Web-Based Asynchronous Tool to Facilitate Communication Between Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists: Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer poses a significant global health burden. With advances in screening and treatment, there are now a growing number of cancer survivors with complex needs, requiring the involvement of multiple health care providers. Previous studies have identified problems related to communication and care coordination between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether a web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) could facilitate communication between PCPs and cancer specialists (oncologists and oncology nurses) to improve patient-reported continuity of care among patients receiving treatment or posttreatment survivorship care. METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, a total of 173 patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (eOncoNote plus usual methods of communication between PCPs and cancer specialists) or a control group (usual communication only), including 104 (60.1%) patients in the survivorship phase (breast and colorectal cancer) and 69 (39.9%) patients in the treatment phase (breast and prostate cancer). The primary outcome was patient-reported team and cross-boundary continuity (Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures included the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire on Major Depression, and Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire. Patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and at 2 points following randomization. Patients in the treatment phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 1 month and at either 4 months (patients with prostate cancer) or 6 months following randomization (patients with breast cancer). Patients in the survivorship phase completed follow-up questionnaires at 6 months and at 12 months following randomization. RESULTS: The results did not show an intervention effect on the primary outcome of team and cross-boundary continuity of care or on the secondary outcomes of depression and patient experience with their health care. However, there was an intervention effect on anxiety. In the treatment phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score from baseline to the 1-month follow-up for GAD-7 (mean difference -2.3; P=.03). In the survivorship phase, there was a statistically significant difference in the change score for GAD-7 between baseline and the 6-month follow-up (mean difference -1.7; P=.03) and between baseline and the 12-month follow-up (mean difference -2.4; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to eOncoNote is not significantly associated with patient-reported continuity of care. However, PCPs' and cancer specialists' access to the eOncoNote intervention may be a factor in reducing patient anxiety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03333785; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03333785.

Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism with d-Dimer Adjusted to Clinical Probability.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective analyses suggest that pulmonary embolism is ruled out by a d-dimer level of less than 1000 ng per milliliter in patients with a low clinical pretest probability (C-PTP) and by a d-dimer level of less than 500 ng per milliliter in patients with a moderate C-PTP. METHODS: We performed a prospective study in which pulmonary embolism was considered to be ruled out without further testing in outpatients with a low C-PTP and a d-dimer level of less than 1000 ng per milliliter or with a moderate C-PTP and a d-dimer level of less than 500 ng per milliliter. All other patients underwent chest imaging (usually computed tomographic pulmonary angiography). If pulmonary embolism was not diagnosed, patients did not receive anticoagulant therapy. All patients were followed for 3 months to detect venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: A total of 2017 patients were enrolled and evaluated, of whom 7.4% had pulmonary embolism on initial diagnostic testing. Of the 1325 patients who had a low C-PTP (1285 patients) or moderate C-PTP (40 patients) and a negative d-dimer test (i.e., <1000 or <500 ng per milliliter, respectively), none had venous thromboembolism during follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00 to 0.29%). These included 315 patients who had a low C-PTP and a d-dimer level of 500 to 999 ng per milliliter (95% CI, 0.00 to 1.20%). Of all 1863 patients who did not receive a diagnosis of pulmonary embolism initially and did not receive anticoagulant therapy, 1 patient (0.05%; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.30) had venous thromboembolism. Our diagnostic strategy resulted in the use of chest imaging in 34.3% of patients, whereas a strategy in which pulmonary embolism is considered to be ruled out with a low C-PTP and a d-dimer level of less than 500 ng per milliliter would result in the use of chest imaging in 51.9% (difference, -17.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -19.2 to -15.9). CONCLUSIONS: A combination of a low C-PTP and a d-dimer level of less than 1000 ng per milliliter identified a group of patients at low risk for pulmonary embolism during follow-up. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; PEGeD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02483442.).

