Citations

Showing 10 of 108081 citations.

Exosomal microRNA as prognostic biomarkers in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Yuan, Tiezheng , Costello, Brian A. , Tan, Winston , Nandy, Debashis, Longenbach, Sherri, Kohli, Manish , Huang, Xiaoyi , Sun, Zhifu , Quevedo, Fernando , Wang, Liang

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 260-260

10.1200/jco.2014.32.4_suppl.260 Get It

260 Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate cell free nucleic acid based biomarkers for prognosis in mCRPC stage. Methods: Uniformly collected blood from mCRPC patients was processed for plasma which was used for exosomal RNA extraction. RNA sequencing was applied to examine microRNA (miRNA) profiles initially in a discovery cohort of 23 mCRPC patients. The sequences from fastq files were mapped to human miRBase (release 19) for known miRNA read counts. A software package (miRDeep2) was used for novel miRNA prediction. Cox regression was used for association of candidate miRNAs with overall survival (OS), defined as time from development of mCRPC to death or last follow up after adjusting for Gleason Score (GS) and time on androgen deprivation (AD) for hormone sensitive disease. miRNAs significantly associated with OS (FDR<0.05) were then validated in an independent cohort of 100 mCRPC subjects using univariate Cox regression. Results: RNA sequencing generated >10 million mappable reads per specimen in the discovery cohort. Among these reads ~50% were known miRNAs which included 1237 unique RNA sequences. Due to low abundance of most RNA transcripts, only miRNAs (n=250) with >/= 32 reads (on average) were analyzed. Four mRNAs (miR-1290, -1246, -375 and a predicted miRNA on chr. 12) were associated with OS(FDR<0.05). These were evaluated as prognotic markers in the independent cohort (N=100) using real time RT-PCR. Median time on AD for this cohort prior to progression to mCRPC was 35.7 (range: 3.5-136) months; median GS was 7; median follow up after mCRPC development was 12.5 (1-41) months at which time 28 patients had died. Elevated expression for miR-1290 and -375 were associated with shorter OS after adjusting for GS and AD time with a Hazard Ratio (HR) for miR-375 of 1.19 (CI: 1.006-1.18); (p=0.04) and a HR for miR1290 of 1.58 (CI:1.01-2.4); (p=0.04). A stronger association with shorter OS was observed for elevated expression of both miRs-HR of 2.02 (CI: 1.1-3.6) (p=0.01). Conclusions: Blood-based nucleic acid assays are easily accessible for biomarker development in mCRPC. Results from this study suggest specific exosomal miRs are of prognostic value in mCRPC and should be validated in larger cohorts.
A multicenter phase I study of cabazitaxel (Cbz), mitoxantrone (Mito), and prednisone (Pred) (CAMP) for chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Aggarwal, Rahul , Weinberg, Vivian, Ryan, Charles J. , Harzstark, Andrea, Derleth, Christina Louise, Lowe, Kimberly A. , Bryce, Alan H. , Small, Eric J.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 243-243

10.1200/jco.2014.32.4_suppl.243 Get It

243 Background: Cbz/pred extends survival in mCRPC patients (pts) following docetaxel and first-line studies comparing Cbz to docetaxel are ongoing. Mito/pred also has anti-tumor activity in mCRPC and a non-overlapping mechanism of action and toxicity profile with Cbz. A multicenter phase I trial was initiated through the DOD PCCTC to establish the maximally tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination of Cbz, Mito, and Pred. Methods: Chemotherapy (chemo)-naive pts with mCRPC were enrolled in an accelerated titration design. The primary objective was to determine the MTD of CAMP; secondary objectives included assessing PSA and objective response rates and duration of response. Starting dose of Cbz was 25 mg/m2 (the currently approved single-agent dose) and Mito 4 mg/m2, administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Mito was escalated by 2 mg/m2 per dose level. Pred 5 mg BID and pegfilgrastim were administered with each cycle. Results: 9 pts were enrolled (dose level I, N = 1; dose level II, N = 1; dose level III, N = 3; dose level IV N = 4). The median age was 67 (range 55-81) and the median baseline PSA was 82.3 (range 20.4-791.2). There were 2 DLTs observed at dose level IV (Cbz 25 mg/m2 + mito 10 mg/m2), both grade 4 sepsis. The most common grade 3 adverse events were hematologic (neutropenia, n = 5; febrile neutropenia, n = 2, thrombocytopenia, n = 2). 6 of 9 pts remain on study (range 2.2 - 10.5+ months). Maximal PSA declines from baseline > 50% have been observed in 4/7 (57%) evaluable pts to date. 2 of 4 pts with measurable disease have experienced partial responses and a third has had a minor response after 4 cycles of chemo. The median progression-free survival and duration of response have not been reached. Conclusions: The approved single-agent dosage of Mito (12 mg/m2) could not be safely reached in combination with Cbz 25 mg/m2. Pre-planned evaluation of an alternate dosing strategy combining Mito with Cbz 20 mg/m2, which has demonstrated activity in mCRPC and potentially less hematologic toxicity, is underway. Preliminary efficacy data are encouraging but additional follow-up and further study of the treatment combination is required. Clinical trial information: NCT01594918.
Results of subset analyses on overall survival (OS) from study CA184-043: Ipilimumab (Ipi) versus placebo (Pbo) in post-docetaxel metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).
Drake, Charles G. , Kwon, Eugene D., Fizazi, Karim , Bossi, Alberto , Eertwegh, Alfons J. van den, Scher, Howard I. , McHenry, Brent, Gerritsen, Winald R., Logothetis, Christopher J. , Beer, Tomasz M. , Liu, David M.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 2-2

