Reduction in potentially inappropriate end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: A retrospective population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted cancer diagnosis and treatment. However, little is known about end-of-life cancer care during the pandemic. AIM: To investigate potentially inappropriate end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based cohort study using data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch National Hospital Care Registration. Potentially inappropriate care in the last month of life (chemotherapy administration, >1 emergency room contact, >1 hospitalization, hospitalization >14 days, intensive care unit admission or hospital death) was compared between four COVID-19 periods and corresponding periods in 2018/2019. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 112,919 cancer patients (⩾18 years) who died between January 2018 and May 2021 were included. RESULTS: Fewer patients received potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous years, especially during the first COVID-19 peak (22.4% vs 26.0%). Regression analysis showed lower odds of potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during all COVID-19 periods (between OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.74-0.88 and OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.87-0.97) after adjustment for age, sex and cancer type. For the individual indicators, fewer patients experienced multiple or long hospitalizations, intensive care unit admission or hospital death during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients received less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because several factors may have contributed, it is unclear whether this reflects better quality care. However, these findings raise important questions about what pandemic-induced changes in care practices can help provide appropriate end-of-life care for future patients in the context of increasing patient numbers and limited resources.

Targeting PDGF-mediated recruitment of pericytes blocks vascular mimicry and tumor growth.

Aggressive tumor cells can adopt an endothelial cell-like phenotype and contribute to the formation of a tumor vasculature, independent of tumor angiogenesis. This adoptive mechanism is referred to as vascular mimicry and it is associated with poor survival in cancer patients. To what extent tumor cells capable of vascular mimicry phenocopy the angiogenic cascade is still poorly explored. Here, we identify pericytes as important players in vascular mimicry. We found that pericytes are recruited by vascular mimicry-positive tumor cells in order to facilitate sprouting and to provide structural support of the vascular-like networks. The pericyte recruitment is mediated through platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)-B. Consequently, preventing PDGF-B signaling by blocking the PDGF receptors with either the small tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib or blocking antibodies inhibits vascular mimicry and tumor growth. Collectively, the current study identifies an important role for pericytes in the formation of vascular-like structures by tumor cells. Moreover, the mechanism that controls the pericyte recruitment provides therapeutic opportunities for patients with aggressive vascular mimicry-positive cancer types. © 2018 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Trends in treatment and overall survival among patients with proximal esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of proximal esophageal cancer differs from that of tumors located in the mid and lower part of the esophagus due to the close vicinity of vital structures. Non-surgical treatment options like radiotherapy and definitive chemoradiation (CRT) have been implemented. The trends in (non-)surgical treatment and its impact on overall survival (OS) in patients with proximal esophageal cancer are unclear, related to its rare disease status. To optimize treatment strategies and counseling of patients with proximal esophageal cancer, it is therefore essential to gain more insight through real-life studies. AIM: To establish trends in treatment and OS in patients with proximal esophageal cancer. METHODS: In this population-based study, patients with proximal esophageal cancer diagnosed between 1989 and 2014 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The proximal esophagus consists of the cervical esophagus and the upper thoracic section, extending to 24 cm from the incisors. Trends in radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery, and OS were assessed. Analyses were stratified by presence of distant metastasis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses was performed to assess the effect of period of diagnosis on OS, adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 2783 patients were included. Over the study period, the use of radiotherapy, resection, and CRT in non-metastatic disease changed from 53%, 23%, and 1% in 1989-1994 to 21%, 9%, and 49% in 2010-2014, respectively. In metastatic disease, the use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased over time. Median OS of the total population increased from 7.3 mo [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.4-8.1] in 1989-1994 to 9.5 mo (95%CI: 8.1-10.8) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). In non-metastatic disease, 5-year OS rates improved from 5% (95%CI: 3%-7%) in 1989-1994 to 13% (95%CI: 9%-17%) in 2010-2014 (logrank P < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated a significant treatment effect over time on survival. In metastatic disease, median OS was 3.8 mo (95%CI: 2.5-5.1) in 1989-1994, and 5.1 mo (95%CI: 4.3-5.9) in 2010-2014 (logrank P = 0.26). CONCLUSION: OS significantly improved in non-metastatic proximal esophageal cancer, likely to be associated with an increased use of CRT. Patterns in metastatic disease did not change significantly over time.

Frequency and characteristics of additionally detected ipsilateral breast lesions following recall at screening mammography.

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency and outcome of additionally detected ipsilateral breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We included a consecutive series of 130,338 screening mammograms obtained between January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2016. During 2-year follow-up, clinical data were collected of all recalls. Women with a bilateral recall (115) and women recalled for multiple lesions in one breast (165) were excluded from the analyses. Screening outcome parameters were determined for recalled women with or without evaluation of additional ipsilateral breast abnormalities following recall. RESULTS: A total of 3995 women were recalled (recall rate, 3.1%). In 258 (6.4%) of these women, another lesion was detected in the ipsilateral breast than the one for which she had been recalled. Biopsy was more frequently performed of additionally detected ipsilateral lesions than of recalled lesions (55.8% (144/258)) versus 39.7% (1375/3457), (p < 0.001)). The proportion of malignancy in recalled lesions and additionally detected lesions was comparable (21.5% (743/3457) versus 19.0% (49/258), p = 0.34). Of all 144 biopsies of additionally detected ipsilateral lesions, 9 revealed a synchronous tumour in addition to a malignant recalled lesion, and 33 biopsies revealed multicentric or multifocal tumours. In 5 women, the recalled lesion turned out to be benign, whereas the additional lesion in a different quadrant was malignant at biopsy. A total of 97 biopsies showed benign findings. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of women are analyzed for additional ipsilateral breast lesions following recall. These lesions are more frequently biopsied than recalled lesions, but have a comparable probability of being malignant. The majority of additionally detected cancerous lesions are part of multifocal or multicentric malignancies.