Endovascular Thrombus Removal for Acute Iliofemoral Deep Vein Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: The ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) previously reported that pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) did not prevent postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis. In the current analysis, we examine the effect of PCDT in ATTRACT patients with iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis. METHODS: Within a large multicenter randomized trial, 391 patients with acute deep vein thrombosis involving the iliac or common femoral veins were randomized to PCDT with anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone (No-PCDT) and were followed for 24 months to compare short-term and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Between 6 and 24 months, there was no difference in the occurrence of PTS (Villalta scale ≥5 or ulcer: 49% PCDT versus 51% No-PCDT; risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78-1.15; P=0.59). PCDT led to reduced PTS severity as shown by lower mean Villalta and Venous Clinical Severity Scores ( P<0.01 for comparisons at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months), and fewer patients with moderate-or-severe PTS (Villalta scale ≥10 or ulcer: 18% versus 28%; risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45-0.94; P=0.021) or severe PTS (Villalta scale ≥15 or ulcer: 8.7% versus 15%; risk ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.32-1.01; P=0.048; and Venous Clinical Severity Score ≥8: 6.6% versus 14%; risk ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.87; P=0.013). From baseline, PCDT led to greater reduction in leg pain and swelling ( P<0.01 for comparisons at 10 and 30 days) and greater improvement in venous disease-specific quality of life (Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study Quality of Life unit difference 5.6 through 24 months, P=0.029), but no difference in generic quality of life ( P>0.2 for comparisons of SF-36 mental and physical component summary scores through 24 months). In patients having PCDT versus No-PCDT, major bleeding within 10 days occurred in 1.5% versus 0.5% ( P=0.32), and recurrent venous thromboembolism over 24 months was observed in 13% versus 9.2% ( P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, PCDT did not influence the occurrence of PTS or recurrent venous thromboembolism. However, PCDT significantly reduced early leg symptoms and, over 24 months, reduced PTS severity scores, reduced the proportion of patients who developed moderate-or-severe PTS, and resulted in greater improvement in venous disease-specific quality of life. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00790335.

External beam accelerated partial breast irradiation versus whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery in women with ductal carcinoma in situ and node-negative breast cancer (RAPID): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole breast irradiation delivered once per day over 3-5 weeks after breast conserving surgery reduces local recurrence with good cosmetic results. Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) delivered over 1 week to the tumour bed was developed to provide a more convenient treatment. In this trial, we investigated if external beam APBI was non-inferior to whole breast irradiation. METHODS: We did this multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial in 33 cancer centres in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Women aged 40 years or older with ductal carcinoma in situ or node-negative breast cancer treated by breast conserving surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either external beam APBI (38·5 Gy in ten fractions delivered twice per day over 5-8 days) or whole breast irradiation (42·5 Gy in 16 fractions once per day over 21 days, or 50 Gy in 25 fractions once per day over 35 days). Patients and clinicans were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence (IBTR), analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed on the basis of an expected 5 year IBTR rate of 1·5% in the whole breast irradiation group with 85% power to exclude a 1·5% increase in the APBI group; non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 90% CI for the IBTR hazard ratio (HR) was less than 2·02. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00282035. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2006, and July 15, 2011, we enrolled 2135 women. 1070 were randomly assigned to receive APBI and 1065 were assigned to receive whole breast irradiation. Six patients in the APBI group withdrew before treatment, four more did not receive radiotherapy, and 16 patients received whole breast irradiation. In the whole breast irradiation group, 16 patients withdrew, and two more did not receive radiotherapy. In the APBI group, a further 14 patients were lost to follow-up and nine patients withdrew during the follow-up period. In the whole breast irradiation group, 20 patients were lost to follow-up and 35 withdrew during follow-up. Median follow-up was 8·6 years (IQR 7·3-9·9). The 8-year cumulative rates of IBTR were 3·0% (95% CI 1·9-4·0) in the APBI group and 2·8% (1·8-3·9) in the whole breast irradiation group. The HR for APBI versus whole breast radiation was 1·27 (90% CI 0·84-1·91). Acute radiation toxicity (grade ≥2, within 3 months of radiotherapy start) occurred less frequently in patients treated with APBI (300 [28%] of 1070 patients) than whole breast irradiation (484 [45%] of 1065 patients, p<0·0001). Late radiation toxicity (grade ≥2, later than 3 months) was more common in patients treated with APBI (346 [32%] of 1070 patients) than whole breast irradiation (142 [13%] of 1065 patients; p<0·0001). Adverse cosmesis (defined as fair or poor) was more common in patients treated with APBI than in those treated by whole breast irradiation at 3 years (absolute difference, 11·3%, 95% CI 7·5-15·0), 5 years (16·5%, 12·5-20·4), and 7 years (17·7%, 12·9-22·3). INTERPRETATION: External beam APBI was non-inferior to whole breast irradiation in preventing IBTR. Although less acute toxicity was observed, the regimen used was associated with an increase in moderate late toxicity and adverse cosmesis, which might be related to the twice per day treatment. Other approaches, such as treatment once per day, might not adversely affect cosmesis and should be studied. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes for Health Research and Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance.

Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Deep-Vein Thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: The post-thrombotic syndrome frequently develops in patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis despite treatment with anticoagulant therapy. Pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (hereafter "pharmacomechanical thrombolysis") rapidly removes thrombus and is hypothesized to reduce the risk of the post-thrombotic syndrome. METHODS: We randomly assigned 692 patients with acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis to receive either anticoagulation alone (control group) or anticoagulation plus pharmacomechanical thrombolysis (catheter-mediated or device-mediated intrathrombus delivery of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator and thrombus aspiration or maceration, with or without stenting). The primary outcome was development of the post-thrombotic syndrome between 6 and 24 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Between 6 and 24 months, there was no significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients with the post-thrombotic syndrome (47% in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group and 48% in the control group; risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.11; P=0.56). Pharmacomechanical thrombolysis led to more major bleeding events within 10 days (1.7% vs. 0.3% of patients, P=0.049), but no significant difference in recurrent venous thromboembolism was seen over the 24-month follow-up period (12% in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group and 8% in the control group, P=0.09). Moderate-to-severe post-thrombotic syndrome occurred in 18% of patients in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group versus 24% of those in the control group (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.98; P=0.04). Severity scores for the post-thrombotic syndrome were lower in the pharmacomechanical-thrombolysis group than in the control group at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months of follow-up (P<0.01 for the comparison of the Villalta scores at each time point), but the improvement in quality of life from baseline to 24 months did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute proximal deep-vein thrombosis, the addition of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis to anticoagulation did not result in a lower risk of the post-thrombotic syndrome but did result in a higher risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ATTRACT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00790335 .).

Rivaroxaban Compared to Placebo for the Treatment of Leg Superficial Vein Thrombosis: A Randomized Trial.

The role of rivaroxaban in the treatment of leg superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) is uncertain. This article aims to determine if rivaroxaban is an effective and safe treatment for leg SVT. Patients with symptomatic leg SVT of at least 5 cm length were randomized to 45 days of rivaroxaban 10 mg daily or to placebo, and followed for a total of 90 days. Treatment failure (required a nonstudy anticoagulant; had proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; or had surgery for SVT) at 90 days was the primary efficacy outcome. Secondary efficacy outcomes included leg pain severity, and venous disease-specific and general health-related quality of life over 90 days. Major bleeding at 90 days was the primary safety outcome. Poor enrollment led to the trial being stopped after 85 of the planned 600 patients were randomized to rivaroxaban (n = 43) or placebo (n = 42). One rivaroxaban and five placebo patients had a treatment failure by 90 days (absolute risk reduction = 9.0%, 95% confidence interval: -22 to 5.9%). Leg pain improvement did not differ at 7 (p = 0.16) or 45 days (p = 0.89), but was greater with rivaroxaban at 90 days (p = 0.011). There was no difference in venous disease-specific (p = 0.99) or general health-related (p = 0.37) quality of life over 45 days. There were no major bleeds or deaths in either group. There were no identifiable differences in efficacy or safety between rivaroxaban and placebo in patients with symptomatic SVT but comparisons were undermined by a much smaller than planned sample size (NCT1499953).

Antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent thrombosis after a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism.

