Citations

Abstract Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence‐based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real‐world data.

Abstract BACKGROUND Prior comparisons of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) treated using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with or without embolization were inherently flawed, due to differences in the pretreatment nidus volumes. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of embolization and SRS, vs SRS alone for AVMs using pre-embolization malformation features. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed International Radiosurgery Research Foundation AVM databases from 1987 to 2018. Patients were categorized into the embolization and SRS (E + SRS) or SRS alone (SRS-only) cohorts. The 2 cohorts were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Primary outcome was defined as AVM obliteration. Secondary outcomes were post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, radiologic and symptomatic radiation-induced changes (RIC), and cyst formation. RESULTS The matched cohorts each comprised 101 patients. Crude AVM obliteration rates were similar between the matched E + SRS vs SRS-only cohorts (48.5% vs 54.5%; odds ratio = 0.788, P = .399). Cumulative probabilities of obliteration at 3, 4, 5, and 6 yr were also similar between the E + SRS (33.0%, 46.4%, 56.2%, and 60.8%, respectively) and SRS-only (32.9%, 46.2%, 56.0%, and 60.6%, respectively) cohorts (subhazard ratio (SHR) = 1.005, P = .981). Cumulative probabilities of radiologic RIC at 3, 4, 5, and 6 yr were lower in the E + SRS (25.0%, 25.7%, 26.7%, and 26.7%, respectively) vs SRS-only (45.3%, 46.2%, 47.8%, and 47.8%, respectively) cohort (SHR = 0.478, P = .004). Symptomatic and asymptomatic embolization-related complication rates were 8.3% and 18.6%, respectively. Rates of post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, symptomatic RIC, and cyst formation were similar between the matched cohorts. CONCLUSION This study refutes the prevalent notion that AVM embolization negatively affects the likelihood of obliteration after SRS.

Abstract BACKGROUND Embolization of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) using ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (Onyx) embolization may influence the treatment effects of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) differently than other embolysates. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of pre-SRS AVM embolization with vs without Onyx through a multicenter, retrospective matched cohort study. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed International Radiosurgery Research Foundation AVM databases from 1987 to 2018. Embolized AVMs treated with SRS were selected and categorized based on embolysate usage into Onyx embolization (OE + SRS) or non-Onyx embolization (NOE + SRS) cohorts. The 2 cohorts were matched in a 1:1 ratio using de novo AVM features for comparative analysis of outcomes. RESULTS The matched cohorts each comprised 45 patients. Crude AVM obliteration rates were similar between the matched OE + SRS vs NOE + SRS cohorts (47% vs 51%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.837, P = .673). Cumulative probabilities of obliteration were also similar between the OE + SRS vs NOE + SRS cohorts (subhazard ratio = 0.992, P = .980). Rates of post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, radiation-induced changes, cyst formation, and embolization-associated complications were similar between the matched cohorts. Sensitivity analysis for AVMs in the OE + SRS cohort embolized with Onyx alone revealed a higher rate of asymptomatic embolization-associated complications in this subgroup compared to the NOE + SRS cohort (36% vs 15%; OR = 3.297, P = .034), but the symptomatic complication rates were similar. CONCLUSION Nidal embolization using Onyx does not appear to differentially impact the outcomes of AVM SRS compared with non-Onyx embolysates. The embolic agent selected for pre-SRS AVM embolization should reflect both the experience of the neurointerventionalist and target of endovascular intervention.

