Team Approach, Individualized Care

Transcription

2014 CANCER ANNUAL REPORT
Team
Approach,
Individualized
Care
R U S H UN I V E R S I T Y C AN CE R CEN TER
Chair’s Report
At the Rush University Cancer Center, we merge the concepts of individualism and
teamwork to create a balanced and thoughtful approach to patient care. We know that
when it comes to cancer care, one size does not fit all. That’s why when patients come to
Rush, they can expect their care team to establish highly individualized care plans based
on each person’s unique needs.
In addition to presenting our 2013 cancer registry numbers (see p. 23),
this report also highlights the following:
• Rush’s commitment to protecting and maintaining patients’ quality of life
• Our expertise in treating complex and incurable cancers
• Our collaborative efforts to improve care for each patient we treat
Research and quality initiatives
At Rush, not only do we do focus on providing the most advanced
care to our patients, we also conduct research on that care and
develop systems to improve care. Below are some examples of this
commitment:
Decrease wait times for bone marrow biopsies at Rush: The bone
marrow transplant team conducted a study to evaluate wait times for
patients who need a biopsy to determine if they are able to receive a
bone marrow transplant. After determining the wait times were not
optimal, the team began taking steps to decrease wait times.
To do this, the team increased available time slots for biopsy
appointments and implemented a new, four-step process that
streamlines the evaluation and scheduling process. Through the
new process, bone marrow transplant coordinators work closely
with cancer center clinicians to determine ideal wait times for each
patient (depending on each patient’s individual case) and schedule
appointments accordingly.
By decreasing wait times, clinicians decrease the chances for breaks
in patients’ continuity of care and extended chemotherapy regimens.
Ease the effects of radiation: To help ease the effects of radiation
for head and neck cancer patients, clinicians at Rush have started
using MuGard, a mucoadhesive oral wound rinse, as the standard of
care for patients who are at risk of developing mucositis as a side
effect of head and neck cancer therapy.
Clinicians have found that patients who use MuGard and are
compliant with patient instructions had significant clinical benefits.
These benefits include lower grades of oral mucositis, reduced pain
and reduced analgesic use. Patients were also better able to stay
nourished and maintain their weight.
Reduce side effects: In a study published in the Journal of Clinical
Oncology, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group Sarcoma Committee found that using preoperative image-guided radiotherapy to
more precisely target radiation beams to treat soft tissue cancers in
the extremities significantly reduces long-term side effects without
affecting survival rates. The findings will likely establish a new standard of care for soft tissue sarcomas. Dian Wang, MD, a radiation
oncologist at Rush, is the lead author of the paper.
Use of targeted treatments: Clinicians in the genetic testing for
cancer programs at Rush have been heavily involved in researching
poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors that provide targeted
treatment for breast and ovarian cancers associated with certain
genetic mutations. In December, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the PARP inhibitor, olaparib, for women with
advanced ovarian cancer associated with BRCA genetic mutations
and who have had three lines of chemotherapy. Through Rush’s
research with PARP inhibitors, medical oncologist Lydia Usha, MD,
and her colleagues in cancer genetics have identified many patients
at Rush who may now benefit from this drug. In clinical trials of
olaparib, prolonged progression-free survival was seven to eight
months longer for women who received the drug compared to
those who did not. Usha is also the principal investigator of another
clinical trial (which is now open at Rush) with olaparib for women
with advanced breast cancer and BRCA mutations.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rush University Cancer Center at a Glance.......................... 3
Quality of Life
Single-Dose Treatment for Breast Cancer......................... 7
Minimizing Lung Cancer Side Effects.............................. 9
Assessing Patients’ Distress...............................................11
Targeted Treatment
Cancer Committee Chair Aidnag Diaz, MD, MPH
Complex Care for Brain Tumors.......................................13
Improved Options for Head and Neck Cancers.................14
Spearhead collaborative studies: Chief of colon and rectal surgery Bruce Orkin, MD, has developed a national registry for rectal cancer patients treated with transanal approaches, including
transanal excision, transanal endoscopic microscopy (TEM) and
transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS). About 15 institutions across the country have submitted more than 4,000
patients who underwent these procedures — and the number of
participating institutions continues to rise.
New Treatments for Hematologic Cancers.......................15
Disease Site Programs...........................................................17
Representative Publications................................................. 20
2013 Registry Numbers....................................................... 23
TEM and TAMIS procedures are performed by only a limited
cadre of experienced surgeons in the U.S. (including Orkin). Each
surgeon has performed up to several hundred cases with carefully selected patients. Studies of the data from this registry will answer questions that cannot be answered without a much larger
number of patients than any one medical center can provide.
A team effort
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many organizations that Rush collaborates with to provide high-quality patient
care, including the Commission on Cancer of the American
College of Surgeons.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to everyone involved
in the cancer program for their dedication and commitment to
our patients. At each and every level at Rush, staff make unique
contributions that raise our standards of care.
Aidnag Diaz, MD, MPH
Chair, Cancer Committee
2
Rush University Cancer Center at a Glance
The Rush University Cancer Center comprises all cancer-related
clinical, research and educational efforts at Rush, crossing 20
departments, divisions and sections; inpatient and outpatient areas;
professional clinical activities; and the colleges of Rush University.
• Support groups and activities, many on the Rush campus, offer opportunities for patients and families to share their feel-
ings and experiences with others who are living with cancer.
• Survivorship care planning includes comprehensive plans for patients and their primary care physicians regarding the care received and follow-up recommendations.
• Integrative therapies — such as acupuncture and massage therapy — are available through the Cancer Integrative Medicine Program to reduce the mental and physical stresses that often accompany traditional cancer treatment.
• A Susan G. Komen patient navigator helps remove barriers that prevent women from getting regular screening mammograms.
• A genetic counselor dedicated to the cancer center sees patients with suspected predispositions to breast, gynecologic and gastrointestinal cancers, along with rare endocrine tumors and sarcomas.
Residency and Fellowship Programs
Support Services
The Rush University Cancer Center is committed to helping patients and their families
cope with potential psychological, emotional
and spiritual challenges often associated
with a cancer diagnosis. Available support
services at Rush include the following:
• Social work services include a licensed clinical social worker dedicated to cancer patients at Rush, as well as a social worker from the American Cancer Society. They both meet with patients and family mem-
bers to determine patients’ and families’ needs and provide the necessary support.
• Psychotherapy and other psychosocial oncology services help patients, caregivers and families manage stress and physical symptoms.
• Nutrition counseling can help patients improve their health through diet. A registered dietitian provides individualized recommendations to meet health goals, such as increasing energy or managing treatment side effects.
• Palliative care services aim to improve the quality of life for patients and their families. These recently expanded services focus on reducing pain, stress and other symptoms.
• Pastoral services are available from chaplains at Rush to support the spiritual and emotional health of patients and families.
3
• Residency in radiation oncology
• Residency in nuclear medicine
• Fellowship in hematology/medical oncology
• Fellowship in orthopedic oncology
• Fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine
Advancing Medicine Through
Research
The Rush University Cancer Center fosters
research across four broad programs that
aim to deepen our understanding of cancer
to better prevent, detect and treat it:
• Cancer biology
• Clinical, behavioral and translational research
• Molecular signatures and cancer outcomes
• Tumor immunology
For more information about cancer programs at Rush or to refer a patient for an initial visit
or a second opinion, please call (312) CANCER-1 (226-2371).
Recognition and Accreditations
• Rush has received four consecutive outstanding achievement awards from the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons.
• The Coleman Foundation Blood and Bone Marrow Transplantation Clinic is accredited by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy.
• Rush’s pathology and clinical laboratories are accredited by the Joint Commission.
• Three times in a row, Rush has received Magnet status — the highest recognition for nursing excellence — from the Ameri-
can Nurses Credentialing Center.
• The Regenstein Breast Imaging Center at Rush is an American College of Radiology-
Accredited Center of Excellence. This desig-
nation is awarded to centers that have received full accreditation in mammography, breast ultrasound, and stereotactic and
ultrasound-guided needle biopsies.
• The Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs has awarded Rush full accreditation with distinction in Community Programs, giving special recognition to Rush’s community- based participatory research.
Comprehensive Clinics
Rush, which serves both adults and children with cancer, is home to The
Coleman Foundation comprehensive clinics. These multidisciplinary clinics
apply a team approach to patient care. The clinical team gathers to discuss
the patient’s condition, review diagnostic tests and develop a treatment plan,
in collaboration with the patient’s diagnosing physician whenever possible.
The comprehensive clinics are dedicated to the following:
• Blood and bone marrow transplants
• Brain cancer
• Breast cancer
• Chest and lung tumors
• Gastrointestinal cancers
• Gynecologic cancers
• Head and neck cancers
• Inherited susceptibility to cancer
• Leukemias
• Lymphomas
• Melanoma and soft tissue tumors
• Multiple myeloma
• Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms
• Prostate cancer
• Sarcomas
• Spine tumors
• In 2014, Rush received the University HealthSystem Consortium’s (UHC) Quality Leadership Award, ranking fifth among 104 academic medical centers in UHC’s annual Quality and Accountability Study. Rush is the only medical center in Illinois to be listed among the top 10 in 2014.
• The Rush Radiosurgery program is one of the few Novalis-Certified radiosurgery centers in the country.
4
RUSH CANCER NETWORK*
*Sites affiliated with Rush’s cancer program that remain separate and independent with respect to professional judgment and liability.
5
1
Rush University Medical Center
Chicago
2
Rush Oak Park Hospital
Oak Park, Ill.
3
Rush Copley Medical Center
Aurora, Ill.
4
Swedish Covenant Hospital
Chicago
5
DuPage Medical Group
Lisle, Ill.
6
Pronger Smith Medical Associates
Tinley Park, Ill.
7
Riverside Medical Center
Kankakee, Ill.
QUALITY OF LIFE
“
Curative therapies don’t
always translate into good
quality of life. We believe
it’s not just about curing,
it’s also about making sure
patients have a life to
look forward to.
— Hematologist/oncologist Melissa Larson, MD
6
”
QUALITY OF LIFE
Single-Dose Treatment for Breast Cancer
Since the late 1990s, clinicians in Europe have used intraoperative
radiation therapy (IORT) — a one-dose radiation treatment —
during a lumpectomy to lower the risk of recurrence in women with
early-stage breast cancer. After the Food and Drug Administration
approved IORT in the U.S., select medical centers, including Rush,
began offering this innovative treatment to patients. Currently, Rush
is one of the few medical centers in the Midwest to provide IORT.
26
Number of patients treated for
cancer with IORT since 2014.
None have required further radiation.
How it works
Breast surgeons and radiation oncologists
work together in the operating room to
administer one precise, concentrated dose
of radiation to the tumor site immediately
following the surgical removal of the cancer.
After the surgeon removes the tumor,
the radiation oncologist inserts electronic
brachytherapy to the lumpectomy cavity to
deliver low-energy radiation at a high-dose
rate to the breast tissue, while avoiding
radiation to nearby organs.
IORT offers comparable outcomes to
treating the whole breast externally with
standard radiation, but with fewer side
effects and shorter treatment time.
Treatment time depends on the size of the
lumpectomy cavity but usually lasts approximately 15 minutes, and patients receive
just a single dose. Comparatively, patients
who receive standard external beam radiation after breast cancer surgery go to the
hospital for treatment five days a week, for
three to six weeks.
“About 80 percent of breast cancer recurrences are in the same quadrant of the
breast where the patient’s initial breast cancer was,” says breast surgeon Katherine
Kopkash, MD. “We may be overtreating
some patients by delivering radiation to the
entire breast.”
IORT at Rush
Kopkash helped develop the IORT program
at Rush when she arrived in 2013. She and
her breast surgeon colleagues, Andrea
Madrigrano, MD, and Darius S. Francescatti, MD, began treating patients with
IORT in January 2014.
Radiation oncologist Katherine Griem, MD, and breast surgeon Katherine Kopkash, MD, work closely
to determine the right placement for the IORT during lumpectomy surgery.
7
They have since treated 26 patients: 25
with breast cancer and one with gynecologic cancer. None of the 26 patients
required further radiation.
allows patients to return to their lives faster by
“ This option
potentially reducing the need for further therapies.
— Breast surgeon Katherine Kopkash, MD
In October 2014, Rush began enrolling
patients in the national phase II clinical trial,
“A Safety and Efficacy Study of Intra-Operative Radiation Therapy (IORT) Using the Xoft
Axxent eBx System at the Time of Breast
Conservation Surgery for Early-Stage Breast
Cancer.” This study will follow patients for
10 years and examine recurrence risk and
quality of life.
Survivor mode
Surgical recovery time after lumpectomy
with IORT is the same length as lumpectomy without IORT. However, IORT drastically
decreases patients’ overall time spent in the
hospital for breast cancer treatment. This is
particularly important for women who live in
rural areas and must travel for treatment.
“Traveling to the hospital for radiation is
a challenge for many women, and these
women often choose to have a mastectomy rather than going for radiation,” says
radiation oncologist Katherine Griem, MD.
“IORT allows more women the option of
receiving breast-conserving treatment.”
There is also a psychological benefit to
having surgery and treatment completed
simultaneously. “It helps take breast cancer
out of patients’ daily lives,” says Kopkash.
“It’s often the radiation — spending hours a
day, many days a week for up to six weeks at
the hospital — that makes women feel like
‘cancer patients.’ Having IORT helps patients
transition into survivor mode more quickly.”
Meticulous Patient Selection
The most vital indicator of the success
of IORT is the patient profile. Good candidates are typically older women with
small breast cancers.
At Rush, a multidisciplinary team meticulously screens patients to determine
the best candidates for IORT. To do this,
clinicians at Rush often follow guidelines
from the American Society of Radiation
Oncology:
• Older than 60
• BRCA 1 or 2 mutations not present
• Tumor size less than 2 cm
• Endocrine receptor positive
• Lymph node negative
RESTORING BREAST CANCER PATIENTS’ SENSE OF SELF
Breast reconstruction helps many breast cancer patients cope with the sense of
powerlessness they often feel when they lose a breast. “Reconstruction is not simply
a cosmetic procedure; it is incredibly important from a psychological and functional
standpoint,” says plastic and reconstructive surgeon Anuja Antony, MD, MPH. “It
helps restore a woman’s sense of self.”
Plastic surgeons and breast surgeons at Rush partner to plan the details of the surgeries
as a team, detailing the incisions, techniques and other modalities for each patient.
reconstruction
“ Breast
helps women feel like
breast cancer survivors
rather than breast cancer
victims.
”
— Plastic and reconstructive surgeon Anuja Antony, MD, MPH
8
Rush offers the following advanced surgical options and
implant technologies for women
with breast cancer:
• Regenerative human acellular tissue implants
• Direct-to-implant single-stage immediate breast reconstruction
• Delayed/staged reconstruction
• Combined tissue expander and implant reconstruction with latissimus flap
• Microvascular tissue flap procedures, including TRAM flap and DIEP flap
• Nipple-sparing procedures
• Oncoplastic breast reduction (lumpectomy combined with breast reduction)
”
QUALITY OF LIFE
Minimizing Lung Cancer Side Effects
A lung cancer diagnosis can turn a person’s life upside down. This is
especially true for late-stage metastatic disease, when the five-year
survival rate is just 4 percent. Even when it’s caught early, the physical
and emotional impact of lung cancer can still take its toll. That’s why
lung cancer care at Rush focuses as much on ensuring quality of life
as it does on extending life.
Putting people first
The multidisciplinary team at The Coleman
Foundation Comprehensive Lung Cancer
Clinic meets weekly to review cases.
But the team doesn’t just discuss which
treatment will yield the best clinical outcomes. They talk about how to help one
patient remain ambulatory so he can visit
his first grandchild. And how to relieve another patient’s neuropathy so she can keep
working and supporting her family.
“We never forget that we’re treating a
person, not just a tumor,” says Michael
Liptay, MD, chairperson of cardiovascular-thoracic surgery.
The clinic comprises thoracic surgeons,
medical and radiation oncologists and pulmonologists. But it also includes a palliative
care physician, Elaine Chen, MD, who
helps manage patients’ symptoms and provides psychosocial support — in partnership
with the clinic’s psychosocial oncologist —
for patients and their families.
“Having all these experts working together,
talking to each other in real time, enables
us to coordinate every aspect of care,” says
thoracic surgeon Christopher Seder, MD.
“We can make sure all of our patients’
needs are met.”
Thoracic surgeons Michael Liptay, MD, and Gary Chmielewski, MD, diagnostic radiologist Palmi Shah, MD,
pathologist Paolo Gattuso, MD, and other specialists develop individualized treatment plans for lung cancer
patients at The Coleman Foundation Comprehensive Lung Cancer Clinic.
9
“ We never forget that we’re treating a person, not just a tumor. ”
