Pick Topic
Review Topic
List Experts
Examine Expert
Save Expert
  Site Guide ··   
Pancreatic Neoplasms: HELP
Articles by Hope E. Uronis
Based on 3 articles published since 2009
(Why 3 articles?)

Between 2009 and 2019, Hope E. Uronis wrote the following 3 articles about Pancreatic Neoplasms.
+ Citations + Abstracts
1 Guideline Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. 2016

Sohal, Davendra P S / Mangu, Pamela B / Khorana, Alok A / Shah, Manish A / Philip, Philip A / O'Reilly, Eileen M / Uronis, Hope E / Ramanathan, Ramesh K / Crane, Christopher H / Engebretson, Anitra / Ruggiero, Joseph T / Copur, Mehmet S / Lau, Michelle / Urba, Susan / Laheru, Daniel. ·Davendra P.S. Sohal and Alok A. Khorana, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH · Pamela B. Mangu, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA · Manish A. Shah, The Weill Cornell Medical Center · Philip A. Philip, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit · Susan Urba, University of Michigan Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI · Eileen M. O'Reilly, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · Joseph T. Ruggiero, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY · Hope E. Uronis, Duke University, Durham, NC · Ramesh K. Ramanathan, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale · Michelle Lau, Community Hospital Based Cancer Center, Tempe, AZ · Christopher H. Crane, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX · Anitra Engebretson, Patient Representative, Portland, OR · Mehmet S. Copur, St Francis Medical Center, Grand Island, NE · and Daniel Laheru, Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #27247222.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncologists and others for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, gastroenterology, palliative care, and advocacy experts to conduct a systematic review of the literature from April 2004 to June 2015. Outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and adverse events. RESULTS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials met the systematic review criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: A multiphase computed tomography scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed. Baseline performance status and comorbidity profile should be evaluated. Goals of care, patient preferences, treatment response, psychological status, support systems, and symptom burden should guide decisions for treatments. A palliative care referral should occur at first visit. FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin; favorable comorbidity profile) or gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound (NAB) -paclitaxel (adequate comorbidity profile) should be offered to patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 to 1 based on patient preference and support system available. Gemcitabine alone is recommended for patients with ECOG PS 2 or with a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens; the addition of capecitabine or erlotinib may be offered. Patients with an ECOG PS ≥ 3 and poorly controlled comorbid conditions should be offered cancer-directed therapy only on a case-by-case basis; supportive care should be emphasized. For second-line therapy, gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with FOLFIRINOX, an ECOG PS 0 to 1, and a favorable comorbidity profile; fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or nanoliposomal irinotecan should be offered to patients with first-line treatment with gemcitabine plus NAB-paclitaxel, ECOG PS 0 to 1, and favorable comorbidity profile, and gemcitabine or fluorouracil should be offered to patients with either an ECOG PS 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes other regimens. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/guidelines/MetPC and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

2 Clinical Trial Randomized Phase II Trial of Gemcitabine Plus TH-302 Versus Gemcitabine in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer. 2015

