Distress in Neuro-Oncology Patients and Its Implications for Communication.

Psychoemotional distress affects patients with cancer, including patients with a diagnosis of a malignant brain tumor. Empathy, professional expertise, and conversational skills are required to ensure successful communication with patients. The purpose of this study was to assess whether knowing the communication needs of patients would be helpful to neuro-oncologists before meeting with them. Patients in our neuro-oncology center were asked to complete the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (DT) and a study-specific questionnaire on patients' expectations for communication with the treating physician. The questions targeted issues such as attention/caring and awareness of their disease and prognosis. Importance ratings were compared between patients, with high vs. low distress scores to analyze the impact of distress on the patient's needs in physician-patient communication. A total of 81 patients completed the DT and questionnaire. One third (n = 27) had IDH wild-type astrocytoma, and 42 patients (51.9%) were undergoing therapy for primary or recurrent disease. Mean distress was 4.88 (standard deviation ± 2.64) in the whole cohort, and 56.8% of patients had a high distress score (≥ 5 on a 10-point scale). All issues were assessed as important or very important for communication by the majority of patients, and importance ratings increased in patients with high distress levels for most items. Mean importance ratings correlated significantly with distress scores (p < .001). Distress was increased in neuro-oncology patients. Patients with higher distress levels considered issues of both attention/caring and medical information about the disease as more important than patients with lower distress levels. Using distress assessment may help physicians and advanced practitioners to tailor the contents of their discussion for successful communication with patients.

Cost Effectiveness of 18F-FET PET for Early Treatment Response Assessment in Glioma Patients After Adjuvant Temozolomide Chemotherapy.

In light of increasing health-care costs, higher medical expenses should be justified socioeconomically. Therefore, we calculated the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of PET using the radiolabeled amino acid O-(2-18F-fluoroethyl)-l-tyrosine (18F-FET) compared with conventional MRI for early identification of responders to adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy. A recently published study in isocitrate dehydrogenase wild-type glioma patients suggested that 18F-FET PET parameter changes predicted a significantly longer survival already after 2 cycles whereas MRI changes were not significant. Methods: To determine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of serial 18F-FET PET imaging, we analyzed published clinical data and calculated the associated costs from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance system. Based on a decision-tree model, the effectiveness of 18F-FET PET and MRI was calculated-that is, the probability to correctly identify a responder as defined by an overall survival of at least 15 mo. To determine the cost effectiveness, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated-that is, the cost for each additionally identified responder by 18F-FET PET who would have remained undetected by MRI. The robustness of the results was tested by deterministic and probabilistic Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses. Results: Compared with MRI, 18F-FET PET increased the rate of correctly identified responders to chemotherapy by 26%; thus, 4 patients needed to be examined by 18F-FET PET to identify 1 additional responder. Considering the respective costs for serial 18F-FET PET and MRI, the ICER resulted in €4,396.83 for each additional correctly identified responder by 18F-FET PET. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Conclusion: In contrast to conventional MRI, the model suggests that 18F-FET PET is cost-effective in terms of ICER values. Considering the high cost of temozolomide, the integration of 18F-FET PET has the potential to avoid premature chemotherapy discontinuation at reasonable cost.

No evidence to support the impact of migration background on treatment response rates and cancer survival: a retrospective matched-pair analysis in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Immigration has taken the central stage in world politics, especially in the developed countries like Germany, where the continuous flow of immigrants has been well documented since 1960s. Strikingly, emerging data suggest that migrant patients have a poorer response to the treatment and lower survival rates in their new host country, raising concerns about health disparities. Herein, we present our investigation on the treatment response rate and cancer survival in German patients with and without an immigrant background that were treated at our comprehensive cancer center in Germany. METHODS: Initially, we considered 8162 cancer patients treated at the Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO), University Hospital Bonn, Germany (April 2002-December 2015) for matched-pair analysis. Subsequently, the German patients with a migration background and those from the native German population were manually identified and catalogued using a highly specific name-based algorithm. The clinical parameters such as demographic characteristics, tumor characteristics, defined staging criteria, and primary therapy were further adjusted. Using these stringent criteria, a total of 422 patients (n = 211, Germans with migration background; n = 211, native German population) were screened to compare for the treatment response and survival rates (i.e., 5-year overall survival, progression-free survival, and time to progression). RESULTS: Compared to the cohort with migration background, the cohort without migration background was slightly older (54.9 vs. 57.9 years) while having the same sex distribution (54.5% vs. 55.0% female) and longer follow-up time (36.9 vs. 42.6 months). We did not find significant differences in cancer survival (5-year overall survival, P = 0.771) and the response rates (Overall Remission Rate; McNemar's test, P = 0.346) between both collectives. CONCLUSION: Contrary to prior reports, we found no significant differences in cancer survival between German patients with immigrant background and native German patients. Nevertheless, the advanced treatment protocols implemented at our comprehensive cancer center may possibly account for the low variance in outcome. To conduct similar studies with a broader perspective, we propose that certain risk factors (country-of-origin-specific infections, dietary habits, epigenetics for chronic diseases etc.) should be considered, specially in the future studies that will recruit new arrivals from the 2015 German refugee crisis.

Tumour Treating Fields (TTFields) in combination with lomustine and temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: In the EF-14 trial for newly diagnosed glioblastoma (ndGBM) patients addition of Tumour Treating Fields (TTFields) to temozolomide treatment resulted in a significantly improved overall survival (OS). In the NOA-09/CeTeG trial, combination of lomustine and temozolomide was superior to temozolomide monotherapy in patients with O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylated (MGMTm) ndGBM. We evaluated combination of these two treatment modalities in patients with MGMTm ndGBM. There have been so far no data on the combination of these two efficient regimens. METHODS: This bicentric retrospective analysis investigated 16 patients. Parameters evaluated included safety outcome as measured by Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), clinical outcomes, and compliance to treatment. RESULTS: Hematologic adverse events CTCAE ≥ 3 were observed in seven, hepatotoxic adverse events of CTCAE ≥ 3 in four patients. Mild to moderate skin toxicity was detected in six patients. At data cutoff, patients demonstrated a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 20 months. The usage rate of TTFields showed a high median adherence (83%) to the therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides first indication that the combination of TTFields/lomustine/temozolomide is safe and feasible. The observed survival outcomes might suggest potential beneficial effects.

A matched-pair analysis on survival and response rates between German and non-German cancer patients treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Research shows disparities in cancer outcomes by ethnicity or socio-economic status. Therefore, it is the aim of our study to perform a matched-pair analysis which compares the outcome of German and non-German (in the following described as 'foreign') cancer patients being treated at the Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO) Köln Bonn at the University Hospital of Bonn between January 2010 and June 2016. METHODS: During this time, 6314 well-documented patients received a diagnosis of cancer. Out of these patients, 219 patients with foreign nationality could be matched to German patients based on diagnostic and demographic criteria and were included in the study. All of these 438 patients were well characterized concerning survival data (Overall survival, Progression-free survival and Time to progression) and response to treatment. RESULTS: No significant differences regarding the patients' survival and response rates were seen when all German and foreign patients were compared. A subgroup analysis of German and foreign patients with head and neck cancer revealed a significantly longer progression-free survival for the German patients. Differences in response to treatment could not be found in this subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, no major differences in survival and response rates of German and foreign cancer patients were revealed in this study. Nevertheless, the differences in progression-free survival, which could be found in the subgroup analysis of patients with head and neck cancer, should lead to further research, especially evaluating the role of infectious diseases like human papillomavirus (HPV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) on carcinogenesis and disease progression.