—— Chairperson of cardiovascular-thoracic surgery Michael Liptay, MD
Less radiation exposure
Many lung cancer treatments at Rush are
designed with quality of life in mind.
For instance, in recent years conventional external beam radiation therapy — an option
for small, localized lung tumors — has given
way to techniques that offer accuracy in less
time and with less discomfort.
Stereotactic radiosurgery, for example, produces beams of radiation sculpted to match
the three-dimensional shape of the tumor
so less surrounding tissue is exposed. The
system also detects and corrects for even
miniscule movements, ensuring pinpoint
precision if the patient isn’t completely still.
Each session takes only five to 15 minutes,
and patients are able to return to normal
activities immediately afterward.
In many cases, stereotactic radiosurgery can
eradicate small tumors with very little toxicity to healthy lung tissue. This therapy gives
hope to patients who are not good candidates for even minimally invasive surgery
because they have too many comorbidities.
A shift in surgery
Lung cancer surgery, too, is trending toward
a “less is more” approach. At Rush, thoracic
surgeons are leaders in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), a minimally invasive
technique, for lobectomy. Lobectomy is the
most effective operation for removing localized lung tumors. But it is a big procedure
with a long, often painful recovery.
Because of their expertise, thoracic surgeons
at Rush use VATS for 74 percent of the lobectomies they perform for stage I tumors. As
a result, the average length of stay after lobectomy for lung cancer at Rush is 4.2 days
(the national average is 7.3), and the 30-day
mortality rate is just 0.3 percent. Other benefits to VATS: less pain and a quicker return
to activities of daily living.
“We’re seeing patients now who had VATS
lobectomies five, six years ago,” says Liptay.
“Not only are they cancer-free, but they
have a great quality of life. That’s just as important — to them and to us. Our patients
aren’t just alive, they are living.”
Top Rated Program
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
designated the Rush Department of
Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery as
a three-star program for lobectomy. It’s
Making every day count
the society’s highest rating, bestowed
Unfortunately, the prognosis is not as
promising for people with late-stage lung
cancer. That’s why, for people diagnosed
with late-stage disease, early palliative care
is now indicated to help guide end-of-life
decisions and care.
on only the top 5 percent of thoracic
In addition to addressing pain and other
symptoms, as she also does for patients in
the earlier stages, Chen helps late-stage
patients set and work toward meaningful but
realistic goals.
“They may not survive their cancer, but I’ll
do my best to get them to their child’s high
school graduation or enable them to take
their dream vacation,” she says. “I want
them to live the rest of their lives as fully as
possible — whatever that means for them.”
10
surgery programs in the U.S.
HHH
Rated in the top
5%
of thoracic surgery
programs in the country.
“ Psychosocial support can help patients find quality in their lives.”
Assessing Patients’ Distress
QUALITY OF LIFE
—— Psychologist James Gerhart, PhD
Receiving a cancer diagnosis is an emotional blow that can leave
patients reeling and struggling to cope. In fact, about 25 to 33
percent of cancer patients develop clinical depression or an anxiety
disorder after diagnosis, according to a study in the Lancet Oncology.
Screening Process
Clinicians typically screen patients
during pivotal visits throughout their
care: after diagnosis, after beginning
treatment, throughout treatment and
after completing treatment.
The screening process is as follows:
1.Medical assistants ask patients the questions at the beginning of their appointments.
2.Patients’ physicians then discuss the answers with their patients.
3.If necessary, the physicians refer patients to the appropriate supportive services, which can include psychosocial oncology, palliative care, social work, nutrition and financial counseling. Physicians can make a referral through a patient’s electronic medical records.
Psychologist James Gerhart, PhD, provides psychosocial support that helps cancer patients at Rush deal with
the emotional effects of cancer.
In 2014, Rush implemented two distress
screening tools for patients diagnosed with
cancer to address their psychosocial needs.
These tools help clinicians determine the severity of patients’ psychological, social, financial
and behavioral hardships. Clinicians can then
refer patients to the appropriate psychosocial
services through the cancer center.
“We are looking at distress as a vital sign;
something as important as your blood
pressure or heart rate,” says psychologist
James Gerhart, PhD, the clinical lead for
cancer distress screening at Rush. “The
stress response to a cancer diagnosis causes
a lot of wear and tear on the body. It takes
energy to have a stress reaction, to panic
or to become angry. Those are resources
in patients’ bodies that are being diverted
away from healing.”
Choosing the best tools
To screen patients in the most effective and
efficient manner, Rush uses the following
evidenced-based tools:
• Patient Health Questionnaire 9:
As one of the most widely used measures nationwide for distress screening, the questionnaire addresses the nine core symptoms of depression by asking patients questions related to their mood, sleep, appetite and emotional state.
• National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer: This questionnaire asks patients to rate their stress levels on a 10-point scale, along with yes or no questions about relevant issues, such as family concerns, physical symptoms and spiritual struggles.
11
4.Schedulers assist patients in sched-
uling follow-up appointments with the support services.
“While the questionnaires themselves only
take about five to 10 minutes to complete,
they give us an idea of where to start
the conversations and how to help our
patients,” says Gerhart. “The good news is
that we have very effective approaches to
manage stress once it’s identified.”
A pilot study at Rush that assessed the
screening tools on patients with lung and
gastrointestinal cancers found a great need
for screening, with 20 to 30 percent of the
patients showing a need for psychosocial
oncology and supportive care.
After this pilot program, Rush
implemented the distress screening
protocols throughout all of the disease
sites treated in the cancer center.
”
TARGETED TREATMENT
“
The amazing thing about
Rush is that we are
committed to safety and
excellence in clinical
care, while, at the same
time, offering our patients
cutting-edge treatments.
— Neuro-oncologist Nina Paleologos, MD
12
”
“ We can conform radiation beams away from critical areas in the brain.”
Complex Care for Brain Tumors
TARGETED TREATMENT
—— Radiation oncologist Aidnag Diaz, MD, MPH
For radiation oncologist Aidnag Diaz, MD, MPH, conforming
radiation fields to spare the hippocampus is standard for every brain
tumor patient he treats at Rush, whenever clinically possible.
In a 2014 study published in Surgical Neurology International, Diaz and neurosurgeon
Lorenzo Muñoz, MD, found that resection plus stereotactic radiosurgery to the
cavity resulted in comparable survival rates
for cerebral metastases versus whole brain
irradiation, the current standard.
Additionally, stereotactic radiosurgery using
the TrueBeam STx radiosurgical tool significantly reduces treatment times (up to one
third less than other radiosurgical tools). This
means the patients are less likely to move
during treatment, adding to the precision
of the treatment by keeping the radiation
inside the tumor field.
And, to minimize exposure to steroids and
decrease their potential side effects, the
multidisciplinary team employs a rapidly
tapered corticosteroid protocol.
Validating clinical significance
Radiation oncologist Aidnag Diaz, MD, MPH, and radiation therapist James Hart review patient scans.
Evidence-based protocols
Hippocampal sparing is standard protocol
at Rush thanks to seminal research by a
team of radiation oncologists from Rush
who investigated its feasibility during whole
brain radiotherapy.
In a 2010 published review of 107 cases and
700 lesions, the team found that metastases occurred in the hippocampus in only
0.8 percent of the cases, and in the limbic
circuit in fewer than 3 percent of cases. This
finding led the researchers to the conclusion
that it was possible in most cases to eliminate metastases with radiation while sparing
“The high volume of brain tumor patients
we see at Rush gives us not only greater
experience treating these tumors; it gives us
the number of patients needed to determine
clinical significance through studies — which
in turn helps us learn even more about
treating these tumors with less toxicity and
greater effectiveness,” says Diaz.
the hippocampus and the limbic areas,
where metastases were unlikely to occur.
Aggressive and focused
This philosophy of focused treatment to
enhance a patient’s quality of life is part of the
aggressive, yet targeted treatment Diaz and
his colleagues bring to all primary brain tumor
and cerebral metastases patients at Rush.
For radiation therapy, Rush’s advanced technologies, including stereotactic radiosurgery,
allow for extremely precise radiation fields.
This precision enables high doses to the
tumor, while minimizing the damaging side
effects of whole brain radiation.
13
Nearly
70,000
new cases of primary brain tumors
will be diagnosed this year.
(Source: American Brain Tumor Association)
”
“ We focus on both a cure and patients’ quality of life. ”
Improved Options for Head and Neck Cancers
TARGETED TREATMENT
—— Rhinologist and skull base surgeon Pete Batra, MD
In 2014, the head and neck program at Rush added two nationally
renowned head and neck surgeons, Pete Batra, MD, chairperson of
