Institution
Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
Healthcare•Seattle, Washington, United States•
About: Seattle Cancer Care Alliance is a healthcare organization based out in Seattle, Washington, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Transplantation & Cancer. The organization has 728 authors who have published 1268 publications receiving 70663 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Johns Hopkins University1, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance2, University of Pennsylvania3, University of Colorado Boulder4, University of Utah5, Fox Chase Cancer Center6, Northwestern University7, Case Western Reserve University8, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center9, Brigham and Women's Hospital10, Duke University11, University of South Florida12, Yale University13, Washington University in St. Louis14, University of California, San Francisco15, Roswell Park Cancer Institute16, Vanderbilt University17, University of Nebraska Medical Center18, Harvard University19, University of Wisconsin-Madison20, University of Michigan21, Stanford University22, Ohio State University23, University of California, San Diego24, City of Hope National Medical Center25, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center26, Mayo Clinic27, University of Tennessee Health Science Center28, National Comprehensive Cancer Network29
TL;DR: The NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) as discussed by the authors address all aspects of management for NSCLC, focusing on recent updates in immunotherapy.
Abstract: The NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) address all aspects of management for NSCLC. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in immunotherapy. For the 2020 update, all of the systemic therapy regimens have been categorized using a new preference stratification system; certain regimens are now recommended as "preferred interventions," whereas others are categorized as either "other recommended interventions" or "useful under certain circumstances."
488 citations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center2, Harvard University3, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance4, University of Michigan5, University of Pennsylvania6, Northwestern University7, Huntsman Cancer Institute8, Washington University in St. Louis9, Mayo Clinic10, University of California, San Diego11, Stanford University12, University of Wisconsin-Madison13, University of Nebraska Medical Center14, University of Colorado Boulder15, Ohio State University16, Case Western Reserve University17, University of Tennessee Health Science Center18, National Comprehensive Cancer Network19
TL;DR: The major changes to the 2012 and 2011 NCCN Guidelines for Soft Tissue Sarcoma pertain to the management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors and desmoid tumors.
Abstract: The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer provide multidisciplinary recommendations for the clinical management of patients with clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, and are intended to assist with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel discussions for the 2020 update to the guidelines regarding initial management and first-line systemic therapy options for patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.
459 citations
Fox Chase Cancer Center1, Vanderbilt University2, University of Tennessee Health Science Center3, University of Utah4, Washington University in St. Louis5, University of Pennsylvania6, University of Alabama at Birmingham7, Johns Hopkins University8, Roswell Park Cancer Institute9, University of California, Los Angeles10, Northwestern University11, University of Colorado Boulder12, Stanford University13, University of South Florida14, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center15, University of California, San Francisco16, Duke University17, University of Michigan18, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance19, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center20, Case Western Reserve University21, University of Nebraska Medical Center22, Ohio State University23, Harvard University24, University of California, San Diego25, City of Hope National Medical Center26, Mayo Clinic27, University of Wisconsin-Madison28, Brigham and Women's Hospital29, National Comprehensive Cancer Network30
TL;DR: The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, and Pancreatic focus primarily on assessment of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants associated with increased risk of breast, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer and recommended approaches to genetic testing/counseling and management strategies in individuals with these pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. This manuscript focuses on cancer risk and risk management for BRCA-related breast/ovarian cancer syndrome and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Carriers of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant have an excessive risk for both breast and ovarian cancer that warrants consideration of more intensive screening and preventive strategies. There is also evidence that risks of prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer are elevated in these carriers. Li-Fraumeni syndrome is a highly penetrant cancer syndrome associated with a high lifetime risk for cancer, including soft tissue sarcomas, osteosarcomas, premenopausal breast cancer, colon cancer, gastric cancer, adrenocortical carcinoma, and brain tumors.
455 citations
TL;DR: In women with nonmetastatic breast cancer and low bone mass who were receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy, twice-yearly administration of denosumab led to significant increases in BMD over 24 months at trabecular and cortical bone, with overall AE rates similar to those of placebo.
Abstract: Purpose Adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy is well established in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, but such therapy is complicated by accelerated bone loss and increased fracture risk. We investigated the ability of denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand, to protect against aromatase inhibitor–induced bone loss. Patients and Methods Eligible women with hormone receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer treated with adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy were stratified by duration of aromatase inhibitor therapy (≤ 6 v > 6 months), received supplemental calcium and vitamin D, and were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 125) or subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg (n = 127) every 6 months. At enrollment, all patients were required to have evidence of low bone mass, excluding osteoporosis. The primary end point was percentage change from baseline at month 12 in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD). Results At ...
450 citations
University of Washington1, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center2, American College of Surgeons3, University of Michigan4, Johns Hopkins University5, Mayo Clinic6, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center7, University of California, San Francisco8, University at Buffalo9, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance10, University of South Florida11, Harvard University12
TL;DR: Although the majority of patients with MCC in this nationwide cohort did not undergo pathologic nodal evaluation, this procedure may be indicated in many cases as it improves prognostic accuracy and has important treatment implications for those found to have microscopic nodal involvement.
Abstract: Background The management of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) has been complicated by a lack of detailed prognostic data and by the presence of conflicting staging systems. Objective We sought to determine the prognostic significance of tumor size, clinical versus pathologic nodal evaluation, and extent of disease at presentation and thereby derive the first consensus staging/prognostic system for MCC. Methods A total of 5823 prospectively enrolled MCC cases from the National Cancer Data Base had follow-up data (median 64 months) and were used for prognostic analyses. Results At 5 years, overall survival was 40% and relative survival (compared with age- and sex-matched population data) was 54%. Among all MCC cases, 66% presented with local, 27% with nodal, and 7% with distant metastatic disease. For cases presenting with local disease only, smaller tumor size was associated with better survival (stage I, ≤2 cm, 66% relative survival at 5 years; stage II, >2 cm, 51%; P Limitations The National Cancer Data Base does not capture disease-specific survival. Overall survival for patients with MCC was therefore used to calculate relative survival based on matched population data. Conclusion Although the majority (68%) of patients with MCC in this nationwide cohort did not undergo pathologic nodal evaluation, this procedure may be indicated in many cases as it improves prognostic accuracy and has important treatment implications for those found to have microscopic nodal involvement.
446 citations
Authors
Showing all 735 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frederick R. Appelbaum | 127 | 677 | 66632 |
| Gary H. Lyman | 108 | 694 | 52469 |
| Elihu H. Estey | 103 | 667 | 43416 |
| Michael Boeckh | 100 | 439 | 35180 |
| Peter S. Nelson | 96 | 425 | 47923 |
| David G. Maloney | 95 | 491 | 37057 |
| Stephanie J. Lee | 92 | 573 | 43888 |
| John A. Hansen | 89 | 411 | 28468 |
| Jerald P. Radich | 88 | 412 | 37725 |
| H. Joachim Deeg | 86 | 458 | 29932 |
| David C. Dale | 85 | 406 | 24613 |
| Barry E. Storer | 85 | 394 | 28713 |
| Oliver W. Press | 80 | 424 | 23103 |
| Brenda M. Sandmaier | 79 | 434 | 28049 |
| Celestia S. Higano | 78 | 423 | 38785 |