User login
AVAHO
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
The Impact of Registered Dietitian Staffing and Nutrition Practices in High-Risk Cancer Patients Across the Veterans Health Administration
Background: Malnutrition in cancer patients has a significant correlation with disability, dysfunction and death, as well as increased patient care costs, neutropenia, reduced quality of life, fall risk, fractures, nosocomial infections, and longer treatment durations 1-3. Registered dietitian (RD) involvement early on may increase recognition of malnutrition for at-risk patients. Guidelines for nutrition staffing in cancer centers is illdefined in the literature, with few existing recommendations.
Methods: In Phase 1, a survey of RDs across VHA was conducted to determine current referral and staffing practices surrounding nutrition care and services in outpatient oncology clinics. The survey was administered to RDs who devote some or all of their time to oncology nutrition in the outpatient setting and participate on 1 of 2 popular VHA listservs: a nutrition support listserv, and an oncology nutrition listserv.
Phase 2 will be a multi-site, retrospective, chart analysis among 20 VA facilities who treat cancer patients in the outpatient setting. Site investigators, divided into proactive vs. reactive nutrition practices based on Phase 1 survey results, will be instructed to obtain a list of patients diagnosed with high nutrition risk cancers during 2016 and 2017.
Primary outcomes measured will include weight loss, percent maximum weight change over speci ed timeframes, diagnosis of malnutrition, and reported breaks in treatment. Secondary outcomes include overall survival and disease-free survival. For all comparisons, P < 0.05 will be considered statistically signifcant.
Discussion: The data from 46 sites completing the national survey show that RD staffing practices vary widely across VA cancer centers. Few centers staff full time or dedicated oncology RDs independent of patient caseload, with the median oncology dedicated RD FTE being 0.5. Consult and referral practices dictating nutrition intervention were found to be reported as 17% proactive, 25% reactive, and 58% a combination of both practices. Phase 2 results seek to compare patient outcomes with RD staffing and nutrition care practices to determine much needed guidelines for effective nutrition delivery in VHA cancer centers across the U.S.
Background: Malnutrition in cancer patients has a significant correlation with disability, dysfunction and death, as well as increased patient care costs, neutropenia, reduced quality of life, fall risk, fractures, nosocomial infections, and longer treatment durations 1-3. Registered dietitian (RD) involvement early on may increase recognition of malnutrition for at-risk patients. Guidelines for nutrition staffing in cancer centers is illdefined in the literature, with few existing recommendations.
Methods: In Phase 1, a survey of RDs across VHA was conducted to determine current referral and staffing practices surrounding nutrition care and services in outpatient oncology clinics. The survey was administered to RDs who devote some or all of their time to oncology nutrition in the outpatient setting and participate on 1 of 2 popular VHA listservs: a nutrition support listserv, and an oncology nutrition listserv.
Phase 2 will be a multi-site, retrospective, chart analysis among 20 VA facilities who treat cancer patients in the outpatient setting. Site investigators, divided into proactive vs. reactive nutrition practices based on Phase 1 survey results, will be instructed to obtain a list of patients diagnosed with high nutrition risk cancers during 2016 and 2017.
Primary outcomes measured will include weight loss, percent maximum weight change over speci ed timeframes, diagnosis of malnutrition, and reported breaks in treatment. Secondary outcomes include overall survival and disease-free survival. For all comparisons, P < 0.05 will be considered statistically signifcant.
Discussion: The data from 46 sites completing the national survey show that RD staffing practices vary widely across VA cancer centers. Few centers staff full time or dedicated oncology RDs independent of patient caseload, with the median oncology dedicated RD FTE being 0.5. Consult and referral practices dictating nutrition intervention were found to be reported as 17% proactive, 25% reactive, and 58% a combination of both practices. Phase 2 results seek to compare patient outcomes with RD staffing and nutrition care practices to determine much needed guidelines for effective nutrition delivery in VHA cancer centers across the U.S.
Background: Malnutrition in cancer patients has a significant correlation with disability, dysfunction and death, as well as increased patient care costs, neutropenia, reduced quality of life, fall risk, fractures, nosocomial infections, and longer treatment durations 1-3. Registered dietitian (RD) involvement early on may increase recognition of malnutrition for at-risk patients. Guidelines for nutrition staffing in cancer centers is illdefined in the literature, with few existing recommendations.
Methods: In Phase 1, a survey of RDs across VHA was conducted to determine current referral and staffing practices surrounding nutrition care and services in outpatient oncology clinics. The survey was administered to RDs who devote some or all of their time to oncology nutrition in the outpatient setting and participate on 1 of 2 popular VHA listservs: a nutrition support listserv, and an oncology nutrition listserv.
Phase 2 will be a multi-site, retrospective, chart analysis among 20 VA facilities who treat cancer patients in the outpatient setting. Site investigators, divided into proactive vs. reactive nutrition practices based on Phase 1 survey results, will be instructed to obtain a list of patients diagnosed with high nutrition risk cancers during 2016 and 2017.
Primary outcomes measured will include weight loss, percent maximum weight change over speci ed timeframes, diagnosis of malnutrition, and reported breaks in treatment. Secondary outcomes include overall survival and disease-free survival. For all comparisons, P < 0.05 will be considered statistically signifcant.
Discussion: The data from 46 sites completing the national survey show that RD staffing practices vary widely across VA cancer centers. Few centers staff full time or dedicated oncology RDs independent of patient caseload, with the median oncology dedicated RD FTE being 0.5. Consult and referral practices dictating nutrition intervention were found to be reported as 17% proactive, 25% reactive, and 58% a combination of both practices. Phase 2 results seek to compare patient outcomes with RD staffing and nutrition care practices to determine much needed guidelines for effective nutrition delivery in VHA cancer centers across the U.S.
Impact of Integrated Oncology- Palliative Care Outpatient Model on Trends of Palliative Care and Hospice Care Referrals From Oncology
Background: A commonly voiced concern of oncologists, regarding the introduction of palliative care, is that patients might be immediately steered to hospice care and away from oncology care.
Objective: To assess the impact of oncology-palliative care collaboration on trends of referrals to palliative and hospice care.
Methods: In January 2015, we implemented an integrated oncology-palliative care clinic model with the following elements:
- Pre-clinic “huddle” among palliative care and oncology staff to identify palliative care needs for patients;
- Shared palliative care and oncology clinic appointments;
- Introduction of palliative care for every new oncology clinic patient, for advance care planning;
- Concurrent oncology and palliative care follow-up for all high-risk patients (aggressive histology, progressing disease, etc.) for goals of care discussions and symptom management; and
- Palliative care and oncology staff co-managing oncology patients enrolled in hospice care.
Measurements: We examined the following metrics for FY15, FY16, FY17, and FY18.
- Total number of palliative care consults;
- Number of palliative care consults from oncology;
- Percentage palliative care consults from oncology [(item 2 × 100) / item 1];
- Total number of referrals to hospice care;
- Number of referrals to hospice care from oncology; and
- Percentage hospice care referrals from oncology [(item 5 × 100) / item 4].
Results: During the period of FY15 to FY18, there was a consistent increase in total palliative care consults (355, 394, 549, and 570 respectively). There also was a consistent increase in percentage palliative care consults from oncology (24%, 34%, 38%, and 40% respectively) without an increase in percentage hospice care referrals from oncology.
Conclusion: A common concern is that palliative care in oncology care will result in patients being immediately steered to hospice care and away from continued oncology care. Although it was limited to a single clinical setting, our intervention resulted in increased palliative care consults from oncology without a proportionate increase in hospice care referrals from oncology during the same time-period, suggesting that earlier access to palliative care did not result in immediate transition to hospice care. Palliative care offers opportunities for goals of care conversations and symptom management in oncology care, prior to transition to hospice care. Future implications include robust studies to further test these findings, review of structure and training of oncology-palliative care teams, and systems redesign to develop dyad or shared clinic models.
