Indolent lymphoma care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

The treatment pattern and outcomes in patients with indolent B-cell lymphoma treated during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period compared to the prepandemic period are unclear. This was a retrospective population-based study using administrative databases in Ontario, Canada (follow-up to 31 March 2022). The primary outcome was treatment pattern; secondary outcomes were death, toxicities, healthcare utilization (emergency department [ED] visit, hospitalization) and SARS-CoV-2 outcomes. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) from Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations. We identified 4143 patients (1079 pandemic, 3064 prepandemic), with a median age of 69 years. In both time periods, bendamustine (B) + rituximab (BR) was the most frequently prescribed regimen. During the pandemic, fewer patients received R maintenance or completed the full 2-year course (aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.92, p = 0.001). Patients treated during the pandemic had less healthcare utilization (ED visit aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68, 0.88, p < 0.0001; hospitalization aHR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94, p = 0.0067) and complications (infection aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.82, p < 0.0001; febrile neutropenia aHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47-0.94, p = 0.020), with no difference in death. Independent of vaccination, active rituximab use was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 complications. Despite similar front-line regimen use, healthcare utilization and admissions for infection were less in the pandemic cohort.

The Use of Wearable Devices in Oncology Patients: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the current literature on wearable technologies in oncology patients for the purpose of prognostication, treatment monitoring, and rehabilitation planning. METHODS: A search was conducted in Medline ALL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, up until February 2022. Articles were included if they reported on consumer grade and/or non-commercial wearable devices in the setting of either prognostication, treatment monitoring or rehabilitation. RESULTS: We found 199 studies reporting on 18 513 patients suitable for inclusion. One hundred and eleven studies used wearable device data primarily for the purposes of rehabilitation, 68 for treatment monitoring, and 20 for prognostication. The most commonly-reported brands of wearable devices were ActiGraph (71 studies; 36%), Fitbit (37 studies; 19%), Garmin (13 studies; 7%), and ActivPAL (11 studies; 6%). Daily minutes of physical activity were measured in 121 studies (61%), and daily step counts were measured in 93 studies (47%). Adherence was reported in 86 studies, and ranged from 40% to 100%; of these, 63 (74%) reported adherence in excess of 80%. CONCLUSION: Wearable devices may provide valuable data for the purposes of treatment monitoring, prognostication, and rehabilitation. Future studies should investigate live-time monitoring of collected data, which may facilitate directed interventions.

Wait times and breast cancer survival: a population-based retrospective cohort study using CanIMPACT data.

PURPOSE: The time from breast cancer surgery to chemotherapy has been shown to affect survival outcomes; however, the effect of time from first breast cancer-related healthcare contact to first cancer specialist consultation, or the time from first breast cancer-related healthcare contact to adjuvant chemotherapy on survival has not been well explored. We aimed to determine whether various wait times along the breast cancer treatment pathway (contact-to-consultation, contact-to-chemotherapy, surgery-to-chemotherapy) were associated with overall survival in women within the Canadian province of Ontario. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective cohort study of women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in Ontario between 2007 and 2011 who received surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. This was the Ontario cohort of a larger, nationwide study (the Canadian Team to improve Community-Based Cancer Care along the Continuum - CanIMPACT). We used Cox-proportional hazards regression to determine the association between the contact-to-consultation, contact-to-chemotherapy, and surgery-to-chemotherapy intervals and overall survival while adjusting for cancer stage, age, comorbidity, neighborhood income, immigration status, surgery type, and method of cancer detection. RESULTS: Among 12,782 breast cancer patients, longer surgery-to-chemotherapy intervals (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.18 per 30-day increase), but not the contact-to-consultation (HR 0.979, 95% CI 0.95-1.01 per 30-day increase), nor the more comprehensive contact-to-chemotherapy intervals (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98-1.02 per 30-day increase) were associated with decreased survival in our adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: Our findings emphasize the prognostic importance of a shorter surgery-to-chemotherapy interval, whereas the contact-to-consultation and contact-to-chemotherapy intervals have less impact on survival outcomes.

Changes in New Patient Consultations During the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Canadian Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions on cancer services is emerging. We evaluated the impact of the first 2 years of the pandemic on new patient consultations for all cancers at a comprehensive cancer center within a publicly funded health care system and assessed whether there was evidence of stage shift. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using the Princess Margaret Cancer Registry. New consultations with medical, radiation, or surgical oncology were categorized by year and quarter. Logistic regression was used to assess the effect of period before and during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer stage at consultation, adjusting for age, sex, and diagnosis location (our hospital network vs elsewhere). RESULTS: In all, 53,759 new patient consultations occurred from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022. After the pandemic was declared, there was a decrease in all types of consultations by 43.3% in the second quarter of 2020, and referral volumes did not recover during the first year. There was no evidence of stage shift for all cancer types during the later quarters of the pandemic for the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: New patient consultations decreased across cancer stages, referral type, and most disease sites at our tertiary cancer center. We did not observe evidence of stage shift in this population. Further research is needed to determine whether this reflects the resilience of our health care system in maintaining cancer services or a delay in the presentation of advanced cancer cases. These data are important for shaping future cancer care delivery and recovery strategies.

