Assessment of Progression-Free Survival as a Surrogate End Point of Overall Survival in First-Line Treatment of Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) recommended that progression-free survival (PFS) can serve as a primary end point instead of overall survival (OS) in advanced ovarian cancer. Evidence is lacking for the validity of PFS as a surrogate marker of OS in the modern era of different treatment types. Objective: To evaluate whether PFS is a surrogate end point for OS in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Data Sources: In September 2016, a comprehensive search of publications in MEDLINE was conducted for randomized clinical trials of systematic treatment in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. The GCIG groups were also queried for potentially completed but unpublished trials. Study Selection: Studies with a minimum sample size of 60 patients published since 2001 with PFS and OS rates available were eligible. Investigational treatments considered included initial, maintenance, and intensification therapy consisting of agents delivered at a higher dose and/or frequency compared with that in the control arm. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Using the meta-analytic approach on randomized clinical trials published from January 1, 2001, through September 25, 2016, correlations between PFS and OS at the individual level were estimated using the Kendall τ model; between-treatment effects on PFS and OS at the trial level were estimated using the Plackett copula bivariate (R2) model. Criteria for PFS surrogacy required R2 ≥ 0.80 at the trial level. Analysis was performed from January 7 through March 20, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival and PFS based on measurement of cancer antigen 125 levels confirmed by radiological examination results or by combined GCIG criteria. Results: In this meta-analysis of 17 unique randomized trials of standard (n = 7), intensification (n = 5), and maintenance (n = 5) chemotherapies or targeted treatments with data from 11 029 unique patients (median age, 58 years [range, 18-88 years]), a high correlation was found between PFS and OS at the individual level (τ = 0.724; 95% CI, 0.717-0.732), but a low correlation was found at the trial level (R2 = 0.24; 95% CI, 0-0.59). Subgroup analyses led to similar results. In the external validation, 14 of the 16 hazard ratios for OS in the published reports fell within the 95% prediction interval from PFS. Conclusions and Relevance: This large meta-analysis of individual patient data did not establish PFS as a surrogate end point for OS in first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer, but the analysis was limited by the narrow range of treatment effects observed or by poststudy treatment. These results suggest that if PFS is chosen as a primary end point, OS must be measured as a secondary end point.

Implementing physical activity programs for patients with cancer in current practice: patients' experienced barriers and facilitators.

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to identify patients' experienced barriers and facilitators in implementing physical activity programs for patients with cancer. METHODS: We interviewed 34 patients in focus-group-interviews from three different hospital-types. We included patients with cancer who were either receiving curative treatment or had recently completed it. Barriers and facilitators were explored in six domains: (1) physical activity programs, (2) patients, (3) healthcare professionals (HCPs), (4) social setting, (5) organization, and (6) law and governance. RESULTS: We found 12 barriers and 1 facilitator that affect the implementation of physical activity programs. In the domain of physical activity programs, the barrier was physical activity programs not being tailored to the patient's needs. In the domain of patients, lacking responsibility for one's own health was a barrier. Knowledge and skills for physical activity programs and non-commitment of HCPs impeded implementation in the domain of HCPs. Barriers in the domain of organization included inconvenient place, time of day, and point in the health treatment schedule for offering the physical activity programs, inadequate capacity, inaccessibility of contact persons, lack of information about physical activity programs, non-involvement of the general practitioner in the cancer care process, and poor communication between secondary and primary HCPs. Insufficient insurance-coverage of physical activity programs was a barrier in the domain of law and governance. In the domain of physical activity programs, contact with peers facilitated implementation. We found no barriers or facilitators at the social setting. CONCLUSIONS: Factors affecting the implementation of physical activity programs occurred in various domains. Most of the barriers occurred in the domain of organization. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: An implementation strategy that deals with the barriers might improve the implementation of physical activity programs and quality of life of cancer survivors.

Decision aids for second-line palliative chemotherapy: a randomised phase II multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition of the delicate balance between the modest benefits of palliative chemotherapy and the burden of treatment. Decision aids (DAs) can potentially help patients with advanced cancer with these difficult treatment decisions, but providing detailed information could have an adverse impact on patients' well-being. The objective of this randomised phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DAs for patients with advanced cancer considering second-line chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer considering second-line treatment were randomly assigned to usual care (control group) or usual care plus a DA (intervention group) in a 1:2 ratio. A nurse offered a DA with information on adverse events, tumour response and survival. Outcome measures included patient-reported well-being (primary outcome: anxiety) and quality of the decision-making process and the resulting choice. RESULTS: Of 128 patients randomised, 45 were assigned to the control group and 83 to the intervention group. Median age was 62 years (range 32-81), 63% were female, and 73% had colorectal cancer. The large majority of patients preferred treatment with chemotherapy (87%) and subsequently commenced treatment with chemotherapy (86%). No adverse impact on patients' well-being was found and nurses reported that consultations in which the DAs were offered went well. Being offered the DA was associated with stronger treatment preferences (3.0 vs. 2.5; p=0.030) and increased subjective knowledge (6.7 vs. 6.3; p=0.022). Objective knowledge, risk perception and perceived involvement were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: DAs containing detailed risk information on second-line palliative treatment could be delivered to patients with advanced cancer without having an adverse impact on patient well-being. Surprisingly, the DAs only marginally improved the quality of the decision-making process. The effectiveness of DAs for palliative treatment decisions needs further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR): NTR1113 (registered on 2 November 2007).

Study protocol: an evaluation of the effectiveness, experiences and costs of a patient-directed strategy compared with a multi-faceted strategy to implement physical cancer rehabilitation programmes for cancer survivors in a European healthcare system; a controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: The need for physical cancer rehabilitation programmes (PCRPs), addressing adverse effects from cancer, is growing. Implementing these programmes into daily practice is still a challenge. Since barriers for successful implementation often arise at different levels in healthcare, multi-faceted strategies focusing on multiple levels are likely more effective than single-faceted strategies. Nevertheless, most studies implementing PCRPs used strategies directed at patients only. The aim of this study is to develop and identify the most effective strategy to implement PCRPs into daily care. We want to assess the added value of a multi-faceted strategy compared with a single-faceted patient-directed strategy. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a clustered controlled before and after study (CBA) in the Netherlands that compares two strategies to implement PCRPs. The patient-directed (PD) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient level. The multi-faceted (MF) strategy (five hospitals) will focus on change at the patient, professional and organizational levels. Eligibility criteria are as follows: (A) patients: adults; preferably (history of) cancer in the gastro-intestinal, reproductive and/or urological system; successful primary treatment; and without recurrence/metastases. (B) Healthcare professionals: involved in cancer care. A stepwise approach will be followed: Step 1: Analysis of the current implementation of PCRPs and the examination of barriers and facilitators for implementation, via a qualitative study with patients (four focus groups n = 10-12) and their healthcare workers (four focus groups n = 10-12 and individual interviews n = 30-40) and collecting data on adherence to quality indicators (n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital). Step 2: Selection and development of interventions to create a PD and MF strategy during expert roundtable discussions, using the knowledge gained in step 1 and a literature search of the effect of strategies for implementing PCRPs. Step 3: Test and compare both strategies with a clustered CBA (effectiveness, process evaluation and costs), by data extraction from existing registration systems, questionnaires and interviews. For the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, n = 500 patients, 50 per hospital. For the process evaluation, n = 50 patients, 5 per hospital, and n = 40 healthcare professionals, 4 per hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: % screened patients, % referrals to PCRPs, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). TRAIL REGISTRATION: NCT02205853 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Improvement of hospital care for patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial (PEARL study).

BACKGROUND: Malignant lymphomas constitute a diverse group of cancers of lymphocytes. One well-known disease is Hodgkin's lymphoma; the others are classified as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). NHLs are the most common hematologic neoplasms in adults worldwide, and in 2012 over 170,000 new cases were estimated in the United States and Europe.In previous studies, several practice gaps in hospital care for patients with NHL have been identified. To decrease this variation in care, the present study aims to perform a problem analysis in which barriers to and facilitators for optimal NHL care will be identified and, based on these findings, to develop (tailored) improvement strategies. Subsequently, we will assess the effectiveness, feasibility and costs of the improvement strategies. METHODS/DESIGN: Barriers and facilitators will be explored using the literature, using interviews and questionnaires among physicians involved in NHL care, and patients diagnosed with NHL. The results will be used to develop a tailored improvement strategy. A cluster randomized controlled trial involving 19 Dutch hospitals will be conducted. Hospitals will be randomized to receive either an improvement strategy tailored to the barriers and facilitators found or, a standard strategy of audit and feedback.The effects of both strategies will be evaluated using previously developed quality indicators. Adherence to the indicators will be measured before and after the intervention period based on medical records from newly diagnosed NHL patients. To study the feasibility of both strategies, a process evaluation will be additionally performed. Data about exposure to the different elements of the strategies will be collected using questionnaires. Economic evaluation from a healthcare perspective will compare the two implementation strategies, where the costs of the implementation strategy and changes in healthcare consumption will be assessed. DISCUSSION: The presence of variation in the use of diagnostic tests, treatment, and follow-up between different physicians in different hospitals in the Netherlands is important for patients. To reduce the existing variation in care, implementation of tailored interventions to improve NHL care is necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov as the PEARL study, registration number NCT01562509.

Rationale of the BREAst cancer e-healTH [BREATH] multicentre randomised controlled trial: an internet-based self-management intervention to foster adjustment after curative breast cancer by decreasing distress and increasing empowerment.

BACKGROUND: After completion of curative breast cancer treatment, patients go through a transition from patient to survivor. During this re-entry phase, patients are faced with a broad range of re-entry topics, concerning physical and emotional recovery, returning to work and fear of recurrence. Standard and easy-accessible care to facilitate this transition is lacking. In order to facilitate adjustment for all breast cancer patients after primary treatment, the BREATH intervention is aimed at 1) decreasing psychological distress, and 2) increasing empowerment, defined as patients' intra- and interpersonal strengths. METHODS/DESIGN: The non-guided Internet-based self-management intervention is based on cognitive behavioural therapy techniques and covers four phases of recovery after breast cancer (Looking back; Emotional processing; Strengthening; Looking ahead). Each phase of the fully automated intervention has a fixed structure that targets consecutively psychoeducation, problems in everyday life, social environment, and empowerment. Working ingredients include Information (25 scripts), Assignment (48 tasks), Assessment (10 tests) and Video (39 clips extracted from recorded interviews). A non-blinded, multicentre randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial will be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the BREATH intervention. In six hospitals in the Netherlands, a consecutive sample of 170 will be recruited of women who completed primary curative treatment for breast cancer within 4 months. Participants will be randomly allocated to receive either usual care or usual care plus access to the online BREATH intervention (1:1). Changes in self-report questionnaires from baseline to 4 (post-intervention), 6 and 10 months will be measured. DISCUSSION: The BREATH intervention provides a psychological self-management approach to the disease management of breast cancer survivors. Innovative is the use of patients' own strengths as an explicit intervention target, which is hypothesized to serve as a buffer to prevent psychological distress in long-term survivorship. In case of proven (cost) effectiveness, the BREATH intervention can serve as a low-cost and easy-accessible intervention to facilitate emotional, physical and social recovery of all breast cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR2935).