Background: A commonly voiced concern of oncologists, regarding the introduction of palliative care, is that patients might be immediately steered to hospice care and away from oncology care.
Objective: To assess the impact of oncology-palliative care collaboration on trends of referrals to palliative and hospice care.
Methods: In January 2015, we implemented an integrated oncology-palliative care clinic model with the following elements:
- Pre-clinic “huddle” among palliative care and oncology staff to identify palliative care needs for patients;
- Shared palliative care and oncology clinic appointments;
- Introduction of palliative care for every new oncology clinic patient, for advance care planning;
- Concurrent oncology and palliative care follow-up for all high-risk patients (aggressive histology, progressing disease, etc.) for goals of care discussions and symptom management; and
- Palliative care and oncology staff co-managing oncology patients enrolled in hospice care.
Measurements: We examined the following metrics for FY15, FY16, FY17, and FY18.
- Total number of palliative care consults;
- Number of palliative care consults from oncology;
- Percentage palliative care consults from oncology [(item 2 × 100) / item 1];
- Total number of referrals to hospice care;
- Number of referrals to hospice care from oncology; and
- Percentage hospice care referrals from oncology [(item 5 × 100) / item 4].
Results: During the period of FY15 to FY18, there was a consistent increase in total palliative care consults (355, 394, 549, and 570 respectively). There also was a consistent increase in percentage palliative care consults from oncology (24%, 34%, 38%, and 40% respectively) without an increase in percentage hospice care referrals from oncology.
Conclusion: A common concern is that palliative care in oncology care will result in patients being immediately steered to hospice care and away from continued oncology care. Although it was limited to a single clinical setting, our intervention resulted in increased palliative care consults from oncology without a proportionate increase in hospice care referrals from oncology during the same time-period, suggesting that earlier access to palliative care did not result in immediate transition to hospice care. Palliative care offers opportunities for goals of care conversations and symptom management in oncology care, prior to transition to hospice care. Future implications include robust studies to further test these findings, review of structure and training of oncology-palliative care teams, and systems redesign to develop dyad or shared clinic models.
Background: A commonly voiced concern of oncologists, regarding the introduction of palliative care, is that patients might be immediately steered to hospice care and away from oncology care.
Objective: To assess the impact of oncology-palliative care collaboration on trends of referrals to palliative and hospice care.
Methods: In January 2015, we implemented an integrated oncology-palliative care clinic model with the following elements:
- Pre-clinic “huddle” among palliative care and oncology staff to identify palliative care needs for patients;
- Shared palliative care and oncology clinic appointments;
- Introduction of palliative care for every new oncology clinic patient, for advance care planning;
- Concurrent oncology and palliative care follow-up for all high-risk patients (aggressive histology, progressing disease, etc.) for goals of care discussions and symptom management; and
- Palliative care and oncology staff co-managing oncology patients enrolled in hospice care.
Measurements: We examined the following metrics for FY15, FY16, FY17, and FY18.
- Total number of palliative care consults;
- Number of palliative care consults from oncology;
- Percentage palliative care consults from oncology [(item 2 × 100) / item 1];
- Total number of referrals to hospice care;
- Number of referrals to hospice care from oncology; and
- Percentage hospice care referrals from oncology [(item 5 × 100) / item 4].
Results: During the period of FY15 to FY18, there was a consistent increase in total palliative care consults (355, 394, 549, and 570 respectively). There also was a consistent increase in percentage palliative care consults from oncology (24%, 34%, 38%, and 40% respectively) without an increase in percentage hospice care referrals from oncology.
Conclusion: A common concern is that palliative care in oncology care will result in patients being immediately steered to hospice care and away from continued oncology care. Although it was limited to a single clinical setting, our intervention resulted in increased palliative care consults from oncology without a proportionate increase in hospice care referrals from oncology during the same time-period, suggesting that earlier access to palliative care did not result in immediate transition to hospice care. Palliative care offers opportunities for goals of care conversations and symptom management in oncology care, prior to transition to hospice care. Future implications include robust studies to further test these findings, review of structure and training of oncology-palliative care teams, and systems redesign to develop dyad or shared clinic models.
Melanoma of Unknown Primary Presenting as a Parotid Gland Mass
Background: Malignant melanoma is an aggressive malignancy that can present as a poorly differentiated neoplasm. Loss of S100 and melanA antigenicity can make pathologic identification difficult, especially in those patients who lack a cutaneous primary lesion. Immunostaining with SOX10, a key nuclear transcription factor in the differentiation of neural crest progenitor cells to melanocytes, has a high reported sensitivity and specificity for pathologic identification of melanoma in difficult cases.
Case Report: A 69-year-old male with a history of heavy tobacco use presented to the otolaryngology clinic with a left parotid mass. He underwent a parotid gland biopsy, which was significant for a high grade, poorly differentiated malignancy of unclear primary source. A staging PET/CT demonstrated localized hypermetabolic activity in the draining left cervical lymph node basins. He underwent a left modified radical neck dissection and parotidectomy. Pathologic assessment demonstrated a 3.9 × 1.6 × 1.6 cm3 poorly differentiated carcinoma with perineural invasion and 8/85 lymph nodes involved. Morphologically, it had features of a high grade epithelioid tumor with spindle cell features. Immunohistochemical (IHC) stains were negative for epithelial markers (AE1/3, EMA, CK5/6, CAM5.2), smooth muscle actin, CD34, S100, and melanA. Given the concern for a spindle cell melanoma that lost its antigenicity for S100 and melanA, a SOX10 IHC stain was performed.
The SOX10 immunostain demonstrated strong, diffuse positivity which secured the diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Molecular testing for BRAF and KIT mutations was negative. The nal diagnosis was a stage IVA (pT2pN2bM0) malignant melanoma of the parotid gland without a cutaneous primary lesion. The patient received a course of adjuvant radiation to a total dose of 66Gy and will complete one year of adjuvant immunotherapy with Nivolumab.
Conclusion: Malignant melanoma can present as a poorly differentiated malignancy and may be difficult to diagnose by providers, especially in the absence of a typical clinical history and a primary cutaneous lesion. In cases where the standard melanoma immunostains are negative, IHC staining with SOX10 can help secure the diagnosis with high sensitivity and specificity.
Background: Malignant melanoma is an aggressive malignancy that can present as a poorly differentiated neoplasm. Loss of S100 and melanA antigenicity can make pathologic identification difficult, especially in those patients who lack a cutaneous primary lesion. Immunostaining with SOX10, a key nuclear transcription factor in the differentiation of neural crest progenitor cells to melanocytes, has a high reported sensitivity and specificity for pathologic identification of melanoma in difficult cases.
Case Report: A 69-year-old male with a history of heavy tobacco use presented to the otolaryngology clinic with a left parotid mass. He underwent a parotid gland biopsy, which was significant for a high grade, poorly differentiated malignancy of unclear primary source. A staging PET/CT demonstrated localized hypermetabolic activity in the draining left cervical lymph node basins. He underwent a left modified radical neck dissection and parotidectomy. Pathologic assessment demonstrated a 3.9 × 1.6 × 1.6 cm3 poorly differentiated carcinoma with perineural invasion and 8/85 lymph nodes involved. Morphologically, it had features of a high grade epithelioid tumor with spindle cell features. Immunohistochemical (IHC) stains were negative for epithelial markers (AE1/3, EMA, CK5/6, CAM5.2), smooth muscle actin, CD34, S100, and melanA. Given the concern for a spindle cell melanoma that lost its antigenicity for S100 and melanA, a SOX10 IHC stain was performed.
