Pain in desmoid-type fibromatosis: Prevalence, determinants and prognosis value.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence, determinants and prognostic value of pain at diagnosis in patients with desmoid-type fibromatosis (DF). We selected patients from the ALTITUDES cohort (NCT02867033), managed by surgery, active surveillance or systemic treatments, with pain assessment at diagnosis. Patients were invited to fill QLQ-C30 questionnaire and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale. Determinants were identified using logistic models. Prognostic value on event-free survival (EFS) was evaluated using the Cox model. Overall, 382 patients were included in the current study (median age: 40.2 years; 117 men). The prevalence of pain was 36%, without significant difference according to first-line treatment (P = .18). In the multivariate analysis, pain was significantly associated with tumor size >50 mm (P = .013) and tumor site (P < .001); pain was more frequent in the neck and shoulder locations (odds ratio: 3.05 [1.27-7.29]). Pain at baseline was significantly associated with poor quality of life (P < .001), depression (P = .02), lower performance status (P = .03) and functional impairment (P = .001); we also observed a nonsignificant association with anxiety (P = .10). In the univariate analysis, baseline pain was associated with poor EFS; the 3-year EFS was 54% in patients with pain compared to 72% in those without pain. After adjustment for sex, age, size and line of treatment, pain was still associated with poor EFS (hazard ratio: 1.82 [1.23-2.68], P = .003). One third of recently diagnosed patients with DF experienced pain, especially those with larger tumors and neck/shoulder locations. Pain was associated with unfavorable EFS after adjustment for the confounders.

Evaluation of long-term living conditions in patients treated for localised prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the evolution of living conditions (LC) in long-term survivors of localised prostate cancer 10 years after treatment compared with those of a same-age control group from the general population. METHODS: Two hundred and eighty-seven patients diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2001 were selected in 11 French cancer registries. They were matched with controls randomly selected for age and residency. Both patients and controls completed a self-administered LC questionnaire concerning their familial, social and professional life, and general and specific quality of life (QoL) and anxiety and depression questionnaires. RESULTS: Compared with controls, patients reported more sexual modifications (p < .0001), but without any difference in marital status. Patients' circle of friends was more stable than that of the controls (91% vs. 63%; p < .0001) and patients reported fewer friendship modifications than controls (p < .0006). Their professional and physical activities were also preserved. They reported more anxiolytic intake (p = .002) but did not consult their general practitioner more often. Type of specialist consulted differed in the two groups. CONCLUSION: Patients treated for localised prostate cancer had the same living conditions as men of the same age. Their social life was satisfying on the whole, albeit they reported more sexual difficulties than their counterparts.

A double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase II trial assessing the activity and safety of regorafenib in non-adipocytic sarcoma patients previously treated with both chemotherapy and pazopanib.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) management remains an unmet medical need. We assessed the activity and safety of regorafenib in patients with metastatic non-adipocytic STS who were previously treated with both chemotherapy and pazopanib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter comparative randomized phase II trial included patients with histologically proven advanced and inoperable STS. Patients receiving placebo were offered optional cross-over for centrally confirmed disease progression. Primary end-point was centrally reviewed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours-based progression-free survival (PFS), analysed on the intent-to-treat data set. In total, 24 events were required for 90% power, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.33 (median PFS, 3.6 versus 1.2 months), and 1-sided α = 0.1 (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01900743). RESULTS: From December 2015 to October 2017, 37 patients were randomized; 18 to regorafenib and 19 to placebo. Thirteen patients assigned to placebo switched to regorafenib after progression. Median follow-up was 27.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24.4-not reached). We observed a significant PFS benefit of regorafenib compared with placebo (adjusted HR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.15-0.74; p = 0.0007 median PFS = 2.1 versus 1.1 months, respectively), and a large and nearly significant overall survival (OS) benefit despite the cross-over (adjusted HR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.23-1.06; p = 0.007; median OS = 17.8 versus 8.2 months). Before cross-over, the most common grade III or higher adverse events were lymphopenia (5 versus 1, respectively), diarrhoea (4 versus 0), dyspnoea (3 versus 1), skin toxicity (3 versus 0), arterial hypertension (2 versus 0), and increased transaminases (2 versus 0). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated a meaningful clinical anti-tumour activity with regorafenib in heavily pre-treated patients with non-adipocytic STS.

Optimisation of chemotherapy prescription and preparation in an ambulatory unit: Validation of the OPTIMA program.

OBJECTIVE: We implemented the two-step OPTIMA program to anticipate chemotherapy prescription which aims to assess the discrepancy rate between anticipated and real prescription and its impact on waiting time and quality of care. METHODS: This prospective study included cancer patients receiving any intravenous chemotherapy. The OPTIMA program consists in a nurse phone call and a blood sample two days before the planned treatment. Collected information and biological results were used by a physician to issue a non-effective (step 1) or effective (step 2) anticipated prescription the day before the consultation. The real prescription was given as usual by another physician on the day of the consultation. Waiting time was collected, and patients' satisfaction with care was assessed with the OUT-PATSAT35 questionnaire. RESULTS: Respectively, 540 and 979 consultations (283 and 294 patients) were analysed in both steps. The discrepancy rate was 8.7% (step 1). In routine practice, the OPTIMA program (step 2) reduced patients' waiting time (median time 55 vs. 95 min, p < 0.001). A high general care satisfaction score was observed in both steps (80.7% and 80.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This anticipation program demonstrated the accuracy of chemotherapy prescription, whatever the regimen and cancer site, and its impact on waiting time optimisation.