Faculty Publications

PURPOSE: To correlate changes in 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose (18-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) (18-FDG-PET) uptake with response and disease-free survival with combined modality neoadjuvant therapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Charts were reviewed for consecutive patients with ultrasound-staged T3x to T4Nx or TxN1 rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent preoperative chemoradiation therapy at Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) or Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University with 18-FDG-PET scanning before and after combined-modality neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy . The maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) was measured from the tumor before and 3 to 4 weeks after completion of chemoradiation therapy preoperatively. Logistic regression was used to analyze the association of pretreatment SUV, posttreatment SUV, and % SUV decrease on pathologic complete response (pCR), and a Cox model was fitted to analyze disease-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients (FCCC, n = 41, RLCCC, n = 12) underwent pre- and postchemoradiation PET scanning between September 2000 and June 2006. The pCR rate was 31%. Univariate analysis revealed that % SUV decrease showed a marginally trend in predicting pCR (p = 0.08). In the multivariable analysis, posttreatment SUV was shown a predictor of pCR (p = 0.07), but the test results did not reach statistical significance. None of the investigated variables were predictive of disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: A trend was observed for % SUV decrease and posttreatment SUV predicting pCR in patients with rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation therapy. Further prospective study with a larger sample size is warranted to better characterize the role of 18-FDG-PET for response prediction in patients with rectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: There are currently no diagnostic indicators that are consistently reliable, obtainable, and conclusive for diagnosing and risk-stratifying pancreatic cysts. Proteomic analyses were performed to explore pancreatic cyst fluids to yield effective diagnostic biomarkers. METHODS: We have prospectively recruited 20 research participants and prepared their pancreatic cyst fluids specifically for proteomic analyses. Proteomic approaches applied were as follows: (1) matrix-assisted laser-desorption-ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry peptidomics with LC/MS/MS (HPLC-tandem mass spectrometry) protein identification; (2) 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis; (3) GeLC/MS/MS (tryptic digestion of proteins fractionated by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and identified by LC/MS/MS). RESULTS: Sequencing of more than 350 free peptides showed that exopeptidase activities rendered peptidomics of cyst fluids unreliable; protein nicking by proteases in the cyst fluids produced hundreds of protein spots from the major proteins, making 2-dimensional gel proteomics unmanageable; GeLC/MS/MS revealed a panel of potential biomarker proteins that correlated with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). CONCLUSIONS: Two homologs of amylase, solubilized molecules of 4 mucins, 4 solubilized CEA-related cell adhesion molecules (CEACAMs), and 4 S100 homologs may be candidate biomarkers to facilitate future pancreatic cyst diagnosis and risk-stratification. This approach required less than 40 microL of cyst fluid per sample, offering the possibility to analyze cysts smaller than 1 cm in diameter.

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.

BACKGROUND: Since 1996, 6 new drugs have been introduced for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Although they are promising, these drugs frequently are given in the palliative and are much more expensive than older treatments. The objective of the current study was to measure the cost implications of treatment with sequential regimens that include chemotherapy and/or monoclonal antibodies. METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients supposedly received up to 3 lines of treatment before supportive care and subsequent death. Data were obtained from published, multicenter phase 2 and randomized phase 3 clinical trials. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the efficacy, toxicity, and cost. RESULTS: Using drug costs alone, treatment that included new chemotherapeutic agents increased survival at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $100,000 per discounted life-year (DLY). The addition of monoclonal antibodies improved survival at an ICER of >$170,000 per DLY. The results were most sensitive to changes in the initial regimen. Even with significant improvements in clinical characteristics (efficacy and toxicity), treatment with the most effective regimens still had very high ICERs. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer with the most effective regimens came at very high incremental costs. The authors concluded that cost-effectiveness analyses should be a routine component of the drug-development process, so that physicians and patients are informed appropriately regarding the value of new innovations, Cancer 2009;115:2081-91. (C) 2009 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a sibling who has had colorectal cancer diagnosed before age 61 are at increased risk for colorectal cancer and may derive particular benefit from screening. Tailored interventions may increase participation in appropriate colorectal cancer screening. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the efficacy of two tailored interventions and a generic print intervention. METHODS: Participant siblings (N = 412) who were not up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening were randomly assigned to receive either a generic print pamphlet, a tailored print pamphlet, or a tailored print pamphlet and tailored counseling call. Colorectal cancer screening 6 months after the baseline interview was the outcome measure. RESULTS: Results indicated that colorectal cancer screening adherence increased among intermediate risk siblings enrolled in all three intervention groups. Participants in both tailored intervention groups reported having colorectal cancer screening at significantly higher rates than participants in the generic print group. The increase in colorectal cancer screening in the tailored print and counseling call group was not significantly higher than that achieved by the tailored print alone. Decisional balance partially mediated treatment effects. Tailored behavioral interventions are effective methods for increasing screening adherence but telephone counseling did not add significantly to treatment effects.