The SOX10 immunostain demonstrated strong, diffuse positivity which secured the diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Molecular testing for BRAF and KIT mutations was negative. The nal diagnosis was a stage IVA (pT2pN2bM0) malignant melanoma of the parotid gland without a cutaneous primary lesion. The patient received a course of adjuvant radiation to a total dose of 66Gy and will complete one year of adjuvant immunotherapy with Nivolumab.
Conclusion: Malignant melanoma can present as a poorly differentiated malignancy and may be difficult to diagnose by providers, especially in the absence of a typical clinical history and a primary cutaneous lesion. In cases where the standard melanoma immunostains are negative, IHC staining with SOX10 can help secure the diagnosis with high sensitivity and specificity.
Background: Malignant melanoma is an aggressive malignancy that can present as a poorly differentiated neoplasm. Loss of S100 and melanA antigenicity can make pathologic identification difficult, especially in those patients who lack a cutaneous primary lesion. Immunostaining with SOX10, a key nuclear transcription factor in the differentiation of neural crest progenitor cells to melanocytes, has a high reported sensitivity and specificity for pathologic identification of melanoma in difficult cases.
Case Report: A 69-year-old male with a history of heavy tobacco use presented to the otolaryngology clinic with a left parotid mass. He underwent a parotid gland biopsy, which was significant for a high grade, poorly differentiated malignancy of unclear primary source. A staging PET/CT demonstrated localized hypermetabolic activity in the draining left cervical lymph node basins. He underwent a left modified radical neck dissection and parotidectomy. Pathologic assessment demonstrated a 3.9 × 1.6 × 1.6 cm3 poorly differentiated carcinoma with perineural invasion and 8/85 lymph nodes involved. Morphologically, it had features of a high grade epithelioid tumor with spindle cell features. Immunohistochemical (IHC) stains were negative for epithelial markers (AE1/3, EMA, CK5/6, CAM5.2), smooth muscle actin, CD34, S100, and melanA. Given the concern for a spindle cell melanoma that lost its antigenicity for S100 and melanA, a SOX10 IHC stain was performed.
The SOX10 immunostain demonstrated strong, diffuse positivity which secured the diagnosis of malignant melanoma. Molecular testing for BRAF and KIT mutations was negative. The nal diagnosis was a stage IVA (pT2pN2bM0) malignant melanoma of the parotid gland without a cutaneous primary lesion. The patient received a course of adjuvant radiation to a total dose of 66Gy and will complete one year of adjuvant immunotherapy with Nivolumab.
Conclusion: Malignant melanoma can present as a poorly differentiated malignancy and may be difficult to diagnose by providers, especially in the absence of a typical clinical history and a primary cutaneous lesion. In cases where the standard melanoma immunostains are negative, IHC staining with SOX10 can help secure the diagnosis with high sensitivity and specificity.
How Long Should it Take to Get a Pathology Diagnosis?
Justification: A diagnosis of malignancy is of great relevance to the patient and sets in motion numerous activities. How long is it reasonable to wait for a pathologic diagnosis on a biopsy obtained for suspected cancer?
Methods: To address this question, we analyzed our turn-around-time (TAT) for biopsies and cytologies obtained for initial diagnosis of malignancy and compared it to relevant literature. Another goal was to evaluate the influence of special stains on TAT. We obtained from VISTA TAT on surgical pathology and cytopathology specimens in which an initial diagnosis of malignancy was made (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, GYN, and urine cytologies) between January 2016 and August 2018. We analyzed the impact of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains performed on TAT.
Results and Discussion: During this period, 2014 new malignancies were diagnosed among 31,407 biopsies (6.41%). Average TAT for all biopsies was 1.48 days; average TAT for biopsies with initial diagnosis of malignancy was 2.2 days. 149 new diagnoses of malignancy were made by cytology, with an average TAT of 1.49 days, compared with 1.63 days TAT for all cytologies. Performance of special stains had no statistical impact on TAT when compared with cases with no special stains.
Remarkably, no guidelines have been promulgated by institutions or accrediting bodies for TAT on specimens obtained for initial diagnosis of malignancy. Likewise, such data is not available in the literature; it is unclear how many institutions monitor this. The College of American Pathologists indicates that 90% of routine biopsies should be nalized within 2 working days; the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology indicates that at least 80% of routine biopsies should be nalized in 3 days. However, guidelines for specimens obtained for initial diagnosis of malignancy, which frequently require special handling/ancillary testing (deeper sections, histo/immunohistochemistry, molecular studies, consultation) are not available.
Recommendations: Institutions should develop practices that prioritize study of specimens obtained to rule out malignancy and should monitor their TAT. All institutions and accrediting bodies (CAP, Commission on Cancer, etc.) should develop guidelines for TAT for initial diagnosis of malignancy and audit this information.
Justification: A diagnosis of malignancy is of great relevance to the patient and sets in motion numerous activities. How long is it reasonable to wait for a pathologic diagnosis on a biopsy obtained for suspected cancer?
Methods: To address this question, we analyzed our turn-around-time (TAT) for biopsies and cytologies obtained for initial diagnosis of malignancy and compared it to relevant literature. Another goal was to evaluate the influence of special stains on TAT. We obtained from VISTA TAT on surgical pathology and cytopathology specimens in which an initial diagnosis of malignancy was made (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, GYN, and urine cytologies) between January 2016 and August 2018. We analyzed the impact of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains performed on TAT.
Results and Discussion: During this period, 2014 new malignancies were diagnosed among 31,407 biopsies (6.41%). Average TAT for all biopsies was 1.48 days; average TAT for biopsies with initial diagnosis of malignancy was 2.2 days. 149 new diagnoses of malignancy were made by cytology, with an average TAT of 1.49 days, compared with 1.63 days TAT for all cytologies. Performance of special stains had no statistical impact on TAT when compared with cases with no special stains.
Remarkably, no guidelines have been promulgated by institutions or accrediting bodies for TAT on specimens obtained for initial diagnosis of malignancy. Likewise, such data is not available in the literature; it is unclear how many institutions monitor this. The College of American Pathologists indicates that 90% of routine biopsies should be nalized within 2 working days; the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology indicates that at least 80% of routine biopsies should be nalized in 3 days. However, guidelines for specimens obtained for initial diagnosis of malignancy, which frequently require special handling/ancillary testing (deeper sections, histo/immunohistochemistry, molecular studies, consultation) are not available.
Recommendations: Institutions should develop practices that prioritize study of specimens obtained to rule out malignancy and should monitor their TAT. All institutions and accrediting bodies (CAP, Commission on Cancer, etc.) should develop guidelines for TAT for initial diagnosis of malignancy and audit this information.
Justification: A diagnosis of malignancy is of great relevance to the patient and sets in motion numerous activities. How long is it reasonable to wait for a pathologic diagnosis on a biopsy obtained for suspected cancer?
Methods: To address this question, we analyzed our turn-around-time (TAT) for biopsies and cytologies obtained for initial diagnosis of malignancy and compared it to relevant literature. Another goal was to evaluate the influence of special stains on TAT. We obtained from VISTA TAT on surgical pathology and cytopathology specimens in which an initial diagnosis of malignancy was made (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, GYN, and urine cytologies) between January 2016 and August 2018. We analyzed the impact of histochemical and immunohistochemical stains performed on TAT.
