Citations

Mayo Clinic

Clear

811 citation(s) found for "Wu, Helen".

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2021
Ettinger, David S. , Wood, Douglas E. , Aisner, Dara L. , Akerley, Wallace , Bauman, Jessica R. , Bruno, Débora S. , Chirieac, Lucian R. , D’Amico, Thomas A., Dilling, Thomas J. , Dowell, Jonathan E. , Gettinger, Scott , Gubens, Matthew A. , Hegde, Aparna , Hennon, Mark, Lackner, Rudy P., Leal, Ticiana , Lin, Jules , Martins, Renato , Morgensztern, Daniel , Ng, Thomas, Otterson, Gregory A. , Patel, Sandip Pravin , Riely, Gregory J. , Shapiro, Theresa A. , Singh, Aditi P. , Stevenson, James, Tam, Alda L. , Yang, Stephen C. , Gregory, Kristina M., Hughes, Miranda, Schild, Steven E. , Bharat, Ankit , Chang, Joe Y. , Lanuti, Michael D. , Loo, Billy W. , Lovly, Christine Marie , Massarelli, Erminia , Yanagawa, Jane

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | March 5, 2021 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 254-266

10.6004/jnccn.2021.0013 | PMID 33668021 Get It

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines regarding targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and their respective biomarkers.
Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Benson, Al B. , Al-Hawary, Mahmoud M. , Arain, Mustafa A., Chen, Yi‐Jen , Ciombor, Kristen K. , Cooper, Harry S. , Deming, Dustin A. , Farkas, Linda M., Garrido‐Laguna, Ignacio , Grem, Jean L. , Hecht, J. Randolph, Hoffe, Sarah E. , Hunt, Steven R., Johung, Kimberly L. , Kirilcuk, Natalie, Krishnamurthi, Smitha , Messersmith, Wells A. , Meyerhardt, Jeffrey A. , Mulcahy, Mary F. , Nurkin, Steven, Overman, Michael J. , Patel, Hitendra , Pedersen, Katrina S. , Shibata, David , Skibber, John M., Sofocleous, Constantinos T. , Stotsky‐Himelfarb, Eden, Willett, Christopher G. , Gregory, Kristina M., Gurski, Lisa A., Hubbard, Joleen, Meyerhardt, Jeffrey A , Pedersen, Katrina , Venook, Alan P. , Cohen, Stacey A. , Gunn, Andrew, Hubbard, Joleen M. , Miller, Eric D. , Parikh, Aparna R. , Patel, Hitendra, Saltz, Leonard B. , Schneider, Charles John , Stoffel, Elena M.

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | March 5, 2021 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 329-359