10.1200/jco.2014.32.4_suppl.2 Get It

2 Background: The CA184-043 phase 3 study did not reach statistical significance for its primary endpoint of OS (HR=0.85, p=0.053). However, antitumor activity was observed in other efficacy endpoints, including progression-free survival. Prespecified subset analyses were performed to understand if any prognostic features may identify mCRPC patients (pts) more likely to benefit from Ipi treatment. Methods: 799 pts were randomized to receive a single dose of radiotherapy (RT) followed by either Ipi (N=399) or Pbo (N=400). Prespecified subset analyses based on Kaplan-Meier/Cox methodology were performed using known prognostic factors for OS in mCRPC. Results: Prespecified subset analyses suggested that Ipi may be more active in pts with favorable prognostic factors, including no visceral disease, alkaline phosphatase <1.5 ULN, and hemoglobin ≥11 g/dL (Table). The safety profile in this study was consistent with previous reports of Ipi. Conclusions: Based on these subset analyses, Ipi added to RT appears to have greater activity than RT alone in pts with a favorable prognostic profile. These results support continued investigation of Ipi in the ongoing CA184-095 study in chemotherapy-naive mCRPC pts. Clinical trial information: NCT00861614. [Table: see text]
Perceptions of radiation oncologists and urologists on the type of evidence that informs and changes the clinical practice of prostate cancer.
Delpe, Sophia, Shah, Nilay D. , Tilburt, Jon C. , Karnes, R. Jeffrey , Shuch, Brian , Gross, Cary P. , Schulam, Peter G., Nguyen, Paul L. , Yu, James B. , Ziegenfuss, Jeanette Y. , Kim, Simon

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 167-167

10.1200/jco.2014.32.4_suppl.167 Get It

167 Background: Physicians have a variety of resources available about the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Yet, it is largely unknown what resources and evidence radiation oncologists and urologists commonly use to inform patients and possibly alter clinical practice. In this national survey study, we assessed the types of resources prostate cancer specialists’ use and the level of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations in localized prostate cancer. Methods: From a random sample, 1,422 physicians were sent a mail survey assessing what type of information was used to guide prostate cancer treatment. The survey also queried what level of evidence could alter recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify for differences in physician characteristics for each outcome. Results: Survey response rates were similar for radiation oncologists and urologists (44% vs. 46%; p=0.46). Specialty-specific journals represented the most commonly used resource to inform the clinical practice for radiation oncologists (65%) and urologists (70%). Relative to radiation oncologists, urologists were less likely to utilize medical journals (25% vs. 38.7%, OR: 0.50; p=0.01), cancer journals (21.7% vs. 50.8%, OR: 0.50; p<0.001), but more likely to rely on clinical guidelines (46.3% vs. 37.7%,OR: 1.6; p=0.006). Radiation oncologists and urologists both viewed RCT’s as the most likely source of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations (85% vs. 77%). Conclusions: Both specialties most commonly rely on their specialty-specific journals to inform their clinical practice and view RCT’s as the level of evidence needed to change treatment recommendations for localized prostate cancer. Radiation oncologists embraced greater diversity in literature, while urologists were more likely to use clinical guidelines. Utilizing this information may overcome barriers to the dissemination and adoption of new treatment paradigms for localized prostate cancer.
The effect of pathologic T-stage and Gleason score on cancer-specific survival in patients with positive surgical margins after surgery for high-risk prostate cancer.
Tosco, Lorenzo , Bastian, Patrick J. , Briganti, Alberto , Karnes, R. Jeffrey , Sanchez‐Salas, Rafael , Spahn, Martin , Poel, Henk G. van der , Joniau, Steven , Poppel, Hendrik Van , Broeck, Thomas Van den , Chun, Felix K.‐H. , Gontero, Paolo , Hsu, Chien‐Yeh , Marchioro, G. , Tombal, Bertrand , Joniau, Steven

