Citations

Clear

10 citation(s) found for "Vauthey, JN".

Biliary Tract Cancers, Version 2.2025, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines In Oncology
Benson, Al B. , D’Angelica, Michael I. , Ahmed, Aijaz, Akce, Mehmet , Anaya, Daniel A. , Are, Chandrakanth , Aye, Lydia, Baker, Marshall S., Binder, David C. , Burgoyne, Adam M. , Castellanos, Jason , Cloyd, Jordan M. , Franses, Joseph W. , Harris, William P., Iyer, Renuka , Jennings, Lawrence J. , Kelley, Robin Kate , Khan, Sajid , Palta, Manisha , Sahai, Vaibhav , Stein, Stacey , Stephans, Kevin L. , Thanikachalam, Kannan , Yano, Motoyo , Yopp, Adam C. , Zhao, Ken, Schonfeld, Ryan, Hochstetler, Cindy, Sahai, Vaibhav , Abrams, Thomas A. , Anders, Robert A. , Bachini, Melinda , Brown, Daniel B. , Cullinan, Darren R. , Glazer, Evan S. , Levine, Matthew H , Melstrom, Laleh , Raman, Steven S. , Ronnekleiv-Kelly, Sean M , Turk, Anita , Vauthey, Jean‐Nicolas , Venook, Alan P. , Zhao, Ken

Mayo Clinic

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | September 10, 2025 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 403-418

10.6004/jnccn.2025.0042 | PMID 40930144 Get It

The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers (BTCs) provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts is convened at least once annually to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. This manuscript focuses on the adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiation treatment options for BTCs as well as the systemic treatment recommendations for patients with advanced BTCs.
NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Biliary Tract Cancers, Version 2.2023
Benson, Al B. , D’Angelica, Michael I. , Abbott, Daniel E. , Ahmed, Aijaz, Anaya, Daniel A. , Are, Chandrakanth , Binder, David C. , Bowlus, Christopher L. , Burgoyne, Adam M. , Castellanos, Jason , Chahal, Prabhleen , Cloyd, Jordan M. , Covey, Anne M. , Iyer, Renuka , Jacob, Rojymon , Jennings, Lawrence J. , Kelley, Robin Kate , Kim, Robin D. , Palta, Manisha , Park, James O. , Reddy, Sanjay S. , Sahai, Vaibhav , Singh, Gagandeep , Stein, Stacey , Yopp, Adam C. , McMillian, Nicole R., Schonfeld, Ryan, Hochstetler, Cindy, Bowlus, Christopher L , Sahai, Vaibhav , Abrams, Thomas A. , Anders, Robert A. , Bachini, Melinda , Borad, Mitesh J. , Brown, Daniel B. , Glazer, Evan S. , Hawkins, William G , Levine, Matthew H , Raman, Steven S. , Ronnekleiv-Kelly, Sean M , Turk, Anita , Vauthey, Jean‐Nicolas , Venook, Alan P.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | July 11, 2023 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 694-704

10.6004/jnccn.2023.0035 | PMID 37433432 Get It

In 2023, the NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers were divided into 2 separate guidelines: Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Biliary Tract Cancers. The NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers provide recommendations for the evaluation and comprehensive care of patients with gallbladder cancer, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The multidisciplinary panel of experts meets at least on an annual basis to review requests from internal and external entities as well as to evaluate new data on current and emerging therapies. These Guidelines Insights focus on some of the recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Biliary Tract Cancers as well as the newly published section on principles of molecular testing.
Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology
Benson, Al B. , D’Angelica, Michael I. , Abbott, Daniel E. , Anaya, Daniel A. , Are, Chandrakanth , Brown, Daniel B. , Burgoyne, Adam M. , Chahal, Prabhleen , Chang, Daniel T. , Cloyd, Jordan M. , Covey, Anne M. , Iyer, Renuka , Jacob, Rojymon, Kelley, Robin Kate , Kim, Robin D. , Palta, Manisha , Park, James O. , Reddy, Sanjay S. , Sahai, Vaibhav , Schefter, Tracey E., Singh, Gagandeep , Stein, Stacey , Yopp, Adam C. , McMillian, Nicole R., Hochstetler, Cindy, Darlow, Susan, Sahai, Vaibhav , Anders, Robert A. , Bachini, Melinda , Borad, Mitesh J. , Glazer, Evan S. , Goyal, Lipika , Hawkins, William G , Levine, Matthew H , Raman, Steven S. , Vauthey, Jean‐Nicolas , Venook, Alan P.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | November 26, 2021 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 541-565