10.6004/jnccn.2021.0012 | PMID 33724754 Get It

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation–positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org . Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.
Neurologic Involvement in Children and Adolescents Hospitalized in the United States for COVID-19 or Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome
LaRovere, Kerri L. , Riggs, Becky J. , Young, Cameron C. , Newhams, Margaret M. , Maamari, Mia , Walker, Tracie C. , Singh, Aalok R. , Dapul, Heda , Hobbs, Charlotte V. , McLaughlin, Gwenn E., Maddux, Aline B. , Clouser, Katharine N. , Rowan, Courtney M. , McGuire, John K. , Gertz, Shira J. , Muñoz, Álvaro Coronado , Irby, Katherine , Levy, Emily R. , Staat, Mary Allen , Feldstein, Leora R. , Halasa, Natasha , Hall, Mark W. , Kong, Michele , Carroll, Christopher L. , Schuster, Jennifer E. , Doymaz, Sule , Loftis, Laura L. , Tarquinio, Keiko M. , Babbitt, Christopher , Nofziger, Ryan A. , Kleinman, Lawrence C. , Keenaghan, Michael , Spinella, Philip C. , Hume, Janet R. , Wellnitz, Kari , Mack, Elizabeth H. , Flori, Heidi R. , Patel, Manish M. , Randolph, Adrienne G. , Investigators, Overcoming COVID-19, Name, First Name and Middle Initial Last, Gaspers, Mary Glas , Typpo, Katri , Sanders, Ronald C., Schwarz, Adam J. , Harvey, Helen , Mourani, Peter M. , Coates, Bria M. , Bhoojhawon, Guru , Havlin, Kevin , Sullivan, Janice E, Bradford, Tamara T. , Lipton, Susan V., Chen, Sabrina , Kücükak, Suden, Carroll, Ryan W. , Fernandes, Neil D. , Yager, Phoebe H. , Marohn, Kimberly L, Heidemann, Sabrina M. , Cullimore, Melissa L. , Horwitz, Steven M. , Walsh, Rowan, Soma, Vijaya L, Gillen, Jennifer , Zackai, Sheemon, Ackerman, Kate G. , Cholette, Jill M., Hymes, Saul , Overby, Philip , Schwartz, Stephanie P. , Lansell, Amanda , Koncicki, Monica L. , Carcillo, Joseph A. , Bowens, Cindy , Crandall, Hillary , Smith, Lincoln , Cengiz, Pelin , Levy, Emily R , Young, Cameron C , Randolph, Adrienne G , Spinella, Philip C , Kong, Michele , Hume, Janet R , Hobbs, Charlotte V , Maddux, Aline B , Staat, Mary A , Gertz, Shira J , Schwartz, Stephanie P , Hymes, Saul R , Poussaint, Tina Young , Son, Mary Beth F. , Fitzgerald, Julie C. , Shein, Steven L. , Thomas, Neal J. , Tenforde, Mark W. , Giuliano, John S. , Cvijanovich, Natalie Z , Michelson, Kelly Nicole , Investigators, Overcoming COVID-19, Zinter, Matt S. , Montgomery, Vicki , Sullivan, Janice E, Bembea, Melania M. , Graciano, Ana Lía , Newburger, Jane W. , Marohn, Kimberly L, McCulloh, Russell J. , Li, Simon , Ratner, Adam J. , Harwayne‐Gidansky, Ilana , Fink, Ericka L. , Kimura, Dai

JAMA Neurology | March 5, 2021 | Volume: 78 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 536

10.1001/jamaneurol.2021.0504 | PMID 33666649 Get It

Prediction of Death After Noncardiac Surgery: Potential Advantage of Using High‐Sensitivity Troponin T as a Continuous Variable
Machado, Maurício de Nassau , Rodrigues, Fernando Bruetto , Nakazone, Marcelo Arruda , Martin, Danilo F., Sabbag, Amália Tieco Rocha, Grigolo, Ingrid Hellen, Silva‐Júnior, Osvaldo L., Maia, Lília Nigro , Jaffe, Allan S. , Martin, Danilo Fernando , Grigolo, Ingrid Helen, Jaffe, Allan S.

Journal of the American Heart Association | March 4, 2021 | Volume: 10 | Issue: 6 | Pages: No page available

