[Translation into French and republication of: "Home treatment for patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism"]. / Traduction et republication de : « Traitement à domicile des patients atteints de maladie veineuse thromboembolique associée au cancer ¼.

Patients hospitalised with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), and notably patients with pulmonary embolism, often remain in hospital for extended periods due to the perceived risk of complications. However, several studies have shown that home treatment of selected patients is feasible and safe, with a low incidence of adverse events. This may offer clear benefits for patients' quality of life, hospital planning and cost to the health service. Nonetheless, there is a need for a VTE risk-stratification tool specifically addressing prognosis in patients with cancer. This may aid in the selection of low-risk patients with cancer and VTE who are suitable for outpatient treatment. Although several prognostic scores have been proposed, we suggest using a pragmatic clinical decision-making tool such as the Hestia criteria for selecting patients for home care in everyday clinical practice. Once patients have been discharged, it is mandatory to monitor patients regularly (we suggest after 3 days, 10 days, 1 month and 3 months, or more frequently if needed) with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, so that appropriate and timely remedial action can be taken in case of warning signs of complications. If patients are selected carefully and monitored effectively, many patients who experience acute VTE can be cared for safely at home.

Home treatment for patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism.

Patients hospitalised with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), and notably patients with pulmonary embolism, often remain in hospital for extended periods due to the perceived risk of complications. However, several studies have shown that home treatment of selected patients is feasible and safe, with a low incidence of adverse events. This may offer clear benefits for patients' quality of life, hospital planning and cost to the health service. Nonetheless, there is a need for a VTE risk-stratification tool specifically addressing prognosis in patients with cancer. This may aid in the selection of low-risk patients with cancer and VTE who are suitable for outpatient treatment. Although several prognostic scores have been proposed, we suggest using a pragmatic clinical decision-making tool such as the Hestia criteria for selecting patients for home care in everyday clinical practice. Once patients have been discharged, it is mandatory to monitor patients regularly (we suggest after 3 days, 10 days, 1 month and 3 months, or more frequently if needed) with the involvement of a multidisciplinary team, so that appropriate and timely remedial action can be taken in case of warning signs of complications. If patients are selected carefully and monitored effectively, many patients who experience acute VTE can be cared for safely at home.

Anticoagulant treatment of cancer-associated thromboembolism.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent and potentially fatal complication in patients with cancer. During the initial period after the thromboembolic event, a patient receiving anticoagulant treatment is exposed both to a risk of VTE recurrence and also to an elevated bleeding risk conferred by the treatment. For this reason, the choice of anticoagulant is critical. The choice should take into account patient-related factors (such as functional status, age, body mass index, platelet count and renal function), VTE-related factors (such as severity or site), cancer-related factors (such as activity and progression) and treatment-related factors (such as drug-drug interactions), which all potentially influence bleeding risk, and patient preference. These should be evaluated carefully for each patient during a multidisciplinary team meeting. For most patients, apixaban or a low molecular-weight heparin is the most appropriate initial choice for anticoagulant treatment. Such treatment should be offered to all patients with active cancer for at least six months. The patient and treatment should be re-evaluated regularly and anticoagulant treatment changed when necessary. Continued anticoagulant treatment beyond six months is justified if the cancer remains active or if the patient experienced recurrence of VTE in the first six months. In other cases, the interest of continued anticoagulant treatment may be considered on an individual patient basis in collaboration with oncologists.

PROPERTY: study protocol for a randomized, double-blind, multicenter placebo-controlled trial assessing neurotoxicity in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancer taking PHYCOCARE® during oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is one of the most common adverse effects of antineoplastic agents, ranging in prevalence from 19% to over 85%. Clinically, CIPN is a predominantly sensory neuropathy that may be accompanied by motor and autonomic changes of varying intensity and duration. The high prevalence of CIPN among cancer patients makes it a major problem for both patients and survivors, as well as for their health care providers, especially because there is currently no single effective method of preventing CIPN; moreover, the options for treating this syndrome are very limited. Phycocyanin, a biliprotein pigment and an important constituent of the blue-green algae Spirulina platensis, has been reported to possess significant antioxidant and radical-scavenging properties, offering protection against oxidative stress, which is one of the hypothetic mechanisms, between others, of CIPN occurrence. METHODS: Our hypothesis is that phycocyanin may give protection against oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy in the treatment of gastrointestinal cancers. Our trial will be a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study with 110 randomized patients suffering from metastatic gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma including esogastric, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers. Patients are being followed up in the gastroenterology or oncology departments of seven French hospitals. DISCUSSION: Due to the neuropathy, patients need to avoid injury by paying careful attention to home safety; patients' physicians often prescribe over-the-counter pain medications. If validated, our hypothesis should help to limit neurotoxicity without the need to discontinue chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05025826. First published on August 27, 2021.

