[Imaging: The oncologist's perspective]. / Bildgebung aus der Sicht eines Onkologen.

CLINICAL ISSUE: Modern oncology has implemented several novel modalities, which increasingly warrant interdisciplinarity, dedicated imaging methods as well as intensive communication between imager and oncologists. STANDARD TREATMENT: The classical pillars of cancer treatment are surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. TREATMENT INNOVATIONS: Evidence-based oncology, radio-oncology, and surgery, individualized precision oncology, novel drug classes, immuno-oncology, minimally invasive diagnostic and treatment methods. DIAGNOSTIC WORK-UP: Standard imaging methods are undergoing constant innovation and are being supplemented by specific radiotracers that can be used for radionuclide therapy. Adapted response criteria are to be used in the context of targeted therapy or checkpoint inhibitors. PERFORMANCE AND ACHIEVEMENT: Modern cancer treatment enables improved tumor control. Due to its complexity, however, it increasingly warrants structured reporting and intense communication between imager and oncologists, to make best use of its potential.

Resilience in cancer patients and how it correlates with demographics, psychological factors, and lifestyle.

BACKGROUND: Being diagnosed with cancer is challenging. Many patients wish to be actively involved in treatment and contribute to therapy, but the patients' coping abilities and desire for involvement differ. The individual level of resilience seems to play a major role. Our study aims to learn more about the associations of resilience and factors as demographics and psychological factors. METHODS: This multicentric cross-sectional study was conducted in ten oncological centers in Germany in summer 2021. The questionnaire collected information on demographics, resilience, self-efficacy, general satisfaction with life, and sense of coherence. Considered lifestyle-aspects were diet and physical activity. 416 patients were included in the analyses. RESULTS: A moderate mean resilience score was achieved (M = 69). Significant correlations in demographics were found for resilience and education (r = 0.146, p = 0.003), income (r = 0.205, p = 0.001), and time since receiving diagnosis (r = - 0.115, p = 0.021). Resilience and self-efficacy correlated on a high level (r = 0.595, p < 0.001), resilience and sense of coherence, and resilience and general satisfaction with life in a moderate way (r = 0.339, p < 0.001; r = 0.461, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Resilience portrays an important aspect in cancer treatment. Detecting patients at risk, stabilizing, or improving resilience are important to focus on and strengthen them accordingly. Possible negatively influencing factors (e.g., low self-efficacy) need to be considered. Factors affecting resilience but difficult to influence, as educational background, should be screened for. Also, the combination of low resilience and low income seems to describe a vulnerable patient group.

Sense of coherence and its context with demographics, psychological aspects, lifestyle, complementary and alternative medicine and lay aetiology.

PURPOSE: For patients with a cancer diagnosis, coping abilities are of high importance. Cancer patients with a high sense of coherence may cope better. The purpose of this study is to learn more about the correlation of sense of coherence and different aspects, such as demographics, psychological factors, lifestyle, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and lay aetiology. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was performed in ten cancer centres in Germany. The questionnaire consisted of ten sub-items, collecting information about sense of coherence, demographics, general life satisfaction, resilience, spirituality, self-efficacy, physical activity and sports, nutrition, CAM methods and cancer causes. RESULTS: As many as 349 participants were evaluable. The mean sense of coherence score was M = 47.30. Significant associations were shown for sense of coherence and financial situation (r = 0.230, p < 0.001), level of education (r = 0.187, p < 0.001), marital status (η = 0.177, p = 0.026) and time interval since diagnosis (r = - 0.109, p = 0.045). Sense of coherence and resilience correlated on a high level, as well as spirituality, self-efficacy and general life satisfaction (r = 0.563, r = 0.432, r = 0.461, r = 0.306, p's < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Several aspects, such as demographics and psychological factors, have a great influence on the sense of coherence. To help patients to cope better, physicians should try to strengthen sense of coherence, resilience and self-efficacy and, at the same time, consider patients' individual background such as level of education, financial capacity and emotional support by family members.

Excellent long-term survival of 170 patients with Waldenström's macroglobulinemia treated in private oncology practices and a university hospital.

The purpose of this study was to compare treatment and outcome of patients with Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM) in four private oncology practices (PP) and a university hospital (UH) in southwest Germany. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients with WM of the last two decades of four PP in Mannheim, Heidelberg, Karlsruhe, and Speyer and the Department of Hematology of the University of Heidelberg. One hundred seventy patients could be identified, 74 from PP, 96 from the UH. Median age was 63.3 years. Patients from PP were older (median 65.3 vs. 62.5 years, p = 0.01). Only 54 % of patients from PP have received treatment during the observation time, as compared to 78.1 % of the UH (p < 0.001). In PP, 35 % of treated patients have received rituximab, as compared to 62.6 % of the patients of the UH (p < 0.001). Sixty percent of treated patients of PP have received bendamustine, as compared to only 8 % of the patients of the UH (p < 0.001). Time to first treatment was significantly shorter in patients from the UH compared to PP (median 13.7 vs. 52.9 months, p = 0.05). A trend towards a better overall survival was observed for patients treated with a rituximab-containing first-line regimen. The International Prognostic Scoring System for WM had significant prognostic value. Median overall survival was 25.0 years and did not differ between PP and UH. Despite different treatment strategies between PP and UH today overall survival of patients with WM is excellent, and better than previously reported.

A prospective randomised phase-II trial with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus sunitinib in advanced pancreatic cancer: a study of the CESAR Central European Society for Anticancer Drug Research-EWIV.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most common malignant tumours and is still associated with a poor prognosis in advanced disease. To improve the standard therapy with gemcitabine, we initiated a prospective randomised phase-II trial with gemcitabine (GEM) versus gemcitabine plus sunitinib (SUNGEM) based on data of in vitro trials and phase-I data for the combination treatment. The rational of adding sunitinib was its putative antiangiogenic mechanism of action. METHODS: A total of 106 eligible patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic PDAC without previous system therapy were randomised to receive GEM at a dosage of 1.000mg/m(2) d1, 8, 15 q28 versus a combination of SUNGEM at a dosage of GEM 1.000mg/m(2) d1+8 and sunitinib 50mg p.o. d1-14, q21d. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), toxicity and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: The confirmatory analysis of PFS was based on the intend-to-treat (ITT) population (N=106). The median PFS was 13.3 weeks (95% confidence interval (95%-CI): 10.4-18.1 weeks) for GEM and 11.6 weeks for SUNGEM (95%-CI: 7.0-18.0 weeks; p=0.78 one-sided log-rank). The ORR was 6.1% (95%-CI: 0.7-20.2%) for GEM and for 7.1% (95%-CI: 0.9-23.5%) for SUNGEM (p=0.87). The median time to progression (TTP) was 14.0 weeks (95%-CI: 12.4-22.3 weeks) for GEM and 18.0 weeks (95%-CI: 11.3-19.3 weeks) for SUNGEM (p=0.60; two-sided log-rank). The median OS was 36.7 weeks (95%-CI: 20.6-49.0 weeks) for the GEM arm and 30.4 weeks (95%-CI: 18.1-37.6 weeks) for the SUNGEM (p=0.78, one-sided log-rank). In regard to toxicities, suspected SAEs were reported in 53.7% in the GEM arm and 71.2% in the SUNGEM arm. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was statistically significantly higher in the SUNGEM arm with 48.1% versus 27.8% in the GEM arm (p=0.045, two sided log-rank). CONCLUSIONS: The combination SUNGEM was not sufficient superior in locally advanced or metastatic PDAC compared to GEM alone in regard to efficacy but was associated with more toxicity.