ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) following chemotherapy is commonly reported in breast cancer survivors, even years after treatment. Data from preclinical studies suggest that exercise during chemotherapy may prevent or diminish cognitive problems; however, clinical data are scarce. METHODS: This is a pragmatic follow-up study of two original randomized trials, which compares breast cancer patients randomized to exercise during chemotherapy to non-exercise controls 8.5 years post-treatment. Cognitive outcomes include an online neuropsychological test battery and self-reported cognitive complaints. Cognitive performance was compared to normative data and expressed as age-adjusted z-scores. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients participated in the online cognitive testing. Overall, cognitive performance was mildly impaired on some, but not all, cognitive domains, with no significant differences between groups. Clinically relevant cognitive impairment was present in 25% to 40% of all participants, regardless of study group. We observed no statistically significant effect of exercise, or being physically active during chemotherapy, on long-term cognitive performance or self-reported cognition, except for the task reaction time, which favored the control group (ß = -2.04, 95% confidence interval: -38.48; -2.38). We observed no significant association between self-reported higher physical activity levels during chemotherapy or at follow-up and better cognitive outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this pragmatic follow-up study, exercising and being overall more physically active during or after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer was not associated with better tested or self-reported cognitive functioning, on average, 8.5 years after treatment. Future prospective studies are needed to document the complex relationship between exercise and CRCI in cancer survivors.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Cognition , Exercise , Humans , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Breast Neoplasms/psychology , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Female , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant/adverse effects , Follow-Up Studies , Middle Aged , Cognition/drug effects , Adult , Neuropsychological Tests , Aged , Exercise Therapy/methods , Cognitive Dysfunction/etiology , Cognitive Dysfunction/epidemiologyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To report the long-term outcomes from a longitudinal psychosocial study that forms part of the 'Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted Screening in men at higher genetic risk and controls' (IMPACT) study. The IMPACT study is a multi-national study of targeted prostate cancer (PrCa) screening in individuals with a known germline pathogenic variant (GPV) in either the BReast CAncer gene 1 (BRCA1) or the BReast CAncer gene 2 (BRCA2). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Participants enrolled in the IMPACT study were invited to complete a psychosocial questionnaire prior to each annual screening visit for a minimum of 5 years. The questionnaire included questions on sociodemographics and the following measures: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Event Scale, 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, Memorial Anxiety Scale for PrCa, Cancer Worry Scale, risk perception and knowledge. RESULTS: A total of 760 participants completed questionnaires: 207 participants with GPV in BRCA1, 265 with GPV in BRCA2 and 288 controls (non-carriers from families with a known GPV). We found no evidence of clinically concerning levels of general or cancer-specific distress or poor health-related quality of life in the cohort as a whole. Individuals in the control group had significantly less worry about PrCa compared with the carriers; however, all mean scores were low and within reported general population norms, where available. BRCA2 carriers with previously high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels experience a small but significant increase in PrCa anxiety (P = 0.01) and PSA-specific anxiety (P < 0.001). Cancer risk perceptions reflected information provided during genetic counselling and participants had good levels of knowledge, although this declined over time. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to report the longitudinal psychosocial impact of a targeted PrCa screening programme for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. The results reassure that an annual PSA-based screening programme does not have an adverse impact on psychosocial health or health-related quality of life in these higher-risk individuals. These results are important as more PrCa screening is targeted to higher-risk groups.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of exercise among cancer survivors has increased in recent years; however, participants dropping out of the trials are rarely described. The objective of the present study was to assess which combinations of participant and exercise program characteristics were associated with dropout from the exercise arms of RCTs among cancer survivors. METHODS: This study used data collected in the Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care (POLARIS) study, an international database of RCTs investigating the effects of exercise among cancer survivors. Thirty-four exercise trials, with a total of 2467 patients without metastatic disease randomized to an exercise arm were included. Harmonized studies included a pre and a posttest, and participants were classified as dropouts when missing all assessments at the post-intervention test. Subgroups were identified with a conditional inference tree. RESULTS: Overall, 9.6% of the participants dropped out. Five subgroups were identified in the conditional inference tree based on four significant associations with dropout. Most dropout was observed for participants with BMI >28.4 kg/m2 , performing supervised resistance or unsupervised mixed exercise (19.8% dropout) or had low-medium education and performed aerobic or supervised mixed exercise (13.5%). The lowest dropout was found for participants with BMI >28.4 kg/m2 and high education performing aerobic or supervised mixed exercise (5.1%), and participants with BMI ≤28.4 kg/m2 exercising during (5.2%) or post (9.5%) treatment. CONCLUSIONS: There are several systematic differences between cancer survivors completing and dropping out from exercise trials, possibly affecting the external validity of exercise effects.
Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Neoplasms , Humans , Quality of Life , Exercise , Exercise Therapy , Neoplasms/rehabilitation , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The OVHIPEC-1 trial previously showed that the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery resulted in improved progression-free and overall survival compared with cytoreductive surgery alone at 4·7 years of follow-up in patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer who were ineligible for primary cytoreduction. We report the final survival outcomes after 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, patients with primary epithelial stage III ovarian cancer were recruited at eight HIPEC centres in the Netherlands and Belgium. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18-76 years, had not progressed during at least three cycles of neoadjuvant carboplatin plus paclitaxel, had a WHO performance status score of 0-2, normal blood counts, and adequate renal function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo interval cytoreductive surgery without HIPEC (surgery group) or with HIPEC (100 mg/m2 cisplatin; surgery-plus-HIPEC group). Randomisation was done centrally by minimisation with a masked web-based allocation procedure at the time of surgery when residual disease smaller than 10 mm diameter was anticipated, and was stratified by institution, previous suboptimal cytoreductive surgery, and number of abdominal regions involved. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and a secondary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all randomly assigned patients). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00426257, and is closed. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2007, and April 30, 2016, 245 patients were enrolled and followed up for a median of 10·1 years (95% CI 8·4-12·9) in the surgery group (n=123) and 10·4 years (95% CI 9·5-13·3) in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (n=122). Recurrence, progression, or death occurred in 114 (93%) patients in the surgery group (median progression-free survival 10·7 months [95% CI 9·6-12·0]) and 109 (89%) patients in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (14·3 months [12·0-18·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·63 [95% CI 0·48-0·83], stratified log-rank p=0·0008). Death occurred in 108 (88%) patients in the surgery group (median overall survival 33·3 months [95% CI 29·0-39·1]) and 100 (82%) patients in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group (44·9 months [95% CI 38·6-55·1]; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·92], stratified log-rank p=0·011). INTERPRETATION: These updated survival results confirm the long-term survival benefit of HIPEC in patients with primary stage III epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF Kankerbestrijding).
Subject(s)
Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy , Ovarian Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial/surgery , Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Carboplatin/therapeutic use , Survival Analysis , Paclitaxel/adverse effects , Ovarian Neoplasms/drug therapy , Ovarian Neoplasms/surgeryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Women with a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant are advised to undergo premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy after completion of childbearing, to reduce their risk of ovarian cancer. Several studies reported less sexual pleasure 1 to 3 years after a premenopausal oophorectomy. However, the long-term effects of premenopausal oophorectomy on sexual functioning are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to study long-term sexual functioning in women at increased familial risk of breast or ovarian cancer who underwent a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy either before the age of 46 years (premenopausal group) or after the age of 54 years (postmenopausal group). Subgroup analyses were performed in the premenopausal group, comparing early (before the age of 41 years) and later (at ages 41-45 years) premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Between 2018 and 2021, 817 women with a high familial risk of breast or ovarian cancer from an ongoing cohort study were invited to participate in our study. Because of a large difference in age in the study between the premenopausal and postmenopausal salpingo-oophorectomy groups, we restricted the comparison of sexual functioning between the groups to 368 women who were 60 to 70 years old at completion of the questionnaire (226 in the premenopausal group and 142 in the postmenopausal group). In 496 women with a premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, we compared the sexual functioning between women in the early premenopausal group (n=151) and women in the later premenopausal group (n=345). Differences between groups were analyzed using multiple regression analyses, adjusting for current age, breast cancer history, use of hormone replacement therapy, body mass index, chronic medication use (yes or no), and body image. RESULTS: Mean times since risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy were 20.6 years in the premenopausal group and 10.6 years in the postmenopausal group (P<.001). The mean age at questionnaire completion was 62.7 years in the premenopausal group, compared with 67.0 years in the postmenopausal group (P<.001). Compared with 48.9% of women in the postmenopausal group, 47.4% of women in the premenopausal group were still sexually active (P=.80). Current sexual pleasure scores were the same for women in the premenopausal group and women in the postmenopausal group (mean pleasure score, 8.6; P=.99). However, women in the premenopausal group more often reported substantial discomfort than women in the postmenopausal group (35.6% vs 20.9%; P=.04). After adjusting for confounders, premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy was associated with substantially more discomfort during sexual intercourse than postmenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-9.4). Moreover, after premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, more severe complaints of vaginal dryness were observed (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.7). Women with a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy before the age of 41 years reported similar pleasure and discomfort scores as women with a risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy between ages 41 and 45 years. CONCLUSION: More than 15 years after premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, the proportion of sexually active women was comparable with the proportion of sexually active women with a postmenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. However, after a premenopausal risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, women experienced more vaginal dryness and more often had substantial sexual discomfort during sexual intercourse. This did not lead to less pleasure with sexual activity.