Abstract There is strong evidence that cigarette smoking causes adverse outcomes in people with cancer. However, more research is needed regarding those effects and the effects of alternative tobacco products and of secondhand smoke, the effects of cessation (before diagnosis, during treatment, or during survivorship), the biologic mechanisms, and optimal strategies for tobacco dependence treatment in oncology. Fundamentally, tobacco is an important source of variation in clinical treatment trials. Nevertheless, tobacco use assessment has not been uniform in clinical trials. Progress has been impeded by a lack of consensus regarding tobacco use assessment suitable for cancer patients. The NCI-AACR Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Assessment Task Force identified priority research areas and developed recommendations for assessment items and timing of assessment in cancer research. A cognitive interview study was conducted with 30 cancer patients at the NIH Clinical Center to evaluate and improve the measurement items. The resulting Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) includes “Core” items for minimal assessment of tobacco use at initial and follow-up time points, and an “Extension” set. Domains include the following: cigarette and other tobacco use status, intensity, and past use; use relative to cancer diagnosis and treatment; cessation approaches and history; and secondhand smoke exposure. The Task Force recommends that assessment occur at study entry and, at a minimum, at the end of protocol therapy in clinical trials. Broad adoption of the recommended measures and timing protocol, and pursuit of the recommended research priorities, will help us to achieve a clearer understanding of the significance of tobacco use and cessation for cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res; 22(8); 1907–13. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate oncologists' preferences for methods to increase delivery of tobacco cessation support to cancer patients. Methods: An email list of 6844 physicians at NCI Designated Cancer Centers was generated using publically available online resources. An online survey was conducted in the fall of 2013 to assess tobacco assessment and cessation practices by physicians, barriers to providing cessation support, and methods to improve access to cessation services for cancer patients. Results of this survey are compared to similar survey findings by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). Results: Of 6844 electronically delivered survey invitations, we received 887 responses (13%). Consistent with previously published ASCO and IASLC surveys, 90% of physicians agreed that tobacco use by patients affects cancer treatment outcomes (vs. 87-92% in ASCO/IASLC), 90% of respondents reported that they ask patients about their tobacco use (vs. 90% in ASCO/IASLC), and 83% routinely advise tobacco users to quit (vs. 80-82% in ASCO/IASLC). However, only 37% of respondents regularly discussed medications, and 35% actively treated patients (vs. 39-44% in ASCO/IASLC). Most (71%) responding oncologists preferred cessation support be provided at the initial patient consult, and few (11%) were concerned about the use of tobacco cessation medications. Lack of time and lack of available resources were the dominant barriers to the administration of tobacco cessation support to cancer patients by oncologists. Only 10% of oncologists believed they were adequately trained to counsel patients on smoking cessation, but 55% reported that training for someone else in their clinic would increase tobacco cessation support. When asked what provider they prefer to administer cessation support to cancer patients, 16% reported a primary care physician, 18% reported a mid-level (nurse practitioner or physician assistant), 50% reported any other clinical staff, and only 1% preferred to personally provide cessation support. Whereas most (58%) oncologists preferred to have dedicated cessation services within their institution, 38% reported they would use dedicated services either within, or outside their institution. Conclusions: Most oncologists at NCI Designated Cancer Centers recognize the importance of tobacco cessation, but prefer to have tobacco cessation support for cancer patients provided by another trained professional. Citation Format: Alix Pommerenke, Anthony Alberg, Thomas H. Brandon, Ivana Croghan, Michael K. Cummings, Carolyn Dresler, Ellen R. Gritz, Roy Herbst, Scott Leischow, James R. Marshall, Benjamin Toll, Graham Warren. Physician preferences in tobacco cessation support for cancer patients: A survey of physicians at National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Centers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 5049. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-5049

Reducing the incidence and mortality rates for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remains a significant clinical challenge with poor 5‐year survival rates. A unique tissue cohort was assembled of matched ccRCC and distal nontumor tissues (n = 20) associated with moderate risk of disease progression, half of these from individuals who progressed to metastatic disease and the other half who remained disease free. These tissues were used for MALDI imaging MS profiling of proteins in the 2–20 kDa range, resulting in a panel of 108 proteins that had potential disease‐specific expression patterns. Protein lysates from the same tissues were analyzed by MS/MS, resulting in identification of 56 proteins of less than 20 kDa molecular weight. The same tissues were also used for global lipid profiling analysis by MALDI‐FT‐ICR MS. From the cumulative protein and lipid expression profile data, a refined panel of 26 proteins and 39 lipid species was identified that could either distinguish tumor from nontumor tissues, or tissues from recurrent disease progressors from nonrecurrent disease individuals. This approach has the potential to not only improve prognostic assessment and enhance postoperative surveillance, but also to inform on the underlying biology of ccRCC progression.