Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Antonio C. Wolff is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Antonio C. Wolff.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2006

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer

Antonio C. Wolff; M. Elizabeth H. Hammond; Jared N. Schwartz; Karen L. Hagerty; D. Craig Allred; Richard J. Cote; M. Dowsett; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Amy S. Langer; Lisa M. McShane; Soonmyung Paik; Mark D. Pegram; Edith A. Perez; Michael F. Press; Anthony Rhodes; Catharine M. Sturgeon; Sheila E. Taube; Raymond R. Tubbs; Gail H. Vance; Marc J. van de Vijver; Thomas M. Wheeler; Daniel F. Hayes

PURPOSE To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in invasive breast cancer and its utility as a predictive marker. METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel, which conducted a systematic review of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal HER2 testing performance. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts and approved by the board of directors for both organizations. RESULTS Approximately 20% of current HER2 testing may be inaccurate. When carefully validated testing is performed, available data do not clearly demonstrate the superiority of either immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH) as a predictor of benefit from anti-HER2 therapy. RECOMMENDATIONS The panel recommends that HER2 status should be determined for all invasive breast cancer. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance, including newly available types of brightfield ISH, is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation (for example, specimen handling, assay exclusion, and reporting criteria) are specified. An algorithm defining positive, equivocal, and negative values for both HER2 protein expression and gene amplification is recommended: a positive HER2 result is IHC staining of 3+ (uniform, intense membrane staining of > 30% of invasive tumor cells), a fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) result of more than six HER2 gene copies per nucleus or a FISH ratio (HER2 gene signals to chromosome 17 signals) of more than 2.2; a negative result is an IHC staining of 0 or 1+, a FISH result of less than 4.0 HER2 gene copies per nucleus, or FISH ratio of less than 1.8. Equivocal results require additional action for final determination. It is recommended that to perform HER2 testing, laboratories show 95% concordance with another validated test for positive and negative assay values. The panel strongly recommends validation of laboratory assay or modifications, use of standardized operating procedures, and compliance with new testing criteria to be monitored with the use of stringent laboratory accreditation standards, proficiency testing, and competency assessment. The panel recommends that HER2 testing be done in a CAP-accredited laboratory or in a laboratory that meets the accreditation and proficiency testing requirements set out by this document.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2013

Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update.

Antonio C. Wolff; M. Elizabeth H. Hammond; David G. Hicks; Mitch Dowsett; Lisa M. McShane; Kimberly H. Allison; Donald Craig Allred; John M. S. Bartlett; Michael Bilous; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Robert B. Jenkins; Pamela B. Mangu; Soonmyung Paik; Edith A. Perez; Michael F. Press; Patricia A. Spears; Gail H. Vance; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel F. Hayes

PURPOSE To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer. METHODS ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing. RESULTS The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations. RECOMMENDATIONS The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to > 10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing. This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both Journal of Clinical Oncology and the Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2006

2006 Update of Recommendations for the Use of White Blood Cell Growth Factors: An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline

Thomas J. Smith; James Khatcheressian; Gary H. Lyman; Howard Ozer; James O. Armitage; Lodovico Balducci; Charles L. Bennett; Scott B. Cantor; Jeffrey Crawford; Scott J. Cross; George D. Demetri; Christopher E. Desch; Philip A. Pizzo; Charles A. Schiffer; Lee S. Schwartzberg; Mark R. Somerfield; George Somlo; James C. Wade; James L. Wade; Rodger J. Winn; Antoinette J. Wozniak; Antonio C. Wolff

PURPOSE To update the 2000 American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSF). UPDATE METHODOLOGY The Update Committee completed a review and analysis of pertinent data published from 1999 through September 2005. Guided by the 1996 ASCO clinical outcomes criteria, the Update Committee formulated recommendations based on improvements in survival, quality of life, toxicity reduction and cost-effectiveness. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2005 Update Committee agreed unanimously that reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) is an important clinical outcome that justifies the use of CSFs, regardless of impact on other factors, when the risk of FN is approximately 20% and no other equally effective regimen that does not require CSFs is available. Primary prophylaxis is recommended for the prevention of FN in patients who are at high risk based on age, medical history, disease characteristics, and myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen. CSF use allows a modest to moderate increase in dose-density and/or dose-intensity of chemotherapy regimens. Dose-dense regimens should only be used within an appropriately designed clinical trial or if supported by convincing efficacy data. Prophylactic CSF for patients with diffuse aggressive lymphoma aged 65 years and older treated with curative chemotherapy (CHOP or more aggressive regimens) should be given to reduce the incidence of FN and infections. Current recommendations for the management of patients exposed to lethal doses of total body radiotherapy, but not doses high enough to lead to certain death due to injury to other organs, includes the prompt administration of CSF or pegylated G-CSF.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2005

