Psychosocial functioning of adult siblings of Dutch very long-term survivors of childhood cancer:DCCSS-LATER 2 psycho-oncology study

Objective: To describe psychosocial outcomes among adult siblings of very long-term childhood cancer survivors (CCS), to compare these outcomes to reference populations and to identify factors associated with siblings' psychosocial outcomes. Methods: Siblings of survivors (diagnosed &lt;18 years old, between 1963 and 2001, &gt;5 years since diagnosis) of the Dutch Childhood Cancer Survivor Study DCCSS-LATER cohort were invited to complete questionnaires on HRQoL (TNO-AZL Questionnaire for Adult's HRQoL), anxiety/depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), post-traumatic stress (Self-Rating Scale for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder), self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) and benefit and burden (Benefit and Burden Scale for Children). Outcomes were compared to a reference group if available, using Mann-Whitney U and chi-Square tests. Associations of siblings' sociodemographic and CCS’ cancer-related characteristics with the outcomes were assessed with mixed model analysis. Results: Five hundred five siblings (response rate 34%, 64% female, mean age 37.5, mean time since diagnosis 29.5) of 412 CCS participated. Siblings had comparable HRQoL, anxiety and self-esteem to references with no or small differences (r = 0.08−0.15, p &lt; 0.05) and less depression. Proportions of symptomatic PTSD were very small (0.4%−0.6%). Effect sizes of associations of siblings' sociodemographic and CCS cancer-related characteristics were mostly small to medium (β = 0.19−0.67, p &lt; 0.05) and no clear trend was found in the studied associated factors for worse outcomes. Conclusions: On the very long-term, siblings do not have impaired psychosocial functioning compared to references. Cancer-related factors seem not to impact siblings' psychosocial functioning. Early support and education remain essential to prevent long-term consequences.</p

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers:a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry

Background Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC<2cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results. Methods Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes. Results We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.7%-90.3%), 85.6% (95%CI 81.2%-89.2%), and 60.3% (95%CI 54.7%-65.7%). Curative resection rate was 23.7% (95%CI 15.9%-33.6%) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8% (95%CI 50.4%-70.4%) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3%. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2%. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3%), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4%). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6%), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5%) following an incomplete resection. Conclusions eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes

Motorized Spiral Enteroscopy: Multicenter prospective study on performance and safety including in patients with surgically-altered gastrointestinal anatomy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Data are scarce on the efficacy and safety of the Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE). No data are available on the utility of this technique in patients with surgically-altered gastrointestinal (GI) anatomy. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MSE in patients with suspected small-bowel disease including those with surgically-altered GI anatomy. METHODS: A multicenter prospective observational, uncontrolled study evaluated MSE in consecutive patients with suspected small-bowel pathology indicated for diagnostic and/or therapeutic intervention. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients (median age, 64 years; range 18-89 years; 102 male, 68 female) were included. The overall diagnostic yield was 64.1%. Endotherapy was performed in 53.5% of procedures. The median total procedure time for antegrade and retrograde approach was 45 minutes (IQR=30-80) and 40 (IQR=30-70) respectively. When total (pan-)enteroscopy was intended, this was achieved at rate of 70.3%, (28.1% by antegrade approach and 42.1% by a bi-directional approach). Surgically-altered GI anatomy was present in 34/170 (20%) of the all procedures and in 11/45 (24.4%) of the successful total enteroscopy procedures. Propofol sedation or general anesthesia were used in 92.9% and 7% of the procedures respectively. Minor adverse events were observed in 15.8% of patients, but no major adverse events. CONCLUSION: MSE seems to be effective and safe endoscopic procedure. Total (pan-)enteroscopy can be achieved, in one or two sessions, even in the presence of surgically-altered GI anatomy. The total procedure time is relatively short. For both antegrade and retrograde MSE procedures, propofol sedation seems sufficient and safe

The performance and safety of motorized spiral enteroscopy, including in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy: A multicenter prospective study

