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.

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.

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.

Impact of Definitive Chemoradiation on Quality-of-Life Changes for Patients With Anal Cancer: Long-term Results of a Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining and improving quality of life (QOL) are important goals of anal cancer management. This disease is generally curable, with many long-term survivors. OBJECTIVE: Long-term QOL after chemoradiation for patients with anal cancer was evaluated. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study used data from a prospective study of patients with anal cancer who were treated with chemoradiation between 2008 and 2013. PATIENTS: Patients with anal cancer who were treated with image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy were included. INTERVENTIONS: English-speaking patients completed European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer cancer-specific (C30) and site-specific (CR29) QOL questionnaires at baseline, at end of radiation, at 3 and 6 months, and then annually. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Long-term QOL was evaluated clinically (a change in score of ≥10 points was considered clinically significant) and statistically (using repeated-measurement analysis) by comparing the subscale scores at 1, 2, and 3 years with baseline scores. Subanalysis compared patients who received a radiation dose of 45 to 54 Gy versus 63 Gy. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included (median follow-up of 56.5 months). The symptom and functional scales showed a clinically significant decline at the end of treatment with improvement by 3 months after treatment. There was a long-term statistically significant decline in dyspnea, body image, bowel embarrassment, fecal incontinence, and hair loss, and there was long-term statistically and clinically significant worsening of impotence. Higher radiation dose (63 Gy) was not associated with significantly worse QOL. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included single-institution, single-arm study design, and lack of dose reconstruction (ie, analyses were based on prescribed, rather than delivered, dose). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with anal cancer treated with chemoradiation reported recovery of overall QOL to baseline levels. Specific symptoms remained bothersome, emphasizing the need to address and manage the chemoradiation-induced symptoms, during treatment and in the long term. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B905. IMPACTO DE LA QUIMIORRADIACIN DEFINITIVA EN CAMBIOS EN LA CALIDAD DE VIDA DE LOS PACIENTES CON CNCER ANAL RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE UN ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVE: ANTECEDENTES:Mantener y mejorar la calidad de vida son objetivos importantes del tratamiento del cáncer anal, ya que esta enfermedad generalmente es curable, con muchos sobrevivientes a largo plazo.OBJETIVO:Se evaluó la calidad de vida a largo plazo después de la quimiorradiación en pacientes con cáncer anal.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte prospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Utilizamos datos de un estudio prospectivo en pacientes con cáncer anal tratados con quimiorradiación entre 2008-2013.PACIENTES:Los pacientes con cáncer anal fueron tratados con radioterapia de intensidad modulada guiada por imágenes.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes de habla inglesa completaron los cuestionarios de calidad de vida específicos de cáncer (C30) y específicos del sitio (CR29) de la Organización Europea para la Investigación y el Tratamiento del Cáncer al inicio, al final de la radiación, 3 y 6 meses, y luego anualmente.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS:Se evaluó a largo plazo la calidad de vida clínicamente (un cambio en la puntuación de ≥10 puntos se consideraron clínicamente significativo) y estadísticamente (usando análisis de medición repetida) comparando las subescalas de puntuación al 1, 2, y 3 años. Con puntuaciones de referencia. El subanálisis comparó pacientes que recibieron 45-54 Gy versus 63 Gy.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 96 pacientes (mediana de seguimiento: 56,5 meses). La mayoría de las escalas funcionales y de síntomas mostraron una disminución clínicamente significativa al final del tratamiento con una mejoría a los 3 meses posteriores al tratamiento. Hubo una disminución estadísticamente significativa a largo plazo en disnea, imagen corporal, vergüenza intestinal, incontinencia fecal y pérdida de cabello; y hubo un empeoramiento a largo plazo estadística y clínicamente significativo en impotencia. La dosis de radiación más alta (63 Gy) no se asoció con una calidad de vida significativamente peor.LIMITACIONES:Institución única, diseño de estudio de un solo brazo y falta de recomposición de la dosis (es decir, los análisis se basan en la dosis prescrita, en lugar de la administrada).CONCLUSIÓNES:Los pacientes con cáncer anal tratados con quimiorradiación reportaron una recuperación de la QOL en general a los niveles de base. Síntomas específicos siguieron siendo molestos, lo que enfatiza la necesidad de resolver y tartar los síntomas inducidos por la quimiorradiación no solo durante el tratamiento, sino a largo plazo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B905. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Anal Adenocarcinoma: A Rare Entity in Need of Multidisciplinary Management.

