The bigger picture of shared decision making:A service design perspective using the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer as a case

Purpose: Solutions to improve the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in oncology often focus on the consultation, with limited effects. In this study, we used a service design perspective on the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). We aimed to understand how experiences of patients, their significant others, and medical professionals over the entire care path accumulate to support their ability to participate in SDM. Participants and methods: We used qualitative interviews including design research techniques with 13 patients, 13 significant others, and 11 healthcare professionals, involved in the diagnosis or treatment of LAPC. The topic list was based on the literature and an auto-ethnography of the illness trajectory by a caregiver who is also a service design researcher. We conducted a thematic content analysis to identify themes influencing the ability to participate in SDM. Results: We found four interconnected themes: (1) Decision making is an ongoing and unpredictable process with many decision moments, often unannounced. The unpredictability of the disease course, tumor response to treatment, and consequences of choices on the quality of life complicate decision making; (2) Division of roles, tasks, and collaboration among professionals and between professionals and patients and/or their significant others is often unclear to patients and their significant others; (3) It involves “work” for patients and their significant others to obtain and understand information; (4) In “their disease journey,” patients are confronted with unexpected energy drains and energy boosts, that influence their level of empowerment to participate in SDM. Conclusion: The service design perspective uncovered how the stage for SDM is often set outside the consultation, which might explain the limited effect currently seen of interventions focusing on consultation itself. Our findings serve as a starting point for (re)designing care paths to improve the implementation of SDM in oncology.</p

Overall survival after definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with esophageal cancer:a retrospective cohort study

Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is a potentially curative therapy for esophageal cancer. As indications for dCRT differ widely, it is challenging to draw conclusions on outcomes and survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate overall survival (OS) and recurrence patterns according to indications for treatment. Patients who underwent dCRT (50.4 Gy concomitant with carboplatin/paclitaxel) for esophageal cancer between 2012 and 2022 were identified. Indications for dCRT were: cervical tumor, irresectable disease, unfit for surgery, and patient and/or physician preference. The primary endpoint was OS calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients that completed the dCRT regimen, 30- and 90-day mortality, and disease recurrence. One hundred and fifty-seven patients were included (72.6% esophageal squamous cell carcinoma) with a median follow-up of 20 months (IQR 10.0-43.9). The full dCRT regimen was completed by 116 patients (73.9%). Thirty- and 90-day mortality were 2.5% and 8.3%, respectively. Median and 5-year OS for all patients were 22.9 months (95% CI 18.0-27.9) and 31.4%, respectively. The median OS per indication was 23.7 months (95% CI 6.5-40.8) for patients with cervical tumors, 10.9 months (95% 0.0-23.2) for irresectable disease, 28.2 months (95% CI 12.3-44.0) for unfit patients, and 22.9 months (95% CI 15.4-30.5) for patients' preference for dCRT (P = 0.11). Disease recurrence was observed in 74 patients (46%), located locoregionally (46%), distant (19%), or combined (35%). Patients who underwent dCRT had a 5-year OS of 31.4%, but OS differed according to indications for treatment with patients who had irresectable disease having the worst prognosis.</p

Perioperative or adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX for resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-3):study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) is currently the standard of care for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The main concern regarding adjuvant chemotherapy is that only half of patients actually receive adjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, on the other hand, guarantees early systemic treatment and may increase chemotherapy use and thereby improve overall survival. Furthermore, it may prevent futile surgery in patients with rapidly progressive disease. However, some argue that neoadjuvant therapy delays surgery, which could lead to progression towards unresectable disease and thus offset the potential benefits. Comparison of perioperative (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant) with (only) adjuvant administration of mFOLFIRINOX in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is needed to determine the optimal approach. METHODS: This multicenter, phase 3, RCT will include 378 patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients are recruited from 20 Dutch centers and three centers in Norway and Sweden. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial contact and ≤ 90 degrees venous contact. Patients in the intervention arm are scheduled for 8 cycles of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX followed by surgery and 4 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (2-week cycle of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 at day 1, followed by 46 h continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2400 g/m2). Patients in the comparator arm start with surgery followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. The primary outcome is overall survival by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, resection rate, quality of life, adverse events, and surgical complications. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after the inclusion of 378 patients in 36 months, with analysis planned 18 months after the last patient has been randomized. DISCUSSION: The multicenter PREOPANC-3 trial compares perioperative mFOLFIRINOX with adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials: NCT04927780. Registered June 16, 2021.</p

The bigger picture of shared decision making: A service design perspective using the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer as a case

