Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network ® (NCCN ®) guidelines for Colorectal Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment provide limited guidance for genetic testing for individuals with already diagnosed hereditary cancer conditions. We are presenting the case of a 36-year-old woman who was diagnosed with Lynch Syndrome at age 23 after genetic testing for a familial variant (c.283del) in the MLH1 gene. The patient had a previous history of Hodgkin Lymphoma at the time of familial variant testing, and she would later develop stage IIIa cecal adenocarcinoma at age 33 and metastatic papillary thyroid carcinoma at age 35. The patient\'s family history included a first-degree relative who was diagnosed with colorectal cancer at age 39, multiple second-degree relatives with colorectal, endometrial, and stomach cancer, and third and fourth-degree relatives with breast cancer. In light of her personal and family history, a comprehensive cancer panel was recommended. This panel found a second hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome: a likely pathogenic variant (c. 349 A > G) in the CHEK2 gene. This specific CHEK2 variant was recently reported to confer a moderately increased risk for breast cancer. The discovery of this second cancer predisposition syndrome had important implications for the patient\'s screening and risk management. While uncommon, the possibility of an individual having multiple cancer predisposition syndromes is important to consider when evaluating patients and families for hereditary cancer, even when a familial variant has been identified.

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.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the dominant form of lung cancer, comprising around 85% of cases. Stage 4 NSCLC has a grim prognosis; however, immunotherapy and radiation therapy have become vital treatments for advanced-stage NSCLC, despite the risk of inducing a second primary malignancy. This case report focuses on a 45-year-old female diagnosed with NSCLC and metastasis to the 11th thoracic vertebral body. After various treatments, including radiation, a potential radiation-associated secondary malignancy, epithelial angiosarcoma, was discovered. Following treatment modification, the patient achieved complete metabolic remission, highlighting the importance of clinicians being cautious about secondary primary cancers in NSCLC patients with a history of radiation therapy. Accurate diagnosis through biopsy and continuous surveillance are essential in managing NSCLC patients effectively.

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。

The discovery of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) imatinib in the early 2000\'s revolutionized the treatment and prognosis of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) [Hochhaus et al. in N Engl J Med 376:917-927, 2017]. The treatment of patients with CML has changed dramatically since the approval of imatinib and other TKIs. Before the TKI era, newly diagnosed patients would undergo HLA typing to try to identify a well-matched donor, and then proceed quickly to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). With the introduction of imatinib followed a few years later by dasatinib, nilotinib, then bosutinib, treatment approaches changed in a dramatic way. Transplantation is no longer an upfront treatment option for newly diagnosed CML patients, and in fact, it is very rarely used in the management of a patient with CML currently. The management of CML patients has been a model of personalized medicine or targeted therapy that is being emulated in the treatment of many other hematologic malignancies and solid tumors such as lung cancer [Soverini et al. in Mol Cancer 17:49, 2018]. The Philadelphia Chromosome (Ph) which leads to the formation of the BCR-ABL fusion gene and its product the BCR-ABL protein is the cause of CML. With effective targeting of this protein with the available TKIs, the disease is completely controllable if not curable for most patients. Life expectancy for patients with CML is essentially normal. Quality of life becomes an important goal including the potential for pregnancy, and ultimately the chance to discontinue all TKI therapy permanently. The three cases outlined below serve to highlight some of the important issues in the management of patients with CML in the post-TKI era.

Genetic testing is an instrumental tool used to determine whether an individual has a predisposition to certain cancers. Knowing of a hereditary cancer predisposition may allow a patient and their family to consider high-risk screening or risk-reducing options. Genetic counselors work with physicians to identify patients at increased risk for genetic testing using available guidelines such as those provided by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Information within one hospital system\'s cancer registry was used to identify individuals who qualify for genetic testing. This includes patients with a history of cancer of the breast (diagnosis ≤45, triple negative (TN) ≤60, and male), ovaries, colon (diagnosis ≤50), or uterus (diagnosis ≤50). Within this hospital system\'s registry, there are six cancer centers. Data were collected from cancer centers that utilized genetic counselors (GCs), and cancer centers that did not (non-GC) to determine whether there was a difference in genetic testing rates between GC and non-GC cancer centers. An analysis of 695 patients demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of eligible patients undergoing genetic testing at the GC cancer centers than at the non-GC cancer centers (91.6% versus 68.7%, p < .001). Further analysis of specific cancers showed a significantly higher uptake of genetic testing for eligible patients with colon cancer (90.8% versus 50%, p < .001), breast cancer ≤45 (99.5% versus 86%, p < .001), and ovarian cancer (91.3% versus 62.8%, p < .001) at the GC cancer centers than at the non-GC cancer centers. There was no significant difference in the proportion of testing of TN breast cancer ≤60 or uterine cancer ≤50 between cancer centers. These data suggest that having a GC working within a cancer center increases the ability to identify and offer testing to patients who meet NCCN genetic testing criteria based on their cancer type.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the impact of treating facility type on guideline-concordant sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) management in T1a* (defined as a Breslow depth <0.76 mm without ulceration or mitoses) and T2/T3 melanoma.
METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study utilizing the National Cancer Database from 2012 to 2016.
RESULTS: Our cohort included 109,432 patients. For T1a* melanomas, 85% of patients received guideline-concordant SLNB management at community and academic facilities versus 75% of patients at integrated network facilities (p < .001). Over 83% of patients with T2/T3 melanoma treated at an academic facility received guideline-concordant SLNB management versus 77% treated at a community facility (p < .001). Adjusting for demographic and clinical factors, integrated (adjusted odds ratio, aOR = 0.54), and comprehensive community (aOR = 0.74) facilities were less likely to provide guideline-concordant SLNB management in patients with T1a* melanoma compared to academic facilities. Community facilities (aOR = 0.72) were less likely to provide guideline-concordant SLNB management in patients with T2/T3 melanoma compared to academic facilities.
CONCLUSIONS: Academic facilities provide the highest rate of guideline-concordant sentinel lymph node management. Comparatively, community programs may underutilize SLNB in T2/T3 disease, while integrated and comprehensive community facilities may over-utilize SLNB in T1a* disease.