the Department of Otorhinolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery,
and Kerstin Stenson, MD, director of the Rush Head and Neck
Cancer Program.
Batra, Stenson and the other leading head
and neck cancer specialists at Rush utilize
the most advanced treatments, including
image-guided surgery and minimally invasive endoscopic surgery, that focus on both
curing the cancer and maintaining patients’
quality of life.
Patients who can typically receive less postoperative radiation or upfront chemoradiation
are those who have HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer. “We have discovered that patients with HPV-related cancers have tumors
that are much easier to cure than non-HPV
related tumors,” says Stenson.
Many head and neck cancer patients receive
care through The Coleman Foundation Comprehensive Head and Neck Cancer Clinic.
“And we are making great strides in
decreasing long-term effects of treatments
and morbidity.”
Endoscopic resection for
skull base tumors
In 2014, Rush began offering minimally invasive endoscopic resection of skull base tumors.
During the procedure, the surgeon uses small
endoscopes to remove tumors deep inside the
nose and sinuses. With comparable outcomes
to open surgery, minimally invasive surgery
decreases the risk of complications with vision, swallowing, taste and speech, while also
maintaining the patient’s appearance.
According to recent studies
72%
of oropharyngeal cancers
are caused by HPV.
Advanced Treatments
Patients at Rush have access to the following advanced treatments for head
and neck cancers:
• Microvascular reconstruction, including techniques for patients with complicated resections/wounds
• Facial nerve repair and facial paralysis reconstruction/treatment
• Endoscopic minimally invasive resec-
tion of sinus and skull base tumors
• Transoral robotic surgery
• Transoral laser microsurgery
• Transnasal fiberoptic video laryngos-
copy and esophagoscopy
• Transoral surgery for tumors of the larynx, tongue and throat (outpatient)
• Intraoperative 3D modeling for jaw reconstruction
• Intensity-modulated radiation therapy
• Stereotactic radiosurgery
• Treatment for patients with complica-
tions of chemoradiation (e.g., osteoradionecrosis, swallowing problems)
“With open surgery, patients often don’t look
or feel the same ever again — and that is
very important to consider in terms of quality of life,” says Batra. “Minimally invasive
surgery allows us to preserve the function so
patients can look and feel like themselves.”
Less toxic treatments
To treat head and neck cancers, clinicians can
now pinpoint targeted areas and treat these
areas with less radiation after surgery. “While
we are still quite aggressive with treatment,
patients receive less radiation after surgery
than they have in the past,” says Stenson.
Skull base surgeon Pete Batra, MD; head and neck surgeon Samer Al-Khudari, MD; head and neck surgeon
Kerstin Stenson, MD; and facial plastic and reconstructive surgeon Peter Revenaugh, MD
14
TARGETED TREATMENT
New Treatments for Hematologic Cancers
Developing new drugs to fight complex cancers can be a long,
expensive journey with certain pitfalls. To combat this challenge,
hematologist/oncologist Reem Karmali, MD, is exploring how to use
existing medications in different ways to develop novel treatments for
hematologic malignancies.
Q: What are you looking for in
your research?
A: We have looked at protein components
of this pathway that could have bearing
on the aggressive nature of hematologic
malignancies. From there, we identified
specific proteins within the pathway to give
us a sense of how an individual’s cancer is
going to behave.
We are now looking at how Metformin
affects cancer cell growth, proliferation
and protein markers involved in the
insulin-like growth factor-1 pathway.
These changes will be associated with the
survival of a patient to determine how it all
comes together.
Q: What is the benefit of using an
existing drug like Metformin?
A: We have been using Metformin to treat
diabetes for years, so we have a good
understanding of its safety profile, and it
is not terribly toxic. Also, if it circumvents
relapse, we would not have to use more
toxic second lines of therapy.
Hematologist/oncologist Reem Karmali, MD, is researching how existing drugs may help improve
outcomes for blood cancer patients.
Specifically, Karmali’s research focuses
on using a common diabetes medication
(Metformin) as an adjunct to standard
chemotherapy for patients with aggressive
lymphomas and leukemias. “Observational
data shows that lymphoma patients who
received chemotherapy but also happened
to be on Metformin have improved outcomes and survival,” says Karmali.
Q: What is the relationship between
diabetes medications and treatment for
hematologic malignancies?
A: The insulin-like growth factor-1 pathway
(a pathway involved in insulin signaling)
is very relevant to tumor proliferation and
survival. Research suggests that people
who have higher insulin levels or insulin
resistance tend to be more prone to
cancers, including hematologic cancers.
Knowing that insulin may have a role in
proliferation, we thought we could counter
the effects of insulin signaling with with
anti-diabetic medication to see if that
affects the response of a patient’s cancer
to standard chemotherapy.
15
Additionally, many of the newer drugs are
very expensive. Metformin is inexpensive,
so there are obvious economic implications,
as well.
Q: Why is this type of research so
important to hematologic cancers?
A: Research often drives treatment plans
and prognosis for these types of cancers.
This research could help improve upon
how a patient responds to chemotherapy
and the length of time that a response
is maintained. Ultimately, it could help
improve the survival rates for lymphomas
and leukemias.
to really understand the biology of these cancers, which
“ We are starting
allows us to tailor therapy to each patient’s individual cancer.
—— Hematologist/oncologist Reem Karmali, MD
Using Molecular Markers to Improve Treatment
Hematologists/oncologists are increasingly looking at patients’ genetic profiles to determine
the most effective treatments. At Rush, most hematologic cancer patients undergo testing
that evaluates specific molecular markers of their cancer cells. These markers help clinicians
understand the unique pathways for therapies to reach the cancer cells, and the specific
characteristics and behavior of each individual’s cancer.
In turn, researchers have developed novel agents such as ibrutinib and idelalisib that
target specific pathways and molecular markers in cancer cells, thereby cutting off the
growth of these cells.
“Unlike treatments available in the past, the newer agents are tailored to patients’ molecular
characteristics,” says hematologist/oncologist Parameswaran Venugopal, MD. “We are
now not only able to kill cancer cells with chemotherapy, but also cut off the pathways that
lead to cancer development and recurrence without affecting the function of normal cells.”
COLLABORATIVE MEDICINE: PUTTING PATIENTS FIRST
which they are eligible,” says hematologist Jamile Shammo, MD,
who helped found the MDS/MPN Chicago consortium and is
a member of the international myeloproliferative neoplasms
research consortium.
Sometimes Rush’s team approach to treating hematologic cancers
stretches beyond the Medical Center. Clinicians at Rush participate
in consortia of five academic medical centers in the Chicago area
that meet to discuss their most complex patients with lymphoma,
myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN) and
myeloma. Several times a year, leading physicians in these three
separate consortia gather at each of the respective medical centers
to review cases and discuss treatment strategies.
“As the director of the MDS/MPN program at Rush, I have participated in clinical trials that led to the approval of several new drugs for
treating these disorders. We continue to participate in trials, offering
alternative and novel options for patients who have failed standard
of care approaches.”
“These partnerships have helped us improve care for our patients by
bringing together specialists with a wide range of expertise,” says hematologist/oncologist Parameswaran Venugopal, MD. “Every member
of these consortia is committed to doing what is best for all patients,
regardless of which medical center and physician is treating them.”
“
By joining forces, Rush and the participating institutions are able to
enroll more patients in clinical trials than they could on their own.
These trials offer patients an opportunity to receive advanced treatments and therapies not readily available in community hospitals.
The best part about these
partnerships is exchanging
ideas and information about
clinical trials available at
each institution and referring
patients to the most promising
and appropriate trials for
which they are eligible.
”
“The best part about these partnerships is exchanging ideas and
information about clinical trials available at each institution and
referring patients to the most promising and appropriate trials for
—Hematologist Jamile Shammo, MD
16
”
Disease Site Programs
Breast Tumor Conference
Mondays, 4 to 5 p.m.
Janet Wolter, MD, Clinical and Educational
Conference Room, 1010 Professional Building
Clinical Specialists
Neurosurgeons:
Pete Batra, MD; Richard Byrne, MD; Lorenzo
Muñoz, MD
Diagnostic radiologists:
John Meyer, DO; Anthony Zelazny, MD
Neurotologist:
R. Mark Wiet, MD
Medical oncologist:
Marta Batus, MD
Ophthalmologists:
Adam Cohen, MD; Thomas Mizen, MD;
Tamara Fountain, MD
ENDOCRINE AND THYROID CANCERS
Pediatric hematologist/oncologist:
Paul Kent, MD
Diagnostic radiologist:
Amjad Ali, MD
Radiation oncologist:
Endocrine surgeon:
Katy Heiden, MD
Speech pathologists:
Mike Hefferly, PhD; Michele Simer, MS
Endocrinologists:
David Baldwin, MD; Antonio Bianco, MD;
Raquel Carneiro, MD; Leon Fogelfeld, MD;
Tiffany Hor, MD; Brian Kim, MD; Elizabeth
McAninch, MD; Mahtab Sohrevardi, MD;
