DOCSLIB.ORG

Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Final Report Comparative Effectiveness Review Number 230 R Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness Review Number 230 Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 www.ahrq.gov Contract No. 290-2015-0000-81 Prepared by: Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center Minneapolis, MN Investigators: Philipp Dahm, M.D., M.H.S.C. Michelle Brasure, Ph.D., M.S.P.H., M.L.I.S. Elizabeth Ester, M.D. Eric J. Linskens, B.S. Roderick MacDonald, M.S. Victoria A. Nelson, M.Sc. Charles Ryan, M.D. Jayati Saha, Ph.D. Shahnaz Sultan, M.D., M.H.S.C. Kristen E. Ullman, M.P.H. Timothy J. Wilt, M.D., M.P.H. AHRQ Publication No. 20-EHC022 September 2020 This report is based on research conducted by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2015-0000-81). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report. The information in this report is intended to help healthcare decision makers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of healthcare services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients. This report is made available to the public under the terms of a licensing agreement between the author and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This report may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials that are clearly noted in the report. Further reproduction of those copyrighted materials is prohibited without the express permission of copyright holders. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage policies may not be stated or implied. This report may periodically be assessed for the currency of conclusions. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report. AHRQ appreciates appropriate acknowledgment and citation of its work. Suggested language for acknowledgment: This work was based on an evidence report, Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer, by the Evidence-based Practice Center Program at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Suggested citation: Dahm P, Brasure M, Ester E, Linskens EJ, MacDonald R, Nelson VA, Ryan C, Saha J, Sultan S, Ullman KE, Wilt TJ. Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 230. (Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2015-0000-81) AHRQ Publication No. 20-EHC022. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; September 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23970/AHRQEPCCER230. Posted final reports are located on the Effective Health Care Program search page. ii Preface The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), sponsors the development of systematic reviews to assist public- and private-sector organizations in their efforts to improve the quality of healthcare in the United States. These reviews provide comprehensive, science-based information on common, costly medical conditions, and new healthcare technologies and strategies. Systematic reviews are the building blocks underlying evidence-based practice; they focus attention on the strength and limits of evidence from research studies about the effectiveness and safety of a clinical intervention. In the context of developing recommendations for practice, systematic reviews can help clarify whether assertions about the value of the intervention are based on strong evidence from clinical studies. For more information about AHRQ EPC systematic reviews, see www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reference/purpose.cfm AHRQ expects that these systematic reviews will be helpful to health plans, providers, purchasers, government programs, and the healthcare system as a whole. Transparency and stakeholder input are essential to the Effective Health Care Program. Please visit the website (www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov) to see draft research questions and reports or to join an e- mail list to learn about new program products and opportunities for input. If you have comments on this systematic review, they may be sent by mail to the Task Order Officer named below at: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, or by email to [email protected]. Gopal Khanna, M.B.A. Arlene Bierman, M.D., M.S. Director Director Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Stephanie Chang, M.D., M.P.H. Lionel Bañez, M.D. Director Task Order Officer Evidence-based Practice Center Program Center for Evidence and Practice Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement Improvement Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality iii Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this project: Jeannine Ouellette for editorial help bringing the report to completion. Technical Expert Panel Peter Carroll, M.D., M.P.H.* Paul L. Nguyen, M.D. University of California, San Francisco Dana-Farber Cancer Institute San Francisco, CA Boston, MA Daniel Lin, M.D.* Howard M. Sandler, M.D.