Evan Alley

Evan Alley

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Evan Alley has a total of 25 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Factors Associated with the Decision to Decline Chemotherapy in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

    by Iktej Singh Jabbal, Saad Sabbagh, Mira Itani, Barbara Dominguez, Mohamed Mohanna, Valencia Henry, Hong Liang, Diana Saravia, Tiffany George, Zeina Nahleh, et al.

    (1) Background: Disparities in cancer treatment and outcomes have long been well-documented in the medical literature. With the eruption of advances in new treatment modalities, the long-existing disparities are now being further uncovered and brought to the attention of the medical community. While social health determinants have previously been linked to treatment disparities in lung cancer, we analyzed data from the National Cancer Database to explore sociodemographic and geographic factors related to accepting or declining physician-recommended chemotherapy. Patients diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer between 2004 and 2016 who declined chemotherapy recommended by their physicians were included in this study. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Cox Regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to look for survival characteristics. (2) Results: 316,826 patients with Stage IV lung cancer were identified. Factors related to a higher rate of refusal by patients included older age > 70, female sex, low income, lack of insurance coverage, residency in the New England region, and higher comorbidity. Patients living in areas with lower education were less likely to decline chemotherapy. (3) Conclusion: Further understanding of the factors impacting treatment decisions would be essential to improve the efficacy of care delivery in patients with cancer and reduce reversible causes of disparity.


  • Open Access

    Social disparities in pain management provision in stage IV lung cancer: A national registry analysis

    by Marita Yaghi, Najla Beydoun, Kelsey Mowery, Sandra Bs Abadir, Maroun Bou Zerdan, Iktej Singh Jabbal, Carlos Rivera, Hong Liang, Evan Alley, Diana Saravia, et al.

    A strong association exists between pain and lung cancer (LC). Focusing on the disparities in pain referral in LC patients, we are aiming to characterize the prevalence and patterns of referrals to pain management (PM) in Stage IV non-small-cell LC (NSLC) and small-cell LC (SCLC). We sampled the National Cancer Database for de novo stage IV LC (2004–2016). We analyzed trends of pain referral using the Cochran–Armitage test. Chi-squared statistics were used to identify the sociodemographic and clinico-pathologic determinants of referral to PM, and significant variables (P < .05) were included in one multivariable regression model predicting the likelihood of pain referral. A total N = 17,620 (3.1%) of NSLC and N = 4305 (2.9%) SCLC patients were referred to PM. A significant increase in referrals was observed between 2004 and 2016 (NSLC: 1.7%–4.1%, P < .001; SCLC: 1.6%–4.2%, P < .001). Patient and disease factors played a significant role in likelihood of referral in both groups. Demographic factors such as gender, age, and facility type played a role in the likelihood of pain referrals, highlighting the gap and need for multidisciplinary PM in patients with LC. Despite an increase in the proportion of referrals to PM issued for terminal stage LC, the overall proportion remains low. To ensure better of quality of life for patients, oncologists need to be made aware of existent disparities and implicit biases.

  • Open Access

    Meta-Analysis of Survival and Development of a Prognostic Nomogram for Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma Treated with Systemic Chemotherapy

    by Rupesh Kotecha, Raees Tonse, Muni Rubens, Haley Appel, Federico Albrecht, Paul Kaywin, Evan W. Alley, Martin C. Tom, Minesh P. Mehta

    (1) Purpose: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare cancer with an aggressive course. For patients who are medically inoperable or surgically unresectable, multi-agent systemic chemotherapy remains an accepted standard-of-care. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to provide baseline summative survival estimates as well as evaluate the influence of prognostic variables to provide comparative estimates for future trial designs. (2) Methods: Using PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of MPM studies published from 2002–2019 obtained from the Medline database evaluating systemic therapy combinations for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Weighted random effects models were used to calculate survival estimates. The influence of proportions of known prognostic factors on overall survival (OS) were evaluated in the creation of a prognostic nomogram to estimate survival. The performance of this model was evaluated against data generated from one positive phase II study and two positive randomized trials. (3) Results: Twenty-four phase II studies and five phase III trials met the eligibility criteria; 2534 patients were treated on the included clinical studies. Ten trials included a platinum-pemetrexed-based treatment regimen, resulting in a pooled estimate of progression-free survival (PFS) of 6.7 months (95% CI: 6.2–7.2 months) and OS of 14.2 months (95% CI: 12.7–15.9 months). Fifteen experimental chemotherapy regimens have been tested in phase II or III studies, with a pooled median survival estimate of 13.5 months (95% CI: 12.6–14.6 months). Meta-regression analysis was used to estimate OS with platinum-pemetrexed using a variety of features, such as pathology (biphasic vs. epithelioid), disease extent (locally advanced vs. metastatic), ECOG performance status, age, and gender. The nomogram-predicted estimates and corresponding 95% CIs performed well when applied to recent randomized studies. (4) Conclusions: Given the rarity of MPM and the aggressive nature of the disease, innovative clinical trial designs with significantly greater randomization to experimental regimens can be performed using robust survival estimates from prior studies. This study provides baseline comparative values and also allows for accounting for differing proportions of known prognostic variables.