Patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores

Purpose To investigate patients’ and health professionals’ understanding of and preferences for different graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQC30 scores. Methods We recruited cancer patients (any treatment and diagnosis) in four European countries and health professionals in the Netherlands. Using a questionnaire, we assessed objective and self-rated understanding of QLQ-C30 scores and preferences for five presentation styles (bar and line charts, with or without color coding, and a heat map). Results In total, 548 patients and 227 health professionals participated. Eighty-three percent of patients and 85 % of professionals self-rated the graphs as very or quite easy to understand; this did not differ between graphical presentation styles. The mean percentage of correct answers to questions objectively assessing understanding was 59 % in patients, 78 % in medical specialists, and 74 % in other health professionals. Objective understanding did not differ between graphical formats in patients. For non-colored charts, 49.8 % of patients did not have a preference. Colored bar charts (39 %) were preferred over heat maps (20 %) and colored line charts (12 %). Medical specialists preferred heat maps (46 %) followed by non-colored bar charts (19 %), whereas these charts were equally valued by other health professionals (both 32 %). Conclusion The substantial discrepancy between participants’ high self-rated and relatively low objective understanding of graphical presentation of PRO results highlights the need to provide sufficient guidance when presenting such results. It may be appropriate to adapt the presentation of PRO results to individual preferences. This could be facilitated when PROs are administered and presented to patients and health professionals electronically

Landscape of HER2-low metastatic breast cancer (MBC): results from the Austrian AGMT_MBC-Registry

BACKGROUND: About 50% of all primary breast cancers show a low-level expression of HER2 (HER2-low), defined as immunohistochemically 1+ or 2+ and lack of HER2 gene amplification measured by in situ hybridization. This low HER2 expression is a promising new target for antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) currently under investigation. Until now, little is known about the frequency and the prognostic value of low HER2-expression in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The MBC-Registry of the Austrian Study Group of Medical Tumor Therapy (AGMT) is a multicenter nationwide ongoing registry for MBC patients in Austria. Unadjusted, univariate survival probabilities of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by the log-rank test. Multivariable adjusted hazard ratios were estimated by Cox regression models. In this analysis, only patients with known HER2 status and available survival data were included. RESULTS: As of 11/15/2020, 1,973 patients were included in the AGMT-MBC-Registry. Out of 1,729 evaluable patients, 351 (20.3%) were HER2-positive, 608 (35.2%) were HER2-low and 770 (44.5%) were completely HER2-negative (HER2-0). Low HER2-expression was markedly more frequent in the hormone-receptor(HR)+ subgroup compared to the triple-negative subgroup (40% vs. 23%). In multivariable analysis, low HER2 expression did not significantly influence OS neither in the HR+ (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.74-1.05; P = 0.171) nor in the triple-negative subgroup (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.25; P = 0.585), when compared to completely HER2-negative disease. Similar results were observed when HER2 IHC 2+ patients were compared to IHC 1+ or 0 patients. CONCLUSION: Low-HER2 expression did not have any impact on prognosis of metastatic breast cancer in this real-world population

Implication of 4E-BP1 protein dephosphorylation and accumulation in pancreatic cancer cell death induced by combined gemcitabine and TRAIL

Pancreatic cancer cells show varying sensitivity to the anticancer effects of gemcitabine. However, as a chemotherapeutic agent, gemcitabine can cause intolerably high levels of toxicity and patients often develop resistance to the beneficial effects of this drug. Combination studies show that use of gemcitabine with the pro-apoptotic cytokine TRAIL can enhance the inhibition of survival and induction of apoptosis of pancreatic cancer cells. Additionally, following combination treatment there is a dramatic increase in the level of the hypophosphorylated form of the tumour suppressor protein 4E-BP1. This is associated with inhibition of mTOR activity, resulting from caspase-mediated cleavage of the Raptor and Rictor components of mTOR. Use of the pan-caspase inhibitor Z-VAD-FMK indicates that the increase in level of 4E-BP1 is also caspase-mediated. ShRNA-silencing of 4E-BP1 expression renders cells more resistant to cell death induced by the combination treatment. Since the levels of 4E-BP1 are relatively low in untreated pancreatic cancer cells these results suggest that combined therapy with gemcitabine and TRAIL could improve the responsiveness of tumours to treatment by elevating the expression of 4E-BP1

Thresholds for clinical importance for four key domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30: physical functioning, emotional functioning, fatigue and pain

Background The EORTC QLQ-C30 is one of the most widely used quality of life questionnaires in cancer research. Availability of thresholds for clinical importance for the individual questionnaire domains could help to increase its interpretability. The aim of our study was to identify thresholds for clinical importance for four EORTC QLQ-C30 scales: Physical Functioning (PF), Emotional Functioning (EF), Pain (PA) and Fatigue (FA). Methods We recruited adult cancer patients from Austria, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK. No restrictions were placed on diagnosis or type or stage of treatment. Patients completed the QLQ-C30 and three anchor items reflecting potential attributes of clinically important levels of PF, EF, PA and FA. We merged the anchor items assessing perceived burden, limitations in daily activities and need for help into a dichotomous external criterion to estimate thresholds for clinical importance using Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results In our sample of 548 cancer patients (mean age 60.6 years; 54 % female), the QLQ-C30 scales showed high diagnostic accuracy in identifying patients reporting burden, limitations and/or need for help related to PF, EF, PA and FA. All areas under the curve were above 0.86. Conclusions We were able to estimate thresholds for clinical importance for four QLQ-C30 scales. When used in daily clinical practice, these thresholds can help to identify patients with clinically important problems requiring further exploration and possibly intervention by health care professionals