10.1161/jaha.120.018008 | PMID 33660524 Get It

Background Increased high‐sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs‐cTnT) above the upper reference limit (URL) after noncardiac surgery identifies patients at risk for mortality. Prior studies have not analyzed hs‐cTnT as a continuous variable or probed age‐ and sex‐specific URLs. This study compared the prediction of 30‐day mortality using continuous postoperative hs‐cTnT levels to the use of the overall URL and age‐ and sex‐specific URLs. Methods and Results Patients (876) >40 years of age who underwent noncardiac surgery were included. Hs‐cTnT was measured on postoperative day 1. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare associations between 30‐day mortality and using hs‐cTnT as a continuous variable, or above the overall or age‐ and sex‐specific URLs. Comparisons were performed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Mortality was 4.2%. For each 1 ng/L increase in postoperative hs‐cTnT, there was a 0.3% increase in mortality ( P <0.001). Patients with postoperative hs‐cTnT >14 ng/L were 37% of the cohort, while those above age‐ and sex‐specific URLs were 25.3%. Both manifested higher mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 3.19; 95% CI, 1.20–8.49; P =0.020) and (HR, 2.76; P =0.009) than those with normal levels. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.89 using hs‐cTnT as a continuous variable, 0.87 for age‐ and sex‐specific URLs, and 0.86 for the overall URL. Conclusions Hs‐cTnT as a continuous variable was independently associated with 30‐day mortality and had the highest accuracy. Hs‐cTnT elevations using overall and/or age‐ and sex‐specific URLs were also associated with higher mortality.
Differential activity of PARP inhibitors in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Taza, Fadi , Ashkar, Ryan, Sokolova, Alexandra , Kessel, Adam , Nafissi, Nellie , Aggarwal, Rahul , Berchuck, Jacob E. , Holler, Albert , Adra, Nabil , Barata, Pedro C. , Bastos, Diogo , Smaletz, Oren , Vlachostergios, Panagiotis J. , Su, Christopher , Marshall, Catherine H. , Antonarakis, Emmanuel S.

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 2, 2021 | Volume: 39 | Issue: 6_suppl | Pages: 100-100

10.1200/jco.2021.39.6_suppl.100 Get It

100 Background: Two PARP inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib) are now FDA approved for mCRPC patients with mutations in BRCA1/2, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. Methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective analysis involving 11 academic sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC patients receiving PARP inhibitor treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was PSA50 response rate (≥50% decline in PSA level). Secondary endpoints were PFS (clinical, radiographic or PSA progression, whichever occurred first) and overall survival (OS). We also captured information on other concurrent genomic alterations. We compared genomic characteristics and clinical outcomes among BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC. Results: A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1, 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2) and veliparib (n = 2). All BRCA1 and 71% of BRCA2 patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. Compared to BRCA2 patients, BRCA1 patients were more likely to have received prior taxane chemotherapy (77% vs 62%). Age, baseline PSA, and prior enzalutamide/abiraterone treatment were similar between groups. PSA50 responses in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered patients were 38% vs 65% respectively ( P= 0.06). Median PFS in BRCA1 vs BRCA2 patients was 3.0 mo (95%CI, 0.9–5.1) vs 8.0 mo (95%CI, 5.3–10.6) respectively (HR 0.42, P= 0.01). Similarly, median OS in BRCA1 vs BRCA2 patients was 11.0 mo (95%CI, 9.9–12.1) vs 24.0 mo (95%CI, 18.2–29.8) respectively (HR 0.33, P= 0.005). There were roughly equal proportions of germline mutations (50% vs 45%) and biallelic mutations (31% vs 25%) in the BRCA2 and BRCA1 groups, respectively. There were numerically more TP53 mutations in the BRCA1 vs BRCA2 group (40% vs 29%, P= 0.45), but an equal number of mutations in other key genes ( PTEN, RB1 and AR). Conclusions: PARP inhibitor activity is diminished in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC. In our cohort, this differential activity was not explained by mutation origin (germline vs somatic) or allelic status (mono- vs biallelic). These findings warrant validation.
Screening Women for Anal Cancers: Guidance for Health Care Professionals
Vegunta, Suneela , Whited, M. Helen, Long, Margaret E. , Shah, Amit A, Shah, Amit

American Journal of Gastroenterology | February 26, 2021 | Volume: 116 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 509-516

