No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundAs we have previously reported, small cell carcinoma of the ovary (SCCO) is a rare, aggressive form of ovarian cancer associated with poor outcomes. In an effort to identify new treatment options, we utilized comprehensive genomic profiling to assess the potential for novel therapies in SCCO.MethodsPatients with SCCO, SCCO-HT (hypercalcemic type), neuroendocrine tumors of the ovary (NET-O), and small cell carcinoma of the lung (SCLC) profiled by Caris Life Sciences between 2007–2015 were identified. Tumors were assessed with up to 21 IHC stains, in situ hybridization of cMET, EGFR, HER2 and PIK3CA, and next-generation sequencing (NGS) as well as Sanger sequencing of selected genes.ResultsForty-six patients with SCCO (10 SCCO, 18 SCCO-HT, 18 NET-O) were identified as well as 58 patients with SCLC for comparison. Patients with SCCO and SCCO-HT were younger (median 42 years [range 12–75] and 26 years [range 8–40], respectively) than patients with NET-O 62 [range 13–76] or SCLC 66 [range 36–86]. SCCO patients were more likely to be metastatic (70 %) than SCCO-HT (50 %) or NET-O (33 %) patients, but at a similar rate to SCLC patients (65 %). PD1 expression varied across tumor type with SCCO (100 %), SCCO-HT (60 %), NET-O (33 %) vs SCLC (42 %). PDL1 expression also varied with SCCO (50 %), SCCO-HT (20 %), NET-O (33 %) and SCLC (0 %). No amplifications were identified in cMET, EGFR, or HER2 and only 1 was found in PIK3CA (NET-O). Actionable mutations were rare with 1 patient with SCCO having a BRCA2 mutation and 1 patient with NET-O having a PIK3CA mutation. No other actionable mutations were identified.ConclusionsNo recurrent actionable mutations or rearrangements were identified using this platform in SCCO. IHC patterns may help guide the use of chemotherapy in these rare tumors.

BackgroundWhile the provider volume-outcome relationship has been established for many complex surgeries and invasive procedures, the provider volume impact on outcomes for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is less certain. We hypothesized that high-volume providers (HVPs) may have superior outcomes compared with low-volume providers (LVPs).MethodsWe performed a chart-based, retrospective review of all patients receiving adriamycin, doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) for HL at the West Cancer Center from January 2010 to June 2015. Patients were divided into HVP (> 3 inpatient chemotherapy (CT)/month (m)) versus LVP (< 3 CT per m) groups. Of 95 patients identified, 93 received at least one dose of ABVD, 21 treated by HVP and 72 by LVP. Patient characteristics were well balanced between groups.ResultsHVPs were less likely to prescribe dose delays (odds ratio (OR): 0.32; confidence interval (CI): 0.16 - 0.65; P = 0.0007) and to hold doses for afebrile neutropenia (OR: 0.05; CI: 0.00 - 0.85; P = 0.0006). HVP delivered significantly fewer prophylactic growth factors (0% of doses vs. 42%, OR: 0.00; CI < 0.00 - 0.06; P < 0.0001). Both event-free survival (EFS) (HR: 6.68; CI: 1.10 - 7.63; P = 0.0321) and overall survival (OS) (HR: 3.68; CI: 1.11 - 12.22; P = 0.032) were significantly inferior in the patients treated by LVP.ConclusionsIn this study, patients with HL treated by LVP had inferior outcomes compared with those treated by HVP. HVPs were less likely to prescribe dose delays, hold doses for afebrile neutropenia or administer growth factor prophylaxis. These observations need to be confirmed in alternative datasets.