Kristina Todorova-Koteva, MD
BONE AND SOFT TISSUE SARCOMAS
Orthopedic surgeons:
Matthew Colman, MD; Steven Gitelis, MD
Pathologists:
Leonidas Arvanitis, MD; Jerome Loew, MD;
Brett Mahon, MD; Ira Miller, MD; Vijaya
Reddy, MD
Pediatric hematologist/oncologists:
Paul Kent, MD; Allen Korenblit, MD
Pediatric physiatrist:
Laura Deon, MD
Plastic and reconstructive specialist:
Gordon Derman, MD
Brain Tumor Conference
Tuesdays, 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Medical oncologists:
Mary Jo Fidler, MD; Lauren Wiebe, MD
Radiation oncologists:
Ross Abrams, MD; Dian Wang, MD
BREAST CANCER
Surgical oncologists:
Steven Bines, MD; Jonathan Myers, MD
Wednesdays, 9 to 10 a.m.
Diagnostic radiologists:
Anne Cardwell, MD; Carol Corbridge, MD;
Janice Dieschbourg, MD; Mireya Dondalski,
MD; Peter Jokich, MD; Gene Solmos, MD; Lisa
Stempel, MD
BRAIN AND SKULL BASE TUMORS
Melody Cobleigh, MD; Katherine Kabaker,
MD; Ruta Rao, MD; Lydia Usha, MD
Sarcoma Conference
Medical oncologists
Mary Jo Fidler, MD; John Showel, MD
Neuro-oncologists:
Robert Aiken, MD; Nina Paleologos, MD
Neuropathologists:
Leonidas Arvanitis, MD; Paolo Gattuso, MD;
Ritu Ghai, MD; Sukriti Nag, MD
Neuroradiologists:
Sharon Byrd, MD; Miral Jhaveri, MD; Mehmet
Kocak, MD
Pathologists:
Paolo Gattuso, MD; Ritu Ghai, MD
Plastic and reconstructive specialists:
Anuja Antony, MD, MPH; John Cook, MD;
Gordon Derman, MD; George Kouris, MD
Katherine Griem, MD; Jessica Zhou, MD
Steven Bines, MD; Darius Francescatti, MD;
Katherine Kopkash, MD; Andrea Madrigrano,
MD; Thomas Witt, MD; Norman Wool, MD
17
Otolaryngologists/head and
neck surgeons:
Samer Al-Khudari, MD; Joseph Allegretti, MD;
Phillip LoSavio, MD; Thomas Nielsen, MD;
Kerstin Stenson, MD
Pathologists:
Paolo Gattuso, MD; Ritu Ghai, MD
Ross Abrams, MD
Endocrine Tumor Conference
Every other Tuesday, 8 to 9 a.m.
Location varies
Thyroid Cancer Tumor Conference
Every fourth Wednesday, 8 to 9 a.m.
GASTROINTESTINAL CANCERS
Colorectal surgeons:
Marc Brand, MD; Joanne Favuzza, DO; Bruce
Orkin, MD; Marc Singer, MD
Kalyan Latchamsetty, MD; Laurence Levine,
MD; Charles McKiel Jr., MD; Ajay Nehra, MD;
Dennis Pessis, MD
Aidnag Diaz, MD, MPH; Dian Wang, MD;
Jessica Zhou, MD
Genitourinary Tumor Conference
Last Tuesday of the month, 7 to 8 a.m.
Head and Neck Tumor Conference
Wednesdays, 7 to 8 a.m.
GYNECOLOGIC CANCERS
HEMATOLOGIC CANCERS
Marisa Hill, MD; William Leslie, MD; Lydia
Usha, MD; Lauren Wiebe, MD
Pathologist:
Shriram Jakate, MD
Medical oncologist:
Lydia Usha, MD
Geneticist:
Wei-Tong Hsu, MD
Ross Abrams, MD; Dian Wang, MD
Pathologists:
Pincas Bitterman, MD; Ritu Ghai, MD
Radiologists:
John Hibbeln, MD
Plastic and reconstructive surgery specialists:
Anuja Antony, MD; Gordon Derman, MD;
George Kouris, MD
Hematologist/oncologists:
Lisa Boggio, MD; Irene Dehghan-Paz, MD;
Sefer Gezer, MD; Stephanie Gregory, MD;
Reem Karmali, MD; Debra Katz, MD; Melissa
Larson, MD; Agne Paner, MD; Jamile Shammo, MD; Parameswaran Venugopal, MD
Gastroenterologists:
A. Aziz Aadam, MD; Faraz Bishehsari, MD;
Salina Lee, MD; John Losurdo, MD; Joshua
Melson, MD, MPH; Sohrab Mobarhan, MD;
Peter Sargon, MD
General surgeons:
Daniel Deziel, MD; Minh Luu, MD; Keith
Millikan, MD; Jonathan Myers, MD
Interventional radiologists:
Bulent Arslan, MD; Allen Chen, MD; Jayesh
Soni, MD; Ulku Cenk Turba, MD
Thoracic surgeons:
Gary Chmielewski, MD; Michael Liptay, MD;
Christopher Seder, MD; William Warren, MD
Transplant hepatologists:
Sheila Eswaran, MD; Nikunj Shah, MD
Transplant surgeons
Edie Chan, MD; Sameh Fayek, MD; Martin
Hertl, MD
Gastrointestinal Tumor Conference
Tuesdays, 12:30 to 1:30 p.m.
Gynecologic oncologists:
Summer Dewdney, MD; Jacob Rotmensch, MD
Jessica Zhou, MD
Gynecologic Tumor Conference
Fridays, 7 to 8 a.m.
Pathology Conference Room, 562 Jelke
Building
HEAD AND NECK CANCERS
Facial plastic and reconstructive surgeon:
Peter Revenaugh, MD
GENITOURINARY CANCERS
Mary Jo Fidler, MD; John Showel, MD
Neuroradiologist:
Miral Jhaveri, MD
Nicklas Pfanzelter, MD; John Showel, MD
Dian Wang, MD
Urologists:
Christopher Coogan, MD; Leslie Deane,
MBBS; Shahid Ekbal, MD; Lev Elterman, MD;
Jerome Hoeksema, MD; Narendra Khare, MD;
Dermatologist:
Warren Piette, MD
Hematopathologists:
Jerome Loew, MD; Brett Mahon, MD; Ira
Miller, MD
Palliative medicine specialists:
Elaine Chen, MD; Susan Nathan, MD; Sean
O’Mahony, MB, BCh, BAO; Mei-Ean Yeow,
MB, BCh
Ross Abrams, MD
Radiologist:
Amjad Ali, MD
Stem cell transplantation specialists:
Antonio Jimenez, MD; John Maciejewski, MD,
PhD; Sunita Nathan, MD
Hematologic Cancer Conference
Otolaryngologists/head and
neck surgeons:
Samer Al-Khudari, MD; Joseph Allegretti, MD;
Pete Batra, MD; Thomas Nielsen, MD; Kerstin
Stenson, MD
Gordon Derman, MD; George Kouris, MD
18
Leukemia: Mondays, 1 to 2 p.m.
Lymphoma: Thursdays, 8 to 9 a.m.
Multiple myeloma: every other Friday,
8 to 9 a.m.
Myelodysplasia/myeloproliferative
disorders: every other Friday, 9 to 10 a.m.
LIVER CANCER
MELANOMA AND CUTANEOUS CANCERS
PEDIATRIC CANCERS
Ryan Braun, MD
Dermatologists:
Jeffrey Altman, MD; Lady Dy, MD; James
Ertle, MD; Sheetal Mehta, MD; Warren Piette,
MD; Arthur Rhodes, MD, MPH; Michael
Tharp, MD
Orthopedic oncologist:
Steven Gitelis, MD
Hepatologists:
Sheila Eswaran, MD; Nikunj Shah, MD
Interventional radiologists:
Bulent Arslan, MD; Allen Chen, MD; Jayesh
Soni, MD; Jordan Tasse, MD; Ulku Cenk
Turba, MD
Medical oncologist:
Marisa Hill, MD
Transplant surgeons:
Edie Chan, MD; Sameh Fayek, MD; Martin
Hertl, MD
Liver Cancer Conference
First and third Friday of the month, 7 to 8 a.m.
4th Floor, Tower, Suite 04413
LUNG AND THORACIC CANCERS
Marta Batus, MD; Philip Bonomi, MD; Mary
Jo Fidler, MD
Palliative medicine specialist:
Elaine Chen, MD
Pathologists:
Paolo Gattuso, MD; Ritu Ghai, MD; Mark
Pool, MD
Pulmonary medicine specialists:
Robert Balk, MD; Elaine Chen, MD; Michael Silver, MD; Betty Tran, MD, MS; Mark Yoder, MD
Thoracic radiologist:
Palmi Shah, MD
Dermatopathologist:
Vijaya Reddy, MD
Joy Sclamberg, MD
Immunologists:
Amanda Marzo, PhD; Carl Ruby, PhD; Andrew
Zloza, MD, PhD
Medical oncologist:
Nicklas Pfanzelter, MD
Pediatric hematologist/oncologists:
Lisa Boggio, MD; Nisha Kakodkar, MD; Paul
Kent, MD; Allen Korenblit, MD; Mindy Simpson, MD
Pediatric neuroradiologists:
Sharon Byrd, MD; Mehmet Kocak, MD
Pediatric neurosurgeon:
Lorenzo Muñoz, MD
Plastic and reconstructive specialist:
Gordon Derman, MD
Ross Abrams, MD; Aidnag Diaz, MD, MPH
Neurosurgeon:
Lorenzo Muñoz, MD
Ophthalmologists:
Adam Cohen, MD; Tamara Fountain, MD
Gordon Derman, MD; Peter Revenaugh, MD
Ross Abrams, MD
Stem cell transplantation specialists:
Antonio Jimenez, MD; John Maciejewski, MD,
PhD; Sunita Nathan, MD
Steven Bines, MD; Keith Monson, MD
Melanoma and Soft Tissue
Tumor Conference
Wednesdays, 11 a.m. to noon
Thoracic surgeons:
Gary Chmielewski, MD; Michael Liptay, MD;
Christopher Seder, MD; William Warren, MD
Lung and Thoracic Tumor Conference
Thursdays, 10 to 11 a.m.
19
SPINE TUMORS
Neuro-oncologists:
Robert Aiken, MD; Nina Paleologos, MD
Neurosurgeons:
Ricardo Fontes, MD, PhD; John O’Toole, MD, MS
Orthopedic surgeons:
Matthew Colman, MD; Kern Singh, MD
Spine Tumor Conference
Thursdays, 9 a.m. to noon
Woman’s Board Cancer Treatment Center,
500 S. Paulina St.
Representative Publications
Abdalla SM, Bianco AC. Defending
plasma T3 is a biological priority. Clin
Endocrinol (Oxf). 2014;81(5):633-641.
Aiken RD, Byrne RW. Primary brain
tumors: introduction. Semin Oncol.
2014;41(4):437.
Al-Khudari S, Guo S, Chen Y, Nwizu
T, Greskovich JF, Lorenz R, Burkey BB,
Adelstein DJ, Koyfman SA. Solitary
dural metastasis at presentation in a
patient with untreated human papillomavirus-associated squamous cell
carcinoma of the oropharynx. Head
Neck. 2014;36(10):E103-E105.
Antony AK, McCarthy C, Disa JJ,
Mehrara BJ. Bilateral implant breast
reconstruction: outcomes, predictors, and matched cohort analysis
in 730 2-stage breast reconstructions over 10 years. Ann Plast Surg.
2014;72(6):625-630.
Babu A, Luque RM, Glick R, Utset M,
Fogelfeld L. Variability in quantitative
expression of receptors in nonfunctioning pituitary macroadenomas—an
opportunity for targeted medical therapy. Endocr Pract. 2014;20(1):15-25.
Barua A, Yellapa A, Bahr JM, Machado SA, Bitterman P, Basu S, Sharma
S, Abramowicz JS. Enhancement of
ovarian tumor detection with v 3
integrin-targeted ultrasound molecular imaging agent in laying hens:
a preclinical model of spontaneous
ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer.
2014;24(1):19-28.
Bedi M, King DM, Charlson J, Whitfield R, Hackbarth DA, Zambrano EV,
Wang D. Multimodality management of metastatic patients with soft
tissue sarcomas may prolong survival.
Am J Clin Oncol. 2014;37(3):272277.
Ben Musa R, Usha L, Hibbeln J,
Mutlu EA. TNF inhibitors to treat ulcerative colitis in a metastatic breast
cancer patient: a case report and
literature review. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(19):5912-5917.
Billingsley JT, Wiet RM, Petruzzelli GJ, Byrne R. A locally invasive
giant cell tumor of the skull base:
case report. J Neurol Surg Rep.
2014;75(1):e175-e179.
Bishehsari F, Mahdavinia M, Vacca
M, Malekzadeh R, Mariani-Costantini R. Epidemiological transition of
colorectal cancer in developing countries: environmental factors, molecular pathways, and opportunities for
prevention. World J Gastroenterol.
2014;20(20):6055-6072.
pharyngeal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol.
2014;32(35):3930-3938.
Colman MW, Kirkwood JM, Schott
T, Goodman MA, McGough RL III.
Does metastasectomy improve survival in skeletal melanoma? Melanoma
Res. 2014;24(4):354-359.
Bishehsari F. Race in colorectal
cancer screening strategies: a solid
determinant factor or a “moving target”? Gastroenterology.
2014;147(6):1440.
Colman MW, Lozano-Calderon S,
Raskin KA, Hornicek FJ, Gebhardt
M. Non-neoplastic soft tissue masses
that mimic sarcoma. Orthop Clin
North Am. 2014;45(2):245-255.
Campos SM, Brady WE, Moxley KM,
O’Cearbhaill RE, Lee PS, DiSilvestro
PA, Rotmensch J, Rose PG, Thaker
PH, O’Malley DM, Hanjani P, Zuna
RE, Hensley ML. A phase II evaluation
of pazopanib in the treatment of
recurrent or persistent carcinosarcoma of the uterus: a gynecologic
oncology group study [published
correction appears in Gynecol Oncol.
2014;135(3):624]. Gynecol Oncol.
2014;133(3):537-541.
Corley J, Kasliwal MK, O’Toole
JE, Byrne RW. Extensive vertebral
scalloping in a case of giant cystic
spinal schwannoma: more than just a
radiological diagnosis. J Neurooncol.
2014;120(1):219-220.
Dafer RM, Paleologos N, Lynch D.
Intravenous thrombolysis for ischemic
stroke in recurrent oligodendroglioma: a case report. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;23(5):1235-1238.
Cherenfant J, Talamonti MS, Hall CR,
Thurow TA, Gage MK, Stocker SJ,
Lapin B, Wang E, Silverstein JC, Mangold K, Odeleye M, Kaul KL, Lamzabi
I, Gattuso P, Winchester DJ, Marsh
RW, Roggin KK, Bentrem DJ, Baker
MS, Prinz RA. Comparison of tumor
markers for predicting outcomes after
resection of nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Surgery.
2014;156(6):1504-1510.
Dakhil S, Hermann R, Schreeder MT,
Gregory SA, Monte M, Windsor KS,
Hurst D, Chai A, Brewster M, Richards P. Phase III safety study of rituximab administered as a 90-minute
infusion in patients with previously
untreated diffuse large B-cell and follicular lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma.
2014;55(10):2335-2340.
Daly S, Kubasiak JC, Rinewalt D,
Pithadia R, Basu S, Fhied C, Lobato
GC, Seder CW, Hong E, Warren
WH, Chmielewski G, Liptay MJ,
Bonomi P, Borgia JA. Circulating
angiogenesis biomarkers are associated with disease progression in lung
adenocarcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg.
2014;98(6):1968-1975.
Chesson CB, Huelsmann EJ,
Lacek AT, Kohlhapp FJ, Webb MF,
Nabatiyan A, Zloza A, Rudra JS.
Antigenic peptide nanofibers elicit
adjuvant-free CD8⁺ T cell responses.
Vaccine. 2014;32(10):1174-1180.
Christians KK, Tsai S, Mahmoud A,
Ritch P, Thomas JP, Wiebe L, Kelly
T, Erickson B, Wang H, Evans DB,
George B. Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX
for borderline resectable pancreas
cancer: a new treatment paradigm?
Oncologist. 2014;19(3):266-274.
Dandekar V, Morgan T, Turian J,
Fidler MJ, Showel J, Nielsen T,
Coleman J, Diaz A, Sher DJ. Patterns-of-failure after helical tomotherapy-based chemoradiotherapy for
head and neck cancer: implications
for CTV margin, elective nodal dose
and bilateral parotid sparing. Oral
Oncol. 2014;50(5):520-526.
Chung CH, Zhang Q, Kong CS,
Harris J, Fertig EJ, Harari PM, Wang
D, Redmond KP, Shenouda G, Trotti
A, Raben D, Gillison ML, Jordan RC,
Le QT. p16 protein expression and
human papillomavirus status as
prognostic biomarkers of nonoro-
Delavari A, Mardan F, Salimzadeh H,
Bishehsari F, Khosravi P, Khanehzad
M, Nasseri-Moghaddam S, Merat S,
Ansari R, Vahedi H, Shahbazkhani
20
B, Saberifiroozi M, Sotoudeh M,
Malekzadeh R. Characteristics of
colorectal polyps and cancer; a retrospective review of colonoscopy data
in Iran. Middle East J Dig
Dewdney SB, Jiao Z, Roma AA, Gao
F, Rimel BJ, Thaker PH, Powell MA,
Massad LS, Mutch DG, Zighelboim I. The prognostic significance
of lymphovascular space invasion
in laparoscopic versus abdominal
hysterectomy for endometrioid endometrial cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol.
2014;35(1):7-10.
Diaz AZ, Choi M. Radiation-associated toxicities in the treatment of
high-grade gliomas. Semin Oncol.
2014;41(4):532-540.
Dimopoulos MA, Kastritis E, Owen
RG, Kyle RA, Landgren O, Morra E,
Leleu X, García-Sanz R, Munshi N,
Anderson KC, Terpos E, Ghobrial
IM, Morel P, Maloney D, Rummel M,
Leblond V, Advani RH, Gertz MA,
Kyriakou C, Thomas SK, Barlogie B,
Gregory SA, Kimby E, Merlini G,
Treon SP. Treatment recommendations for patients with Waldenström
macroglobulinemia (WM) and related
disorders: IWWM-7 consensus.
Blood. 2014;124(9):1404-1411.
Doscas ME, Williamson AJ, Usha
L, Bogachkov Y, Rao GS, Xiao F,
Wang Y, Ruby C, Kaufman H, Zhou
J, Williams JW, Li Y, Xu X. Inhibition
of p70 S6 kinase (S6K1) activity
by A77 1726 and its effect on cell
proliferation and cell cycle progress.
Neoplasia. 2014;16(10):824-834.
Duan L, Perez RE, Hansen M, Gitelis
S, Maki CG. Increasing cisplatin
sensitivity by schedule-dependent
inhibition of AKT and Chk1. Cancer
Biol Ther. 2014;15(12):1600-1612.
Eti S, O’Mahony S, McHugh
M, Guilbe R, Blank A, Selwyn P.
Outcomes of the acute palliative
care unit in an academic medical
center. Am J Hosp Palliat Care.
2014;31(4):380-384.x
Farazi M, Cohn Z, Nguyen J,
Weinberg AD, Ruby CE. Early-onset
age-related changes in dendritic cell
subsets can impair antigen-specific T
helper 1 (Th1) CD4 T cell priming.
J Leukoc Biol. 2014;96(2):245-254.
Farazi M, Nguyen J, Goldufsky J,
Linnane S, Lukaesko L, Weinberg
AD, Ruby CE. Caloric restriction
maintains OX40 agonist-mediated
tumor immunity and CD4 T cell priming during aging. Cancer Immunol
Immunother. 2014;63(6):615-626.
Fleetwood VA, Zielsdorf S, Eswaran
S, Jakate S, Chan EY. Intra-abdominal desmoid tumor after liver
transplantation: a case report. World
J Transplant. 2014;4(2):148-152.
Garg S, Gielda BT, Kiel K, Turian JV,
Fidler MJ, Batus M, Bonomi P, Sher
DJ. Patterns of locoregional failure
in stage III non-small cell lung cancer
treated with definitive chemoradiation therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol.
2014;4(5):342-348.
Gerard CS, Straus D, Byrne RW. Surgical management of low-grade gliomas. Semin Oncol. 2014;41(4):458467.
Harbhajanka A, Lamzabi I, Singh RI,
Ghai R, Reddy VB, Bitterman P,
Gattuso P. Correlation of clinicopathologic parameters and immunohistochemical features of triple-negative invasive lobular carcinoma. Appl
Immunohistochem Mol Morphol.
2014;22(6):e18-e26.
Heiden KB, Williamson AJ, Doscas
ME, Ye J, Wang Y, Liu D, Xing M,
Prinz RA, Xu X. The sonic hedgehog
signaling pathway maintains the
cancer stem cell self-renewal of
anaplastic thyroid cancer by inducing
snail expression. J Clin Endocrinol
Metab. 2014;99(11):E2178-E2187.
Jackson WC, Johnson SB, Foster B,
Foster C, Li D, Song Y, Vainshtein
J, Zhou J, Hamstra DA, Feng FY.
Combining prostate-specific antigen
nadir and time to nadir allows for
early identification of patients at
highest risk for development of metastasis and death following salvage
radiation therapy. Pract Radiat Oncol.
2014;4(2):99-107.
Jain R, Bitterman P, Lamzabi I, Reddy VB, Gattuso P. Androgen receptor
expression in vascular neoplasms of
the breast. Appl Immunohistochem
Mol Morphol. 2014;22(2):132-135.
Jain R, Singh K, Lamzabi I, Harbhajanka A, Gattuso P, Reddy VB.
Blastomycosis of bone: a clinicopathologic study. Am J Clin Pathol.
2014;142(5):609-616.
Johnson SB, Prisciandaro JI, Zhou
J, Hadley SW, Reynolds RK, Jolly
S. Primary peritoneal clear cell
carcinoma treated with IMRT and
interstitial HDR brachytherapy: a
case report. J Appl Clin Med Phys.
2014;15(1):4520.
Liliav B, Loeb J, Hassid VJ, Antony
AK. Single-stage nipple-areolar
complex reconstruction technique,
outcomes, and patient satisfaction.
Ann Plast Surg. 2014;73(5):492-497.
Johnson SB, Zhou J, Jolly S, Guo B,
Young L, Prisciandaro JI. The dosimetric impact of single, dual, and triple
tandem applicators in the treatment
of intact uterine cancer. Brachytherapy. 2014;13(3):268-274.
List AF, Bennett JM, Sekeres MA,
Skikne B, Fu T, Shammo JM, Nimer
SD, Knight RD, Giagounidis A; MDS003 Study Investigators. Extended
survival and reduced risk of AML
progression in erythroid-responsive
lenalidomide-treated patients with
lower-risk del(5q) MDS. Leukemia.
2014;28(5):1033-1040.
Kakar S, Grenert JP, Paradis V, Pote
N, Jakate S, Ferrell LD. Hepatocellular carcinoma arising in adenoma:
similar immunohistochemical and
cytogenetic features in adenoma
and hepatocellular carcinoma
portions of the tumor. Mod Pathol.
2014;27(11):1499-1509.
Lu D, Girish S, Gao Y, Wang B, Yi JH,
Guardino E, Samant M, Cobleigh M,
Rimawi M, Conte P, Jin JY. Population
pharmacokinetics of trastuzumab
emtansine (T-DM1), a HER2-targeted
antibody-drug conjugate, in patients
with HER2-positive metastatic breast
cancer: clinical implications of the effect of covariates. Cancer Chemother
Pharmacol. 2014;74(2):399-410.
Kaufman HL, Ruby CE, Hughes T,
Slingluff CL Jr. Current status of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in the immunotherapy
of melanoma. J Immunother Cancer.
2014;2:11.
Lu R, Wu S, Zhang Y, Xia Y, Huelsmann EJ, Lacek AT, Nabatiyan A,
Richards MH, Narasipura SD, Lutgen
V, Chen H, Kaufman HL, Chen D,
Al-Harthi L, Zloza A, Sun J. HIV
infection accelerates gastrointestinal
tumor outgrowth in NSG-HuPBL
mice. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses.
2014;30(7):677-684.
Kellogg RG, Straus DC, Karmali R,
Munoz LF, Byrne RW. Impact of
therapeutic regimen and clinical presentation on overall survival in CNS
lymphoma. Acta Neurochir (Wien).
2014;156(2):355-365.
Kharofa J, Tsai S, Kelly T, Wood C,
George B, Ritch P, Wiebe L, Christians K, Evans DB, Erickson B. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with IMRT in
resectable and borderline resectable
pancreatic cancer. Radiother Oncol.
2014;113(1):41-46.
Lu Y, Gitelis S, Lei G, Ding M, Maki C,
Mira RR, Zheng Q. Research findings
working with the p53 and Rb1 targeted osteosarcoma mouse model. Am J
Cancer Res. 2014;4(3):234-244.
Maley A, Rhodes AR. Cutaneous
melanoma: preoperative tumor
diameter in a general dermatology
outpatient setting. Dermatol Surg.
2014;40(4):446-454.
Kim DW, Zloza A, Broucek J, Schenkel JM, Ruby C, Samaha G, Kaufman
HL. Interleukin-2 alters distribution of
CD144 (VE-cadherin) in endothelial
cells. J Transl Med. 2014;12:113.
Mamtani R, Pfanzelter N, Haynes
K, Finkelman BS, Wang X, Keefe SM,
Haas NB, Vaughn DJ, Lewis JD. Incidence of bladder cancer in patients
with type 2 diabetes treated with
metformin or sulfonylureas. Diabetes
Care. 2014;37(7):1910-1917.
Lee JT, Kingdom TT, Smith TL, Setzen
M, Brown S, Batra PS. Practice
patterns in endoscopic skull base
surgery: survey of the American
Rhinologic Society. Int Forum Allergy