10.6004/jnccn.2021.0022 | PMID 34030131 Get It

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.
International Delphi Expert Consensus on Safe Return to Surgical and Endoscopic Practice
Asbun, Horacio J. , Hilal, Mohammad Abu , Kunzler, F. , Asbun, Domenech , Bonjer, Jaap, Conlon, Kevin, Feldman, LS, Morales‐Conde, Salvador , Pietrabissa, Andrea , Schlachta, Christopher M. , Sylla, Patricia , Targarona, Eduardo M. , Agra, Yolanda, Callery, Mark P., Cleary, SP, ́Cruz, Len D, Eckert, Philippe, Evans, Chad, Hs, Han, Jones, DB, Gan, TJ, Koch, Daniel, Lillemoe, K. D., Lomanto, D, Marks, Jeffrey, Matthews, Brent, Mellinger, John, Melvin, WS, Moreno-Paquentin, E, Navarrete, Claudio , Pawlik, TM, Pessaux, Patrick , Schwaitzberg, Steven D. , Shah, Paresh, Szokol, Joseph W., Talamini, Mark A., Torres, Rosa Del Pilar Uriarte , Triboldi, Alessandro, Udomsawaengsup, Suthep , Valsecchi, Federica, Vauthey, JN, Wallace, Michael, Sd, Wexner, Zinner, Michael J. , Wallace, Michael B. , Wexner, Steven D. , Cleary, Sean P. , Wallace, Michael B , Wexner, Steven D , Morales-Conde, Salvador , Bonjer, Hendrik Jaap , Conlon, Kevin, Demartines, Nicolas , Feldman, Liane S. , Pryor, Aurora Dawn , Agra, Yolanda, Besselink, Marc G , Eckert, Philippe, Evans, Chad, Jones, Daniel B, Gan, Tong J. , Koch, Daniel, Marks, Jeffrey, Matthews, Brent, Mellinger, John, Melvin, William Scott , Moreno-Paquentín, Eduardo, Pawlik, Timothy M , Ricciardi, Walter , Shah, Paresh, Torres, Ricardo, Wallace, Michael, Francis, Nader Kamal

Mayo Clinic

Annals of Surgery | December 31, 2020 | Volume: 274 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 50-56

10.1097/sla.0000000000004674 | PMID 33630471 Get It

Objective: The aim of this work is to formulate recommendations based on global expert consensus to guide the surgical community on the safe resumption of surgical and endoscopic activities. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused marked disruptions in the delivery of surgical care worldwide. A thoughtful, structured approach to resuming surgical services is necessary as the impact of COVID-19 becomes better controlled. The Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative sought to formulate, through rigorous scientific methodology, consensus-based recommendations in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of international experts and policymakers. Methods: Recommendations were developed following a Delphi process. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of surgical care in the COVID-19 crisis. Forty-four experts from 15 countries across 4 continents drafted statements based on the specific questions. Anonymous Delphi voting on the statements was performed in 2 rounds, as well as in a telepresence meeting. Results: One hundred statements were formulated across 10 domains. The statements addressed terminology, impact on procedural services, patient/staff safety, managing a backlog of surgeries, methods to restart and sustain surgical services, education, and research. Eighty-three of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting, and 11 during the second round. A final telepresence meeting and discussion yielded acceptance of 5 other statements. Conclusions: The Delphi process resulted in 99 recommendations. These consensus statements provide expert guidance, based on scientific methodology, for the safe resumption of surgical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Guidelines Insights: Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2019
Benson, Al B. , D’Angelica, Michael I., Abbott, Daniel E. , Anaya, Daniel A. , Are, Chandrakanth , Brown, Daniel B. , Cloyd, Jordan M. , Covey, Anne M. , Iyer, Renuka , Jacob, Rojymon , Karachristos, Andreas , Kelley, Robin Kate , Kim, Robin D. , Palta, Manisha , Park, James O. , Sahai, Vaibhav , Schefter, Tracey E., Singh, Gagandeep , Sohal, Davendra , Stein, Stacey , Tian, Guo , Hammond, Lydia J., Darlow, Susan, Abrams, Thomas A. , Alberts, Steven R. , Anders, Robert A. , Chang, Daniel T. , Hawkins, William G , Sicklick, Jason Keith , Tian, G. Gary, Vauthey, Jean‐Nicolas , Venook, Alan P. , Sahai, Vaibhav

Mayo Clinic

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | April 8, 2019 | Volume: 17 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 302-310

10.6004/jnccn.2019.0019 | PMID 30959462 Get It

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the liver, gallbladder, and bile ducts. The NCCN Hepatobiliary Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s discussion and updated recommendations regarding systemic therapy for first-line and subsequent-line treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Variations in DNA repair genomic alterations and tumor mutation burden in biliary tract cancer (BTC) subtypes.
Ali, Siraj M. , Shroff, Rachna T. , Kwong, Lawrence N. , Vauthey, Jean‐Nicolas, Zuo, Mingxin, Rashid, Asif , Schrock, Alexa B. , Javle, Milind , Abdel‐Wahab, Reham , Borad, Mitesh J. , Koay, Eugene J. , Ross, Jeffrey S , Bekaii‐Saab, Tanios

