772 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.04.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2019] [Revised: 04/03/2019] [Accepted: 04/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Endocrine therapy is often considered as a treatment for hormone-responsive gynecologic malignancies. In breast cancer, activating mutations in the estrogen receptor (mutESR1) contribute to therapeutic resistance to endocrine therapy, especially aromatase inhibitors (AIs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency and clinical relevance of ESR1 genomic alterations in gynecologic malignancies. METHODS DNA from FFPE tumor tissue obtained during routine clinical care for 9645 gynecologic malignancies (ovary, fallopian tube, uterus, cervix, vagina, vulvar, and placenta) was analyzed for all classes of genomic alterations (base substitutions (muts), insertions, deletions, rearrangements, and amplifications) in ESR1 by hybrid capture next generation sequencing. A subset of alterations was characterized in laboratory-based transcription assays for response to endocrine therapies. RESULTS A total of 295 ESR1 genomic alterations were identified in 285 (3.0%) cases. mutESR1 were present in 86 (0.9%) cases and were more common in uterine compared to other cancers (2.0% vs <1%, respectively p < 0.001). mutESR1 were enriched in carcinomas with endometrioid versus serous histology (4.4% vs 0.2% respectively, p < 0.0001 in uterine and 3.5% vs 0.3% respectively, p = 0.0004 in ovarian carcinomas). In three of four patients with serial sampling, mutESR1 emerged under the selective pressure of AI therapy. Despite decreased potency of estrogen receptor (ER) antagonists in transcriptional assays, clinical benefit was observed following treatment with selective ER-targeted therapy, in one case lasting >48 months. CONCLUSIONS While the prevalence of ESR1 mutations in gynecologic malignancies is low, there are significant clinical implications useful in guiding therapeutic approaches for these cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stéphanie L Gaillard
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States of America; Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
| | | | - Laurie M Gay
- Foundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, MA, United States of America
| | - Meghan Steiner
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | | | | | | | | | - Fidel A Valea
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | | | | | - Ching-Yi Chang
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | | | - Andrew Berchuck
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States of America
| | - Julia A Elvin
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Gaillard S, Gay LM, Steiner M, Andreano K, Davidson BA, Havrilesky LJ, Secord AA, Valea FA, Colon-Otero G, Zajchowski DA, Chang CY, McDonnell DP, Berchuck A, Elvin JA. Assessment of activating estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations in gynecologic malignancies. J Clin Oncol 2018. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.36.15_suppl.5590] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Brittany Anne Davidson
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
| | - Laura Jean Havrilesky
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Fokom Domgue J, Valea FA. Is It Relevant to Keep Advocating Visual Inspection of the Cervix With Acetic Acid for Primary Cervical Cancer Screening in Limited-Resource Settings? J Glob Oncol 2017; 4:1-5. [PMID: 30241142 PMCID: PMC6180765 DOI: 10.1200/jgo.17.00048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Joel Fokom Domgue
- Joel Fokom Domgue,University Hospital Centre, Yaounde, Cameroon, and National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD; and
| | - Fidel A Valea
- Fidel A. Valea, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, Campos SM, Cho KR, Chon HS, Chu C, Cohn D, Crispens MA, Dizon DS, Dorigo O, Eifel PJ, Fisher CM, Frederick P, Gaffney DK, Han E, Higgins S, Huh WK, Lurain JR, Mariani A, Mutch D, Nagel C, Nekhlyudov L, Fader AN, Remmenga SW, Reynolds RK, Tillmanns T, Ueda S, Valea FA, Wyse E, Yashar CM, McMillian N, Scavone J. Vulvar Cancer, Version 1.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2017; 15:92-120. [PMID: 28040721 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 104] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Vulvar cancer is a rare gynecologic malignancy. Ninety percent of vulvar cancers are predominantly squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), which can arise through human papilloma virus (HPV)-dependent and HPV-independent pathways. The NCCN Vulvar Cancer panel is an interdisciplinary group of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions consisting of specialists in gynecological oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and pathology. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Vulvar Cancer provide an evidence- and consensus-based approach for the management of patients with vulvar SCC. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for diagnosis, staging, treatment, and follow-up.
Collapse
|
10
|
Foote JR, Valea FA. Robotic surgical training: Where are we? Gynecol Oncol 2016; 143:179-183. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.05.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2016] [Revised: 04/20/2016] [Accepted: 05/27/2016] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
11
|
Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, Apte SM, Campos SM, Cho KR, Chu C, Cohn D, Crispens MA, Dizon DS, Dorigo O, Eifel PJ, Fisher CM, Frederick P, Gaffney DK, George S, Han E, Higgins S, Huh WK, Lurain JR, Mariani A, Mutch D, Fader AN, Remmenga SW, Reynolds RK, Tillmanns T, Valea FA, Yashar CM, McMillian NR, Scavone JL. Uterine Sarcoma, Version 1.2016: Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016; 13:1321-31. [PMID: 26553763 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0162] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
The NCCN Guidelines for Uterine Neoplasms provide interdisciplinary recommendations for treating endometrial carcinoma and uterine sarcomas. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Uterine Neoplasms Panel's 2016 discussions and major guideline updates for treating uterine sarcomas. During this most recent update, the panel updated the mesenchymal tumor classification to correspond with recent updates to the WHO tumor classification system. Additionally, the panel revised its systemic therapy recommendations to reflect new data and collective clinical experience. These NCCN Guidelines Insights elaborate on the rationale behind these recent changes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wui-Jin Koh
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Benjamin E Greer
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Nadeem R Abu-Rustum
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Sachin M Apte
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Susana M Campos
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Kathleen R Cho
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Christina Chu
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - David Cohn
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Marta Ann Crispens
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Don S Dizon
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Oliver Dorigo
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Patricia J Eifel
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Christine M Fisher
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Peter Frederick
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - David K Gaffney
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Suzanne George
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Ernest Han
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Susan Higgins
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Warner K Huh
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - John R Lurain
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Andrea Mariani
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - David Mutch
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Amanda Nickles Fader
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Steven W Remmenga
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - R Kevin Reynolds
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Todd Tillmanns
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Fidel A Valea
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Catheryn M Yashar
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Nicole R McMillian
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | - Jillian L Scavone