Background: Data are scarce on the efficacy and safety of motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE). No data are available on the utility of this technique in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal (GI) anatomy. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MSE in patients with suspected small-bowel disease, including those with surgically altered GI anatomy. Methods: A multicenter prospective observational, uncontrolled study evaluated MSE in consecutive patients with suspected small-bowel pathology and an indication for diagnostic and/or therapeutic intervention. Results: A total of 170 patients (102 men; median age 64 years, range 18 89) were included. The overall diagnostic yield was 64.1%. Endotherapy was performed in 53.5% of procedures. The median total procedure times for the antegrade and retrograde approaches were 45 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 30 80) and 40 minutes (IQR 30 70), respectively. When total (pan)enteroscopy was intended, this was achieved at rate of 70.3% (28.1% by antegrade approach and 42.2% by a bidirectional approach). Surgically altered GI anatomy was present in 34 /170 of all procedures (20.0%) and in 11 /45 of the successful total enteroscopy procedures (24.4%). Propofol sedation or general anesthesia were used in 92.9% and 7.1% of the procedures, respectively. Minor adverse events were observed in 15.9% of patients, but there were no major adverse events. Conclusion: MSE seems to be an effective and safe endoscopic procedure. Total (pan)enteroscopy can be achieved, in one or two sessions, even in the presence of surgically altered GI anatomy. The total procedure time is relatively short. For both antegrade and retrograde MSE procedures, propofol sedation seems sufficient and safe

Health-Related Quality of Life of Adolescents with Cancer During the First Year of Treatment

Purpose: Adolescents with cancer (aged 12-18 years) are at risk for impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Little is known about this population during treatment. This study aimed to (1) determine the HRQoL of adolescents with cancer during the first year of treatment and compare them with age-matched peers and (2) obtain insight into cancer-specific HRQoL of adolescents during the first year of treatment. Methods: Participants were part of a larger study focused on routine monitoring of electronic reported outcomes in standard pediatric oncology care. Adolescents completed the pediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 and the PedsQL Cancer Module 3.0. Mean generic HRQoL scale scores were compared between the groups using multivariate analysis of covariance. Cancer-specific item scores were dichotomized and percentages were calculated to determine the proportion of adolescents reporting presence or absence of problems. Results: A total of 73 (mean [M]age = 14.71, standard deviation [SD] = 1.85) adolescents with cancer (Mage = 14.71, SD = 1.85, Mtimesincediagnosis = 3.51 months, SD = 2.8) and 268 healthy peers (Mage = 14.23, SD = 1.51) participated. Adolescents with cancer reported significantly lower generic HRQoL scores on all domains than their peers (p's <0.05, η2 = 0.01-0.42). Most frequently reported cancer-specific HRQoL problems were pain (hurt joint/muscle, 42.9%), nausea (during medical treatments [47.1%]; food not tasting good [54.3%]; food and smells [61.4%]), worry (about relapse [45.7%]; about side effects [52.9%]), cognitive problems (paying attention [47.1%]), and physical appearance (not good looking [47.1%]). Conclusions: Adolescents with cancer showed impaired HRQoL during treatment on both physical and psychosocial domains. Close monitoring of physical and psychosocial symptoms during treatment is, therefore, important

Clinical evaluation of late outcomes in Dutch childhood cancer survivors: Methodology of the DCCSS LATER 2 study

