The course of peripheral neuropathy and its association with health-related quality of life among colorectal cancer patients

Purpose:  To gain more insight into the course of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) and its impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a population-based sample of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients up to 2 years after diagnosis.  Methods:  All newly diagnosed CRC patients from four hospitals in the Netherlands were eligible for participation in an ongoing prospective cohort study. Patients (n = 340) completed questions on CIPN (EORTC QLQ-CIPN20) and HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30) before initial treatment (baseline) and 1 and 2 years after diagnosis. Results: Among chemotherapy-treated patients (n = 105), a high sensory peripheral neuropathy (SPN) level was reported by 57% of patients at 1 year, and 47% at 2-year follow-up, whereas a high motor peripheral neuropathy (MPN) level was reported by 47% and 28%, at years 1 and 2, respectively. Linear mixed model analyses showed that SPN and MPN symptoms significantly increased from baseline to 1-year follow-up and did not return to baseline level after 2 years. Patients with a high SPN or MPN level reported a worse global quality of life and a worse physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning compared with those with a low SPN or MPN level.  Conclusions: Future studies should focus on understanding the mechanisms underlying CIPN so targeted interventions can be developed to reduce the impact of CIPN on patient’s lives.  Implications for cancer survivors:  Patients need to be informed of both CIPN and the impact on HRQoL

Bevacizumab for metachronous metastatic colorectal cancer: A reflection of community based practice

Background: Although the efficacy of bevacizumab has been established in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), population-based studies are needed to gain insight into the actual implementation of bevacizumab in daily practice. Since these studies are lacking for patients with metachronous metastases, the aim of this study is to evaluate the current role of bevacizumab in the treatment of metachronous metastases of CRC. Methods: Data on the use of bevacizumab as palliative treatment of metachronous metastases were collected for patients diagnosed with M0 CRC between 2003 and 2008 in the Eindhoven Cancer Registry (n = 361). Median follow up was 5.3years. Results: One hundred eighty-five patients received bevacizumab in addition to first-line palliative chemotherapy (51%), ranging from 36% to 80% between hospitals of diagnosis (p < 0.0001). Combined cytostatic regimens (CAPOX/FOLFOX in 97%) were prescribed in the majority of patients (63%) and were associated with a higher odds for additional treatment with bevacizumab than single-agent cytostatic regimens (OR 9.9, 95% CI 5.51-18.00). Median overall survival (OS) rates were 21.6 and 13.9months with and without the addition of bevacizumab to palliative systemic treatment respectively (p < 0.0001). The addition of bevacizumab to palliative chemotherapy was associated with a reduced hazard ratio for death (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.45-0.73) after adjustment for patient- and tumor characteristics and the prescribed chemotherapeutic regimen. Conclusion: Bevacizumab is adopted as a therapeutic option for metachronous metastasized CRC mainly in addition to first-line oxaliplatin-based regimens, and was associated with a reduced risk of death. The presence of inter-hospital differences in the prescription of bevacizumab reflected important differences in attitude and policies in clinical practice. Ongoing efforts should be made to further define the position of targeted agents in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Feasibility and effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil in metastatic colorectal cancer: real-life data from The Netherlands

Background: The RECOURSE trial showed clinical efficacy for trifluridine/tipiracil for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients. We assessed the feasibility and effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil in daily clinical practice in The Netherlands. Methods: Medical records of patients from 17 centers treated in the trifluridine/tipiracil compassionate use program were reviewed and checked for RECOURSE eligibility criteria. Baseline characteristics, safety, and survival times were compared, and prespecified baseline characteristics were tested in multivariate analyses for prognostic significance on overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 136 patients with a median age of 62 years were analyzed. Forty-three patients (32%) did not meet the RECOURSE eligibility criteria for not having received all prior standard treatments (n = 35, 26%) and/or ECOG performance status (PS) 2 (n = 12, 9%). The most common grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (n = 44, 32%), leukopenia (n = 8, 6%), anemia (n = 7, 5%), and fatigue (n = 7, 5%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median OS were 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8–2.3) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.0–6.9), respectively. Patients with ECOG PS 2 had a worse median OS (3.2 months) compared to patients with ECOG PS 0–1 (5.9 months). ECOG PS, KRAS-mutation status, white blood cell count, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and alkaline phosphatase were prognostic factors for OS. Conclusions: Our data show that treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil in daily clinical practice is feasible and safe. Differences in patient characteristics between our population and the RECOURSE study population should be taken into account in the interpretation of survival data. Our results argue against the use of trifluridine/tipiracil in patients with ECOG PS 2. Funding: Johannes J.M. Kwakman received an unrestricted research grant from Servier

Occult lymph node metastases in patients without residual muscle-invasive bladder cancer at radical cystectomy with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a nationwide study of 5417 patients

Purpose Little is known about the prevalence of occult lymph node metastases (LNM) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) patients with pathological downstaging of the primary tumor. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of occult LNM in patients without residual MIBC at radical cystectomy (RC) with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) or neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NAR), and to assess overall survival (OS). Methods Patients with cT2-T4aN0M0 urothelial MIBC who underwent RC plus pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) with curative intent between January 1995-December 2013 (retrospective Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) cohort) and November 2017-October 2019 (prospective NCR-BlaZIB cohort (acronym in Dutch: BlaaskankerZorg In Beeld; in English: Insight into bladder cancer care)) were identified from the nationwide NCR. The prevalence of occult LNM was calculated and OS of patients with y)pT2N0 vs. y)pT2N+ disease was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results In total, 4657 patients from the NCR cohort and 760 patients from the NCR-BlaZIB cohort were included. Of 1374 patients downstaged to y)pT2, 4.3% (N = 59) had occult LNM 4.1% (N = 49) of patients with cT2-disease and 5.6% (N = 10) with cT3-4a-disease. This was 4.0% (N = 44) in patients without NAC or NAR, 4.5% (N = 10) in patients with NAC, and 13.5% (N = 5) in patients with NAR but number of patients treated with NAR and downstaged disease was small. The prevalence of y)pT2N+ disease was 4.2% (N = 48) in the NCR cohort and 4.6% (N = 11) in the NCR-BlaZIB cohort. For patients with y)pT2N+ and y)pT2N0, median OS was 3.5 years (95% CI 2.5-8.9) versus 12.9 years (95% CI 11.7-14.0), respectively. Conclusion Occult LNM were found in 4.3% of patients with cT2-4aN0M0 MIBC with (near-) complete downstaging of the primary tumor following RC plus PLND. This was regardless of NAC or clinical T-stage. Patients with occult LNM showed considerable worse survival. These results can help in counseling patients for bladder-sparing treatments.Urolog

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe.

Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (&lt;50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval &gt;2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials

Dutch Oncology COVID-19 consortium:Outcome of COVID-19 in patients with cancer in a nationwide cohort study

Aim of the study: Patients with cancer might have an increased risk for severe outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To identify risk factors associated with a worse outcome of COVID-19, a nationwide registry was developed for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Methods: This observational cohort study has been designed as a quality of care registry and is executed by the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium (DOCC), a nationwide collaboration of oncology physicians in the Netherlands. A questionnaire has been developed to collect pseudonymised patient data on patients' characteristics, cancer diagnosis and treatment. All patients with COVID-19 and a cancer diagnosis or treatment in the past 5 years are eligible. Results: Between March 27th and May 4th, 442 patients were registered. For this first analysis, 351 patients were included of whom 114 patients died. In multivariable analyses, age ≥65 years (p < 0.001), male gender (p = 0.035), prior or other malignancy (p = 0.045) and active diagnosis of haematological malignancy (p = 0.046) or lung cancer (p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for a fatal outcome of COVID-19. In a subgroup analysis of patients with active malignancy, the risk for a fatal outcome was mainly determined by tumour type (haematological malignancy or lung cancer) and age (≥65 years). Conclusion: The findings in this registry indicate that patients with a haematological malignancy or lung cancer have an increased risk of a worse outcome of COVID-19. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, these vulnerable patients should avoid exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, whereas treatment adjustments and prioritising vaccination, when available, should also be considered

