Heterogeneity of first-line palliative systemic treatment in synchronous metastatic esophagogastric cancer patients: A real-world evidence study

The optimal first-line palliative systemic treatment strategy for metastatic esophagogastric cancer is not well defined. The aim of our study was to explore real-world use of first-line systemic treatment in esophagogastric cancer and assess the effect of treatment strategy on overall survival (OS), time to failure (TTF) of first-line treatment and toxicity. We selected synchronous metastatic esophagogastric cancer patients treated with systemic therapy (2010-2016) from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry (n = 2,204). Systemic treatment strategies were divided into monotherapy, doublet and triplet chemotherapy, and trastuzumab-containing regimens. Data on OS were available for all patients, on TTF for patients diagnosed from 2010 to 2015 (n = 1,700), and on toxicity for patients diagnosed from 2010 to 2014 (n = 1,221). OS and TTF were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression, with adjustment for relevant tumor and patient characteristics. Up to 45 different systemic treatment regimens were found to be administered, with a median TTF of 4.6 and OS of 7.5 months. Most patients (45%) were treated with doublet chemotherapy; 34% received triplets, 10% monotherapy and 10% a trastuzumab-containing regimen. The highest median OS was found in patients receiving a trastuzumab-containing regimen (11.9 months). Triplet chemotherapy showed equal survival rates compared to doublets (OS: HR 0.92, 95%CI 0.83-1.02; TTF: HR 0.92, 95%CI 0.82-1.04) but significantly more grade 3-5 toxicity than doublets (33% vs. 21%, respectively). In conclusion, heterogeneity of first-line palliative systemic treatment in metastatic esophagogastric cancer patients is striking. Based on our data, doublet chemotherapy is the preferred treatment strategy because of similar survival and less toxicity compared to triplets.Experimentele farmacotherapi

Changes in body weight during various types of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients

Background & aims: Weight gain is a common problem for breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. It increases the risk of several comorbidities and possibly cancer recurrence. We assessed whether weight gain depends on the type of chemotherapy. Methods: In a retrospective study among 739 breast cancer patients, we assessed whether change in body weight during chemotherapy differed between types of chemotherapy. Information about weight, clinical and personal factors was retrieved from medical records of breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy between 2001 and 2010 in 4 different hospitals. Results: Body weight information was complete in n=483 patients (66%). There was substantial between-patients variability in weight change during chemotherapy: within the upper quintile of weight change, median weight gain was+6kg, while in the bottom quintile median weight loss was of-3kg. Adjusted multivariate regression analysis showed that change in weight differed between types of chemotherapy: women treated with anthracyclines+taxanes gained+0.9kg (95%CI 0.1, 1.7) more than women treated with anthracyclines only. This differential change in weight was no longer statistically significant after taking into account that regimens with anthracyclines+taxanes have a longer duration than regimens with anthracyclines only. Conclusion: There was more weight gain among patients treated with anthracyclines+taxanes than among patients treated with anthracyclines-only. This is partly explained by the longer duration of regimes with anthracyclines+taxanes. © 2013 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism

Prognostic Parameters for Response to Enzalutamide After Docetaxel and Abiraterone Treatment in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients:a Possible Time Relation

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Abiraterone Acetate (AA) and Enzalutamide (Enz) are effective hormonal treatments in mCRPC patients. Retrospective studies suggested clinical cross-resistance between Enz and AA. However, 12.8-39.1% of patients previously treated with docetaxel (Doc) and AA do respond to Enz. These responders have not been characterized. METHODS: 102 Enz treated mCRPC patients after AA and Doc treatment were included in this study. Differences in patient characteristics and previous treatment outcomes between PSA responders and non-responders on Enz were evaluated. RESULTS: Median Progression-Free Survival was 12.2 weeks (95%CI 11.7-14.3) and Overall Survival 43.5 weeks (95%CI 37.4-61.2). There were 26 (25%) Enz-responders and 76 (75%) non-responders. Significant higher percentages of Gleason scores >/=8 and PSA doubling times (PSA-DT) /=40 (68 patients) revealed significant differences in baseline PSA levels, PSA-DT /=8 and IAE's between Enz responders and non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: PSA response to Enz after previous AA and Doc treatment was associated with a longer IAE, a higher Gleason score and a PSA-DT <3 months. Identification of these patients might be of value for sequencing of treatment options. Prostate 76:32-40, 2016. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Effect of a prediction tool and communication skills training on communication of treatment outcomes: a multicenter stepped wedge clinical trial (the SOURCE trial)Research in context

Summary: Background: For cancer patients to effectively engage in decision making, they require comprehensive and understandable information regarding treatment options and their associated outcomes. We developed an online prediction tool and supporting communication skills training to assist healthcare providers (HCPs) in this complex task. This study aims to assess the impact of this combined intervention (prediction tool and training) on the communication practices of HCPs when discussing treatment options. Methods: We conducted a multicenter intervention trial using a pragmatic stepped wedge design (NCT04232735). Standardized Patient Assessments (simulated consultations) using cases of esophageal and gastric cancer patients, were performed before and after the combined intervention (March 2020 to July 2022). Audio recordings were analyzed using an observational coding scale, rating all utterances of treatment outcome information on the primary outcome–precision of provided outcome information–and on secondary outcomes–such as: personalization, tailoring and use of visualizations. Pre vs. post measurements were compared in order to assess the effect of the intervention. Findings: 31 HCPs of 11 different centers in the Netherlands participated. The tool and training significantly affected the precision of the overall communicated treatment outcome information (p = 0.001, median difference 6.93, IQR (−0.32 to 12.44)). In the curative setting, survival information was significantly more precise after the intervention (p = 0.029). In the palliative setting, information about side effects was more precise (p < 0.001). Interpretation: A prediction tool and communication skills training for HCPs improves the precision of treatment information on outcomes in simulated consultations. The next step is to examine the effect of such interventions on communication in clinical practice and on patient-reported outcomes. Funding: Financial support for this study was provided entirely by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society (UVA 2014-7000)