American Society of Clinical Oncology Guideline Recommendations for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer

Gary H. Lyman; Armando E. Giuliano; Mark R. Somerfield; Al B. Benson; Diane C. Bodurka; Harold J. Burstein; Alistair J. Cochran; Hiram S. Cody; Stephen B. Edge; Sharon Galper; James A. Hayman; Theodore Y. Kim; Cheryl L. Perkins; Donald A. Podoloff; Visa Haran Sivasubramaniam; Roderick R. Turner; Richard L. Wahl; Donald L. Weaver; Antonio C. Wolff

PURPOSE To develop a guideline for the use of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in early stage breast cancer. METHODS An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Expert Panel conducted a systematic review of the literature available through February 2004 on the use of SNB in early-stage breast cancer. The panel developed a guideline for clinicians and patients regarding the appropriate use of a sentinel lymph node identification and sampling procedure from hereon referred to as SNB. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts in the field and the ASCO Health Services Committee and was approved by the ASCO Board of Directors. RESULTS The literature review identified one published prospective randomized controlled trial in which SNB was compared with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), four limited meta-analyses, and 69 published single-institution and multicenter trials in which the test performance of SNB was evaluated with respect to the results of ALND (completion axillary dissection). There are currently no data on the effect of SLN biopsy on long-term survival of patients with breast cancer. However, a review of the available evidence demonstrates that, when performed by experienced clinicians, SNB appears to be a safe and acceptably accurate method for identifying early-stage breast cancer without involvement of the axillary lymph nodes. CONCLUSION SNB is an appropriate initial alternative to routine staging ALND for patients with early-stage breast cancer with clinically negative axillary nodes. Completion ALND remains standard treatment for patients with axillary metastases identified on SNB. Appropriately identified patients with negative results of SNB, when done under the direction of an experienced surgeon, need not have completion ALND. Isolated cancer cells detected by pathologic examination of the SLN with use of specialized techniques are currently of unknown clinical significance. Although such specialized techniques are often used, they are not a required part of SLN evaluation for breast cancer at this time. Data suggest that SNB is associated with less morbidity than ALND, but the comparative effects of these two approaches on tumor recurrence or patient survival are unknown.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2002

American Society of Clinical Oncology Technology Assessment on the Use of Aromatase Inhibitors As Adjuvant Therapy for Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer: Status Report 2004

Clifford A. Hudis; Harold J. Burstein; Antonio C. Wolff; Kathleen I. Pritchard; James N. Ingle; Rowan T. Chlebowski; Richard D. Gelber; Stephan B. Edge; Julie Gralow; Melody A. Cobleigh; Eleftherios P. Mamounas; Lori J. Goldstein; Timothy J. Whelan; Trevor J. Powles; John Bryant; Cheryl L. Perkins; Judy Perotti; Susan Braun; Amy S. Langer; George P. Browman; Mark R. Somerfield

PURPOSE To update the 2003 American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment on adjuvant use of aromatase inhibitors. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on results from multiple large randomized trials, adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer should include an aromatase inhibitor in order to lower the risk of tumor recurrence. Neither the optimal timing nor duration of aromatase inhibitor therapy is established. Aromatase inhibitors are appropriate as initial treatment for women with contraindications to tamoxifen. For all other postmenopausal women, treatment options include 5 years of aromatase inhibitors treatment or sequential therapy consisting of tamoxifen (for either 2 to 3 years or 5 years) followed by aromatase inhibitors for 2 to 3, or 5 years. Patients intolerant of aromatase inhibitors should receive tamoxifen. There are no data on the use of tamoxifen after an aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant setting. Women with hormone receptor-negative tumors should not receive adjuvant endocrine therapy. The role of other biomarkers such as progesterone receptor and HER2 status in selecting optimal endocrine therapy remains controversial. Aromatase inhibitors are contraindicated in premenopausal women; there are limited data concerning their role in women with treatment-related amenorrhea. The side effect profiles of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors differ. The late consequences of aromatase inhibitor therapy, including osteoporosis, are not well characterized. CONCLUSION The Panel believes that optimal adjuvant hormonal therapy for a postmenopausal woman with receptor-positive breast cancer includes an aromatase inhibitor as initial therapy or after treatment with tamoxifen. Women with breast cancer and their physicians must weigh the risks and benefits of all therapeutic options.


Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | 2007

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer

Antonio C. Wolff; M. Elizabeth H. Hammond; Jared N. Schwartz; Karen L. Hagerty; D. Craig Alfred; Richard J. Cote; M. Dowsett; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Amy S. Langer; Lisa M. McShane; Soonmyung Paik; Mark D. Pegram; Edith A. Perez; Michael F. Press; Anthony Rhodes; Catharine M. Sturgeon; Sheila E. Taube; Raymond R. Tubbs; Gail H. Vance; Marc J. van de Vijver; Thomas M. Wheeler; Daniel F. Hayes

PURPOSE To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2(HER2) testing in invasive breast cancer and its utility as a predictive marker. METHODS The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel, which conducted a systematic review of the literature and developed recommendations for optimal HER2 testing performance. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts and approved by the board of directors for both organizations. RESULTS Approximately 20% of current HER2 testing may be inaccurate. When carefully validated testing is performed, available data do not clearly demonstrate the superiority of either immunohistochemistry(IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH) as a predictor of benefit from anti-HER2 therapy. RECOMMENDATIONS The panel recommends that HER2 status should be determined for all invasive breast cancer. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance, including newly available types of brightfield ISH, is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation (for example, specimen handling, assay exclusion, and reporting criteria) are specified. An algorithm defining positive, equivocal, and negative values for both HER2 protein expression and gene amplification is recommended: a positive HER2 result is IHC staining of 3 + (uniform, intense membrane staining of 30% of invasive tumor cells), a fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) result of more than six HER2 gene copies per nucleus or a FISH ratio (HER2 gene signals to chromosome 17 signals) of more than 2.2; a negative result is an IHC staining of 0 or 1 +, a FISH result of less than 4.0 HER2 gene copies per nucleus, or FISH ratio of less than 1.8. Equivocal results require additional action for final determination. It is recommended that to perform HER2 testing, laboratories show 95% concordance with another validated test for positive and negative assay values. The panel strongly recommends validation of laboratory assay or modifications, use of standardized operating procedures, and compliance with new testing criteria to be monitored with the use of stringent laboratory accreditation standards, proficiency testing, and competency assessment. The panel recommends that HER2 testing be done in a CAP-accredited laboratory or in a laboratory that meets the accreditation and proficiency testing requirements set out by this document.


Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine | 2014

Recommendations for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Antonio C. Wolff; M. Elizabeth H. Hammond; David G. Hicks; Mitch Dowsett; Lisa M. McShane; Kimberly H. Allison; Donald Craig Allred; John M. S. Bartlett; Michael Bilous; Patrick L. Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Robert B. Jenkins; Pamela B. Mangu; Soonmyung Paik; Edith A. Perez; Michael F. Press; Patricia A. Spears; Gail H. Vance; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel F. Hayes

PURPOSE To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/College of American Pathologists (CAP) guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) testing in breast cancer to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing and its utility as a predictive marker in invasive breast cancer. METHODS ASCO/CAP convened an Update Committee that included coauthors of the 2007 guideline to conduct a systematic literature review and update recommendations for optimal HER2 testing. RESULTS The Update Committee identified criteria and areas requiring clarification to improve the accuracy of HER2 testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or in situ hybridization (ISH). The guideline was reviewed and approved by both organizations. RECOMMENDATIONS The Update Committee recommends that HER2 status (HER2 negative or positive) be determined in all patients with invasive (early stage or recurrence) breast cancer on the basis of one or more HER2 test results (negative, equivocal, or positive). Testing criteria define HER2-positive status when (on observing within an area of tumor that amounts to >10% of contiguous and homogeneous tumor cells) there is evidence of protein overexpression (IHC) or gene amplification (HER2 copy number or HER2/CEP17 ratio by ISH based on counting at least 20 cells within the area). If results are equivocal (revised criteria), reflex testing should be performed using an alternative assay (IHC or ISH). Repeat testing should be considered if results seem discordant with other histopathologic findings. Laboratories should demonstrate high concordance with a validated HER2 test on a sufficiently large and representative set of specimens. Testing must be performed in a laboratory accredited by CAP or another accrediting entity. The Update Committee urges providers and health systems to cooperate to ensure the highest quality testing.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2008

Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer

Joseph A. Sparano; Molin Wang; Silvana Martino; Vicky Jones; Edith A. Perez; Tom Saphner; Antonio C. Wolff; George W. Sledge; William C. Wood; Nancy E. Davidson

