Physical Activity Is Associated with Improved Overall Survival among Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Regular physical activity (PA) is associated with improved overall survival (OS) in stage I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. This association is less defined in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC). We therefore conducted a study in mCRC patients participating in the Prospective Dutch Colorectal Cancer cohort. PA was assessed with the validated SQUASH questionnaire, filled-in within a maximum of 60 days after diagnosis of mCRC. PA was quantified by calculating Metabolic Equivalent Task (MET) hours per week. American College of Sports and Medicine (ACSM) PA guideline adherence, tertiles of moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA), and sport and leisure time MVPA (MVPA-SL) were assessed as well. Vital status was obtained from the municipal population registry. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to study the association between PA determinants and all-cause mortality adjusted for prognostic patient and treatment-related factors. In total, 293 mCRC patients (mean age 62.9 ± 10.6 years, 67% male) were included in the analysis. Compared to low levels, moderate and high levels of MET-hours were significantly associated with longer OS (fully adjusted hazard ratios: 0.491, (95% CI 0.299-0.807, p value = 0.005) and 0.485 (95% CI 0.303-0.778, p value = 0.003), respectively), as were high levels of MVPA (0.476 (95% CI 0.278-0.816, p value = 0.007)) and MVPA-SL (0.389 (95% CI 0.224-0.677, p value < 0.001)), and adherence to ACSM PA guidelines compared to non-adherence (0.629 (95% CI 0.412-0.961, p value = 0.032)). The present study provides evidence that higher PA levels at diagnosis of mCRC are associated with longer OS.

Survival of patients with deficient mismatch repair metastatic colorectal cancer in the pre-immunotherapy era.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR mCRC) benefit from immunotherapy. Interpretation of the single-arm immunotherapy trials is complicated by insignificant survival data during systemic non-immunotherapy. We present survival data on a large, comprehensive cohort of dMMR mCRC patients, treated with or without systemic non-immunotherapy. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty-one dMMR mCRC patients (n = 54 from three prospective Phase 3 CAIRO trials; n = 227 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry). Overall survival was analysed from diagnosis of mCRC (OS), from initiation of first-line (OS1) and second-line (OS2) systemic treatment. Cox regression analysis examined prognostic factors. As comparison for OS 2746 MMR proficient mCRC patients were identified. RESULTS: Of 281 dMMR patients, 62% received first-line and 26% second-line treatment. Median OS was 16.0 months (13.8-19.6) with antitumour therapy and 2.5 months (1.8-3.5) in untreated patients. OS1 was 12.8 months (10.7-15.2) and OS2 6.2 months (5.4-8.9) in treated dMMR patients. Treated dMMR patients had a 7.6-month shorter median OS than pMMR patients. CONCLUSION: Available data from immunotherapy trials lack a control arm with standard systemic treatment. Given the poor outcome compared to the immunotherapy results, our data strongly suggest a survival benefit of immunotherapy in dMMR mCRC patients.

The Impact of Palliative Care Team Consultation on Quality of Life of Patients with Advanced Cancer in Dutch Hospitals: An Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Experimental studies have shown that palliative care team (PCT) involvement can improve quality of life (QoL) and symptom burden of patients with advanced cancer. It is unclear to what extent this effect is sustained in daily practice of hospital care. OBJECTIVE: This observational study aims to investigate the effect of PCT consultation on QoL and symptom burden of hospitalized patients with advanced cancer in daily practice. METHODS: After admission to 1 of 9 participating hospitals, patients with advanced cancer for whom the attending physician answered "no" to the Surprise Question were invited to complete a questionnaire, including the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, at 6 points in time, until 3 months after admission. Outcomes were compared between patients who received PCT consultation and patients who did not, taking into account differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients consented to participate, of whom 32 received PCT consultation. Of these patients, 108 were able to complete a questionnaire at day 14, of whom 19 after receiving PCT consultation. After adjusting for baseline differences, EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL scores for pain, appetite, and emotional functioning at day 14 were more favorable for patients who received a PCT consultation. CONCLUSION: PCT consultation decreased patients' symptom burden and tends to have a positive effect on QoL of hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, even if the PCT is consulted late in the patient's disease trajectory.

Disclosing the Uncertainty Associated with Prognostic Estimates in Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment decision making is often guided by evidence-based probabilities, which may be presented to patients during consultations. These probabilities are intrinsically imperfect and embody 2 types of uncertainties: aleatory uncertainty arising from the unpredictability of future events and epistemic uncertainty arising from limitations in the reliability and accuracy of probability estimates. Risk communication experts have recommended disclosing uncertainty. We examined whether uncertainty was discussed during cancer consultations and whether and how patients perceived uncertainty. METHODS: Consecutive patient consultations with medical oncologists discussing adjuvant treatment in early-stage breast cancer were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded. Patients were interviewed after the consultation to gain insight into their perceptions of uncertainty. RESULTS: In total, 198 patients were included by 27 oncologists. Uncertainty was disclosed in 49% (97/197) of consultations. In those 97 consultations, 23 allusions to epistemic uncertainty were made and 84 allusions to aleatory uncertainty. Overall, the allusions to the precision of the probabilities were somewhat ambiguous. Interviewed patients mainly referred to aleatory uncertainty if not prompted about epistemic uncertainty. Even when specifically asked about epistemic uncertainty, 1 in 4 utterances referred to aleatory uncertainty. When talking about epistemic uncertainty, many patients contradicted themselves. In addition, 1 in 10 patients seemed not to realize that the probabilities communicated during the consultation are imperfect. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty is conveyed in only half of patient consultations. When uncertainty is communicated, oncologists mainly refer to aleatory uncertainty. This is also the type of uncertainty that most patients perceive and seem comfortable discussing. Given that it is increasingly common for clinicians to discuss outcome probabilities with their patients, guidance on whether and how to best communicate uncertainty is urgently needed.

Use of implicit persuasion in decision making about adjuvant cancer treatment: A potential barrier to shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is widely advocated, especially for preference-sensitive decisions like those on adjuvant treatment for early-stage cancer. Here, decision making involves a subjective trade-off between benefits and side-effects, and therefore, patients' informed preferences should be taken into account. If clinicians consciously or unconsciously steer patients towards the option they think is in their patients' best interest (i.e. implicit persuasion), they may be unwittingly subverting their own efforts to implement SDM. We assessed the frequency of use of implicit persuasion during consultations and whether the use of implicit persuasion was associated with expected treatment benefit and/or decision making. METHODS: Observational study design in which consecutive consultations about adjuvant systemic therapy with stage I-II breast cancer patients treated at oncology outpatient clinics of general teaching hospitals and university medical centres were audiotaped, transcribed and coded by two researchers independently. RESULTS: In total, 105 patients (median age = 59; range: 35-87 years) were included. A median of five (range: 2-10) implicitly persuasive behaviours were employed per consultation. The number of behaviours used did not differ by disease stage (P = 0.07), but did differ by treatment option presented (P = 0.002) and nodal status (P = 0.01). About 50% of patients with stage I or node-negative disease were steered towards undergoing chemotherapy, whereas 96% of patients were steered towards undergoing endocrine therapy, irrespective of expected treatment benefit. Decisions were less often postponed if more implicit persuasion was used (P = 0.03). INTERPRETATION: Oncologists frequently use implicit persuasion, steering patients towards the treatment option that they think is in their patients' best interest. Expected treatment benefit does not always seem to be the driving force behind implicit persuasion. Awareness of one's use of these steering behaviours during decision making is a first step to help overcome the performance gap between advocating and implementing SDM.