Physical and psychological symptoms of quality of life in the CHART randomized trial in head and neck cancer: short-term and long-term patient reported symptoms

The randomized multicentre trial of continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (CHART) versus conventional radiotherapy in patients with advanced head and neck cancer showed no good evidence of a difference in any of the major clinical outcomes of survival, freedom from metastases, loco-regional control and disease-free survival. Therefore an assessment of the effect of treatment on physical and psychological symptoms is vital to balance the costs and benefits of the two treatments. A total of 615 patients were asked to complete a Rotterdam Symptom Checklist and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, which cover a variety of physical and psychological symptoms, at a total of ten time points. The data consisted of short-term data (the initial 3 months) and long-term data (1 and 2 years). The short-term data was split into an exploratory data set and a confirmatory data set, and analysed using subject-specific and group-based methods. Differences were only claimed if hypotheses generated in the exploratory data set were confirmed in the confirmatory data set. The long-term data was not split into two data sets and was analysed using a group-based approach. There was evidence of significantly worse symptoms of pain at day 21 in those treated with CHART and significantly worse symptoms of cough and hoarseness at 6 weeks in those treated conventionally. There was also evidence to suggest a higher degree of decreased sexual interest at 1 year and sore muscles at 2 years in those treated with conventional radiotherapy. There is no clear indication that one regimen is superior to the other in terms of ‘quality of life’, generally the initially more severe reaction in the CHART group being offset by the longer duration of symptoms in the conventionally treated group. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Understanding Palliative Cancer Chemotherapy: About Shared Decisions and Shared Trajectories

Most models of patient-physician communication take decision-making as a central concept. However, we found that often the treatment course of metastatic cancer patients is not easy to describe in straightforward terms used in decision-making models but is instead frequently more erratic. Our aim was to analyse these processes as trajectories. We used a longitudinal case study of 13 patients with metastatic colorectal and pancreatic cancer for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, and analysed 65 semi-structured interviews. We analysed three characteristics of the treatment course that contributed to the ‘erraticness’ of the course: (1) The treatment (with or without chemotherapy) contained many options; (2) these options were not stable entities to be decided upon, but changed identity over the course of treatment, and (3) contrary to the closure (option X means no option Y, Z, etc.) a decision implies, the treatment course was a continuous process in which options instead remained open. When the treatment course is characterised by these many and changeable options that do not result in closure, the shared decision-making model should take these into account. More attention needs to be paid to the erratic character of the process in which the doctor has to provide continuous information that is related to the changing situation of the patient; also, flexibility in dealing with protocols is warranted, as is vigilance about the overall direction of the process

Palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care? A prospective study explaining patients' treatment preference and choice

Item does not contain fulltextIn palliative cancer treatment, the choice between palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care may be difficult. In the decision-making process, giving information as well as patients' values and preferences become important issues. Patients, however, may have a treatment preference before they even meet their medical oncologist. An insight into the patient's decision-making process can support clinicians having to inform their patients. Patients (n=207) with metastatic cancer, aged 18 years or older, able to speak Dutch, for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, were eligible for the study. We assessed the following before they consulted their medical oncologist: (1) socio-demographic characteristics, (2) disease-related variables, (3) quality-of-life indices, (4) attitudes and (5) preferences for treatment, information and participation in decision-making. The actual treatment decision, assessed after it had been made, was the main study outcome. Of 207 eligible patients, 140 patients (68%) participated in the study. At baseline, 68% preferred to undergo chemotherapy rather than wait watchfully. Eventually, 78% chose chemotherapy. Treatment preference (odds ratio (OR)=10.3, confidence interval (CI) 2.8-38.0) and a deferring style of decision-making (OR=4.9, CI 1.4-17.2) best predicted the actual treatment choice. Treatment preference (total explained variance=38.2%) was predicted, in turn, by patients' striving for length of life (29.5%), less striving for quality of life (6.1%) and experienced control over the cause of disease (2.6%). Patients' actual treatment choice was most strongly predicted by their preconsultation treatment preference. Since treatment preference is positively explained by striving for length of life, and negatively by striving for quality of life, it is questionable whether the purpose of palliative treatment is made clear. This, paradoxically, emphasises the need for further attention to the process of information giving and shared decision-making

Feasibility of quality of life assessment in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract cancer

Quality of life (QOL) is an important outcome after treatment for upper gastrointestinal tract cancer but few studies report good accrual and subsequent attrition is usually high. This study investigated the feasibility of a nurse-led service to obtain longitudinal QOL assessments and explored how clinical and sociodemographic factors influence patients' need for help to complete questionnaires. Fully informed patients were invited into the study. Baseline hospital assessments were scheduled by telephone and thereafter by post unless patients' health indicated the need for a home visit. In all, 128 out of 140 (91%) baseline QOL assessments were performed. Follow-up questionnaire completion was good, with 114 patients (89%) completing all but one of the expected assessments. At baseline, 41 (32%) patients required a lot of help to complete questionnaires. Patients requiring help were more likely to be undergoing palliative treatment than treatment aimed at cure (68 vs 33%; odds ratio 3.48, P < 0.01). Patients' with advanced stage cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract receiving palliative treatment require dedicated staff to ensure good compliance with longitudinal QOL data collection. It is essential to budget for this in clinical trails. © 2003 Cancer Research UK

Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients' utilities and treatment preferences

To assess patients' utilities for health state outcomes after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer and to investigate the patients' treatment preferences for either procedure. The study group consisted of 48 patients who had undergone either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy. In an interview they were presented with eight possible health states following oesophagectomy. Visual Analogue Scale and standard gamble techniques were used to measure utilities. Treatment preference for either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy was assessed. Highest scores were found for the patients' own current health state (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.77; standard gamble: 0.97). Lowest scores were elicited for the health state ‘irresectable tumour’ (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.13; standard gamble: 0.34). The Visual Analogue Scale method produced lower estimates (P<0.001) than the standard gamble method for all health states. Most patient characteristics and clinical factors did not correlate with the utilities. Ninety-five per cent of patients who underwent a transthoracic procedure and 52% of patients who underwent a transhiatal resection would prefer the transthoracic treatment. No significant associations between any patient characteristics or clinical characteristics and treatment preference were found. Utilities after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy were robust because they generally did not vary by patient or clinical characteristics. Overall, most patients preferred the transthoracic procedure

Role of dexamethasone dosage in combination with 5-HT3 antagonists for prophylaxis of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Dexamethasone (20 mg) or its equivalent in combination with 5-HT3 antagonists appears to be the gold-standard dose for antiemetic prophylaxis. Additional to concerns about the use of corticosteroids with respect to enhanced tumour growth or impaired killing of the tumour cells, there is evidence that high-dosage dexamethasone impairs the control of delayed nausea and emesis, whereas lower doses appear more beneficial. To come closer to the most adequate dose, we started a prospective, single-blind, randomized trial investigating additional dosage of 8 or 20 mg dexamethasone to tropisetron (Navoban), a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, in cis-platinum-containing chemotherapy. After an interim analysis of 121 courses of chemotherapy in 69 patients, we have been unable to detect major differences between both treatment alternatives. High-dose dexamethasone (20 mg) had no advantage over medium-dose dexamethasone with respect to objective and subjective parameters of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. In relation to concerns about the use of corticosteroids in non-haematological cancer chemotherapy, we suggest that 8 mg or its equivalent should be used in combination with 5-HT3 antagonists until further research proves otherwise. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Defining and analysing symptom palliation in cancer clinical trials: a deceptively difficult exercise

The assessment of symptom palliation is an essential component of many treatment comparisons in clinical trials, yet an extensive literature search revealed no consensus as to its precise definition, which could embrace relief of symptoms, time to their onset, duration, degree, as well as symptom control and prevention. In an attempt to assess the importance of these aspects and to compare different methods of analysis, we used one symptom (cough) from a patient self-assessment questionnaire (the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist) in a large (>300 patient) multicentre randomized clinical trial (conducted by the Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party) of palliative chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer. The regimens compared were a two-drug regimen (2D) and a four-drug regimen (4D). No differences were seen between the regimens in time of onset of palliation or its duration. The degree of palliation was strongly related to the initial severity: 90% of the patients with moderate or severe cough at baseline reported improvement, compared with only 53% of those with mild cough. Analyses using different landmark time points gave conflicting results: the 4D regimen was superior at 1 month and at 3 months, whereas at 2 months the 2D regimen appeared superior. When improvement at any time up to 3 months was considered, the 4D regimen showed a significant benefit (4D 79%, 2D 60%, P = 0.02). These findings emphasize the need for caution in interpreting results, and the importance of working towards a standard definition of symptom palliation. The current lack of specified criteria makes analysis and interpretation of trial results difficult, and comparison across trials impossible. A standard definition of palliation for use in the analysis of clinical trials data is proposed, which takes into account aspects of onset, duration and degree of palliation, and symptom improvement, control and prevention. © 1999 Cancer Research Campaig

Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a sensitive method of breast imaging virtually uninfluenced by breast density. Because of the improved sensitivity, breast MRI is increasingly being used for detection of breast cancer among high risk young women. However, the specificity of breast MRI is variable and costs are high. The purpose of this study was to determine if breast MRI is a cost-effective approach for the detection of breast cancer among young women at high risk.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A Markov model was created to compare annual breast cancer screening over 25 years with either breast MRI or mammography among young women at high risk. Data from published studies provided probabilities for the model including sensitivity and specificity of each screening strategy. Costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates for hospital and physician services while medication costs were obtained from the Federal Supply Scale. Utilities from the literature were applied to each health outcome in the model including a disutility for the temporary health state following breast biopsy for a false positive test result. All costs and benefits were discounted at 5% per year. The analysis was performed from the payer perspective with results reported in 2006 U.S. dollars. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty in all model parameters.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Breast MRI provided 14.1 discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a discounted cost of $18,167 while mammography provided 14.0 QALYs at a cost of$4,760 over 25 years of screening. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of breast MRI compared to mammography was $179,599/QALY. In univariate analysis, breast MRI screening became <$50,000/QALY when the cost of the MRI was < $315. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, MRI screening produced a net health benefit of -0.202 QALYs (95$50,000/QALY. Breast MRI screening was superior in 0%, < $50,000/QALY in 22$50,000/QALY in 34%, and inferior in 44% of trials.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although breast MRI may provide health benefits when compared to mammographic screening for some high risk women, it does not appear to be cost-effective even at willingness to pay thresholds above $120,000/QALY.</p

Should women under 50 be screened for breast cancer?

Should women under 50 be screened for breast cancer? Despite some controversy in recent years, the majority of experts agree on the evidence for effectiveness of breast screening by mammography for women aged 50 years and above, but for those under 50 years, the picture is much less clear. However, the issue remains of importance both to policy makers and to individual women; although the incidence of breast cancer is lower at younger ages, the life years lost due to cancers diagnosed below 50 years amount to a third of all those lost due to the disease