* University of Washington Cedars-Sinai, ASTRO Society of Urologic Oncology Los Angeles, CA Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center Seattle, WA Janice Tufte* PCORI Sponsored Public Ambassador Nicolas Mottet, M.D., Ph.D. Clinique Mutualiste in Saint Etienne, France *This TEP member also served as a peer reviewer Peer Reviewers Mitchell S. Anscher, M.D. Alvin Cabrera, M.D. Virginia Commonwealth University Kaiser Permanente Department of Radiation Oncology Seattle, WA Richmond, VA Richard M. Hoffman, M.D., M.P.H. Michael J. Barry, M.D. University of Iowa Carver College of Massachusetts General Hospital Medicine Harvard Medical School Iowa City, IA Boston, MA Terrence Kungel Chairman, Emeritus of the Maine Coalition to Fight Prostate Cancer Woolwich, ME iv Therapies for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Structured Abstract Objective. To update findings from previous Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)- and American Urological Association (AUA)-funded reviews evaluating therapies for clinically localized prostate cancer (CLPC). Sources. Bibliographic databases (2013–January 2020); ClinicalTrials.gov; systematic reviews Methods. Controlled studies of CLPC treatments with duration ≥5 years for mortality and metastases and ≥1 year for quality of life and harms. One investigator rated risk of bias (RoB), extracted data, and assessed certainty of evidence; a second checked accuracy. We analyzed English-language studies with low or medium RoB. We incorporated findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified in the prior reviews if new RCTs provided information on the same intervention comparison. Results. We identified 67 eligible references; 17 were unique RCTs. Among clinically rather than prostate-specific antigen (PSA) detected CLPC, Watchful Waiting (WW) may increase mortality and metastases versus Radical Prostatectomy (RP) at 20+ years. Urinary and erectile dysfunction were lower with WW versus RP. WW’s effect on mortality may vary by tumor risk and age but not by race, health status, comorbidities, or PSA. Active Monitoring (AM) probably results in little to no difference in mortality in PSA-detected CLPC versus RP or external beam radiation (EBR) plus Androgen Deprivation (AD) regardless of tumor risk. Metastases were slightly higher with AM. Harms were greater with RP than AM and mixed between EBR plus AD versus AM. 3D-conformal EBR and AD plus low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT) provided a small reduction in all-cause mortality versus three-dimensional conformal EBR and AD but little to no difference on metastases. EBR plus AD versus EBR alone may result in a small reduction in mortality and metastases in higher risk disease but may increase sexual harms. EBR plus neoadjuvant AD versus EBR plus concurrent AD may result in little to no difference in mortality and genitourinary toxicity. Conventionally fractionated EBR versus ultrahypofractionated EBR may result in little to no difference in mortality and metastases and urinary and bowel toxicity. Active Surveillance may result in fewer harms than photodynamic therapy and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ASTRO Bone Metastases Guideline-Full Version
    1 Palliative Radiotherapy for Bone Metastases: An ASTRO Evidence-Based Guideline Stephen T. Lutz, M.D.,* Lawrence B. Berk, M.D., Ph.D.,† Eric L. Chang, M.D.,‡ Edward Chow, M.B.B.S.,§ Carol A. Hahn, M.D.,║ Peter J. Hoskin, M.D.,¶ David D. Howell, M.D.,# Andre A. Konski, M.D.,** Lisa A. Kachnic, M.D.,†† Simon S. Lo, M.B. ChB,§§ Arjun Sahgal, M.D.,║║ Larry N. Silverman, M.D.,¶¶ Charles von Gunten, M.D., Ph.D., FACP,## Ehud Mendel, M.D., FACS,*** Andrew D. Vassil, M.D.,††† Deborah Watkins Bruner, R.N., Ph.D.,‡‡‡ and William F. Hartsell, M.D.§§§ * Department of Radiation Oncology, Blanchard Valley Regional Cancer Center, Findlay, Ohio; † Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida; ‡ Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; § Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ║ Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina; ¶ Mount Vernon Centre for Cancer Treatment, Middlesex, UK; # Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan; ** Department of Radiation Oncology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan; †† Department of Radiation Oncology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; §§ Department of Radiation Oncology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; ║║ Department of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center and the Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ¶¶ 21st Century Oncology, Sarasota, Florida; ## The Institute for Palliative Medicine, San Diego Hospice, San Diego, California; *** Neurological Surgery, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; ††† Department of Radiation Oncology, The Cleveland Clinic 2 Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio; ‡‡‡ School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; §§§ Department of Radiation Oncology, Good Samaritan Cancer Center, Downers Grove, Illinois Reprint requests to: Stephen Lutz, M.D., 15990 Medical Drive South, Findlay, OH 45840.