- From Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Moffitt Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fox Chase Cancer Center; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Stanford Cancer Institute; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; University of Colorado Cancer Center; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; Yale Cancer Center/Smilow Cancer Hospital; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; Mayo Clinic Cancer Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fred & Pamela Buffet Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Duke Cancer Institute; UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ehrisman J, Secord AA, Berchuck A, Lee PS, Di Santo N, Lopez-Acevedo M, Broadwater G, Valea FA, Havrilesky LJ. Performance of sentinel lymph node biopsy in high-risk endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2016; 17:69-71. [PMID: 27453926 PMCID: PMC4941561 DOI: 10.1016/j.gore.2016.04.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2016] [Revised: 04/11/2016] [Accepted: 04/16/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To determine the rate and performance of sentinel lymph node (SLN) mapping among women with high-risk endometrial cancers. Methods Patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2015 with uterine cancer of grade 3 endometrioid, clear cell, serous or carcinosarcoma histology and who underwent SLN mapping prior to full pelvic lymph node dissection were included. Subjects underwent methylene blue or ICG injection for laparoscopic (N = 16) or robotic-assisted laparoscopic (N = 20) staging. Outcomes included SLN mapping rates, SLN and non-SLN positive rates, false negative SLN algorithm rate, and the negative predictive value (NPV) of the SLN algorithm. Fisher's exact test was used to compare mapping and node positivity rates. Results 9/36 (25%) patients with high-risk uterine cancer had at least one metastatic lymph node identified. Successful mapping occurred in 30/36 (83%) patients. SLN mapped to pelvic nodes bilaterally in 20 (56%), unilaterally in 9 (25%), and aortic nodes only in 1 (3%). Malignancy was identified in 14/95 (15%) of all sentinel nodes and 12/775 (1.5%) of all non-sentinel nodes (p < 0.001). The false negative rate of SLN mapping alone was 2/26 (7.7%); the NPV was 92.3%. When the SLN algorithm was applied retrospectively the false negative rate was 0/31 (0%); the NPV was 100%. Conclusion SLN mapping rates for high-risk cancers are slightly lower than in prior reports of lower risk cancers. The NPV of the SLN mapping alone is 92% and rises to 100% when the SLN algorithm is applied. Such results are acceptable and consistent with larger subsets of lower risk endometrial cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessie Ehrisman
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Angeles Alvarez Secord
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Andrew Berchuck
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Paula S Lee
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Nicola Di Santo
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Micael Lopez-Acevedo
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, George Washington University Hospital, Washington DC, United States
| | - Gloria Broadwater
- Biostatistics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Fidel A Valea
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, United States
| | - Laura J Havrilesky
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, United States; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, United States
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Smrtka MP, Gunatilake RP, Harris B, Yu M, Lan L, Brancazio LR, Valea FA, Grotegut CA, Brown HL. Increase in Cesarean Operative Time Following Institution of the 80-Hour Workweek. J Grad Med Educ 2015; 7:369-75. [PMID: 26457141 PMCID: PMC4597946 DOI: 10.4300/jgme-d-14-00364.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education limited resident duty hours to 80 hours per week. More than a decade later, the effect of the limits on resident clinical competence is not fully understood. OBJECTIVE We sought to assess the effect of duty hour restrictions on resident performance of an uncomplicated cesarean delivery. METHODS We reviewed unlabored primary cesarean deliveries at Duke University Hospital after 34 weeks gestation, between 2003 and 2011. Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to compare total operative time with incision to delivery time as a function of years since institution of the 80-hour workweek. Resident training level, subject body mass index, estimated blood loss, and skin closure method were controlled for in the regression model. RESULTS We identified 444 deliveries that met study criteria. The mean (SD) total operative time in 2003-2004 was 43.3 (14.3) minutes and 59.6 (10.7) minutes in 2010-2011 (P < .001). Multivariable regression demonstrated an increase in total operative time of 1.9 min/y (P < .001) but no change in incision to delivery time (P = .05). The magnitude of increased operative time was seen among junior residents (2.0 min/y, P < .001) compared to that of senior residents (1.2 min/y, P = .06). CONCLUSIONS Since introduction of the 2003 duty hour limits, there has been an increase of nearly 20 minutes in the time required for a routine cesarean delivery. It is unclear if the findings are due to a change in residency duty hours or to another aspect of residency training.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Haywood L. Brown
- Corresponding author: Haywood L. Brown, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, DUMC Box 3084, Durham, NC 27710, 919.668.3948,
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Turner TB, Habib AS, Broadwater G, Valea FA, Fleming ND, Ehrisman JA, Di Santo N, Havrilesky LJ. Postoperative Pain Scores and Narcotic Use in Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer Staging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22:1004-10. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.05.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2015] [Revised: 05/04/2015] [Accepted: 05/04/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
|
15
|
Ho D, Drake TK, Bentley RC, Valea FA, Wax A. Evaluation of hybrid algorithm for analysis of scattered light using ex vivo nuclear morphology measurements of cervical epithelium. Biomed Opt Express 2015; 6:2755-65. [PMID: 26309741 PMCID: PMC4541505 DOI: 10.1364/boe.6.002755] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2015] [Revised: 06/29/2015] [Accepted: 07/01/2015] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
We evaluate a new hybrid algorithm for determining nuclear morphology using angle-resolved low coherence interferometry (a/LCI) measurements in ex vivo cervical tissue. The algorithm combines Mie theory based and continuous wavelet transform inverse light scattering analysis. The hybrid algorithm was validated and compared to traditional Mie theory based analysis using an ex vivo tissue data set. The hybrid algorithm achieved 100% agreement with pathology in distinguishing dysplastic and non-dysplastic biopsy sites in the pilot study. Significantly, the new algorithm performed over four times faster than traditional Mie theory based analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Derek Ho
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
| | - Tyler K. Drake
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
| | - Rex C. Bentley
- Department of Pathology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27710, USA
| | - Fidel A. Valea
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Adam Wax
- Department of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, Apte SM, Campos SM, Cho KR, Chu C, Cohn D, Crispens MA, Dorigo O, Eifel PJ, Fisher CM, Frederick P, Gaffney DK, Han E, Huh WK, Lurain JR, Mutch D, Fader AN, Remmenga SW, Reynolds RK, Teng N, Tillmanns T, Valea FA, Yashar CM, McMillian NR, Scavone JL. Cervical Cancer, Version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015; 13:395-404; quiz 404. [DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 206] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
17
|
Havrilesky LJ, Alvarez Secord A, Ehrisman JA, Berchuck A, Valea FA, Lee PS, Gaillard SL, Samsa GP, Cella D, Weinfurt KP, Abernethy AP, Reed SD. Patient preferences in advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer. Cancer 2014; 120:3651-9. [PMID: 25091693 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28940] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2014] [Revised: 06/17/2014] [Accepted: 06/25/2014] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to elucidate relative preferences of women with ovarian cancer for symptoms, treatment-related side effects, and progression-free survival (PFS) relevant to choosing a treatment regimen. METHODS Women with advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer participated in a survey that included 3 methods to measure patient preferences (ratings, rankings, and a discrete-choice experiment) for 7 attributes: mode of administration, visit frequency, peripheral neuropathy, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, abdominal discomfort, and PFS. Participants were asked to choose between 2 unlabeled treatment scenarios that were characterized using the 7 attributes. Each participant completed 12 choice questions in which attribute levels were assigned according to an experimental design and a fixed-choice question representing 2 chemotherapy regimens for ovarian cancer. RESULTS In total, 95 women completed the survey. Participants' ratings and rankings revealed greater concern and importance for PFS than for any other attribute (P < .0001 for all). The discrete-choice experiment revealed that the relative odds that a participant would choose a scenario with 18 months, 21 months, and 24 months of PFS versus 15 months of PFS were 1.5 (P = .01), 3.4 (P < .001), and 7.5 (P < .001), respectively. However, participants' choices indicated that they were willing to accept a shorter PFS to avoid severe side effects: 6.7 months to reduce nausea and vomiting from severe to mild, 5.0 months to reduce neuropathy from severe to mild, and 3.7 months to reduce abdominal symptoms from severe to moderate. CONCLUSIONS PFS is the predominant driver of patient preferences for chemotherapy regimens. However, women in the current study were willing to trade significant PFS time for reductions in treatment-related toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura J Havrilesky
