Citations

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors to ensure that each survivor’s complex and varied needs are addressed. The Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthful lifestyle behaviors, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes the recommendations regarding employment and return to work for cancer survivors that were added in the 2021 version of the NCCN Guidelines.

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable form of cancer, and current treatment regimens are focused on improving treatment efficacy while decreasing the risk of late effects of treatment. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for pediatric HL provide recommendations on the workup, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of classic HL, including principles of pathology, imaging, staging, systemic therapy, and radiation therapy. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines focuses on the management of pediatric classic HL in the upfront and relapsed/refractory settings.

Abstract Introduction: The management of CLL patients historically utilized FD chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), including fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR), or bendamustine and rituximab (BR). That changed with the introduction of Bruton Tyrosine Kinase inhibitors (BTKi) as an option for oral targeted monotherapy delivered continuously until disease progression or intolerance. Recently, novel combinations that include a B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor (BCL2i), such as venetoclax, have been developed as FD therapy. In addition, though not FDA approved, MRD assessment is emerging as a potential tool to guide FD therapy. Understanding the patient and their caregiver perspectives on FD and MRD is critical to providing the best care. Methods: CLL Society developed a web-based survey instrument of multiple-choice questions to assess patient and caregiver awareness, understanding, and preferences with MRD and FD therapies, where FD referred to both time and MRD guided limited duration therapies. Patients and caregivers were invited to participate via message boards, CLL Society's website, email, and online communities. Results: A total of 607 (96%) self-identified US patients and 36 (5%) caregivers, who answered on behalf of patients in their care, completed the survey between 31/AUG/2020 and 31/JAN/2021. The mean patient age was 64 (range, 30-90) years, 54% were female, 169 patients (27%) treatment-naïve, 239 (38%) with one line of prior therapy, and 214 (34%) with two or more. Targeted agents (e.g., venetoclax, ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, idelalisib, and duvelisib) had been used by 401 (64%). FD use with some novel therapies was known of by 565 (90%) patients, while 588 (93%) knew some were used as continuous daily treatment until disease progression or intolerance. If effectiveness and side effects were assumed similar, 485 (77%) preferred FD, and 398 (63%) wanted that finite treatment to be guided by MRD status. Only 42 (7%) preferred continuous therapy until disease progression or intolerance. The chance for continued remission while off treatment was ranked as a very important potential benefit after stopping a FD therapy by 581 (92%) patients. When considering therapy, 589 (93%), 575 (91%), 447 (71%), 415 (66%), 302 (48%), and 288 (46%) rated having overall survival, having future therapeutic options, avoiding chemotherapy, the ability to reach undetectable (u)MRD, minimal lab and office visits, and FD therapy as very important, respectively (Fig. 1). Being tested for MRD at least once was reported by 215 (34%), while 327 (52%) had not been tested, and 88 (14%) were unsure. There were 562 (89%) who were somewhat or very familiar with the term MRD, while 450 (71%) were confident of understanding what MRD testing measures, and 446 (70%) understood its role in CLL. Only 225 (36%) stated they understood different testing methods. While self-rated understanding of the indications for MRD testing was relatively high, some wanted testing done when not clinically indicated, such as when there was persistent CLL by routine laboratory findings, or at the time of diagnosis (Fig. 2). Respondents were mixed in their stated understanding as to which therapies could result in uMRD, with 241 (38%), 197 (32%), and 195 (32%) not knowing if CIT, BCL2i, and BTKi, could lead to uMRD, respectively. Two hundred and sixty-five (42%), 84 (13%), and 57 (9%) believed it was possible for most on a BCL2i, BTKi, or CIT to achieve uMRD, respectively (Fig. 3). If patients had evidence of MRD at the end of treatment, 365 (58%) would request frequent monitoring but would make no immediate treatment decisions based on MRD status, 279 (44%) were unsure, and only 88 (14%) would want further treatment immediately. Conclusions: The results from this patient-based study reveal a high awareness of FD therapies and MRD testing, as well as a clear preference for FD among internet-active patients and caregivers. However, there are gaps in the knowledge base, thus significant educational opportunities. Limitations included the opt-in sample where the survey results may not be projectable to the total CLL population. Moreover, the survey was not designed to assess preferences if either FD or continuous therapy offered improved outcomes. Nonetheless, as the potential role of MRD and FD therapy grows in CLL it will be incumbent on clinicians to ensure patients are well informed and engaged to help them better share therapeutic decisions. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Koffman: AbbVie: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Beigene: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Bristol Myer Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Honoraria; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; TG Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Regeneron: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Miragen Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Portola Pharma: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI Pharma: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Merck: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Stewart: Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Novartis: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Pacific Biosciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Danilov: Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Rigel Pharm: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers-Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; SecuraBio: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Davids: BeiGene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Surface Oncology: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Furman: Beigene: Consultancy; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; X4 Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncotracker: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expert testimony; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Jain: Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; Beigene: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Cellectis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Honoraria, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea Therapeutics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Kay: Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Targeted Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; CytomX Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lamanna: Juno Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; MingSight Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics, Inc: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Consultancy. Mato: MSKCC: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; Nurix: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ujjani: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Atara Bio: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; ACDT: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Loxo: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Pagel: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Incyte/MorphoSys: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy.