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 140-140

10.1200/jco.2014.32.4_suppl.140 Get It

140 Background: High-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) is a challenging disease and the role of surgery is often considered in the context of a multimodal approach but patients with positive section margins (R1) disease have not always the same cancer-specific survival (CSS). The current study aims to analyze current postoperative pathological features in order to predict CSS of HRPC patients with R1, but with negative lymph nodes (pN0), treated with surgery. Methods: From a multi-institutional retrospective cohort of 5,876 HRPC patients treated by radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection, 1541 patients with pN0 and R1 were selected. Following surgery, adjuvant EBRT and/or ADT were delivered according to institutional protocols. Patients were subdivided into four groups according to pT stage (pT≥3 and pT<3) and p-Gleason score (pGS≥8 and pGS<8). Kaplan-Meier plots with log-rank tests and a Cox proportional hazards model were applied to study CSS. All significance levels were set at 0.05. MedCalc was used for all statistical analyses. Results: Median age at surgery was 66 years (42-89). Of all patients, 399 (25.9%) had GS≥8 and 999 (64.8%) had pT≥3 at definitive histopathology. Patients were classified as COMBO groups: C1 (423; 27.4%; GS<8,pT<3), C2 (674; 43.7%; GS<8, pT≥3), C3 (83; 5.4%; GS≥8, pT<3), C4 (362; 23.5%; GS≥8, pT≥3). Adjuvant EBRT and ADT, respectively, were delivered in C1 3%/5%, C2 15%/21%, C3 21%/20%, C4 28%/40%. Kaplan-Meier plots demonstrated statistically different 10-yr CSS between groups: C1 97%, C2 93.8%, C3 85.1% and C4 77.3% (p<0.0001). COMBO groups were also compared using a Cox model and results are shown in the Table. Conclusions: COMBO groups demonstrated to be able to subdivide margin-positive, pN0 HRPC into 4 demarcated groups with significantly different CSS. This subdivision could be considered an easy-to-use tool which can help for counseling patients for adjuvant treatment strategies. [Table: see text]
The effect of pathologic T-stage and Gleason score on cancer-specific survival for specimen-confined high-risk prostate cancer.
Tosco, Lorenzo , Bastian, Patrick J. , Briganti, Alberto , Karnes, R. Jeffrey , Sanchez‐Salas, Rafael , Spahn, Martin , Poel, Henk G. van der , Joniau, Steven , Poppel, Hendrik Van , Broeck, Thomas Van den , Chun, Felix K.‐H. , Gontero, Paolo , Hsu, Chien‐Yeh , Marchioro, G. , Tombal, Bertrand , Joniau, Steven

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 114-114

10.1200/jco.2014.32.4_suppl.114 Get It

114 Background: High-risk prostate cancer (HRPC) is a challenging disease and the role of surgery is often considered in the context of a multimodal approach. The indication for adjuvant therapy after surgery for HRPC patients who have specimen-confined disease (R0, pN0, <pT3b) is still difficult. The current study aims to analyze postoperative pathological features which help to predict CSS in specimen-confined HRPC and thus may aid in the decision to administer adjuvant EBRT or ADT. Methods: From a multi-institutional retrospective cohort of 5876 HRPC patients treated by radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection, 1391 patients with specimen-confined disease were selected. Following surgery, adjuvant EBRT and/or ADT were delivered according to institutional protocols. Patients were subdivided into four groups according to pT stage (pT≥3 and pT<3) and final Gleason score (GS≥8 and GS<8). Kaplan-Meier plots with log-rank tests and a Cox proportional hazards model were applied to study CSS. All significance levels were set at 0.05. MedCalc was used for all statistical analyses. Results: Median age was 65 years (43-84). Of all patients, 346 (24.9%) had GS≥8 and 794 (57.1%) had pT≥3 at definitive histopathology. Patients were classified into COMBO groups: C1 (478; 34.4%; GS<8,pT<3), C2 (567; 40.8%; GS<8, pT≥3), C3 (119; 8.6%; GS≥8, pT<3), C4 (227; 16.3%; GS≥8, pT≥3). Adjuvant EBRT and ADT, respectively, were delivered in C1 2%/2%, C2 15%/22%, C3 3%/10%, C4 18%/25%. Kaplan Meier plots demonstrated statistically different 10-yr CSS between groups: C1 97.4%, C2 95.2%, C3 89.9% and C4 84.4% (p<0.0001). COMBO groups were also compared using a Cox model and results are shown in the Table. Conclusions: COMBO groups demonstrated to be able to subdivide specimen-confined HRPC into 4 demarcated groups with significantly different CSS. This subdivision could be considered an easy-to-use tool which can help for counseling patients for adjuvant treatment strategies. [Table: see text]
Reference standard space hippocampus labels according to the European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium–Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative harmonized protocol: Utility in automated volumetry
Bocchetta, Martina , Preboske, Gregory M., Boccardi, Marina , Grothe, Michel J. , Wolf, Dominik Georg Friedrich , Grothe, Michel J , Bocchetta, Martina

Mayo Clinic

Alzheimer's & Dementia | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 13 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 893-902

10.1016/j.jalz.2017.01.009 | PMID 28238738 Get It

AbstractIntroductionA harmonized protocol (HarP) for manual hippocampal segmentation on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has recently been developed by an international European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium–Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative project. We aimed at providing consensual certified HarP hippocampal labels in Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) standard space to serve as reference in automated image analyses.MethodsManual HarP tracings on the high‐resolution MNI152 standard space template of four expert certified HarP tracers were combined to obtain consensual bilateral hippocampus labels. Utility and validity of these reference labels is demonstrated in a simple atlas‐based morphometry approach for automated calculation of HarP‐compliant hippocampal volumes within SPM software.ResultsIndividual tracings showed very high agreement among the four expert tracers (pairwise Jaccard indices 0.82–0.87). Automatically calculated hippocampal volumes were highly correlated (rL/R = 0.89/0.91) with gold standard volumes in the HarP benchmark data set (N = 135 MRIs), with a mean volume difference of 9% (standard deviation 7%).ConclusionThe consensual HarP hippocampus labels in the MNI152 template can serve as a reference standard for automated image analyses involving MNI standard space normalization.
Discontinuing chronic medications: Perceptions of patients with life-limiting illness.
Kutner, Jean S. , McPherson, Mary Lynn , Sloan, Jeff A. , Abernethy, Amy Pickar, Ritchie, Christine Seel , Furuno, Jon P. , Prince‐Paul, Maryjo , Tjia, Jennifer , Somers, Tamara J. , Blatchford, Patrick Jud

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 31_suppl | Pages: 97-97

10.1200/jco.2014.32.31_suppl.97 Get It

97 Background: Optimal management of chronic medications is uncertain in life-limiting illness. To inform shared decision making, we assessed patient perceptions in a trial on the safety of discontinuing statins in life-limiting illness. Methods: Eligible adults (life expectancy 1–12 months, on statin for ≥ 3 months for primary/secondary prevention, recent functional decline, no active cardiovascular disease) were randomized to discontinue or continue statins and were followed monthly for up to 1 year. Cognitively intact participants were asked 9 questions regarding discontinuing statins prior to randomization. We used Pearson chi-square to compare responses between study groups and between those with and without cancer. Of 381 participants, 297 (78%) were cognitively intact (138 discontinued, 159 continued statins). Mean age was 72 years (SD 11) and mean number of medications used was 11.5 (SD 5.0); 58% (N = 173) had cancer. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in responses to the medication perception questions. Aggregate findings are presented (Table). Patients with cancer were less likely to think that they may be able to stop other medications (28% vs. 42%, p=0.007) and that statin discontinuation means that the doctor is giving up on them (1% vs. 7%, p=0.013). Conclusions: Few participants expressed concerns about discontinuing statins; many perceived potential benefits. Cancer patients may perceive less impact from stopping statins. Clinicians should inquire about patient concerns when engaging in shared decision making about discontinuing chronic medications in the setting of advanced cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT01415934. [Table: see text]
Formation of an international quality improvement collaborative for palliative care: The Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance (GPCQA).
Nicolla, Jonathan, Friedman, Fred , Stinson, Charles S., Patel, Laura, Strand, Jacob J. , Portman, Diane , Thirlwell, Sarah , Groninger, Hunter , Tuch, Howard, Twaddle, Martha , Kennedy, William T. , Kyler, Andy, Matthews, Loretta, Candell, Greg, Baker, Karen , Anwar, Zeba , Abernethy, Amy Pickar, Bull, Janet , Kamal, Arif H. , Swetz, Keith M.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 31_suppl | Pages: 91-91

