Charles Simone

Dr. Charles Simone


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

29Years (1998-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 September 2017 in Practical Radiation Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
GVGregory M.M. Videtic
Gregory M.M. Videtic
JDJessica Donington
Jessica Donington
MGMeredith Giuliani
Meredith Giuliani
JHJohn Heinzerling
John Heinzerling
TKTomer Z. Karas
Tomer Z. Karas
MDMegan E. Daly
Megan E. Daly

20 April 2022 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MDMegan E. Daly
Megan E. Daly
NSNavneet Singh
Navneet Singh
NINofisat Ismaila
Nofisat Ismaila
MAMara Antonoff
Mara Antonoff
DADouglas Arenberg
Douglas Arenberg
CSCharles Simone
Charles Simone
PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing clinicians on management of patients with stage III non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: An Expert Panel of medical oncology, thoracic surgery, radiation oncology, pulmonary oncology, community oncology, research methodology, and advocacy experts was convened to conduct a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2021. Outcomes of interest included survival, disease-free or recurrence-free survival, and quality of life. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 127 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations were developed to address evaluation and staging workup of patients with suspected stage III NSCLC, surgical management, neoadjuvant and adjuvant approaches, and management of patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/thoracic-cancer-guidelines .

23 November 2018 in Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
VVVivek Verma
Vivek Verma
TSTanja Sprave
Tanja Sprave
WHWaqar Haque
Waqar Haque
CSCharles Simone
Charles Simone
JCJoe Y. Chang
Joe Y. Chang
CTCharles R. Thomas
Charles R. Thomas
Background Escalating healthcare costs are necessitating the practice of value-based oncology. It is crucial to critically evaluate the economic impact of influential but expensive therapies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). To date, no systematic assessment of the cost-effectiveness (CE) of ICIs has been performed. Methods PRISMA-guided systematic searches of the PubMed database were conducted. Studies of head/neck (n = 3), lung (n = 5), genitourinary (n = 4), and melanoma (n = 8) malignancies treated with ICIs were evaluated. The reference willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $100,000/QALY. Results Nivolumab was not cost-effective over chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic head/neck cancers (HNCs). For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), nivolumab was not cost-effective for a general cohort, but increased PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in CE. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for both previously treated and newly-diagnosed metastatic NSCLC. For genitourinary cancers (GUCs, renal cell and bladder cancers), nivolumab and pembrolizumab were not cost-effective options. Regarding metastatic/unresected melanoma, ipilimumab monotherapy is less cost-effective than nivolumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab. The addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab monotherapy was not adequately cost-effective. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab monotherapy offered comparable CE profiles. Conclusions With limited data and from the reference WTP, nivolumab was not cost-effective for HNCs. Pembrolizumab was cost-effective for NSCLC; although not the case for nivolumab, applying PD-L1 cutoffs resulted in adequate CE. Most data for nivolumab and pembrolizumab in GUCs did not point towards adequate CE. Contrary to ipilimumab, either nivolumab or pembrolizumab is cost-effective for melanoma. Despite these conclusions, it cannot be overstated that careful patient selection is critical for CE. Future publication of CE investigations and clinical trials (along with longer follow-up of existing data) could substantially alter conclusions from this analysis.

30 January 2018 in Molecules
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NLNarottam Lamichhane
Narottam Lamichhane
TUThirupandiyur S. Udayakumar
Thirupandiyur S. Udayakumar
WDWarren D. D’souza
Warren D. D’souza
CSCharles Simone
Charles Simone
Srinivasa RaghavanSrinivasa Raghavan
Srinivasa Raghavan
JMJaved Mahmood
Javed Mahmood
Liposomes have been extensively studied and are used in the treatment of several diseases. Liposomes improve the therapeutic efficacy by enhancing drug absorption while avoiding or minimizing rapid degradation and side effects, prolonging the biological half-life and reducing toxicity. The unique feature of liposomes is that they are biocompatible and biodegradable lipids, and are inert and non-immunogenic. Liposomes can compartmentalize and solubilize both hydrophilic and hydrophobic materials. All these properties of liposomes and their flexibility for surface modification to add targeting moieties make liposomes more attractive candidates for use as drug delivery vehicles. There are many novel liposomal formulations that are in various stages of development, to enhance therapeutic effectiveness of new and established drugs that are in preclinical and clinical trials. Recent developments in multimodality imaging to better diagnose disease and monitor treatments embarked on using liposomes as diagnostic tool. Conjugating liposomes with different labeling probes enables precise localization of these liposomal formulations using various modalities such as PET, SPECT, and MRI. In this review, we will briefly review the clinical applications of liposomal formulation and their potential imaging properties.

1 January 2016 in Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MMMatthew Mallory
Matthew Mallory
EGEmile Gogineni
Emile Gogineni
GJGuy C. Jones
Guy C. Jones
LGLester Greer
Lester Greer
CSCharles Simone
Charles Simone

1 September 2017 in International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JCJoe Y. Chang
Joe Y. Chang
XZXiaodong Zhang
Xiaodong Zhang
AKAntje Knopf
Antje Knopf
HLHeng Li
Heng Li
SMShinichiro Mori
Shinichiro Mori
XZXiaorong R. Zhu
Xiaorong R. Zhu
Pencil-beam scanning (PBS) proton therapy (PT), particularly intensity modulated PT, represents the latest advanced PT technology for treating cancers, including thoracic malignancies. On the basis of virtual clinical studies, PBS-PT appears to have great potential in its ability to tightly tailor the dose to the target while sparing critical structures, thereby reducing treatment-related toxicities, particularly for tumors in areas with complicated anatomy. However, implementing PBS-PT for moving targets has several additional technical challenges compared with intensity modulated photon radiation therapy or passive scattering PT. Four-dimensional computed tomography-based motion management and robust optimization and evaluation are crucial for minimizing uncertainties associated with beam range and organ motion. Rigorous quality assurance is required to validate dose delivery both before and during the course of treatment. Active motion management (eg, breath hold), beam gating, rescanning, tracking, or adaptive planning may be needed for cases involving significant motion or changes in motion or anatomy over the course of treatment.