OBJECTIVE: Although there is broad consensus that careful content vetting and user testing is important in the development of technology-based educational interventions, often these steps are overlooked. This paper highlights the development of a theory-guided, web-based communication aid (CONNECTtrade mark), designed to facilitate treatment decision-making among patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: The communication aid included an on-line survey, patient skills training module and an automated physician report. Development steps included: (1) evidence-based content development; (2) usability testing; (3) pilot testing; and (4) patient utilization and satisfaction. RESULTS: Usability testing identified some confusing directions and navigation for the on-line survey and validated the relevance of the "patient testimonials" in the skills module. Preliminary satisfaction from the implementation of the communication aid showed that 66% found the survey length reasonable and 70% found it helpful in talking with the physician. Seventy percent reported the skills module helpful and about half found it affected the consultation. CONCLUSION: Designing patient education interventions for translation into practice requires the integration of health communication best practice including user feedback along the developmental process. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This developmental process can be translated to a broad array of community-based patient and provider educational interventions.

OBJECTIVES: Given the extensive desmoplastic response associated with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, we hypothesized that the stromal protein fibroblast activation protein (FAP) would be highly expressed and associated with the presence of fibrosis and other clinical features. METHODS: Paraffin-embedded pancreatic adenocarcinomas that were resected with curative intent from 1992 to 2003 were used for this study. Fibroblast activation protein expression by immunohistochemical analysis was evaluated both by intensity (0-3+) and percentage. Fibrosis was estimated as a percentage of each tumor specimen. RESULTS: Ninety percent (63/70) of specimens demonstrated FAP expression. Expression was significantly more pronounced in tumor-associated myofibroblasts immediately adjacent to tumor than in surrounding tumor-associated myofibroblasts (P < 0.001). Lower FAP expression in adjacent tumor-associated myofibroblasts was associated with increased fibrosis (P = 0.02). Greater FAP expression in surrounding tumor-associated myofibroblasts was associated with an increased chance of having positive lymph nodes for all patients (P = 0.03) and a higher risk of tumor recurrence (P = 0.015) and death (P = 0.02) for patients who did not receive preoperative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Fibroblast activation protein is highly expressed in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, with greatest expression immediately adjacent to tumor. Higher FAP expression is associated with worse clinical outcome. The investigation of FAP inhibitors as a therapeutic strategy against pancreatic cancer should be considered.

PURPOSE: As treatment options expand for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), a blood marker with a prognostic and predictive role could guide treatment. We tested the hypothesis that circulating tumor cells (CTCs) could predict clinical outcome in patients with mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective multicenter study, CTCs were enumerated in the peripheral blood of 430 patients with mCRC at baseline and after starting first-, second-, or third-line therapy. CTCs were measured using an immunomagnetic separation technique. Results: Patients were stratified into unfavorable and favorable prognostic groups based on CTC levels of three or more or less than three CTCs/7.5 mL, respectively. Patients with unfavorable compared with favorable baseline CTCs had shorter median progression-free survival (PFS; 4.5 v 7.9 months; P = .0002) and overall survival (OS; 9.4 v 18.5 months; P < .0001). Differences persisted at 1 to 2, 3 to 5, 6 to 12, and 13 to 20 weeks after therapy. Conversion of baseline unfavorable CTCs to favorable at 3 to 5 weeks was associated with significantly longer PFS and OS compared with patients with unfavorable CTCs at both time points (PFS, 6.2 v 1.6 months; P = .02; OS, 11.0 v 3.7 months; P = .0002). Among nonprogressing patients, favorable compared with unfavorable CTCs within 1 month of imaging was associated with longer survival (18.8 v 7.1 months; P < .0001). Baseline and follow-up CTC levels remained strong predictors of PFS and OS after adjustment for clinically significant factors. CONCLUSION: The number of CTCs before and during treatment is an independent predictor of PFS and OS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. CTCs provide prognostic information in addition to that of imaging studies.

