Gregory Knapp

Dr. Gregory Knapp

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
10 September 2021 in Cancer Prevention Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ADAnna J. Dare
Anna J. Dare
GKGregory Knapp
Gregory Knapp
ARAnya Romanoff
Anya Romanoff
OOOlalekan Olasehinde
Olalekan Olasehinde
OFOlusola C. Famurewa
Olusola C. Famurewa
TKT. Peter Kingham
T. Peter Kingham
Cancer incidence is rising in low- and especially middle-income countries (MIC), driven primarily by four high-burden cancers (breast, cervix, lung, colorectal). By 2030, more than two-thirds of all cancer deaths will occur in MICs. Prevention and early detection are required alongside efforts to improve access to cancer treatment. Successful strategies for decreasing cancer mortality in high-income countries are not always effective, feasible or affordable in other countries. In this review, we evaluate strategies for prevention and early detection of breast, cervix, lung, and colorectal cancers, focusing on modifiable risk factors and high-risk subpopulations. Tobacco taxation, human papilloma virus vaccination, cervical cancer screen-and-treat strategies, and efforts to reduce patient and health system–related delays in the early detection of breast and colorectal cancer represent the highest yield strategies for advancing cancer control in many MICs. An initial focus on high-risk populations is appropriate, with increasing population coverage as resources allow. These strategies can deliver significant cancer mortality gains, and serve as a foundation from which countries can develop comprehensive cancer control programs. Investment in national cancer surveillance infrastructure is needed; the absence of national cancer data to identify at-risk groups remains a barrier to the development of context-specific cancer control strategies.

28 December 2020 in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
GKGregory Knapp
Gregory Knapp
GTGavin Tansley
Gavin Tansley
OOOlalekan Olasehinde
Olalekan Olasehinde
FWFunmilola Wuraola
Funmilola Wuraola
AAAdewale Adisa
Adewale Adisa
TKT. Peter Kingham
T. Peter Kingham

24 June 2021 in Current Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JYJenny Yoon
Jenny Yoon
GKGregory Knapp
Gregory Knapp
MQMay Lynn Quan
May Lynn Quan
ABAntoine Bouchard-Fortier
Antoine Bouchard-Fortier
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is more common among young women, although it frequently presents in older patients. Despite an aging population, there remains a paucity of data on the treatment of TNBC in elderly women. We conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and unpublished literature that captures the management and breast-cancer-specific survival (BCSS) of women ≥70 years old with TNBC. Out of 739 papers, five studies met our inclusion criteria. In total, 2037 patients with TNBC treated between 1973 and 2014 were captured in the analysis. Women ≥70 years old were less likely to undergo surgical resection compared to those <70 (92.8% vs. 94.6%, p = 0.002). Adjuvant therapy, including radiation and chemotherapy, was also less likely to be utilized in women ≥70 years of age. These treatment differences were associated with more than a doubling of cancer-specific mortality in the elderly cohort (5.9% vs. 2.7% in ≤70 years old, p < 0.0001). Two of the five studies showed improved BCSS with adjuvant treatment while others showed no difference. Our systemic review questions the appropriateness of therapeutic de-escalation in this cohort and highlights the significant gap in our understanding of the optimal management for elderly patients with TNBC. Until more data are available, multidisciplinary treatment decision-making should carefully balance the available clinical evidence as well as the patient’s predicted life expectancy and goals-of-care preferences.

2 February 2021 in Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SKSami Khoury
Sami Khoury
GKGregory Knapp
Gregory Knapp
AFAllison Fyfe
Allison Fyfe
JMJose Monzon
Jose Monzon
CTClaire Temple-Oberle
Claire Temple-Oberle
GMGregory J. McKinnon
Gregory J. McKinnon
Background: Intralesional injection of interleukin-2 (IL-2) for in-transit melanoma (ITM) is associated with a high rate of complete response. However, there is a paucity of data on treatment durability and long-term outcomes. Objectives: To provide long-term data on patients with a complete response to IL-2 therapy for ITM. Methods: Consecutive patients with ITM, treated with intralesional IL-2 therapy, at the Tom Baker Cancer Center were identified from April 2009 to August 2019. All patients received at least 4 cycles (every 2 weeks) of IL-2 (5 MIU/mL). Complete response was defined as sustained (ie, 3 months) clinical complete remission of all known in-transit disease. Results: Sixty-five patients were treated with curative intent for in-transit disease with intralesional IL-2. Complete clinical response was identified in 44.6% (29/65). In this subset of patients, the median number of lesions per patient was 9 (range 1-40). The median total dose of IL-2 was 0.8 mL (IQR 0.4-1.5) per lesion. One patient received isolated limb infusion and 13.8% (4/29) received systemic immunotherapy as part of their initial management. At a median follow-up of 27 months (IQR 16-59), 34.5% (10/29) developed recurrent disease. Of these patients, 50.0% (5/10) presented with synchronous in-transit and distant metastases. The median time to recurrence was 10.5 months (IQR 5.8-16.3). Conclusion: With long-term follow-up, 65.5% of complete responders have a durable response to intralesional IL-2 therapy. In this cohort of patients, local in-transit recurrence is most likely to occur within 12 months and is often associated with concomitant distant disease.