Subject(s)
Ovarian Neoplasms , Salpingo-oophorectomy , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Adult , Cohort Studies , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Genes, BRCA1 , Genes, BRCA2 , Ovariectomy , Ovarian Neoplasms/genetics , Ovarian Neoplasms/prevention & controlABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To successfully implement exercise programs for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), services and patient education should consider patients' knowledge, preferences, values, and goals. Hence, gaining insight into their perspectives on exercise and exercise programming is important. METHOD: In this cross-sectional survey, we recruited patients with MBC from the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. We collected data on patients' knowledge and skills about exercise and outcome expectations. We identified barriers to and facilitators of participation in exercise programs, and patients' preferences for program content and modes of exercise delivery. RESULTS: A total of 420 patients participated in the survey. Respondents were, on average, 56.5 years old (SD 10.8) and 70% had bone metastases. Sixty-eight percent reported sufficient skills to engage in aerobic exercise, but only 35% did so for resistance exercise. Respondents expected exercise to have multiple physical benefits, but a few patients expected exercise to worsen their pain (5%). Not having access to an exercise program for cancer patients (27%), feeling too tired (23%), and/or weak (23%) were the most often reported barriers. Facilitators for exercising regularly were previous positive physical (72%) and emotional (68%) experiences with exercising, and receiving personalized advice from a physiotherapist or sport/fitness instructor (62%). Patients were most interested in walking and preferred exercising at a public gym, although there were differences by country. Fifty-seven percent did not know whether their insurance company reimburses exercise programs and only 9% would be willing to pay more than 50 per month to participate. CONCLUSION: A large percentage of patients with MBC lack the skills to engage in regular exercise as recommended by exercise guidelines for people with cancer. Patients may benefit from personalized advice and appropriate training facilities to overcome barriers. When implementing exercise interventions, attention should be given to reimbursement and the relatively low willingness-to-pay.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Middle Aged , Female , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Cross-Sectional Studies , Exercise , Surveys and Questionnaires , Exercise TherapyABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Supervised exercise is a potentially promising supportive care intervention for people with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but research on the patients' perspective is limited. The aim of the current focus group study was to gain an in-depth understanding of MBC patients' perceived barriers, facilitators, and preferences for supervised exercise programs. METHODS: Eleven online focus groups with, in total, 44 MBC patients were conducted in four European countries (Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden). Main topics of the semi-structured discussions covered attitudes towards participation in supervised exercise programs, perceived facilitators, experienced barriers, and exercise preferences. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, translated into English, and coded based on a preliminary coding framework, supplemented by themes emerging during the sessions. The codes were subsequently examined for interrelations and re-organized into overarching clusters. RESULTS: Participants had positive attitudes towards exercise, but experienced physical limitations and insecurities that inhibited their participation. They expressed a strong desire for exercise tailored to their needs, and supervision by an exercise professional. Participants also highlighted the social nature of group training as an important facilitator. They had no clear preference for exercise type, but rather favored a mixture of different activities. Flexible training modules were considered helpful to increase exercise program adherence. CONCLUSIONS: MBC patients were generally interested in supervised exercise programs. They preferred group exercise that facilitates social interaction, but also expressed a need for individualized exercise programs. This suggests the relevance to develop flexible exercise programs that are adjusted to the individual's needs, abilities, and preferences.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Exercise , Qualitative Research , Exercise Therapy , Focus GroupsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in clinical trials has become increasingly important because it addresses the impact of treatment from the patient's perspective. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effect of postoperative chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery with extended (D2) lymphadenectomy on HRQoL in the CRITICS trial. Second, we investigated the potential prognostic value of pretreatment HRQoL on event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in the CRITICS trial were asked to complete HRQoL questionnaires (EORTC Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 and Quality-of-Life Questionnaire gastric cancer-specific module) at baseline, after preoperative chemotherapy, after surgery, after postoperative chemotherapy or CRT, and at 12 months follow-up. Patients with at least 1 evaluable questionnaire (645 of 788 randomized patients) were included in the HRQoL analyses. The predefined endpoints included dysphagia, pain, physical functioning, fatigue, and Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 summary score. Linear mixed modeling was used to assess differences over time and at each time point. Associations of baseline HRQoL with EFS and OS were investigated using multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses. RESULTS: At completion of postoperative chemo(radio)therapy, the chemotherapy group had significantly better physical functioning (P=.02; Cohen's effect size = 0.42) and less dysphagia (P=.01; Cohen's effect size = 0.38) compared with the CRT group. At baseline, worse social functioning (hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.36-3.55; P=.001), nausea (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.39-2.56; P<.001), worse WHO performance status (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13; P=.007), and histologic subtype (diffuse vs intestinal: HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.42-2.67; P<.001; mixed vs intestinal: HR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.35-4.12; P=.003) were significantly associated with worse EFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: In the CRITICS trial, the chemotherapy group had significantly better physical functioning and less dysphagia after postoperative treatment. HRQoL scales at baseline were significantly associated with EFS and OS.
Subject(s)
Quality of Life , Stomach Neoplasms , Humans , Neoadjuvant Therapy/methods , Prognosis , Stomach Neoplasms/therapy , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Cancer care team attitudes towards distress screening are key to its success and sustainability. Previous qualitative research has interviewed staff mostly around the startup phase. We evaluate oncology teams' perspectives on psychosocial distress screening, including perceived strengths and challenges, in settings where it has been operational for years. METHODS: We conducted, transcribed, and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 71 cancer care team members (e.g., MDs, RNs, MSWs) at 18 Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs including those serving underrepresented populations. RESULTS: Strengths of distress screening identified by participants included identifying patient needs and testing provider assumptions. Staff indicated it improved patient-provider communication and other aspects of care. Challenges to distress screening included patient barriers (e.g., respondent burden) and lack of electronic system interoperability. Participants expressed the strengths of distress screening (n = 291) more than challenges (n = 86). Suggested improvements included use of technology to collect data, report results, and make referrals; complete screenings prior to appointments; longitudinal assessment; additional staff training; and improve resources to address patient needs. CONCLUSION: Cancer care team members' perspectives on well-established distress screening programs largely replicate findings of previous studies focusing on the startup phase, but there are important differences: team members expressed more strengths than challenges, suggesting a positive attitude. While our sample described many challenges described previously, they did not indicate challenges with scoring and interpreting the distress screening questionnaire. The differences in attitudes expressed in response to mature versus startup implementations provide important insights to inform efforts to sustain and optimize distress screening.
Subject(s)
Medical Oncology , Neoplasms , Humans , Mass Screening , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Qualitative ResearchABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To develop optimal cancer survivorship care programs, this study assessed the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care as experienced by patients shortly after completion of primary treatment. METHODS: We surveyed 402 patients with localized prostate cancer participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing specialist versus primary care-based follow-up. For the current study, we used patient-reported data at the time of the first follow-up visit at the hospital, prior to randomization. We assessed patients' ratings of the quality of follow-up care using the Assessment of Patient Experiences of Cancer Care survey. This survey includes 13 scales about different aspects of care and an overall rating of care. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with perceived follow-up quality. RESULTS: Patients reported positive experiences at first follow-up for 9 of 13 scales, with mean (M) scores ranging from 79 to 97 (on a 0-100 response scale). Patients reported most frequently (over 70%) suboptimal care regarding symptom management (84%; M = 44, SD = 37), health promotion (75%; M = 45, SD = 39), and physician's knowledge about patients' life (84%; M = 65, SD = 23). Overall, patients' lower quality of follow-up ratings were associated with younger age, higher education level, having more than one comorbid condition, having undergone primary surgery, and experiencing significant symptoms. CONCLUSION: Patients with prostate cancer are generally positive about their initial, hospital-based follow-up care. However, efforts should be made to improve symptom management, health promotion, and physician's knowledge about patients' life. These findings point to areas where prostate cancer follow-up care can be improved.
Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors , Prostatic Neoplasms , Male , Humans , Aftercare , Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery , Surveys and Questionnaires , Survivorship , Quality of Life , Prostatectomy/adverse effectsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the construct validity of the Steep Ramp Test (SRT) by longitudinally comparing the correlation between maximum short exercise capacity of the SRT and direct measurements of peak oxygen consumption (Vo2peak) during or shortly after treatment in patients with breast cancer and the potential effect of chemotherapy-induced symptom burden. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Multicenter. PARTICIPANTS: We used data from 2 studies that included women with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy, resulting in 274 observations. A total of 161 patients (N=161) performed the cardiopulmonary exercise test and the SRT in 2 test sessions on different time points around chemotherapy treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fatigue was assessed with the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, and nausea and vomiting and pain by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30. The longitudinal correlation between the maximum short exercise capacity and Vo2peak was investigated using a linear mixed model. Interaction terms were added to the model to investigate whether the correlation varied by symptom burden. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant moderate correlation between Vo2peak and maximum short exercise capacity (0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.70; P<.01) over time. This correlation was slightly attenuated (-0.07; 95% confidence interval, -0.13 to 0.00; P=.04) in patients with chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting, indicating smaller correlations of Vo2peak with the maximum short exercise capacity with increasing symptom burden. Pain and fatigue did not significantly modify the correlation. CONCLUSIONS: The SRT can only be used as a proxy for changes in aerobic capacity with great caution and with attention for the level of nausea and vomiting.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Cardiorespiratory Fitness , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Oxygen Consumption , Quality of Life , Cross-Sectional Studies , Fatigue/chemically induced , Vomiting/chemically induced , Nausea/chemically induced , Pain , Exercise Therapy/methodsABSTRACT
Maximizing participation in cancer research is important to improve the validity and generalizability of research findings. We conducted a four-arm randomized controlled trial to test the impact of a novel video invitation on participant response. We invited childhood cancer survivors and parents of survivors <16 years to complete questionnaires. We compared response rates to an invitation letter (control) vs receiving the letter plus a video invitation on a flash drive presented by a childhood cancer survivor, a pediatric oncologist or a researcher. We explored factors associated with viewing the video and examined the impact of enclosing the USB on study costs. Overall 54% (634/1176) of questionnaires were returned. Participants who received a video invitation on a USB were more likely to return the questionnaire than those who did not (58% vs 47%, P < .001). Participation rate did not significantly differ by video presenter. Forty-seven percent of participants who received a USB reported watching the video, of whom 48% reported that the video influenced their decision to participate. Participants with a lower income (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.25-0.74, P = .002) were more likely to report watching the video. Participants who received a video invitation required significantly fewer reminder calls than those who only received a written invitation (mean = 1.6 vs 1.1 calls, P < .001), resulting in a 25% recruitment cost-saving for the study. Adding a USB with a video study invitation to recruitment packages is a cost-effective way of improving study participation. This is important in an era of declining study participation and underrepresentation of vulnerable populations in research.
Subject(s)
Cancer Survivors/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adolescent , Adult , Australia , Biomedical Research/economics , Biomedical Research/methods , Child , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/economics , Mass Screening/methods , Neoplasms/diagnosis , New Zealand , Video Recording/economics , Video Recording/methods , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Treatment of newly diagnosed advanced-stage ovarian cancer typically involves cytoreductive surgery and systemic chemotherapy. We conducted a trial to investigate whether the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to interval cytoreductive surgery would improve outcomes among patients who were receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 245 patients who had at least stable disease after three cycles of carboplatin (area under the curve of 5 to 6 mg per milliliter per minute) and paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter of body-surface area) to undergo interval cytoreductive surgery either with or without administration of HIPEC with cisplatin (100 mg per square meter). Randomization was performed at the time of surgery in cases in which surgery that would result in no visible disease (complete cytoreduction) or surgery after which one or more residual tumors measuring 10 mm or less in diameter remain (optimal cytoreduction) was deemed to be feasible. Three additional cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel were administered postoperatively. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival. Overall survival and the side-effect profile were key secondary end points. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, events of disease recurrence or death occurred in 110 of the 123 patients (89%) who underwent cytoreductive surgery without HIPEC (surgery group) and in 99 of the 122 patients (81%) who underwent cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (surgery-plus-HIPEC group) (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.87; P=0.003). The median recurrence-free survival was 10.7 months in the surgery group and 14.2 months in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. At a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 76 patients (62%) in the surgery group and 61 patients (50%) in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group had died (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.94; P=0.02). The median overall survival was 33.9 months in the surgery group and 45.7 months in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. The percentage of patients who had adverse events of grade 3 or 4 was similar in the two groups (25% in the surgery group and 27% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group, P=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer, the addition of HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery resulted in longer recurrence-free survival and overall survival than surgery alone and did not result in higher rates of side effects. (Funded by the Dutch Cancer Society; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00426257 ; EudraCT number, 2006-003466-34 .).
Subject(s)
Cisplatin/administration & dosage , Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures , Hyperthermia, Induced , Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial/drug therapy , Ovarian Neoplasms/drug therapy , Aged , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/therapeutic use , Carboplatin/administration & dosage , Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Humans , Intention to Treat Analysis , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial/mortality , Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial/surgery , Ovarian Neoplasms/mortality , Ovarian Neoplasms/surgery , Paclitaxel/administration & dosage , Survival AnalysisABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Incomplete reporting of key information on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology has been highlighted repeatedly as a major barrier to the use of study findings in clinical practice. We investigated whether the quality of reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs has improved over the last 15 years. METHODS: We identified all cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints conducted across the most prevalent solid tumor types worldwide published between 2004 and 2019. The quality of PRO reporting was assessed using the International Society for Quality of Life Research recommended standards, which include important aspects related to assessment methodology, statistical analyses, and interpretation of data. RESULTS: We assessed a total of 631 cancer RCTs in breast (n = 187), lung (n = 131), prostate (n = 120), colorectal (n = 107), and gynecological (n = 86) cancer. We observed a higher adherence to the International Society for Quality of Life Research reporting criteria in the more recently published studies. In a multivariable linear regression analysis, we observed a statistically significant improvement in the quality of PRO reporting over time (P<.001), and this relationship was independent of other measured confounding factors, such as sample size and study sponsorship. Overall, the quality of PRO reporting was higher for studies published after the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-PRO Extension. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of PRO reporting in cancer RCTs published in the last 15 years has improved significantly. Our findings are encouraging because better reporting of PRO results may translate into a greater impact of study findings on real-world practice.
Subject(s)
Medical Oncology , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Quality Control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Humans , Linear ModelsABSTRACT
Exercise during cancer treatment improves cancer-related fatigue (CRF), but the importance of exercise intensity for CRF is unclear. We compared the effects of high- vs low-to-moderate-intensity exercise with or without additional behavior change support (BCS) on CRF in patients undergoing (neo-)adjuvant cancer treatment. This was a multicenter, 2x2 factorial design randomized controlled trial (Clinical Trials NCT02473003) in Sweden. Participants recently diagnosed with breast (n = 457), prostate (n = 97) or colorectal (n = 23) cancer undergoing (neo-)adjuvant treatment were randomized to high intensity (n = 144), low-to-moderate intensity (n = 144), high intensity with BCS (n = 144) or low-to-moderate intensity with BCS (n = 145). The 6-month exercise intervention included supervised resistance training and home-based endurance training. CRF was assessed by Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI, five subscales score range 4-20), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale (FACIT-F, score range 0-52). Multiple linear regression for main factorial effects was performed according to intention-to-treat, with post-intervention CRF as primary endpoint. Overall, 577 participants (mean age 58.7 years) were randomized. Participants randomized to high- vs low-to-moderate-intensity exercise had lower physical fatigue (MFI Physical Fatigue subscale; mean difference -1.05 [95% CI: -1.85, -0.25]), but the difference was not clinically important (ie <2). We found no differences in other CRF dimensions and no effect of additional BCS. There were few minor adverse events. For CRF, patients undergoing (neo-)adjuvant treatment for breast, prostate or colorectal cancer can safely exercise at high- or low-to-moderate intensity, according to their own preferences. Additional BCS does not provide extra benefit for CRF in supervised, well-controlled exercise interventions.
Subject(s)
Exercise Therapy/methods , Fatigue/prevention & control , Neoadjuvant Therapy , Neoplasms/therapy , Activities of Daily Living , Anxiety/prevention & control , Behavior Therapy , Breast Neoplasms/complications , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Cardiorespiratory Fitness , Colorectal Neoplasms/complications , Colorectal Neoplasms/therapy , Depression/prevention & control , Endurance Training , Exercise Therapy/adverse effects , Exercise Therapy/psychology , Fatigue/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Muscle Strength , Neoplasms/complications , Prostatic Neoplasms/complications , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Quality of Life , Resistance Training/adverse effects , Sedentary Behavior , SleepABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has been shown to be a prognostic factor for cancer survival in randomized clinical trials and observational "real-world" cohort studies; however, it remains unclear which HRQoL domains are the best prognosticators. The primary aims of this population-based, observational study were to (a) investigate the association between the novel European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core30 (QLQ-C30) summary score and all-cause mortality, adjusting for the more traditional sociodemographic and clinical prognostic factors; and (b) compare the prognostic value of the QLQ-C30 summary score with the global quality of life (QoL) and physical functioning scales of the QLQ-C30. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2008 and 2015, patients with cancer (12 tumor types) were invited to participate in PROFILES disease-specific registry studies (response rate, 69%). In this secondary analysis of 6,895 patients, multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to investigate the association between the QLQ-C30 scores and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: In the overall Cox regression model including sociodemographic and clinical variables, the QLQ-C30 summary score was associated significantly with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.82). In stratified analyses, significant associations between the summary score and all-cause mortality were observed for colon, rectal, and prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and multiple myeloma. The QLQ-C30 summary score had a stronger association with all-cause mortality than the global QoL scale (HR, 0.82; 99% CI, 0.77-0.86) or the physical functioning scale (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.85). CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, the QLQ-C30 summary score has a strong prognostic value for overall survival for a number of populations of patients with cancer above and beyond that provided by clinical and sociodemographic variables. The QLQ-C30 summary score appears to have more prognostic value than the global QoL, physical functioning, or any other scale within the QLQ-C30. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The finding that health-related quality of life provides distinct prognostic information beyond known sociodemographic and clinical measures, not only around cancer diagnosis (baseline) but also at follow-up, has implications for clinical practice. Implementation of cancer survivorship monitoring systems for ongoing surveillance may improve post-treatment rehabilitation that leads to better outcomes.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Quality of Life , Humans , Male , Observational Studies as Topic , Prognosis , Registries , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In its 2006 report, From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition, the U.S. Institute of Medicine raised the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive care model for cancer survivors. Given the ever increasing number of cancer survivors, in general, and prostate cancer survivors, in particular, there is a need for a more sustainable model of follow-up care. Currently, patients who have completed primary treatment for localized prostate cancer are often included in a specialist-based follow-up care program. General practitioners already play a key role in providing continuous and comprehensive health care. Studies in breast and colorectal cancer suggest that general practitioners could also consider to provide survivorship care in prostate cancer. However, empirical data are needed to determine whether follow-up care of localized prostate cancer survivors by the general practitioner is a feasible alternative. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study will compare specialist-based (usual care) versus general practitioner-based (intervention) follow-up care of prostate cancer survivors who have completed primary treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) for localized prostate cancer. Patients are being recruited from hospitals in the Netherlands, and randomly (1:1) allocated to specialist-based (N = 195) or general practitioner-based (N = 195) follow-up care. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up, in comparison to usual care, in terms of adherence to the prostate cancer surveillance guideline for the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen assessments, the time from a biochemical recurrence to retreatment decision-making, the management of treatment-related side effects, health-related quality of life, prostate cancer-related anxiety, continuity of care, and cost-effectiveness. The outcome measures will be assessed at randomization (≤6 months after treatment), and 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. DISCUSSION: This multicenter, prospective, randomized study will provide empirical evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of specialist-based follow-up care compared to general practitioner-based follow-up care for localized prostate cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266). Prospectively registered on 11 June 2018.
Subject(s)
Aftercare/methods , Anxiety/epidemiology , Cancer Survivors/psychology , General Practitioners/organization & administration , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Aftercare/economics , Aftercare/organization & administration , Aftercare/standards , Aged , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/prevention & control , Anxiety/psychology , Continuity of Patient Care , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Equivalence Trials as Topic , Feasibility Studies , General Practitioners/economics , Guideline Adherence/economics , Guideline Adherence/organization & administration , Guideline Adherence/standards , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Kallikreins/blood , Male , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Netherlands/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Primary Health Care/economics , Primary Health Care/methods , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/standards , Professional Role , Program Evaluation , Prospective Studies , Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood , Prostatectomy/adverse effects , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/mortality , Prostatic Neoplasms/psychology , Quality of Life , Radiotherapy, Adjuvant/adverse effects , Radiotherapy, Adjuvant/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Secondary Care/economics , Secondary Care/methods , Secondary Care/organization & administration , Secondary Care/standardsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Unmet health care needs require additional care resources to achieve optimal patient well-being. In this nationwide study we examined associations between a number of risk factors and unmet needs after treatment among women with breast cancer, while taking into account their health care practices. We expected that more care use would be associated with lower levels of unmet needs. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, observational design was employed. Women with primary breast cancer completed questionnaires 6 and 15 months post-diagnosis. Medical data were retrieved from medical records. Direct and indirect associations between sociodemographic and clinical risk factors, distress, care use, and unmet needs were investigated with structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-six participants completed both questionnaires (response rate 73.7%). The care services received were not negatively associated with the reported levels of unmet needs after treatment. Comorbidity was associated with higher physical and daily living needs. Higher age was associated with higher health system-related and informational needs. Having had chemotherapy and a mastectomy were associated with higher sexuality needs and breast cancer-specific issues, respectively. A higher level of distress was associated with higher levels of unmet need in all domains. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians may use these results to timely identify which women are at risk of developing specific unmet needs after treatment. Evidence-based, cost-effective (online) interventions that target distress, the most influential risk factor, should be further implemented and disseminated among patients and clinicians.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/psychology , Cancer Survivors/psychology , Health Services Needs and Demand/statistics & numerical data , Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Female , Humans , Mastectomy/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Needs Assessment/standards , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Social Support , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial interventions can reduce cancer-related fatigue effectively. However, it is still unclear if intervention effects differ across subgroups of patients. These meta-analyses aimed at evaluating moderator effects of (a) sociodemographic characteristics, (b) clinical characteristics, (c) baseline levels of fatigue and other symptoms, and (d) intervention-related characteristics on the effect of psychosocial interventions on cancer-related fatigue in patients with non-metastatic breast and prostate cancer. METHODS: Data were retrieved from the Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care (POLARIS) consortium. Potential moderators were studied with meta-analyses of pooled individual patient data from 14 randomized controlled trials through linear mixed-effects models with interaction tests. The analyses were conducted separately in patients with breast (n = 1091) and prostate cancer (n = 1008). RESULTS: Statistically significant, small overall effects of psychosocial interventions on fatigue were found (breast cancer: ß = -0.19 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) = -0.30; -0.08]; prostate cancer: ß = -0.11 [95%CI = -0.21; -0.00]). In both patient groups, intervention effects did not differ significantly by sociodemographic or clinical characteristics, nor by baseline levels of fatigue or pain. For intervention-related moderators (only tested among women with breast cancer), statistically significant larger effects were found for cognitive behavioral therapy as intervention strategy (ß = -0.27 [95%CI = -0.40; -0.15]), fatigue-specific interventions (ß = -0.48 [95%CI = -0.79; -0.18]), and interventions that only targeted patients with clinically relevant fatigue (ß = -0.85 [95%CI = -1.40; -0.30]). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings did not provide evidence that any selected demographic or clinical characteristic, or baseline levels of fatigue or pain, moderated effects of psychosocial interventions on fatigue. A specific focus on decreasing fatigue seems beneficial for patients with breast cancer with clinically relevant fatigue.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/psychology , Breast Neoplasms/therapy , Fatigue/therapy , Prostatic Neoplasms/psychology , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Psychosocial Intervention/methods , Fatigue/etiology , Fatigue/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Quality of Life/psychology , Social SupportABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements used in cancer research can assess a number of health domains. Our primary objective was to investigate which broad types of PRO domains (namely, functional health, symptoms, and global quality of life [QoL]) most frequently yielded significant differences between treatments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A total of 229 RCTs published between January 2004 and February 2019, conducted on patients diagnosed with the most common solid malignancies and assessed using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30, were considered. Studies were identified systematically using literature searches in key electronic databases. Unlike other PRO measurements typically used in RCTs, the scoring algorithm of the multidimensional EORTC QLQ-C30 allowed us to clearly distinguish the 3 broad types of PRO domains. RESULTS: In total, 134 RCTs (58.5%) reported statistically significant differences between treatment arms for at least 1 of the QLQ-C30 domains. Most frequently, differences were reported for 2 or all 3 broad types of PRO domains (78 of 134 trials; 58.2%). In particular, 35 trials (26.1%) found significant differences for symptoms, functional health, and global QoL, 24 trials (17.9%) for symptoms and functional health, 11 trials (8.2%) for functional health and global QoL, and 8 trials (6.0%) for symptoms and global QoL. The likelihood of finding a statistically significant difference between treatment arms was not associated with key study characteristics, such as study design (ie, open-label vs blinded trials) and industry support. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings emphasize the importance of a multidimensional PRO assessment to most comprehensively capture the overall burden of therapy from the patients' standpoint.