    [Show full text]
  • Cancer Treatment and Survivorship Facts & Figures 2019-2021
    Cancer Treatment & Survivorship Facts & Figures 2019-2021 Estimated Numbers of Cancer Survivors by State as of January 1, 2019 WA 386,540 NH MT VT 84,080 ME ND 95,540 59,970 38,430 34,360 OR MN 213,620 300,980 MA ID 434,230 77,860 SD WI NY 42,810 313,370 1,105,550 WY MI 33,310 RI 570,760 67,900 IA PA NE CT 243,410 NV 185,720 771,120 108,500 OH 132,950 NJ 543,190 UT IL IN 581,350 115,840 651,810 296,940 DE 55,460 CA CO WV 225,470 1,888,480 KS 117,070 VA MO MD 275,420 151,950 408,060 300,200 KY 254,780 DC 18,750 NC TN 470,120 AZ OK 326,530 NM 207,260 AR 392,530 111,620 SC 143,320 280,890 GA AL MS 446,900 135,260 244,320 TX 1,140,170 LA 232,100 AK 36,550 FL 1,482,090 US 16,920,370 HI 84,960 States estimates do not sum to US total due to rounding. Source: Surveillance Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute. Contents Introduction 1 Long-term Survivorship 24 Who Are Cancer Survivors? 1 Quality of Life 24 How Many People Have a History of Cancer? 2 Financial Hardship among Cancer Survivors 26 Cancer Treatment and Common Side Effects 4 Regaining and Improving Health through Healthy Behaviors 26 Cancer Survival and Access to Care 5 Concerns of Caregivers and Families 28 Selected Cancers 6 The Future of Cancer Survivorship in Breast (Female) 6 the United States 28 Cancers in Children and Adolescents 9 The American Cancer Society 30 Colon and Rectum 10 How the American Cancer Society Saves Lives 30 Leukemia and Lymphoma 12 Research 34 Lung and Bronchus 15 Advocacy 34 Melanoma of the Skin 16 Prostate 16 Sources of Statistics 36 Testis 17 References 37 Thyroid 19 Acknowledgments 45 Urinary Bladder 19 Uterine Corpus 21 Navigating the Cancer Experience: Treatment and Supportive Care 22 Making Decisions about Cancer Care 22 Cancer Rehabilitation 22 Psychosocial Care 23 Palliative Care 23 Transitioning to Long-term Survivorship 23 This publication attempts to summarize current scientific information about Global Headquarters: American Cancer Society Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Predictors of Survival in Acute Myeloid Leukemia by Treatment Modality
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH 36: 1719-1728 (2016) Predictors of Survival in Acute Myeloid Leukemia by Treatment Modality SAMIP MASTER1, RICHARD MANSOUR1, SRINIVAS S. DEVARAKONDA1, ZHENZHEN SHI2, GLENN MILLS1 and RUNHUA SHI1 1Department of Medicine & Feist-Weiller Cancer Center, Louisiana State University Health Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, U.S.A.; 2Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, U.S.A. Abstract. Background/Aim: Evaluations of efficacy of distance less than 30 miles from treatment Center, diagnosis treatment modality in analyses on patients with acute myeloid and treatment at same facility, were independently associated leukemia (AML) often combine chemotherapy and stem cell with worse survival. Conclusion: Survival analysis of AML in transplantation (SCT). To account for the effect of SCT and the National Cancer Database showed multiple factors to be determine the impact of chemotherapy alone, the National independently associated with survival. Outcomes based on Cancer Data Base from 1998-2011 was analyzed. Patients and treatment suggest an improved survival when utilizing Methods: Patients with AML from 1998-2011 aged 18-64 years chemotherapy and SCT as the primary treatment modality. were included. Chi-square analysis was used to assess the association between treatment and factors investigated. The The American Cancer Society estimated there were Kaplan–Meier method was used to assess overall survival. approximately 20,830 new cases and 10,460 deaths from Log-rank methods were used to determine factors significant acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in 2015 (1). AML is for survival. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to generally a disease of older people and uncommon before determine the effect of chemotherapy alone, and both the age of 45 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Nanocarriers As Magic Bullets in the Treatment of Leukemia