BACKGROUND We compared the efficacy of two different taxanes, docetaxel and paclitaxel, given either weekly or every 3 weeks, in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. METHODS We enrolled 4950 women with axillary lymph node-positive or high-risk, lymph node-negative breast cancer. After randomization, all patients first received 4 cycles of intravenous doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide at 3-week intervals and were then assigned to intravenous paclitaxel or docetaxel given at 3-week intervals for 4 cycles or at 1-week intervals for 12 cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival. RESULTS As compared with patients receiving standard therapy (paclitaxel every 3 weeks), the odds ratio for disease-free survival was 1.27 among those receiving weekly paclitaxel (P=0.006), 1.23 among those receiving docetaxel every 3 weeks (P=0.02), and 1.09 among those receiving weekly docetaxel (P=0.29) (with an odds ratio >1 favoring the groups receiving experimental therapy). As compared with standard therapy, weekly paclitaxel was also associated with improved survival (odds ratio, 1.32; P=0.01). An exploratory analysis of a subgroup of patients whose tumors expressed no human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 protein found similar improvements in disease-free and overall survival with weekly paclitaxel treatment, regardless of hormone-receptor expression. Grade 2, 3, or 4 neuropathy was more frequent with weekly paclitaxel than with paclitaxel every 3 weeks (27% vs. 20%). CONCLUSIONS Weekly paclitaxel after standard adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide improves disease-free and overall survival in women with breast cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004125 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).


JAMA | 2008

Long-term All-Cause Mortality in Cancer Patients With Preexisting Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Bethany B Barone; Hsin Chieh Yeh; Claire F. Snyder; Kimberly S. Peairs; Kelly B. Stein; Rachel L. Derr; Antonio C. Wolff; Frederick L. Brancati

CONTEXT Diabetes mellitus appears to be a risk factor for some cancers, but the effect of preexisting diabetes on all-cause mortality in newly diagnosed cancer patients is less clear. OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing overall survival in cancer patients with and without preexisting diabetes. DATA SOURCES We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE through May 15, 2008, including references of qualifying articles. STUDY SELECTION English-language, original investigations in humans with at least 3 months of follow-up were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Of 7858 titles identified in our original search, 48 articles met our criteria. DATA EXTRACTION One reviewer performed a full abstraction and other reviewers verified accuracy. We contacted authors and obtained additional information for 3 articles with insufficient reported data. RESULTS Studies reporting cumulative survival rates were summarized qualitatively. Studies reporting Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) or Poisson relative risks were combined in a meta-analysis. A random-effects model meta-analysis of 23 articles showed that diabetes was associated with an increased mortality HR of 1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-1.55) compared with normoglycemic individuals across all cancer types. Subgroup analyses by type of cancer showed increased risk for cancers of the endometrium (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.34-2.31), breast (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.46-1.78), and colorectum (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24-1.41). CONCLUSIONS Patients diagnosed with cancer who have preexisting diabetes are at increased risk for long-term, all-cause mortality compared with those without diabetes.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2008

Phase II Study of Sunitinib Malate, an Oral Multitargeted Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor, in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With an Anthracycline and a Taxane

Harold J. Burstein; Anthony D. Elias; Hope S. Rugo; Melody A. Cobleigh; Antonio C. Wolff; Peter D. Eisenberg; Mary Lehman; Bonne J. Adams; Carlo L. Bello; Samuel E. DePrimo; Charles M. Baum; Kathy D. Miller

PURPOSE Sunitinib is an oral, multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), platelet-derived growth factor receptor, stem cell factor receptor (KIT), and colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor. This phase II, open-label, multicenter study evaluated sunitinib monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Sixty-four patients previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane received sunitinib 50 mg/d in 6-week cycles (4 weeks on, then 2 weeks off treatment). The primary end point was objective response rate. Plasma samples were obtained for pharmacokinetic and biomarker analysis. RESULTS Seven patients achieved a partial response (median duration, 19 weeks), giving an overall response rate of 11%. Three additional patients (5%) maintained stable disease for >or= 6 months. Median time to progression and overall survival were 10 and 38 weeks, respectively. Notably, responses occurred in triple negative tumors and HER2-positive, trastuzumab-treated patients. Thirty-three patients (52%) required dose interruption during >or= 1 cycle, and 25 patients required dose reduction (39%). Thirty-six patients (56%) had dose modifications due to adverse events (AEs). Treatment was associated with increases in plasma VEGF and decreases in soluble VEGFRs and KIT. The most common AEs were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, mucosal inflammation, and anorexia. Most AEs were mild to moderate (grade 1 to 2) in severity and were effectively managed with dose delays or reductions. CONCLUSION Sunitinib is active in patients with heavily pretreated MBC. Most AEs were of mild-to-moderate severity and manageable with supportive treatment and/or dose modification. Further studies in breast cancer are warranted.

Collaboration


Dive into the Antonio C. Wolff's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Vered Stearns

Johns Hopkins University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Luigi Marchionni

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Eric B Bass

Johns Hopkins University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Renee F Wilson

Johns Hopkins University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge