Feasibility and Impact of Telemonitor-Based Depression Care Management for Geriatric Homecare Patients

Objective: The objective of this study was to test the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary clinical outcomes of a method to leverage existing home healthcare telemonitoring technology to deliver depression care management (DCM) to both Spanish- and English-speaking elderly homebound recipients of homecare services. Materials and Methods: Three stand-alone, nonprofit community homecare agencies located in New York, Vermont, and Miami participated in this study. Evidence-based DCM was adapted to the telemonitor platform by programming questions and educational information on depression symptoms, antidepressant adherence, and side effects. Recruited patients participated for a minimum of 3 weeks. Telehealth nurses were trained on DCM and received biweekly supervision. On-site trained research assistants conducted in-home research interviews on depression diagnosis and severity and patient satisfaction with the protocol. Results: An ethnically diverse sample of 48 English- and Spanish-only- speaking patients participated, along with seven telehealth nurses. Both patients and telehealth nurses reported high levels of protocol acceptance. Among 19 patients meeting diagnostic criteria for major depression, the mean depression severity was in the markedly severe range at baseline and in the mild range at follow-up. Conclusions: Results of this pilot support the feasibility of using homecare\u27s existing telemonitoring technology to deliver DCM to their elderly homebound patients. This was true for both English- and Spanish-speaking patients. Preliminary clinical outcomes suggest improvement in depression severity, although these findings require testing in a randomized clinical trial. Implications for the science and service of telehealth-based depression care for elderly patients are discussed

First-line afatinib plus cetuximab for EGFR-mutant non–small cell lung cancer: Results from the randomized phase II IFCT-1503 ACE-lung study

International audiencePurpose: Double inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) using a tyrosine kinase inhibitor plus a monoclonal antibody may be a novel treatment strategy for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We assessed the efficacy and toxicity of afatinib þ cetuximab versus afatinib alone in the first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Patients and Methods: In this phase II, randomized, open-label study, patients with stage III/IV EGFR-positive NSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (group A) or afatinib þ cetuximab (group A þ C). Oral afatinib 40 mg was given once daily; cetuximab 250 mg/m2 was administered intravenously on day 15 of cycle 1, then every 2 weeks at 500 mg/m2 for 6 months. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) rate at 9 months. Exploratory analysis of EGFR circulating tumor DNA in plasma was performed. Results: Between June 2016 and November 2018, 59 patients were included in group A and 58 in group A þ C. The study was ended early after a futility analysis was performed. The percentage of patients without treatment failure at 9 months was similar for both groups (59.3% for group A vs. 64.9% for group A þ C), and median TTF was 11.1 (95% CI, 8.5–14.1) and 12.9 (9.2–14.5) months, respectively. Other endpoints, including progression-free survival and overall survival, also showed no improvement with the combination versus afatinib alone. There was a slight numerical increase in grade ≥3 adverse events in group A þ C. Allele frequency of the EGFR gene mutation in circulating tumor DNA at baseline was associated with shorter PFS, regardless of the treatment received. Conclusions: These results suggest that addition of cetuximab to afatinib does not warrant further investigation in treatment-naïve advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research