Christopher Willett

Positions:

Chair, Department of Radiation Oncology

Radiation Oncology
School of Medicine

Professor of Radiation Oncology

Radiation Oncology
School of Medicine

Member of the Duke Cancer Institute

Duke Cancer Institute
School of Medicine

Education:

B.S. 1977

Tufts University

M.D. 1981

Tufts University

Grants:

Clinical Oncology Research Career Development Program

Administered By
Surgery, Surgical Sciences
Awarded By
National Institutes of Health
Role
Mentor
Start Date
End Date

Cancer Care Quality Measures: Diagnosis and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

Administered By
Institutes and Centers
Awarded By
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Role
Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Angiogenic Profile of Rectal Cancer

Administered By
Radiation Oncology
Awarded By
National Cancer Institute
Role
Principal Investigator
Start Date
End Date

Publications:

Results of the NRG Oncology/RTOG 0848 Adjuvant Chemotherapy Question-Erlotinib+Gemcitabine for Resected Cancer of the Pancreatic Head: A Phase II Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: NRG/RTOG 0848 was designed to determine whether adjuvant radiation with fluoropyrimidine sensitization improved survival following gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. In step 1 of this protocol, patients were randomized to adjuvant gemcitabine versus the combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib. This manuscript reports the final analysis of these step 1 data. METHODS: Eligibility-within 10 weeks of curative intent pancreaticoduodenectomy with postoperative CA19-9<180. Gemcitabine arm-6 cycles of gemcitabine. Gemcitabine+erlotinib arm-gemcitabine and erlotinib 100 mg/d. Two hundred deaths provided 90% power (1-sided α=0.15) to detect the hypothesized OS signal (hazard ratio=0.72) in favor of the arm 2. RESULTS: From November 17, 2009 to February 28, 2014, 163 patients were randomized and evaluable for arm 1 and 159 for arm 2. Median age was 63 (39 to 86) years. CA19-9 ≤90 in 93%. Arm 1: 32 patients (20%) grade 4 and 2 (1%) grade 5 adverse events; arm 2, 27 (17%) grade 4 and 3 (2%) grade 5. GI adverse events, arm 1: 22% grade ≥3 and arm 2: 28%, (P=0.22). The median follow-up (surviving patients) was 42.5 months (min-max: <1 to 75). With 203 deaths, the median and 3-year OS (95% confidence interval) are 29.9 months (21.7, 33.4) and 39% (30, 45) for arm 1 and 28.1 months (20.7, 30.9) and 39% (31, 47) for arm 2 (log-rank P=0.62). Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) comparing OS of arm 2 to arm 1 is 1.04 (0.79, 1.38). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of adjuvant erlotinib to gemcitabine did not provide a signal for increased OS in this trial.
Authors
Abrams, RA; Winter, KA; Safran, H; Goodman, KA; Regine, WF; Berger, AC; Gillin, MT; Philip, PA; Lowy, AM; Wu, A; DiPetrillo, TA; Corn, BW; Seaward, SA; Haddock, MG; Song, S; Jiang, Y; Fisher, BJ; Katz, AW; Mehta, S; Willett, CG; Crane, CH
MLA Citation
Abrams, Ross A., et al. “Results of the NRG Oncology/RTOG 0848 Adjuvant Chemotherapy Question-Erlotinib+Gemcitabine for Resected Cancer of the Pancreatic Head: A Phase II Randomized Clinical Trial.Am J Clin Oncol, vol. 43, no. 3, Mar. 2020, pp. 173–79. Pubmed, doi:10.1097/COC.0000000000000633.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1428931
PMID
31985516
Source
pubmed
Published In
American Journal of Clinical Oncology
Volume
43
Published Date
Start Page
173
End Page
179
DOI
10.1097/COC.0000000000000633

Multi-Institutional Analysis of Synchronous Prostate and Rectosigmoid Cancers.