It is uncertain whether antiphospholipid antibodies (APAs) increase the risk of recurrence after a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE). We tested for anticardiolipin antibodies, anti-ß2 glycoprotein 1 antibodies, and lupus anticoagulant on 2 occasions ∼6 months apart in 307 patients with a first unprovoked VTE who were part of a prospective cohort study. We then determined if APAs were associated with recurrent thrombosis in the 290 patients who stopped anticoagulant therapy in response to negative D-dimer results. Compared with those without an APA, the hazard ratios for recurrent VTE were 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-3.7; P = .09) in the 25.9% of patients with an APA on ≥1 occasions, 2.7 (95% CI, 1.1-.7; P = .03) in the 9.0% of patients with the same APA on 2 occasions, and 4.5 (95% CI, 1.5-13.0; P = .006) in the 3.8% of patients with 2 or 3 different APA types on either the same or different occasions. There was no association between having an APA and D-dimer levels. We conclude that having the same type of APA on 2 occasions or having >1 type of APA on the same or different occasions is associated with recurrent thrombosis in patients with a first unprovoked VTE who stop anticoagulant therapy in response to negative D-dimer tests. APA and D-dimer levels seem to be independent predictors of recurrence in patients with an unprovoked VTE. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00720915.

Ambulatory Toxicity Management (AToM) in patients receiving adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer - a pragmatic cluster randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies suggest that emergency department visits and hospitalizations are common among patients receiving chemotherapy and that rates in routine practice are higher than expected from clinical trials. Chemotherapy-related toxicities are often predictable and, consequently, acute care visits may be preventable with adequate treatment planning and support between visits to the cancer centre. We will evaluate the impact of proactive telephone-based toxicity management on emergency department visits and hospitalizations in women with early stage breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: In this pragmatic covariate constraint-based cluster randomized trial, 20 centres in Ontario, Canada are randomly allocated to either proactive telephone toxicity management (intervention) or routine care (control). The primary outcome is the cluster-level mean number of ED + H visits per patient evaluated using Ontario administrative healthcare data. Participants are all patients with early stage (I-III) breast cancer commencing adjuvant or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy at participating institutions during the intervention period. At least 25 patients at each centre participate in a patient reported outcomes sub-study involving the collection of standardized questionnaires to measure: severity of treatment toxicities, self-care, self-efficacy, quality of life, and coordination of care. Patients participating in the patient reported outcomes (PRO) sub-study are asked to provide written consent to link their PRO data to administrative data. Unit costs will be applied to each per person resource utilized, and a total cost per population and patient will be generated. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis will be undertaken to compare the incremental costs and outcomes between the intervention and control groups from the health system perspective. DISCUSSION: This study evaluates the effectiveness of a proactive toxicity management intervention in a routine care setting. The use of administrative healthcare data to evaluate the primary outcome enables an evaluation in a real world setting and at a much larger scale than previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02485678. Registered 30 June 2015.

Relationships between the use of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis, sonographic findings, and clinical outcomes in patients with acute proximal DVT: Results from the ATTRACT Multicenter Randomized Trial.

Few studies have documented relationships between endovascular therapy, duplex ultrasonography (DUS), post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), and quality of life (QOL). The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial randomized 692 patients with acute proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) to receive anticoagulation or anticoagulation plus pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT). Compression DUS was obtained at baseline, 1 month and 12 months. Reflux DUS was obtained at 12 months in a subset of 126 patients. Clinical outcomes were collected over 24 months. At 1 month, patients who received PCDT had less residual thrombus compared to Control patients, evidenced by non-compressible common femoral vein (CFV) (21% vs 35%, p < 0.0001), femoral vein (51% vs 70%, p < 0.0001), and popliteal vein (61% vs 74%, p < 0.0001). At 12 months, in the ultrasound substudy, valvular reflux prevalence was similar between groups (85% vs 91%, p = 0.35). CFV non-compressibility at 1 month was associated with higher rates of any PTS (61% vs 46%, p < 0.001), a higher incidence of moderate-or-severe PTS (30% vs 19%, p = 0.003), and worse QOL (difference 8.2 VEINES-QOL (VEnous INsufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study on Quality of Life) points; p = 0.004) at 24 months. Valvular reflux at 12 months was associated with moderate-or-severe PTS at 24 months (30% vs 0%, p = 0.01). In summary, PCDT results in less residual thrombus but does not reduce venous valvular reflux. CFV non-compressibility at 1 month is associated with more PTS, more severe PTS, and worse QOL at 24 months. Valvular reflux may predispose to moderate-or-severe PTS. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00790335.

Factors that predict thrombosis in relatives of patients with venous thromboembolism.

