Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 10%. In November 2018, NCCN recommended that all patients with PDAC receive genetic counseling (GC) and germline testing regardless of family history. We hypothesized that patients with PDAC were more likely to be referred for testing after this change to the guidelines, regardless of presumed predictive factors, and that compliance would be further improved following the implementation of a hereditary cancer clinic (HCC).
We conducted a single-institution retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with PDAC from June 2017 through December 2021 at University of California, Irvine. We compared rates of genetics referral among patients in different diagnostic eras: the 18-month period before the NCCN Guideline change (pre-NCCN era: June 2017 through November 2018), 14 months following the change (post-NCCN era: December 2018 through January 2020), and 18 months after the creation of an HCC (HCC era: June 2020 through December 2021). Family and personal cancer history, genetics referral patterns, and results of GC were recorded. Data were compared using chi-square, Fisher exact, and multivariate analyses.
A total of 335 patients were treated for PDAC (123 pre-NCCN, 109 post-NCCN, and 103 HCC) at University of California, Irvine. Demographics across groups were comparable. Prior to the guideline changes, 30% were referred to GC compared with 54.7% in the post-NCCN era. After the implementation of the HCC, 77.4% were referred to GC (P<.0001). The odds ratio (OR) for referral to GC among patients with a positive family history of cancer progressively decreased following the change (pre-NCCN era: OR, 11.90 [95% CI, 3.00-80.14]; post-NCCN era: OR, 3.39 [95% CI, 1.13-10.76]; HCC era: OR, 3.11 [95% CI, 0.95-10.16]).
The 2018 updates to the NCCN Guidelines for PDAC recommending germline testing for all patients with PDAC significantly increased GC referral rates at our academic medical center. Implementation of an HCC further boosted compliance with guidelines.

UNASSIGNED: Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend definitive chemoradiation rather than surgery for patients with locally advanced clinical stage T3 and N2 (stage IIIB) lung cancer involving the chest wall. The data supporting this recommendation are controversial. We studied whether surgery confers a survival advantage over definitive chemoradiation in the National Cancer Database.
UNASSIGNED: We identified all patients with clinical stage T3 and N2 lung cancer in the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2017 who underwent a lobectomy with en bloc chest wall resection and compared them with patients with clinical stage T3 and N2 lung cancer who had definitive chemoradiation. We used propensity score matching to minimize confounding by indication while excluding patients with tumors in the upper lobes to exclude Pancoast tumors. We used 1:1 propensity score matching and Kaplan-Meir survival analyses to estimate associations.
UNASSIGNED: Of 4467 patients meeting all inclusion/exclusion criteria, 210 (4.49%) had an en bloc chest wall resection. Patients undergoing surgical resection were younger (mean age = 60.3 ± 10.3 years vs 67.5 ± 10.4 years; P < .001) and had more adenocarcinoma (59.0% vs 44.5%; P < .001) but were otherwise similar in terms of sex (37.1% female vs 42.0%; P = .167) and race (Whites 84.3% vs 84.0%; P = .276) compared with the definitive chemoradiation group. After resection, there was an unadjusted 30- and 90-day mortality rate of 3.3% and 9.5%, respectively. A substantial survival benefit with surgical resection persisted after propensity score matching (log-rank P < .001).
UNASSIGNED: In this large observational study, we found that in select patients, en bloc chest wall resection for locally advanced clinical stage T3 and N2 lung cancer was associated with improved survival compared with definitive chemoradiation. National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines should be revisited.

The treatment of glottic cancer remains challenging, especially with regard to morbidity reduction and larynx preservation rates. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has published guidelines to aid decision-making about this treatment according to the tumor site, clinical stage, and patient medical status.
The present review was conducted to identify changes in the NCCN guidelines for glottic cancer treatment made between 2011 and 2022 and to describe the published evidence concerning glottic cancer treatment and oncological outcomes in the same time period.
Clinical practice guidelines for head and neck cancer published from 2011 up to 2022 were obtained from the NCCN website (www.NCCN.org). Data on glottic cancer treatment recommendations were extracted, and descriptive analysis was performed. In addition, a review of literature registered in the PubMed database was performed to obtain data on glottic cancer management protocols and treatment outcomes from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published from 2011 to 2022. In total, 24 NCCN guidelines and updates and 68 relevant studies included in the PubMed database were identified. The main guideline changes made pertained to surgical and systemic therapies, the consideration of adverse features, and new options for the treatment of metastatic disease at initial presentation. Early-stage glottic cancer received the most research attention, with transoral endoscopic laser surgery and radiotherapy assessed and compared as the main treatment modalities. Reported associations between treatment types and survival rates for this stage of glottic cancer appear to be similar, but functional outcomes can be highly compromised.
NCCN panel members provide updated recommendations based on currently accepted treatment approaches for glottic cancer, constantly reviewing new surgical and non-surgical techniques. The guidelines support decision-making about glottic cancer treatment that should be individualized and prioritize patients\' quality of life, functionality, and preferences.

BACKGROUND:  ChatGPT, created by OpenAI, is a large language model which has become the fastest growing consumer application in history, recognized for its expansive knowledge of varied subjects. The field of oncology is highly specialized and requires nuanced understanding of medications and conditions. Herein, we sought to better qualify the ability of ChatGPT to name applicable treatments for patients with advanced solid cancers.
METHODS:  This observational study was conducted utilizing ChatGPT. The capacity of ChatGPT to tabulate appropriate systemic therapies for new diagnoses of advanced solid malignancies was ascertained through standardized prompts. A ratio of those medications listed by ChatGPT to those suggested in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines was produced and called the valid therapy quotient (VTQ). Additional descriptive analyses of the VTQ and its association with incidence and type of treatment were performed.
RESULTS:  Some 51 distinct diagnoses were utilized within this experiment. ChatGPT was able to identify 91 distinct medications in response to prompts related to advanced solid tumors. The overall VTQ is 0.77. In all cases, ChatGPT was able to provide at least one example of systemic therapy suggested by the NCCN. There was a weak association between incidence of each malignancy and the VTQ.
CONCLUSIONS:  The capacity of ChatGPT to identify medications used to treat advanced solid tumors indicates a level of concordance with the NCCN guidelines. As it stands, the role of ChatGPT to assist oncologists and patients in treatment decision making remains unknown. Nonetheless, in future iterations, it may be anticipated that accuracy and consistency in this domain will improve, and further studies will be needed to better quantify its capabilities.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Multiple studies have confirmed a high prevalence of prognostic germline mutations in prostate cancer. In recognition, the NCCN guidelines and recommendations for genetic counselling (GC) in prostate cancer patients were expanded.
Data on prostate cancer patients at a single tertiary cancer center from January 2019 - June 2019 were queried. The cohort of patients from the queried list were evaluated for their eligibility for genetic testing. From the patients that were eligible for testing, the rate of referrals was ascertained. A 10-item questionnaire was concurrently sent to providers to understand germline genetic testing patterns and potential barriers.
Only 39% of the eligible prostate cancer patients were referred, with testing completed in 11% with indications. 30% of providers reported they would be comfortable completing genetic counseling themselves. The identified barriers to provide genetic testing themselves were lack of time and expertise (50%). Other barriers included: lack of genetic counselor workforce (70%), lack of knowledge of genetic testing and the inadequate co-ordination of referrals (60%).
In this retrospective study, many patients met the criteria for GC, however, the referrals for this patient population are inconsistent, and only a handful of the eligible patients completed testing. Identified barriers were provider\'s knowledge and comfort with guidelines and testing, systemic bottlenecks such as limited capacity of genetic counsellors, and the creation of improved workflows.

OBJECTIVE: Since 2019, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has recommended genetic testing for patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma that includes universal germline testing and tumor gene profiling for metastatic, locally advanced, or recurrent disease. However, testing compliance with this guideline has not yet been published in the English literature.
METHODS: A quality assurance/quality improvement retrospective review was done to identify patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma from January 2019 to February 2021 to include the patient\'s clinical status and genetic test results.
RESULTS: There were 20 patient cases identified with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A total of 11 cases had molecular tumor gene profiling and microsatellite instability/mismatch repair (MSI/MMR) testing performed and 1 case had only MSI/MMR testing by immunohistochemistry performed. Only 3 patients of the 20 in total received germline testing.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant number of patients for whom tumor gene profiling or germline testing had never been attempted as per recommended NCCN guidelines.

Despite high curability, patients with metastatic germ cell tumors (GCT) in the United States general population persistently face inferior outcomes compared with those treated in specialty referral centers. We characterized guideline discordant management in patients with metastatic GCT who experienced relapse after first-line chemotherapy and compared those who were initially treated in community practices vs. academic referral centers.
Retrospective analysis of 53 patients with relapsed GCT between 2005 and 2018. First-line GCT management was assessed against the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Guideline discordant management, predictors of discordance, and associations with outcomes were assessed.
Of 53 patients with relapsed GCT, 34% received guideline discordant care in the first-line setting. Guideline discordant care was more prevalent in patients initially treated in community practices (12/30, 40%) vs. those initially treated in academic centers (3/22, 14%), though in multivariate logistic regression, this difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio: 4.07, P = 0.08). Most patients in community settings who received guideline discordant care were undertreated (10/12, 83%). There were 3 major reasons for guideline discordant care: (1) failure to resect residual masses after chemotherapy (27%, 4/15), (2) mismanagement of chemotherapy-related adverse events (27%, 4/15), and (3) under staging at diagnosis, resulting either insufficient chemotherapy regimen intensity (13%, 2/15) and/or inappropriately receiving primary surgical resection for metastatic disease (20%, 3/15).
Under treatment was identified in nearly half of patients initially treated in a community setting who later developed relapsed GCT. Referral to specialized centers for a second opinion should be considered for all metastatic GCT patients in the first-line setting and all patients with post-chemotherapy residual disease. More effective methods should be developed to facilitate second opinions from expert centers in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The importance of compliance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for preventing varicella-zoster virus reactivation (VZVr) in multiple myeloma (MM) in a clinical setting has not been well investigated.
METHODS: We retrospectively studied the clinical characteristics and outcomes of 118 patients with MM treated with proteasome inhibitors.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine episodes of VZVr were observed in 37 patients (VZVr group). The proportion of prophylactic antiviral prescriptions and compliance with antiviral prophylaxis based on the NCCN Clinical Practice guidelines was 76% and 30% in the VZVr group, and 88% and 74% in the non-VZVr group, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that compliance with the NCCN guidelines was the only independent risk factor for VZVr (p=0.0017).
CONCLUSIONS: It is important that prophylactic antivirals are prescribed for an appropriate duration of time to prevent the reactivation of VZV in compliance with existing guidelines.