10.14309/ajg.0000000000001186 | PMID 33606380 Get It

Anal cancer is rare in the general population but is steadily increasing in incidence over the past decade especially in women . Identification and screening of women with high risk facilitates detection of anal precancer and early-stage cancer, improves survival, and potentially uses less invasive therapies compared with the conventional chemoradiation treatments used for advanced cancers. No recently published guidelines currently describe details about screening women for anal squamous cell cancer (ASCC). The available evidence supports the existence of groups of women with higher prevalence of ASCC (e.g., women with human immunodeficiency virus, immune suppression, or previous lower-genital high-grade lesion or cancer) who would likely benefit from screening with some combination of anal cytology and human papillomavirus testing. Additional research is needed to establish the cost-effectiveness and the influence of screening on ASCC mortality rates.
Systematic review on the use of patient-reported outcome measures in brain tumor studies: part of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) initiative
Dirven, Linda , Vos, Maartje E, Walbert, Tobias , Arons, David, Bent, Martin J. van den , Brown, Paul D. , Chang, Susan M. , Coens, Corneel , Grant, Robin, Jalali, Rakesh , Leach, Danielle, Mendoza, Tito R. , Nayak, Lakshmi , Oliver, Kathy , Reijneveld, Jaap C. , Wen, Patrick Y. , Taphoorn, Martin , Mendoza, Tito , Weller, Michael , van den Bent, Martin J , Armstrong, Terri S. , Blakeley, Jaishri O. , Bulbeck, Helen , Gilbert, Mark R. , Leeper, Heather , Rhun, Émilie Le , Rubinstein, Larry , Wen, Patrick Yung

Neuro-Oncology Practice | February 14, 2021 | Volume: 8 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 417-425

10.1093/nop/npab013 | PMID 34277020 Get It

Abstract Background The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Methods A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis. Results A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215). Conclusion Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.
Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group 2.0: Back to Business
Chambers, Henry F. , Patel, Robin , Cross, H. R. , Harris, Anthony , Doi, Yohei , Boucher, Helen W., Tsalik, Ephraim L. , Holland, Thomas L , Pettigrew, Melinda M. , Hodges, Kathryn R., Souli, Maria , Fowler, Vance G. , van Duin, David , Tamma, Pranita D , Patel, Robin , Doi, Yohei , Pettigrew, M M , Evans, Scott R , Evans, Scott , Cross, Heather R, Harris, Anthony D. , Tamma, Pranita D. , Fowler, Vance G.

Clinical Infectious Diseases | February 10, 2021 | Volume: 73 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 730-739

10.1093/cid/ciab141 | PMID 33588438 Get It

Abstract In December 2019, the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG) was awarded funding for another 7-year cycle to support a clinical research network on antibacterial resistance. ARLG 2.0 has 3 overarching research priorities: infections caused by antibiotic-resistant (AR) gram-negative bacteria, infections caused by AR gram-positive bacteria, and diagnostic tests to optimize use of antibiotics. To support the next generation of AR researchers, the ARLG offers 3 mentoring opportunities: the ARLG Fellowship, Early Stage Investigator seed grants, and the Trialists in Training Program. The purpose of this article is to update the scientific community on the progress made in the original funding period and to encourage submission of clinical research that addresses 1 or more of the research priority areas of ARLG 2.0.
Ovarian Cancer, Version 2.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Armstrong, Deborah K. , Alvarez, Ronald D. , Barroilhet, Lisa , Chen, Lee-may, Cristea, Mihaela , Eisenhauer, Eric , Gray, Heidi J. , Hakam, Ardeshir, Jain, Angela, Karam, Amer , Konecny, Gottfried E. , Mahdi, Haider , McHale, Michael , Miller, David S. , O’Malley, David M. , Percac‐Lima, Sanja , Ratner, Elena , Remmenga, Steven W., Vargas, Roberto , Werner, Theresa L. , Zsíros, Emese , Burns, Jennifer L. , Engh, Anita M. , Miller, David S , O'Malley, David M , Bakkum‐Gamez, Jamie N. , Behbakht, Kian , Berchuck, Andrew , DeRosa, Maria, Gershenson, David M. , Grisham, Rachel Nicole , Leath, Charles A , Liu, Joyce F. , Martin, Lainie P. , Matei, Daniela , McLean, Karen