BACKGROUND: Anal adenocarcinoma is a rare clinical entity for which the optimal management is not defined. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the multidisciplinary management and outcomes of patients with anal adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a quaternary cancer center. PATIENTS: Men and women with anal adenocarcinoma treated between 1995 and 2016 were selected. INTERVENTIONS: Fifty-two patients were treated with either chemoradiotherapy or trimodality therapy including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgical resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local failure, regional failure, and distant metastasis rates were estimated using the cumulative incidence method. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival and overall survival. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the clinical predictors of outcome. RESULTS: There was a higher 5-year rate of local failure in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy compared with trimodality therapy (53% vs 10%; p < 0.01). The 5-year incidence of distant metastases was 29% (trimodality therapy) versus 30% (chemoradiotherapy; p = 0.9); adjuvant chemotherapy did not reduce the incidence of distant metastases (p = 0.8). Five-year overall survival was 73% (trimodality therapy) versus 49.4% (chemoradiotherapy; p = 0.1). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with worse overall survival were treatment with chemoradiotherapy, cT3-4 category disease, and node-positive disease. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its small sample size and retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment may continue to be tailored to individual patients, better outcomes with a trimodality therapy approach were observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B708.ADENOCARCINOMA ANAL: UNA ENTIDAD POCO FRECUENTE EN NECESIDAD DE UN MANEJO MULTIDISCIPLINARIO. ANTECEDENTES: El adenocarcinoma anal es una entidad clínica poco frecuente por lo que aún no se define el manejo óptimo. OBJETIVO: Describir el manejo multidisciplinario y los resultados de los pacientes con adenocarcinoma anal. DISEO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ENTORNO CLINICO: Centro de cáncer cuaternario. PACIENTES: Hombres y mujeres con adenocarcinoma anal tratados entre 1995 y 2016. INTERVENCIONES: Cincuenta y dos pacientes fueron tratados con quimiorradioterapia o terapia trimodal que incluyó: radioterapia, quimioterapia y resección quirúrgica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION: Se estimaron las tasas de falla local, falla regional y metástasis a distancia mediante el método de incidencia acumulada. Se utilizó el método de Kaplan-Meier para estimar la supervivencia libre de progresión y la supervivencia global. Los riesgos proporcionales de multivariable Cox se utilizaron para evaluar los predictores clínicos de los resultados. RESULTADOS: Hubo una mayor tasa de falla local a cinco años en pacientes tratados con quimiorradioterapia en comparación con terapia trimodal (53% vs 10%; p < 0,01). La incidencia a cinco años de metástasis a distancia fue del 29% (terapia trimodal) versus 30% (quimiorradioterapia) (p = 0,9); la quimioterapia adyuvante no redujo la incidencia de metástasis a distancia (p = 0,8). La supervivencia global a cinco años fue del 73% (terapia trimodal) versus 49,4% (quimiorradioterapia); p = 0,1. En el análisis multivariable, los factores asociados con una peor supervivencia general fueron el tratamiento con quimiorradioterapia, enfermedad de categoría cT3-4 y enfermedad con ganglios positivos. LIMITACIONES: Este estudio está limitado por su pequeño tamaño de muestra y su naturaleza retrospectiva. CONCLUSIONES: Aunque el tratamiento puede seguir adaptándose a pacientes individuales, se observaron mejores resultados con un enfoque TTM. Conslute Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B708. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Patient consent preferences on sharing personal health information during the COVID-19 pandemic: "the more informed we are, the more likely we are to help".

