Search

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors to ensure that the survivors’ complex and varied needs are addressed. The NCCN Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for the consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote physical activity, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes updates to the NCCN Guidelines pertaining to preventive health for cancer survivors, including recommendations about alcohol consumption and vaccinations.

Purpose Breast cancer outcomes are impaired by both delays and disparities in treatment. This study was performed to assess their relationship and to provide a tool to predict patient socioeconomic factors associated with risk for delay. Methods The National Cancer Database was reviewed between 2004 and 2017 for patients with non-metastatic breast cancer managed with upfront surgery. Times to treatment were measured from the date of diagnosis. Patient, tumor, and treatment factors were assessed with attention paid to sociodemographic variables. Results 514,187 patients remained after exclusions, with 84.3% White, 10.8% Black, 3.7% Asian, and Hispanics comprising 5.6% of the cohort. Medicaid and uninsured patients had longer mean adjusted time to surgery (≥ 46 days) versus private (36.7 days), Medicare (35.9 days), or other governmental insurance (39.8 days). After adjustment, Black race and Hispanic ethnicity were most impactful, adding 6.0 and 6.4 preoperative days, 10.9 and 11.5 days to chemotherapy, 11.1 and 9.1 days to radiation, and 12.5 and 8.9 days to endocrine therapy, respectively. Income, education, and insurance, among other factors, also affected delay. A nomogram, including race and sociodemographic factors, was created to predict the risk of preoperative delay. Conclusion Significant disparities exist in timeliness of care for factors, including but not limited to, race and ethnicity. Although exact causes cannot be discerned, these data indicate population subsets whose intervals of care risk being longer than those specified by national quality standards. The nomogram created here may help direct resources to those at highest risk of incurring a treatment delay. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-021-06460-9.

Background Surgical delays are associated with invasive cancer for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). During the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (NET) was used as a bridge until postponed surgeries resumed. This study sought to determine the impact of NET on the rate of invasive cancer for patients with a diagnosis of DCIS who have a surgical delay compared with those not treated with NET. Methods Using the National Cancer Database, the study identified women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) DCIS. The presence of invasion on final pathology was evaluated after stratifying by receipt of NET and by intervals based on time from diagnosis to surgery (≤30, 31–60, 61–90, 91–120, or 121–365 days). Results Of 109,990 women identified with HR+ DCIS, 276 (0.3%) underwent NET. The mean duration of NET was 74.4 days. The overall unadjusted rate of invasive cancer was similar between those who received NET ((15.6%) and those who did not (12.3%) (p = 0.10). In the multivariable analysis, neither the use nor the duration of NET were independently associated with invasion, but the trend across time-to-surgery categories demonstrated a higher rate of upgrade to invasive cancer in the no-NET group (p < 0.001), but not in the NET group (p = 0.97). Conclusions This analysis of a pre-COVID cohort showed evidence for a protective effect of NET in HR+ DCIS against the development of invasive cancer as the preoperative delay increased, although an appropriately powered prospective trial is needed for a definitive answer. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-021-10883-5.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors to ensure that the survivors' complex and varied needs are addressed. The NCCN Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for the consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote physical activity, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes updates to the NCCN Guidelines pertaining to preventive health for cancer survivors, including recommendations about alcohol consumption and vaccinations.

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the USA with the second highest mortality. Early detection with screening endoscopy, in addition to improvement in treatment modalities lead to higher overall survival rates. Treatment of localized colon cancer comprises of surgical resection with en bloc lymphadenectomy. Adjuvant therapy is determined by final pathologic stage. However, treatment of rectal cancer is more complex and is determined by the clinical pathologic stage. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy is an important component to treatment to decrease the risk of local recurrence. As with colon cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy is dependent on the pathologic stage. Newer technologies are being utilized in both colon and rectal cancer including minimally invasive procedures and sphincter preservation procedures. Anal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the most common histologic subtype of anal canal tumors. Anal SCC is most commonly seen in patients with HPV infections. Prior to the 1970s, anal SCC was treated with abdominoperineal resection and end colostomy. Nigro and colleagues utilized chemoradiation to treat anal SCC with response rates as high as 80 %. This allows majority of patients to avoid an APR with permanent colostomy.

Introduction: The mainstay of treatment for pancreatic and gastric cancers is surgical resection. Unfortunately many of these patients present with locally advanced, unresectable or distant disease and therefore medical management may be of more benefit. Accurate staging of patients with pancreatic and gastric cancer is essential in determining the best treatment strategy. Despite preoperative imaging there remains a group of patients that have clinically occult metastatic disease. Positive peritoneal cytology is a poor prognostic indicator for survival in both gastric and pancreatic cancer. Surgical resection may not be of benefit in those with positive peritoneal cytology. At our institution, a diagnostic laparoscopy with peritoneal washings is performed prior to surgical resection. We performed a retrospective review to evaluate the accuracy of immediate peritoneal washing interpretation in both gastric cancer and pancreatic cancer. Results: There were 51 patients that underwent immediate peritoneal washing interpretations. There were 5 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, 2 patients with cholangiocarcinoma, and 44 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Four of the patients had positive cytology for tumor cells with immediate interpretation, and 47 patients had cytology negative for tumor cells with immediate interpretation. There was only one patient with negative cytology on immediate interpretation with cytology positive for malignant cells on final pathologic results. There were many RBCs noted within the peritoneal fluid specimen, which is probably why the cancer cells were missed. Immediate peritoneal cytology results had a 100% positive predictive value, and a 97% negative predictive value. There were no false positive results. Discussion: Positive peritoneal cytology is considered a poor prognostic factor for survival in both gastric and pancreatic cancer. In pancreatic and gastric cancer, previous studies have shown resection in the presence of metastatic disease does not improve survival. Diagnostic laparoscopy has been used as an adjunct to help stage patients before proceeding with a radical resection that has an associated significant morbidity andmortality rate is futile and potentially harmful, delaying or obviating systemic therapy that may be of more benefit to the patient. Our results show that utilizing immediate interpretation of peritoneal cytology is reliable and accurate. There was only one patient with a false negative result and there were no false positive results. Therefore, prior to surgical resection immediate interpretation can be utilized. Conclusion: Diagnostic laparoscopy with peritoneal washings and immediate interpretation of cytology can be used prior to proceeding with surgical resection. A futile operation can potentially be avoided with the use of immediate interpretation of the peritoneal fluid.