Abstract Background It is unclear how acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-directed therapies are used in children with life-threatening COVID-19 in US hospitals. We described characteristics of children hospitalized in the intensive care unit or step-down unit (ICU/SDU) who received COVID-19-directed therapies and the specific therapies administered. Methods Between March 15, 2020 and December 27, 2020, children <18 years of age in the ICU/SDU with acute COVID-19 at 48 pediatric hospitals in the United States were identified. Demographics, laboratory values, and clinical course were compared in children who did and did not receive COVID-19-directed therapies. Trends in COVID-19-directed therapies over time were evaluated. Results Of 424 children in the ICU/SDU, 235 (55%) received COVID-19-directed therapies. Children who received COVID-19-directed therapies were older than those who did not receive COVID-19-directed therapies (13.3 [5.6-16.2] vs 9.8 [0.65-15.9] years), more had underlying medical conditions (188 [80%] vs 104 [55%]; difference = 25% [95% CI: 16% to 34%]), more received respiratory support (206 [88%] vs 71 [38%]; difference = 50% [95% CI: 34% to 56%]), and more died (8 [3.4%] vs 0). Of the 235 children receiving COVID-19-directed therapies, 172 (73%) received systemic steroids and 150 (64%) received remdesivir, with rising remdesivir use over the study period (14% in March/April to 57% November/December). Conclusion Despite the lack of pediatric data evaluating treatments for COVID-19 in critically ill children, more than half of children requiring intensive or high acuity care received COVID-19-directed therapies.

Abstract The management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has undergone unprecedented changes over the last decade. Modern targeted therapies are incorporated into clinical practice. Unfortunately, patients have begun to develop resistance or intolerance to multiple classes. Symptomatic patients previously treated with a BTK inhibitor (BTKi) and venetoclax represent a new and rapidly growing unmet need in CLL. Here, we define unmet needs in a modern treatment context. We also critically review the literature for PI3K inhibitors and chemoimmunotherapy and lack of data to support their utility following BTKis and venetoclax. Finally, we suggest opportunities to ensure the continued innovation for patients with CLL.

Summary: Surgical disease is now among the most common, preventable, and growing contributors to the global burden of disease. The attitudes of trainees toward global surgery and the viability of a global surgery as an academic track have blossomed. More optimized experiences within residency education are necessary, however, to prepare the next generation of global surgeons. The field of plastic surgery is thus at an important crossroads in the effort to incorporate global surgery into training programs in a uniform fashion across the country. The recent American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons meeting in February 2020 was dedicated to identifying strategies that will enhance the adoption of global surgery practices within plastic surgery. In this article, we discuss the principles, themes, and ideas that emerged from this session, and further develop concrete initiatives believed to be potentially fruitful. Some have been discussed in other surgical disciplines or presented in isolation to the plastic surgery community, but never as a cohesive set of recommendations that take into account the background and shortfalls of the current model for global health education in the 21st century. We then introduce five recommendations to optimize learner education: (1) clarification of learner expectations and roles; (2) domestic teaching for optimization of field experiences; (3) expansion of longitudinal, formal rotations; (4) strengthening of the role of research; and (5) integration of program financing.