Special Focus on Stage IV Cervical Cancer Patients: A Decade Experience.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify and compare prognostic factors, management strategies, and outcomes of very locally advanced cervical cancer (CC) (i.e., stage IVA) and metastatic CC (i.e., stage IVB). METHOD: A retrospective review was conducted based on all consecutive patients treatedfor stage IV CC in a comprehensive cancer care centre between 2004 and 2017. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were included. Performance status (PS) was ≥2 for 35.9%. Median age at diagnosis was 60.5. There were 24 stage IVA CC (35.3%) and 44 stage IVB CC (64.7%). Seventeen patients with stage IVB CC had only para-aortic lymph node metastases (38.6%), 13 had only distant metastases (29.5%), and 14 had both (31.8%). Patients with stage IVA CC experienced a radiotherapy with curative intent (n = 14, 58.3%) +/- concomitant chemotherapy, or a palliative treatment (n = 10, 41.7%). Twenty-three patients with stage IVB CC received a prior chemotherapy (52.3%), 11 a primary concomitant chemoradiation (25%), and 10 a palliative treatment (22.7%). The mean follow-up was 18.0 months. The 5-year overall survival was 5.1% for stage IVA (95% CI = 0.7-33.9), and 10.5% for stage IVB (95% CI = 3.7-29.7). In multivariate analysis, PS >1 was identified as a poor prognostic factor of disease-specific survival for stage IVA CC. PS >1 and pelvic lymph node involvement were identified as poor prognostic factors of overall survival and disease-specific survival for stage IVB CC. CONCLUSIONS: In daily clinical practice, outcomes of stages IV CC are poor. Treatment of advanced and metastatic CC remains challenging. New management strategies are needed, as well as efficient preventive strategies.

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicines among Cancer Patients: A Single-Center Study.

PURPOSE: It is usual for cancer patients to use complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and yet the literature evaluating their efficacy in cancer patients is very limited. The objective of the present study was to report on the nature, frequency of use, and patient-reported outcome of CAMs in a single-center study. METHODS: All the consecutive patients treated between November 2017 and June 2018 at the Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute (France) were screened. Their reasons for using CAMs and their usage habits were collected. Patients evaluated their benefit. RESULTS: Of the 209 patients screened, 200 patients were included. CAMs ranged from osteopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, healing touch, magnetism, naturopathy, suction cups, Chinese medicine, reflexology, to hypnosis. CAMs were widely used (n = 166, 83%), the first being osteopathy (n = 99, 49.5%), the second homeopathy (n = 78, 39.0%), and finally acupuncture (n = 76, 38.0%). Whatever the CAM, high satisfaction rates were reported (median satisfaction: 61-81%). CAMs were mainly used to prevent/treat side effects of anticancer treatments (81.2% for healing touch), increase well-being (55.4% for naturopathy), improve the immune system (16.9% for homeopathy), and treat cancer (n = 3, 5.1% for homeopathy). Patients could easily consider using CAMs, as up to 50.8% would have accepted a consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons for using CAMs differed among patients. They praised CAMs and kept asking for more information although there is limited evidence about their efficacy in the literature. Thus, prospective randomized controlled trials exploring the safety and efficacy of CAMs in cancer patients are needed.

[Complementary and alternative medicines in cancer patients]. / Les médecines alternatives complémentaires en oncologie.

Complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) play more and more a significant role both in France and all over the world. Yet, their definition and their role in cancer treatments legitimately raise concerns. This article aims at establishing a picture of the CAMs admitted by the French Medical Board as well as those which are new or in common medical practices in France. We start with a brief reminder of their origin, their status and how they are used. Then, we review the literature about some of the best clinical trials using CAMs in cancer patients. To finish, we try to understand what makes CAMs so thrilling, but also why they create controversy and which common points they may have with conventional medicine.

Quality insurance in head and neck cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: A watchful eye on real-life experience.

INTRODUCTION: Although Multidisciplinary Team Management (MDT) is integrated in most international head and neck cancer treatment guidelines, its applications and proceedings were rarely described. The present study explores a 6-year real-life experience in a French Comprehensive Cancer Care Center. METHODS: Patients, tumor and meeting characteristics of all consecutive cases discussed in head and neck MDT meetings between 2010 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, 1849 cases (accounting for 1786 patients) were discussed in 138 MDT meetings. Median age was 62 (range: 15-96). When reported (n = 310, 16.8%), performance status was ≥2 in 36.1% of patients. Tumors were mainly squamous cell carcinomas (n = 1664, 91.5%) of the larynx/hypo-pharynx (n = 630, 34.4%), oropharynx (n = 518; 28.3%) and oral cavity (n = 339; 18.5%). Tumors were diagnosed at a locally (n = 358, 25%), locally advanced (n = 946, 66%) or metastatic setting (n = 53, 3.7%). Mean number of discussed patients per MDT meeting was 16 (range: 3-32). Most patients were discussed once (n = 1663, 97%). Most patients (n = 969, 52%) underwent treatment before MDT meetings: mainly surgery (n = 709, 73.2%). The mean time between MDT meeting and first radiation course was 21 days (range: 1-116). DISCUSSION: Optimal multimodal treatment management is based on MDT meetings and results from the interaction and coordination of surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists. In the present series, most patients were discussed once despite the number of expected recurrences, suggesting that the management of tumor progression was not discussed in head and neck MDT meetings. Furthermore, most patients had surgery before MDT meeting, pointing out that MDT role and place still needs to be improved. Finally, the present population significantly differed from patients included in phase III clinical trials, with more advanced age and poorer condition. It calls for the necessity of a high-quality head and neck MDT meeting since evidence-based recommendations should be adapted to patient's frailties.

Healing touch in radiation therapy: is the benefit tangible?

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients tend to use more and more complementary or alternative medicine concomitantly to radiotherapy. A large part of these patients have recourse to Mind and Body practice, mainly with biofield healers or magnetizers, without any level of evidence. The aim of the present study was to report epidemiologic data on biofield healers in radiation therapy patients, and to assess the possible objective and subjective benefits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in a French cancer institute. All consecutive breast or prostate cancer patients undergoing a curative radiotherapy during 2015 were screened (n = 806). Healer consultation procedure, frequency, and remuneration were collected. Patient's self-evaluation of healer's impact on treatment tolerance was reported. Tolerance (fatigue, pain) was assessed through visual analogic scale (0 to 10). Analgesic consumption was evaluated. Toxicities were described according to NTCAEv4.0. RESULTS: 500 patients were included (350 women and 150 men). A total of 256 patients (51.2%) consulted a healer during their radiation treatment, with a majority of women (58%, p < 0.01). Most of patients had weekly (n = 209, 41.8%) or daily (n = 84, 16.8%) appointments with their healer. Regarding the self-reported tolerance, > 80% of the patients described a "good" or "very good" impact of the healer on their treatment. Healers were mainly voluntary (75.8%). Regarding the clinical efficacy, no difference was observed in prostate and in breast cancer patients (toxicity, antalgic consumption, pain). CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that the majority of patients treated by radiotherapy consults a healer and reports a benefit on subjective tolerance, without objective tolerance amelioration.