Patient Preferences for Treatment Outcomes in Oncology with a Focus on the Older Patient:A Systematic Review

SIMPLE SUMMARY: In oncology, treatment outcomes can be competing, which means that one treatment could benefit one outcome, like survival, and negatively influence another, like independence. The choice of treatment therefore depends on the patient’s preference for outcomes, which needs to be assessed explicitly. Especially in older patients, patient preferences are important. Our systematic review summarizes all studies that assessed patient preferences for various treatment outcome categories. A total of 28 studies with 4374 patients were included, of which only six studies included mostly older patients. Although quality of life was only included in half of the studies, overall quality of life (79%) was most frequently prioritized as highest or second highest, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), treatment response (50%), and absence of transient short-term side effects (16%). In shared decision-making, these results can be used by healthcare professionals to better tailor the information provision and treatment recommendations to the individual patient. ABSTRACT: For physicians, it is important to know which treatment outcomes are prioritized overall by older patients with cancer, since this will help them to tailor the amount of information and treatment recommendations. Older patients might prioritize other outcomes than younger patients. Our objective is to summarize which outcomes matter most to older patients with cancer. A systematic review was conducted, in which we searched Embase and Medline on 22 December 2020. Studies were eligible if they reported some form of prioritization of outcome categories relative to each other in patients with all types of cancer and if they included at least three outcome categories. Subsequently, for each study, the highest or second-highest outcome category was identified and presented in relation to the number of studies that included that outcome category. An adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. In total, 4374 patients were asked for their priorities in 28 studies that were included. Only six of these studies had a population with a median age above 70. Of all the studies, 79% identified quality of life as the highest or second-highest priority, followed by overall survival (67%), progression- and disease-free survival (56%), absence of severe or persistent treatment side effects (54%), and treatment response (50%). Absence of transient short-term side effects was prioritized in 16%. The studies were heterogeneous considering age, cancer type, and treatment settings. Overall, quality of life, overall survival, progression- and disease-free survival, and severe and persistent side effects of treatment are the outcomes that receive the highest priority on a group level when patients with cancer need to make trade-offs in oncologic treatment decisions

What Defines Quality of Life for Older Patients Diagnosed with Cancer? A Qualitative Study

The treatment of cancer can have a significant impact on quality of life in older patients and this needs to be taken into account in decision making. However, quality of life can consist of many different components with varying importance between individuals. We set out to assess how older patients with cancer define quality of life and the components that are most significant to them. This was a single-centre, qualitative interview study. Patients aged 70 years or older with cancer were asked to answer open-ended questions: What makes life worthwhile? What does quality of life mean to you? What could affect your quality of life? Subsequently, they were asked to choose the five most important determinants of quality of life from a predefined list: cognition, contact with family or with community, independence, staying in your own home, helping others, having enough energy, emotional well-being, life satisfaction, religion and leisure activities. Afterwards, answers to the open-ended questions were independently categorized by two authors. The proportion of patients mentioning each category in the open-ended questions were compared to the predefined questions. Overall, 63 patients (median age 76 years) were included. When asked, “What makes life worthwhile?”, patients identified social functioning (86%) most frequently. Moreover, to define quality of life, patients most frequently mentioned categories in the domains of physical functioning (70%) and physical health (48%). Maintaining cognition was mentioned in 17% of the open-ended questions and it was the most commonly chosen option from the list of determinants (72% of respondents). In conclusion, physical functioning, social functioning, physical health and cognition are important components in quality of life. When discussing treatment options, the impact of treatment on these aspects should be taken into consideration

Awakening Neuropsychiatric Research Into the Stria Medullaris: Development of a Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Tractography Protocol of This Key Limbic Structure