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Havrilesky LJ, Secord AA, Ehrisman JA, Berchuck A, Valea FA, Lee PS, Gaillard S, Cella D, Weinfurt K, Abernethy AP, Reed SD. Relative influence of factors determining a woman’s preference for treatment options in ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.5544] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - David Cella
- Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Zhang C, Havrilesky LJ, Broadwater G, Di Santo N, Ehrisman JA, Lee PS, Berchuck A, Alvarez Secord A, Bean S, Bentley RC, Valea FA. Relationship between minimally invasive hysterectomy, pelvic cytology, and lymph vascular space invasion: a single institution study of 458 patients. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 133:211-5. [PMID: 24582867 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2014] [Revised: 02/17/2014] [Accepted: 02/20/2014] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to determine whether a minimally invasive approach to hysterectomy is associated with an increased rate of lymph vascular space invasion (LVSI) and/or malignant pelvic peritoneal cytology in endometrial cancer. METHODS We performed a single institution analysis of 458 women with endometrial cancer who underwent either total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) or minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH) with use of a disposable uterine manipulator. All patients had endometrial cancer diagnosed by endometrial biopsy at a single academic institution between 2002 and 2012. Exclusion criteria were pre-operative D&C and/or hysteroscopy, uterine perforation or morcellation, and conversion to laparotomy. Multivariate logistic regression models to determine if type of hysterectomy predicts either LVSI or presence of abnormal cytology were controlled for grade, stage, depth of invasion, tumor size, cervical and adnexal involvement. RESULTS LVSI was identified in 39/214 (18%) MIH and 44/242 (18%) TAH (p=0.99). Pelvic washings were malignant in 14/203 (7%) MIH and 16/241 (7%) TAH (p=1.0). Washings were atypical or inconclusive in 16/203 (8%) MIH and 6/241 (2.5%) TAH (p=0.014). In multivariate analyses, type of hysterectomy was not a significant predictor of either LVSI (p=0.29) or presence of malignant washings (p=0.66), but was a predictor of atypical or inconclusive washings (p=0.03). CONCLUSION Minimally invasive hysterectomy with use of a uterine manipulator for endometrial cancer is not associated with LVSI or malignant cytology. Algorithms that better determine the etiology and implications of inconclusive or atypical pelvic cytology are needed to inform the possible additional risk associated with a minimally invasive approach to endometrial cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chelsea Zhang
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Laura J Havrilesky
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
| | - Gloria Broadwater
- Biostatistics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Nicola Di Santo
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Jessie A Ehrisman
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Paula S Lee
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Andrew Berchuck
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Angeles Alvarez Secord
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Sarah Bean
- Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Rex C Bentley
- Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| | - Fidel A Valea
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA; Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC 27710, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Lewis LS, Convery PA, Bolac CS, Valea FA, Lowery WJ, Havrilesky LJ. Cost of care using prophylactic negative pressure wound vacuum on closed laparotomy incisions. Gynecol Oncol 2014; 132:684-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.01.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2013] [Revised: 01/05/2014] [Accepted: 01/13/2014] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
|
21
|
Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, Apte SM, Campos SM, Chan J, Cho KR, Cohn D, Crispens MA, DuPont N, Eifel PJ, Fader AN, Fisher CM, Gaffney DK, George S, Han E, Huh WK, Lurain JR, Martin L, Mutch D, Remmenga SW, Reynolds RK, Small W, Teng N, Tillmanns T, Valea FA, McMillian N, Hughes M. Uterine Neoplasms, Version 1.2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2014; 12:248-80. [DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2014.0025] [Citation(s) in RCA: 102] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
22
|
Teoh D, Lowery WJ, Walter PJ, Secord AA, Valea FA, Berchuck A, Havrilesky LJ, Lee PS. Vaginal cuff thermal injury and healing based on mode of colpotomy incision at total laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Surg 2013. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
23
|
Koh WJ, Greer BE, Abu-Rustum NR, Apte SM, Campos SM, Chan J, Cho KR, Cohn D, Crispens MA, DuPont N, Eifel PJ, Gaffney DK, Giuntoli RL, Han E, Huh WK, Lurain JR, Martin L, Morgan MA, Mutch D, Remmenga SW, Reynolds RK, Small W, Teng N, Tillmanns T, Valea FA, McMillian NR, Hughes M. Cervical Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2013; 11:320-43. [DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 99] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
24
|
Zighelboim I, Wright JD, Gao F, Case AS, Massad LS, Mutch DG, Powell MA, Thaker PH, Eisenhauer EL, Cohn DE, Valea FA, Secord AA, Lippmann LT, Rader JS. Phase II trial of topotecan, cisplatin, and bevacizumab for recurrent or persistent cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol 2012. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.5101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
5101 Background: The prognosis associated with recurrent or persistent cervical cancer is exceedingly poor. GOG-179 demonstrated a survival benefit with the combination of cisplatin and topotecan compared to single-agent cisplatin, with the former showing median PFS of 4.6 months, median OS of 9.4 months, and a 27% objective response rate. The role of angiogenesis in cervical carcinogenesis and progression has been well documented. We evaluated the activity and safety of the combination of topotecan, cisplatin and bevacizumab in patients with incurable carcinoma of the cervix. Methods: Patients with histologically proven measurable recurrent or persistent cervical carcinoma not amenable to curative intent treatment were eligible. No prior chemotherapy for recurrence was allowed. Cisplatin 50 mg/m2 day 1, topotecan 0.75 mg/m2 days 1, 2 and 3 and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg day 1 were prescribed in a 21-day cycle. Cytokine support was allowed at physician discretion. The primary endpoint was 6-month PFS. Additionally, objective clinical response and toxicity were evaluated. Accrual goal (N=27) was based on a 50% improvement goal in 6-month PFS in relation to GOG-179 (40% to 60%), with a one-sided 0.10 significance and 80% power. Results: 27 eligible patients received a median of 3 treatment cycles (range, 1-19). All patients received radiotherapy as part of their first line treatment. Median follow-up was 8.5 months (1.2-32.9). The 6-month PFS was 59% (95%CI: 38.0-74.7). Among 26 RECIST-evaluable patients, objective response rates were (%; 95%CI): 1 CR (4%; 1-19.6), 7 PR (27%; 11.6-47.8), 11 SD (42%; 23.4-63.1) and 7 PD (27%; 11.6-47.8). Median OS was 9.8 months (95%CI: 7.7-20.6) and median PFS was 7.1 months (95%CI: 2.0-12.1). Grade 3-4 hematologic toxicity occurred in 96% of patients (thrombocytopenia 93% leukopenia 70%, anemia 70%, neutropenia 59%). Other grade 3-4 toxicities were also common (metabolic 48%, pain 37%, genitourinary 30%, constitutional 22% and gastrointestinal 19%). Conclusions: The addition of bevacizumab totopotecan and cisplatin results in a highly active but toxic regimen. Future efforts should focus on identification of predictive biomarkers and treatment modifications to minimize toxicity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Israel Zighelboim
- Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO
| | - Jason D. Wright
- Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY
| | - Feng Gao
- Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO
| | | | - L. Stewart Massad
- Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO
| | - David Gardner Mutch
- Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO
| | - Matthew A. Powell
- Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO
| | - Premal H. Thaker
- Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO
| | | | - David E. Cohn
- The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH
| | | | | | - Lynne T. Lippmann
- Washington University School of Medicine and Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO
| | | |
Collapse
|
25
|
Alvarez Secord A, Berchuck A, Higgins RV, Nycum LR, Kohler MF, Puls LE, Holloway RW, Lewandowski GS, Valea FA, Havrilesky LJ. A multicenter, randomized, phase 2 clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination docetaxel and carboplatin and sequential therapy with docetaxel then carboplatin in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Cancer 2011; 118:3283-93. [PMID: 22072307 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26610] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2011] [Revised: 06/20/2011] [Accepted: 07/06/2011] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination (cDC) and sequential (sDC) weekly docetaxel and carboplatin in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). METHODS Participants were randomized to either weekly docetaxel 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) = 6 on day 1, every 3 weeks or docetaxel 30 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for 6 cycles followed by carboplatin AUC = 6 on day 1, every 3 weeks for 6 cycles or until disease progression. The primary endpoint was measurable progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS Between January 2004 and March 2007, 150 participants were enrolled. The response rate was 55.4% and 43.2% for those treated with cDC and sDC, respectively. The median PFS was 13.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.9-16.8) for cDC and 8.4 months (95% CI, 7.1-11.0) for sDC. On the basis of an exploratory analysis, patients treated with sDC were at a 62% increased risk of disease progression compared to those treated with cDC (hazard ratio = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.08-2.45; P = .02). The median overall survival time was similar in both groups (33.2 and 30.1 months, P = .2). The incidence of grade 2 or 3 neurotoxicity and grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was higher with cDC than with sDC (11.7% vs 8.5%; 36.8% vs 11.3%). The sDC group demonstrated significant improvements in the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy-Ovarian, Quality of Life Trial Outcome Index scores compared with the combination cohort (P = .013). CONCLUSIONS Both cDC and sDC regimens have activity in recurrent platinum-sensitive EOC with acceptable toxicity profiles. The cDC regimen may provide a PFS advantage over sDC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angeles Alvarez Secord
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Barnett JC, Havrilesky LJ, Bondurant AE, Fleming ND, Lee PS, Secord AA, Berchuck A, Valea FA. Adverse events associated with laparoscopy vs laparotomy in the treatment of endometrial cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205:143.e1-6. [PMID: 21514921 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.03.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2010] [Revised: 02/21/2011] [Accepted: 03/08/2011] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to compare adverse event rates between laparoscopic vs open surgery for endometrial cancer. STUDY DESIGN This was a retrospective cohort study comparing 107 women who underwent laparoscopy with 269 age- and body mass index-matched women who underwent laparotomy for treatment of endometrial cancer. RESULTS Adverse event rates were similar between cohorts (37% laparoscopy vs 43% laparotomy, P=.248). Laparotomies had higher rates of cellulitis (16% vs 7%, P=.018) and open wound infection (9% vs 2%, P=.02), whereas laparoscopy had higher rates of sensory peripheral nerve deficit (5% vs 0%, P=.008) and lymphedema (7% vs 1%, P=.003). Laparoscopy was associated with longer mean operating room times but with shorter hospital stays and lower mean blood loss. CONCLUSION Laparoscopy was associated with decreased rates of surgical site infections but had an increased risk of peripheral sensory nerve deficits and lymphedema when compared with laparotomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason C Barnett
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
|
28
|
Greer BE, Koh WJ, Abu-Rustum NR, Apte SM, Campos SM, Chan J, Cho KR, Copeland L, Crispens MA, DuPont N, Eifel PJ, Gaffney DK, Huh WK, Kapp DS, Lurain JR, Martin L, Morgan MA, Morgan RJ, Mutch D, Remmenga SW, Reynolds RK, Small W, Teng N, Valea FA. Cervical Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8:1388-416. [DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
29
|
Abstract
An early evaluation of the feasibility of training fellows in robotic surgery suggests that it is feasible to incorporate a systematic approach to robotic-assisted laparoscopic training at the onset of incorporating this technology into current practice. Background and Objective: The robotic surgical platform is an alternative technique to traditional laparoscopy and requires the development of new surgical skills for both the experienced surgeon and trainee. Our goal was to perform an early evaluation of the feasibility of training fellows in robotic-assisted gynecologic procedures at the outset of our incorporation of this technology into clinical practice. Methods: A systematic approach to fellow training included (1) didactic and hands-on training with the robotic system, (2) instructional videos, (3) assistance at the operating table, and (4) performance of segments of gynecologic procedures in tandem with the attending physician. Time to complete the entire procedure, individual segments, rate of conversion to laparotomy, and complications were recorded. Results: Twenty-one robotic-assisted gynecologic procedures were performed from April 2006 to January 2007. Fellows participated as the console surgeon in 14/21 cases. Thirteen patients (62%) had prior abdominal surgery. Median values with ranges were age 51 years (range, 33 to 90); BMI 28 (range, 19.4 to 43.8); EBL 25 mL (range, 25 to 250); and hospital stay 1 day (range, 1 to 4). No significant difference existed between fellow and attending mean total operative and individual segment times. One conversion to laparotomy was necessary. No major surgical complications occurred. Conclusion: These data suggest that it is feasible to incorporate a systematic approach to robotic-assisted laparoscopic training for trainees at the outset of incorporation of this technology into current practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paula S Lee
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Bland AE, Calingaert B, Secord AA, Lee PS, Valea FA, Berchuck A, Soper JT, Havrilesky L. Relationship between tamoxifen use and high risk endometrial cancer histologic types. Gynecol Oncol 2009; 112:150-4. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2008] [Revised: 08/19/2008] [Accepted: 08/25/2008] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
31
|
Valea FA. Human papillomavirus testing for precancerous lesions of the cervix. N C Med J 2007; 68:127-9. [PMID: 17566560] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
As new technologies are introduced that increase the sensitivity of detecting patients at risk and the incidence of cervical cancer continues to decrease in the US, annual screening for this disease may actually be overscreening. It has been shown that the screening interval can safely be increased to every 2 years if liquid-based testing is performed with reflex HPV testing in patients under 30 and can be increased to every three years in patients over the age of 30 if they are done together and both are negative.13,14 As we move into the age of risk stratification as a screening tool with HPV testing and liquid-based screening, it is imperative that the aforementioned recommendations are followed in order to keep the costs of screening at a minimum. Unfortunately, despite data confirming its safety and efficacy, many patients are unconvinced. The overwhelming respondents in one series would still seek to obtain annual screening. In order to complete the paradigm shift in the screening for cervical cancer using the current technologies, more education will be required of the public and health care community to understand and accept the differences, most notably the increased screening interval. The true effects of the HPV vaccine will not be known for some time. Therefore, appropriate screening is still imperative even for those vaccinated because it does not offer complete protection from other strains of the HPV virus.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fidel A Valea
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Havrilesky LJ, Cragun JM, Calingaert B, Alvarez Secord A, Valea FA, Clarke-Pearson DL, Berchuck A, Soper JT. The prognostic significance of positive peritoneal cytology and adnexal/serosal metastasis in stage IIIA endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 104:401-5. [PMID: 17014898 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.08.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2006] [Revised: 08/08/2006] [Accepted: 08/17/2006] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The clinical significance and optimal management of patients with stage IIIA endometrial cancer are controversial. We sought to determine whether recurrence and survival of patients with stage IIIA endometrial cancer differ with surgical pathologic findings (positive peritoneal cytology versus positive adnexae or serosa) and adjuvant treatment. METHODS Retrospective single institution analysis of patients surgically staged for IIIA endometrial cancer at Duke University Medical Center from 1973 to 2002. Stage IIIA patients were stratified into positive cytology alone (group IIIA1, n=37) and positive adnexae or uterine serosa (group IIIA2, n=20). Comparison was made with previously reported group of 467 patients with surgical stage I/II disease. Recurrence and survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimations and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS Mean age of 57 patients with stage IIIA endometrial cancer was 63. Adjuvant therapies were administered to 89% patients (74% radiotherapy, 4% chemotherapy, 19% progestins). Five-year overall (OS) and recurrence-free disease-specific survival (RFDSS) were 64% and 76%, respectively. Survival was similar comparing IIIA1 (62%) and IIIA2 (68%, p=0.999). RFDSS by adjuvant therapy was: external beam radiotherapy 89% (n=10), intraperitoneal P32 84% (n=21), progestins 78% (n=9), none 75% (n=6). 61% recurrences included extrapelvic component. In multivariable analysis of stage I-IIIA patients (n=517), positive cytology but not adnexal/serosal metastasis was predictive of death (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.06-2.73) and disease recurrence (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.07-2.71). CONCLUSION Among patients with stage IIIA endometrial cancer, metastasis to adnexae or serosa does not appear to confer worse prognosis than positive cytology alone. Positive cytology is an independent predictor of prognosis among patients with stage I-IIIA endometrial cancer. While optimal adjuvant therapy for these groups remains unclear, recurrence patterns suggest that systemic therapies are appropriate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura J Havrilesky
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3079, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
DiSilvestro PA, Fisher M, Pearl ML, Buhl A, Chalas E, Valea FA. Pilot Phase 2 Trial of 4 Months of Maintenance Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin in Patients with Advanced Ovarian Cancer after Complete Response to Platinum and Paclitaxel-Based Chemotherapy. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2006; 63:1-6. [PMID: 16809933 DOI: 10.1159/000094361] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2005] [Accepted: 05/06/2006] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS Stages III and IV ovarian and peritoneal cancer patients are commonly treated with combination chemotherapy after surgical debulking. This phase II trial investigated the use of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin as consolidation chemotherapy for these patients. METHODS Women with stage III or IV ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma demonstrating no clinical evidence of disease after primary therapy were eligible for enrollment. Patients received 4 cycles of 40 mg/m(2) IV of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin every 28 days. RESULTS Twelve patients were enrolled. There were 6 stage IIIC and 6 stage IV patients. Ten patients received 4 cycles. Two patients had dose limiting skin toxicity manifest as hand-foot syndrome and received only 3 cycles. Forty-six of a planned 48 cycles were administered. Median disease-free survival from registration is 10 months with a mean of 18 months. Median overall survival has not yet been reached. Four patients are disease-free, two have relapsed and six have died from disease progression. CONCLUSION Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin is a well-tolerated choice for consolidation chemotherapy in patients with ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma.
Collapse
|
34
|
Pearl ML, Valea FA, Disilvestro PA, Chalas E. Panniculectomy in morbidly obese gynecologic oncology patients. Int J Surg Investig 2003; 2:59-64. [PMID: 12774339] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND It is clear that morbid obesity presents a serious risk to women undergoing major intra-abdominal gynecologic surgery. Unfortunately, many gynecologic malignancies and benign conditions are best treated surgically. Thus, the gynecologic surgeon must choose an incision that permits adequate exposure with acceptables rates of complications. Panniculectomy as an approach to the peritoneal cavity is becoming increasingly popular. Recent reports suggest that panniculectomy is reasonably straightforward to perform, provides adequate exposure and is associated with an acceptable rate of manageable complications. In these circumstances, panniculectomy is not a cosmetic procedure, but medically necessary to perform indicated major gynecologic intra-abdominal surgery. AIMS To present our experience with panniculectomy in morbidly obese women undergoing major intra-abdominal surgery on a gynecologic oncology service. METHODS The medical records of 48 morbidly obese women (Quetelet Index > 40 kg/m2) with a large dependent pannus who underwent major intra-abdominal surgery via a panniculectomy between May 1990 and October 1999 were reviewed. Data regarding demographics, concomitant medical conditions, operative indications and results, and postoperative outcomes were abstracted for analysis. RESULTS The mean age was 54.9 years, the mean body mass was 130.2 kg, the mean height was 1.63 m and the mean Quetelet Index was 49.3 kg/m2. The mean operating time was 188 min and the mean estimated blood loss was 615 ml. Two patients suffered intraoperative urologic injuries which were repaired without sequelae; there were no bowel, vascular or neurologic injuries. Eighteen patients had a suprafascial wound breakdown (3 complete and 15 superficial) and 15 patients developed an infection. There were no documented deep venous thromboses, pulmonary emboli or fascial dehiscences. Two patients died in the postoperative period; one from a myocardial infarction on Day 2 and one from overwhelming sepsis on Day 76. CONCLUSIONS Morbid obesity is associated with substantial operative and postoperative risks. Panniculectomy provides operative exposure with acceptable risks of complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M L Pearl
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Department of Surgery, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794-8091, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Pearl ML, Inagami M, McCauley DL, Valea FA, Chalas E, Fischer M. Mesna, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and dacarbazine (MAID) chemotherapy for gynecological sarcomas. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2002; 12:745-8. [PMID: 12445253 DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1438.2002.01139.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
This report summarizes our experience with the combination of mesna, doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and dacarbazine (MAID) for patients with gynecological sarcomas. We reviewed the records of all patients who had received the MAID regimen for a gynecological sarcoma between 1993 and 2000. The MAID regimen was administered intravenously every 4 weeks in the hospital as follows: (1) mesna 1500 mg/m2/day x 4 days; (2) doxorubicin 15 mg/m2/day x 3 days; (3) ifosfamide 1500 mg/m2/day x 3 days; (4) dacarbazine 250 mg/m2/day x 3 days. The results of treatment with MAID were disappointing. Overall, the response rate was 9% with one complete response and one partial response (both in patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma). We did not observe any responses among the patients with carcinosarcomas of either ovarian or uterine origin. The median progression-free interval and survival were 11 months and 29 months, respectively. This regimen was associated with substantial toxicity (including a death from neutropenic sepsis) as well as high cost and inconvenience due to the requirement for inpatient administration. Although our study contains a limited number of patients with a variety of gynecological sarcomas, our review has led us to discontinue using MAID. It remains to be established if any combination chemotherapy regimen is better than single agent treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M L Pearl