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | January 2, 2019 | Volume: 36 | Issue: 4_suppl | Pages: 263-263

10.1200/jco.2018.36.4_suppl.263 Get It

263 Background: DNA repair genomic alterations (GAs) have been identified in 12% of Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCCA), 26% of extrahepatic CCA (EHCCA) and 8% of gallbladder cancer (GBC) patients (pts) ( Cancer 2016;122:3838–3847). Recently, the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) has described more than 20 mutated DNA repair genes, many of which were not previously represented in prior reports. DNA repair GAs including MSI are associated with higher tumor mutational burden (TMB). Our study aim is to identify variations in the frequency of DNA repair GAs in IHCCA, EHCCA, and GBC. Methods: Hybrid capture-based next-generation sequencing of 422 fixed formalin paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks of BTC including; 270 IHCCA, 60 EHCCA, and 92 GBC was performed. We included 20 DNA repair genes and classified them as "direct" DNA repair genes ( ATM, ATR, BRCA1, BRCA2, FANCA, FANCD2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, POLD1, POLE, PRKDC, RAD50, SLX4) and "caretaker" genes that induce genomic instability ( BAP1, CDK12, MLL3, TP53, BLM). We calculated TMB on 1.1 Mb of sequenced DNA in 205 tissue specimens [138 IHCCA, 23 EHCCA, and 44 GBC] and classified into three groups; high (TMB-H; ≥ 20 mut/Mb), intermediate (TMB-I; 6-19mut/Mb) and low (TMB-L; < 6mut/Mb). Results: A distinct pattern of DNA repair GAs in each tumor type was detected. (Table 1). DNA repair GAs were more commonly noted in both EHCCA and GB (63%) as compared with IHCAA (45.2%) (p= .002). Direct DNA repair GAs were highest within EHCCA (25%), while indirect DNA GAs were predominant in GBC (59.8%) (p= 0.04 and 0.001, respectively). The frequency of TMB-H and TMB-I differed significantly between BTC subtypes. Pts with EHCCA and GBC had significantly higher TMB-H and TMB-I versus IHCCA. Conclusions: The frequency of DNA repair GA’s is higher in EHCCA and GBC as compared with IHCCA. These results may have implications for clinical trials with DNA repair inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockers. [Table: see text]
Simplified Staging for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Lauwers, Gregory Y. , Esnaola, Nestor F., Do, Kim‐Anh, Belghiti, Jacques, Mirza, Nadeem Q., Curley, Steven A. , Ellis, Lee M. , Régimbeau, Jean‐Marc, Rashid, Asif , Cleary, Karen R., Nagorney, David M. , Vauthey, Jean‐Nicolas

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | February 24, 2017 | Volume: 20 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 1527-1536

10.1200/jco.2002.20.6.1527 | PMID 11896101 Get It

PURPOSE: The current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) fails to stratify patients adequately with respect to prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The ability of the currently proposed tumor (T) categories to effectively stratify the survival of 557 patients who underwent complete resection for HCC at four centers was examined. Independent predictors of survival were combined into a new staging system. RESULTS: Using the current AJCC T classification, patients with T1 and T2 tumors had similar 5-year survivals (P = .6). In addition, the survival of patients with multiple bilobar tumors (T4) matched that of T3 patients (P = .5). Independent predictors of death were major vascular invasion (P < .001), microvascular invasion (P = .001), severe fibrosis/cirrhosis of the host liver (P = .001), multiple tumors (P = .007), and tumor size greater than 5 cm (P = .01). Based on our results, a simplified stratification is proposed: (a) patients with a single tumor and no microvascular invasion, (b) patients with a single tumor and microvascular invasion or multiple tumors, none more than 5 cm, and (c) patients with either multiple tumors, any more than 5 cm, or tumor with major vascular invasion (P < .001). Severe fibrosis/cirrhosis had a negative impact on survival within all categories. The survival of patients with lymph node involvement matched that of patients with major vascular invasion (P = .3). CONCLUSION: The current AJCC staging system for HCC is unnecessarily complex. We propose a simplified model of stratification that is based on vascular invasion, tumor number, and tumor size and incorporates the effect of fibrosis on survival.
Improved Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Is Associated With Adoption of Hepatic Resection and Improved Chemotherapy
Kopetz, Scott , Chang, George J. , Overman, Michael J. , Eng, Cathy , Sargent, Daniel J. , Nagorney, David M. , Larson, David W. , Grothey, Axel , Vauthey, Jean‐Nicolas , McWilliams, Robert R. , Sargent, Daniel J , Kopetz, Scott , Eng, Cathy

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | May 27, 2009 | Volume: 27 | Issue: 22 | Pages: 3677-3683