Background: Childhood cancer survivors face late health problems; despite advances in research, details on risk remain unclear. We describe the methodological aspects of the Dutch Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (DCCSS) cross-sectional clinical study (LATER 2 study). Procedure: From the multi-center DCCSS LATER cohort of 6165 five-year survivors diagnosed during 1963–2001, we invited 4735 eligible survivors in 2016, as well as siblings and parents of survivors. Gaps in evidence identified during development of surveillance guidelines were translated into clinical research questions for 16 outcome-specific subprojects. The regular care visit to the LATER outpatient clinic forms the backbone of outcome assessment complemented with research-defined measurements (physical examination, clinical tests, questionnaires). Furthermore, blood/saliva samples were taken for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extraction. Results: In total, 2519 (53.2%) survivors participated in the LATER 2 study. When comparing participants with nonparticipants, we observed that males, CNS survivors, and those treated with surgery only were less likely to participate. Of the participating survivors, 49.3% were female. Median time since childhood cancer diagnosis was 26.9 years (range 14.8–54.7 years) and median attained age was 34.4 years (range 15.4–66.6 years). Conclusions: The high-quality data generated in the LATER 2 study will provide valuable insights into risks of and risk factors for clinical and physical and psychosocial health outcomes and factors for early recognition of those health outcomes in long-term childhood cancer survivors. This will contribute to fill in important gaps in knowledge and improve the quality of life and care for childhood cancer survivors

Clinical evaluation of late outcomes in Dutch childhood cancer survivors: Methodology of the DCCSS LATER 2 study

Background: Childhood cancer survivors face late health problems; despite advances in research, details on risk remain unclear. We describe the methodological aspects of the Dutch Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (DCCSS) cross-sectional clinical study (LATER 2 study). Procedure: From the multi-center DCCSS LATER cohort of 6165 five-year survivors diagnosed during 1963?2001, we invited 4735 eligible survivors in 2016, as well as siblings and parents of survivors. Gaps in evidence identified during development of surveillance guidelines were translated into clinical research questions for 16 outcome-specific subprojects. The regular care visit to the LATER outpatient clinic forms the backbone of outcome assessment complemented with research-defined measurements (physical examination, clinical tests, questionnaires). Furthermore, blood/saliva samples were taken for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extraction. Results: In total, 2519 (53.2%) survivors participated in the LATER 2 study. When comparing participants with nonparticipants, we observed that males, CNS survivors, and those treated with surgery only were less likely to participate. Of the participating survivors, 49.3% were female. Median time since childhood cancer diagnosis was 26.9?years (range 14.8?54.7?years) and median attained age was 34.4?years (range 15.4?66.6?years). Conclusions: The high-quality data generated in the LATER 2 study will provide valuable insights into risks of and risk factors for clinical and physical and psychosocial health outcomes and factors for early recognition of those health outcomes in long-term childhood cancer survivors. This will contribute to fill in important gaps in knowledge and improve the quality of life and care for childhood cancer survivors

Self-reported outcomes on oral health and oral health-related quality of life in long-term childhood cancer survivors—A DCCSS-LATER 2 Study

Purpose: The present study aimed to determine the prevalence of self-reported oral problems and the oral health–related quality of life (OHRQoL) in childhood cancer survivors (CCS). Methods: Patient and treatment characteristics of CCS have been collected in a cross-sectional study, part of the multidisciplinary DCCSS-LATER 2 Study. To assess self-reported oral health problems and dental problems, CCS filled out the ‘Toegepast-Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek’ (TNO) oral health questionnaire. OHRQoL was assessed by the Dutch version of the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). Prevalences were compared with two comparison groups from the literature. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. Results: A total of 249 CCS participated in our study. The OHIP-14 total score had a mean value of 1.94 (sd 4.39), with a median score of 0 (range 0–29). The oral problems ‘oral blisters/aphthae’ (25.9%) and ‘bad odor/halitosis’ (23.3%) were significantly more often reported in CCS than in comparison groups (12% and 12%, respectively). The OHIP-14 score was significantly correlated with the number of self-reported oral health problems (r =.333, p<0.0005) and dental problems (r =.392, p <0.0005). In multivariable analysis, CCS with a shorter time since diagnosis (10-19 years vs. ≥30 years) had a 1.47-fold higher risk of ≥1 oral health problem. Conclusion: Though the perceived oral health is relatively good, oral complications following childhood cancer treatment are prevalent in CCS. This underlines that attention to impaired oral health and awareness on this topic is mandatory and regular visits to the dentist should be a part of long-term follow-up care