PURPOSE: Although most patients with anal canal cancer are cured with sphincter-preserving, nonsurgical, combined-modality therapy, those with large tumors and lymph node involvement have a poor prognosis. To establish the safety and efficacy of induction chemotherapy with infusional fluorouracil (FU) plus cisplatin followed by FU plus mitomycin C with concurrent radiation in patients with poor-prognosis squamous cell cancers of the anal canal. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated anal canal cancers with T3 or T4 tumors and/or extensive nodal involvement (bulky N2 or N3) received two 28-day cycles of induction treatment with infusional FU plus cisplatin followed by two 28-day cycles of FU plus mitomycin C with concurrent split-course radiation. A third cycle of FU and cisplatin with radiation boost was given to patients with persistent primary site disease or bulky N2 or N3 disease at presentation. RESULTS: Forty-five assessable patients received protocol therapy. Treatment was generally well tolerated, and gastrointestinal and hematologic toxicities were the most common. Induction chemotherapy resulted in eight complete and 21 partial responses. After induction, combined-modality, and boost therapy, 37 (82%) of 45 assessable high-risk patients achieved a complete response. After 4 years of follow-up, 68% of patients are alive, 61% are disease-free, and 50% are colostomy- and disease-free. CONCLUSION: A combined-modality approach that includes induction treatment with FU and cisplatin followed by combined-modality therapy with FU, mitomycin C, and concurrent radiation results in long-term disease control in the majority of patients with poor-prognosis anal canal cancer.

PURPOSE: Standard cytotoxic chemotherapy has limited efficacy in metastatic neuroendocrine tumor patients. Neuroendocrine tumors express vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptor (VEGFR). Sunitinib malate, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has activity against VEGFRs as well as platelet-derived growth factor receptors, stem-cell factor receptor, glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor, and FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3. We evaluated the efficacy of sunitinib in a two-cohort, phase II study of advanced carcinoid and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were treated with repeated 6-week cycles of oral sunitinib (50 mg/d for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off treatment). Patients were observed for response, survival, and adverse events. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Among 109 enrolled patients, 107 received sunitinib (carcinoid, n = 41; pancreatic endocrine tumor, n = 66). Overall objective response rate (ORR) in pancreatic endocrine tumor patients was 16.7% (11 of 66 patients), and 68% (45 of 66 patients) had stable disease (SD). Among carcinoid patients, ORR was 2.4% (one of 41 patients), and 83% (34 of 41 patients) had SD. Median time to tumor progression was 7.7 months in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients and 10.2 months in carcinoid patients. One-year survival rate was 81.1% in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor patients and 83.4% in carcinoid patients. No significant differences from baseline in patient-reported quality of life or fatigue were observed during treatment. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib has antitumor activity in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors; its activity against carcinoid tumors could not be definitively determined in this nonrandomized study. Randomized trials of sunitinib in patients with neuroendocrine tumors are warranted.

Background. Participants in early-phase clinical trials have reported high expectations of benefit from their participation. There is concern that participants misunderstand the trials to which they have consented, which is based on assumptions about what patients mean when responding to questions about likelihood of benefit. Methods. Participants were 27 women and 18 men in early-phase oncology trials at 2 academic medical centers in the United States. To determine whether expectations of benefit differ depending on how patients are queried, the authors randomly assigned participants to 1 of 3 interviews corresponding to 3 questions about likelihood of benefit: frequency type, belief type, and vague. In semistructured interviews, participants were queried about how they understood and answered the question. Participants then answered and discussed 1 of the other questions. Results. Expectations of benefit in response to the belief-type question were significantly greater than expectations in response to the frequency-type and vague questions (P=0.02). The most common justifications involved positive attitude (n=27 [60%]) and references to physical health (n=23 [51%]). References to positive attitude were most common among participants with higher (>70%) expectations (n=11 [85%]) and least common among those with lower (< 50%) expectations (n=3 [27%]). Conclusions. The wording of questions about likelihood of benefit shapes the expectations that patients express. Patients who express high expectations may not do so to communicate understanding but rather to register optimism. Ongoing research will clarify the meaning of high expectations and examine methods for assessing understanding.