Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Prognostication in Gastroesophageal Cancer: Results of a Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROM) are self-reflections of an individual's physical functioning and emotional well-being. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a simple and validated PRO tool of 10 common symptoms and a patient-reported functional status (PRFS) measure. The prognostic value of this tool is unknown in patients with gastroesophageal cancer (GEC). In this study, we examined the association between the ESAS score and overall survival (OS) in patients with GEC, the prognostication difference between ESAS and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), and assessed the correlation between PRFS and the physician-reported ECOG performance status (PS). METHODS: The study was a retrospective cohort study of 211 patients with GEC with localized (stages I-III) and metastatic disease who completed at least one baseline ESAS prior to treatment. Patients were grouped into 3 cohorts based on ESAS score. OS was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the concordance index (c-index) was calculated for ESAS and physician-reported ECOG. The agreement between PRFS and physician-ECOG was also assessed. RESULTS: In total, 211 patients were included. The median age was 60.8 years; 90% of patients were ECOG PS 0-1; 38% of patients were stages I-III, while 62% were de novo metastatic patients. Median OS in low, moderate, high symptom burden (SB) patients' cohorts was 19.17 m, 16.39 mm, and 12.68 m, respectively (P < .04). The ability to predict death was similar between physician-ECOG and ESAS (c-index 0.56 and 0.5753, respectively) and PRFS and physician-ECOG (c-index of 0.5615 and 0.5545, respectively). The PS agreement between patients and physicians was 50% with a weighted Kappa of 0.27 (95% CI: 0.17-0.38). CONCLUSION: Patient's SB seems to carry a prognostic significance. ESAS and physician-reported ECOG exhibit comparable prognostic values. Physicians and patients can frequently have divergent opinions on PS. ESAS takes a patient-centered approach and should be encouraged in practice among patients with GEC as an additional tool for prognostication.

Outcomes in older adults with metastatic esophageal and gastric carcinoma treated with palliative chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of esophageal and gastric carcinoma (GEC) in elderly patients is increasing, yet patients ≥75 years have historically been underrepresented in clinical trials. We sought to investigate palliative chemotherapy administration patterns and survival outcomes in older adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis identified patients aged 65-74 (young-old) and ≥75 years (older-old) diagnosed with advanced GEC. Patient and tumor characteristics were recorded, with descriptive analysis, time-to-event data analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis performed. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-eight "young-old" and 109 'older-old' patients were identified. Patient characteristics were similar between groups except for Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI), with lower co-morbidities in the "young-old" compared to "older-old" cohort (P < .001; CCI = 0 in 103 (52%) "young-old" vs 31 (28%) "older-old"). The primary diagnosis in both groups was adenocarcinoma. 119 (60%) "young-old" and 25 (23%) "older-old" patients received chemotherapy (P < .001). Performance status was the primary explanation for chemotherapy non-receipt in both cohorts; age was the explanation in 21 (25%) "older-old" patients and none in the "young-old" patients. PFS for first-line systemic therapy in "young-old" patients was 6.4 (95% CI 5.9-7.6) versus 7.5 months (95% CI 5.1-11.3) in "older-old" patients (P = .69) whilst respective OS was 12.3 (95% CI 10.1-15.5) and 10.4 months (95% CI 9.0-14.6) (P = .0816). Toxicity prompted chemotherapy cessation in 17 (15%) "young-old" and 3 (13%) "older-old" patients (P = .97). Multivariate analysis identified CCI and ECOG performance status as predictive for PFS and OS, respectively. No causative relationship was identified with other variables. CONCLUSION: Our study of real-world older-adults show that significant number of "older-old" patients with GEC do not receive chemotherapy. Among "older-old" adults who do receive systemic therapy, outcomes are comparable; this underscores the importance of geriatric assessment-guided care and suggests that age alone should not be a barrier to receipt of chemotherapy in patients with advanced GEC.

