Updated Incidence, Treatment and Survival of a Nationwide Cohort of Patients with Peritoneal Metastases of Unknown Origin.

The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, treatment and survival of patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) of unknown origin. All Dutch patients diagnosed in 2017 and 2018 with PM of unknown origin (PM-CUP) were evaluated. Data were extracted from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Patients with PM-CUP were categorized into the following histological subtypes: 1) adenocarcinoma, 2) mucinous adenocarcinoma, 3) carcinoid, 4) unspecified carcinoma and 5) other. Treatments were compared between the different histological subtypes in patients with PM-CUP. Overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method for all patients with cancer of unknown origin and between histological subtypes in patients with PM-CUP. Significant differences in OS were assessed by using the log-rank test. In total, 3026 patients were diagnosed with cancer of unknown origin, 513 (17%) among them were diagnosed with PM-CUP. Most PM-CUP patients received best supportive care only (76%), whereas 22% received systemic treatment and 4% underwent metastasectomy. Median OS was 1.1 months for all patients with PM-CUP but varied from 0.6 months to 30.5 months depending on the underlying histology. In this study, PM-CUP were diagnosed in 17% of all patients with cancer of unknown primary and the reported survival in this cohort was extremely poor. Since survival differed among histological subtypes and recently more treatment options became available for a selected group of patients with peritoneal malignancies, it is of great importance to identify the histology of the metastases and whenever possible the primary tumor.

Treatment decision-making during outpatient clinic visit of patients with esophagogastric cancer. The perspectives of clinicians and patients, a mixed method, multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: The probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent according to the hospital of diagnosis varies for esophagogastric cancer in the Netherlands. Little is known about the factors contributing to this variation. This study aimed to improve the understanding of the differences between the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal and the treatment that was actually carried out and to qualitatively investigate the differences in treatment decision-making after the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal between hospitals. METHODS: To gain an in-depth understanding of treatment decision-making, quantitative data (i.e., multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and treatment that was carried out) were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment comprised changes in the type of treatment option (i.e., curative or palliative, or no change) and were calculated according to the multivariable multilevel probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent (low, middle, and high). Qualitative data were collected from eight hospitals, including observations of 26 outpatient clinic consultations, 30 in-depth interviews with clinicians, seven focus groups with clinicians, and three focus groups with patients. Clinicians and patients' perspectives were assessed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: The multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment were concordant in 97% of the cases. Clinicians' implementation of treatment decision-making in clinical practice varied, which was mentioned by the clinicians to be due to the clinician's personality and values. Differences between clinicians consisted of discussing all treatment options versus only the best fitting treatment option and the extent of discussing the benefits and harms. Most patients aimed to undergo curative treatment regardless of the consequences, since they believed this could prolong their life. CONCLUSION: Since changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting-proposed treatment and actual treatment were rarely observed, this study emphasizes the importance of an adequately formulated multidisciplinary team meeting proposal.

High-Intensity Care in the End-of-Life Phase of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients: Results from the Dutch CAPRI-Registry.

Background: Intensive end-of-life care (i.e., the overuse of treatments and hospital resources in the last months of life), is undesirable since it has a minimal clinical benefit with a substantial financial burden. The aim was to investigate the care in the last three months of life (end-of-life [EOL]) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods: Castration-resistant prostate cancer registry (CAPRI) is an investigator-initiated, observational multicenter cohort study in 20 hospitals retrospectively including patients diagnosed with CRPC between 2010 and 2016. High-intensity care was defined as the initiation of life-prolonging drugs (LPDs) in the last month, continuation of LPD in last 14 days, >1 admission, admission duration ≥14 days, and/or intensive care admission in last three months of life. Descriptive and binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: High-intensity care was experienced by 41% of 2429 patients in the EOL period. Multivariable analysis showed that age (odds ratio [OR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.99), performance status (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.97), time from CRPC to EOL (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.98), referral to a medical oncologist (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.55-2.55), prior LPD treatment (>1 line OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.31-2.28), and opioid use (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08-1.95) were significantly associated with high-intensity care. Conclusions: High-intensity care in EOL is not easily justifiable due to high economic cost and little effect on life span, but further research is awaited to give insight in the effect on patients' and their caregivers' quality of life.

Frailty screening by Geriatric-8 and 4-meter gait speed test is feasible and predicts postoperative complications in elderly colorectal cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Identification of frail older colorectal cancer patients might help to select those prone to adverse events and may lead to adjustment of treatment plans. However, the prognostic validity of screening for frailty is unknown. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluates colorectal cancer patients ≥70 years who underwent elective surgery between May 2016 and December 2018. The Geriatric-8 (G8) and 4-m gait speed test (4MGST) were used as frailty screening tools. According to hospital guidelines, patients were referred to a geriatrician when screening was indicative for frailty (G8 ≤ 14 and/or 4MGST < 1 m/s). Patients were categorized as fit, vulnerable or frail by comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). The clinical implications and prognostic validity of frailty screening and CGA were evaluated. RESULTS: 149 patients were included, of whom 132 (89%) were screened for frailty. Frailty was suspected in 40% of screened patients (n = 53) of whom 89% (n = 47) was referred for CGA. A higher complication rate was seen in patients with G8 ≤ 14 and/or 4MGST < 1 m/s compared to those with G8 > 14 and 4MGST ≥1 m/s (respectively 62% versus 28%,p < 0.001). Pneumonia (21% versus 6%, p = 0.013) and cardiac complications (11% versus 4%, p = 0.093) were more prevalent in patients with G8 ≤ 14 and/or 4MGST < 1 m/s. CGA identified frail patients as a group with a high complication rate of 68%. CONCLUSION: Screening for frailty with subsequent referral for CGA is feasible in older colorectal cancer patients. Our study suggests that screening for frailty by G8 + 4MGST can identify patients with higher risk for postoperative complications.

Phase II study of docetaxel, cisplatin and capecitabine as preoperative chemotherapy in resectable gastric cancer.

AIM: To investigate the feasibility of preoperative docetaxel, cisplatin and capecitabine (DCC) in patients with resectable gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients with resectable gastric cancer fulfilling the inclusion criteria, were treated with 4 cycles of docetaxel (60 mg/m2), cisplatin (60 mg/m2) and capecitabine (1.875 mg/m2 orally on day 1-14, two daily doses) repeated every three weeks, followed by surgery. Primary end point was the feasibility and toxicity/safety profile of DCC, secondary endpoints were pathological complete resection rate and pathological complete response (pCR) rate. RESULTS: All of the patients (51) were assessable for the feasibility and safety of the regimen. The entire preoperative regimen was completed by 68.6% of the patients. Grade III/IV febrile neutropenia occurred in 10% of all courses. Three patients died due to treatment related toxicity (5.9%), one of them (also) because of refusing further treatment for toxicity. Of the 45 patients who were evaluable for secondary endpoints, four developed metastatic disease and 76.5% received a curative resection. In 3 patients a pCR was seen (5.9%), two patients underwent a R1 resection (3.9%). CONCLUSION: Four courses of DCC as a preoperative regimen for patients with primarily resectable gastric cancer is highly demanding. The high occurrence of febrile neutropenia is of concern. To decrease the occurrence of febrile neutropenia the prophylactic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) should be explored. A curative resection rate of 76.5% is acceptable. The use of DCC without G-CSF support as preoperative regimen in resectable gastric cancer is debatable.