scholarly journals Impact of molecular testing in advanced melanoma on outcomes in a tertiary cancer center and as reported in a publicly available database

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya Dimitrova ◽  
Min Jae Kim ◽  
Iman Osman ◽  
George Jour
Keyword(s):  
Advanced Melanoma ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Molecular Testing ◽  
Tertiary Cancer Center

Evolution of pancreatoduodenectomy in a tertiary cancer center in India: Improved results from service reconfiguration

Pancreatology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shailesh V. Shrikhande ◽  
Savio George Barreto ◽  
B.A. Somashekar ◽  
Kunal Suradkar ◽  
Guruprasad S. Shetty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Center ◽  
Tertiary Cancer Center

scholarly journals Impact of COVID 19 on oral cancer stage at presentation in india -- Experience from a tertiary cancer center.

2021 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. e54
Author(s):  
Vishal Kewlani ◽  
Prateek Jain ◽  
Gautam Biswas ◽  
Rajeev Sharan ◽  
Kapila Manikantan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oral Cancer ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Stage ◽  
Tertiary Cancer Center

scholarly journals Laparoscopic Versus Open Approach for Intersphincteric Resection—Results from a Tertiary Cancer Center in India

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 474-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishwas D. Pai ◽  
Pavan Sugoor ◽  
Prachi S. Patil ◽  
Vikas Ostwal ◽  
Reena Engineer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intersphincteric Resection ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Open Approach ◽  
Tertiary Cancer Center

Rationale for the utilization of biological targeted agents (bTAs) in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), single tertiary cancer center experience.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15589-e15589
Author(s):  
Ivan Barrera ◽  
Yahia A. Lakehal ◽  
Tomas Kavan ◽  
Petr Kavan
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Perforation ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Gi Symptoms ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Jewish General Hospital ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Physician Patient ◽  
Tertiary Cancer Center

e15589 Background: Worldwide treatment for 1st line (1LTx) mCRC included doublet or triple chemotherapy with or without bTAs. In Quebec, the anti-EGFR therapy (panitumumab or cetuximab) was only recently approved in this setting for patients RAS WT, Bevacizumab (B) not eligible. In this study we evaluated the rational and outcomes using bTAs. Methods: Retrospective study assessing mCRC pts treated with or without bTAs at any time throughout the course of therapy at the Jewish General Hospital between 2010-2018. Pts were divided in 3 groups according to their 1LTx for analysis: Chemotherapy alone (1LChA), Chemotherapy plus B (1LChB), and anti-EGFR with or without chemotherapy (1LaEGFR). The primary objective was to assess the rational of bTAs prescription based in 1LTx selection. Secondary objectives included safety, PFS and OS. Results: Among a total of 463 pts with mCRC; 196 pts (42.3%) received 1LChA, 246 pts (53.2%) 1LChB, and 21 pts (4.5%) 1LaEGFR respectively. 1LChA group, 51% omitted bTAs for physician-patient preferences, 96 pts (49%) had contraindications for B, and 79 pts (40.3%) were potentially candidates for aEGFR, but did not receive it. 152/196 (77.5%) pts continued to 2LTx and 34.8% received bTAs. As for the 3LTx, 78/196 (40%) received a treatment, 48.7% received bTAs. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were hypertension and bowel perforation in B, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and skin reaction (SR) in aEGFR. 1LChB group, 31 pts (12.6%) presented AEs related to B. 191/246 pts (77.6%) continued to 2LTx with 48 pts (25%) receiving ChB despite progression in 1LTx on this bTA and 19 pts (10%) receiving aEGFR. The most common AEs reported in 2LTx were GI symptoms and neuropathy. In 3LTx, 54/91pts (59.3%) received aEGFR therapy and 8 pts (14.8%) had SR AEs. 46 pts (18.6%) continued to 4LTx, 13/46 pts (28.2%) received aEGFR. 1LaEGFR group, the most common AEs were SR and GI symptoms. 11/21 pts (52.3%) continued to 2LTx; 5 pts (45.4%) switching bTA class and receiving ChB. 81% pts started treatment between 2017-2018 and had at least two contraindication criteria for. The median PFS for the 1LChA and 1LChB groups were 10 and 11.5 months, respectively, and were not statistically significant (p=0.22). The OS with 1LChA and 1LChB was 33.26 vs. 27.80 months (p=0.27). The PFS and OS between 1LChA and 1LaEGFR were 10 vs 11 months (p= 0.27) and 33.26 vs. 35.07 months (p=0.13). Conclusions: The outcome and tolerability of bTAs in mCRC appear similar in our institution and randomised trials. We were not able to detect any significant difference among the three groups of comparison. The 1LaEGFR available data in this subset of patients are limited. Our data highlights the importance of optimal therapeutic sequencing to prolong OS. Dedicated studies are needed in order to determine the best bTAs therapeutic strategy in mCRC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document