Integrated Geriatric Assessment and Treatment Effectiveness (INTEGERATE) in older people with cancer starting systemic anticancer treatment in Australia: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in improving health outcomes in cancer settings is unclear. We evaluated whether CGA can improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in older people with cancer who are starting systemic anticancer treatment. METHODS: INTEGERATE is a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial that was done at three hospitals in Australia. Participants aged 70 years and older with solid cancer or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma planned for chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy, were randomly assigned (1:1; using a central computer-generated minimisation algorithm with a random element, balancing treatment intent, cancer type, age, sex, and performance status) to receive CGA integrated into oncology care (integrated oncogeriatric care) or usual care only. Group assignment was not concealed from the participants and clinicians. The primary outcome was HRQOL over 24 weeks, assessed at baseline, week 12, week 18, and week 24, using the Elderly Functional Index (ELFI; score range 0-100). Analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ANZCTR.org.au, ACTRN12614000399695, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 18, 2014, and Sept 5, 2018, 154 participants were randomly assigned to integrated oncogeriatric care (n=76) or usual care (n=78). 13 participants died by week 12 and 130 (92%) of the remaining 141 participants completed two or more ELFI assessments. Participants assigned to integrated oncogeriatric care reported better adjusted ELFI change scores over 24 weeks compared with those in the usual care group (overall main effect of group: t=2·1, df=213, p=0·039; effect size=0·38), with maximal between-group differences at week 18 (mean difference in change 9·8 [95% CI 2·4-17·2]; p=0·010, corrected p=0·030, effect size=0·48). The integrated oncogeriatric care group also had significantly fewer unplanned hospital admissions at 24 weeks (multivariable-adjusted incidence rate ratio 0·60 [95% CI 0·42-0·87]; p=0·0066). No statistically significant between-group difference was observed in overall survival. INTERPRETATION: CGA led to better quality of life and health-care delivery in older people receiving systemic anticancer treatment. Routine CGA-based interventions should be considered in at-risk older people starting systemic anticancer treatment. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), Monash University, and Eastern Health.

'Pain-free TRUS B': a phase 3 double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial of methoxyflurane with periprostatic local anaesthesia to reduce the discomfort of transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy (ANZUP 1501).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the addition of inhaled methoxyflurane to periprostatic infiltration of local anaesthetic (PILA) during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies (TRUSBs) improved pain and other aspects of the experience. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized phase 3 trial, involving 420 men undergoing their first TRUSB. The intervention was PILA plus a patient-controlled device containing either 3 mL methoxyflurane, or 3 mL 0.9% saline plus one drop of methoxyflurane to preserve blinding. The primary outcome was the pain score (0-10) reported by the participant after 15 min. Secondary outcomes included ratings of other aspects of the biopsy experience, willingness to undergo future biopsies, urologists' ratings, biopsy completion, and adverse events. RESULTS: The mean (SE) pain scores 15 min after TRUSB were 2.51 (0.22) in those assigned methoxyflurane vs 2.82 (0.22) for placebo (difference 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.75 to 0.14; P = 0.18). Methoxyflurane was associated with better scores for discomfort (difference -0.48, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.03; P = 0.035, adjusted [adj.] P = 0.076), whole experience (difference -0.50, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.08; P = 0.021, adj. P = 0.053), and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies (odds ratio 1.67, 95% CI 1.12-2.49; P = 0.01) than placebo. Methoxyflurane resulted in higher scores for drowsiness (difference +1.64, 95% CI 1.21-2.07; P < 0.001, adj. P < 0.001) and dizziness (difference +1.78, 95% CI 1.31-2.24; P < 0.001, adj. P < 0.001) than placebo. There was no significant difference in the number of ≥ grade 3 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that methoxyflurane improved pain scores at 15 min, however, improvements were seen in patient-reported discomfort, overall experience, and willingness to undergo repeat biopsies.

Adjuvant Sorafenib for Renal Cell Carcinoma at Intermediate or High Risk of Relapse: Results From the SORCE Randomized Phase III Intergroup Trial.