    nanomaterials Review Nanocarriers as Magic Bullets in the Treatment of Leukemia 1, 2, 1 2 Mohammad Houshmand y , Francesca Garello y , Paola Circosta , Rachele Stefania , Silvio Aime 2, Giuseppe Saglio 1 and Claudia Giachino 1,* 1 Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Torino, 10043 Torino, Italy; [email protected] (M.H.); [email protected] (P.C.); [email protected] (G.S.) 2 Molecular and Preclinical Imaging Centres, Department of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, University of Torino, 10126 Torino, Italy; [email protected] (F.G.); [email protected] (R.S.); [email protected] (S.A.) * Correspondence: [email protected] These authors contributed equally to this work. y Received: 23 December 2019; Accepted: 1 February 2020; Published: 6 February 2020 Abstract: Leukemia is a type of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell malignancy characterized by the accumulation of immature cells in the blood and bone marrow. Treatment strategies mainly rely on the administration of chemotherapeutic agents, which, unfortunately, are known for their high toxicity and side effects. The concept of targeted therapy as magic bullet was introduced by Paul Erlich about 100 years ago, to inspire new therapies able to tackle the disadvantages of chemotherapeutic agents. Currently, nanoparticles are considered viable options in the treatment of different types of cancer, including leukemia. The main advantages associated with the use of these nanocarriers summarized as follows: i) they may be designed to target leukemic cells selectively; ii) they invariably enhance bioavailability and blood circulation half-life; iii) their mode of action is expected to reduce side effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Trends in Cancer Immunotherapy
    biomedicines Review Current Trends in Cancer Immunotherapy Ivan Y. Filin 1 , Valeriya V. Solovyeva 1 , Kristina V. Kitaeva 1, Catrin S. Rutland 2 and Albert A. Rizvanov 1,3,* 1 Institute of Fundamental Medicine and Biology, Kazan Federal University, 420008 Kazan, Russia; [email protected] (I.Y.F.); [email protected] (V.V.S.); [email protected] (K.V.K.) 2 Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2QL, UK; [email protected] 3 Republic Clinical Hospital, 420064 Kazan, Russia * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +7-905-316-7599 Received: 9 November 2020; Accepted: 16 December 2020; Published: 17 December 2020 Abstract: The search for an effective drug to treat oncological diseases, which have become the main scourge of mankind, has generated a lot of methods for studying this affliction. It has also become a serious challenge for scientists and clinicians who have needed to invent new ways of overcoming the problems encountered during treatments, and have also made important discoveries pertaining to fundamental issues relating to the emergence and development of malignant neoplasms. Understanding the basics of the human immune system interactions with tumor cells has enabled new cancer immunotherapy strategies. The initial successes observed in immunotherapy led to new methods of treating cancer and attracted the attention of the scientific and clinical communities due to the prospects of these methods. Nevertheless, there are still many problems that prevent immunotherapy from calling itself an effective drug in the fight against malignant neoplasms. This review examines the current state of affairs for each immunotherapy method, the effectiveness of the strategies under study, as well as possible ways to overcome the problems that have arisen and increase their therapeutic potentials.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemotherapy Treatment and Strategy Schemes: a Review
    Review Article Open Acc J of Toxicol Volume 2 Issue 5 - March 2018 Copyright © All rights are reserved by Afroze Alam DOI : 10.19080/OAJT.2018.02.555600 Chemotherapy Treatment and Strategy Schemes: A Review Afroze Alam1,5*, U Farooq2, Ruchi Singh1, VP Dubey1, Shailendra Kumar3, Rashmi Kumari1, Kamlesh Kumar Naik4, BD Tripathi1 and KL Dhar5 1Narayan Institute of Pharmacy, India 2Faculty of Dentistry, Taif University, Saudi Arabia 3Govt Pharmacy Institute, India 4Nandha College of Pharmacy, India 5Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Shoolini University, India Submission: November 03, 2017; Published: March 29, 2018 *Corresponding author: Afroze Alam, Narayan Institute of Pharmacy, Bihar, India, Tel: ; Fax: +91-1792308000; Email: Abstract Chemotherapy treatments are used to inhibit vigorously growing malignant cells with anticancer agents. This type of therapy may be used to cure and try a patient to produce palliative relief and symptomatic relaxation in the advance stages of cancer. In general, chemotherapy is given in cyclic manners. Patients are administered with anticancer drug during regular weekly or bi-weekly sessions. After the completion of effects of anticancer drugs. Generally, six or more chemotherapeutic cycles are needed in cancer patient and often a combined chemotherapy certain cyclic session, treatment is stopped for several fixed periods to allow the patient to rest and their body to re-establish from the toxic normal circumstances, such as those in the digestive tract, bone marrow and hair follicles. Combination chemotherapy is always preferred overwould traditional be preferred. therapies, Anticancer such drugs as radiotherapy, are used to destroysurgery not or onlyother to cytotoxic specific cancer drugs. cell The but mechanism equally affect of action the normal of each cell therapy that developing is different under for reviewinhibiting describes cell division the alternative and proliferation methods of that rapidly combine growing chemotherapy cell.
