Differential effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention based on the age of patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Symptom monitoring interventions enhance patient outcomes, including quality of life (QoL), health care utilization, and survival, but it remains unclear whether older and younger patients with cancer derive similar benefits. We explored whether age moderates the improved outcomes seen with an outpatient electronic symptom monitoring intervention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of 766 patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors. Patients received an electronic symptom monitoring intervention integrated with oncology care or usual oncology care alone. The intervention consisted of patients reporting their symptoms, which were provided to their physicians at clinic visits, and nurses receiving alerts for severe/worsening symptoms. We used regression models to determine whether age (older or younger than 70 years) moderated the effects of the intervention on QoL (EuroQol EQ-5D), emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival outcomes. RESULTS: Enrollment rates for younger (589/777 = 75.8%) and older (177/230 = 77.0%) patients did not differ. Older patients (median age = 75 years, range 70-91 years) were more likely to have an education level of high school or less (26.6% versus 20.9%, P = 0.029) and to be computer inexperienced (50.3% versus 23.4%, P < 0.001) compared with younger patients (median age = 58 years, range 26-69 years). Younger patients receiving the symptom monitoring intervention experienced lower risk of ER visits [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.74, P = 0.011] and improved survival (HR = 0.76, P = 0.011) compared with younger patients receiving usual care. However, older patients did not experience significantly lower risk of ER visits (HR = 0.90, P = 0.613) or improved survival (HR = 1.06, P = 0.753) with the intervention. We found no moderation effects based on age for QoL and risk of hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced cancer, age moderated the effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention on the risk of ER visits and survival, but not QoL. Symptom monitoring interventions may need to be tailored to the unique needs of older adults with cancer.

Risk of malignancy in small pancreatic cysts decreases over time.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cysts <15 mm without worrisome features have practically no risk of malignancy at the time of diagnosis but this can change over time. Optimal duration of follow-up is a matter of debate. We evaluated predictors of malignancy and attempted to identify a time to safely discontinue surveillance. METHODS: Bi-centric study utilizing prospectively collected databases of patients with pancreatic cysts measuring <15 mm and without worrisome features who underwent surveillance at the Massachusetts General Hospital (1988-2017) and at the University of Verona Hospital Trust (2000-2016). The risk of malignant transformation was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and parametric survival models, and predictors of malignancy were evaluated using Cox regression. RESULTS: 806 patients were identified. Median follow-up was 58 months (6-347). Over time, 58 (7.2%) cysts were resected and of those, 11 had high grade dysplasia (HGD) or invasive cancer. Three additional patients had unresectable cancer for a total rate of malignancy of 1.7%. Predictors of development of malignancy included an increase in size ≥2.5 mm/year (HR = 29.54, 95% CI: 9.39-92.91, P < 0.001) and the development of worrisome features (HR = 9.17, 95% CI: 2.99-28.10, P = 0.001). Comparison of parametric survival models suggested that the risk of malignancy decreased after three years of surveillance and was lower than 0.2% after five years. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic cysts <15  mm at the time of diagnosis have a very low risk of malignant transformation. Our findings indicate the risk decreases over time. Size increase of ≥2.5 mm/year is the strongest predictor of malignancy.

An elevated CA 19-9 is associated with invasive cancer and worse survival in IPMN.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for IPMN include an elevated serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 among the worrisome features. However, the correlation of CA 19-9 with histological malignant features and survival is unclear. Serum CEA is also currently used for preoperative management of IPMN, although its measurement is not evidence-based. Accordingly, we aimed to assess the role of these tumor markers as predictors of malignancy in IPMN. METHODS: IPMN resected between 1998 and 2018 at Massachusetts General Hospital were analyzed. Clinical, pathological and survival data were collected and compared to preoperative levels of CA 19-9 and CEA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and Cox regression analyses were performed considering cut-offs of 37 U/ml (CA 19-9) and 5 µg/l (CEA). RESULTS: Analysis of 594 patients showed that preoperative CA 19-9 levels > 37 U/ml (n = 128) were associated with an increased likelihood of invasive carcinoma when compared to normal levels (45.3% vs. 18.0%, P < 0.001), while there was no difference with respect to high-grade dysplasia (32.9% vs 31.9%, P = 0.88). The proportion of concurrent pancreatic cancer was higher in patients with CA 19-9 > 37 U/ml (17.2% vs 4.9%, P < 0.001). An elevated CA 19-9 was also associated with worse overall and disease-free survival (HR = 1.943, P = 0.007 and HR = 2.484, P < 0.001 respectively). CEA levels did not correlate with malignancy. CONCLUSION: In patients with IPMN, serum CA19-9 > 37 U/ml is associated with invasive IPMN and concurrent pancreatic cancer as well as worse survival, but not with high-grade dysplasia. Serum CEA appears to have minimal utility in the management of these patients.

Setting the Stage: Feasibility and Baseline Characteristics in the PARTIQoL Trial Comparing Proton Therapy vs. IMRT for Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Men with localized prostate cancer may receive either photon-based intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or proton beam therapy (PBT). The XXXXX trial (NCT01617161), demonstrates the feasibility of performing a large, multicenter phase 3 randomized trial comparing IMRT to PBT for localized prostate cancer. Here, we report baseline features of patients enrolled on this trial and present strategies to improve feasibility of other similar trials. MATERIALS/METHODS: Patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomized to either PBT or IMRT with stratification by institution, age, use of rectal spacer, and fractionation schedule (conventional fractionation: 79.2 Gy in 44 fractions vs. moderate hypofractionation: 70.0 Gy in 28 fractions). The primary endpoint is a change from baseline bowel health using the EPIC score 24 months after radiotherapy. Secondary objectives include treatment-related differences in urinary and erectile functions, adverse events, and efficacy endpoints. RESULTS: Between 07/2012 and 11/2021, 450 patients were successfully accrued. Patients were randomized to either PBT (N=226) or to IMRT (N=224); 13 were ineligible or withdrew prior to treatment. The median age of 437 analyzed patients was 68 years (range 46-89). 41% of patients had low-risk and 59% had intermediate-risk disease. 49% of patients were treated with conventional fractionation and 51% with moderately hypofractionation. For patients receiving PBT, 48% used a rectal balloon, 44% a rectal spacer, and 5% both. For patients receiving IMRT, 46% used a rectal balloon, 42% a rectal spacer, and 5% both. PBT and IMRT arms were balanced for baseline variables. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant challenges, the XXXXX trial demonstrated that, with targeted recruitment approaches, multicenter collaboration, payer engagement, and protocol updates to incorporate contemporary techniques, it is feasible to perform a large phase III randomized clinical trial to assess whether PBT improves outcomes. We will separately report primary results and continue to monitor participants for longer followup and secondary endpoints.