Perception of pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) prophylaxis in glioma patients receiving concurrent temozolomide and radiation- a patient and physician survey.

PURPOSE: Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PJP) prophylaxis is required by provincial and national drug monographs during glioma treatment using temozolomide (TMZ) concurrently with radiation (TMZ-RT). However, real-world data suggest the potential benefits of PJP prophylaxis may not outweigh its potential harms in this population. METHODS: We conducted a single-center patient survey and a national physician survey to explore the role of PJP prophylaxis amongst glioma patients undergoing TMZ-RT. RESULTS: 23% (31/133) of physicians and 60% (44/73) of patients completed a survey. The median patient age was 42 (range 20-77); 85% (34/40) had completed adjuvant TMZ. Although only 2.4% (1/41) of patients received PJP prophylaxis, only one person (without PJP prophylaxis) was hospitalized for pneumonia. When presented with hypothetical PJP risks, 13.2% (5/38) of patients were concerned about PJP infection, while 26% (10/38) were concerned about potential side effects from prophylactic antibiotics. Most physicians (77%, 17/22) perceived the evidence for PJP prophylaxis as weak; 58% (11/19) did not routinely prescribe prophylaxis, and 73% (16/22) felt that PJP prophylaxis should be limited to patients with additional risk factors. Over 95% of physicians estimated that the incidence of PJP was < 1% in their last 5 years of practice regardless of PJP prophylaxis. For 73% (16/22) of physicians, to prescribe PJP prophylaxis, the risk of PJP infection needed to be 3-8%. CONCLUSION: The current recommendation to routinely prescribe PJP prophylaxis in patients receiving TMZ-RT in the absence of other risk factors warrants reconsideration.

Patients' considerations of time toxicity when assessing cancer treatments with marginal benefit.

BACKGROUND: Effective techniques for eliciting patients' preferences regarding their own care, when treatment options offer marginal gains and different risks, is an important clinical need. We sought to evaluate the association between patients' considerations of the time burdens of care ("time toxicity") with decisions about hypothetical treatment options. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, mixed-methods study that evaluated patients' attitudes and preferences toward palliative-intent cancer treatments that delayed imaging progression-free survival (PFS) but did not improve overall survival (OS). We classified participants based on if they spontaneously volunteered one or more consideration of time burdens during qualitative interviews after treatment trade-off exercises. We compared the percentage of participants who opted for treatments with no PFS gain, some PFS gain, or who declined treatment regardless of PFS gain (in the absence of OS benefit). We conducted narrative analysis of themes related to time burdens. RESULTS: The study cohort included 100 participants with advanced cancer (55% women, 63% age > 60 years, 38% with gastrointestinal cancer, and 80% currently receiving cancer-directed treatment. Forty-six percent (46/100) spontaneously described time burdens as a factor they considered in making treatment decisions. Participants who mentioned time (vs not) had higher thresholds for PFS gains required for choosing additional treatments (P value .004). Participants who mentioned time were more likely to decline treatments with no OS benefit irrespective of the magnitude of PFS benefit (65%, vs 31%). On qualitative analysis, we found that time burdens are influenced by several treatment-related factors and have broad-ranging impact, and illustrate how patients' experiences with time burdens and their preferences regarding time influence their decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of participating patients spontaneously raised the issue of time burdens of cancer care when making hypothetical treatment decisions. These patients had notable differences in treatment preferences compared to those who did not mention considerations of time. Decision science researchers and clinicians should consider time burdens as an important attribute in research and in clinic.

Development and application of a weighted change score to evaluate interventions for vasomotor symptoms in patients with breast cancer using regression trees: a cohort study.

PURPOSE: Vasomotor symptoms (VMS) are common among individuals with breast cancer (BC) and poorly managed symptoms are associated with reduced quality of life, treatment discontinuation, and poorer breast cancer outcomes. Direct comparisons among therapies are limited, as prior studies evaluating VMS interventions have utilized heterogeneous change measures which may not fully assess the perceived impact of change in VMS severity. METHODS: We performed a prospective study where BC patients chose one of four categories of interventions to manage VMS. Change in VMS severity at 6 weeks was assessed using the validated Hot Flush Rating Scale (HFRS). A novel weighted change score integrating baseline symptom severity and directionality of change was computed to maximize the correlation between the change score and a perceived treatment effectiveness score. Variables influencing change in VMS severity were included in a regression tree to model factors influencing the weighted change score. RESULTS: 100 baseline and follow-up questionnaires assessing VMS were completed by 88 patients. Correlations between treatment effectiveness and VMS outcomes strengthened following adjustment for baseline symptoms. Patients with low VMS severity at baseline did not perceive change in treatment effectiveness. Intervention category was predictive of change in HFRS at 6 weeks. CONCLUSION: Baseline symptom severity and the directionality of change (improvement or deterioration of symptoms) influenced the perception of clinically meaningful change in VMS severity. Future interventional studies utilizing the weighted change score should target moderate-high baseline severity patients.

2020 ASCO, 2023 NCCN, 2023 MASCC/ESMO, and 2019 CCO: a comparison of antiemetic guidelines for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in cancer patients.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common toxicity that may impair the quality of life of patients with various malignancies ranging from early to end stages. In light of frequent changes to the guidelines for optimal management of CINV, we undertook this narrative review to compare the most recent guidelines published by ASCO (2020), NCCN (2023), MASCC/ESMO (2023), and CCO (2019). The processes undertaken by each organization to evaluate existing literature were also described. Although ASCO, NCCN, MASCC/ESMO, and CCO guidelines for the treatment and prevention of CINV share many fundamental similarities, the literature surrounding low and minimal emetic risk regimens is lacking. Current data regarding adherence to these guidelines is poor and warrants further investigation to improve care.

The REthinking Clinical Trials Program Retreat 2023: Creating Partnerships to Optimize Quality Cancer Care.

Patients, families, healthcare providers and funders face multiple comparable treatment options without knowing which provides the best quality of care. As a step towards improving this, the REthinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) pragmatic trials program started in 2014 to break down many of the traditional barriers to performing clinical trials. However, until other innovative methodologies become widely used, the impact of this program will remain limited. These innovations include the incorporation of near equivalence analyses and the incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical trial design. Near equivalence analyses allow for the comparison of different treatments (drug and non-drug) using quality of life, toxicity, cost-effectiveness, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data. AI offers unique opportunities to maximize the information gleaned from clinical trials, reduces sample size estimates, and can potentially "rescue" poorly accruing trials. On 2 May 2023, the first REaCT international symposium took place to connect clinicians and scientists, set goals and identify future avenues for investigator-led clinical trials. Here, we summarize the topics presented at this meeting to promote sharing and support other similarly motivated groups to learn and share their experiences.