PURPOSE: SORCE is an international, randomized, double-blind, three-arm trial of sorafenib after surgical excision of primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) found to be at intermediate or high risk of recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned participants (2:3:3) to 3 years of placebo (arm A), 1 year of sorafenib followed by 2 years of placebo (arm B), or 3 years of sorafenib (arm C). The initial sorafenib dose was 400 mg twice per day orally, amended to 400 mg daily. The primary outcome analysis, which was revised as a result of external results, was investigator-reported disease-free survival (DFS) comparing 3 years of sorafenib versus placebo. RESULTS: Between July 2007 and April 2013, we randomly assigned 1,711 participants (430, 642, and 639 participants in arms A, B, and C, respectively). Median age was 58 years, 71% of patients were men, 84% had clear cell histology, 53% were at intermediate risk of recurrence, and 47% were at high risk of recurrence. We observed no differences in DFS or overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, patients with high risk of recurrence, or patients with clear cell RCC only. Median DFS was not reached for 3 years of sorafenib or for placebo (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.23; P = .95). We observed nonproportional hazards; the restricted mean survival time (RMST) was 6.81 years for 3 years of sorafenib and 6.82 years for placebo (RMST difference, 0.01 year; 95% CI, -0.49 to 0.48 year; P = .99). Despite offering treatment adaptations, more than half of participants stopped treatment by 12 months. Grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction was reported in 24% of participants on sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib should not be used as adjuvant therapy for RCC. Active surveillance remains the standard of care for patients at intermediate or high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy and is the appropriate control of our current international adjuvant RCC trial, RAMPART.

Nursing Implications of Recent Changes in Management Practices for Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Prostate cancer is one of the most common male cancers in the world and accounts for substantial morbidity, mortality, loss of disability-adjusted life-years, and financial burden to patients and to the community. Metastatic prostate cancer has been managed for over 70 years with androgen deprivation therapy, but further life-prolonging therapies were not available until 2004. Since then, drugs such as docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel, radium-223 dichloride, and (not available in Australia) sipuleucel-T have all demonstrated efficacy in prolongation of survival in castrate-resistant prostate cancer, and improvement in cancer-related morbidity. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed scientific publications, Australian Government agency reports, and expert opinion. CONCLUSION: More recently, several of these agents have been given earlier in the treatment course to the hormone-sensitive metastatic setting, with even greater benefits in survival. These treatments have come at a cost: a literal financial cost to the community, and often to the patients and their families; and financial costs to the community to supply the drugs to those who need them. They also carry non-financial costs, including side effects of treatment, exacerbation of other co-morbidities, metabolic and bone health challenges, and psychological and social stresses, including those associated with longer survival with metastatic cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: The role of the nurse in management of these issues has never been more important. Nurses are often uniquely placed to educate men with prostate cancer and their families, screen for and identify adverse effects of treatment, and provide education and support not otherwise available. Nurses are central to the streamline of care coordination within the multidisciplinary team and the holistic care journey for men and their partners through the health care system. This review discusses several of these aspects to inform practice.

Interpolation to define clinical tumor stage in prostate cancer using clinical description of digital rectal examination.

AIM: This study aims to assess characteristics of patients with prostate cancer for whom clinical T stage category (cT) was not documented in the medical record and assess whether specialists had concordant conclusions regarding cT based on digital rectal examination (DRE) notes. METHODS: Data from the Prostate Cancer Outcome Registry - Victoria (PCOR-Vic) were interrogated. Four specialists independently assigned cT to DRE notes. Words, or part thereof, associated with agreement between clinicians were identified. RESULTS: Of the 10 587 men, cT was documented in 8758 (82.7%) cases. Multivariate analysis indicated that poor cT documentation was associated with older patient age (odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.99 if 75.1-85 years; OR 0.50, 95%CI 0.36-0.72 if >85 years); diagnosis via transperineal compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS) (OR 0.68, 95%CI 0.51-0.91); diagnosed in a private hospital (OR 0.85, 95%CI 0.75-0.96); and a diagnostic Gleason score of >8 compared to ≤6 (OR 0.59, 95%CI = 0.48-0.73). cT was more likely documented in men diagnosed via transurethral resection of prostate (OR 2.06, 95%CI 1.64-2.58) compared to TRUS and/or if receiving treatment in a radiotherapy center (OR 3.44, 95%CI 2.80-4.23 for external beam radiotherapy; OR 3.57 95%CI 2.44-5.23 for brachytherapy and OR 1.34, 95%CI 1.06-1.69 for combination surgery and radiotherapy) compared to those undergoing radical prostatectomy. Agreement in cT assignment ranged from kappa of 0.158 to 0.582. Stem word components in DRE notes associated with poorest level of agreement were "abnorm," "hard," "nodul" and those with highest level of agreement were terms "benign" and "smooth." CONCLUSIONS: Mode of diagnosis/subsequent treatment, and cancer characteristics were associated with cT documentation. Third party interpretation of clinical notes is problematic.

Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Purpose Advanced prostate cancer (PC) is associated with substantial psychosocial morbidity. We sought to determine whether mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) reduces distress in men with advanced PC. Methods Men with advanced PC (proven metastatic and/or castration-resistant biochemical progression) were randomly assigned to an 8-week, group-based MBCT intervention delivered by telephone (n = 94) or to minimally enhanced usual care (n = 95). Primary intervention outcomes were psychological distress, cancer-specific distress, and prostate-specific antigen anxiety. Mindfulness skills were assessed as potential mediators of effect. Participants were assessed at baseline and were followed up at 3, 6, and 9 months. Main statistical analyses were conducted on the basis of intention to treat. Results Fourteen MBCT groups were conducted in the intervention arm. Facilitator adherence ratings were high (> 93%). Using random-effects mixed-regression models, intention-to-treat analyses indicated no significant changes in intervention outcomes or in engagement with mindfulness for men in MBCT compared with those receiving minimally enhanced usual care. Per-protocol analyses also found no differences between arms in outcomes or engagement, with the exception of the mindfulness skill of observing, which increased over time for men in MBCT compared with usual care ( P = .032). Conclusion MBCT in this format was not more effective than minimally enhanced usual care in reducing distress in men with advanced PC. Future intervention research for these men should consider approaches that map more closely to masculinity.

The role of mindfulness in distress and quality of life for men with advanced prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which mindfulness skills influence psychological distress and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in men with metastatic or castration-resistant biochemical progression of prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 190 men (46 % response; mean age 71 years, SD = 8.7, range 40-91 years) with advanced prostate cancer, assessed psychological and cancer-specific distress, HRQOL. Mindfulness skills were assessed as potential predictors of adjustment outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 39 % of men reported high psychological distress. One third had accessed psychological support previously although only 10 % were under current psychological care. One quarter had accessed a prostate cancer support group in the past six months. Higher HRQOL and lower cancer-specific and global psychological distress were related to non-judging of inner experience (p < 0.001). Higher HRQOL and lower psychological distress were related to acting with awareness (p < 0.001). Lower distress was also related to higher non-reactivity to inner experience and a lower level of observing (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Men with advanced prostate cancer are at risk of poor psychological outcomes. Psychological flexibility may be a promising target for interventions to improve adjustment outcomes in this patient group. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: Trial Registration: ACTRN12612000306819.

Dovitinib versus sorafenib for third-line targeted treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: An unmet medical need exists for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on VEGF-targeted and mTOR-inhibitor therapies. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathway activation has been proposed as a mechanism of escape from VEGF-targeted therapies. Dovitinib is an oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor that inhibits VEGF and FGF receptors. We therefore compared dovitinib with sorafenib as third-line targeted therapies in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre phase 3 study, patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received one previous VEGF-targeted therapy and one previous mTOR inhibitor were randomly assigned through an interactive voice and web response system to receive open-label dovitinib (500 mg orally according to a 5-days-on and 2-days-off schedule) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) in a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was stratified by risk group and region. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by masked central review. Efficacy was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01223027. FINDINGS: 284 patients were randomly assigned to the dovitinib group and 286 to the sorafenib group. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 7·9-14·6). Median PFS was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·5-3·9) in the dovitinib group and 3·6 months (3·5-3·7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·04; one-sided p=0·063). 280 patients in the dovitinib group and 284 in the sorafenib group received at least one dose of study drug. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypertriglyceridaemia (38 [14%]), fatigue (28 [10%]), hypertension (22 [8%]), and diarrhoea (20 [7%]) in the dovitinib group, and hypertension (47 [17%]), fatigue (24 [8%]), dyspnoea (21 [7%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (18 [6%]) in the sorafenib group. The most common serious adverse event was dyspnoea (16 [6%] and 15 [5%] in the dovitinib and sorafenib groups, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Dovitinib showed activity, but this was no better than that of sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma who had progressed on previous VEGF-targeted therapies and mTOR inhibitors. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Efficacy of sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma independent of prior treatment, histology or prognostic group.