From a voluntary vaccination policy to mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 in cancer patients: an empirical and interdisciplinary study in bioethics.

BACKGROUND: At the start of 2021, oncologists lacked the necessary scientific knowledge to adapt their clinical practices optimally when faced with cancer patients refusing or reluctant to be vaccinated against COVID-19, despite the marked vulnerability of these patients to severe, and even fatal forms of this new viral infectious disease. Oncologists at Foch Hospital were confronted with this phenomenon, which was observed worldwide, in both the general population and the population of cancer patients. METHODS: Between April and November 2021, the Ethics and Oncology Departments of Foch Hospital decided to investigate this subject, through an empirical and interdisciplinary study in bioethics. Our scientific objective was to try to identify and resolve the principal bio-ethical issues, with a view to improving clinical practices in oncology during future major pandemics of this kind, from a highly specific bio-ethical standpoint (= quality of life/survival). We used a mainly qualitative methodological approach based on questionnaires and interviews. RESULTS: In April 2021, 29 cancer patients refused or were reluctant to be vaccinated (5.6%; 29/522). Seventeen of these patients said that making vaccination mandatory would have helped them to accept vaccination. In October 2021, only 10 cancer patients continued to maintain their refusal (1.9%; 10/522). One of the main reasons for the decrease in refusals was probably the introduction of the "pass sanitaire" (health pass) in July 2021, which rendered vaccination indispensable for many activities. However, even this was not sufficient to convince these 10 cancer patients. CONCLUSION: We identified a key bio-ethical issue, which we then tried to resolve: vaccination policy. We characterized a major tension between "the recommendation of anti-COVID-19 vaccination" (a new clinical practice) and "free will" (a moral value), and the duty to "protect each other" (a moral standard). Mandatory vaccination, at least in France, could resolve this tension, with positive effects on quality of life (i.e. happiness), or survival, in cancer patients initially refusing or reluctant to be vaccinated, but only if collective and individual scales are clearly distinguished.

Cancer and COVID-19: ethical issues concerning the use of telemedicine during the pandemic.

The lockdown imposed in France during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc with access to healthcare. From March 2020 onwards, the oncologists of Foch Hospital, like many others at hospitals throughout the world, were obliged to adapt to the new conditions, including, in particular, the impossibility of seeing patients in classic consultations for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Patients with cancer are particularly susceptible to this new virus, due to their immune status, and this made it difficult to carry out standard hospital visits for these patients. Some patients refused to come to the hospital, whereas the doctors decided, for others, that consultation conditions at the hospital were not sufficiently safe, with sanitary measures that had yet to be precisely defined. Telemedicine was one of the adaptations adopted during this period. This mode of consultation was little used before the pandemic, for various reasons, and reimbursement was not automatic. This new approach proved to have limitations as well as advantages, as demonstrated by our empirical ethics research study, a retrospective qualitative survey of the doctors of the oncology and supportive care departments of Foch Hospital, performed during July 2021. The interview grid was based on the studies on telemedicine, oncology, COVID-19 and empirical ethics available at the time. Based on the experience gained in this domain during the first wave of the epidemic, which hit France between March and June 2020, we identified three eligibility criteria for consultations in telemedicine: the consultation concerned should not be the first consultation, the patient should be a known patient that the doctor trusts not to minimize the description of symptoms, and the results of the patient's evaluations and examinations must be good. It may be appropriate to continue the use of teleconsultation in the future, provided that these criteria are respected.