Darlene Veruttipong
University of California, Los Angeles
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Darlene Veruttipong.
Lancet Oncology | 2017
Narek Shaverdian; Aaron Lisberg; Krikor Bornazyan; Darlene Veruttipong; Jonathan W. Goldman; Silvia C. Formenti; Edward B. Garon; Percy Lee
BACKGROUND Preclinical studies have found radiotherapy enhances antitumour immune responses. We aimed to assess disease control and pulmonary toxicity in patients who previously received radiotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before receiving pembrolizumab. METHODS We assessed patients with advanced NSCLC treated on the phase 1 KEYNOTE-001 trial at a single institution (University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA). Patients were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, had adequate organ function, and no history of pneumonitis. Patients received pembrolizumab at a dose of either 2 mg/kg of bodyweight or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks, or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other protocol-defined reasons for discontinuation. Disease response and pulmonary toxicity were prospectively assessed by Immune-related Response Criteria and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. The primary objective of the KEYNOTE-001 trial was to assess the safety, side-effect profile, and antitumour activity of pembrolizumab. For our secondary analysis, patients were divided into subgroups to compare patients who previously received radiotherapy with patients who had not. Our primary objective was to determine whether previous radiotherapy affected progression-free survival, overall survival, and pulmonary toxicity in the intention-to-treat population. The KEYNOTE-001 trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01295827. FINDINGS Between May 22, 2012, and July 11, 2014, 98 patients were enrolled and received their first cycle of pembrolizumab. One patient was lost to follow-up. 42 (43%) of 97 patients had previously received any radiotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC before the first cycle of pembrolizumab. 38 (39%) of 97 patients received extracranial radiotherapy and 24 (25%) of 97 patients received thoracic radiotherapy. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 32·5 months (IQR 29·8-34·1). Progression-free survival with pembrolizumab was significantly longer in patients who previously received any radiotherapy than in patients without previous radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·56 [95% CI 0·34-0·91], p=0·019; median progression-free survival 4·4 months [95% CI 2·1-8·6] vs 2·1 months [1·6-2·3]) and for patients who previously received extracranial radiotherapy compared with those without previous extracranial radiotherapy (HR 0·50 [0·30-0·84], p=0·0084; median progression-free survival 6·3 months [95% CI 2·1-10·4] vs 2·0 months [1·8-2·1]). Overall survival with pembrolizumab was significantly longer in patients who previously received any radiotherapy than in patients without previous radiotherapy (HR 0·58 [95% CI 0·36-0·94], p=0·026; median overall survival 10·7 months [95% CI 6·5-18·9] vs 5·3 months [2·7-7·7]) and for patients who previously received extracranial radiotherapy compared with those without previous extracranial radiotherapy (0·59 [95% CI 0·36-0·96], p=0·034; median overall survival 11·6 months [95% CI 6·5-20·5] vs 5·3 months [3·0-8·5]). 15 (63%) of 24 patients who had previously received thoracic radiotherapy had any recorded pulmonary toxicity versus 29 (40%) of 73 patients with no previous thoracic radiotherapy. Three (13%) patients with previous thoracic radiotherapy had treatment-related pulmonary toxicity compared with one (1%) of those without; frequency of grade 3 or worse treatment-related pulmonary toxicities was similar (one patient in each group). INTERPRETATION Our data suggest that previous treatment with radiotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC results in longer progression-free survival and overall survival with pembrolizumab treatment than that seen in patients who did not have previous radiotherapy, with an acceptable safety profile. Further clinical trials investigating this combination are needed to determine the optimal treatment strategy for patients with advanced NSCLC. FUNDING US National Institutes of Health.
Cancer | 2016
Aaron A. Laviana; Annette M. Ilg; Darlene Veruttipong; Hung-Jui Tan; Michael A. Burke; Douglas Niedzwiecki; Patrick A. Kupelian; Christopher R. King; Michael L. Steinberg; Chandan R. Kundavaram; Mitchell Kamrava; Alan L. Kaplan; Andrew K. Moriarity; William Hsu; Daniel Margolis; Jim C. Hu; Christopher S. Saigal
Given the costs of delivering care for men with prostate cancer remain poorly described, this article reports the results of time‐driven activity‐based costing (TDABC) for competing treatments of low‐risk prostate cancer.
Brachytherapy | 2016
Annette M. Ilg; Aaron A. Laviana; Mitchell Kamrava; Darlene Veruttipong; Michael L. Steinberg; Sang-June Park; Michael A. Burke; Douglas Niedzwiecki; Patrick A. Kupelian; Christopher S. Saigal
PURPOSE Cost estimates through traditional hospital accounting systems are often arbitrary and ambiguous. We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to determine the true cost of low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for prostate cancer and demonstrate opportunities for cost containment at an academic referral center. METHODS AND MATERIALS We implemented TDABC for patients treated with I-125, preplanned LDR and computed tomography based HDR brachytherapy with two implants from initial consultation through 12-month followup. We constructed detailed process maps for provision of both HDR and LDR. Personnel, space, equipment, and material costs of each step were identified and used to derive capacity cost rates, defined as price per minute. Each capacity cost rate was then multiplied by the relevant process time and products were summed to determine total cost of care. RESULTS The calculated cost to deliver HDR was greater than LDR by
Clinical Lung Cancer | 2017
Narek Shaverdian; Darlene Veruttipong; J. Wang; Patrick A. Kupelian; Michael L. Steinberg; Percy Lee
2,668.86 (
British Journal of Radiology | 2016
Narek Shaverdian; Stephen Tenn; Darlene Veruttipong; J. Wang; John V. Hegde; Chul Lee; Minsong Cao; Nzhde Agazaryan; Michael L. Steinberg; Patrick A. Kupelian; Percy Lee
9,538 vs.
Advances in radiation oncology | 2016
Kiri A. Sandler; Darlene Veruttipong; Vatche G. Agopian; Richard S. Finn; Johnny C. Hong; Fady M. Kaldas; Saeed Sadeghi; Ronald W. Busuttil; Percy Lee
6,869). The first and second HDR treatment day cost
Journal of Thoracic Oncology | 2016
Narek Shaverdian; Darlene Veruttipong; J. Wang; Patrick A. Kupelian; Michael L. Steinberg; Percy Lee
3,999.67 and
Gynecologic Oncology | 2017
Julia M. Fallon; Sang-Jung Park; Lisa Yang; Darlene Veruttipong; Mingle Zhang; Thanh Van; Pin-Chieh Wang; Alexandra M. Fekete; Mauricio Cambeiro; Mitchell Kamrava; Michael L. Steinberg; D. Jeffrey Demanes
3,955.67, whereas LDR was delivered on one treatment day and cost
Cancer | 2018
John V. Hegde; Narek Shaverdian; Megan E. Daly; Carol Felix; Deborah L. Wong; Michael H. Rosove; Jordan H. Garst; Pin Chieh Wang; Darlene Veruttipong; Shyam Rao; Ruben Fragoso; Jonathan W. Riess; Michael L. Steinberg; Allen M. Chen
3,887.55. The greatest overall cost driver for both LDR and HDR was personnel at 65.6% (
Urology | 2017
John V. Hegde; Darlene Veruttipong; Jonathan W. Said; Robert E. Reiter; Michael L. Steinberg; Christopher R. King; Amar U. Kishan
4,506.82) and 67.0% (