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Pearl ML, Villella JA, Valea FA, DiSilvestro PA, Chalas E. Outcomes of endometrial cancer patients undergoing surgery with gynecologic oncology involvement. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100:724-9. [PMID: 12383541 DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02089-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study was undertaken to compare the outcomes of patients with endometrial cancer who had primary surgery with gynecologic oncology involvement at university or community hospitals. METHODS The study population consisted of all patients who had primary surgery for endometrial cancer with involvement of the attending physicians of the Division of Gynecologic Oncology. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether their surgery was performed at a university or community hospital. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted from the medical records. RESULTS There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to Quetelet index (kg/m(2)); intervals between biopsy and consultation, consultation and surgery, and biopsy and surgery; estimated blood loss; incidence of operative or hospital complications; frequency of appropriate surgical staging; stage distribution; histology or grade; and hospital stay. Patients at a university hospital were significantly older, had a higher severity index, were more likely to have had a vaginal hysterectomy, and participate in a research protocol. Both the Quetelet index and the severity index were significantly higher for patients who had vaginal hysterectomy than for those who had either laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy or total abdominal hysterectomy. When analyzed by surgical approach, the frequencies of pelvic and paraaortic lymph node sampling were comparable between the groups. Both the Quetelet and severity indices were significantly higher for patients who did not have lymph node sampling. CONCLUSION Involvement of a gynecologic oncologist at the time of primary surgery for endometrial cancer was associated with comparable outcomes in both the university and community hospital setting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael L Pearl
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Affiliation(s)
- Fidel A Valea
- Long Island Gynecologic Oncology, Smithtown, New York, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Plaxe SC, Blessing JA, Olt G, Husseinzadah N, Lentz SS, DeGeest K, Valea FA. A phase II trial of pyrazoloacridine (PZA) in squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2002; 50:151-4. [PMID: 12172981 DOI: 10.1007/s00280-002-0470-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2001] [Accepted: 04/17/2002] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The Gynecologic Oncology Group performed a phase II study to determine the response rate to pyrazoloacridine (PZA) in patients with advanced, persistent or recurrent squamous carcinoma of the cervix. METHODS PZA was administered intravenously over 3 h every 3 weeks. A dose of 760 mg/m(2) was given to the first 11 patients and was reduced to 560 mg/m(2) for subsequent patients. The dose reduction was undertaken because of unexpected severe neutropenia among the initial patients. RESULTS Among 24 evaluable patients, 21 of whom had prior chemotherapy, there was one, brief, complete response (4.2%) and no partial responses. The major toxicity was neutropenia. CONCLUSION PZA at the dose and schedule employed, has insignificant activity in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven C Plaxe
- Department of Reproductive Medicine, Medical Center, University of California, San Diego, 402 Dickinson Street, San Diego, CA 92103-8433, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
39
|
Pearl ML, Frandina M, Mahler L, Valea FA, DiSilvestro PA, Chalas E. A randomized controlled trial of a regular diet as the first meal in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intraabdominal surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100:230-4. [PMID: 12151142 DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02067-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of a regular diet as the first meal after intraabdominal surgery in gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS During a 20-month period, 254 gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intraabdominal surgery were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of a clear liquid diet compared with a regular diet as the first postoperative meal. All patients received their first meal on the first postoperative day in the absence of nausea, vomiting, or symptomatic abdominal distension. Standard criteria for discharge were used for all study patients. RESULTS The clear liquid and the regular diet groups were similar in age, disease, surgical procedure distribution, surgery length, and estimated blood loss. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, abdominal distention, frequency and duration of nasogastric tube use, passage of flatus before discharge, and percentage of patients who tolerated their diets on the first attempt were comparable for both groups. For those patients who were intolerant of the first attempt at either a clear liquid or regular diet, the time to tolerance was comparable for both groups. The time to development of bowel sounds, passage of flatus, and hospital stay were comparable for both groups. Febrile morbidity, pneumonia, wound complications, and atelectasis occurred equally in both groups. There were no known anastamotic complications or aspirations in either group. Postoperative changes in hematologic indices and electrolytes were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION A regular diet as the first meal after intraabdominal surgery in gynecologic oncology patients is safe and efficacious.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael L Pearl
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Pearl ML, McCauley DL, Thompson J, Mahler L, Valea FA, Chalas E. A randomized controlled trial of early oral analgesia in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99:704-8. [PMID: 11978276 DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)01956-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of early oral analgesia after intra-abdominal surgery in gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS Over a 2.5-year period, 227 gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of early oral versus traditional parenteral analgesia. All patients initially received parenteral morphine via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump with a basal dose of 0.5 mg/h and a PCA dose of 1 mg with a 10-minute lockout. On the first postoperative day, all patients began a clear liquid diet, which was advanced as tolerated. Patients allocated to early oral analgesia were switched from parenteral to oral morphine. They received a scheduled dose of 20 mg every 4 hours with an additional dose of 10 mg every 2 hours as needed for breakthrough pain. Patients allocated to traditional parenteral analgesia continued to receive parenteral morphine via a PCA pump with basal and PCA doses. On the second postoperative day, the scheduled oral and basal parenteral doses were discontinued. The oral and parenteral PCA doses were continued until 24 hours before discharge, at which time the patient was switched to oxycodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg. RESULTS There were no significant differences among the groups in any demographic or clinical indices, including age, case distribution, surgery length, blood loss, time to return of bowel function, length of hospital stay, pain, sedation, and satisfaction scores, and incidence of nausea, vomiting, or major postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS Early oral analgesia in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery is safe and efficacious.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael L Pearl