1 September 2023 in JCO Global Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
AOAdeleye Dorcas Omisore
Adeleye Dorcas Omisore
ESElizabeth J. Sutton
Elizabeth J. Sutton
RARacheal A. Akinola
Racheal A. Akinola
ATAnuoluwapo G. Towoju
Anuoluwapo G. Towoju
AAAdenike Akhigbe
Adenike Akhigbe
GKGregory Knapp
Gregory Knapp
PURPOSE: Mammography, breast ultrasound (US), and US-guided breast biopsy are essential services for breast cancer early detection and diagnosis. This study undertook a comprehensive evaluation to determine population-level access to these services for breast cancer early detection and diagnosis in Nigeria using a previously validated geographic information system (GIS) model. METHODS: A comprehensive list of public and private facilities offering mammography, breast US, and US-guided breast biopsy was compiled using publicly available facility data and a survey administered nationally to Nigerian radiologists. All facilities were geolocated. A cost-distance model using open-source population density (GeoData Institute) and road network data (OpenStreetMap) was used to estimate population-level travel time to the nearest facility for mammography, breast US, and US-guided biopsy using GIS software (ArcMAP). RESULTS: In total, 1,336 facilities in Nigeria provide breast US, of which 47.8% (639 of 1,336) are public facilities, and 218 provide mammography, of which 45.4% (99 of 218) are public facilities. Of the facilities that provide breast US, only 2.5% (33 of 1,336) also provide US-guided breast biopsy. At the national level, 83.1% have access to either US or mammography and 61.7% have access to US-guided breast biopsy within 120 minutes of a continuous one-way travel. There are differences in access to mammography (64.8% v 80.6% with access at 120 minutes) and US-guided breast biopsy (49.0% v 77.1% with access at 120 minutes) between the northern and southern Nigeria and between geopolitical zones. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive evaluation of breast cancer detection and diagnostic services in Nigeria, which demonstrates geospatial inequalities in access to mammography and US-guided biopsy. Targeted investment is needed to improve access to these essential cancer care services in the northern region and the North East geopolitical zone.

2 October 2024 in Cancers
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Gabriela IlieGabriela Ilie
Gabriela Ilie
GKGregory Knapp
Gregory Knapp
ADAshley Davidson
Ashley Davidson
SSStephanie Snow
Stephanie Snow
HDHannah M. Dahn
Hannah M. Dahn
Robert RutledgeRobert Rutledge
Robert Rutledge
Background/Objectives: Psychological distress is a significant concern among cancer patients, negatively affecting their quality of life and adherence to treatment. The Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (CancerPEP) was developed as a comprehensive, home-based intervention aimed at reducing psychological distress by incorporating physical activity, dietary guidance, and social support. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, accrual and attrition rates, safety, and effectiveness of the CancerPEP intervention, with and without the biofeedback device, on psychological distress from baseline to 6 months, specifically focusing on the effects of group randomization and the difference between pre- and post-intervention results. Methods: This single-site, crossover randomized clinical trial included 104 cancer patients who were randomized to receive the CancerPEP intervention, with or without a Heart Rate Variability (HRV) biofeedback monitor. At 6 months, participants who did not receive the device were allowed to use one until the end of the year, while those who did receive the device were followed up to 12 months. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of clinically significant psychological distress and metastatic status. Psychological distress was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was the presence of nonspecific psychological distress, as measured by the K10 scale at 6 months from the trial start, based on group randomization. A secondary exploratory analysis assessed psychological distress at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months for both groups, while controlling for group randomization and prognostic covariates. Prognostic covariates included age; comorbidities; time between diagnosis and randomization; treatment modality; relationship status; and use of prescribed medications for anxiety, depression, or both. An exploratory sub-analysis was conducted for the breast cancer subgroup, based on the sample size available after recruitment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05508412). Results: The provision of the HRV biofeedback monitor in conjunction with the CancerPEP intervention did not significantly affect the primary outcome in either the full sample or the breast cancer subgroup, indicating that the HRV biofeedback provision was not beneficial in this trial. No self-reported or otherwise discovered adverse events at the 6-month mark were observed. About 10% of participants were lost to follow-up in both the early and late HRV monitor provision groups. Participation in the CancerPEP program led to a significant reduction in psychological distress over time. The odds of psychological distress were significantly higher at the start of the trial than at the end of the intervention (aOR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.53–4.56) or 6 months after the intervention (aOR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.62–5.30). Similarly, in the breast cancer subgroup, distress was higher at the trial’s start than at 6 months, i.e., after the intervention (aOR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.24–4.08), or at the end of the trial at 12 months (aOR = 2.73, 95% CI: 1.35–5.52). Conclusions: CancerPEP significantly reduces psychological distress in cancer patients, with consistent improvements noted across various cancer types and stages, including benefits specifically for breast cancer patients. These findings build upon the success of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP), indicating that a similar comprehensive intervention can be advantageous for all cancer patients and may be further tailored to address specific needs. With its holistic approach—encompassing physical, dietary, and psychosocial support—CancerPEP shows promise as a vital component of survivorship care. Ongoing 24-month evaluations will yield critical data on its long-term benefits. Additionally, a randomized trial with a control group (usual care without intervention) for breast cancer patients is currently under way and could potentially guide the integration of CancerPEP into standard oncology care to enhance patient outcomes and quality of life.