Leptomeningeal carcinomatosis and brain metastases in gastroesophageal carcinoma: a real-world analysis of clinical and pathologic characteristics and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastasis (BrM) and Leptomeningeal Carcinomatosis (LMC) are uncommon complications in gastroesophageal carcinoma (GEC) patients. These patients have a poor prognosis and are challenging to treat. We described the clinicopathologic features and outcomes in the largest cohort of Central Nervous System (CNS) metastasis in GEC patients. METHODS: single-center retrospective study of GEC treated from 2007 to 2021. Clinicopathologic characteristics and treatment modalities were reviewed. Survival was calculated from the date of CNS diagnosis until date of death/last follow-up using the Kaplan-Meier method. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was used. RESULTS: Of 3283 GEC patients, 100 (3.04%) were diagnosed with BrM and 20 with LMC (0.61%). Patients with known human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status (N = 48), 60% were HER2 positive (defined as IHC 3 + or IHC 2+/FISH+). Among LMC patients most were signet-ring subtype (85%), and only 15% (2/13) were HER2 positive. Median survival was 0.7; 3.8; and 7.7 months in BrM patients treated with best supportive care, radiation, and surgery, respectively (p < 0.001). In LMC, median survival was 0.7 month in patients who had best supportive care (7/19) and 2.8 months for those who had whole brain radiation therapy (p = 0.015). Multivariate analysis showed worse outcomes in ECOG ≥ 2 (p = 0.002), number of BrM ≥ 4 (p < 0.001) and number of metastatic sites (p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: HER2 expression were enriched in patients with BrM, while it is uncommon in LMC. Patients treated with surgery followed by radiation had an improved OS in BrM and WBRT benefited patients with LMC.

Comparison of Four Clinical Prognostic Scores in Patients with Advanced Gastric and Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic scores that can identify patients at risk for early death are needed to aid treatment decision-making and patient selection for clinical trials. We compared the accuracy of four scores to predict early death (within 90 days) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic gastric and esophageal (GE) cancer. METHODS: Advanced GE cancer patients receiving first-line systemic therapy were included. Prognostic risks were calculated using: Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH), MD Anderson Cancer Centre (MDACC), Gustave Roussy Immune (GRIm-Score), and MD Anderson Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (MDA-ICI) scores. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze associations between prognostic scores and OS. The predictive discrimination was estimated using Harrell's c-index. Predictive ability for early death was measured using time-dependent AUCs. RESULTS: In total, 451 patients with metastatic GE cancer were included. High risk patients had shorter OS for all scores (RMH high- vs. low-risk median OS 7.9 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001; MDACC 6.8 vs. 11.9 months P < .001; GRIm-Score 5.3 vs. 13 months, P < .001; MDA-ICI 8.2 vs. 12.2 months, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, each prognostic score was significantly associated with OS. The GRIm-Score had the highest predictive discrimination and predictive ability for early death. CONCLUSIONS: The GRIm-Score had the highest accuracy in predicting early death and OS. Clinicians may use this score to identify patients at higher risk of early death to guide treatment decisions including clinical trial enrolment. This score could also be used as a stratification factor in future clinical trial designs.

Differential prognostic significance of sarcopenia in metastatic esophageal squamous and adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia indicates poor prognosis in various malignancies. We evaluated the association of sarcopenia with overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic esophageal cancer (MEC) patients, a population often presenting with poor nutritional status. METHODS: In newly diagnosed MEC patients managed at the Princess Margaret (PM) Cancer Centre (diagnosed 2006-2015), total muscle area, visceral adiposity (VA), and subcutaneous adiposity (SA) were quantified on abdominal computed tomography at L3. Sarcopenia was determined using published cutoffs, based on sex and height. RESULTS: Of 202 MEC patients, most were male (166/82%), < 65 years (116/57%), and had adenocarcinoma histology (141/70%); 110/54% had recurrent MEC after initial curative-intent treatment; 92/46% presented with de novo MEC. At stage IV diagnosis, 20/10% were underweight, 97/48% were normal-weight and 84/42% were overweight/obese; 103/51% were sarcopenic. Sarcopenia was associated with worse median OS (4.6 vs. 7.9 months; log-rank p = 0.03) and 1-year survival, even after adjusting for other body composition variables (e.g., BMI, VA, and SA): adjusted-HR 1.51 [95% CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.02]. In post hoc analysis, sarcopenia was highly prognostic in adenocarcinomas (p = 0.003), but not squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). In patients receiving palliative systemic treatment (104/51%), sarcopenia was associated with shorter PFS (p = 0.004) in adenocarcinoma patients (75/72%). CONCLUSIONS: In metastatic esophageal adenocarcinomas, sarcopenia is associated with worse PFS and OS. In metastatic esophageal SCC, there was a non-significant trend for worse PFS but no association with OS. In order to offset the poor prognosis associated with sarcopenia particularly in metastatic esophageal adenocarcinoma patients, future research should focus on possible countermeasures.