Rhinol. 2014;4(2):124-131.
Levy R, Ganjoo KN, Leonard JP, Vose
JM, Flinn IW, Ambinder RF, Connors
JM, Berinstein NL, Belch AR, Bartlett
NL, Nichols C, Emmanouilides CE,
Timmerman JM, Gregory SA, Link
BK, Inwards DJ, Freedman AS,
Matous JV, Robertson MJ, Kunkel
LA, Ingolia DE, Gentles AJ, Liu CL,
Tibshirani R, Alizadeh AA, Denney
DW Jr. Active idiotypic vaccination
versus control immunotherapy for
follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol.
2014;32(17):1797-1803.
Melson J, Li Y, Cassinotti E, Melnikov A, Boni L, Ai J, Greenspan M,
Mobarhan S, Levenson V, Deng
Y. Commonality and differences of
methylation signatures in the plasma
of patients with pancreatic cancer
and colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer.
2014;134(11):2656-2662.
Mewawalla P, Nathan S. Role of allogeneic transplantation in patients with
chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the
21
era of novel therapies: a review. Ther
Adv Hematol. 2014;5(5):139-152.
Mittal N, Kent PM. Insights into the
genetic basis of familal hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. Pediatr
Blood Cancer. 2014;61(6):962-963.
Moy L, Newell MS, Mahoney MC,
Bailey L, Barke LD, Carkaci S, D’Orsi
C, Goyal S, Haffty BG, Harvey JA,
Hayes MK, Jokich PM, Lee SJ,
Mainiero MB, Mankoff DA, Patel SB,
Yepes MM. ACR Appropriateness
Criteria stage I breast cancer: initial
workup and surveillance for local
recurrence and distant metastases in
asymptomatic women. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11(12, pt A):1160-1168.
Murro D, Harbhajanka A, Mahon B,
Deziel D. Benign cystic mesothelioma associated with ipsilateral renal
agenesis: a case report and review
of literature. Pediatr Dev Pathol.
2014;17(6):487-490.
Panageas KS, Reiner AS, Iwamoto FM,
Cloughesy TF, Aldape KD, Rivera AL,
Eichler AF, Louis DN, Paleologos NA,
Fisher BJ, Ashby LS, Cairncross JG, Urgoiti GB, Wen PY, Ligon KL, Schiff D,
Robins HI, Rocque BG, Chamberlain
MC, Mason WP, Weaver SA, Green
RM, Kamar FG, Abrey LE, DeAngelis
LM, Jhanwar SC, Rosenblum MK,
Lassman AB. Recursive partitioning
analysis of prognostic variables in
newly diagnosed anaplastic oligodendroglial tumors. Neuro Oncol.
2014;16(11):1541-1546.
Paparodis R, Imam S, Todorova-Koteva K, Staii A, Jaume JC.
Hashimoto’s thyroiditis pathology
and risk for thyroid cancer. Thyroid.
2014;24(7):1107-1114.
Petrich AM, Gandhi M, Jovanovic
B, Castillo JJ, Rajguru S, Yang DT,
Shah KA, Whyman JD, Lansigan
F, Hernandez-Ilizaliturri FJ, Lee LX,
Barta SK, Melinamani S, Karmali R,
Adeimy C, Smith S, Dalal N, Nabhan
C, Peace D, Vose J, Evens AM, Shah
N, Fenske TS, Zelenetz AD, Landsburg DJ, Howlett C, Mato A, Jaglal
M, Chavez JC, Tsai JP, Reddy N, Li
S, Handler C, Flowers CR, Cohen
JB, Blum KA, Song K, Sun HL, Press
O, Cassaday R, Jaso J, Medeiros LJ,
Sohani AR, Abramson JS. Impact
of induction regimen and stem
cell transplantation on outcomes
in double-hit lymphoma: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Blood.
2014;124(15):2354-2361.
Qi X, Gao XS, Asaumi J, Zhang M,
Li HZ, Ma MW, Zhao B, Li FY, Wang
D. Optimal contouring of seminal
vesicle for definitive radiotherapy of
localized prostate cancer: comparison between EORTC prostate cancer
radiotherapy guideline, RTOG0815
protocol and actual anatomy. Radiat
Oncol. 2014;9(1):288.
Revenaugh PC, Haffey TM, Seth
R, Fritz MA. Anterolateral thigh
adipofascial flap in mucosal reconstruction. JAMA Facial Plast Surg.
2014;16(6):395-399.
Rodby KA, Turin S, Jacobs RJ, Cruz
JF, Hassid VJ, Kolokythas A, Antony
AK. Advances in oncologic head
and neck reconstruction: systematic
review and future considerations of
virtual surgical planning and computer aided design/computer aided
modeling. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet
Surg. 2014;67(9):1171-1185.
Ruan J, Gregory SA, Christos P,
Martin P, Furman RR, Coleman M,
Leonard JP. Long-term follow-up of
R-CHOP with bevacizumab as initial
therapy for mantle cell lymphoma: clinical and correlative results.
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk.
2014;14(2):107-113.
Rubinstein PG, Aboulafia DM, Zloza
A. Malignancies in HIV/AIDS: from
epidemiology to therapeutic challenges. AIDS. 2014;28(4):453-465.
Rudra S, Spiotto MT, Witt ME, Blair
EA, Stenson K, Haraf DJ. Lymph
node density—prognostic value in
head and neck cancer. Head Neck.
2014;36(2):266-272.
Schneider BP, Li L, Shen F, Miller KD,
Radovich M, O’Neill A, Gray RJ, Lane
D, Flockhart DA, Jiang G, Wang Z,
Lai D, Koller D, Pratt JH, Dang CT,
Northfelt D, Perez EA, Shenkier T,
Cobleigh M, Smith ML, Railey E,
Partridge A, Gralow J, Sparano J,
Davidson NE, Foroud T, Sledge GW.
Genetic variant predicts bevacizumab-induced hypertension in ECOG5103 and ECOG-2100. Br J Cancer.
2014;111(6):1241-1248.
Seder CW, Elhassan BT, Wigle DA.
Manubrial-clavicular-chest wall
explantation to expose the anterior
thoracic inlet. Ann Thorac Surg.
2014;97(1):350-352.
Seiwert TY, Wang X, Heitmann J,
Villegas-Bergazzi V, Sprott K, Finn
S, O’Regan E, Farrow AD, Weichselbaum RR, Lingen MW, Cohen EE,
Stenson K, Weaver DT, Vokes EE.
DNA repair biomarkers XPF and
phospho-MAPKAP kinase 2 correlate
with clinical outcome in advanced
head and neck cancer. PLoS One.
2014;9(7):e102112.
Tan LA, Fontes RB, Byrne RW. Retrosigmoid approach for resection of an
extraventricular choroid plexus papilloma in the cerebellopontine angle.
Neurosurg Focus. 2014;36(1)(suppl):1.
Sen N, Falk S, Abrams RA. Role of
chemoradiotherapy in the adjuvant
and neoadjuvant settings for resectable pancreatic cancer. Clin Oncol (R
Coll Radiol). 2014;26(9):551-559.
Tan LA, Kasliwal MK, Harbhajanka
A, Miller IJ, Deutsch H. Malignant
degeneration of multilevel monostotic
Paget’s disease involving the thoracic
spine: an unusual presentation. J Clin
Neurosci. 2014;21(7):1254-1256.
Sher DJ, Koshy M, Liptay MJ, Fidler
MJ. Influence of conformal radiotherapy technique on survival after
chemoradiotherapy for patients with
stage III non-small cell lung cancer
in the National Cancer Data Base.
Cancer. 2014;120(13):2060-2068.
Tan LA, Kasliwal MK, O’Toole JE.
Compressive radiculopathy due to
delayed pseudomeningocele secondary to occult dural tear following
tubular lumbar microdiscectomy.
Neurol India. 2014;62(3):325-327.
Sher DJ, Liptay MJ, Fidler MJ. Prevalence and predictors of neoadjuvant
therapy for stage IIIA non-small cell
lung cancer in the National Cancer
Database: importance of socioeconomic status and treating institution. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.
2014;89(2):303-312.
Tan LA, Musacchio MJ, Mitchell BA,
Kapadia SK, Patel NH, Byrne RW.
Simultaneously occurring meningioma and contralateral glioblastoma multiforme. Br J Neurosurg.
2014;28(6):815-816.
Tan LA, Takagi I, Straus D, O’Toole
JE. Management of intended durotomy in minimally invasive intradural
spine surgery: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(2):279-285.
Sherer BA, Levine LA. Current management of erectile dysfunction in
prostate cancer survivors. Curr Opin
Urol. 2014;24(4):401-406.
Tan LA, Uy BR, Munoz LF. Recurrent
juvenile xanthogranuloma manifesting as diffuse miliary brain lesions. Br
J Neurosurg. 2014;28(6):817-818.
Silva A, Rauscher GH, Ferrans CE,
Hoskins K, Rao R. Assessing the
quality of race/ethnicity, tumor, and
breast cancer treatment information
in a non-SEER state registry. J Registry Manag. 2014;41(1):24-30.
Taqatqa AS, Kent PM, Awad SM.
Metastatic osteosarcoma to the
interventricular septum: an unusual
presentation in a child. Pediatr Cardiol. 2014;35(7):1304-1305.
Singh RI, Rosen L, Reddy VB,
Bitterman P, Stemm MH, Gattuso
P. Intraoperative imprint cytology
of ovarian transitional cell (Brenner)
tumors: a retrospective study. Diagn
Cytopathol. 2014;42(8):660-663.
Uy BR, Tan LA, Byrne RW. Recurrent
glioblastoma multiforme presents
as a mirror image in the contralateral temporal lobe. Br J Neurosurg.
2014;28(5):697-698.
Somaiah N, Fidler MJ, Garrett-Mayer E, Wahlquist A, Shirai K, Buckingham L, Hensing T, Bonomi P,
Simon GR. Epidermal growth factor
receptor (EGFR) mutations are exceptionally rare in thyroid transcription
factor (TTF-1)-negative adenocarcinomas of the lung. Oncoscience.
2014;1(8):522-528.
Vance KK, Pytynia KB, Antony AK,
Krunic AL. Mohs moat: peripheral
cutaneous margin clearance in a
collaborative approach for aggressive and deeply invasive basal cell
carcinoma. Australas J Dermatol.
2014;55(3):198-200.
Wang D, Abrams RA. Radiotherapy
for soft tissue sarcoma: 50 years of
change and improvement. Am Soc Clin
Oncol Educ Book. 2014;244-251.
Stemm M, Loew J, Nag S, Arvanitis
L. A 31-year-old woman with a
destructive clival mass. Brain Pathol.
2014;24(5):545-546.
Wang D, Ho A, Hamilton AS, Wu
XC, Lo M, Fleming S, Goodman M,
Thompson T, Owen J. Type and dose of
radiotherapy used for initial treatment
of non-metastatic prostate cancer.
Radiat Oncol. 2014;9:47.
Straus D, Tan LA, Takagi I, O’Toole
JE. Disseminated spinal myxopapillary ependymoma in an adult at
initial presentation: a case report and
review of the literature. Br J Neurosurg. 2014;28(5):691-693.
22
Whelan P, Ekbal S, Nehra A. Erectile
dysfunction in robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes and management.
Indian J Urol. 2014;30(4):434-442.
Whelan P, Ekbal S, Nehra A. Erectile
dysfunction in robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes and management.
Indian J Urol. 2014;30(4):434-442.
Wong P, Houghton P, Kirsch DG, Finkelstein SE, Monjazeb AM, Xu-Welliver M, Dicker AP, Ahmed M, Vikram
B, Teicher BA, Coleman CN, Machtay
M, Curran WJ, Wang D. Combining
targeted agents with modern radiotherapy in soft tissue sarcomas. J Natl
Cancer Inst. 2014;106(11):dju329.
doi:10.1093/jnci/dju329.
Xicola RM, Gagnon M, Clark JR,
Carroll T, Gao W, Fernandez C, Mijic
D, Rawson JB, Janoski A, Pusatcioglu
CK, Rajaram P, Gluskin AB, Regan M,
Chaudhry V, Abcarian H, Blumetti J,
Cintron J, Melson J, Xie H, Guzman
G, Emmadi R, Alagiozian-Angelova V,
Kupfer SS, Braunschweig C, Ellis NA,
Llor X. Excess of proximal microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer in African
Americans from a multiethnic study.
Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(18):49624970.
Yang C, Liu F, Ahunbay E, Chang
YW, Lawton C, Schultz C, Wang D,
Firat S, Erickson B, Li XA. Combined online and offline adaptive
radiation therapy: a dosimetric
feasibility study. Pract Radiat Oncol.
2014;4(1):e75-e83.
Yellapa A, Bitterman P, Sharma
S, Guirguis AS, Bahr JM, Basu S,
Abramowicz JS, Barua A. Interleukin
16 expression changes in association
with ovarian malignant transformation. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
2014;210(3):272.e1-e10.
Zhou J, Prisciandaro J, Lee C, Schipper M, Eisbruch A, Jolly S. Single or
multi-channel vaginal cuff high-doserate brachytherapy: is replanning
necessary prior to each fraction?
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2014;4(1):20-26.
Zloza A, Kim DW, Kim-Schulze S,
Jagoda MC, Monsurro V, Marincola FM, Kaufman HL. Immunoglobulin-like transcript 2 (ILT2) is a
biomarker of therapeutic response to
oncolytic immunotherapy with vaccinia viruses. J Immunother Cancer.
2014;2:1.
2013 Cancer Registry Report
PRIMARY SITE
Oral Cavity & Pharynx
Lip
Tongue
Salivary Glands
Floor of Mouth
Gum & Other Mouth
Nasopharynx
Tonsil
Oropharynx
Hypopharynx
Digestive System
Esophagus
Stomach
Small Intestine
Colon (excludes rectum)
Rectosigmoid Junction
Rectum
Anus, Anal Canal & Anorectum
Liver & Intrahepatic Bile Duct
Gallbladder & Other Biliary Tract
Pancreas
Retroperitoneum
Peritoneum, Omentum, Mesentery, & Other Digestive Organs
Respiratory System
Nose, Nasal Cavity, Middle Ear
Larynx
Lung & Bronchus
Pleura
Trachea, Mediastinum & Other Respiratory Organs
Bones & Joints
Soft Tissue
Skin (excludes basal & squamous cell carcinomas)
Melanoma - Skin
Other Non-Epithelial Skin
Breast
Female Genital System
Cervix Uteri (excludes carcinoma in situ)
Corpus & Uterus, NOS
Ovary
Vagina
Vulva
Other Female Genital Organs
Male Genital System
Prostate
Testis
Penis
Urinary System
Urinary Bladder
Kidney & Renal Pelvis
Ureter & Other Urinary Organs
Eye & Orbit
Brain & Other Nervous System
Endocrine System
Thyroid
Other Endocrine (includes thymus)
Lymphomas
Hodgkin Lymphoma
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Multiple Myeloma
Leukemias
Mesothelioma
Unknown Primary
Ill-Defined & Unspecified
Other and Unspecified (Kaposi Sarcoma)
TOTAL
62
1
20
6
1
4
4
21
2
3
413
36
40
7
118
13
42
14
58
15
51
2
17
511
2
20
484
1
4
16
46
80
76
4
433
332
59
161
60
12
31
9
150
130
19
1
172
63
104
5
25
218
92
39
53
165
33
132
61
157
8
6
12
1
ANALYTIC
53
1
17
6
1
4
1
18
2
3
342
27
34
5
90
12
33
10
53
13
46
2
17
452
2
18
427
1
4
15
42
71
68
3
355
285
52
142
54
9
20
8
128
108
19
1
141
46
90
5
19
186
83
36
47
120
23
97
45
131
8
6
11
1
NONANALYTIC
9
0
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
71
9
6
2
28
1
9
4
5
2
5
0
0
59
0
2
57
0
0
1
4
9
8
1
78
47
7
19
6
3
11
1
22
22
0
0
31
17
14
0
6
32
9
3
6
45
10
35
16
26
0
0
1
0
MALE
44
1
12
3
1
4
4
17
0
2
223
28
28
2
59
7
18
10
37
7
25
1
1
245
0
17
223
1
4
4
30
42
41
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150
130
19
1
103
39
62
2
14
87
37
9
28
89
21
68
32
91
7
3
8
1
FEMALE
18
0
8
3
0
0
0
4
2
1
190
8
12
5
59
6
24
4
21
8
26
1
16
266
2
3
261
0
0
12
16
38
35
3
429
332
59
161
60
12
31
9
0
0
0
0
69
24
42
3
11
131
55
30
25
76
12
64
29
66
1
3
4
0
TOTAL
2,960
2,494
466
1,214
1,746
23
Analytic: Cases diagnosed and/or received
all or part of first course of care at Rush
University Medical Center.
Nonanalytic: Cases diagnosed and all first
course treatment completed elsewhere.
NEW CANCER INCIDENCE BY FIRST CONTACT YEAR, 2009 - 2013
TOP 5 RUSH ANALYTIC SITES, 2013
3000
150
2675
2680
2615
2497
Number of Analytic Cases
Analytic Cases at Rush
2500
Breast
2494
2000
1500
1000
120
90
60
30
500
0
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
Stage 0
90
Stage 1
127
Stage 2
81
Stage 3
38
Stage 4
18
Unknown
0
Not Applicable 1
Stages
2013
Year
Lung
150
ANALYTIC CASE DISTRIBUTION BY GENDER AND AGE AT DIAGNOSIS, 2013
500
90
60
30
Female
Male
404
Stage 0
1
Stage 1
147
Stage 2
62
Stage 3
69
Stage 4
145
Unknown
0
Not Applicable 3
0
Stages
347
Corpus Uteri
300
304
292
227
200
100
400
120
227
177
120
100
48 55
98
68
76
70
57
13
9
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
60
40
20
0
0
0-29
80
Stage 0
2
Stage 1
92
Stage 2
4
Stage 3
23
Stage 4
11
Unknown
1
Not Applicable
1
Stages
90+
Age Group
Prostate
60
TOP 10 NATIONAL ANALYTIC SITES, 2013
14.63%
14.13%
Breast
16.35%
Lung
13.74%
5.57%
4.76%
Lymphomas
2.99%
Note: The graph compares USA
data with that from Rush for the
top 10 national analytic sites.
5.30%
Leukemias
2.93%
3.99%
Colon
6.17%
4.39%
Prostate
14.37%
2.57%
Melanoma
4.62%
3.51%
3.92%
Kidney &
Renal Pelvis
0%
2%
4%
6%
29
40
Stage 2
50
30
Stage 3
11
Stage 4
17
Unknown
0
Not Applicable
0
Stage 0
10
Stage 1
14
20
Stage 2
19
15
Stage 3
26
Stage 4
22
Unknown
0
Not Applicable
1
20
10
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
30
25
10
5
0
18%
Stages
Colon
Site
Rush
USA
5.44%
Corpus Uteri
0
Stage 1
0
7.36%
Brain &
other CNS 1.39%
Stage 0
50
Stages
Percentage
Note: Data is based on stage as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC).
24
COLORECTAL MEASURE RESULTS, 2012
MEASURES
DEFINITION
Colon Measure
Accountability
Adjuvant chemotherapy is considered or
administered within 4 months (120 days) of
diagnosis for patients under the age of 80
with AJCC stage III (lymph node positive) colon
cancer. [ACT]
Colon Measure
Improvement
At least 12 regional lymph nodes are removed
and pathologically examined for resected colon
cancer. [12RLN]
Rectal
Surveillance
Radiation therapy is considered or administered
within 6 months (180 days) of diagnosis for
patients under the age of 80 with clinical or
pathologic AJCC T4N0M0 or Stage III receiving
surgical resection for rectal cancer. [AdjRT]
COMMISSION
ON CANCER
THRESHOLD
2012
CASE
REVIEW
90%
100%
ACT
(Adjuvant
Chemotherapy)
85%
82%
80%
87.50%
12 RLN
(Regional Lymph
Nodes)
Adj RT
(Adjuvant Radiation Therapy)
Reached or exceeded
Commission on Cancer
benchmark.
BREAST MEASURE RESULTS, 2012
MEASURES
Breast
Accountability
Breast
Accountability
Breast
Accountability
Breast
Accountability
Breast Quality
Improvement
DEFINITION
Radiation therapy is administered within 1 year
(365 days) of diagnosis for women under age
70 receiving breast conserving surgery for breast
cancer. [BCS/RT]
COMMISSION
ON CANCER
THRESHOLD
2012
90%
94%
(Breast Conserving
Surgery)
90%
91.2%
(Multi-Agent
Chemotherapy)
90%
98%
CASE
REVIEW
BCS
Combination chemotherapy is considered or
administered within 4 months (120 days) of
diagnosis for women under 70 with AJCC T1c
N0 M0, or Stage II or III ERA and PRA negative
breast cancer. [MAC]
MAC
Tamoxifen or third generation aromatase
inhibitor is considered or administered within
1 year (365 days) of diagnosis for women with
AJCC T1c N0 M0, or Stage II or III ERA and/or
PRA positive breast cancer. [HT]
HT
(Hormone Therapy)
Radiation therapy is considered or administered
following any mastectomy within 1 year (365
days) of diagnosis of breast cancer for women
with ≥ 4 positive regional lymph nodes
[MASTRT]
90%
93.8%
MASTRT
(Mastectomy )
Image or palpation-guided needle biopsy (core
or FNA) is performed to establish diagnosis of
breast cancer [nBx]
80%
83.4%
NbX
Reached or exceeded
Commission on Cancer
benchmark.
25
OBSERVED SURVIVAL FOR COLON CASES DIAGNOSED, 2003 - 2007
Stage 1
Rush n=75
96
80
100 100
96
93
89.2
94.6
85.3
88.9
81.2
Cumulative Survival Rate
Nat’l n=77623
100
100 100
87.4
77
60
40
20
80
94.2
89.2
93
83.1
89.3
77.4
78.4
72
66.7
60
40
0
Dx
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
Rush n=73
Stage 3
4 Years
5 Years
Dx
Nat’l n=73935
100
87.7
85.6
77.9
75.5
69.5
67.3
50
63.8
60.7
57.9
100 100
100
75
1 Year
55.4
25
2 Years
3 Years
Rush n=84
Stage 4
100
Dx
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
4 Years
100
100 100
50
51.9 51.3
37.4
25
31.1
Dx
1 Year
2 Years
3 Years
CANCER MORTALITY (INPATIENT) AT RUSH, FY14*
Observed Mortality Rate
Predicted Mortality Rate
Bone Marrow Transplant
2.29
1.79
Medical Oncology
3.69
4.75
Surgical Oncology
3.36
1.54
* Actual mortality = number of deaths per 100 discharges; predicted mortality = deaths expected based on how sick the
patients are, per 100 discharges; mortality index = actual rate/predicted rate (index <1 means fewer patients died
than predicted).
Source: University HealthSystem Consortium clinical database, FY 2014 data.
26
5 Years
75
0
5 Years
4 Years
Nat’l n=56503
22.9 20
0
84.1
20
0
Rush n=86
Stage 2
Nat’l n=61981
100
16.8
14
4 Years
16.8
10.7
5 Years
The Rush University Cancer Center
comprises all of the cancer-related
clinical, research and educational
efforts at Rush, crossing 20
departments, divisions and sections;
inpatient and outpatient areas;
professional clinical activities; and the
colleges of Rush University.
For more information about cancer programs
at Rush or to refer a patient for an initial visit or
a second opinion, please call
(312) CANCER-1 (226-2371).
Rush is a not-for-profit health care, education and research enterprise
comprising Rush University Medical Center, Rush University, Rush Oak
Park Hospital and Rush Health.
PLEASE NOTE: All physicians featured in this publication are on the medical faculty of Rush University Medical
Center. Some of the physicians featured are in private practice and, as independent practitioners, are not
agents or employees of Rush University Medical Center.
Photography by the Rush Photo Group, Eric Herzog, and Scott Strazzante.
M-3064 6/15

Team Approach, Individualized Care

Transcription

Similar documents

Rush Hour Rewards can save you money Join us for

History of Urology at Rush University

File

persoii{aljouml. - The Morris and King Company

the wise old owl of Rush, GEDDY LEE reflects on the band`s

Rush Hour Rewards can save you money Join us for CoServ

www.lillypulitzer.com

to the Fall/Winter 2014 CEDHA newsletter

Arjun Rampal Poster - Ogaan Cancer Foundation

Thursday Newsletter - Mount Calvary Baptist Church