BACKGROUND: Rapid ethical access to personal health information (PHI) to support research is extremely important during pandemics, yet little is known regarding patient preferences for consent during such crises. This follow-up study sought to ascertain whether there were differences in consent preferences between pre-pandemic times compared to during Wave 1 of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and to better understand the reasons behind these preferences. METHODS: A total of 183 patients in the pandemic cohort completed the survey via email, and responses were compared to the distinct pre-pandemic cohort (n = 222); all were patients of a large Canadian cancer center. The survey covered (a) broad versus study-specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out contact approach; (c) levels of comfort sharing with different recipients; (d) perceptions of commercialization; and (e) options to track use of information and be notified of results. Four focus groups (n = 12) were subsequently conducted to elucidate reasons motivating dominant preferences. RESULTS: Patients in the pandemic cohort were significantly more comfortable with sharing all information and biological samples (90% vs. 79%, p = 0.009), sharing information with the health care institution (97% vs. 83%, p < 0.001), sharing information with researchers at other hospitals (85% vs. 70%, p < 0.001), sharing PHI provincially (69% vs. 53%, p < 0.002), nationally (65% vs. 53%, p = 0.022) and internationally (48% vs. 39%, p = 0.024) compared to the pre-pandemic cohort. Discomfort with sharing information with commercial companies remained unchanged between the two cohorts (50% vs. 51% uncomfortable, p = 0.58). Significantly more pandemic cohort patients expressed a wish to track use of PHI (75% vs. 61%, p = 0.007), and to be notified of results (83% vs. 70%, p = 0.012). Thematic analysis uncovered that transparency was strongly desired on outside PHI use, particularly when commercialization was involved. CONCLUSIONS: In pandemic times, patients were more comfortable sharing information with all parties, except with commercial entities, where levels of discomfort (~ 50%) remained unchanged. Focus groups identified that the ability to track and receive results of studies using one's PHI is an important way to reduce discomfort and increase trust. These findings meaningfully inform wider discussions on the use of personal health information for research during global crises.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastases: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Conventional external beam radiotherapy is the standard palliative treatment for spinal metastases; however, complete response rates for pain are as low as 10-20%. Stereotactic body radiotherapy delivers high-dose, ablative radiotherapy. We aimed to compare complete response rates for pain after stereotactic body radiotherapy or conventional external beam radiotherapy in patients with painful spinal metastasis. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial was done at 13 hospitals in Canada and five hospitals in Australia. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years and older, and had painful (defined as ≥2 points with the Brief Pain Inventory) MRI-confirmed spinal metastasis, no more than three consecutive vertebral segments to be included in the treatment volume, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, a Spinal Instability Neoplasia Score of less than 12, and no neurologically symptomatic spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a web-based, computer-generated allocation sequence to receive either stereotactic body radiotherapy at a dose of 24 Gy in two daily fractions or conventional external beam radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five daily fractions using standard techniques. Treatment assignment was done centrally by use of a minimisation method to achieve balance for the stratification factors of radiosensitivity, the presence or absence of mass-type tumour (extraosseous or epidural disease extension, or both) on imaging, and centre. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete response for pain at 3 months after radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and all safety and quality assurance analyses were done in the as-treated population (ie, all patients who received at least one fraction of radiotherapy). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02512965. FINDINGS: Between Jan 4, 2016, and Sept 27, 2019, 229 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive conventional external beam radiotherapy (n=115) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=114). All 229 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median follow-up was 6·7 months (IQR 6·3-6·9). At 3 months, 40 (35%) of 114 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group, and 16 (14%) of 115 patients in the conventional external beam radiotherapy group had a complete response for pain (risk ratio 1·33, 95% CI 1·14-1·55; p=0·0002). This significant difference was maintained in multivariable-adjusted analyses (odds ratio 3·47, 95% CI 1·77-6·80; p=0·0003). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was grade 3 pain (five [4%] of 115 patients in the conventional external beam radiotherapy group vs five (5%) of 110 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group). No treatment-related deaths were observed. INTERPRETATION: Stereotactic body radiotherapy at a dose of 24 Gy in two daily fractions was superior to conventional external beam radiotherapy at a dose of 20 Gy in five daily fractions in improving the complete response rate for pain. These results suggest that use of conformal, image-guided, stereotactically dose-escalated radiotherapy is appropriate in the palliative setting for symptom control for selected patients with painful spinal metastases, and an increased awareness of the need for specialised and multidisciplinary involvement in the delivery of end-of-life care is needed. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Medical Assistance in Dying in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers: a mixed methods longitudinal study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The legal criteria for medical assistance in dying (MAiD) for adults with a grievous and irremediable medical condition were established in Canada in 2016. There has been concern that potentially reversible states of depression or demoralization may contribute to the desire for death (DD) and requests for MAiD. However, little is known about the emergence of the DD in patients, its impact on caregivers, and to what extent supportive care interventions affect the DD and requests for MAiD. The present observational study is designed to determine the prevalence, predictors, and experience of the DD, requests for MAiD and MAiD completion in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer and the impact of these outcomes on their primary caregivers. METHODS: A cohort of patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumour cancers and their primary caregivers will be recruited from a large tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, to a longitudinal, mixed methods study. Participants will be assessed at baseline for diagnostic information, sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, quality of life, physical and psychological distress, attitudes about the DD and MAiD, communication with physicians, advance care planning, and use of psychosocial and palliative care interventions. Measures will subsequently be completed every six months and at the time of MAiD requests. Quantitative assessments will be supplemented by qualitative interviews in a subset of participants, selected using quota sampling methods. DISCUSSION: This study has the potential to add importantly to our understanding of the prevalence and determinants of the DD, MAiD requests and completions in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer and of the experience of both patients and caregivers in this circumstance. The findings from this study may also assist healthcare providers in their conversations about MAiD and the DD with patients and caregivers, inform healthcare providers to ensure appropriate access to MAiD, and guide modifications being considered to broaden MAiD legislation and policy.

