cancer network
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

1037
(FIVE YEARS 279)

H-INDEX

52
(FIVE YEARS 6)

BMC Cancer ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Imjai Chitapanarux ◽  
Wimrak Onchan ◽  
Panchaporn Wongmaneerung ◽  
Areewan Somwangprasert ◽  
Nongnuch Bunyoo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Breast cancer incidence in Northern Thailand has shown a continuous increase since records began in 1983. In 2002 the urgency of the situation prompted Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital to initiate the Suandok Breast Cancer Network (SBCN). Methods The SBCN is a not-for-profit organization in the university hospital which serves as a training and education center and provides highly specialized medical care for patients in Chiang Mai and in 5 provinces of northern Thailand, with the key mission of improving breast cancer care. The short-term goal was to overcome the barriers to engagement with breast cancer and its treatment and the long-term goal was to increase the overall survival rate of breast cancer patients in our region. Results We enrolled breast cancer patients treated at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital between January 2006 and December 2015 and divided into 2 cohorts: 1485 patients who were diagnosed from 2006 to 2009 (cohort 1: early implementation of SBCN) and 2383 patients who were diagnosed from 2010 to 2015 (cohort 2: full implementation of SBCN). Criteria to measure improved cancer waiting time (CWT) would include: time to diagnosis, time to surgery, and time to radiotherapy. The 5-year overall survival (OS) of the cohort 2 was higher than that in cohort 1, at 73.8 (72.0–75.5) compared to 71.5 (69.2–73.7) (p-value = 0.03). Conclusions Reasons behind the success of project include the uniformity of care encouragement, service network development and timely access to each step of breast cancer management. The model used in SBCN could be adopted as a learning guide to improve healthcare access and outcome for breast cancer patients in low- to middle-income countries.


2022 ◽  
Vol 164 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Demetra Hufnagel ◽  
Kendall Shultes ◽  
Colleen Morton ◽  
Sarah Osmundson ◽  
Alicia Beeghly-Fadiel ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Marianna Maspero ◽  
Carlo Sposito ◽  
Antonio Benedetti ◽  
Matteo Virdis ◽  
Maria Di Bartolomeo ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose No consensus exists on the resection extent needed to ensure oncological safety in gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). This study aims to assess the impact of margin adequacy according to Japanese Gastric Cancer Association (JGCA) guidelines on overall survival (OS). Patients and Methods Patients who underwent surgery for stage I–III GAC at our institution between 2010 and 2017 were included. Margin adequacy according to JGCA, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines was assessed, and their predictive value on OS was evaluated with Harrell’s C-index. Patients were analyzed according to their margins’ adherence to JGCA guidelines, and a propensity score matching (PSM) was run. Indication to either total gastrectomy (TG) or distal gastrectomy (DG) according to each guideline was also assessed. Results A total of 279 patients were included, of whom 220 (79%) underwent DG. Adequate margins according to JGCA were obtained in 209 patients (75%). On multivariate analysis, JGCA margin adequacy was independently associated with OS, together with American Society of Anesthesiologist class, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lymphadenectomy extent, R0 resection, and postoperative N stage. After PSM, patients with JGCA adequate margins showed better OS, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and local RFS than patients with JGCA inadequate margins. For 220 DG, JGCA guidelines would have recommended TG in 25 patients (11%), NCCN in 30 (14%), and ESMO in 90 (41%) (p < 0.001). Conclusion Adequacy of surgical resection margins to JGCA guidelines leads to improved survival outcomes and allows for a more organ-preserving approach than Western guidelines.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan A. Czekalski ◽  
Rachelle C. Huziak ◽  
Andrea L. Durst ◽  
Sarah Taylor ◽  
Phuong L. Mai

PURPOSE With limitations in early detection and poor treatment response, ovarian cancer is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Up to 25% of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is related to a hereditary predisposition. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend that all individuals diagnosed with EOC be offered germline genetic testing. Although this would ideally be performed by genetics professionals, a shortage of genetic counselors can affect timely access to these services. This study sought to investigate the current genetic testing practices of oncology providers to determine the feasibility of oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC. METHODS A survey was distributed to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists with questions regarding timing, frequency, and type of cancer genetic testing, referrals to genetics professionals, confidence with aspects of genetic testing, and any barriers to these processes. RESULTS We received 170 evaluable responses. Eighty-five percent of providers always ordered genetic testing for patients with EOC. Most providers ordered germline multigene panel testing (95.8%), generally at diagnosis (64.5%). Provider confidence with the genetic testing process was generally high and significantly differed by providers' testing practices, namely, respondents who reported always ordering genetic testing tended to be more confident in ordering testing ( P = .008), interpreting results ( P = .005), and counseling a patient ( P = .002). Patient disinterest and concerns for insurance coverage were commonly cited as barriers to testing and referrals. CONCLUSION The findings from this study suggest that oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC, with referrals to genetics professionals when appropriate, has the potential to be a viable alternative service delivery model to increase access to genetic testing for patients diagnosed with EOC.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 183
Author(s):  
Alessandra Gallo ◽  
Ursula Catena ◽  
Gabriele Saccone ◽  
Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo

Endometrial cancer (EC) is the sixth most common female cancer worldwide. The median age of diagnosis is 65 years. However, 4% of women diagnosed with EC are younger than 40 years old, and 70% of these women are nulliparous. These data highlight the importance of preserving fertility in these patients, at a time when the average age of the first pregnancy is significantly delayed and is now firmly established at over 30 years of age. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN guidelines state that the primary treatment of endometrial endometrioid carcinoma, limited to the uterus, is a total hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and surgical staging. Fertility-sparing treatment is not the standard of care, and patients eligible for this treatment always have to undergo strict counselling. Nowadays, a combined approach consisting of hysteroscopic resection, followed by oral or intrauterine-released progestins, has been reported to be an effective fertility-sparing option. Hysteroscopic resection followed by progestins achieved a complete response rate of 95.3% with a recurrence rate of 14.1%. The pregnancy rate in women undergoing fertility-sparing treatment is 47.8%, but rises to 93.3% when only considering women who tried to conceive during the study period. The aim of the present review is to provide a literature overview reflecting the current state of fertility-sparing options for the management of EC, specific criteria for considering such options, their limits, the implications for reproductive outcomes and the latest research trends in this direction.


Author(s):  
Sapna Amin ◽  
Stephen Polley ◽  
Sean DeFrates ◽  
Heidi Finnes ◽  
Katharine Kinsman ◽  
...  

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles , AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document