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. With this treatment, 29% of patients have a pathologically complete response in the resection specimen. This provides the rationale for investigating an active surveillance approach. The aim of this study is to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of active surveillance vs. standard oesophagectomy after nCRT for oesophageal cancer. Methods: This is a phase-III multi-centre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. A total of 300 patients with clinically complete response (cCR, i.e. no local or disseminated disease proven by histology) after nCRT will be randomised to show non-inferiority of active surveillance to standard oesophagectomy (non-inferiority margin 15%, intra-correlation coefficient 0.02, power 80%, 2-sided α 0.05, 12% drop-out). Patients will undergo a first clinical response evaluation (CRE-I) 4-6 weeks after nCRT, consisting of endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies of the primary tumour site and other suspected lesions. Clinically complete responders will undergo a second CRE (CRE-II), 6-8 weeks after CRE-I. CRE-II will include 18F-FDG-PET-CT, followed by endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies and ultra-endosonography plus fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes and/or PET- positive lesions. Patients with cCR at CRE-II will be assigned to oesophagectomy (first phase) or active surveillance (second phase of the study). The duration of the first phase is determined randomly over the 12 centres, i.e., stepped-wedge cluster design. Patients in the active surveillance arm will undergo diagnostic evaluations similar to CRE-II at 6/9/12/16/20/24/30/36/48 and 60 months after nCRT. In this arm, oesophagectomy will be offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant dissemination. The main study parameter is overall survival; secondary endpoints include percentage of patients who do not undergo surgery, quality of life, clinical irresectability (cT4b) rate, radical resection rate, postoperative complications, progression-free survival, distant dissemination rate, and cost-effectiveness. We hypothesise that active surveillance leads to non-inferior survival, improved quality of life and a reduction in costs, compared to standard oesophagectomy. Discussion: If active surveillance and surgery as needed after nCRT leads to non-inferior survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, this organ-sparing approach can be implemented as a standard of care

Barriers and facilitators for shared decision-making in oncology inpatient practice: An explorative study of the healthcare providers perspective

Background In cancer care, shared decision-making (SDM) is especially relevant as different treatment options have a different impact on prognosis and patients’ quality of life. However, evidence suggests that SDM is not routinely practiced. Furthermore, literature is mostly focussed on the outpatient setting. This study explored healthcare providers’ perspectives on SDM for oncology inpatients and identified barriers and facilitators. Method In this qualitative study, focus groups and semi-structured interviews were held with five nurses, eleven residents, four oncologists, and two healthcare managers caring for oncology inpatients of the Elisabeth-TweeSteden hospital. Results Healthcare professionals do not always clearly state when a decision is required. On a patient level, comprehension barriers, language barrier, and distraction by emotions or sickness are recognized as barriers for adequate patient’s communication. On a healthcare professional level, having awareness to inform about choices, being able to transfer this information, connecting to the patient, having substantial experience, and a good patient-physician relationship were facilitators. On an organizational, level, time, private rooms, continuity in care, and suboptimal use of the electronic health record were barriers. Conclusion While SDM is recognized and valued, its implementation is inconsistent. Addressing the several barriers found and optimizing the facilitators is imperative. A start could be by raising awareness for SDM in the inpatient setting, adding SDM as part of the care pathway, stating to patients when a decision is required, reporting on the SDM process in the electronic health record, and describing the nurses’ role in SDM

Barriers and facilitators for shared decision-making in oncology inpatient practice:An explorative study of the healthcare providers perspective

Background In cancer care, shared decision-making (SDM) is especially relevant as different treatment options have a different impact on prognosis and patients’ quality of life. However, evidence suggests that SDM is not routinely practiced. Furthermore, literature is mostly focussed on the outpatient setting. This study explored healthcare providers’ perspectives on SDM for oncology inpatients and identified barriers and facilitators. Method In this qualitative study, focus groups and semi-structured interviews were held with five nurses, eleven residents, four oncologists, and two healthcare managers caring for oncology inpatients of the Elisabeth-TweeSteden hospital. Results Healthcare professionals do not always clearly state when a decision is required. On a patient level, comprehension barriers, language barrier, and distraction by emotions or sickness are recognized as barriers for adequate patient’s communication. On a healthcare professional level, having awareness to inform about choices, being able to transfer this information, connecting to the patient, having substantial experience, and a good patient-physician relationship were facilitators. On an organizational, level, time, private rooms, continuity in care, and suboptimal use of the electronic health record were barriers. Conclusion While SDM is recognized and valued, its implementation is inconsistent. Addressing the several barriers found and optimizing the facilitators is imperative. A start could be by raising awareness for SDM in the inpatient setting, adding SDM as part of the care pathway, stating to patients when a decision is required, reporting on the SDM process in the electronic health record, and describing the nurses’ role in SDM