Borad, Mitesh J / Reddy, Shantan G / Bahary, Nathan / Uronis, Hope E / Sigal, Darren / Cohn, Allen L / Schelman, William R / Stephenson, Joe / Chiorean, E Gabriela / Rosen, Peter J / Ulrich, Brian / Dragovich, Tomislav / Del Prete, Salvatore A / Rarick, Mark / Eng, Clarence / Kroll, Stew / Ryan, David P. ·Mitesh J. Borad, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale · Tomislav Dragovich, Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson, AZ · Shantan G. Reddy, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport, Shreveport, LA · Nathan Bahary, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA · Hope E. Uronis, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC · Darren Sigal, Scripps Clinic, La Jolla · Peter J. Rosen, Disney Family Cancer Center, Burbank · Clarence Eng and Stew Kroll, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, South San Francisco, CA · Allen L. Cohn, Rocky Mountain Cancer Center, Denver, CO · William R. Schelman, University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, WI · Joe Stephenson Jr, Institute for Translational Oncology Research, Greenville, SC · E. Gabriela Chiorean, Indiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, IN · Brian Ulrich, Texas Oncology, Wichita Falls, TX · Salvatore A. Del Prete, Hematology Oncology PC, Stamford, CT · Mark Rarick, Kaiser Permanente Northwest Region Oncology Hematology, Portland, OR · and David P. Ryan, Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, MA. ·J Clin Oncol · Pubmed #25512461.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: TH-302 is an investigational hypoxia-activated prodrug that releases the DNA alkylator bromo-isophosphoramide mustard in hypoxic settings. This phase II study (NCT01144455) evaluated gemcitabine plus TH-302 in patients with previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)), gemcitabine plus TH-302 240 mg/m(2) (G+T240), or gemcitabine plus TH-302 340 mg/m(2) (G+T340). Randomized crossover after progression on gemcitabine was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), tumor response, CA 19-9 response, and safety. RESULTS: Two hundred fourteen patients (77% with metastatic disease) were enrolled between June 2010 and July 2011. PFS was significantly longer with gemcitabine plus TH-302 (pooled combination arms) compared with gemcitabine alone (median PFS, 5.6 v 3.6 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87; P = .005; median PFS for metastatic disease, 5.1 v 3.4 months, respectively). Median PFS times for G+T240 and G+T340 were 5.6 and 6.0 months, respectively. Tumor response was 12%, 17%, and 26% in the gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 arms, respectively (G+T340 v gemcitabine, P = .04). CA 19-9 decrease was greater with G+T340 versus gemcitabine (-5,398 v -549 U/mL, respectively; P = .008). Median OS times for gemcitabine, G+T240, and G+T340 were 6.9, 8.7, and 9.2 months, respectively (P = not significant). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, nausea, and peripheral edema (frequencies similar across arms). Skin and mucosal toxicities (2% grade 3) and myelosuppression (55% grade 3 or 4) were the most common TH-302-related AEs but were not associated with treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSION: PFS, tumor response, and CA 19-9 response were significantly improved with G+TH-302. G+T340 is being investigated further in the phase III MAESTRO study (NCT01746979).

3 Article Does preoperative therapy optimize outcomes in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer? 2012

Papalezova, Katia T / Tyler, Douglas S / Blazer, Dan G / Clary, Bryan M / Czito, Brian G / Hurwitz, Herbert I / Uronis, Hope E / Pappas, Theodore N / Willett, Christopher G / White, Rebekah R. ·Department of Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA. kpapalez@montefiore.org ·J Surg Oncol · Pubmed #22311829.

ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to compare survival between all patients with radiographically resectable adenocarcinoma of the proximal pancreas who underwent preoperative chemoradiation therapy (PRE-OP CRT) or surgical exploration first (SURGERY) with "intention to resect." Pancreatic cancer patients who undergo resection after PREOP CRT live longer than patients who undergo resection without PREOP CRT, a difference that may be attributable to patient selection. We retrospectively identified 236 patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma seen between 1999 and 2007 with sufficient data to be confirmed medically and radiographically resectable. The outcomes of 144 patients who underwent PREOP CRT were compared to those of 92 patients who proceeded straight to SURGERY. The groups were similar in age and gender. Tumors were slightly larger in the PREOP CRT group (mean 2.5 cm vs. 2.1 cm, P < 0.01), and there were trends toward more venous abutment (54% vs. 39%, P = 0.06) and a higher Charlson comorbidity index (P = 0.1). In the PREOP CRT group, 76 patients (53%) underwent resection, 28 (19%) had metastatic and 17 (12%) locally unresectable disease after PREOP CRT, and 23 (16%) were not explored due to performance status or loss to follow-up. In the SURGERY group, 68 patients (74%) underwent resection. Sixteen patients (17%) had metastatic and eight patients (9%) locally unresectable disease at exploration. In patients who underwent resection, the PREOP CRT group had smaller pathologic tumor size and lower incidence of positive lymph nodes than the SURGERY group but no difference in positive margins or need for vascular resection. Median overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing resection was 27 months in the PREOP CRT group and 17 months in the SURGERY group (P = 0.04). Median OS in all patients treated with PREOP CRT or surgically explored with intention to resect was 15 and 13 months, respectively, with superimposable survival curves. Despite a lower resection rate, the PREOP CRT group as a whole had a similar OS to the SURGERY group as a whole. For patients who underwent resection, those in the PREOP CRT had longer survival than those in the SURGERY group, suggesting that PREOP CRT allows better patient selection for resection. PREOP CRT should be considered an acceptable alternative for most patients with resectable pancreatic cancer.