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

Patient preference attributes in eHealth interventions for cancer related fatigue: A scoping review

Introduction Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most reported long-term effects breast cancer patients experience after diagnosis. Many interventions for CRF are effective, however, not for every individual. Therefore, intervention advice should be adjusted to patients' preferences and characteristics. Our aim was to develop an overview of eHealth interventions and their (preference sensitive) attributes. Methods eHealth interventions were identified using a scoping review approach. Eligible studies included breast cancer patients and assessed CRF as outcome. Interventions were categorized as physical activity, mind–body, psychological, ‘other’ or ‘combination’. Information was extracted on various (preference sensitive) attributes, like duration, intensity, peer support and costs. Results Thirty-five interventions were included and divided over the intervention categories. (Preference sensitive) attributes varied both within and between these categories. Duration varied from 4 weeks to 6 months, intensity from daily to own pace. Peer support was present in seven interventions and costs were known for six. Conclusion eHealth interventions exist in various categories, additionally, there is much variation in (preference sensitive) attributes. This provides opportunities to implement our overview for personalized treatment recommendations for breast cancer patients struggling with CRF. Taking into account patients' preferences and characteristics suits the complexity of CRF and heterogeneity of patients

Patient preference attributes in eHealth interventions for cancer related fatigue:A scoping review

Introduction Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most reported long-term effects breast cancer patients experience after diagnosis. Many interventions for CRF are effective, however, not for every individual. Therefore, intervention advice should be adjusted to patients' preferences and characteristics. Our aim was to develop an overview of eHealth interventions and their (preference sensitive) attributes. Methods eHealth interventions were identified using a scoping review approach. Eligible studies included breast cancer patients and assessed CRF as outcome. Interventions were categorised as physical activity, mind–body, psychological, ‘other’ or ‘combination’. Information was extracted on various (preference sensitive) attributes, like duration, intensity, peer support and costs. Results Thirty-five interventions were included and divided over the intervention categories. (Preference sensitive) attributes varied both within and between these categories. Duration varied from 4 weeks to 6 months, intensity from daily to own pace. Peer support was present in seven interventions and costs were known for six. Conclusion eHealth interventions exist in various categories, additionally, there is much variation in (preference sensitive) attributes. This provides opportunities to implement our overview for personalised treatment recommendations for breast cancer patients struggling with CRF. Taking into account patients' preferences and characteristics suits the complexity of CRF and heterogeneity of patients

Effect of hospital characteristics on outcome of patients with gastric cancer:A population based study in North-East Netherlands

Background: Surgical resection is an important factor in the curative treatment of gastric cancer. However a variety of aspects of surgical treatment that potentially influence outcome are still not well defined. This study aims to assess the influence of hospital type, referral pattern and proximal or distal location of the tumour on the ultimate survival. Methods: From January 1994 to January 2007, a total of 5245 patients were diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre North-East Netherlands. Hospitals in this region were categorized into three types: teaching university (TU), teaching non-university (TNU), and non-teaching hospitals (NT). The influence of hospital type, referral for surgery and location of the tumour on the relative survival of operated patients was studied. Results: Of the 5245 patients, 2334 patients underwent surgery. For operated patients, the 5-year relative survival was 42.5% for the TU versus 34.0% and 35.5% for respectively TNU and NT hospitals (p = 0.064), with no difference (p = 0.38) in relative survival (25.6-31.9%) in the proximal tumours. A significant difference was found between the hospitals in the 5-year relative survival in the distal tumours; 59.7% in the TU versus 36.4% in the TNU and 36% in the NT (p = 0.03 univariate), however this was not confirmed in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.184). High referral centres did not perform better as far as survival is concerned than low referral hospitals. In conclusion the hospital type in our region did not significantly influence outcome of surgery for gastric cancer. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved