Brian Burgess

Dr. Brian Burgess

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

8Years (2019-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
22 February 2020 in Diagnostics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BBBrian Burgess
Brian Burgess
AAAbigail M. Anderson
Abigail M. Anderson
RMRob McCorkle
Rob McCorkle
JWJianrong Wu
Jianrong Wu
FUFrederick Ueland
Frederick Ueland
Jill KolesarJill Kolesar
Jill Kolesar
Objective: Despite the promise of PARP inhibitors (PARPi) for treating BRCA1/2 mutated ovarian cancer (OC), drug resistance invariably develops. We hypothesized rationale drug combinations, targeting key molecules in DNA repair pathways and the cell cycle may be synergistic and overcome acquired PARPi resistance. Methods: Drug sensitivity to PARPi alone and in combination with inhibitors of key DNA repair and cell cycle proteins, including ATR (VE-821), Chk1 (MK-8776), Wee1 (MK-1775), RAD51 (RI-1) was assessed in PARPi-sensitive (UWB1) and -resistant (UWB1-R) gBRCA1 mutant OC cell lines using a cell proliferation assay. The Bliss synergy model was used to estimate the two-drug combination effect and pharmacologic synergy (Bliss score ≥ 0) or antagonistic (Bliss score ≥ 0) response of the PARPi in combination with the inhibitors. Results: IC50 for olaparib alone was 1.6 ± 0.9 µM compared to 3.4 ± 0.6 µM (p = 0.05) for UWB1 and UWB1-R cells, respectively. UWB1-R demonstrated increased sensitivity to ATRi (p = 0.04) compared to UWB1. Olaparib (0.3–1.25 µM) and ATRi (0.8–2.5 µM) were synergistic with Bliss scores of 17.2 ± 0.2, 11.9 ± 0.6 for UWB1 and UWB1-R cells, respectively. Olaparib (0.3–1.25 µM) and Chk1i(0.05–1.25 µM) were synergistic with Bliss scores of 8.3 ± 1.6, 5.7 ± 2.9 for UWB1 and UWB1-R cells, respectively. Conclusions: Combining an ATRi or Chk1i with olaparib is synergistic in both PARPi-sensitive and -resistant BRCA1 mutated OC cell models, and are rationale combinations for further clinical development.

21 January 2020 in Diagnostics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Edward J. PavlikEdward J. Pavlik
Edward J. Pavlik
CSChristopher Smith
Christopher Smith
TDTaylor S. Dennis
Taylor S. Dennis
EHElizabeth Harvey
Elizabeth Harvey
BHBin Huang
Bin Huang
JNJohn R. van Nagell
John R. van Nagell
Epithelial ovarian cancers (EOC) consist of several sub-types based on histology, clinical, molecular and epidemiological features that are termed “histo-types”, which can be categorized into less aggressive Type I and more aggressive Type II malignancies. This investigation evaluated the disease-specific survival (DSS) of women with Type I and II EOC using histo-type, grade, and stage. A total of 47,789 EOC cases were identified in the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data. Survival analysis and log rank test were performed to identify a 2-tiered classification (grade 1 vs. grade 2 & 3) for serous EOC. DSS of early stage serous EOC for grade 2 was significantly different from grade 3 indicating that a 2-tier classification for serous EOC applied only to late stage. DSS of Type I EOC was much better than Type II. However, DSS was 33–52% lower with late stage Type I than with early stage Type I indicating that Type I ovarian cancers should not be considered indolent. Early stage Type II EOC had much better DSS than late stage Type II stressing that stage has a large role in survival of both Type I and II EOC.

3 July 2019 in Healthcare
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CSChristopher Smith
Christopher Smith
DDDaniel L. Davenport
Daniel L. Davenport
JGJustin Gorski
Justin Gorski
AJAnthony McDowell, Jr.
Anthony McDowell, Jr.
BBBrian Burgess
Brian Burgess
FUFrederick Ueland
Frederick Ueland
Background: Ovarian cancer (OC) is the leading cause of death from gynecologic malignancy and is treated with a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Extended length of stay (LOS) after surgery can affect patient morbidity, overall costs, and hospital resource utilization. The primary objective of this study was to identify factors contributing to prolonged LOS for women undergoing surgery for ovarian cancer. Methods: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried to identify women from 2012–2016 who underwent hysterectomy for ovarian, fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer. The primary outcome was LOS >50th percentile. Preoperative and intraoperative variables were examined to determine which were associated with prolonged LOS. Results: From 2012–2016, 1771 women underwent elective abdominal surgery for OC and were entered in the ACS-NSQIP database. The mean and median LOS was 4.6 and 4.0 days (IQR 0–38), respectively. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with prolonged LOS included: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classification III (aOR 1.71, 95% CI 1.38–2.13) or IV (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.44–2.46), presence of ascites (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.44–2.46), older age (aOR 1.23, 95% CI 1.13–1.35), platelet count >400,000/mm3 (aOR 1.74, 95% CI 1.29–2.35), preoperative blood transfusion (aOR 11.00, 95% CI 1.28–94.77), disseminated cancer (aOR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03–1.60), increased length of operation (121–180 min, aOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13-1.91; >180 min, aOR 2.78, 95% CI 2.13–3.64), and postoperative blood transfusion within 72 h of incision (aOR 2.04, 95% CI 1.59–2.62) (p < 0.05 for all). Conclusions: Longer length of hospital stay following surgery for OC is associated with many patient, disease, and treatment-related factors. The extent of surgery, as evidenced by perioperative blood transfusion and length of surgical procedure, is a factor that can potentially be modified to shorten LOS, improve patient outcomes, and reduce hospital costs.

1 May 2019 in Menopause
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BBBrian Burgess
Brian Burgess
FUFrederick Ueland
Frederick Ueland
Asymptomatic ovarian tumors in menopausal women do not always require surgical removal. Experts recommend an initial evaluation with transvaginal ultrasound to help characterize the tumor's malignant risk. Low-risk tumors can be monitored with ultrasound, whereas high-risk tumors should be referred to a gynecologic oncologist. Indeterminate tumors require secondary testing with the strategies outlined in this Practice Pearl.