Results and Discussion: During this period, 2014 new malignancies were diagnosed among 31,407 biopsies (6.41%). Average TAT for all biopsies was 1.48 days; average TAT for biopsies with initial diagnosis of malignancy was 2.2 days. 149 new diagnoses of malignancy were made by cytology, with an average TAT of 1.49 days, compared with 1.63 days TAT for all cytologies. Performance of special stains had no statistical impact on TAT when compared with cases with no special stains.
Remarkably, no guidelines have been promulgated by institutions or accrediting bodies for TAT on specimens obtained for initial diagnosis of malignancy. Likewise, such data is not available in the literature; it is unclear how many institutions monitor this. The College of American Pathologists indicates that 90% of routine biopsies should be nalized within 2 working days; the Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology indicates that at least 80% of routine biopsies should be nalized in 3 days. However, guidelines for specimens obtained for initial diagnosis of malignancy, which frequently require special handling/ancillary testing (deeper sections, histo/immunohistochemistry, molecular studies, consultation) are not available.
Recommendations: Institutions should develop practices that prioritize study of specimens obtained to rule out malignancy and should monitor their TAT. All institutions and accrediting bodies (CAP, Commission on Cancer, etc.) should develop guidelines for TAT for initial diagnosis of malignancy and audit this information.
Nivolumab-Induced Hypothyoidism With Consequent Hypothyroid Related Myopathy
Purpose: Nivolumab is a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) antibody that has anti-tumor activity by selectively blocking the interaction of the programmed death 1 receptor with its two known programmed death ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. In doing so, this immune checkpoint inhibitor removes the negative signal stifling T cell activation and proliferation within the tumor microenvironment and demonstrates favorable antitumor activity.
Case Report: We report an interesting case of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced primary hypothyroidism with associated hypothyroid myopathy in a young patient with surgically resected stage IIIB melanoma receiving adjuvant nivolumab. He presented 12 weeks into therapy with severe myalgias, arthralgias, and intermittent disequilibrium of unclear etiology. Laboratory evaluation demonstrated a significant elevation in thyroid stimulating hormone and creatine kinase with an undetectable free T4 with standard laboratory measurement. With thyroid hormone replacement therapy alone, he had rapid improvement in his musculoskeletal symptoms and laboratory parameters over a threeweek period.
Discussion: This case emphasizes the serious nature of endocrine immune-related adverse events in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Additionally, it highlights that unlike most other immunerelated adverse events, endocrine immune-related adverse events can generally be managed with adequate hormone replacement alone with swift improvements in symptoms. This allows patients to continue immune checkpoint inhibitors safely without immunosuppression which may dampen the anti-tumor activity of these agents.
Conclusion: This case highlights the importance of early recognition and the appropriate management of endocrine immune-related adverse events to maximize patient safety and good outcomes.
Purpose: Nivolumab is a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) antibody that has anti-tumor activity by selectively blocking the interaction of the programmed death 1 receptor with its two known programmed death ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. In doing so, this immune checkpoint inhibitor removes the negative signal stifling T cell activation and proliferation within the tumor microenvironment and demonstrates favorable antitumor activity.
Case Report: We report an interesting case of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced primary hypothyroidism with associated hypothyroid myopathy in a young patient with surgically resected stage IIIB melanoma receiving adjuvant nivolumab. He presented 12 weeks into therapy with severe myalgias, arthralgias, and intermittent disequilibrium of unclear etiology. Laboratory evaluation demonstrated a significant elevation in thyroid stimulating hormone and creatine kinase with an undetectable free T4 with standard laboratory measurement. With thyroid hormone replacement therapy alone, he had rapid improvement in his musculoskeletal symptoms and laboratory parameters over a threeweek period.
Discussion: This case emphasizes the serious nature of endocrine immune-related adverse events in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Additionally, it highlights that unlike most other immunerelated adverse events, endocrine immune-related adverse events can generally be managed with adequate hormone replacement alone with swift improvements in symptoms. This allows patients to continue immune checkpoint inhibitors safely without immunosuppression which may dampen the anti-tumor activity of these agents.
Conclusion: This case highlights the importance of early recognition and the appropriate management of endocrine immune-related adverse events to maximize patient safety and good outcomes.
Purpose: Nivolumab is a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) antibody that has anti-tumor activity by selectively blocking the interaction of the programmed death 1 receptor with its two known programmed death ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2. In doing so, this immune checkpoint inhibitor removes the negative signal stifling T cell activation and proliferation within the tumor microenvironment and demonstrates favorable antitumor activity.
Case Report: We report an interesting case of immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced primary hypothyroidism with associated hypothyroid myopathy in a young patient with surgically resected stage IIIB melanoma receiving adjuvant nivolumab. He presented 12 weeks into therapy with severe myalgias, arthralgias, and intermittent disequilibrium of unclear etiology. Laboratory evaluation demonstrated a significant elevation in thyroid stimulating hormone and creatine kinase with an undetectable free T4 with standard laboratory measurement. With thyroid hormone replacement therapy alone, he had rapid improvement in his musculoskeletal symptoms and laboratory parameters over a threeweek period.
Discussion: This case emphasizes the serious nature of endocrine immune-related adverse events in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Additionally, it highlights that unlike most other immunerelated adverse events, endocrine immune-related adverse events can generally be managed with adequate hormone replacement alone with swift improvements in symptoms. This allows patients to continue immune checkpoint inhibitors safely without immunosuppression which may dampen the anti-tumor activity of these agents.
Conclusion: This case highlights the importance of early recognition and the appropriate management of endocrine immune-related adverse events to maximize patient safety and good outcomes.
Lung Cancer – Regional Snapshot Kansas City VA
Cancer in the VA: The Big Picture
Surviving Colorectal Cancer, Now at Risk for Hypertension
Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivor rates are improving, which means people are living long enough after the cancer to have other chronic conditions. CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among users of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, according to VA researchers, and there is a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The researchers also say emerging evidence suggests that survivors of CRC may be more likely to develop diabetes mellitus (DM) in the 5 years following their cancer diagnosis. But they add that there is a paucity of research about control of CVD-related chronic conditions among survivors of CRC.
In a retrospective study, the researchers compared 9,758 nonmetastatic patients with CRC with 29,066 people who had not had cancer. At baseline, 69% of the survivors of CRC and the matched controls were diagnosed with hypertension, 52% with hyperlipidemia, and 37% with DM.
But somewhat contrary to expectations, the researchers found no significant differences between the 2 groups for DM in the year following the baseline assessment. The researchers point to the VA’s “strong history” of DM risk reduction research and 2 national programs targeting DM, although they do not know whether the people in their study participated in those.
The survivors of CRC also had half the odds of being diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. However, they did have 57% higher odds of being diagnosed with hypertension.
Although the researchers acknowledge that hypertension is a transient adverse effect of certain chemotherapy regimens, they found only 7 survivors of CRC and 11 controls were treated with bevacizumab during their first year postanchor date.
The relationship between nonmetastatic CRC and CVD risk-related chronic conditions is complex, the researchers say. But they share risk factors, including obesity, physical inactivity, and diet.
The researchers call behavioral change interventions that improve survivors of CRC physical activity, dietary habits, and body mass index a “promising beginning” but call for other similar interventions, particularly those targeting blood pressure management and adherence to antihypertensive medications (which was significantly lower among the survivors).
While the magnitude of the effect regarding hypertension seems relatively small, the researchers say, they believe it is still an important difference when considered from a population health perspective—and one that should be addressed. The researchers also note that nonmetastatic survivors of CRC and controls had very similar rates of primary care visits in the 3 years postanchor date and as a result similar opportunities to receive a hypertension diagnosis.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivor rates are improving, which means people are living long enough after the cancer to have other chronic conditions. CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among users of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, according to VA researchers, and there is a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The researchers also say emerging evidence suggests that survivors of CRC may be more likely to develop diabetes mellitus (DM) in the 5 years following their cancer diagnosis. But they add that there is a paucity of research about control of CVD-related chronic conditions among survivors of CRC.