AIM: To assess the response rate and safety of sorafenib in different subpopulations of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Single-arm open access trial. Key eligibility: advanced RCC with either clear-cell or non-clear-cell histopathology; progression on prior systemic chemotherapy or treatment naïve. Sorafenib was commenced at 400 mg twice daily continuously. RESULTS: A total 47 participants with metastatic RCC were treated with sorafenib. Overall, 1 participant experienced complete response, 6 (13%) had documented partial response (PR) and 29 (62%) had stable disease (SD) as the best response. Eight (17%) had non-clear-cell histopathology and five (10%) had sarcomatoid features. In the non-clear-cell histopathology cohort, five participants (62.5%) had SD. Twenty-three (49%) participants were treatment naïve; of these, 1/23 showed CR, 5/23 experienced PR and 13/23 had SD (clinical benefit: 83%). Overall, 14 (30%) and 22 (47%) participants had high-risk status according to MSKCC (Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center) and Heng prognostic scores, respectively. In the MSKCC poor prognostic group (14 participants), one participant had CR, two participants showed PR and eight participants had SD (clinical benefit: 79%). In Heng poor prognostic group (22 participants), 1 participant experienced CR, 2 participants showed PR and 13 had SD (clinical benefit: 73%). Hand-foot syndrome (53%), rash (47%), fatigue (42%), nausea (40%), anorexia (34%) and diarrhea (32%) were the most common adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the efficacy and tolerability of sorafenib in a different spectrum of advanced RCC patients including non-clear-cell histology, poor prognostic status and as first-line treatment.

Patterns of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria from 2008 to 2011.

OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria, Australia, between 2008 and 2011. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer at 11 public and six private hospitals in Victoria from August 2008 to February 2011, and for whom prostate cancer notifications were received by the Prostate Cancer Registry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Characteristics of men diagnosed with prostate cancer; details of treatment provided within 12 months of diagnosis, according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk categories; and characteristics of men who did not receive active treatment within 12 months of diagnosis. RESULTS: Treatment details were collected for 98.1% of men who were assessed as eligible to participate in the study (2724/2776) and were confirmed by telephone 12 months after diagnosis for 74.4% of them (2027/2724). Most patients (2531/2724 [92.9%]) were diagnosed with clinically localised disease, of whom 1201 (47.5%) were at intermediate risk of disease progression. Within 12 months of diagnosis, 299 of the 736 patients (40.6%) who had been diagnosed as having disease that was at low risk of progression had received no active treatment, and 72 of 594 patients (12.1%) who had been diagnosed as having disease that was at high risk of progression had received no active treatment. Of those diagnosed as having intermediate risk of disease progression, 54.5% (655/1201) had undergone radical prostatectomy. Those who received no active treatment were more likely than those who received active treatment to be older (odds ratio [95% CI], 2.96 [2.01-4.38], 10.94 [6.96-17.21] and 32.76 [15.84-67.89], respectively, for age 65-74 2013s, 75-84 2013s and ≥ 85 2013s, compared with < 55 2013s), to have less advanced disease (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.20 [0.16-0.26], 0.09 [0.06-0.12] and 0.05 [0.02-0.90], respectively, for intermediate, high and very high-risk [locally advanced] or metastatic disease, compared with low-risk disease) and to have had their prostate cancer notified by a private hospital (odds ratio [95% CI], 1.35 [1.10-1.66], compared with public hospital). CONCLUSION: Our data reveal a considerable "stage migration" towards earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in Victoria and a large increase in the use of radical prostatectomy among men with clinically localised disease.

The Prostate Cancer Registry: monitoring patterns and quality of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To establish a pilot population-based clinical registry with the aim of monitoring the quality of care provided to men diagnosed with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All men aged >18 years from the contributing hospitals in Victoria, Australia, who have a diagnosis of prostate cancer confirmed by histopathology report notified to the Victorian Cancer Registry are eligible for inclusion in the Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR). A literature review was undertaken aiming to identify existing quality indicators and source evidence-based guidelines from both Australia and internationally. RESULTS: A Steering Committee was established to determine the minimum dataset, select quality indicators to be reported back to clinicians, identify the most effective recruitment strategy, and provide a governance structure for data requests; collection, analysis and reporting of data; and managing outliers. A minimum dataset comprising 72 data items is collected by the PCR, enabling ten quality indicators to be collected and reported. Outcome measures are risk adjusted according to the established National Comprehensive Cancer Network and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Score (surgery only) risk stratification model. Recruitment to the PCR occurs concurrently with mandatory notification to the state-based Cancer Registry. The PCR adopts an opt-out consent process to maximize recruitment. The data collection approach is standardized, using a hybrid of data linkage and manual collection, and data collection forms are electronically scanned into the PCR. A data access policy and escalation policy for mortality outliers has been developed. CONCLUSIONS: The PCR provides potential for high-quality population-based data to be collected and managed within a clinician-led governance framework. This approach satisfies the requirement for health services to establish quality assessment, at the same time as providing clinically credible data to clinicians to drive practice improvement.