- Departments of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Pearl ML, Fischer M, McCauley DL, Valea FA, Chalas E. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation as an adjunct for controlling chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in gynecologic oncology patients. Cancer Nurs 1999; 22:307-11. [PMID: 10452208 DOI: 10.1097/00002820-199908000-00008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To evaluate the efficacy of a miniaturized portable transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) unit (ReliefBand) as an adjunct to standard antiemetic therapy for controlling nausea and vomiting induced by cisplatin-based chemotherapy in gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS Forty-two patients were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-subjects trial with a follow-up crossover trial. All patients received a standardized antiemetic protocol, then wore the ReliefBand continuously for 7 days. RESULTS Thirty-two patients were evaluable for the parallel-subjects component, 16 in each group. The percentage of patients with absent or minimal nausea was 59% overall, which was similar to that for both the active (56%) and placebo (62%) groups. The incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting was similar for each group. Eighteen patients completed two consecutive cycles and were evaluable for the crossover component. The average age of the crossover patients and their dose intensity were comparable with those of the overall study population (56.3 versus 58.6 years and 22.7 versus 22.7 mg/m2/week, respectively). The percentage of cycles with absent or minimal nausea was 47% overall, which was similar to that of the active (50%) and placebo (44%) cycles. However, the severity of nausea was significantly lower in the active cycles during days 2 to 4. Patients averaged less than one episode of vomiting daily in each cycle. CONCLUSIONS The ReliefBand is an effective adjunct to standard antiemetic agents for controlling nausea induced by cisplatin-based chemotherapy in gynecologic oncology patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M L Pearl
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Surgery, State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Pearl ML, Valea FA, Fischer M, Mahler L, Chalas E. A randomized controlled trial of early postoperative feeding in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92:94-7. [PMID: 9649101 DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00114-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of early oral feeding after intra-abdominal surgery in gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS During a 1-year period, 200 gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of early compared with traditional oral postoperative feeding. Patients allocated to early postoperative oral feeding began a clear liquid diet on the first postoperative day and then advanced to a regular diet as tolerated. Patients allocated to traditional postoperative oral feeding received nothing by mouth until return of bowel function (defined as the passage of flatus in the absence of vomiting or abdominal distention), then began a clear liquid diet, and advanced to a regular diet as tolerated. RESULTS Age, case distribution, surgery length, blood loss, and first passage of flatus were similar in the early and traditional feeding groups. Significantly more patients in the early group developed nausea. Despite this, the incidence of vomiting, abdominal distention, incidence and duration of nasogastric tube use, and percentage of patients who tolerated clear liquid and regular diets on the first attempt were comparable in both groups. Time to development of bowel sounds, time to initiation of clear liquid and regular diets, and hospital stay were significantly longer in the traditional group. Major complications (eg, pneumonia, atelectasis, and wound complications) and febrile morbidity occurred equally in both groups. There were no known anastamotic complications or aspirations in either group. Postoperative changes in hematologic indices and electrolytes were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION Early postoperative feeding in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery is safe and well tolerated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M L Pearl
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND We reviewed the outcomes of panniculectomy and supraumbilical vertical midline incisions in morbidly obese women undergoing gynecologic operations. STUDY DESIGN Medical records were reviewed for 62 morbidly obese women with a large dependent pannus who underwent gynecologic operations on the Gynecologic Oncology Service at the State University of New York at Stony Brook between May 1990 and July 1997. Thirty-five patients underwent panniculectomy and 27 had a supraumbilical vertical midline incision, forming the study groups. The patient charts were abstracted for demographic, perioperative, and postoperative data. RESULTS For the entire study population, the average age was 56 years, the mean body mass was 128.6 kg, and the mean Quetelet Index was 48.3 kg/m2. The mean operative time and estimated blood loss were similar for both groups. Eight percent of the patients had urologic injuries, evenly distributed between the groups. Postoperative infections, wound breakdowns, and hospital stay were greater for the panniculectomy group than for the supraumbilical vertical midline incision group (p < 0.05). Uniform use of subcutaneous closed-suction drains (since 1995) was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of wound breakdowns and a shorter hospital stay in the panniculectomy group. CONCLUSIONS Panniculectomy and supraumbilical vertical midline incision provide reasonable peritoneal access with acceptable rates of postoperative complications for morbidly obese women undergoing gynecologic operations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M L Pearl
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Look KY, Blessing JA, Valea FA, McGehee R, Manetta A, Webster KD, Andersen WA. Phase II trial of 5-fluorouracil and high-dose leucovorin in recurrent adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol 1997; 67:255-8. [PMID: 9441772 DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1997.4886] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to determine the response rate and associated toxicity of 5-fluorouracil and high-dose leucovorin in patients with recurrent adenocarcinoma of the cervix. METHODS Between December 1993 and October 1995, 53 patients with recurrent adenocarcinoma of the cervix were entered into a Phase II trial utilizing 200 mg/m2 of intravenous (iv) leucovorin with 370 mg/m2 of i.v. 5-fluorouracil daily for 5 days every 4 weeks for two courses, then every 5 weeks until disease progression. Eligibility criteria were a Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) performance status of 0-2, adequate bone marrow reserve, adequate liver function with bilirubin < or = 1.5 x normal and SGOT and alkaline phosphatase < or = 3 x normal, serum creatinine < or = 2 mg%, and signed informed consent. Standard GOG toxicity and response criteria were employed. RESULTS Six patients were ineligible because of wrong cell type (N = 3), insufficient pathology materials (N = 2), or a second primary (N = 1); therefore 45 were evaluable for toxicity. Two patients did not have adequate response assessment; thus, 43 were evaluable for response. The median age was 50 (range, 28-79). Prior chemotherapy had been administered to 16 patients and radiotherapy to 40 patients. The median number of courses delivered was three (range, 1-22). The site of evaluable disease was pelvic in 25 patients and extra-pelvic in 18. Grade 3 neutropenia was seen in 17.8% (8/45) patients and 35.5% (16/45) developed grade 4 neutropenia. Grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was seen in 1 patient each (2.1%). Grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, or stomatitis was of grade 3 severity in 11.1% (5/45) and grade 4 in 6.7% (3/45). There were four partial responses and two complete responses for an overall response rate of 14%. The duration of the complete responses was 17.3 and 8.8+ months. None of the patients with responses had previously received chemotherapy. CONCLUSION The schedule of 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin exhibits moderate activity in patients with previously treated adenocarcinoma of the cervix and should be considered for a trial in chemotherapy-naive patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Y Look
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis 46202, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to assess the clinical utility of a pretreatment barium enema in women with endometrial cancer. METHODS The medical records of 249 patients with endometrial cancer who underwent a pretreatment barium enema were retrospectively reviewed. The patients' charts were abstracted for demographic information, stage, grade, histology, current disease status, and barium enema results. RESULTS The pretreatment barium enema was normal in 122 (49%) patients. Diverticulosis was the most common abnormality, reported in 112 (45%) patients. Apparent intraluminal abnormalities were found in 15 (6.0%) patients. Each of these patients underwent colonoscopy prior to treatment for endometrial carcinoma. During colonoscopy, benign colonic polyps were removed from 11 (4.4%) patients. Primary colonic adenocarcinoma was discovered in polypoid lesions removed from 2 (0.8%) patients. Significant luminal narrowing from extrinsic lesions was noted in 2 (0.8%) patients, one at the rectosigmoid and the other at the cecum. No patient was found to have colonic mucosal involvement by endometrial cancer. CONCLUSION The results of this study do not justify routine pretreatment barium enema to assess the colonic mucosa for metastatic involvement by endometrial cancer or as a screening tool for colorectal cancer in women with endometrial cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M L Pearl