In a retrospective study, the researchers compared 9,758 nonmetastatic patients with CRC with 29,066 people who had not had cancer. At baseline, 69% of the survivors of CRC and the matched controls were diagnosed with hypertension, 52% with hyperlipidemia, and 37% with DM.
But somewhat contrary to expectations, the researchers found no significant differences between the 2 groups for DM in the year following the baseline assessment. The researchers point to the VA’s “strong history” of DM risk reduction research and 2 national programs targeting DM, although they do not know whether the people in their study participated in those.
The survivors of CRC also had half the odds of being diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. However, they did have 57% higher odds of being diagnosed with hypertension.
Although the researchers acknowledge that hypertension is a transient adverse effect of certain chemotherapy regimens, they found only 7 survivors of CRC and 11 controls were treated with bevacizumab during their first year postanchor date.
The relationship between nonmetastatic CRC and CVD risk-related chronic conditions is complex, the researchers say. But they share risk factors, including obesity, physical inactivity, and diet.
The researchers call behavioral change interventions that improve survivors of CRC physical activity, dietary habits, and body mass index a “promising beginning” but call for other similar interventions, particularly those targeting blood pressure management and adherence to antihypertensive medications (which was significantly lower among the survivors).
While the magnitude of the effect regarding hypertension seems relatively small, the researchers say, they believe it is still an important difference when considered from a population health perspective—and one that should be addressed. The researchers also note that nonmetastatic survivors of CRC and controls had very similar rates of primary care visits in the 3 years postanchor date and as a result similar opportunities to receive a hypertension diagnosis.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivor rates are improving, which means people are living long enough after the cancer to have other chronic conditions. CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer among users of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, according to VA researchers, and there is a high prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The researchers also say emerging evidence suggests that survivors of CRC may be more likely to develop diabetes mellitus (DM) in the 5 years following their cancer diagnosis. But they add that there is a paucity of research about control of CVD-related chronic conditions among survivors of CRC.
In a retrospective study, the researchers compared 9,758 nonmetastatic patients with CRC with 29,066 people who had not had cancer. At baseline, 69% of the survivors of CRC and the matched controls were diagnosed with hypertension, 52% with hyperlipidemia, and 37% with DM.
But somewhat contrary to expectations, the researchers found no significant differences between the 2 groups for DM in the year following the baseline assessment. The researchers point to the VA’s “strong history” of DM risk reduction research and 2 national programs targeting DM, although they do not know whether the people in their study participated in those.
The survivors of CRC also had half the odds of being diagnosed with hyperlipidemia. However, they did have 57% higher odds of being diagnosed with hypertension.
Although the researchers acknowledge that hypertension is a transient adverse effect of certain chemotherapy regimens, they found only 7 survivors of CRC and 11 controls were treated with bevacizumab during their first year postanchor date.
The relationship between nonmetastatic CRC and CVD risk-related chronic conditions is complex, the researchers say. But they share risk factors, including obesity, physical inactivity, and diet.
The researchers call behavioral change interventions that improve survivors of CRC physical activity, dietary habits, and body mass index a “promising beginning” but call for other similar interventions, particularly those targeting blood pressure management and adherence to antihypertensive medications (which was significantly lower among the survivors).
While the magnitude of the effect regarding hypertension seems relatively small, the researchers say, they believe it is still an important difference when considered from a population health perspective—and one that should be addressed. The researchers also note that nonmetastatic survivors of CRC and controls had very similar rates of primary care visits in the 3 years postanchor date and as a result similar opportunities to receive a hypertension diagnosis.
Open Clinical Trials for Patients With Lung Cancers (FULL)
Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but a significant number of trials are now recruiting patients from those patient populations. Many trials explicitly recruit patients from the VA, the military, and IHS. The VA Office of Research and Development alone sponsors or cosponsors nearly 1,000 research initiatives, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of August 1, 201 8 ; have at least 1 VA, DoD, or IHS location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatment for colorectal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.
Lung-MAP (multiple trials)
Lung-MAP (SWOG S1400) is a multidrug, multi-substudy, biomarker-driven squamous cell lung cancer clinical trial that uses state-of-the-art genomic profiling to match patients to substudies testing investigational treatments that may target the genomic alterations, or mutations, found to be driving the growth of their cancer.
ID: NCT02154490, NCT02595944, NCT02766335, NCT02785913, NCT02785939, NCT02926638, NCT02965378, NCT03373760, NCT03377556
Sponsor: Southwest Oncology Group
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System-West Haven Campus; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Ann Arbor VAMC, Michigan; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA New Jersey Health Care System, East Orange; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC Houston, Texas
ALCHEMIST: Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trials (multiple trials)
A group of randomized clinical trials for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer whose tumors have been completely removed by surgery.
ID: NCT02193282, NCT02194738, NCT02201992, NCT02595944
Sponsor: National Cancer Institute
Locations: Little Rock VAMC, Arkansas; VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Atlanta VAMC, Decatur, Georgia; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Saint Louis VAMC, Missouri; Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System-Brooklyn Campus; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; William S. Middleton VAMC, Madison, Wisconsin
Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Or Stereotactic Radiotherapy (VALOR)
The standard of care for stage I non-small cell lung cancer has historically been surgical resection in patients who are medically fit to tolerate an operation. Recent data now suggests that stereotactic radiotherapy may be a suitable alternative. This includes the results from a pooled analysis of two incomplete phase III studies that reported a 15% overall survival advantage with stereotactic radiotherapy at 3 years. While these data are promising, the median follow-up period was short, the results underpowered, and the findings were in contradiction to multiple retrospective studies that demonstrate the outcomes with surgery are likely equal or superior. Therefore, the herein trial aims to evaluate these two treatments in a prospective randomized fashion with a goal to compare the overall survival beyond 5 years. It has been designed to enroll patients who have a long life-expectancy, and are fit enough to tolerate an anatomic pulmonary resection with intraoperative lymph node sampling.
ID: NCT02984761
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minnesota; Durham VAMC, North Carolina; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Houston, Texas; Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia
Naloxegol in Treating Patients With Stage IIIB-IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
This randomized pilot clinical trial studies the side effects and best dose of naloxegol and to see how well it works in treating patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer. Naloxegol may relieve some of the side effects of opioid pain medication and fight off future growth in the cancer.
ID: NCT03087708
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System-Buffalo; Salisbury VAMC, North Carolina
Palliative Care Interventions for Outpatients Newly Diagnosed With Lung Cancer: Phase II (PCI2)
The focus of the study is to test a nurse-led telephone-based palliative care intervention on improving the delivery of care for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. The study is a three site randomized control trial to determine the efficacy of the intervention on improving patients’ quality of life, symptom burden, and satisfaction of care. Additionally, the study will test an innovative care delivery model to improve patients’ access to palliative care. The investigators will also determine the effect of the intervention on patient activation to discuss treatment preferences with their clinician and on clinician knowledge of patients’ goals of care.
ID: NCT03007953
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Birmingham VAMC, Alabama; VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon; VA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle Division, Washington
Radiation Therapy Regimens in Treating Patients With Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Cisplatin and Etoposide
Radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays to kill tumor cells. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as etoposide, carboplatin and cisplatin, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. It is not yet known which radiation therapy regimen is more effective when given together with chemotherapy in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. This randomized phase III trial is comparing different chest radiation therapy regimens to see how well they work in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer.