    [Show full text]
  • New First Line Treatment Options of Clear Cell Renal Cell Cancer Patients with PD-1 Or PD-L1 Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitor-Based Combination Therapies
    Journal of Clinical Medicine Review New First Line Treatment Options of Clear Cell Renal Cell Cancer Patients with PD-1 or PD-L1 Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitor-Based Combination Therapies Marc-Oliver Grimm 1,*, Katharina Leucht 1, Viktor Grünwald 2 and Susan Foller 1 1 Department of Urology, University Hospital Jena, 07747 Jena, Germany; [email protected] (K.L.); [email protected] (S.F.) 2 Interdisciplinary Urology, Western German Tumor Center Essen, Department for Internal Medicine and Urology, University Hospital Essen, 45127 Essen, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-3641-9329901 Received: 24 January 2020; Accepted: 12 February 2020; Published: 19 February 2020 Abstract: In metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) the PD-1 immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) Nivolumab became a standard second line treatment option in 2015 based on a significant improvement of overall survival compared to Everolimus. Current pivotal phase 3 studies showed that PD-1 ICI-based combinations were more efficacious than the VEGFR-TKI Sunitinib, a previous standard of care, leading to approval of three new regimens as guideline-recommended first-line treatment. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab is characterized by a survival advantage, a high rate of complete response and durable remissions in intermediate and poor prognosis patients. Despite frequent immune-mediated side effects, fewer symptoms and a better quality of life were observed compared to Sunitinib. Pembrolizumab or Avelumab plus Axitinib were characterized by an improved progression-free-survival and a high response rate with a low rate of intrinsic resistance. In addition, Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib reached a significant survival benefit.
    [Show full text]
  • NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology™ Kidney Cancer
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology™ Kidney Cancer V.2.2010 Continue www.nccn.org Guidelines Index ® Practice Guidelines Kidney Cancer Table of Contents NCCN in Oncology – v.2.2010 Kidney Cancer Staging, Discussion, References NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel Members * Robert J. Motzer, MD/Chair †Þ Robert A. Figlin, MD † Thomas Olencki, DO ‡ Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Neeraj Agarwal, MD ‡ Mayer Fishman, MD, PhD †‡Þ Solove Research Institute Huntsman Cancer Institute at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research University of Utah Institute Roberto Pili, MD † Roswell Park Cancer Institute Clair Beard, MD § Steven L. Hancock, MD § Þ Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Stanford Comprehensive Cancer Center Bruce G. Redman, DO † Cancer Center University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Gary R. Hudes, MD †‡ Center Sam Bhayani, MD w Fox Chase Cancer Center Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Cary N. Robertson, MD w Hospital and Washington University Eric Jonasch, MD † Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center The University of Texas M. D. Anderson School of Medicine Cancer Center Charles J. Ryan, MD † Graeme B. Bolger, MD † UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Timothy M. Kuzel, MD †‡ University of Alabama at Birmingham Cancer Center Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University Lawrence H. Schwartz, MD ф Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Barry Boston, MD †£ w St. Jude Children’s Research Paul H. Lange, MD Hospital/University of Tennessee Cancer Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Joel Sheinfeld, MD w Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Institute Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Ellis G.