Purpose: Solutions to improve the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in oncology often focus on the consultation, with limited effects. In this study, we used a service design perspective on the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). We aimed to understand how experiences of patients, their significant others, and medical professionals over the entire care path accumulate to support their ability to participate in SDM. Participants and methods: We used qualitative interviews including design research techniques with 13 patients, 13 significant others, and 11 healthcare professionals, involved in the diagnosis or treatment of LAPC. The topic list was based on the literature and an auto-ethnography of the illness trajectory by a caregiver who is also a service design researcher. We conducted a thematic content analysis to identify themes influencing the ability to participate in SDM. Results: We found four interconnected themes: (1) Decision making is an ongoing and unpredictable process with many decision moments, often unannounced. The unpredictability of the disease course, tumor response to treatment, and consequences of choices on the quality of life complicate decision making; (2) Division of roles, tasks, and collaboration among professionals and between professionals and patients and/or their significant others is often unclear to patients and their significant others; (3) It involves “work” for patients and their significant others to obtain and understand information; (4) In “their disease journey,” patients are confronted with unexpected energy drains and energy boosts, that influence their level of empowerment to participate in SDM. Conclusion: The service design perspective uncovered how the stage for SDM is often set outside the consultation, which might explain the limited effect currently seen of interventions focusing on consultation itself. Our findings serve as a starting point for (re)designing care paths to improve the implementation of SDM in oncology.Methodologie en Organisatie van DesignApplied Ergonomics and Desig

The bigger picture of shared decision making: A service design perspective using the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer as a case

Purpose: Solutions to improve the implementation of shared decision making (SDM) in oncology often focus on the consultation, with limited effects. In this study, we used a service design perspective on the care path of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). We aimed to understand how experiences of patients, their significant others, and medical professionals over the entire care path accumulate to support their ability to participate in SDM. Participants and methods: We used qualitative interviews including design research techniques with 13 patients, 13 significant others, and 11 healthcare professionals, involved in the diagnosis or treatment of LAPC. The topic list was based on the literature and an auto-ethnography of the illness trajectory by a caregiver who is also a service design researcher. We conducted a thematic content analysis to identify themes influencing the ability to participate in SDM. Results: We found four interconnected themes: (1) Decision making is an ongoing and unpredictable process with many decision moments, often unannounced. The unpredictability of the disease course, tumor response to treatment, and consequences of choices on the quality of life complicate decision making; (2) Division of roles, tasks, and collaboration among professionals and between professionals and patients and/or their significant others is often unclear to patients and their significant others; (3) It involves “work” for patients and their significant others to obtain and understand information; (4) In “their disease journey,” patients are confronted with unexpected energy drains and energy boosts, that influence their level of empowerment to participate in SDM. Conclusion: The service design perspective uncovered how the stage for SDM is often set outside the consultation, which might explain the limited effect currently seen of interventions focusing on consultation itself. Our findings serve as a starting point for (re)designing care paths to improve the implementation of SDM in oncology.Methodology and Organisation of DesignIndustrial Design EngineeringApplied Ergonomics and Desig

Chemotherapy switch for localized pancreatic cancer:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Patients with localized (that is non-metastatic) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with an inadequate response or toxicity to first-line chemotherapy may benefit from chemotherapy switch. The aim was to explore the available data on the use and effect of chemotherapy switch, as reported in the literature. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE (Ovid), the Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar on 1 December 2023. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who underwent chemotherapy switch and the carbohydrate antigen 19-9 response and resection, R0 resection, and ypN0 resection rates after chemotherapy switch. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of five retrospective studies, representing 863 patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, were included and 226 of the 863 patients underwent chemotherapy switch. In four studies, first-line chemotherapy consisted of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan with oxaliplatin ('FOLFIRINOX') and patients were switched to gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel. Reasons for chemotherapy switch included an inadequate biochemical, clinical, or radiological response, or toxicity. Three studies compared patients who underwent chemotherapy switch with patients who only received first-line chemotherapy and found that the proportion of patients who underwent chemotherapy switch was 20.5% (95% c.i. 10.5% to 36.3%). The pooled resection rate after chemotherapy switch was 42.0% (95% c.i. 16.6% to 72.5%). Two studies compared the chance of resection after chemotherapy switch versus first-line chemotherapy alone and found a risk ratio of 0.88 (95% c.i. 0.65 to 1.18). Two studies, with a combined total of 576 patients, found similar postoperative survival for patients who underwent chemotherapy switch and patients who only received first-line chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: One in five patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma underwent chemotherapy switch after an inadequate response or toxicity to first-line chemotherapy. The pooled resection rate after chemotherapy switch was 42% and similar in overall survival compared with first-line chemotherapy only. Three ongoing trials are investigating chemotherapy switch in patients with an inadequate radiological or carbohydrate antigen 19-9 response.</p

The impact of cancer treatment on quality of life in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer: a propensity score matched analysis

Background: The impact of pancreatic and periampullary cancer treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is unclear. Methods: This study merged data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with EORTC QLQ-C30 and -PAN26 questionnaires at baseline and three-months follow-up of pancreatic and periampullary cancer patients (2015–2018). Propensity score matching (1:3) of group without to group with treatment was performed. Linear mixed model regression analyses were performed to investigate the association between cancer treatment and HRQoL at follow-up. Results: After matching, 247 of 629 available patients remained (68 (27.5%) no treatment, 179 (72.5%) treatment). Treatment consisted of resection (n = 68 (27.5%)), chemotherapy only (n = 111 (44.9%)), or both (n = 40 (16.2%)). At follow-up, cancer treatment was associated with better global health status (Beta-coefficient 4.8, 95% confidence-interval 0.0–9.5) and less constipation (Beta-coefficient −7.6, 95% confidence-interval −13.8–1.4) compared to no cancer treatment. Median overall survival was longer for the cancer treatment group compared to the no treatment group (15.4 vs. 6.2 months, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients undergoing treatment for pancreatic and periampullary cancer reported slight improvement in global HRQoL and less constipation at three months-follow up compared to patients without cancer treatment, while overall survival was also improved

Relationship between quality of life and survival in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer: A multicenter cohort analysis

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used increasingly in clinical practice to assess patients’ quality of life (QoL). Addressing QoL is important for patients with a short life expectancy, such as those with pancreatic and periampullary carcinoma, which has a median overall survival of 4 to 6 months.1 Different types of treatment that may improve survival in patients with pancreatic cancer may also impact QoL. Pancreatic resection has been found to be associated with a temporary deterioration in QoL, which usually returns to baseline values after 3 to 6 months.2,3 Moreover, chemotherapy has been found to improve QoL in randomized studies in the adjuvant and palliative setting.4,5 QoL may also be used to predict survival. Previous studies with other types of cancer (eg, breast, lung, esophageal, liver) consistently found a correlation between QoL and survival.6–11 Previous studies combined patients with different types of cancer, including a limited number (∼6%) of those with pancreatic cancer.9,10 Most of the data were acquired from randomized trials that included patients who were relatively fit. Only 1 case series of 55 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer suggested a prognostic relationship between the physical functioning scale scores of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and survival.12 In the Netherlands, the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP) was established in 2013. This is a multicenter cohort of patients with pancreatic and periampullary carcinoma for whom clinical data and PROMs are collected.13 We used this cohort to investigate the relationship between QoL and survival in daily clinical practice. The aim of this study was to examine which domains of QoL are predictive of survival in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer

Relationship Between Quality of Life and Survival in Patients With Pancreatic and Periampullary Cancer:A Multicenter Cohort Analysis

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used increasingly in clinical practice to assess patients’ quality of life (QoL). Addressing QoL is important for patients with a short life expectancy, such as those with pancreatic and periampullary carcinoma, which has a median overall survival of 4 to 6 months.1 Different types of treatment that may improve survival in patients with pancreatic cancer may also impact QoL. Pancreatic resection has been found to be associated with a temporary deterioration in QoL, which usually returns to baseline values after 3 to 6 months.2,3 Moreover, chemotherapy has been found to improve QoL in randomized studies in the adjuvant and palliative setting.4,5 QoL may also be used to predict survival. Previous studies with other types of cancer (eg, breast, lung, esophageal, liver) consistently found a correlation between QoL and survival.6–11 Previous studies combined patients with different types of cancer, including a limited number (∼6%) of those with pancreatic cancer.9,10 Most of the data were acquired from randomized trials that included patients who were relatively fit. Only 1 case series of 55 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer suggested a prognostic relationship between the physical functioning scale scores of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and survival.12 In the Netherlands, the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP) was established in 2013. This is a multicenter cohort of patients with pancreatic and periampullary carcinoma for whom clinical data and PROMs are collected.13 We used this cohort to investigate the relationship between QoL and survival in daily clinical practice. The aim of this study was to examine which domains of QoL are predictive of survival in patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancer

Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump chemotherapy and resection versus resection alone in patients with low-risk resectable colorectal liver metastases - the multicenter randomized controlled PUMP trial

Background: Recurrences are reported in 70% of all patients after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), in which half are confined to the liver. Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy aims to reduce the risk of intrahepatic recurrence. A large retrospective propensity score analysis demonstrated that HAIP chemotherapy is particularly effective in patients with low-risk oncological features. The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) -the PUMP trial- is to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy in low-risk patients with resectable CRLM. Methods: This is an open label multicenter RCT. A total of 230 patients with resectable CRLM without extrahepatic disease will be included. Only patients with a clinical risk score (CRS) of 0 to 2 are eligible, meaning: patients are allowed to have no more than two out of five poor prognostic factors (disease-free interval less than 12 months, node-positive colorectal cancer, more than 1 CRLM, largest CRLM more than 5 cm in diameter, serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen above 200 μg/L). Patients randomized to arm A undergo complete resection of CRLM without any adjuvant treatment, which is the standard of care in the Netherlands. Patients in arm B receive an implantable pump at the time of CRLM resection and start adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy 4-12 weeks after surgery, with 6 cycles of floxuridine scheduled. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, hepatic PFS, safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Pharmacokinetics of intra-arterial administration of floxuridine will be investigated as well as predictive biomarkers for the efficacy of HAIP chemotherapy. In a side study, the accuracy of CT angiography will be compared to radionuclide scintigraphy to detect extrahepatic perfusion. We hypothesize that adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy leads to improved survival, improved quality of life, and a reduction of costs, compared to resection alone. Discussion: If this PUMP trial demonstrates that adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy improves survival in low-risk patients, this treatment approach may be implemented in the standard of care of patients with resected CRLM since adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone has not improved survival. Trial registration: The PUMP trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), number: 7493 . Date of registration September 23, 2018