Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Directed Antiemetic Treatment in Women With Breast Cancer Treated With Neo- or Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Randomised Multicentre Phase II Study. (EudraCT: 2015-000658-39).

BACKGROUND/AIM: The role of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the frequency and intensity of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in women with breast cancer (BC) is unclear. The primary purpose of this study was to compare/evaluate the effect of SNP-guided antiemetic treatment versus standard CINV treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomised, factorial, phase II multicentre study design was used. Women planned for neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy with epirubicin, cyclophosphamide and fluorouracil (FEC /EC, with or without fluorouracil) for BC were randomised to SNP-guided antiemetic treatment (based on the results of SNP analyses) versus standard CINV treatment. Blood samples were taken before the treatment was initiated. Patient-reported data on CINV (during 10 days from onset of cancer treatment) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), were collected before and after the first cancer treatment. RESULTS: A total of 188 women were included. Overall, nausea was reported by 86% (n=129) of the patients during the ten-day period from the start of cancer treatment. The SNP genotype studied varied. In FAS-CD95, the genotypes AG and GG were overrepresented; in RB1-LPAR6, GG was overrepresented, and in CCL2, both AA and GG were overrepresented. We found no statistically significant difference in CINV between SNP-guided antiemetic treatment versus standard CINV treatment. CONCLUSION: SNP-guided antiemetic treatment could be as effective as standard treatment. SNP-guided antiemetic treatment of CINV is possibly useful in detecting patients with a higher or lower risk for CINV and thus may help in avoiding over-treatment with toxic components. CINV negatively affects the HRQL.

Communication About Complementary and Alternative Medicine When Patients Decline Conventional Cancer Treatment: Patients' and Physicians' Experiences.

BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a broad set of nonconventional practices used alongside or instead of conventional treatment: The latter poses obvious risks related to cancer prognosis. Patient-physician dialogue about CAM is crucial for patient safety and mutual trust. Little is known about communication in the rare situations when patients decline recommended cancer treatment and consider using CAM. The objective of this study was to explore patients' and physicians' experiences from situations when patients decline recommended cancer treatment and consider using CAM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 7 CAM-using cancer patients who had declined some or all conventional treatment as well as 10 physicians from oncology and palliative care. Framework analysis was used. RESULTS: Regarding treatment choices, there was a dissonance between physicians' focus on medical reasoning and patients' expression of complex values. Physicians' difficulty in understanding patients' treatment decline was exacerbated when patients considered using CAM, impairing communication even further. Inequalities in roles resulting in power struggles risked pushing both parties toward extreme and inflexible standpoints. Despite these challenges regarding treatment choices and hierarchical roles, both parties considered open and respectful communication as crucial. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the difficulty of shared decision-making in practice when patients' and physicians' views on treatment decisions deviate in clinically challenging situations. Our results point to a need to address the complexity of these situations, pay attention to patients' values, and improve knowledge among physicians about CAM.

Factors associated with healthcare utilisation during first year after cancer diagnose-a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Improved cancer treatments and models of care (such as early palliative care) has developed during recent years. Aspects of healthcare utilisation-unplanned care have been used for evaluation of coordination and quality. The aim was to explore factors associated with cancer healthcare utilisation, during the first year after a cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Population-based registry and patient-reported data, (The European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), QLQ- C30 questionnaire and study-specific questions) were collected. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression models were performed. RESULTS: The sample consists of 1718 patients (haematological, gynaecological, upper gastrointestinal and head and neck cancers). Living alone were associated with unplanned hospital admissions (OR 1.35; 95% CI [1.15, 1.59], p < 0.001). Patients with specialised palliative home care had a higher likelihood of unplanned hospital admissions, (OR 4.35; 95% CI [3.22-5.91], p < 0.001) and re-admissions within 30 days, (OR, 5.8; 95% CI [4.12-8.19], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic and clinical factors, such as living alone and disease stage, is associated with healthcare utilisation. Patients with specialised palliative home care report lower levels of HRQoL and higher levels of unplanned care, and our findings stresses the importance of a holistic view when planning care.

Efficacy of mistletoe extract as a complement to standard treatment in advanced pancreatic cancer: study protocol for a multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial (MISTRAL).

BACKGROUND: Most pancreatic cancer patients present with advanced stage at diagnosis with extremely short expected survival and few treatment options. A multimodal palliative approach is necessary for symptom relief and optimisation of health-related quality of life. In a recent open-label trial of mistletoe extract for advanced pancreatic cancer patients not eligible for chemotherapy, promising results on improved overall survival and better health-related quality of life were reported. The objective of the present study is to assess the value of mistletoe extract as a complement to standard treatment (palliative chemotherapy or best supportive care) in advanced pancreatic cancer patients with regard to overall survival and health-related quality of life. METHODS: The trial is prospective, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel group and placebo-controlled. In total, 290 participants are randomly assigned to placebo or mistletoe extract given subcutaneously in increasing dosage from 0.01 to 20 mg three times per week for 9 months. Stratification is performed for site and palliative chemotherapy. Main inclusion criteria are advanced pancreatic cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2; main exclusion criteria are life expectancy less than 4 weeks and neuroendocrine tumour of the pancreas. Two ancillary studies on sub-sets of participants are nested in the trial: a biomarker study collecting blood samples and a cross-sectional qualitative study with semi-structured face-to-face interviews. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first placebo-controlled randomised trial assessing the impact of mistletoe extract as a complement to standard treatment on overall survival and health-related quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The presented trial with its two nested ancillary studies exploring biomarkers and patient experiences is expected to give new insights into the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trial Register, EudraCT Number 2014-004552-64 . Registered on 19 January 2016. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02948309 . Registered on 28 October 2016.

Cancer patients' use of complementary and alternative medicine in Sweden: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Access to and advice on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) are uncommon within Swedish conventional cancer care and little is known about cancer patients' own use of CAM. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore Swedish cancer patients´ patterns of CAM use, their experiences and preferences. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed consecutively to 1297 cancer patients at a university hospital's out-patient oncology units. The response rate was 58% (n = 755). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the survey data. A logistic regression model was used to investigate the association between CAM use and gender, age and level of education. Open-ended responses were analyzed, using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Lifetime CAM use was reported by 34% (n = 256), and 26% (n = 198) used CAM after cancer diagnosis. Being female, younger and having higher education predicted CAM use. Most commonly used methods were natural products including vitamins and minerals and relaxation. Main reasons for CAM use were improvement of physical, general and emotional wellbeing and increasing the body's ability to fight cancer. Satisfaction with CAM usage was generally high. Reported adverse effects were few and mild; 54% of users spent < 50 Euro a month on CAM. One third had discussed their CAM use with cancer care providers. More than half of all participants thought that cancer care providers should be able to discuss (58%) and to consider (54%) use of CAM modalities in cancer care. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited access and advice within conventional cancer care, one fourth of Swedish cancer patients use CAM. The insufficient patient-provider dialogue diverges with most patients' wish for professional guidance in their decisions and integration of CAM modalities in conventional cancer care. Concurrent and multimodal CAM use implies challenges and possibilities for cancer care that need to be considered.

No differences between Calendula cream and aqueous cream in the prevention of acute radiation skin reactions--results from a randomised blinded trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this blinded, randomized clinical trial was to compare two topical agents (Calendula Weleda cream vs. Essex cream) in reducing the risk of severe acute radiation skin reactions (ARSR) in relation to adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) for breast cancer. METHOD: The primary endpoint was the difference in proportion of patients with ARSR, assessed with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/The Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Acute Radiation Morbidity Scoring Criteria (RTOG/EORTC scale) at follow-up. The secondary endpoints included patient reported outcome measures; Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), Sleep disturbances (MOS-sleep questionnaire) and symptoms from the irradiated area (visual analogue scale). Patients' experiences and adherence to the topical agents were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 420 patients were randomised and 411 were analysed. With the exception of previous chemotherapy, the treatment groups were well balanced, both regarding treatment- and patient-related factors. The incidence of severe ARSR (RTOG/EORTC grade ≤2) at the follow-up visit was 23% (n = 45) in the Calendula group and 19% (n = 38) in the Essex group. We found no difference in severe ARSR between the groups at any point of assessment. The patients reported low levels of skin related symptoms and no statistically significant differences between the groups were found. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in ARSR between patients randomised to Calendula or Essex cream was found. ARSR seem to be a relatively limited problem, probably more influenced by treatment related factors than by choice of skin care products in this patient group.

A study to evaluate nurse-led on-treatment review for patients undergoing radiotherapy for head and neck cancer.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a nurse-led clinic for patients undergoing radiotherapy to the head and neck. BACKGROUND: The side effects of radiotherapy to the head and neck are superimposed on already significant physical and psychological morbidity. Medical review clinics tend to focus on treatment complications and there is evidence that specialist nurses can provide more holistic care for patients. However, doubts have been raised about the appropriateness of nurse-led review in this highly symptomatic and complex group. DESIGN: This evaluation compared medical on-treatment review (Phase 1) with a nurse-led clinic (Phase 2) for patients having radiotherapy to the head and neck, using an historical control group. METHODS: Twenty patients were reviewed by their consultant and 23 by a nurse specialist, using a clinic protocol. A mixed-method approach to data collection was taken. Patients completed weekly quality of life questionnaires and were asked about their experiences of support and care. General practitioners completed a questionnaire about the communication received from the clinic. Checklists assessed the content of clinic consultations. RESULTS: Patients valued the relationship developed with the nurse specialist, had longer, more frequent consultations and were more often referred to the multidisciplinary team. The nurse specialist managed 83% of consultations without referral to the consultant. Few significant differences in quality of life were found between the groups. There were indications that oral and nutritional problems were managed more effectively in the nurse-led clinic, although emotional functioning was higher in the medical group. GPs were positive about the timing and content of information received. CONCLUSIONS: On-treatment review for patients with head and neck cancer can be effectively managed by a nurse specialist. Relevance to Practice. Radiotherapy nurse specialists make an important contribution to the supportive care of patients with head and neck cancer. More investment is required to maximize their contribution.