Patient-reported experiences of cancer care related to the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland.

This study aims to describe the experience of Swiss oncological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. A national multi-center study including five hospitals covering the three main language regions of Switzerland was conducted between March and July 2021. Patients with melanoma, breast, lung, or colon cancer receiving active systemic anti-cancer treatment at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic were included. We conducted semi-structured telephone or onsite interviews alongside the administration of distress and resilience-validated questionnaires. Thematic analysis was performed for the qualitative data and descriptive statistics for the quantitative data. Sixty-two cancer patients with a mean age of 61 (SD=14) (58% female) were interviewed. Based on the interviews, we identified that the experience of having cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic was related to five dimensions: psychological, social, support, healthcare, and vaccination. Three themes transverse the five dimensions: (a) needs, (b) positive changes, and (c) phases of the pandemic. In general, patients did not experience delays or disruptions in their cancer treatment nor felt additionally burdened by the pandemic. Lockdown and isolation were reported as mixed experiences (positive and negative), and access to vaccination reassured patients against the risk of infection and instilled hope to return to normalcy. Additionally, we found low distress levels (M=2.9; SD=2.5) and high resilience scores (M=7; SD=1.3) in these patients. Swiss patients with cancer did not express major needs or disruptions in their care during this period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results identify the mixed experiences of patients and highlight the high resilience levels

Ultraviolet Perspectives on Diffuse Gas in the Largest Cosmic Structures

Large scale structure and cosmolog

High-dose melphalan with or without stem cell support before myeloablative allo-SCT for remission induction in patients with advanced relapsed or refractory AML.

Treatment strategies for relapsed/refractory AML are limited and disappointing. Recently, high-dose melphalan (HDM) chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic SCT (HSCT) has been proposed for AML re-induction. We investigated the impact of HDM remission induction in highly advanced relapsed/refractory AML patients planned for allogeneic HSCT. A total of 23 patients with relapsed/refractory AML were prospectively scheduled for HDM with or without stem cell support followed by myeloablative allogeneic HSCT. Patients included nine individuals with a history of previous HSCT (seven allogeneic, two autologous). A total of 18 patients (78%) achieved a leukemia-free state and an additional four had substantial reduction of the initial leukemia burden warranting treatment continuation. There were no differences between patients with or without immediate stem cell support regarding mucositis or other organ toxicity. A total of 20 patients proceeded to myeloablative allogeneic HSCT. Outcome of allogeneic HSCT was poor: 11 patients (55%) relapsed, 7 patients (35%) died from TRM and only 2 patients (10%) were alive at the last follow-up. Our study shows that HDM is effective in inducing a leukemia-free state in patients with highly advanced relapsed/refractory AML. Leukemia burden reduction with HDM, however, did not translate into improved OS

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background: Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC). Objective: To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups. Design setting and participants: We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses. Results and limitations: Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (bothp &lt; 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45-65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results. Conclusions: Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC. Patient summary: We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.</p