10.1200/jco.2014.32.31_suppl.91 Get It

91 Background: Formal mechanisms to share data on quality remain immature in specialty palliative care. As the field grows, infrastructure that promotes collaboration among academic and community-based practice will be required to foster comparisons and benchmarking of data to inform areas for quality improvement. Further, such relationships will create a palliative care “quality improvement laboratory”, where proposed guidelines and best practices can be developed, implemented, and tested. Methods: We set out to bring together specialty palliative care practices with a shared vision for collaborative quality improvement. We modeled our approach after the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough Series alongside our Rapid Learning Quality Improvement paradigm. We use a set of common data collection procedures, across an electronic point-of-care platform called Quality Data Collection Tool (QDACT), alongside a centralized data registry. Further, we meet and discuss challenges and issues, compare best practices, and brainstorm new projects through biweekly conference calls. Results: We have created a multi-institutional collaboration for quality assessment and improvement in specialty palliative care. Termed the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance, we have brought together 11 academic and community organizations, both general and oncology-specific, across six states to study various areas of quality practice. Short-term, we will conduct rapid-cycling quality improvement projects addressing National Quality Forum domains for quality palliative care, including documentation of spiritual assessment and timely advance care planning. Long-term, we aim to study the link between quality measure adherence and outcomes and further align our initiatives with those of other large consortia, like the Palliative Care Research Cooperative and Palliative Care Quality Network. Conclusions: Collaborative quality improvement is needed in specialty palliative care across a national platform. Developing the infrastructure to perform standardized quality improvement is achievable across multiple palliative care settings.
Characterizing the specialty palliative care workforce in the United States: Results of a national survey.
Bull, Janet , Rogers, Ursula , Abernethy, Amy Pickar, Kamal, Arif H. , Swetz, Keith M. , Kavalieratos, Dio

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 31_suppl | Pages: 90-90

10.1200/jco.2014.32.31_suppl.90 Get It

90 Background: Increasingly, oncology teams and specialty palliative care (PC) clinicians are collaborating in the care of patients with serious or advanced cancer. Because of such partnerships, PC services have grown tremendously, with teams now available in most US cancer centers. Despite increased penetrance of services, little is known about the workforce that delivers this care, including their demographics, training, and future plans. Methods: Members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (e.g. advanced practice provider (APP), registered nurses, chaplains) completed a workforce characteristics survey through electronic invitation in the second half of 2013; respondents were recruited via e-mail, blog and Facebook posts, and Twitter tweets. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: 1,241 clinicians responded, representing approximately a third of those who received the survey; 68% were physicians and 14% were APPs. Most (56%) were older than 50 years of age; 65% were female. Of physicians, 58% were board-certified through the experiential track, while 22% had completed fellowship training. Of clinical responsibilities, about half (48%) split time between consultative PC and hospice; 30% performed PC consultations only. Regarding organization size, 35% work with 1-3 other colleagues; 8% work alone. Regarding tenure, 34% have worked in PC for <5 years; 22% for >10 years. 82% reported they would become a PC clinician again, if asked to revisit their career choice. Of motivations for joining clinical PC, leading reasons were “opportunity for personal growth” and “influential experience during practicing another specialty”. About half (47%) intend to leave the field within 10 years. Of reasons to leave, 49% will retire; 24% may leave due to burnout; and 20% reported dissatisfaction with practice. Conclusions: The specialty PC workforce is diverse and faces sustainability challenges due to advancing physician age, impending retirements, evolving burnout, and dissatisfaction with the profession. If patients are going to have adequate access to services, research and approaches are needed to develop solutions that sustain and grow specialty PC.