10.1200/jco.2008.20.5278 | PMID 19470929 Get It

Purpose Fluorouracil/leucovorin as the sole therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) provides an overall survival of 8 to 12 months. With an increase in surgical resections of metastatic disease and development of new chemotherapies, indirect evidence suggests that outcomes for patients are improving in the general population, although the incremental gain has not yet been quantified. Methods We performed a retrospective review of patients newly diagnosed with metastatic CRC treated at two academic centers from 1990 through 2006. Landmark analysis evaluated the association of diagnosis year and liver resection with overall survival. Additional survival analysis of the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database evaluated a similar population from 1990 through 2005. Results Two thousand four hundred seventy patients with metastatic CRC at diagnosis received their primary treatment at the two institutions during this time period. Median overall survival for those patients diagnosed from 1990 to 1997 was 14.2 months, which increased to 18.0, 18.6, and 29.3 months for patients diagnosed in 1998 to 2000, 2001 to 2003, and 2004 to 2006, respectively. Likewise, 5-year overall survival increased from 9.1% in the earliest time period to 19.2% in 2001 to 2003. Improved outcomes from 1998 to 2004 were a result of an increase in hepatic resection, which was performed in 20% of the patients. Improvements from 2004 to 2006 were temporally associated with increased utilization of new chemotherapeutics. In the SEER registry, overall survival for the 49,459 identified patients also increased in the most recent time period. Conclusion Profound improvements in outcome in metastatic CRC seem to be associated with the sequential increase in the use of hepatic resection in selected patients (1998 to 2006) and advancements in medical therapy (2004 to 2006).
OncoSurge: A Strategy for Improving Resectability With Curative Intent in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Poston, Graeme J., Curley, Steven A. , Figueras, Juan, Haller, Daniel G. , Kunstlinger, F, Mentha, Gilles, Nordlinger, Bernard, Patt, Yehuda Z., Primrose, John , Rougier, Philippe, Ruers, Theo, Valls, Carlos, Vauthey, Nick Jean-Nicolas, Cornelis, Marleen, Kahan, James P., Adam, René , Alberts, Steven R. , Roh, Mark S. , Schmoll, Hans‐Joachim

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | September 28, 2005 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 28 | Pages: 7125-7134

10.1200/jco.2005.08.722 | PMID 16192596 Get It

Purpose Most patients with colorectal liver metastases present to general surgeons and oncologists without a specialist interest in their management. Since treatment strategy is frequently dependent on the response to earlier treatments, our aim was to create a therapeutic decision model identifying appropriate procedure sequences. Methods We used the RAND Corporation/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method (RAM) assessing strategies of resection, local ablation and chemotherapy. After a comprehensive literature review, an expert panel rated appropriateness of each treatment option for a total of 1,872 ratings decisions in 252 cases. A decision model was constructed, consensus measured and results validated using 48 virtual cases, and 34 real cases with known outcomes. Results Consensus was achieved with overall agreement rates of 93.4 to 99.1%. Absolute resection contraindications included unresectable extrahepatic disease, more than 70% liver involvement, liver failure, and being surgically unfit. Factors not influencing treatment strategy were age, primary tumor stage, timing of metastases detection, past blood transfusion, liver resection type, pre-resection carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and previous hepatectomy. Immediate resection was appropriate with adequate radiologically-defined resection margins and no portal adenopathy; other factors included presence of ≤ 4 or > 4 metastases and unilobar or bilobar involvement. Resection was appropriate postchemotherapy, independent of tumor response in the case of ≤ 4 metastases and unilobar liver involvement. Resection was appropriate only for > 4 metastases or bilobar liver involvement, after tumor shrinkage with chemotherapy. When possible, resection was preferred to local ablation. Conclusion The results were incorporated into a decision matrix, creating a computer program (OncoSurge). This model identifies individual patient resectability, recommending optimal treatment strategies. It may also be used for medical education.
Critical evaluation of the different staging systems for hepatocellular carcinoma (Br J Surg 2004; 91: 400-408)
Pawlik, Timothy M. , Lauwers, Gregory Y. , Nagorney, David M. , Curley, Steven A. , Poon, Ronnie T.P., Belghiti, Jacques, Greene, Frederick L. , Henderson, J. Michael, Vauthey, Jean‐Nicolas , Roh, Mark S.

Mayo Clinic

British Journal of Surgery | July 27, 2004 | Volume: 91 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 1072-1072

10.1002/bjs.4782 | PMID 15286973 Get It

Abstract The Editors welcome topical correspondence from readers relating to articles published in the Journal. Responses can be sent electronically via the BJS website (www.bjs.co.uk) or by post. All letters will be reviewed and, if approved, appear on the website. A selection of these will be edited and published in the Journal. Letters must be no more than 250 words in length. Letters submitted by post should be typed on A4-sized paper in double spacing and should be accompanied by a disk.