ID: NCT00632853
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Baltimore VAMC, Maryland; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System, Buffalo, New York; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; Zablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Comparison of Different Types of Surgery in Treating Patients With Stage IA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Wedge resection or segmentectomy may be less invasive types of surgery than lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer and may have fewer side effects and improve recovery. It is not yet known whether wedge resection or segmentectomy are more effective than lobectomy in treating stage IA non-small cell lung cancer.
ID: NCT00499330
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: VA Loma Linda Healthcare System, California; VA Long Beach Medical Center, California; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Portland VAMC, Oregon
Lung Cancer Screening Decisions (VA-LCSDecTool)
Veterans have a high risk of developing lung in comparison to general populations due to their older age and smoking history. Recent evidence indicates that lung cancer screening with low dose CT scan reduces lung cancer mortality among older heavy smokers. However, the rates of false positive findings are high, requiring further testing and evaluation. Preliminary studies report that while some Veterans are enthusiastic about screening, others are highly reluctant. Patient preferences should be considered as part of an informed decision making process for this emerging paradigm of lung cancer control. Effective methods for preference assessment among Veterans have not yet been developed, evaluated, and integrated into clinical practice. The specific aims of this study are to 1) elicit patient and provider stakeholder input to inform the development of a lung cancer screening decision tool, 2) develop a web based Lung Cancer Screening Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) that incorporates patient and provider input, and 3) evaluate the impact of the LCSDecTool compared to usual care on the decision process, clinical outcomes, and quality of life.
ID
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Molecular Predictors of Cancer in Patients at High Risk of Lung Cancer
Using samples of blood, urine, sputum, and lung tissue from patients at high risk of cancer for laboratory studies may help doctors learn more about changes that may occur in DNA and identify biomarkers related to cancer.
ID: NCT00898313
Sponsor: Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Location: VAMC Nashville, Tennessee
Improving Supportive Care for Patients With Thoracic Malignancies
The purpose of this study is to use a proactive approach to improve symptom management of patients with thoracic malignancies. In this pilot study, the investigators propose to evaluate the feasibility of using outbound, proactive telephone symptom assessment strategies and measure the efficacy of this approach on patient satisfaction with their care, patient activation, quality of life and use of healthcare resources.
ID: NCT03216109
Sponsor: Palo Alto Veterans Institute for Research
Location: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California
Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but a significant number of trials are now recruiting patients from those patient populations. Many trials explicitly recruit patients from the VA, the military, and IHS. The VA Office of Research and Development alone sponsors or cosponsors nearly 1,000 research initiatives, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of August 1, 201 8 ; have at least 1 VA, DoD, or IHS location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatment for colorectal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.
Lung-MAP (multiple trials)
Lung-MAP (SWOG S1400) is a multidrug, multi-substudy, biomarker-driven squamous cell lung cancer clinical trial that uses state-of-the-art genomic profiling to match patients to substudies testing investigational treatments that may target the genomic alterations, or mutations, found to be driving the growth of their cancer.
ID: NCT02154490, NCT02595944, NCT02766335, NCT02785913, NCT02785939, NCT02926638, NCT02965378, NCT03373760, NCT03377556
Sponsor: Southwest Oncology Group
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System-West Haven Campus; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Ann Arbor VAMC, Michigan; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA New Jersey Health Care System, East Orange; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC Houston, Texas
ALCHEMIST: Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trials (multiple trials)
A group of randomized clinical trials for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer whose tumors have been completely removed by surgery.
ID: NCT02193282, NCT02194738, NCT02201992, NCT02595944
Sponsor: National Cancer Institute
Locations: Little Rock VAMC, Arkansas; VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Atlanta VAMC, Decatur, Georgia; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Saint Louis VAMC, Missouri; Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System-Brooklyn Campus; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; William S. Middleton VAMC, Madison, Wisconsin
Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Or Stereotactic Radiotherapy (VALOR)
The standard of care for stage I non-small cell lung cancer has historically been surgical resection in patients who are medically fit to tolerate an operation. Recent data now suggests that stereotactic radiotherapy may be a suitable alternative. This includes the results from a pooled analysis of two incomplete phase III studies that reported a 15% overall survival advantage with stereotactic radiotherapy at 3 years. While these data are promising, the median follow-up period was short, the results underpowered, and the findings were in contradiction to multiple retrospective studies that demonstrate the outcomes with surgery are likely equal or superior. Therefore, the herein trial aims to evaluate these two treatments in a prospective randomized fashion with a goal to compare the overall survival beyond 5 years. It has been designed to enroll patients who have a long life-expectancy, and are fit enough to tolerate an anatomic pulmonary resection with intraoperative lymph node sampling.
ID: NCT02984761
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minnesota; Durham VAMC, North Carolina; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Houston, Texas; Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia
Naloxegol in Treating Patients With Stage IIIB-IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
This randomized pilot clinical trial studies the side effects and best dose of naloxegol and to see how well it works in treating patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer. Naloxegol may relieve some of the side effects of opioid pain medication and fight off future growth in the cancer.
ID: NCT03087708
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System-Buffalo; Salisbury VAMC, North Carolina
Palliative Care Interventions for Outpatients Newly Diagnosed With Lung Cancer: Phase II (PCI2)
The focus of the study is to test a nurse-led telephone-based palliative care intervention on improving the delivery of care for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. The study is a three site randomized control trial to determine the efficacy of the intervention on improving patients’ quality of life, symptom burden, and satisfaction of care. Additionally, the study will test an innovative care delivery model to improve patients’ access to palliative care. The investigators will also determine the effect of the intervention on patient activation to discuss treatment preferences with their clinician and on clinician knowledge of patients’ goals of care.
ID: NCT03007953
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Birmingham VAMC, Alabama; VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon; VA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle Division, Washington
Radiation Therapy Regimens in Treating Patients With Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Cisplatin and Etoposide
Radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays to kill tumor cells. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as etoposide, carboplatin and cisplatin, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. It is not yet known which radiation therapy regimen is more effective when given together with chemotherapy in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. This randomized phase III trial is comparing different chest radiation therapy regimens to see how well they work in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer.
ID: NCT00632853
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Baltimore VAMC, Maryland; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System, Buffalo, New York; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; Zablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Comparison of Different Types of Surgery in Treating Patients With Stage IA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Wedge resection or segmentectomy may be less invasive types of surgery than lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer and may have fewer side effects and improve recovery. It is not yet known whether wedge resection or segmentectomy are more effective than lobectomy in treating stage IA non-small cell lung cancer.
ID: NCT00499330
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: VA Loma Linda Healthcare System, California; VA Long Beach Medical Center, California; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Portland VAMC, Oregon
Lung Cancer Screening Decisions (VA-LCSDecTool)
Veterans have a high risk of developing lung in comparison to general populations due to their older age and smoking history. Recent evidence indicates that lung cancer screening with low dose CT scan reduces lung cancer mortality among older heavy smokers. However, the rates of false positive findings are high, requiring further testing and evaluation. Preliminary studies report that while some Veterans are enthusiastic about screening, others are highly reluctant. Patient preferences should be considered as part of an informed decision making process for this emerging paradigm of lung cancer control. Effective methods for preference assessment among Veterans have not yet been developed, evaluated, and integrated into clinical practice. The specific aims of this study are to 1) elicit patient and provider stakeholder input to inform the development of a lung cancer screening decision tool, 2) develop a web based Lung Cancer Screening Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) that incorporates patient and provider input, and 3) evaluate the impact of the LCSDecTool compared to usual care on the decision process, clinical outcomes, and quality of life.