Randomised, Phase II study of selumetinib, an oral inhibitor of MEK, in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Cisplatin and gemcitabine (CisGem) are standard chemotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). The MEK inhibitor selumetinib showed synergy with gemcitabine when administered sequentially in BTC. This randomised Phase 2 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of sequential or continuous selumetinib with CisGem. METHODS: Patients with advanced BTC received CisGem; arm A included selumetinib every day, arm B: selumetinib, days 1-5, 8-19 each cycle. Arm C received CisGem alone. Selumetinib was dosed at 75 mg BID but amended to 50 mg BID due to toxicity. RESULTS: In all, 51 participants were evaluable for response. No significant difference was seen in mean change in tumour size at 10 weeks between arms A and C (-7.8% vs -12.8%, P = 0.54) or arms B and C (-15% vs -12.8%, P = 0.78). There was no difference in median progression-free survival (6.0, 7.0, 6.3 months, P > 0.95) or overall survival (11.7, 11.7, 12.8 months, P = 0.70) for arms A, B and C, respectively. More participants experienced grade 3-4 toxicities in selumetinib-containing arms. More participants in arm A required chemotherapy dose reductions (P = 0.01) with lower chemotherapy dose intensity during the first 10 weeks. CONCLUSION: Adding sequential or continuous selumetinib to CisGem failed to improve efficacy and increased toxicity in patients with advanced BTC.

Impact of Sites of Metastatic Dissemination on Survival in Advanced Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA) is a heterogeneous disease with an overall poor prognosis. The impact of sites of metastatic dissemination on survival is not well characterized. This study aimed to evaluate whether certain sites of metastatic disease impacts survival. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 375 patients with metastatic GEA treated at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2006 to 2016 was performed. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association between sites of metastases and OS adjusting for baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: Median duration of follow-up was 47.8 months. Median OS in this cohort was 11.8 months (95% CI: 10.2-12.9 months). Patients with lymph node only disease, compared to those with other sites of metastases, had the longest median OS (20.4 vs. 10.6 months; p < 0.001) and PFS (11.4 vs. 6.3 months; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis adjusting for relevant clinical factors including age, sex, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, the presence of lung (HR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.23-2.26; p < 0.001) or bone metastases (HR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.31-2.59; p < 0.001) were independently associated with shorter OS. The majority of patients (68%) were treated with palliative intent first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Patients with metastatic GEA have an overall poor prognosis. The presence of lung or bone metastases is an independent risk factor for decreased survival. Prognostic models incorporating sites of metastasis should be considered in the clinical evaluation of metastatic GEA.

Influence of sarcopenia, clinical data, and 2-[18F] FDG PET/CT in outcome prediction of patients with early-stage adenocarcinoma esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the prognostic value of sarcopenia measurements done on staging 2-[18F] FDG PET/CT together with metabolic activity of the tumor in patients with adenocarcinoma esophagogastric cancer with surgical treatment. METHODS: Patients with early-stage, surgically treated esophageal adenocarcinoma and available pre-treatment 2-[18F] FDG PET/CT were included. The standard uptake value (SUV) and SUV normalized by lean body mass (SUL) were recorded. Skeletal muscle index (SMI) was measured at the L3 level on the CT component of the PET/CT. Sarcopenia was defined as SMI < 34.4cm2/m2 in women and < 45.4cm2/m2 in men. RESULTS: Of the included 145 patients. 30% were sarcopenic at baseline. On the univariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, ECOG, surgical T and N staging, lymphovascular invasion (LVI) positive lymph nodes, and sarcopenia were significant prognostic factors concerning RFS and OS. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, surgical N staging (p = 0.025) and sarcopenia (p = 0.022) remained significant poor prognostic factors for OS and RFS. Combining the clinical parameters with the imaging-derived nutritional evaluation of the patient but not metabolic parameters of the tumor showed improved predictive ability for OS and RFS. CONCLUSION: Combining the patients' imaging-derived sarcopenic status with standard clinical data, but not metabolic parameters, offered an overall improved prognostic value concerning OS and RFS.

Preoperative and Postoperative Approaches to Gastroesophageal Cancer: What is All the Fuss About.

Gastroesophageal cancers carry poor prognoses, and are a leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. Even in those with resectable disease, more than half of patients treated with surgery alone experience disease recurrence. Multimodality approaches using preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy have been established, resulting in incremental improvements in outcomes. Globally, there is no standardized approach, and treatment varies with geographic location. The question remains of how to select the optimal perioperative treatment that will maximize benefit for patients while avoiding toxicities from unnecessary therapies. This article reviews currently available evidence supporting preoperative and postoperative therapy in gastroesophageal cancers, with an emphasis on recent practice-changing trials and ongoing areas of investigation, including the role of immune checkpoint inhibition and biomarker-guided treatment.

Feedback Delivery in an Academic Cancer Centre: Reflections From an R2C2-based Microlearning Course.

Feedback delivery and training have not been characterized in the context of academic cancer centres. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and utility of a microlearning course based on the R2C2 (Relationship, Reaction, Content, Coaching) feedback model and characterize multidisciplinary healthcare provider (HCP) perspectives on existing feedback practices in an academic cancer centre. Five HCP (two radiation oncologists, one medical oncologist, and two allied health professionals) with supervisory roles were selected by purposive sampling to participate in a prospective longitudinal qualitative study. Each participant completed a web-based multimedia course. Semi-structured one-on-one interviews were conducted with each participant at four time points: pre- and immediately post-course, and at one- and three-months post course. All participants found the course to be time feasible and completed it in 10-20 min. Participants expressed that the course fulfilled their need for feedback training and that its adoption may normalize a feedback culture in the cancer centre. Three themes were identified regarding perceptions of existing feedback practices: (1) hierarchical and interdisciplinary relationships modulate feedback delivery, (2) interest in feedback delivery varies by duration of the supervisory relationship, and (3) the transactionality of supervisor-trainee relationships influences feedback delivery. This study demonstrates the perceived feasibility and utility of a digital microlearning approach for development of feedback competencies in an academic cancer centre, perceptions of cultural barriers to feedback delivery, and the need for organizational commitment to developing a feedback culture.

Clinical and genomic characterisation of mismatch repair deficient pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical, pathological and genomic characteristics of pancreatic cancer with DNA mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD) and proficiency (MMRP). DESIGN: We identified patients with MMRD and MMRP pancreatic cancer in a clinical cohort (N=1213, 519 with genetic testing, 53 with immunohistochemistry (IHC)) and a genomic cohort (N=288 with whole-genome sequencing (WGS)). RESULTS: 12 out of 1213 (1.0%) in the clinical cohort were MMRD by IHC or WGS. Of the 14 patients with Lynch syndrome, 3 (21.4%) had an MMRP pancreatic cancer by IHC, and 4 (28.6%) were excluded because tissue was unavailable for testing. MMRD cancers had longer overall survival after surgery (weighted HR after coarsened exact matching 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.78, p=0.001). One patient with an unresectable MMRD cancer has an ongoing partial response 3 years after starting treatment with PD-L1/CTLA-4 inhibition. This tumour showed none of the classical histopathological features of MMRD. 9 out of 288 (3.1%) tumours with WGS were MMRD. Despite markedly higher tumour mutational burden and neoantigen loads, MMRD cancers were significantly less likely to have mutations in usual pancreatic cancer driver genes like KRAS and SMAD4, but more likely to have mutations in genes that drive cancers with microsatellite instability like ACV2RA and JAK1. MMRD tumours were significantly more likely to have a basal-like transcriptional programme and elevated transcriptional markers of immunogenicity. CONCLUSIONS: MMRD pancreatic cancers have distinct clinical, pathological and genomic profiles. Patients with MMRD pancreatic cancer should be considered for basket trials targeting enhanced immunogenicity or the unique genomic drivers in these malignancies.

Chemoradiotherapy Using Carboplatin plus Paclitaxel versus Cisplatin plus Fluorouracil for Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trimodality therapy (TMT) with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) using concurrent carboplatin plus paclitaxel (CP) followed by surgery is the standard of care for locoregional esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers. Alternatively, nCRT with cisplatin plus fluorouracil (CF) can be used. Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) with CP or CF can be used if surgery is not planned. In the absence of comparative trials, we aimed to evaluate outcomes of CP and CF in the settings of TMT and dCRT. METHODS: A single-site, retrospective cohort study was conducted at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre to identify all patients who received CRT for locoregional esophageal or GEJ cancer. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression model. The inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2015, 93 patients with esophageal (49%) and GEJ (51%) cancers underwent nCRT (n = 67; 72%) or dCRT (n = 26; 28%). Median age was 62.3 years and 74% were male. Median follow-up was 23.9 months. Comparing CP to CF in the setting of TMT, the OS and DFS rates were similar. In the setting of dCRT, CP was associated with significantly inferior 3-year OS (36 vs. 63%; p = 0.001; HR 3.1; 95% CI: 1.2-7.7) and DFS (0 vs. 41%; p = 0.004; HR 3.6; 95% CI: 1.4-8.9) on multivariable and IPTW sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: TMT with CF and CP produced comparable outcomes. However, for dCRT, CF may be a superior regimen.

Pre-treatment psychoeducational intervention and outcomes in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the relationship between attendance to a pre-treatment psychoeducational intervention (prehab) with treatment outcomes and toxicities in patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancers (HNCs). METHODS: Patients were included from prehab inception in 2013 to 2017, comparing overall survival (OS), locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), and locoregional recurrence (LRR) between prehab attendees (PA) and non-attendees (PNA). Multivariable analysis was performed for OS and LRFS. RESULTS: Among 864 PA and 1128 PNA, 2-year OS was 88% vs 80% (p < 0.001), and LRFS was 84% vs 75% (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis (MVA), OS and LRFS were independently and unfavourably associated with PNA. The PA cohort had a lower frequency of a "rocky treatment course" compared with the PNA cohort (52/150, 35% vs 71/150, 47%; p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Prehab at our institution is associated with improved long-term oncologic outcomes. Prospective data is needed to better understand this association.

Multiple imputation and clinico-serological models to predict human papillomavirus status in oropharyngeal carcinoma: An alternative when tissue is unavailable.

In cancer epidemiological studies, determination of human papillomavirus (HPV) in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) typically depends on the availability of tumor tissue testing, and/or tumor tissue access. Identifying alternative methods for estimating HPV status can improve the quality of such studies when tissue is unavailable. We developed multiple predictive models for tumor HPV status and prognosis by combining both clinico-epidemiological variables and either serological multiplex assays of HPV or multiple imputation of HPV status (HPVmi ). Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of these methods compared to either p16 immunostaining (p16 IHC) or survival were assessed. When compared to a reference of tumor tissue p16 IHC in 783 OPSCC patients, the clinic-HPVsero model incorporating a composite of 20 HPV serological antibodies (HPVsero ) and 4 clinical factors (c-index: 0.96) performed better than using HPVsero (c-index: 0.92) or HPVmi (c-index: 0.76) alone. However, the model that contained a single HPV16 E6 antibody combined with four clinical variables, performed extremely well (clinic-s1-16E6; c-index: 0.95). When defining HPV status by HPVsero , s1-16E6, HPVmi or through p16 IHC, each of these definitions demonstrated improved overall and disease-free survival in HPV-positive OPSCC patients, when compared to HPV-negative patients (adjusted hazard ratios between 0.25 and 0.63). Our study demonstrates that when blood samples are available, a model that utilizes a single s1-16E6 antibody combined with several clinical features has excellent test performance characteristics to estimate HPV status and prognosis. When neither blood nor tumor tissue is available, multiple imputation, calibrated on local population characteristics, remains a viable, but suboptimal option.

Human papillomavirus and p16 immunostaining, prevalence and prognosis of squamous carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck region.

The prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) in squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary in the head and neck (SCCUPHN), and prognosis by HPV status of SCCUPHN patients has been difficult to estimate because of the rarity of this subtype. In MEDLINE, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane library and Web of Science searches, observational studies and clinical trials that reported survival rates of patients with SCCUPHN by HPV status were identified. Meta-analysis estimated the prevalence and prognosis (overall survival, OS; progression-free survival, PFS) of SCCUPHN by HPV status, and compared them to studies of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) from the same institutions and across continents. In 17 SCCUPHN studies (n = 1,149) and 17 institution-matched OPSCC studies (n = 6,522), the pooled HPV prevalence of SCCUPHN was 49%, which was only 10% (95%CI: 1-19%) lower than OPSCC prevalence in the underlying population. Estimated 5-year OS for HPV-negative SCCUPHN was 44% (95%CI: 36-51%) vs. HPV-positive SCCUPHN of 91% (95%CI: 86-96%); hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 3.25 (95%CI: 2.45-4.31) and PFS was 4.49 (95%CI: 2.88-7.02). HRs by HPV status for OPSCC were similar to that in SCCUPHN. While North American SCCUPHNs had higher HPV prevalence than European SCCUPHNs (OR = 2.68 (95%CI: 1.3-5.6)), HR of OS for HPV-negative vs. HPV-positive patients were similar in both continents (HRs of 3.78-4.09). Prevalence of HPV among SCCUPHN patients were lower than in OPSCC. The survival benefit conferred by being HPV-positive was similar in SCCUPHN as in OPSCCs, independent of continent.

A randomized phase II trial of geriatric assessment and management for older cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Geriatric assessment and management (GAM) can identify current health issues and recommend interventions to optimize well-being of older adults, but no randomized trial has yet been completed in oncology. Therefore, a randomized phase 2 trial was conducted. METHODS: A two-group parallel single-blinded randomized phase II trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02222259) enrolled patients aged ≥70 years, diagnosed with stage 2-4 gastrointestinal, genitourinary, or breast cancer within 6 weeks of commencing chemotherapy at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. The coprimary feasibility outcomes were the proportion of eligible patients enrolled and retained. The coprimary clinical outcomes were quality of life (QOL) (EORTC QLQ C30) and modification of cancer treatment. Descriptive and regression analyses using intent-to-treat analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-one persons (64%) agreed to participate (31 allocated to intervention arm and 30 to control group). In the control group, more participants died and refused follow-up. The benefit of intervention over control on QOL at 3 months was greater for those who survived 6 months (difference 9.28; 95% CI -10.35 to 28.91) versus those who survived only 3 months (difference 6.55; 95% CI -9.63 to 22.73). CONCLUSIONS: This trial showed that it was feasible to recruit and retain older adults for a GAM study. Those who survived at least 6 months seemed to receive a greater QOL benefit than those who died or withdrew.

The "rocky treatment course": identifying a high-risk subgroup of head and neck cancer patients for supportive interventions.

PURPOSE: We aim to identify the risk factors for a "rocky" treatment course (RTC) in head and neck cancer. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was conducted utilizing data from a prospective study. We defined the RTC as a composite of adverse outcomes including G-tube dependence and increased nursing interventions. Statistically associative variables were included in a multivariable logistic regression. We also evaluated whether the RTC, or its components, associated with worse cancer outcomes. RESULTS: Being single, unemployed, having N2/3 disease and receiving chemoradiotherapy were associated with a RTC. In turn, G-tube dependence was associated with worse 3-year OS (73 vs 91 %; p = 0.02) and increased nursing interventions with worse 3-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) (85 vs 92 %; p = 0.03) and locoregional recurrence (LRR) (14 vs 7 %; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We identified baseline factors associated with a RTC for head and neck cancer patients. Future supportive care interventions could be evaluated using the RTC as a marker of benefit.

Chemotherapy treatment decision-making experiences of older adults with cancer, their family members, oncologists and family physicians: a mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Although comorbidities, frailty, and functional impairment are common in older adults (OA) with cancer, little is known about how these factors are considered during the treatment decision-making process by OAs, their families, and health care providers. Our aim was to better understand the treatment decision process from all these perspectives. METHODS: A mixed methods multi-perspective longitudinal study using semi-structured interviews and surveys with 29 OAs aged ≥70 years with advanced prostate, breast, colorectal, or lung cancer, 24 of their family members,13 oncologists, and 15 family physicians was conducted. The sample was stratified on age (70-79 and 80+). All interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: There was no difference in the treatment decision-making experience based on age. Most OAs felt that they should have the final say in the treatment decision, but strongly valued their oncologists' opinion. "Trust in my oncologist" and "chemotherapy as the last resort to prolong life" were the most important reasons to accept treatment. Families indicated a need to improve communication between them, the patient and the specialist, particularly around goals of treatment. Comorbidity and potential side-effects did not play a major role in the treatment decision-making for patients, families, or oncologists. Family physicians reported no involvement in decisions but desired to be more involved. CONCLUSION: This first study using multiple perspectives showed neither frailty nor comorbidity played a role in the treatment decision-making process. Efforts to improve communication were identified as an opportunity that may enhance quality of care. In a mixed methods study multiple perspective study with older adults with cancer, their family members, their oncologist and their family physician we explored the treatment decision making process and found that most older adults were satisfied with their decision. Comorbidity, functional status and frailty did not impact the older adult's or their family members' decision.

Phase I trial of dacomitinib, a pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) inhibitor, with concurrent radiotherapy and cisplatin in patients with locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (XDC-001).

Background Curative-intent, non-surgical treatment options for locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA-SCCHN) include radiotherapy with/without chemotherapy or radiotherapy with cetuximab. This single institution phase I dose escalation trial tested the pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, dacomitinib, in combination with standard cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy. Methods Patients received oral dacomitinib once daily at 3 protocol-defined dose levels (15 mg, 30 mg, and 45 mg). Cisplatin was given intravenously at 100 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Radiotherapy was delivered using intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) to a dose of 70Gy in 35 daily fractions to the primary and nodal disease. Dose escalation was performed using a standard 3 + 3 design. Results Twelve patients with LA-SCCHN were enrolled between January 2013 and August 2014. No dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed in the 15 mg and 30 mg dose levels. In the 45 mg dose level, one of four evaluable patients developed a DLT with intolerable grade 2 diarrhea requiring discontinuation of therapy. Adverse events (AEs) attributed to dacomitinib alone include diarrhea, hypertension, and acneiform and maculopapular rash. The most common non-hematological AEs include weight loss, diarrhea, dry mouth, mucositis, nausea, hypoalbuminemia, and hyponatremia. Frequency and severity of AEs did not increase with increasing dose levels of dacomitinib. All patients completed the full course of radiotherapy on schedule and the median dose of cisplatin was 200 mg/m(2), which is comparable to historical standards. Of the 10 patients evaluable for response, 1 patient relapsed with metastatic disease. Conclusions The triple combination has a tolerable side effect profile and dose levels 15 mg and 30 mg were cleared safely. The addition of dacomitinib did not preclude delivery of standard chemoradiotherapy. Studies testing the addition of other HER-targeted therapies to platinum-based concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in LA-SCCHN have failed to demonstrate improved patient outcomes and have reported trends towards excessive toxicities. These results generated uncertainty regarding the future of these agents in combination with chemo-radiation for the treatment of LA-SCCHN, which ultimately led to the early termination of this study.

Improving Outcomes in Resectable Gastric Cancer: A Review of Current and Future Strategies.

Gastric cancer is a highly fatal malignancy, and surgery alone often does not provide a cure, even for relatively early stages of disease. Various approaches have been adopted around the world to improve surgical outcomes; however, there currently is no global consensus with regard to the extent of surgery or the timing and choice of chemotherapy and radiation. Here we review the evidence supporting current approaches to resectable gastric cancer, including discussion of the optimal extent of surgery and lymphadenectomy, adjuvant chemotherapy, postoperative chemotherapy with chemoradiation, and perioperative chemotherapy. Additionally, we discuss novel approaches, including intensified chemotherapy (in neoadjuvant, perioperative, and adjuvant settings), pre- and postoperative chemoradiation in combination with chemotherapy, and the role of biologics and targeted therapy. Finally, we examine the promise of molecular subtyping and potential biomarkers for improved patient selection. Upcoming and future trials should help answer questions regarding the optimal sequencing and choice of treatments, in order to further improve survival and move us towards ultimately curing more patients with resectable gastric cancer.