    [Show full text]
  • Cancer Treatment & Survivorship Facts & Figures 2016-2017
    Cancer Treatment & Survivorship Facts & Figures 2016-2017 Estimated Numbers of Cancer Survivors by State as of January 1, 2016 WA 352,830 NH 76,990 MT VT ME ND 54,850 31,530 87,630 35,390 OR MN 195,790 276,770 ID MA 402,930 70,970 WI SD NY 39,330 288,410 WY 1,029,090 MI RI 30,370 526,100 62,770 IA PA CT NE 224,290 NV 172,030 711,240 99,460 120,200 OH NJ 504,050 UT 536,430 IL IN DE 50,760 105,310 CA CO 602,890 273,060 MD 254,540 1,734,870 207,460 WV KS 107,520 VA DC 17,920 MO 373,580 139,660 275,980 KY 233,120 NC TN 428,800 AZ OK 298,950 354,530 NM 189,540 AR SC 102,100 131,070 255,110 GA MS AL 410,740 123,480 223,990 TX 1,041,750 LA AK 213,580 33,340 FL 1,342,590 US Total HI 15,533,220 77,500 Note: State estimates do not sum to US total due to rounding. Contents Introduction 1 Who Are Cancer Survivors? 1 How Many Cancer Survivors Are Alive in the US? 1 How Many Cancer Survivors Are Expected to Be Alive in the US in 2026? 2 How Is Cancer Treated? 2 Common Side Effects of Cancer and Its Treatment 3 Selected Cancers 6 Breast (Female) 6 Cancers in Children and Adolescents 10 Colon and Rectum 11 Leukemia and Lymphoma 13 Lung and Bronchus 15 Melanoma 16 Prostate 16 Testis 17 Thyroid 18 Urinary Bladder 19 Uterine Corpus 20 Navigating the Cancer Experience: Diagnosis and Treatment 21 Choosing a Doctor 21 Choosing a Treatment Facility 22 Choosing among Recommended Treatments 22 Cancer Disparities and Barriers to Treatment 23 Impairment-driven Cancer Rehabilitation 23 Palliative Care 24 The Recovery Phase 24 Long-term Survivorship 25 Quality of Life 25 Regaining and Improving Health through Healthy Behaviors 27 Concerns of Caregivers and Families 28 The American Cancer Society 29 How the American Cancer Society Saves Lives 29 Research 32 Advocacy 33 Sources of Statistics 34 References 35 Acknowledgments 41 Corporate Center: American Cancer Society Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Treatment of Cancer* Radioactive Isotopes and Nuclear Radiations
    Radioactive Isotopes and Nuclear Radiations in the Treatment of Cancer* JOHN H. LAWRENCE AND CORNELIUS A. T0BIAs (Donner Laboratory and Donner Pavilion, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.) It is now @20years since we began to use arti shipments is for medical use, and one-third of ficially produced radioactive isotopes in cancer re these shipments are for cancer therapy. For in search and in medical research. Actually, our first stance, there are 50 medical groups in the United therapeutic trials were in 1936. In the early days States using radioactive colloidal gold and radio the hope was that at the end of @0years one could active colloidal chromic phosphate for interstitial report outstanding examples of selective localiza infiltration in various types of cancer, such as tion of radioactive compounds in neoplastic tissue, prostatic, uterine, and bronchogenic. Two hundred making it possible to give the tumor tissue many fifty groups are using radioactive gold, chromic times more irradiation than the surrounding, nor phosphate, and yttrium colloids in the treatment mal tissues. of cancer metastasized to the pleural and perito Up to the present moment, investigations with neal cavities. There are 400 groups using iodine only two radioactive isotopes have given us impor 181 in the diagnosis and treatment of hyperplastic tant therapeutic applications in hyperplastic and and neoplastic thyroid disease and 889 groups neoplastic diseases through selective localization. using @32forthe treatment of polycythemia vera These are radiophosphorus in the treatment of and chronic leukemia. During 1954 there were polycythemia vera and radioiodine in the treat over 5,000 shipments of radioactive iodine from ment of the thyroid hyperplasia of Grave's disease Oak Ridge to individual users, over @,500ship and in the palliative treatment of certain thyroid Inents of radioactive phosphorus, and 6@ ship cancers.