When counseling first-degree relatives of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE), it is important to know whether factors other than thrombophilia influence their risk for thrombosis. We assessed the risk for VTE in 915 first-degree relatives of patients with provoked VTE, compared this with the risk in 1752 first-degree relatives of patients with unprovoked VTE, and then combined data from the 2 groups of relatives to identify predictors of thrombosis. There had been 123 VTEs in 2617 first-degree relatives (0.12 per 100 person-years). The risk for VTE in first-degree relatives was higher if the index cases had an unprovoked compared with a provoked VTE (odds ratio [OR], 2.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-3.85), if the index case was younger (OR, 0.97 per year older; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99), and if an additional family member had VTE (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 2.22-3.31). Among first-degree relatives of an index case with factor V Leiden or the prothrombin 20210A gene variant, the presence of these abnormalities also predicted thrombosis (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.35-14.38). We conclude that thrombosis at a young age and unprovoked VTE predict VTE in first-degree relatives, and that the influence of these 2 factors is additive.

D-dimer testing to select patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism who can stop anticoagulant therapy: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Normal D-dimer levels after withdrawal of anticoagulant therapy are associated with a reduced risk for recurrence in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE) and may justify stopping treatment. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with a first unprovoked VTE and negative D-dimer test result who stop anticoagulant therapy have a low risk for recurrence. DESIGN: Prospective management study with blinded outcome assessment. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00720915). SETTING: 13 university-affiliated clinical centers. PATIENTS: 410 adults aged 75 years or younger with a first unprovoked proximal deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism who had completed 3 to 7 months of anticoagulant therapy. INTERVENTION: Anticoagulant therapy was stopped if D-dimer test results were negative and was not restarted if results were still negative after 1 month. MEASUREMENTS: Recurrent VTE during an average follow-up of 2.2 years. RESULTS: In 319 patients (78%) who had 2 negative D-dimer results and did not restart anticoagulant therapy, rates of recurrent VTE were 6.7% (95% CI, 4.8% to 9.0%) per patient-year overall (42 of 319), 9.7% (CI, 6.7% to 13.7%) per patient-year in men (33 of 180), 5.4% (CI, 2.5% to 10.2%) per patient-year in women with VTE not associated with estrogen therapy (9 of 81), and 0.0% (CI, 0.0% to 3.0%) per patient-year in women with VTE associated with estrogen therapy (0 of 58) (P = 0.001 for the 3-group comparison). LIMITATIONS: Imprecision in female subgroups. Results may not be generalizable to different D-dimer assays from the one used in the study. CONCLUSION: The risk for recurrence in patients with a first unprovoked VTE who have negative D-dimer results is not low enough to justify stopping anticoagulant therapy in men but may be low enough to justify stopping therapy in women. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Effect of PET before liver resection on surgical management for colorectal adenocarcinoma metastases: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with colorectal cancer with liver metastases undergo hepatic resection with curative intent. Positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography (PET-CT) could help avoid noncurative surgery by identifying patients with occult metastases. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of preoperative PET-CT vs no PET-CT (control) on the surgical management of patients with resectable metastases and to investigate the effect of PET-CT on survival and the association between the standardized uptake value (ratio of tissue radioactivity to injected radioactivity adjusted by weight) and survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized trial of patients older than 18 years with colorectal cancer treated by surgery, with resectable metastases based on CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis within the previous 30 days, and with a clear colonoscopy within the previous 18 months was conducted between 2005 and 2013, involving 21 surgeons at 9 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, with PET-CT scanners at 5 academic institutions. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized using a 2 to 1 ratio to PET-CT or control. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a change in surgical management defined as canceled hepatic surgery, more extensive hepatic surgery, or additional organ surgery based on the PET-CT. Survival was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Of the 263 patients who underwent PET-CT, 21 had a change in surgical management (8.0%; 95% CI, 5.0%-11.9%). Specifically, 7 patients (2.7%) did not undergo laparotomy, 4 (1.5%) had more extensive hepatic surgery, 9 (3.4%) had additional organ surgery (8 of whom had hepatic resection), and the abdominal cavity was opened in 1 patient but hepatic surgery was not performed and the cavity was closed. Liver resection was performed in 91% of patients in the PET-CT group and 92% of the control group. After a median follow-up of 36 months, the estimated mortality rate was 11.13 (95% CI, 8.95-13.68) events/1000 person-months for the PET-CT group and 12.71 (95% CI, 9.40-16.80) events/1000 person-months for the control group. Survival did not differ between the 2 groups (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38). The standardized uptake value was associated with survival (hazard ratio, 1.11 [90% CI, 1.07-1.15] per unit increase; P < .001). The C statistic for the model including the standardized uptake value was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.68) and without it was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.44-0.56). The difference in C statistics is 0.12 (95% CI, 0.04-0.21). The low C statistic suggests that the standard uptake value is not a strong predictor of overall survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with potentially resectable hepatic metastases of colorectal adenocarcinoma, the use of PET-CT compared with CT alone did not result in frequent change in surgical management. These findings raise questions about the value of PET-CT scans in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00265356.

Long-term results of hypofractionated radiation therapy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal fractionation schedule for whole-breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a study to determine whether a hypofractionated 3-week schedule of whole-breast irradiation is as effective as a 5-week schedule. Women with invasive breast cancer who had undergone breast-conserving surgery and in whom resection margins were clear and axillary lymph nodes were negative were randomly assigned to receive whole-breast irradiation either at a standard dose of 50.0 Gy in 25 fractions over a period of 35 days (the control group) or at a dose of 42.5 Gy in 16 fractions over a period of 22 days (the hypofractionated-radiation group). RESULTS: The risk of local recurrence at 10 years was 6.7% among the 612 women assigned to standard irradiation as compared with 6.2% among the 622 women assigned to the hypofractionated regimen (absolute difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.5 to 3.5). At 10 years, 71.3% of women in the control group as compared with 69.8% of the women in the hypofractionated-radiation group had a good or excellent cosmetic outcome (absolute difference, 1.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to 9.8). CONCLUSIONS: Ten years after treatment, accelerated, hypofractionated whole-breast irradiation was not inferior to standard radiation treatment in women who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for invasive breast cancer with clear surgical margins and negative axillary nodes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00156052.)

Empirical comparison of methods for analyzing multiple time-to-event outcomes in a non-inferiority trial: a breast cancer study.

BACKGROUND: Subjects with breast cancer enrolled in trials may experience multiple events such as local recurrence, distant recurrence or death. These events are not independent; the occurrence of one may increase the risk of another, or prevent another from occurring. The most commonly used Cox proportional hazards (Cox-PH) model ignores the relationships between events, resulting in a potential impact on the treatment effect and conclusions. The use of statistical methods to analyze multiple time-to-event events has mainly been focused on superiority trials. However, their application to non-inferiority trials is limited. We evaluate four statistical methods for multiple time-to-event endpoints in the context of a non-inferiority trial. METHODS: Three methods for analyzing multiple events data, namely, i) the competing risks (CR) model, ii) the marginal model, and iii) the frailty model were compared with the Cox-PH model using data from a previously-reported non-inferiority trial comparing hypofractionated radiotherapy with conventional radiotherapy for the prevention of local recurrence in patients with early stage breast cancer who had undergone breast conserving surgery. These methods were also compared using two simulated examples, scenario A where the hazards for distant recurrence and death were higher in the control group, and scenario B. where the hazards of distant recurrence and death were higher in the experimental group. Both scenarios were designed to have a non-inferiority margin of 1.50. RESULTS: In the breast cancer trial, the methods produced primary outcome results similar to those using the Cox-PH model: namely, a local recurrence hazard ratio (HR) of 0.95 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.62 to 1.46. In Scenario A, non-inferiority was observed with the Cox-PH model (HR = 1.04; CI of 0.80 to 1.35), but not with the CR model (HR = 1.37; CI of 1.06 to 1.79), and the average marginal and frailty model showed a positive effect of the experimental treatment. The results in Scenario A contrasted with Scenario B with non-inferiority being observed with the CR model (HR = 1.10; CI of 0.87 to 1.39), but not with the Cox-PH model (HR = 1.46; CI of 1.15 to 1.85), and the marginal and frailty model showed a negative effect of the experimental treatment. CONCLUSION: When subjects are at risk for multiple events in non-inferiority trials, researchers need to consider using the CR, marginal and frailty models in addition to the Cox-PH model in order to provide additional information in describing the disease process and to assess the robustness of the results. In the presence of competing risks, the Cox-PH model is appropriate for investigating the biologic effect of treatment, whereas the CR models yields the actual effect of treatment in the study.

Implementation of a Web-Based Communication System for Primary Care Providers and Cancer Specialists.

Healthcare providers have reported challenges with coordinating care for patients with cancer. Digital technology tools have brought new possibilities for improving care coordination. A web- and text-based asynchronous system (eOncoNote) was implemented in Ottawa, Canada for cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs). This study aimed to examine PCPs' experiences of implementing eOncoNote and how access to the system influenced communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. As part of a larger study, we collected and analyzed system usage data and administered an end-of-discussion survey to understand the perceived value of using eOncoNote. eOncoNote data were analyzed for 76 shared patients (33 patients receiving treatment and 43 patients in the survivorship phase). Thirty-nine percent of the PCPs responded to the cancer specialist's initial eOncoNote message and nearly all of those sent only one message. Forty-five percent of the PCPs completed the survey. Most PCPs reported no additional benefits of using eOncoNote and emphasized the need for electronic medical record (EMR) integration. Over half of the PCPs indicated that eOncoNote could be a helpful service if they had questions about a patient. Future research should examine opportunities for EMR integration and whether additional interventions could support communication between PCPs and cancer specialists.

Warfarin dose assessment every 4 weeks versus every 12 weeks in patients with stable international normalized ratios: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that patients receiving warfarin undergo international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring every 4 weeks. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether assessment of warfarin dosing every 12 weeks is as safe as assessment every 4 weeks. DESIGN: Noninferiority randomized trial. The randomization schedule (in a 1:1 ratio) was computer-generated, and allocation was concealed until the database was locked by using a centralized schedule. Patients, study and clinical personnel, adjudicators of clinical events, and the study statistician were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00356759) SETTING: Single center in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: 250 patients receiving long-term warfarin therapy, whose dose was unchanged for at least 6 months; 226 completed the study. INTERVENTION: Dosing assessment every 12 weeks (n = 124) compared with every 4 weeks (n = 126) for 12 months. Patients in the 12-week group were tested every 4 weeks; sham INRs within the target range were reported for two of the three 4-week periods. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of time in the therapeutic range (primary outcome) and number of extreme INRs, changes in maintenance dose, major bleeding events, objectively verified thromboembolism, and death (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: The percentage of time in the therapeutic range was 74.1% (SD, 18.8%) in the 4-week group compared with 71.6% (SD, 20.0%) in the 12-week group (absolute difference, 2.5 percentage points [1-sided 97.5% upper confidence bound, 7.3 percentage points]; noninferiority P = 0.020 for a 7.5-percentage point margin). Fewer patients in the 12-week group than in the 4-week group had any dose changes (37.1% vs. 55.6%; absolute difference, 18.5 percentage points [95% CI, 6.1 to 30.0 percentage points]; P = 0.004). Secondary outcomes did not differ between groups. LIMITATIONS: Patients in the 12-week group had testing and contact with clinic staff every 4 weeks. The study was conducted at a single center and used surrogate outcomes. CONCLUSION: Assessment of warfarin dosing every 12 weeks seems to be safe and noninferior to assessment every 4 weeks. A comparison of INR testing, patient contact, and warfarin dose assessment every 12 weeks versus every 4 weeks is necessary before INR testing every 12 weeks can be routinely recommended for practice. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Physicians' Services Incorporated Foundation.

Remote, proactive, telephone based management of toxicity in outpatients during adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer: pragmatic, cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of remote proactive management of toxicities during chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial. SETTING: 20 cancer centres in Ontario, Canada, allocated by covariate constrained randomisation to remote management of toxicities or routine care. PARTICIPANTS: All patients starting adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer at each centre. 25 patients from each centre completed patient reported outcome questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Proactive, standardised, nurse led telephone management of common toxicities at two time points after each chemotherapy cycle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome, cluster level mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient during the whole course of chemotherapy treatment, was evaluated with routinely available administrative healthcare data. Secondary patient reported outcomes included toxicity, self-efficacy, and quality of life. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of participants were similar in the intervention (n=944) and control arms (n=1214); 22% were older than 65 years. Penetration (that is, the percentage of patients who received the intervention at each centre) was 50-86%. Mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient was 0.91 (standard deviation 0.28) in the intervention arm and 0.94 (0.40) in the control arm (P=0.94); 47% (1014 of 2158 patients) had at least one visit to the emergency department or a hospital admission during chemotherapy. Among 580 participants who completed the patient reported outcome questionnaires, at least one grade 3 toxicity was reported by 48% (134 of 278 patients) in the intervention arm and by 58% (163 of 283) in the control arm. No differences in self-efficacy, anxiety, or depression were found. Compared with baseline, the functional assessment of cancer therapy trial outcome index decreased by 6.1 and 9.0 points in the intervention and control participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive, telephone based management of toxicities during chemotherapy did not result in fewer visits to the emergency department or hospital admissions. With the rapid rise in remote care because of the covid-19 pandemic, identifying scalable strategies for remote management of patients during cancer treatment is particularly relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02485678.

Influence of thrombophilia on risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism while on warfarin: results from a randomized trial.

We sought to determine whether thrombophilic defects increase recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) during warfarin therapy. Six hundred sixty-one patients with unprovoked VTE who were randomized to extended low-intensity (international normalized ratio [INR], 1.5-1.9) or conventional-intensity (INR, 2.0-3.0) anticoagulant therapy were tested for thrombophilia and followed for a mean of 2.3 years. One or more thrombophilic defects were present in 42% of patients. The overall rate of recurrent VTE was 0.9% per patient-year. Recurrent VTE was not increased in the presence of factor V Leiden (hazard ratio [HR], 0.7; 95% CI, 0.2-2.6); the 20210G>A prothrombin gene mutation (HR, 0); antithrombin deficiency (HR, 0); elevated factor VIII (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.1-5.4); elevated factor XI (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.1-5.0), or elevated homocysteine (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.1-5.3), but showed a trend to an increase with an antiphospholipid antibody (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 0.8-10.5). Compared with patients with no thrombophilic defects, the rate of recurrence was not increased in the presence of one (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.2-2.3) or more than one (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.2-3.4) defect. We conclude that single or multiple thrombophilic defects are not associated with a higher risk of recurrent VTE during warfarin therapy.

Quality of life after pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis for proximal deep venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: After deep venous thrombosis (DVT), many patients have impaired quality of life (QOL). We aimed to assess whether pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) improves short-term or long-term QOL in patients with proximal DVT and whether QOL is related to extent of DVT. METHODS: The Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal with Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis (ATTRACT) trial was an assessor-blinded randomized trial that compared PCDT with no PCDT in patients with DVT of the femoral, common femoral, or iliac veins. QOL was assessed at baseline and 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months using the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study on Quality of Life/Symptoms (VEINES-QOL/Sym) disease-specific QOL measure and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary general QOL measures. Change in QOL scores from baseline to assessment time were compared in the PCDT and no PCDT treatment groups overall and in the iliofemoral DVT and femoral-popliteal DVT subgroups. RESULTS: Of 692 ATTRACT patients, 691 were analyzed (mean age, 53 years; 62% male; 57% iliofemoral DVT). VEINES-QOL change scores were greater (ie, better) in PCDT vs no PCDT from baseline to 1 month (difference, 5.7; P = .0006) and from baseline to 6 months (5.1; P = .0029) but not for other intervals. SF-36 PCS change scores were greater in PCDT vs no PCDT from baseline to 1 month (difference, 2.4; P = .01) but not for other intervals. Among iliofemoral DVT patients, VEINES-QOL change scores from baseline to all assessments were greater in the PCDT vs no PCDT group; this was statistically significant in the intention-to-treat analysis at 1 month (difference, 10.0; P < .0001) and 6 months (8.8; P < .0001) and in the per-protocol analysis at 18 months (difference, 5.8; P = .0086) and 24 months (difference, 6.6; P = .0067). SF-36 PCS change scores were greater in PCDT vs no PCDT from baseline to 1 month (difference, 3.2; P = .0010) but not for other intervals. In contrast, in femoral-popliteal DVT patients, change scores from baseline to all assessments were similar in the PCDT and no PCDT groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with proximal DVT, PCDT leads to greater improvement in disease-specific QOL than no PCDT at 1 month and 6 months but not later. In patients with iliofemoral DVT, PCDT led to greater improvement in disease-specific QOL during 24 months.