ID
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Molecular Predictors of Cancer in Patients at High Risk of Lung Cancer
Using samples of blood, urine, sputum, and lung tissue from patients at high risk of cancer for laboratory studies may help doctors learn more about changes that may occur in DNA and identify biomarkers related to cancer.
ID: NCT00898313
Sponsor: Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Location: VAMC Nashville, Tennessee
Improving Supportive Care for Patients With Thoracic Malignancies
The purpose of this study is to use a proactive approach to improve symptom management of patients with thoracic malignancies. In this pilot study, the investigators propose to evaluate the feasibility of using outbound, proactive telephone symptom assessment strategies and measure the efficacy of this approach on patient satisfaction with their care, patient activation, quality of life and use of healthcare resources.
ID: NCT03216109
Sponsor: Palo Alto Veterans Institute for Research
Location: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California
Providing access to clinical trials for veteran and active-duty military patients can be a challenge, but a significant number of trials are now recruiting patients from those patient populations. Many trials explicitly recruit patients from the VA, the military, and IHS. The VA Office of Research and Development alone sponsors or cosponsors nearly 1,000 research initiatives, and many more are sponsored by Walter Reed National Medical Center and other major defense and VA facilities. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of August 1, 201 8 ; have at least 1 VA, DoD, or IHS location recruiting patients; and are focused on treatment for colorectal cancer. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.
Lung-MAP (multiple trials)
Lung-MAP (SWOG S1400) is a multidrug, multi-substudy, biomarker-driven squamous cell lung cancer clinical trial that uses state-of-the-art genomic profiling to match patients to substudies testing investigational treatments that may target the genomic alterations, or mutations, found to be driving the growth of their cancer.
ID: NCT02154490, NCT02595944, NCT02766335, NCT02785913, NCT02785939, NCT02926638, NCT02965378, NCT03373760, NCT03377556
Sponsor: Southwest Oncology Group
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System-West Haven Campus; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Ann Arbor VAMC, Michigan; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA New Jersey Health Care System, East Orange; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC Houston, Texas
ALCHEMIST: Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trials (multiple trials)
A group of randomized clinical trials for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer whose tumors have been completely removed by surgery.
ID: NCT02193282, NCT02194738, NCT02201992, NCT02595944
Sponsor: National Cancer Institute
Locations: Little Rock VAMC, Arkansas; VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Atlanta VAMC, Decatur, Georgia; Hines VA Hospital, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Saint Louis VAMC, Missouri; Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System-Brooklyn Campus; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; William S. Middleton VAMC, Madison, Wisconsin
Veterans Affairs Lung Cancer Or Stereotactic Radiotherapy (VALOR)
The standard of care for stage I non-small cell lung cancer has historically been surgical resection in patients who are medically fit to tolerate an operation. Recent data now suggests that stereotactic radiotherapy may be a suitable alternative. This includes the results from a pooled analysis of two incomplete phase III studies that reported a 15% overall survival advantage with stereotactic radiotherapy at 3 years. While these data are promising, the median follow-up period was short, the results underpowered, and the findings were in contradiction to multiple retrospective studies that demonstrate the outcomes with surgery are likely equal or superior. Therefore, the herein trial aims to evaluate these two treatments in a prospective randomized fashion with a goal to compare the overall survival beyond 5 years. It has been designed to enroll patients who have a long life-expectancy, and are fit enough to tolerate an anatomic pulmonary resection with intraoperative lymph node sampling.
ID: NCT02984761
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, Illinois; Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana; Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minnesota; Durham VAMC, North Carolina; Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, Houston, Texas; Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia
Naloxegol in Treating Patients With Stage IIIB-IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
This randomized pilot clinical trial studies the side effects and best dose of naloxegol and to see how well it works in treating patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer. Naloxegol may relieve some of the side effects of opioid pain medication and fight off future growth in the cancer.
ID: NCT03087708
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Minneapolis VAMC, Minnesota; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System-Buffalo; Salisbury VAMC, North Carolina
Palliative Care Interventions for Outpatients Newly Diagnosed With Lung Cancer: Phase II (PCI2)
The focus of the study is to test a nurse-led telephone-based palliative care intervention on improving the delivery of care for patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. The study is a three site randomized control trial to determine the efficacy of the intervention on improving patients’ quality of life, symptom burden, and satisfaction of care. Additionally, the study will test an innovative care delivery model to improve patients’ access to palliative care. The investigators will also determine the effect of the intervention on patient activation to discuss treatment preferences with their clinician and on clinician knowledge of patients’ goals of care.
ID: NCT03007953
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: Birmingham VAMC, Alabama; VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon; VA Puget Sound Health Care System Seattle Division, Washington
Radiation Therapy Regimens in Treating Patients With Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Cisplatin and Etoposide
Radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays to kill tumor cells. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as etoposide, carboplatin and cisplatin, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. It is not yet known which radiation therapy regimen is more effective when given together with chemotherapy in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer. This randomized phase III trial is comparing different chest radiation therapy regimens to see how well they work in treating patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer.
ID: NCT00632853
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: Baltimore VAMC, Maryland; Kansas City VAMC, Missouri; VA Western New York Health Care System, Buffalo, New York; Dayton VAMC, Ohio; Zablocki VAMC, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Comparison of Different Types of Surgery in Treating Patients With Stage IA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Wedge resection or segmentectomy may be less invasive types of surgery than lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer and may have fewer side effects and improve recovery. It is not yet known whether wedge resection or segmentectomy are more effective than lobectomy in treating stage IA non-small cell lung cancer.
ID: NCT00499330
Sponsor: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
Locations: VA Loma Linda Healthcare System, California; VA Long Beach Medical Center, California; Richard L. Roudebush VAMC, Indianapolis, Indiana; Portland VAMC, Oregon
Lung Cancer Screening Decisions (VA-LCSDecTool)
Veterans have a high risk of developing lung in comparison to general populations due to their older age and smoking history. Recent evidence indicates that lung cancer screening with low dose CT scan reduces lung cancer mortality among older heavy smokers. However, the rates of false positive findings are high, requiring further testing and evaluation. Preliminary studies report that while some Veterans are enthusiastic about screening, others are highly reluctant. Patient preferences should be considered as part of an informed decision making process for this emerging paradigm of lung cancer control. Effective methods for preference assessment among Veterans have not yet been developed, evaluated, and integrated into clinical practice. The specific aims of this study are to 1) elicit patient and provider stakeholder input to inform the development of a lung cancer screening decision tool, 2) develop a web based Lung Cancer Screening Decision Tool (LCSDecTool) that incorporates patient and provider input, and 3) evaluate the impact of the LCSDecTool compared to usual care on the decision process, clinical outcomes, and quality of life.
ID
Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Locations: VA Connecticut Healthcare System West Haven Campus; Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VAMC Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Molecular Predictors of Cancer in Patients at High Risk of Lung Cancer
Using samples of blood, urine, sputum, and lung tissue from patients at high risk of cancer for laboratory studies may help doctors learn more about changes that may occur in DNA and identify biomarkers related to cancer.
ID: NCT00898313
Sponsor: Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center
Location: VAMC Nashville, Tennessee
Improving Supportive Care for Patients With Thoracic Malignancies
The purpose of this study is to use a proactive approach to improve symptom management of patients with thoracic malignancies. In this pilot study, the investigators propose to evaluate the feasibility of using outbound, proactive telephone symptom assessment strategies and measure the efficacy of this approach on patient satisfaction with their care, patient activation, quality of life and use of healthcare resources.
ID: NCT03216109
Sponsor: Palo Alto Veterans Institute for Research
Location: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California
HIV drug may enhance efficacy of chemoradiation in locally advanced lung cancer
Administering an HIV drug concurrently with chemoradiotherapy resulted in promising local control and overall survival in patients with unresectable, locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, researchers reported.
There was no overt exacerbation of the toxic effects of chemoradiotherapy with the addition of nelfinavir, a protease inhibitor, in the prospective, open-label, phase 1/2 study, the researchers wrote.
Nelfinavir plus chemoradiotherapy yielded a median progression-free survival of 11.7 months and median survival of 41.1 months, while the cumulative local failure incidence was 39% according to their report.
Those outcomes compare favorably with historical data, the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.
In benchmark results of the RTOG 0617 study of chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, median overall survival was 28.7 months receiving radiotherapy at a standard dose of 60 Gy, and 20.3 months for those receiving high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy.
However, a randomized, phase 3 trial is needed to confirm these latest results with a protease inhibitor added to chemotherapy, according to Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coinvestigators.
“As nelfinavir is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved oral drug, this treatment approach is feasible and is potentially a readily exportable platform for daily clinical use,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.
In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that nelfinavir inhibited PI3K and Akt signaling, sensitized tumor cells to ionizing radiation, and improved tumor perfusion in animal models. “We hypothesize that it is these properties that drive the clinical results observed in this study,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.
They reported on a total of 35 patients with stage IIIA/IIIB non–small cell lung cancer who received nelfinavir at either 625 mg or 1,250 mg twice daily, starting 7-14 days before starting radiotherapy to 66.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and throughout the full course of radiotherapy.
There were no dose-limiting toxic effects observed in the study, and toxic effects were “acceptable,” with no grade 4 nonhematologic toxic effects seen, according to investigators. Leukopenia was the primary grade 3-4 hematologic toxic effect, observed in 2 of 5 patients receiving the lower nelfinavir dose and 18 of 30 at the higher dose.
Beyond non–small cell lung cancer, the efficacy and safety nelfinavir given concurrently with radiotherapy has been looked at in other disease settings. Data from those trials suggest that this protease inhibitor could “augment tumor response” not only in non–small cell lung cancer, but in locally advanced pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma, all of which are relatively radioresistant, according to Dr. Rengan and colleagues.
Study support came from grants from the National Institutes of Health and Abramson Cancer Center, and an American Society for Radiation Oncology training award to Dr. Rengan. Study authors reported disclosures related to Pfizer, 511 Pharma, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Siemens, Actinium, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others.
SOURCE: Rengan R et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2095.
Administering an HIV drug concurrently with chemoradiotherapy resulted in promising local control and overall survival in patients with unresectable, locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, researchers reported.
There was no overt exacerbation of the toxic effects of chemoradiotherapy with the addition of nelfinavir, a protease inhibitor, in the prospective, open-label, phase 1/2 study, the researchers wrote.
Nelfinavir plus chemoradiotherapy yielded a median progression-free survival of 11.7 months and median survival of 41.1 months, while the cumulative local failure incidence was 39% according to their report.
Those outcomes compare favorably with historical data, the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.
In benchmark results of the RTOG 0617 study of chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, median overall survival was 28.7 months receiving radiotherapy at a standard dose of 60 Gy, and 20.3 months for those receiving high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy.
However, a randomized, phase 3 trial is needed to confirm these latest results with a protease inhibitor added to chemotherapy, according to Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coinvestigators.
“As nelfinavir is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved oral drug, this treatment approach is feasible and is potentially a readily exportable platform for daily clinical use,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.
In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that nelfinavir inhibited PI3K and Akt signaling, sensitized tumor cells to ionizing radiation, and improved tumor perfusion in animal models. “We hypothesize that it is these properties that drive the clinical results observed in this study,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.
They reported on a total of 35 patients with stage IIIA/IIIB non–small cell lung cancer who received nelfinavir at either 625 mg or 1,250 mg twice daily, starting 7-14 days before starting radiotherapy to 66.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and throughout the full course of radiotherapy.
There were no dose-limiting toxic effects observed in the study, and toxic effects were “acceptable,” with no grade 4 nonhematologic toxic effects seen, according to investigators. Leukopenia was the primary grade 3-4 hematologic toxic effect, observed in 2 of 5 patients receiving the lower nelfinavir dose and 18 of 30 at the higher dose.
Beyond non–small cell lung cancer, the efficacy and safety nelfinavir given concurrently with radiotherapy has been looked at in other disease settings. Data from those trials suggest that this protease inhibitor could “augment tumor response” not only in non–small cell lung cancer, but in locally advanced pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma, all of which are relatively radioresistant, according to Dr. Rengan and colleagues.
Study support came from grants from the National Institutes of Health and Abramson Cancer Center, and an American Society for Radiation Oncology training award to Dr. Rengan. Study authors reported disclosures related to Pfizer, 511 Pharma, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Siemens, Actinium, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others.
SOURCE: Rengan R et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2095.
Administering an HIV drug concurrently with chemoradiotherapy resulted in promising local control and overall survival in patients with unresectable, locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, researchers reported.
There was no overt exacerbation of the toxic effects of chemoradiotherapy with the addition of nelfinavir, a protease inhibitor, in the prospective, open-label, phase 1/2 study, the researchers wrote.
Nelfinavir plus chemoradiotherapy yielded a median progression-free survival of 11.7 months and median survival of 41.1 months, while the cumulative local failure incidence was 39% according to their report.
Those outcomes compare favorably with historical data, the investigators wrote in JAMA Oncology.
In benchmark results of the RTOG 0617 study of chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer, median overall survival was 28.7 months receiving radiotherapy at a standard dose of 60 Gy, and 20.3 months for those receiving high-dose (74 Gy) radiotherapy.
However, a randomized, phase 3 trial is needed to confirm these latest results with a protease inhibitor added to chemotherapy, according to Ramesh Rengan, MD, PhD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and coinvestigators.
“As nelfinavir is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved oral drug, this treatment approach is feasible and is potentially a readily exportable platform for daily clinical use,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.
In vitro and in vivo studies have shown that nelfinavir inhibited PI3K and Akt signaling, sensitized tumor cells to ionizing radiation, and improved tumor perfusion in animal models. “We hypothesize that it is these properties that drive the clinical results observed in this study,” Dr. Rengan and coauthors wrote.
They reported on a total of 35 patients with stage IIIA/IIIB non–small cell lung cancer who received nelfinavir at either 625 mg or 1,250 mg twice daily, starting 7-14 days before starting radiotherapy to 66.6 Gy at 1.8 Gy per fraction, and throughout the full course of radiotherapy.
There were no dose-limiting toxic effects observed in the study, and toxic effects were “acceptable,” with no grade 4 nonhematologic toxic effects seen, according to investigators. Leukopenia was the primary grade 3-4 hematologic toxic effect, observed in 2 of 5 patients receiving the lower nelfinavir dose and 18 of 30 at the higher dose.
Beyond non–small cell lung cancer, the efficacy and safety nelfinavir given concurrently with radiotherapy has been looked at in other disease settings. Data from those trials suggest that this protease inhibitor could “augment tumor response” not only in non–small cell lung cancer, but in locally advanced pancreatic cancer and glioblastoma, all of which are relatively radioresistant, according to Dr. Rengan and colleagues.
Study support came from grants from the National Institutes of Health and Abramson Cancer Center, and an American Society for Radiation Oncology training award to Dr. Rengan. Study authors reported disclosures related to Pfizer, 511 Pharma, Progenics Pharmaceuticals, Siemens, Actinium, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others.
SOURCE: Rengan R et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Aug 22. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2095.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY