Potential mechanisms of the fatigue-reducing effect of cognitive-behavioral therapy in cancer survivors:Three randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: Fatigue is a common symptom among cancer survivors that can be successfully treated with cognitive‐behavioral therapy (CBT). Insights into the working mechanisms of CBT are currently limited. The aim of this study was to investigate whether improvements in targeted cognitive‐behavioral variables and reduced depressive symptoms mediate the fatigue‐reducing effect of CBT. METHODS: We pooled data from three randomized controlled trials that tested the efficacy of CBT to reduce severe fatigue. In all three trials, fatigue severity (checklist individual strength) decreased significantly following CBT. Assessments were conducted pre‐treatment and 6 months later. Classical mediation analysis testing a pre‐specified model was conducted and its results compared to those of causal discovery, an explorative data‐driven approach testing all possible causal associations and retaining the most likely model. RESULTS: Data from 250 cancer survivors (n = 129 CBT, n = 121 waitlist) were analyzed. Classical mediation analysis suggests that increased self‐efficacy and decreased fatigue catastrophizing, focusing on symptoms, perceived problems with activity and depressive symptoms mediate the reduction of fatigue brought by CBT. Conversely, causal discovery and post‐hoc analyses indicate that fatigue acts as mediator, not outcome, of changes in cognitions, sleep disturbance and depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitions, sleep disturbance and depressive symptoms improve during CBT. When assessed pre‐ and post‐treatment, fatigue acts as a mediator, not outcome, of these improvements. It seems likely that the working mechanism of CBT is not a one‐way causal effect but a dynamic reciprocal process. Trials integrating intermittent assessments are needed to shed light on these mechanisms and inform optimization of CBT

Improved unsupervised physics-informed deep learning for intravoxel incoherent motion modeling and evaluation in pancreatic cancer patients

${\bf Purpose}$: Earlier work showed that IVIM-NET$_{orig}$, an unsupervised physics-informed deep neural network, was more accurate than other state-of-the-art intravoxel-incoherent motion (IVIM) fitting approaches to DWI. This study presents an improved version: IVIM-NET$_{optim}$, and characterizes its superior performance in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. ${\bf Method}$: In simulations (SNR=20), the accuracy, independence and consistency of IVIM-NET were evaluated for combinations of hyperparameters (fit S0, constraints, network architecture, # hidden layers, dropout, batch normalization, learning rate), by calculating the NRMSE, Spearman's $\rho$, and the coefficient of variation (CV$_{NET}$), respectively. The best performing network, IVIM-NET$_{optim}$ was compared to least squares (LS) and a Bayesian approach at different SNRs. IVIM-NET$_{optim}$'s performance was evaluated in 23 PDAC patients. 14 of the patients received no treatment between scan sessions and 9 received chemoradiotherapy between sessions. Intersession within-subject standard deviations (wSD) and treatment-induced changes were assessed. ${\bf Results}$: In simulations, IVIM-NET$_{optim}$ outperformed IVIM-NET$_{orig}$ in accuracy (NRMSE(D)=0.18 vs 0.20; NMRSE(f)=0.22 vs 0.27; NMRSE(D*)=0.39 vs 0.39), independence ($\rho$(D*,f)=0.22 vs 0.74) and consistency (CV$_{NET}$ (D)=0.01 vs 0.10; CV$_{NET}$ (f)=0.02 vs 0.05; CV$_{NET}$ (D*)=0.04 vs 0.11). IVIM-NET$_{optim}$ showed superior performance to the LS and Bayesian approaches at SNRs<50. In vivo, IVIM-NET$_{optim}$ sshowed significantly less noisy parameter maps with lower wSD for D and f than the alternatives. In the treated cohort, IVIM-NET$_{optim}$ detected the most individual patients with significant parameter changes compared to day-to-day variations. ${\bf Conclusion}$: IVIM-NET$_{optim}$ is recommended for IVIM fitting to DWI data

Personalized versus standard cognitive behavioral therapy for fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms or cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors:study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (MATCH-study)

Abstract Background Fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, and cancer-related fatigue are prevalent symptoms among cancer survivors, adversely affecting patients’ quality of life and daily functioning. Effect sizes of interventions targeting these symptoms are mostly small to medium. Personalizing treatment is assumed to improve efficacy. However, thus far the empirical support for this approach is lacking. The aim of this study is to investigate if systematically personalized cognitive behavioral therapy is more efficacious than standard cognitive behavioral therapy in cancer survivors with moderate to severe fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, and/or cancer-related fatigue. Methods The study is designed as a non-blinded, multicenter randomized controlled trial with two treatment arms (ratio 1:1): (a) systematically personalized cognitive behavioral therapy and (b) standard cognitive behavioral therapy. In the standard treatment arm, patients receive an evidence-based diagnosis-specific treatment protocol for fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, or cancer-related fatigue. In the second arm, treatment is personalized on four dimensions: (a) the allocation of treatment modules based on ecological momentary assessments, (b) treatment delivery, (c) patients’ needs regarding the symptom for which they want to receive treatment, and (d) treatment duration. In total, 190 cancer survivors who experience one or more of the targeted symptoms and ended their medical treatment with curative intent at least 6 months to a maximum of 5 years ago will be included. Primary outcome is limitations in daily functioning. Secondary outcomes are level of fear of cancer recurrence, depressive symptoms, fatigue severity, quality of life, goal attainment, therapist time, and drop-out rates. Participants are assessed at baseline (T0), and after 6 months (T1) and 12 months (T2). Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of personalized cognitive behavioral therapy to standard cognitive behavioral therapy in cancer survivors. The study has several innovative characteristics, among which is the personalization of interventions on several dimensions. If proven effective, the results of this study provide a first step in developing an evidence-based framework for personalizing therapies in a systematic and replicable way. Trial registration The Dutch Trial Register (NTR) NL7481 (NTR7723). Registered on 24 January 2019

Life-prolonging treatment restrictions and outcomes in patients with cancer and COVID-19:an update from the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium

AIM OF THE STUDY: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly impacted cancer care. In this study, clinical patient characteristics related to COVID-19 outcomes and advanced care planning, in terms of non-oncological treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-resuscitate codes), were studied in patients with cancer and COVID-19. METHODS: The Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium registry was launched in March 2020 in 45 hospitals in the Netherlands, primarily to identify risk factors of a severe COVID-19 outcome in patients with cancer. Here, an updated analysis of the registry was performed, and treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-intubate codes) were studied in relation to COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer. Oncological treatment restrictions were not taken into account. RESULTS: Between 27th March 2020 and 4th February 2021, 1360 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were registered. Follow-up data of 830 patients could be validated for this analysis. Overall, 230 of 830 (27.7%) patients died of COVID-19, and 60% of the remaining 600 patients with resolved COVID-19 were admitted to the hospital. Patients with haematological malignancies or lung cancer had a higher risk of a fatal outcome than other solid tumours. No correlation between anticancer therapies and the risk of a fatal COVID-19 outcome was found. In terms of end-of-life communication, 50% of all patients had restrictions regarding life-prolonging treatment (e.g. do-not-intubate codes). Most identified patients with treatment restrictions had risk factors associated with fatal COVID-19 outcome. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of a negative impact of anticancer therapies on COVID-19 outcomes. Timely end-of-life communication as part of advanced care planning could save patients from prolonged suffering and decrease burden in intensive care units. Early discussion of treatment restrictions should therefore be part of routine oncological care, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic

Dutch Oncology COVID-19 consortium:Outcome of COVID-19 in patients with cancer in a nationwide cohort study

Aim of the study: Patients with cancer might have an increased risk for severe outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To identify risk factors associated with a worse outcome of COVID-19, a nationwide registry was developed for patients with cancer and COVID-19. Methods: This observational cohort study has been designed as a quality of care registry and is executed by the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium (DOCC), a nationwide collaboration of oncology physicians in the Netherlands. A questionnaire has been developed to collect pseudonymised patient data on patients' characteristics, cancer diagnosis and treatment. All patients with COVID-19 and a cancer diagnosis or treatment in the past 5 years are eligible. Results: Between March 27th and May 4th, 442 patients were registered. For this first analysis, 351 patients were included of whom 114 patients died. In multivariable analyses, age ≥65 years (p < 0.001), male gender (p = 0.035), prior or other malignancy (p = 0.045) and active diagnosis of haematological malignancy (p = 0.046) or lung cancer (p = 0.003) were independent risk factors for a fatal outcome of COVID-19. In a subgroup analysis of patients with active malignancy, the risk for a fatal outcome was mainly determined by tumour type (haematological malignancy or lung cancer) and age (≥65 years). Conclusion: The findings in this registry indicate that patients with a haematological malignancy or lung cancer have an increased risk of a worse outcome of COVID-19. During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, these vulnerable patients should avoid exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, whereas treatment adjustments and prioritising vaccination, when available, should also be considered

The Tilburg double blind randomised controlled trial comparing inguinal hernia repair according to Lichtenstein and the transinguinal preperitoneal technique

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Anterior open treatment of the inguinal hernia with a tension free mesh has reduced the incidence of recurrence and direct postoperative pain. The Lichtenstein procedure rules nowadays as reference technique for hernia treatment. Not recurrences but chronic pain is the main postoperative complication in inguinal hernia repair after Lichtenstein's technique. Preliminary experiences with a soft mesh placed in the preperitoneal space showed good results and less chronic pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The TULIP is a double-blind randomised controlled trial in which 300 patients will be randomly allocated to anterior inguinal hernia repair according to Lichtenstein or the transinguinal preperitoneal technique with soft mesh. All unilateral primary inguinal hernia patients eligible for operation who meet inclusion criteria will be invited to participate in this trial. The primary endpoint will be direct postoperative- and chronic pain. Secondary endpoints are operation time, postoperative complications, hospital stay, costs, return to daily activities (e.g. work) and recurrence. Both groups will be evaluated.</p> <p>Success rate of hernia repair and complications will be measured as safeguard for quality.</p> <p>To demonstrate that inguinal hernia repair according to the transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique reduces postoperative pain to <10%, with α = 0,05 and power 80%, a total sample size of 300 patients was calculated.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The TULIP trial is aimed to show a reduction in postoperative chronic pain after anterior hernia repair according to the transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) technique, compared to Lichtenstein.</p> <p>In our hypothesis the TIPP technique reduces chronic pain compared to Lichtenstein.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN 93798494</p