Dataset Information

Renal cancer subtypes: Should we be lumping or splitting for therapeutic decision making?

ABSTRACT: The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has posed a challenge for decades, in part because of common themes related to intrinsic resistance to cytotoxic chemotherapy and the obscure biology of these cancer types. Forward movement in the treatment of the renal cell carcinomas thus can be approached in 2 ways: by splitting the tumor types along histologic and molecular features, in the hopes of coupling highly precision-focused therapy on a subset of patients who have disease with the most potential for benefit; or by lumping the various biologies and histologies together, to include the rarer renal cell carcinoma types with the more common types. The former strategy satisfies the desire for customized precision in treatment delivery, whereas the latter strategy allows clinicians to offer a wider therapeutic menu in a set of diseases we are continuing to learn about on a physiologic and molecular level. Cancer 2017;123:200-209. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

SUBMITTER: Haake SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5222778 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Renal cancer subtypes: Should we be lumping or splitting for therapeutic decision making?

Haake Scott M SM Rathmell W Kimryn WK

Cancer 20161114 2

The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has posed a challenge for decades, in part because of common themes related to intrinsic resistance to cytotoxic chemotherapy and the obscure biology of these cancer types. Forward movement in the treatment of the renal cell carcinomas thus can be approached in 2 ways: by splitting the tumor types along histologic and molecular features, in the hopes of coupling highly precision-focused therapy on a subset of patients who have disease with the most ...[more]

PMID: 27861752

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCDK4/6 inhibitors (CDKi), namely, palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib, combined with either an aromatase inhibitor (AI) or fulvestrant are the standard first/second line for hormone receptor-positive(HR+)/HER2-negative(neg) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, the choice of one specific CDKi is arbitrary and based on the physician's experience with the drug, toxicity profile, and patient's preferences, whereas biomarkers for optimal patient selection have not been established so far. Moreover, upfront chemotherapy is still recommended in case of clinical presentation with visceral crisis, despite no evidence of superior benefit for chemotherapy regimens against CDKi-based regimens. Recent correlative biomarker analyses from pivotal trials of palbociclib and ribociclib showed that HR+/HER2-neg MBC might respond differently according to the molecular intrinsic subtype, with Luminal A and B tumors being sensitive to both CDKi, Basal-like being insensitive to endocrine therapy, irrespective of CDKi, and HER2-enriched tumors showing a benefit only with ribociclib-based therapy.Clinical caseWe hereby present a paradigmatic clinical case of a woman affected by a relapsed HR+/HER2-neg MBC with bone and nodal lesions, presenting with a visceral crisis in the form of lymphangitis carcinomatosis and diagnosed with a molecularly HER2-enriched tumor, successfully treated with upfront ribociclib + fulvestrant. The patient experienced a complete symptomatic and radiologic remission of the lymphangitis with a partial response as best response, according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. The progression-free survival (PFS) was of 20 months, in line with the median PFS observed in the ribociclib + fulvestrant pivotal trial, where, however, patients with visceral crisis had been excluded.ConclusionsThis clinical case confirms in the real-world setting that non-luminal subtypes can be found in HR+/HER2-neg disease and may have potential therapeutic implications in the metastatic setting. It also questions the recommendation of upfront chemotherapy in the case of a visceral crisis in the era of CDKi-based regimens. These issues merit further evaluation in prospective and larger studies.

Project description:BackgroundTherapeutic decision-making in oncology is a complex process because physicians must consider many forms of medical data and protocols. Another challenge for physicians is to clearly communicate their decision-making process to patients to ensure informed consent. Computer-based decision tools have the potential to play a valuable role in supporting this process.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to investigate the extent to which computer-based decision tools have been successfully adopted in oncology consultations to improve patient-physician joint therapeutic decision-making.MethodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist and guidelines. A literature search was conducted on February 4, 2021, across the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (from 2005 to January 28, 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (December 2020), MEDLINE (from 1946 to February 4, 2021), Embase (from 1947 to February 4, 2021), Web of Science (from 1900 to 2021), Scopus (from 1969 to 2021), and PubMed (from 1991 to 2021). We used a snowball approach to identify additional studies by searching the reference lists of the studies included for full-text review. Additional supplementary searches of relevant journals and gray literature websites were conducted. The reviewers screened the articles eligible for review for quality and inclusion before data extraction.ResultsThere are relatively few studies looking at the use of computer-based decision tools in oncology consultations. Of the 4431 unique articles obtained from the searches, only 10 (0.22%) satisfied the selection criteria. From the 10 selected studies, 8 computer-based decision tools were identified. Of the 10 studies, 6 (60%) were conducted in the United States. Communication and information-sharing were improved between physicians and patients. However, physicians did not change their habits to take advantage of computer-assisted decision-making tools or the information they provide. On average, the use of these computer-based decision tools added approximately 5 minutes to the total length of consultations. In addition, some physicians felt that the technology increased patients' anxiety.ConclusionsOf the 10 selected studies, 6 (60%) demonstrated positive outcomes, 1 (10%) showed negative results, and 3 (30%) were neutral. Adoption of computer-based decision tools during oncology consultations continues to be low. This review shows that information-sharing and communication between physicians and patients can be improved with the assistance of technology. However, the lack of integration with electronic health records is a barrier. This review provides key requirements for enhancing the chance of success of future computer-based decision tools. However, it does not show the effects of health care policies, regulations, or business administration on physicians' propensity to adopt the technology. Nevertheless, it is important that future research address the influence of these higher-level factors as well.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021226087; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021226087.

Dataset Information

Renal cancer subtypes: Should we be lumping or splitting for therapeutic decision making?

Publications

Renal cancer subtypes: Should we be lumping or splitting for therapeutic decision making?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets