Distress in hospitalized cancer patients: Associations with personality traits, clinical and psychosocial characteristics.

OBJECTIVE: To improve allocation of psychosocial care and to provide patient-oriented support offers, identification of determinants of elevated distress is needed. So far, there is a lack of evidence investigating the interplay between individual disposition and current clinical and psychosocial determinants of distress in the inpatient setting. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we investigated 879 inpatients with different cancer sites treated in a German Comprehensive Cancer Center. Assessment of determinants of elevated distress included sociodemographic, clinical and psychosocial characteristics as well as dimensions of personality. Multiple linear regression was applied to identify determinants of psychosocial distress. RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was M = 61.9 (SD = 11.8), 48.1% were women. In the multiple linear regression model younger age (ß = -0.061, p = 0.033), higher neuroticism (ß = 0.178, p = <0.001), having metastases (ß = 0.091, p = 0.002), being in a worse physical condition (ß = 0.380, p = <0.001), depressive symptoms (ß = 0.270, p = <0.001), not feeling well informed about psychological support (ß = 0.054, p = 0.046) and previous uptake of psychological treatment (ß = 0.067, p = 0.020) showed significant associations with higher psychosocial distress. The adjusted R2 of the overall model was 0.464. CONCLUSION: Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and dispositional vulnerability, that is neuroticism, current clinical and psychosocial characteristics were still associated with hospitalized patients' psychosocial distress. Psycho-oncologists should address both, the more transient emotional responses, such as depressive symptoms, as well as more enduring patient characteristics, like neuroticism.

[68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/mpMRI for local detection of primary prostate cancer in men with a negative prior biopsy]. / 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/mpMRT zur Lokaldetektion des primären Prostatakarzinom bei Männern mit negativer Vorbiopsie.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) represents the current gold standard for the detection of primary prostate cancer (PC) after a negative biopsy. PSMA PET imaging has been introduced in the diagnostic work-up of PC with high accuracy, but is currently mainly utilised in the setting of biochemical recurrence. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of combined 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/mpMRI imaging to detect PC in patients with previously negative prostate biopsies. METHODS: A total of 57 patients who had undergone at least one prior negative prostate biopsy were included in this retrospective analysis. All patients underwent 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/mpMRI imaging of the prostate. mpMRI was evaluated according to the PIRADS classification system and 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET was rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1: PC highly unlikely; 2: PC unlikely; 3: presence of PC is equivocal; 4: PC likely; 5: PC highly likely). All patients received a systematic random biopsy as well as a targeted transrectal biopsy of lesions suspicious on imaging. Imaging and histological biopsy outcomes were compared on a per-patient basis. RESULTS: In the histological analysis, 35/57 (61.4 %) patients harboured PC lesions. In patients with biopsy-proven PC, 21/35 (60.0 %) had a PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesion on mpMRI and 28 /35 (80.0 %) had a PET rating of 4 or 5. Combined 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/mpMRI missed only one patient with a Gleason score (GS) 7a tumour (rating of 1 or 2 in both PET and mpMRI). Limitations include the retrospective analysis as well as possible false negative biopsy results even in a fusion biopsy setting. CONCLUSION: In this initial analysis, the combined 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/mpMRI proved to be a valuable imaging tool to guide prostate biopsies for the detection of PC in patients with a negative prior biopsy. In this approach, 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET and mpMRI show partially complementary findings that enhance the detection of PC lesions.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using the AGREE II Instrument.

CONTEXT: Numerous health care organizations have established guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer. However, the lack of a standardized guideline development approach results in considerable differences of the guidelines' methodological quality. OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality of all relevant clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for urinary bladder cancer and provide a reference for clinicians in choosing guidelines of high methodological quality. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline via PubMed, 4 CPG databases, and 7 databases of interdisciplinary organizations. CPGs for non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) with the topics screening, pathology, diagnosis, treatment, and aftercare published in English language between 2012 and 2018 were included. The CPG quality was analyzed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 16 CPGs were included for the quality appraisal. Because of predefined criteria, 5 CPGs were "strongly recommended" (American Urological Association NMIBC, European Association of Urology [EAU] NMIBC, EAU MIBC, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network), 4 CPGs were "weakly recommended" and 7 CPGs were "not recommended." CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of bladder cancer guidelines is diverse. Considering the rapid development of new therapies (e.g., immune checkpoint inhibitors), "living guidelines" of high methodological quality, such as the EAU NMIBC or MIBC guideline, will become more relevant in the future guideline's landscape.

SWITCH II: Phase III randomized, sequential, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib-pazopanib versus pazopanib-sorafenib in the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AUO AN 33/11).

PURPOSE: This trial compared the sequential therapy with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib (So) followed by pazopanib (Pa) or vice versa in advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized phase 3 study assessed the sequential use of So-Pa versus Pa-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy. Pts were randomized to So 2 × 400 mg/day followed by Pa 1 × 800 mg/day in case of progression or intolerable toxicity or vice versa. Primary endpoint was total PFS (tPFS), defined as time from randomization to progression, or death during second-line therapy. Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), first-line PFS, disease control rate (DCR) and safety. RESULTS: A total of 377 pts were randomized (So-Pa, n = 189; Pa-So, n = 188). Recruitment of a total 544 pts was calculated, but actual accrual rate turned out to be lower than expected. The primary endpoint median tPFS was 8.6 mo (95% CI 7.7-10.2) for So-Pa and 12.9 mo (95% CI 10.8-15.2) for Pa-So with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.36 (upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1.68), which exceeded a predefined HR <1.225 as a one-sided 95% confidence interval. Non-inferiority of So-Pa regarding tPFS was not met. Secondary endpoints displayed marked statistical differences in favor of Pa-So in first-line PFS and DCR but not for OS and 2nd-line PFS. Side effect profiles were consistent with known toxicities of the respective multikinase-inhibitor including diarrhea, fatigue, hand-foot skin reaction and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority of the primary endpoint tPFS could not be demonstrated for So-Pa. The results for first-line PFS and DCR favored the Pa-So sequence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01613846, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

[Interdisciplinary Recommendations for the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma]. / Interdisziplinäre Empfehlungen zur Behandlung des metastasierten Nierenzellkarzinoms .

Thanks to the use of targeted therapies, the prognosis of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has improved significantly. A median overall survival of more than 2 years is a realistic claim. These improvements are also reflected in recent discussions about 3 and more lines of therapy.Sunitinib, pazopanib, the combination of bevacizumab and interferon alpha, and temsirolimus are approved for first-line therapy of mRCC. Sunitinib and pazopanib are also approved for second-line therapy, which, for pazopanib, is confined to the use after cytokine failure. Everolimus (after tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment), sorafenib (after cytokines) and axitinib (after treatment with sunitinib or cytokines) are other compounds available for second-line therapy.3 new substances have recently been approved for second-line therapy: Nivolumab, cabozantinib, and lenvatinib combined with everolimus can be used after VEGF-targeted treatment has failed. It is for the first time that targeted immunotherapy and a combination of targeted substances are available for the treatment of mRCC.There is no new insight as to an optimal sequence therapy. Study results from a phase III trial suggest that the sequences sorafenib-sunitinib and sunitinib-sorafenib are equally effective.The purpose of an interdisciplinary expert meeting on RCC was to work out joint treatment recommendations based on current data and clinical experience and to integrate them into clinical routine practice. The results are presented in this publication.

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) as Part of the Oncological Treatment: Survey about Patients' Attitude towards CAM in a University-Based Oncology Center in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: To understand if and which patients would be open-minded to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use parallel to their oncological treatment. Moreover, we sought to determine which methods are most accepted and which are the primary motivators to use CAM. METHODS: We developed and anonymously conducted a questionnaire for patients in the oncology center (TU Munich). Questions focus on different CAM methods, previous experiences, and willingness to apply or use CAM when offered in a university-based setting. RESULTS: A total of 171 of 376 patients (37.4% women, 62.0% men, 0.6% unknown) participated. This corresponds to a return rate of 45%. Median age was 64 years (17-87 years). Of all participants, 15.2% used CAM during their oncological therapy; 32.7% have used it in the past. The majority (81.9%) was not using CAM during therapy; 55.5% have not used CAM in the past respectively. The analysis revealed a significant correlation between education and CAM use during therapy (r = 0.18; p = 0.02), and CAM use in the past (r = 0.17; p = 0.04). Of all patients using CAM during therapy, favored methods were food supplements (42.3%), vitamins/minerals (42.3%), massage (34.6%). Motivations are especially the reduction of side effect and stress, the positive effect of certain CAM-treatments on the immune system and tumor therapy. Results showed no difference between women and men. Most patients not having had any experience with CAM complain about the deficiency of information by their treating oncologist (31.4%) as well as missing treatment possibilities (54.3%). CONCLUSION: Since many patients believe in study results demonstrating the efficacy of CAM, it stresses our task to develop innovative study protocols to investigate the outcomes of certain CAM on symptom reduction or other endpoints. Thus, prospective trials and innovative evidence-based treatment concepts to include CAM into high-end oncology is what patients demand and what a modern oncology center should offer.

Phase I study of dovitinib (TKI258), an oral FGFR, VEGFR, and PDGFR inhibitor, in advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Signaling through the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathway may account for tumor resistance to antiangiogenic therapies targeting the VEGF pathway. Here, dovitinib (TKI258), a potent oral inhibitor of FGF receptor, VEGF receptor (VEGFR), and platelet-derived growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, is studied in a dose escalation trial. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with predominant clear cell histology were treated with oral dovitinib 500 or 600 mg/day (5-days-on/2-days-off schedule). RESULTS: Twenty heavily pretreated patients (median 3 prior regimens) were enrolled, with 16, 11, and 12 patients having previously received at least 1: VEGFR inhibitor, mTOR inhibitor, and immunotherapy, respectively. Fifteen and 5 patients were treated in 500- and 600-mg cohorts, respectively. Three patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities: grade 2 bradycardia (500 mg), grade 4 hypertensive crisis (600 mg), and grade 3 asthenia with grade 2 nausea and vomiting (600 mg). The most common adverse events related to dovitinib were nausea (75%), diarrhea (70%), vomiting (70%), and asthenia (50%), the majority of which were mild (grade 1 or 2), with grade 3 events 5% or less (except asthenia, 15%) and only one grade 4 event (hypertensive crisis). Two patients achieved a partial response (500 mg), and 12 patients had stable disease, including 2 patients with long lasting disease stabilizations (>1 year) in the 500-mg cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Dovitinib was tolerable and showed antitumor activity at a maximum tolerated dose of 500 mg on a 5-days-on/2-days-off schedule in heavily pretreated RCC patients.

[Current aspects of second-line and sequence therapy of metastatic renal cell carcinoma]. / Aktuelle Aspekte der Second-line- und Sequenztherapie des metastasierten Nierenzellkarzinoms.

The treatment objective in the metastatic situation is to delay progression while maintaining the best possible quality of life. Since several targeted therapies with different modes of action already exist, sequence therapy is increasingly being considered. Current data regarding sequential treatment is still insufficient and several approaches are being tested in ongoing clinical studies. Based on current data, guidelines, and the therapeutic algorithms supported by national and international professional associations, the German Cancer Society's interdisciplinary task force on renal cell carcinoma (RCC) recommends the following approach: since the efficacy of cytokines is very limited after a previous cytokine-based therapy has failed, Sorafenib or Sunitinib are the treatment of choice. Treatment with other targeted substances is recommended after first-line therapy has failed as a number of retrospective studies have documented relevant activity. Everolimus currently is the treatment of first choice when VEGF-directed therapy has failed. Based on the results of phase II studies, other tyrosine kinase inhibitors can alternatively be applied.