The use of personal health information outside the circle of care: consent preferences of patients from an academic health care institution.

BACKGROUND: Immense volumes of personal health information (PHI) are required to realize the anticipated benefits of artificial intelligence in clinical medicine. To maintain public trust in medical research, consent policies must evolve to reflect contemporary patient preferences. METHODS: Patients were invited to complete a 27-item survey focusing on: (a) broad versus specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out approaches; (c) comfort level sharing with different recipients; (d) attitudes towards commercialization; and (e) options to track PHI use and study results. RESULTS: 222 participants were included in the analysis; 83% were comfortable sharing PHI with researchers at their own hospital, although younger patients (≤ 49 years) were more uncomfortable than older patients (50 + years; 13% versus 2% uncomfortable, p < 0.05). While 56% of patients preferred broad consent, 38% preferred specific consent; 6% preferred not sharing at all. The majority of patients (63%) preferred to be asked for permission before entry into a contact pool. Again, this trend was more pronounced for younger patients (≤ 49 years: 76%). Approximately half of patients were uncomfortable sharing PHI with commercial enterprises (51% uncomfortable, 27% comfortable, 22% neutral). Most patients preferred to track PHI usage (61%), with the highest proportion once again reported by the youngest patients (≤ 49 years: 71%). A majority of patients also wished to be notified regarding study results (70%). CONCLUSIONS: While most patients were willing to share their PHI with researchers within their own institution, many preferred a transparent and reciprocal consent process. These data also suggest a generational shift, wherein younger patients preferred more specific consent options. Modernizing consent policies to reflect increased autonomy is crucial in fostering sustained public engagement with medical research.

Radiation Oncology Fellowship: a Value-Based Assessment Among Graduates of a Mature Program.

The University of Toronto - Department of Radiation Oncology (UTDRO) has had a well-established Fellowship Program for over 20 years. An assessment of its graduates was conducted to evaluate training experience and perceived impact on professional development. Graduates of the UTDRO Fellowship Program between 1991 and 2015 were the focus of our review. Current employment status was collected using online tools. A study-specific web-based questionnaire was distributed to 263/293 graduates for whom active e-mails were identified; questions focused on training experience, and impact on career progression and academic productivity. As a surrogate measure for the impact of UTDRO Fellowship training, a comparison of current employment and scholarly activities of individuals who obtained their Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada (FRCPC) designation in Radiation Oncology between 2000 and 2012, with (n = 57) or without (n = 230) UTDRO Fellowship training, was conducted. Almost all UTDRO Fellowship graduates were employed as staff radiation oncologists (291/293), and most of those employed were associated with additional academic (130/293), research (53/293), or leadership (68/293) appointments. Thirty-eight percent (101/263) of alumni responded to the online survey. The top two reasons for completing the Fellowship were to gain specific clinical expertise and exposure to research opportunities. Respondents were very satisfied with their training experience, and the vast majority (99%) would recommend the program to others. Most (96%) felt that completing the Fellowship was beneficial to their career development. University of Toronto, Department of Radiation Oncology Fellowship alumni were more likely to hold university, research, and leadership appointments, and author significantly more publications than those with FRCPC designation without fellowship training from UTDRO. The UTDRO Fellowship Program has been successful since its inception, with the majority of graduates reporting positive training experiences, benefits to scholarly output, and professional development for their post-fellowship careers. Key features that would optimize the fellowship experience and its long-term impact on trainees were also identified.

Combining precision radiotherapy with molecular targeting and immunomodulatory agents: a guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

The practice of radiation oncology is primarily based on precise technical delivery of highly conformal, image-guided external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy. However, systematic research efforts are being made to facilitate individualised radiation dose prescriptions on the basis of gene-expressssion profiles that reflect the radiosensitivity of tumour and normal tissue. This advance in precision radiotherapy should complement those benefits made in precision cancer medicine that use molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapies. The personalisation of cancer therapy, predicated largely on genomic interrogation, is facilitating the selection of therapies that are directed against driver mutations, aberrant cell signalling, tumour microenvironments, and genetic susceptibilities. With the increasing technical power of radiotherapy to safely increase local tumour control for many solid tumours, it is an opportune time to rigorously explore the potential benefits of combining radiotherapy with molecular targeted agents and immunotherapies to increase cancer survival outcomes. This theme provides the basis and foundation for this American Society for Radiation Oncology guideline on combining radiotherapy with molecular targeting and immunotherapy agents.

Neoadjuvant treatments for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer: A network meta-analysis.

The relative survival benefits and postoperative mortality among the different types of neoadjuvant treatments (such as chemotherapy only, radiotherapy only or chemoradiotherapy) for esophageal cancer patients are not well established. To evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapies in resectable esophageal cancer, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for publications up to May 2016. ASCO and ASTRO annual meeting abstracts were also searched up to the 2015 conferences. Randomized controlled trials that compared at least two of the following treatments for resectable esophageal cancer were included: surgery alone, surgery preceded by neoadjuvant chemotherapy, neoadjuvant radiotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The primary outcome assessed from the trials was overall survival. Thirty-one randomized controlled trials involving 5496 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved overall survival when compared to all other treatments including surgery alone (HR 0.75, 95% CR 0.67-0.85), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.83. 95% CR 0.70-0.96) and neoadjuvant radiotherapy (HR 0.82, 95% CR 0.67-0.99). However, the risk of postoperative mortality increased when comparing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy to either surgery alone (RR 1.46, 95% CR 1.00-2.14) or to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RR 1.58, 95% CR 1.00-2.49). In conclusion, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival but may also increase the risk of postoperative mortality in patients locally advanced resectable esophageal carcinoma.

Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-C30 and brief pain inventory in patients undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases.

PURPOSE: The EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) are validated tools for measuring quality of life (QOL) and the impact of pain in patients with advanced cancer. Interpretation of these instrument scores can be challenging and it is difficult to know what numerical changes translate to clinically significant impact in patients' lives. To address this issue, our study sought to establish the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these two instruments in a prospective cohort of patients with advanced cancer and painful bone metastases. METHODS: Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID scores from patients enrolled in a randomized phase III trial evaluating two different re-irradiation treatment schedules. For the anchor-based method, the global QOL item from the QLQ-C30 was chosen as the anchor. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for all items and only those items with moderate or better correlation (|r| ≥ 0.30) with the anchor were used for subsequent analysis. A 10-point difference in the global QOL score was used to classify improvement and deterioration, and the MCID scores were calculated for each of these categories. These results were compared with scores obtained by the distribution-method, which estimates the MCID purely from the statistical characteristics of the sample population. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were included in this study with documented pain responses and completed QOL questionnaires at 2 months. 9/14 items in the QLQ-C30 and 6/10 items in the BPI were found to have moderate or better correlation with the anchor. For deterioration, statistically significant MCID scores were found in all items of the QLQ-C30 and BPI. For improvement, statistically significant MCID scores were found in 7/9 items of the QLQ-C30 and 2/6 items of the BPI. The MCID scores for deterioration were uniformly higher than the MCIDs for improvement. Using the distribution-based method, there was good agreement between the 0.5 standard deviation (SD) values and anchor-based scores for deterioration. For improvement, there was less agreement and the anchor-based scores were lower than the 0.5 SD values obtained from the distribution-based method. CONCLUSION: We present MCID scores for the QLQ-C30 and BPI instruments obtained from a large cohort of patients with advanced cancer undergoing re-irradiation for painful bone metastases. The results from this study were compared to other similar studies which showed larger MCID scores for improvement compared to deterioration. We hypothesize that disease trajectory and patient expectations are important factors in understanding the contrasting results. The results of this study can guide clinicians and researchers in the interpretation of these instruments.

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.

Classification of painful bone metastases as mild, moderate, or severe using both EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and EORTC QLQ-BM22.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have determined optimal cut points (CPs) for the classification of pain severity as mild, moderate, or severe using only the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or the BPI in conjunction with a quality of life (QOL) tool. The purpose of our study was to determine the optimal CPs based on correlation with only QOL outcomes. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of 298 patients treated with radiation therapy for painful bone metastases on a phase III randomized trial. Prior to treatment, patients provided their worst pain score on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain), as well as completed the European Organization of Cancer Research and Treatment (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Bone Metastases module (QLQ-BM22) and the EORTC QOL Questionnaire Core-15 Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL). Optimal CPs were determined to be those that yielded the largest F ratio for the between category effect on each subscale of the QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL using the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). RESULTS: The two largest F ratios for Wilk's λ, Pillai's Trace, and Hotelling's Trace were for CPs 5,6 and 5,7. Combining both, the optimal CPs to differentiate between mild, moderate, and severe pain were 5 and 7. Pain scores of 1-5, 6, and 7-10 were classified as mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. Patients with severe pain experienced greater functional interference and poorer QOL when compared to those with mild pain. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that, based on the impact of pain on QOL measures, pain scores should be classified as follows: 1-5 as mild pain, 6 as moderate pain, and 7-10 as severe pain. Optimal CPs vary depending on the type of outcome measurement used.

Revisiting classification of pain from bone metastases as mild, moderate, or severe based on correlation with function and quality of life.

PURPOSE: The objective of our study was to determine the optimal cut points for classification of pain scores as mild, moderate, and severe based on interference with function and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: We evaluated 822 patients who completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and/or the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) prior to receiving repeat radiation therapy for previously irradiated painful bone metastases. Optimal cut points for mild, moderate, and severe pain were determined by the MANOVA that yielded the largest F ratio for the between category effect on the seven interference items of BPI and the six functional domains of QOL (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, social functioning, and global QOL) as indicated by Pillai's Trace, Wilk's λ, and Hostelling's Trace F statistics. RESULTS: For BPI and for QOL domains separately, the two largest F ratios for Wilk's λ, Pillai's Trace, and Hotelling's Trace F statistics were from the cut points 4, 8 and 6, 8. When combining both, the optimal cut points were 4, 8 with 1-4 (mild), 5-8 (moderate), and 9-10 (severe). With this classification, the mean scores of all the seven interference items in BPI and the six functional domains were all highly statistically different. Patients with severe pain survived significantly shorter than those with mild and moderate pain (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis supports the classification of pain scores as follows: 1-4 as mild pain, 5-8 as moderate pain, and 9-10 as severe pain. This may facilitate conduct of future clinical trials.

Minimal clinically important differences in the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL modules in patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Validated tools for evaluating quality of life (QOL) in patients with bone metastases include the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL modules. A statistically significant difference in metric scores may not be clinically significant. To aid in their interpretation, we performed analyses to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for these QOL instruments. METHODS: Both anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to determine the MCID among patients with bone metastases enrolled in a randomized phase III trial. For the anchor-based approach, overall QOL as measured by the QLQ-C15-PAL module was used as the anchor and only the subscales with moderate or better correlation were used for subsequent MCID analysis. In the anchor-based approach, patients were classified as improved, stable or deteriorated by the change in the overall QOL score from baseline to follow-up after 42 days. The MCID and confidence interval was then calculated for all subscales. In the distribution-based approach, the MCID was expressed as a proportion of the standard deviation and standard error measurement from the subscale score distribution. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients completed the questionnaires at baseline and follow-up. Only the dyspnea and insomnia subscales did not have at least moderate correlation with the overall QOL anchor. Using the anchor-based approach, 10/11 subscales had an MCID score significantly different than 0 for improvement and 3/11 subscales had a significant MCID score for deterioration. The magnitude of MCID scores was higher for improvement in comparison with deterioration. For improvement, the anchor-based approach showed good agreement with the distribution-based approach when using 0.5 SD as the MCID. However, there was greater lack of agreement between these approaches for deterioration. CONCLUSION: We present the MCID scores for the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and QLQ-C15-PAL QOL instruments. The results of this study can guide clinicians in the interpretation of these instruments. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT01248585.

Dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain flare occurs after palliative radiotherapy, and dexamethasone has shown potential for prevention of such flare. We aimed to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone with that of placebo in terms of reduction of incidence of pain flare. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients from 23 Canadian centres were randomly allocated (1:1) with a web-based system and minimisation algorithm to receive either two 4 mg dexamethasone tablets or two placebo tablets taken orally at least 1 h before the start of radiation treatment (a single 8 Gy dose to bone metastases; day 0) and then every day for 4 days after radiotherapy (days 1-4). Patients were eligible if they had a non-haematological malignancy and bone metastasis (or metastases) corresponding to the clinically painful area or areas. Patients reported their worst pain scores and opioid analgesic intake before treatment and daily for 10 days after radiation treatment. They completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life QLQ-C15-PAL, the bone metastases module (EORTC QLQ-BM22), and the Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire at baseline, and at days 10 and 42 after radiation treatment. Pain flare was defined as at least a two-point increase on a scale of 0-10 in the worst pain score with no decrease in analgesic intake, or a 25% or greater increase in analgesic intake with no decrease in the worst pain score from days 0-10, followed by a return to baseline levels or below. Primary analysis of incidence of pain flare was by intention-to-treat (patients with missing primary data were classified as having pain flare). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248585, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 30, 2011, and Dec 11, 2014, 298 patients were enrolled. 39 (26%) of 148 patients randomly allocated to the dexamethasone group and 53 (35%) of 150 patients in the placebo group had a pain flare (difference 8·9%, lower 95% confidence bound 0·0, one-sided p=0·05). Two grade 3 and one grade 4 biochemical hyperglycaemic events occurred in the dexamethasone group (without known clinical effects) compared with none in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were bone pain (61 [41%] of 147 vs 68 [48%] of 143), fatigue (58 [39%] of 147 vs 49 [34%] of 143), constipation (47 [32%] of 147 vs 37 [26%] of 143), and nausea (34 [23%] of 147 vs 34 [24%] of 143), most of which were mild grade 1 or 2. INTERPRETATION: Dexamethasone reduces radiation-induced pain flare in the treatment of painful bone metastases. FUNDING: The NCIC CTG's programmatic grant from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

Discovery and validation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway polymorphisms in esophageal adenocarcinoma outcome.

Polymorphisms in the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/angiogenesis pathway have been implicated previously in cancer risk, prognosis and response to therapy including in esophageal adenocarcinoma. Prior esophageal adenocarcinoma studies focused on using candidate polymorphisms, limiting the discovery of novel polymorphisms. Here, we applied the tagSNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) approach to identify new VEGF pathway polymorphisms associated with esophageal adenocarcinoma prognosis and validated them in an independent cohort of esophageal adenocarcinoma patients. In 231 esophageal adenocarcinoma patients of all stages/treatment plans, 58 genetic polymorphisms (18 KDR, 7 VEGFA and 33 FLT1) selected through tagging and assessment of predicted function were genotyped. Cox-proportional hazard models adjusted for important socio-demographic and clinico-pathological factors were applied to assess the association of genetic polymorphisms with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Significantly associated polymorphisms were then validated in an independent cohort of 137 esophageal adenocarcinoma patients. Among the 231 discovery cohort patients, 86% were male, median diagnosis age was 64 years, 34% were metastatic at diagnosis and median OS and PFS were 20 and 12 months, respectively. KDR rs17709898 was found significantly associated with PFS (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-0.90; P = 5.9E-3). FLT1 rs3794405 and rs678714 were significantly associated with OS (aHR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.04-1.99; P = 0.03 and aHR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.01-2.24; P = 0.045, respectively). No VEGFA polymorphisms were found significantly associated with either outcome. Upon validation, FLT1 rs3794405 remained strongly associated with OS (aHR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.04-2.44; P = 0.03). FLT1 rs3794405 is significantly associated with OS in esophageal adenocarcinoma, whereby each variant allele confers a 45-60% increased risk of mortality. Validation and evaluation of this association in other cancer sites are warranted.

Multimodality approaches for the curative treatment of esophageal cancer.

Carcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction tumors presenting with locoregional disease are potentially curable, although the cure rate is modest. Many different treatment approaches have been studied, with a multimodality approach associated with a 10% to 15% greater survival advantage compared with a single-modality approach. A systematic review was conducted to address 3 clinical questions: whether patients with resectable esophageal cancer should receive preoperative versus postoperative therapy, how to choose between these options, and whether surgery be avoided in patients who are candidates for both definitive chemoradiotherapy and definitive combined modality therapy. Recommendations from 3 recent treatment guidelines from Ontario, NCCN, and Belgium were consulted to address these questions.