Purpose: To perform a multi-institutional analysis of patients with synchronous prostate and rectosigmoid cancers. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of Duke University and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center records was performed for men with both prostate and rectosigmoid adenocarcinomas from 1988 to 2017. Synchronous presentation was defined as symptoms, diagnosis, or treatment of both cancers within 12 months of each other. The primary study endpoint was overall survival. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression was performed. Results: Among 31,883 men with prostate cancer, 330 (1%) also had rectosigmoid cancer and 54 (16%) of these were synchronous. Prostate cancer was more commonly the initial diagnosis (59%). Fifteen (28%) underwent prostatectomy or radiotherapy before an established diagnosis of rectosigmoid cancer. Stage I, II-III, or IV rectosigmoid cancer was present in 26, 57, and 17% of men, respectively. At a median follow-up of 43 months, there were 18 deaths due rectosigmoid cancer and two deaths due to prostate cancer. Crude late grade ≥3 toxicities include nine (17%) gastrointestinal and six (11%) genitourinary. Two anastomotic leaks following low anterior resection occurred in men who received a neoadjuvant radiotherapy prostate dose of 70.6-76.4 Gy. Rectosigmoid cancer stages II-III (HR 4.3, p = 0.02) and IV (HR 16, p < 0.01) as well as stage IV prostate cancer (HR 31, p < 0.01) were associated with overall survival on multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Synchronous rectosigmoid cancer is a greater contributor to mortality than prostate cancer. Men aged ≥45 with localized prostate cancer should undergo colorectal cancer screening prior to treatment to evaluate for synchronous rectosigmoid cancer.
Authors
Jacobs, CD; Trotter, J; Palta, M; Moravan, MJ; Wu, Y; Willett, CG; Lee, WR; Czito, BG
MLA Citation
Jacobs, Corbin D., et al. “Multi-Institutional Analysis of Synchronous Prostate and Rectosigmoid Cancers.Front Oncol, vol. 10, 2020, p. 345. Pubmed, doi:10.3389/fonc.2020.00345.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1436853
PMID
32266135
Source
pubmed
Published In
Frontiers in Oncology
Volume
10
Published Date
Start Page
345
DOI
10.3389/fonc.2020.00345

Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare malignancy of the gastrointestinal tract that has increased in incidence across recent years. Often diagnosed at an advanced stage, outcomes for SBA are worse on average than for other related malignancies, including colorectal cancer. Due to the rarity of this disease, few studies have been done to direct optimal treatment, although recent data have shown that SBA responds to treatment differently than colorectal cancer, necessitating a separate approach to treatment. The NCCN Guidelines for Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma were created to establish an evidence-based standard of care for patients with SBA. These guidelines provide recommendations on the workup of suspected SBA, primary treatment options, adjuvant treatment, surveillance, and systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Additionally, principles of imaging and endoscopy, pathologic review, surgery, radiation therapy, and survivorship are described.
Authors
Benson, AB; Venook, AP; Al-Hawary, MM; Arain, MA; Chen, Y-J; Ciombor, KK; Cohen, SA; Cooper, HS; Deming, DA; Garrido-Laguna, I; Grem, JL; Hoffe, SE; Hubbard, J; Hunt, S; Kamel, A; Kirilcuk, N; Krishnamurthi, S; Messersmith, WA; Meyerhardt, J; Miller, ED; Mulcahy, MF; Nurkin, S; Overman, MJ; Parikh, A; Patel, H; Pedersen, KS; Saltz, LB; Schneider, C; Shibata, D; Skibber, JM; Sofocleous, CT; Stoffel, EM; Stotsky-Himelfarb, E; Willett, CG; Johnson-Chilla, A; Gregory, KM; Gurski, LA
MLA Citation
Benson, Al B., et al. “Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma, Version 1.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.J Natl Compr Canc Netw, vol. 17, no. 9, Sept. 2019, pp. 1109–33. Pubmed, doi:10.6004/jnccn.2019.0043.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1412740
PMID
31487687
Source
pubmed
Published In
J Natl Compr Canc Netw
Volume
17
Published Date
Start Page
1109
End Page
1133
DOI
10.6004/jnccn.2019.0043

Colon Cancer

MLA Citation
Czito, B. G., et al. “Colon Cancer.” Clinical Radiation Oncology, 2015, pp. 977-991.e2. Scopus, doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-24098-7.00050-2.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1411897
Source
scopus
Published Date
Start Page
977
End Page
991.e2
DOI
10.1016/B978-0-323-24098-7.00050-2

Intraoperative Irradiation

Authors
Czito, BG; Calvo, FA; Haddock, MG; Palta, M; Willett, CG
MLA Citation
Czito, B. G., et al. “Intraoperative Irradiation.” Clinical Radiation Oncology, 2015, pp. 325-340.e3. Scopus, doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-24098-7.00017-4.
URI
https://scholars.duke.edu/individual/pub1411898
Source
scopus
Published Date
Start Page
325
End Page
340.e3
DOI
10.1016/B978-0-323-24098-7.00017-4