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | February 8, 2021 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 191-226

10.6004/jnccn.2021.0007 | PMID 33545690 Get It

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country’s fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.
Detection of β-amyloid positivity in Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative participants with demographics, cognition, MRI and plasma biomarkers
Tosun, Duygu , Aisen, Paul , Jack, Clifford R. , Jagust, William J. , Petersen, Ronald C. , Saykin, Andrew J. , Bollinger, James, Ovod, Vitaliy , Mawuenyega, Kwasi G., Bateman, Randall J. , Shaw, Leslie M. , Trojanowski, John Q. , Blennow, Kaj , Weiner, Michael W. , Tosun, Duygu , Jack, Clifford R , Jagust, William J , Zetterberg, Henrik , Saykin, Andrew J , Bateman, Randall J , Tosun, Duygu , Veitch, Dallas P. , Zetterberg, Henrik

Brain Communications | February 3, 2021 | Volume: 3 | Issue: 2 | Pages: No page available

10.1093/braincomms/fcab008 | PMID 33842885 Get It

Abstract In vivo gold standard for the ante-mortem assessment of brain β-amyloid pathology is currently β-amyloid positron emission tomography or cerebrospinal fluid measures of β-amyloid42 or the β-amyloid42/β-amyloid40 ratio. The widespread acceptance of a biomarker classification scheme for the Alzheimer’s disease continuum has ignited interest in more affordable and accessible approaches to detect Alzheimer’s disease β-amyloid pathology, a process that often slows down the recruitment into, and adds to the cost of, clinical trials. Recently, there has been considerable excitement concerning the value of blood biomarkers. Leveraging multidisciplinary data from cognitively unimpaired participants and participants with mild cognitive impairment recruited by the multisite biomarker study of Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, here we assessed to what extent plasma β-amyloid42/β-amyloid40, neurofilament light and phosphorylated-tau at threonine-181 biomarkers detect the presence of β-amyloid pathology, and to what extent the addition of clinical information such as demographic data, APOE genotype, cognitive assessments and MRI can assist plasma biomarkers in detecting β-amyloid-positivity. Our results confirm plasma β-amyloid42/β-amyloid40 as a robust biomarker of brain β-amyloid-positivity (area under curve, 0.80–0.87). Plasma phosphorylated-tau at threonine-181 detected β-amyloid-positivity only in the cognitively impaired with a moderate area under curve of 0.67, whereas plasma neurofilament light did not detect β-amyloid-positivity in either group of participants. Clinical information as well as MRI-score independently detected positron emission tomography β-amyloid-positivity in both cognitively unimpaired and impaired (area under curve, 0.69–0.81). Clinical information, particularly APOE ε4 status, enhanced the performance of plasma biomarkers in the detection of positron emission tomography β-amyloid-positivity by 0.06–0.14 units of area under curve for cognitively unimpaired, and by 0.21–0.25 units for cognitively impaired; and further enhancement of these models with an MRI-score of β-amyloid-positivity yielded an additional improvement of 0.04–0.11 units of area under curve for cognitively unimpaired and 0.05–0.09 units for cognitively impaired. Taken together, these multi-disciplinary results suggest that when combined with clinical information, plasma phosphorylated-tau at threonine-181 and neurofilament light biomarkers, and an MRI-score could effectively identify β-amyloid+ cognitively unimpaired and impaired (area under curve, 0.80–0.90). Yet, when the MRI-score is considered in combination with clinical information, plasma phosphorylated-tau at threonine-181 and plasma neurofilament light have minimal added value for detecting β-amyloid-positivity. Our systematic comparison of β-amyloid-positivity detection models identified effective combinations of demographics, APOE, global cognition, MRI and plasma biomarkers. Promising minimally invasive and low-cost predictors such as plasma biomarkers of β-amyloid42/β-amyloid40 may be improved by age and APOE genotype.