Implementation, participation and satisfaction rates of a web-based decision support tool for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE: To examine implementation and patients' and providers' participation and satisfaction of a newly developed decision support tool (DST) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in palliative setting. METHODS: Our DST consisted of a consultation sheet and web-based tailored information for mCRC treatment options. We conducted an implementation trajectory in 11 Dutch hospitals and evaluated implementation, participation and satisfaction rates. RESULTS: Implementation rates fluctuated between 3 and 72 handed out (median:23) consultation sheets per hospital with patients' login rates between 36% and 83% (median:57%). The majority of patients (68%) had (intermediate)-high participation scores. The median time spent using the DST was 38 min (IQR:18-56) and was highest for questions concerning patients' perspective (5 min). Seventy-six% of patients were (very) satisfied. The provider DST rating was 7.8 (scale 1-10) and participation ranged between 25 and 100%. Remaining implementation thresholds included providers' treatment preferences, resistance against shared decision-making and (over)confidence in shared decision-making concepts already in use. CONCLUSION: We implemented a DST with sufficient patient and oncologist satisfaction and high patient participation, but participation differed considerably between hospitals suggesting unequal adoption of our tool. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Requirements for structural implementation are to overcome remaining thresholds and increase awareness for additional decision support

Implementation, participation and satisfaction rates of a web-based decision support tool for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Objective: To examine implementation and patients’ and providers’ participation and satisfaction of a newly developed decision support tool (DST) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in palliative setting. Methods: Our DST consisted of a consultation sheet and web-based tailored information for mCRC treatment options. We conducted an implementation trajectory in 11 Dutch hospitals and evaluated implementation, participation and satisfaction rates. Results: Implementation rates fluctuated between 3 and 72 handed out (median:23) consultation sheets per hospital with patients’ login rates between 36% and 83% (median:57%). The majority of patients (68%) had (intermediate)-high participation scores. The median time spent using the DST was 38 min (IQR:18–56) and was highest for questions concerning patients’ perspective (5 min). Seventy-six% of patients were (very) satisfied. The provider DST rating was 7.8 (scale 1–10) and participation ranged between 25 and 100%. Remaining implementation thresholds included providers’ treatment preferences, resistance against shared decision-making and (over)confidence in shared decision-making concepts already in use. Conclusion: We implemented a DST with sufficient patient and oncologist satisfaction and high patient participation, but participation differed considerably between hospitals suggesting unequal adoption of our tool. Practice implications: Requirements for structural implementation are to overcome remaining thresholds and increase awareness for additional decision support

Survival of patients with deficient mismatch repair metastatic colorectal cancer in the pre-immunotherapy era

Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR mCRC) benefit from immunotherapy. Interpretation of the single-arm immunotherapy trials is complicated by insignificant survival data during systemic non-immunotherapy. We present survival data on a large, comprehensive cohort of dMMR mCRC patients, treated with or without systemic non-immunotherapy. Methods: Two hundred and eighty-one dMMR mCRC patients (n = 54 from three prospective Phase 3 CAIRO trials; n = 227 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry). Overall survival was analysed from diagnosis of mCRC (OS), from initiation of first-line (OS1) and second-line (OS2) systemic treatment. Cox regression analysis examined prognostic factors. As comparison for OS 2746 MMR proficient mCRC patients were identified. Results: Of 281 dMMR patients, 62% received first-line and 26% second-line treatment. Median OS was 16.0 months (13.8–19.6) with antitumour therapy and 2.5 months (1.8–3.5) in untreated patients. OS1 was 12.8 months (10.7–15.2) and OS2 6.2 months (5.4–8.9) in treated dMMR patients. Treated dMMR patients had a 7.6-month shorter median OS than pMMR patients. Conclusion: Available data from immunotherapy trials lack a control arm with standard systemic treatment. Given the poor outcome compared to the immunotherapy results, our data strongly suggest a survival benefit of immunotherapy in dMMR mCRC patients

Perioperative systemic therapy and cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC versus upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: Protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parralel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study (CAIRO6)

Background: Upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (CRS-HIPEC) is the standard treatment for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in the Netherlands. This study investigates whether addition of perioperative systemic therapy to CRS-HIPEC improves oncological outcomes. Methods: This open-label, parallel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study is performed in nine Dutch tertiary referral centres. Eligible patients are adults who have a good performance status, histologically or cytologically proven resectable PM of a colorectal adenocarcinoma, no systemic colorectal metastases, no systemic therapy for colorectal cancer within six months prior to enrolment, and no previous CRS-HIPEC. Eligible patients are randomised (1:1) to perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC (experimental arm) or upfront CRS-HIPEC alone (control arm) by using central randomisation software with minimisation stratified by a peritoneal cancer index of 0-10 or 11-20, metachronous or synchronous PM, previous systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, and HIPEC with oxaliplatin or mitomycin C. At the treating physician's discretion, perioperative systemic therapy consists of either four 3-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX), six 2-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), or six 2-weekly neoadjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with irinotecan (FOLFIRI) followed by four 3-weekly (capecitabine) or six 2-weekly (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) adjuvant cycles of fluoropyrimidine monotherapy. Bevacizumab is added to the first three (CAPOX) or four (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. The first 80 patients are enrolled in a phase II study to explore the feasibility of accrual and the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of perioperative systemic therapy. If predefined criteria of feasibility and safety are met, the study continues as a phase III study with 3-year overall survival as primary endpoint. A total of 358 patients is needed to detect the hypothesised 15% increase in 3-year overall survival (control arm 50%; experimental arm 65%). Secondary endpoints are surgical characteristics, major postoperative morbidity, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, health-related quality of life, costs, major systemic therapy related toxicity, and objective radiological and histopathological response rates. Discussion: This is the first randomised study that prospectively compares oncological outcomes of perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC with upfront CRS-HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal PM