The Stria medullaris (SM) Thalami is a discrete white matter tract that directly connects frontolimbic areas to the habenula, allowing the forebrain to influence midbrain monoaminergic output. Habenular dysfunction has been shown in various neuropsychiatric conditions. However, there exists a paucity of research into the habenula’s principal afferent tract, the SM. Diffusion-weighted tractography may provide insights into the properties of the SM in vivo, opening up investigation of this tract in conditions of monoamine dysregulation such as depression, schizophrenia, addiction and pain. We present a reliable method for reconstructing the SM using diffusion-weighted imaging, and examine the effects of age and gender on tract diffusion metrics. We also investigate reproducibility of the method through inter-rater comparisons. In consultation with neuroanatomists, a Boolean logic gate protocol was developed for use in ExploreDTI to extract the SM from constrained spherical deconvolution based whole brain tractography. Particular emphasis was placed on the reproducibility of the tract, attention to crossing white matter tract proximity and anatomical consistency of anterior and posterior boundaries. The anterior commissure, pineal gland and mid point of the thalamus were defined as anatomical fixed points used for reconstruction. Fifty subjects were scanned using High Angular Resolution Diffusion Imaging (HARDI; 61 directions, b-value 1500 mm3). Following constrained spherical deconvolution whole brain tractography, two independent raters isolated the SM. Each output was checked, examined and cleaned for extraneous streamlines inconsistent with known anatomy of the tract by the rater and a neuroanatomist. A second neuroanatomist assessed tracts for face validity. The SM was reconstructed with excellent inter-rater reliability for dimensions and diffusion metrics. Gender had no effect on the dimensions or diffusion metrics, however radial diffusivity (RD) showed a positive correlation with age. Reliable identification and quantification of diffusion metrics of the SM invites further exploration of this key habenula linked structure in neuropsychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, chronic pain and addiction. The accurate anatomical localization of the SM may also aid preoperative stereotactic localization of the tract for deep brain stimulation (DBS) treatment

A comprehensive regional neurochemical theory in depression: a protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis of 1H-MRS studies in major depressive disorder

Abstract Background Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) is a non-invasive analytical technique that investigates the presence and concentrations of brain metabolites. In the context of major depressive disorder (MDD), MRS has revealed regional biochemical changes in GABA, glutamate, and choline across different brain compartments. Technical and methodological advances in MRS data acquisition, in particular proton-based 1H-MRS, have resulted in a significant increase in the incidence of reports utilizing the technique for psychiatric disorder research and diagnosis. The most recent comprehensive meta-analysis reviewing MRS in MDD stems from 2006. Using contemporary systemic reviews and meta-analysis, the aim is to first test a neurochemical circuit-based theory of depression and then to determine if clinical scores relate to metabolite concentrations before and during treatment. Methods Region-specific metabolite changes in MDD will be assessed by systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria will include participant age (18 to 65), English language studies, known regions of interest, and detailed documentation of 1H-MRS procedures. Reported brain regions will be standardized according neuroanatomical expertise allowing increased power of the meta-analysis. Regions of interest will initially include the hippocampus, thalamus, prefrontal cortex, anterior and posterior cingulate gyri, parietal lobe, and basal ganglia. Exclusion criteria will include comorbid psychiatric illness and drug use. Two independent reviewers will undertake all data extraction, while a third reviewer will check for reviewer discrepancies. Statistical analysis will be performed using STATA supplemented by Metan software and SPSS. Discussion This data will shed new light on the biochemical basis of depression in different brain regions, thereby highlighting the potential of MRS in identifying biomarkers and generating models of MDD and treatment response. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD4201809149

Geriatric assessment for older people with cancer: policy recommendations

Most cancers occur in older people and the burden in this age group is increasing. Over the past two decades the evidence on how best to treat this population has increased rapidly. However, implementation of new best practices has been slow and needs involvement of policymakers. This perspective paper explains why older people with cancer have different needs than the wider population. An overview is given of the recommended approach for older people with cancer and its benefits on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. In older patients, the geriatric assessment (GA) is the gold standard to measure level of fitness and to determine treatment tolerability. The GA, with multiple domains of physical health, functional status, psychological health and socio-environmental factors, prevents initiation of inappropriate oncologic treatment and recommends geriatric interventions to optimize the patient’s general health and thus resilience for receiving treatments. Multiple studies have proven its benefits such as reduced toxicity, better quality of life, better patient-centred communication and lower healthcare use. Although GA might require investment of time and resources, this is relatively small compared to the improved outcomes, possible cost-savings and compared to the large cost of oncologic treatments as a whole

Systematic review of active surveillance for clinically localised prostate cancer to develop recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and surveillance repeat biopsy strategy

Context: There is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate criteria for recruitment, monitoring, and reclassification in active surveillance (AS) protocols for localised prostate cancer (PCa). Objective: To perform a qualitative systematic review (SR) to issue recommendations regarding inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, biopsy characteristics at inclusion and monitoring, and repeat biopsy strategy. Evidence acquisition: A protocol-driven, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-adhering SR incorporating AS protocols published from January 1990 to October 2020 was performed. The main outcomes were criteria for inclusion of intermediate-risk disease, monitoring, reclassification, and repeat biopsy strategies (per protocol and/or triggered). Clinical effectiveness data were not assessed. Evidence synthesis: Of the 17 011 articles identified, 333 studies incorporating 375 AS protocols, recruiting 264 852 patients, were included. Only a minority of protocols included the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for recruitment (n = 17), follow-up (n = 47), and reclassification (n = 26). More than 50% of protocols included patients with intermediate or high-risk disease, whilst 44.1% of protocols excluded low-risk patients with more than three positive cores, and 39% of protocols excluded patients with core involvement (CI) >50% per core. Of the protocols, ≥80% mandated a confirmatory transrectal ultrasound biopsy; 72% (n = 189) of protocols mandated per-protocol repeat biopsies, with 20% performing this annually and 25% every 2 yr. Only 27 protocols (10.3%) mandated triggered biopsies, with 74% of these protocols defining progression or changes on MRI as triggers for repeat biopsy. Conclusions: For AS protocols in which the use of MRI is not mandatory or absent, we recommend the following: (1) AS can be considered in patients with low-volume International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 (three or fewer positive cores and cancer involvement ≤50% CI per core) or another single element of intermediate-risk disease, and patients with ISUP 3 should be excluded; (2) per-protocol confirmatory prostate biopsies should be performed within 2 yr, and per-protocol surveillance repeat biopsies should be performed at least once every 3 yr for the first 10 yr; and (3) for patients with low-volume, low-risk disease at recruitment, if repeat systematic biopsies reveal more than three positive cores or maximum CI >50% per core, they should be monitored closely for evidence of adverse features (eg, upgrading); patients with ISUP 2 disease with increased core positivity and/or CI to similar thresholds should be reclassified. Patient summary: We examined the literature to issue new recommendations on active surveillance (AS) for managing localised prostate cancer. The recommendations include setting criteria for including men with more aggressive disease (intermediate-risk disease), setting thresholds for close monitoring of men with low-risk but more extensive disease, and determining when to perform repeat biopsies (within 2 yr and 3 yearly thereafter).</p

Comprehensive geriatric assessment in older people : an umbrella review of health outcomes

Background: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) has been in use for the last three decades. However, some doubts remain regarding its clinical use. Therefore, we aimed to capture the breadth of outcomes reported and assess the strength of evidence of the use of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for health outcomes in older Methods: Umbrella review of systematic reviews of the use of CGA in older adults searching in Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and CINHAL until 05 November 2021. All possible health outcomes were eligible. Two independent reviewers extracted key data. The grading of evidence was carried out using the GRADE for intervention studies, whilst data regarding systematic reviews were reported as narrative findings. Results: Among 1,683 papers, 31 systematic reviews (19 with meta-analysis) were considered, including 279,744 subjects. Overall, 13/53 outcomes were statistically significant (P &amp;lt; 0.05). There was high certainty of evidence that CGA reduces nursing home admission (risk ratio [RR] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75–0.89), risk of falls (RR = 0.51; 95%CI: 0.29–0.89), and pressure sores (RR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.24–0.89) in hospital medical setting; decreases the risk of delirium (OR = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.54–0.92) in hip fracture; decreases the risk of physical frailty in community-dwelling older adults (RR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.64–0.93). Systematic reviews without meta-analysis indicate that CGA improves clinical outcomes in oncology, haematology, and in emergency department. Conclusions: CGA seems to be beneficial in the hospital medical setting for multiple health outcomes, with a high certainty of evidence. The evidence of benefits is less strong for the use of CGA in other settings