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 11794-8091, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Pearl ML, Valea FA, Fischer M, Chalas E. A randomized controlled trial of postoperative nasogastric tube decompression in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intra-abdominal surgery. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88:399-402. [PMID: 8752247 DOI: 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00183-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of nasogastric decompression after extensive intra-abdominal surgery in gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS Over a 1-year period, 110 gynecologic oncology patients undergoing extensive intra-abdominal surgery were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of postoperative nasogastric tube versus intra-operative orogastric tube decompression. RESULTS The nasogastric and orogastric groups were similar in age, case distribution, surgery length, and blood loss. The nasogastric group had significantly longer times to first passage of flatus and tolerance of a clear liquid diet than did the orogastric group. However, both groups were similar in time to tolerance of a regular diet and hospital stay. On average, the nasogastric tube was maintained for 3.2 +/- 2.1 days (range 1-8) after surgery. The average daily nasogastric output was 440 +/- 283 mL (range 68-1565). No patient in the orogastric group required a nasogastric tube postoperatively, but one patient in the nasogastric group had a nasogastric tube reinserted for recurrent nausea and vomiting. Use of a nasogastric tube led to significantly more subjective complaints, eg, ear pain, painful swallowing, and nasal soreness, but did not significantly reduce the incidence of abdominal distention or nausea and vomiting. Major complications, eg, pneumonia, atelectasis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and wound breakdown or infection, occurred equally in both groups. However, the incidence of febrile morbidity was significantly greater in the nasogastric group. There were no known anastamotic complications or aspirations in either group. Postoperative changes in hematological indices and electrolytes were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION Postoperative nasogastric tube decompression in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing extensive intra-abdominal surgery does not appear to provide any substantial benefit but significantly increases patient discomfort. As a result of this study, we have eliminated postoperative nasogastric decompression except in highly selected circumstances, such as extensive bowel surgery in patients with prior irradiation or substantial edema from bowel obstruction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M L Pearl
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
47
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the expression of the alpha 2-, alpha 3-, alpha 4- and alpha 5-subunits of the beta 1-family of integrins in both the normal and the carcinomatous cervix. STUDY DESIGN A total of 22 solid tissue specimens (18 cancer and 4 normal) were analyzed immunohistochemically. The double-stain technique used an avidin-biotin complex kit to identify the various integrins and alkaline phosphatase-anti-alkaline phosphatase kit to identify the epithelial cells. Staining intensity, the main outcome measured, was graded as absent, weak, moderate, or strong. Statistical analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon rank sum test for nonparametric data. RESULTS The alpha 2- and alpha 3-integrins stained the normal cervix epithelium more intensely than the stroma (p = 0.03). The alpha 4- and alpha 5-integrins stained both the stroma and the normal epithelium similarly. The alpha 2-integrin was absent in the stroma of all 18 cancer specimens despite being present in the epithelial regions of 14 to 18 cancers. The alpha 3-integrin had a greater staining intensity in the stroma of the cancers than in the epithelial regions (p = 0.002). Both alpha 4- and alpha 5-integrins were absent in the epithelial regions of the cancers but present in the stroma. CONCLUSIONS The distribution and intensity of integrin expression in cervical cancer differ from their expression in the normal cervix. In particular, the fibronectin receptors, alpha 4 and alpha 5, were absent in the epithelial regions of the cervical cancers, and alpha 3 also had diminished expression in the malignant epithelium. These changes correlate well with the changes expected in malignant transformation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F A Valea
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook 11794-8091, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Hale TM, Valea FA, Stelling JR, Roman GA. A new method and apparatus that prevents the rebreathing of expired carbon dioxide of sleeping neonates and infants. Am J Perinatol 1995; 12:164-7. [PMID: 7612086 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-994442] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
This study was done to measure the effect on inspiratory carbon dioxide (CO2) levels of infants exposed to the infant Crib Air (ICA) apparatus, a novel device which circulates room air within the infant's crib. Twenty-one healthy, sleeping infants and neonates (mean age = 14.7 weeks) were studied in a prospective crossover trial. All infants were studied lying face down or with the face placed passively to the side in their cribs. Inspiratory CO2 levels were recorded over a 30 minute period by measuring the concentration of CO2 immediately adjacent to the infants' nose and mouth. During the first 15 minute period, the baseline concentration of inspiratory CO2 was recorded. The infants were then exposed to the ICA apparatus in their cribs for 15 minutes and the concentrations of inspiratory CO2 were measured. Mean inspiratory CO2 levels in infants lying face down decreased from 8.5 to 1.4 mm Hg after ICA exposure (P < 0.001). Infants studied with their face placed passively to the side experienced a similar decrease in inspired CO2 concentrations. We conclude that the level of inspired CO2 by sleeping infants can be significantly reduced by the ICA regardless of the position of the infant's head.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- T M Hale
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook 11794, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
49
|
Abstract
Ninety-four twin gestations had serial ultrasound examinations for evaluation of fetal growth, with special attention to prediction of weight discordance and chorionicity. Fetal weight estimations were made a mean of 3.2 days before birth and then compared to actual birthweights. The average error in intertwin discordance prediction was 1 +/- 9%. In 56 patients ultrasonic detection of membrane thickness was compared with placental pathologic conditions. If a membrane was seen between twins, it was confirmed by placental pathologic study in all cases. No membrane was seen in four twin pairs, but only one of these actually had monochorionic monoamniotic membranes. The three cases with false-positive diagnoses of monoamniotic twin gestation were initially seen late in pregnancy. If clinical decisions in twin gestations are based on ultrasound determination of discordance and chorionicity, the level of accuracy demonstrated by these data must be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- W J Watson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-7570
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Valea FA, Haskill S, Olafsson K, Fowler WC. Flow cytometric versus immunohistochemical analysis of ovarian cancer class I antigen expression: differences may represent a defect in antigen expression. Gynecol Oncol 1990; 38:413-20. [PMID: 2227554 DOI: 10.1016/0090-8258(90)90083-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Class I antigen expression by ovarian epithelial neoplasms was determined by flow cytometric analysis and an immunoperoxidase technique for each specimen. The numbers of class I positive tumors determined by the methods were compared. The more subjective immunohistochemical analysis and the more objective flow cytometric technique revealed similar results as long as strict criteria for the interpretation of results was applied. Most of the tumor specimens revealed a homogeneous Gaussian distribution of green fluorescence, class I antigen expression, by flow cytometry. There were two specimens that exhibited a less than characteristic type of membrane staining. The antigen-antibody reaction product was expressed in the extracellular matrix, as well as on the cell membrane of certain cells. This may represent a defect in antigen expression and, if so, might alter the immune response to these tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- F A Valea
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-7570
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|