    [Show full text]
  • Surgery for Cancer: a Trigger for Metastases Samer Tohme, Richard L Simmons, and Allan Tsung
    Published OnlineFirst March 22, 2017; DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-1536 Cancer Review Research Surgery for Cancer: A Trigger for Metastases Samer Tohme, Richard L Simmons, and Allan Tsung Abstract Surgery is a crucial intervention and provides a chance of cure and in the cancer cells themselves to enhance migration and for patients with cancer. The perioperative period is characterized invasion to establish at the target site. Surgical trauma induces by an increased risk for accelerated growth of micrometastatic local and systemic inflammatory responses that can also contrib- disease and increased formation of new metastatic foci. The true ute to the accelerated growth of residual and micrometastatic impact for cancer patients remains unclear. This review sum- disease. Furthermore, we address the role of perioperative factors, marizes the often fragmentary clinical and experimental evidence including anesthesia, transfusions, hypothermia, and postopera- supporting the role of surgery and inflammation as potential tive complications, as probable deleterious factors contributing to triggers for disease recurrence. Surgery induces increased shedding early recurrence. Through the admittedly limited understanding of cancer cells into the circulation, suppresses antitumor immu- of these processes, we will attempt to provide suggestions for nity allowing circulating cells to survive, upregulates adhesion potential new therapeutic approaches to target the protumori- molecules in target organs, recruits immune cells capable of genic perioperative
    [Show full text]
  • Module 6 – Basics of Cancer Treatment
    Basics of Cancer Treatment— Module 6 BasicsBasics ofof CancerCancer TreatmentTreatment Goals Target Audience: In this session, participants will gain a basic understanding Community members of common cancer treatments, and their potential side effects. Staff of Indian health Objectives programs, including At the completion of Learning Module 4, participants Community Health will be able to demonstrate the following: Representatives Contents of Section 1 Learning Module: a) Discuss the Western and traditional approach to cancer treatment and why both are important to use in Instructor’s Guide the fight against cancer. with Pre/Post Self- Assessment b) Discuss the difference between local and systemic treatment for cancer. PowerPoint c) Describe the reason side effects commonly occur presentation with cancer treatment. Glossary Section 2 References a) Describe at least two side effects that can occur as a Length: result of cancer treatment. Introduction of session/module overview (:05) Measures of Objective Accomplishment Pre self-assessment The presenter will administer a pre self-assessment and (:07) post self-assessment to measure participants’ knowl- edge of the module’s objectives. The pre self-assess- Presentation of module including ment measures existing knowledge and the post self- interactive activity assessment measures what was gained through the (:30) learning module. Optional video: AI/AN Clinical Trials and Native People—A Gift NOTE for Our Children (24) Each major learning point is clearly identified by boldface type Post self-assessment throughout the guide and emphasized in the PowerPoint (:05) presentation. Closing (:03) See the glossary (at the end of the module) for words that are in bold italics throughout the module.
    [Show full text]