Drivers of Emergency Department Use Among Oncology Patients in the Era of Novel Cancer Therapeutics: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with cancer are frequent users of the emergency department (ED). While many visits are unavoidable, a significant portion may be potentially preventable ED visits (PPEDs). Cancer treatments have greatly advanced, whereby patients may present with unique toxicities from targeted therapies and are often living longer with advanced disease. Prior work focused on patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, and often excluded those on supportive care alone. Other contributors to ED visits in oncology, such as patient-level variables, are less well-established. Finally, prior studies focused on ED diagnoses to describe trends and did not evaluate PPEDs. An updated systematic review was completed to focus on PPEDs, novel cancer therapies, and patient-level variables, including those on supportive care alone. METHODS: Three online databases were used. Included publications were in English, from 2012-2022, with sample sizes of ≥50, and reported predictors of ED presentation or ED diagnoses in oncology. RESULTS: 45 studies were included. Six studies highlighted PPEDs with variable definitions. Common reasons for ED visits included pain (66%) or chemotherapy toxicities (69.1%). PPEDs were most frequent amongst breast cancer patients (13.4%) or patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy (20%). Three manuscripts included immunotherapy agents, and only one focused on end-of-life patients. CONCLUSION: This updated systematic review highlights variability in oncology ED visits during the last decade. There is limited work on the concept of PPEDs, patient-level variables and patients on supportive care alone. Overall, pain and chemotherapy toxicities remain key drivers of ED visits in cancer patients. Further work is needed in this realm.

Feasibility and Effectiveness of Self-Management Education and Coaching on Patient Activation for Managing Cancer Treatment Toxicities.

BACKGROUND: Poorly managed cancer treatment toxicities negatively impact quality of life, but little research has examined patient activation in self-management (SM) early in cancer treatment. METHODS: We undertook a pilot randomized trial to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of the SMARTCare (Self-Management and Activation to Reduce Treatment Toxicities) intervention. This intervention included an online SM education program (I-Can Manage) plus 5 sessions of telephone cancer coaching in patients initiating systemic therapy for lymphoma or colorectal or lung cancer at 3 centers in Ontario, Canada, relative to a usual care control group. Patient-reported outcomes included patient activation (Patient Activation Measure [PAM]), symptom or emotional distress, self-efficacy, and quality of life. Descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to examine changes over time (baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months) within and between groups. We used general estimating equations to compare outcomes between groups over time. The intervention group completed an acceptability survey and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Of 90 patients approached, 62 (68.9%) were enrolled. Mean age of the sample was 60.5 years. Most patients were married (77.1%), were university educated (71%), had colorectal cancer (41.9%) or lymphoma (42.0%), and had stage III or IV disease (75.8%). Attrition was higher in the intervention group than among control subjects (36.7% vs 25%, respectively). Adherence to I-Can Manage was low; 30% of intervention patients completed all 5 coaching calls, but 87% completed ≥1. Both the continuous PAM total score (P<.001) and categorical PAM levels (3/4 vs 1/2) (P=.002) were significantly improved in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: SM education and coaching early during cancer treatment may improve patient activation, but a larger trial is needed. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT03849950.

Machine Learning-Based Early Warning Systems for Acute Care Utilization During Systemic Therapy for Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department visits and hospitalizations frequently occur during systemic therapy for cancer. We developed and evaluated a longitudinal warning system for acute care use. METHODS: Using a retrospective population-based cohort of patients who started intravenous systemic therapy for nonhematologic cancers between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2020, we randomly separated patients into cohorts for model training, hyperparameter tuning and model selection, and system testing. Predictive features included static features, such as demographics, cancer type, and treatment regimens, and dynamic features, such as patient-reported symptoms and laboratory values. The longitudinal warning system predicted the probability of acute care utilization within 30 days after each treatment session. Machine learning systems were developed in the training and tuning cohorts and evaluated in the testing cohort. Sensitivity analyses considered feature importance, other acute care endpoints, and performance within subgroups. RESULTS: The cohort included 105,129 patients who received 1,216,385 treatment sessions. Acute care followed 182,444 (15.0%) treatments within 30 days. The ensemble model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.742 (95% CI, 0.739-0.745) and was well calibrated in the test cohort. Important predictive features included prior acute care use, treatment regimen, and laboratory tests. If the system was set to alarm approximately once every 15 treatments, 25.5% of acute care events would be preceded by an alarm, and 47.4% of patients would experience acute care after an alarm. The system underestimated risk for some treatment regimens and potentially underserved populations such as females and non-English speakers. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning warning systems can detect patients at risk for acute care utilization, which can aid in preventive intervention and facilitate tailored treatment. Future research should address potential biases and prospectively evaluate impact after system deployment.

Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) versus usual care for patients with advanced cancer: a mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Although early palliative care is recommended, resource limitations prevent its routine implementation. We report on the preliminary findings of a mixed methods study involving a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) and qualitative interviews. METHODS: Adults with advanced solid tumors and an oncologist-estimated prognosis of 6-36 months were randomized to STEP or symptom screening alone. STEP involved symptom screening at each outpatient oncology visit; moderate to severe scores triggered an email to a palliative care nurse, who offered referral to in-person outpatient palliative care. Patient-reported outcomes of quality of life (FACT-G7; primary outcome), depression (PHQ-9), symptom control (ESAS-r-CS), and satisfaction with care (FAMCARE P-16) were measured at baseline and 2, 4, and 6 months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of participants. RESULTS: From Aug/2019 to Mar/2020 (trial halted due to COVID-19 pandemic), 69 participants were randomized to STEP (n = 33) or usual care (n = 36). At 6 months, 45% of STEP arm patients and 17% of screening alone participants had received palliative care (p = 0.009). Nonsignificant differences for all outcomes favored STEP: difference in change scores for FACT-G7 = 1.67 (95% CI: -1.43, 4.77); ESAS-r-CS = -5.51 (-14.29, 3.27); FAMCARE P-16 = 4.10 (-0.31, 8.51); PHQ-9 = -2.41 (-5.02, 0.20). Sixteen patients completed qualitative interviews, describing symptom screening as helpful to initiate communication; triggered referral as initially jarring but ultimately beneficial; and referral to palliative care as timely. CONCLUSION: Despite lack of power for this halted trial, preliminary results favored STEP and qualitative results demonstrated acceptability. Findings will inform an RCT of combined in-person and virtual STEP.

Utilization of Immunotherapy in Patients with Cancer Treated in Routine Care Settings: A Population-Based Study Using Health Administrative Data.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of immunotherapy (IO) in the treatment of patients with cancer has significantly improved clinical outcomes. Population level information on actual IO utilization is limited. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using provincial health administrative data from Ontario, Canada to: (1) assess the extent of IO use from 2011 (pre-IO funding) to 2019; and (2) identify factors associated with IO use in patients with advanced cancers for which IO is reimbursed including melanoma, bladder, lung, head and neck, and kidney tumors. The datasets were linked using a unique encoded identifier. A Fine and Gray regression model with death as a competing risk was used to identify factors associated with IO use. RESULTS: Among 59 510 patients assessed, 8771 (14.7%) received IO between 2011 and 2019. Use of IO increased annually from 2011 (3.3%) to 2019 (39.2%) and was highest in melanoma (52%) and lowest in head and neck cancer (6.6%). In adjusted analysis, factors associated with lower IO use included older age (hazard ratio (HR) 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93)), female sex (HR 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89)), lower-income quintile, hospital admission (HR 0.78 (95% CI, 0.75-0.82)), high Charlson score and de novo stage 4 cancer. IO use was heterogeneous across cancer centers and regions. CONCLUSION: IO utilization for advanced cancers rose substantially since initial approval albeit use is associated with patient characteristics and system-level factors even in a universal healthcare setting. To optimize IO utilization in routine practice, survival estimates and potential inequity in access should be further investigated and addressed.

Impact of care by gynecologic oncologists on primary ovarian cancer survival: A population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: Timely treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) by gynecologic oncologists (GOs) with a combination of surgery and/or chemotherapy has been advocated. Nonetheless, some patients are not assessed by GOs prior to starting their treatment or have surgery by non-GOs. This study aims to determine trends over time in non-mucinous EOC care and to evaluate the impact of care on survival. METHODS: Using province-wide administrative data, patients diagnosed with non-mucinous EOC between 2007 and 2018 were identified. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the impact of GO assessment prior to initiating treatment or having surgery done by a non-GO on mortality. RESULTS: A total of 10,086 EOC patients were included between 2007 and 2018. During the study period, there was an 8% increase in GO assessment (79% in 2007 to 87% in 2018-19, p ≤  0.001) and a 19% increase in surgeries performed by GOs (69% in 2007 to 88% in 2018-19, p ≤ 0.001). On multivariate analysis, there was an increased hazard of all-cause mortality for patients not assessed by GOs before first treatment (Hazard ratio (HR): 1.61; 95% CI 1.46-1.79). There was an increased hazard of all-cause mortality if ovarian cancer surgery was performed by non-GOs (HR 2.03; 95% CI 1.80-2.30). CONCLUSION: Assessment by GO before starting initial treatment is associated with improved survival in women with non-mucinous EOC as the type of surgeon performing primary ovarian cancer surgery. Assessment by GO for all patients with new or suspected ovarian cancer diagnosis before initiation of primary treatment should be advocated.

Incident Cancer Detection During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Resource restrictions were established in many jurisdictions to maintain health system capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disrupted healthcare access likely impacted early cancer detection. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic on weekly reported cancer incidence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a population-based study involving individuals diagnosed with cancer from September 25, 2016, to September 26, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Weekly cancer incidence counts were examined using segmented negative binomial regression models. The weekly estimated backlog during the pandemic was calculated by subtracting the observed volume from the projected/expected volume in that week. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 358,487 adult patients with cancer. At the start of the pandemic, there was an immediate 34.3% decline in the estimated mean cancer incidence volume (relative rate, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75), followed by a 1% increase in cancer incidence volume in each subsequent week (relative rate, 1.009; 95% CI, 1.001-1.017). Similar trends were found for both screening and nonscreening cancers. The largest immediate declines were seen for melanoma and cervical, endocrinologic, and prostate cancers. For hepatobiliary and lung cancers, there continued to be a weekly decline in incidence during the COVID-19 period. Between March 15 and September 26, 2020, 12,601 fewer individuals were diagnosed with cancer, with an estimated weekly backlog of 450. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that there is a large volume of undetected cancer cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Incidence rates have not yet returned to prepandemic levels.

Incident Cancer Detection During Multiple Waves of COVID-19: The Tsunami After the Earthquake.

No population-based study exists to demonstrate the full-spectrum impact of COVID-19 on hindering incident cancer detection in a large cancer system. Building upon our previous publication in JNCCN, we conducted an updated analysis using 12 months of new data accrued in the pandemic era (extending the study period from September 26, 2020, to October 2, 2021) to demonstrate how multiple COVID-19 waves affected the weekly cancer incidence volume in Ontario, Canada, and if we have fully cleared the backlog at the end of each wave.

Impact of Definitive Chemoradiation on Quality-of-Life Changes for Patients With Anal Cancer: Long-term Results of a Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining and improving quality of life (QOL) are important goals of anal cancer management. This disease is generally curable, with many long-term survivors. OBJECTIVE: Long-term QOL after chemoradiation for patients with anal cancer was evaluated. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. SETTINGS: This study used data from a prospective study of patients with anal cancer who were treated with chemoradiation between 2008 and 2013. PATIENTS: Patients with anal cancer who were treated with image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy were included. INTERVENTIONS: English-speaking patients completed European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer cancer-specific (C30) and site-specific (CR29) QOL questionnaires at baseline, at end of radiation, at 3 and 6 months, and then annually. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Long-term QOL was evaluated clinically (a change in score of ≥10 points was considered clinically significant) and statistically (using repeated-measurement analysis) by comparing the subscale scores at 1, 2, and 3 years with baseline scores. Subanalysis compared patients who received a radiation dose of 45 to 54 Gy versus 63 Gy. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included (median follow-up of 56.5 months). The symptom and functional scales showed a clinically significant decline at the end of treatment with improvement by 3 months after treatment. There was a long-term statistically significant decline in dyspnea, body image, bowel embarrassment, fecal incontinence, and hair loss, and there was long-term statistically and clinically significant worsening of impotence. Higher radiation dose (63 Gy) was not associated with significantly worse QOL. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included single-institution, single-arm study design, and lack of dose reconstruction (ie, analyses were based on prescribed, rather than delivered, dose). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with anal cancer treated with chemoradiation reported recovery of overall QOL to baseline levels. Specific symptoms remained bothersome, emphasizing the need to address and manage the chemoradiation-induced symptoms, during treatment and in the long term. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B905. IMPACTO DE LA QUIMIORRADIACIN DEFINITIVA EN CAMBIOS EN LA CALIDAD DE VIDA DE LOS PACIENTES CON CNCER ANAL RESULTADOS A LARGO PLAZO DE UN ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVE: ANTECEDENTES:Mantener y mejorar la calidad de vida son objetivos importantes del tratamiento del cáncer anal, ya que esta enfermedad generalmente es curable, con muchos sobrevivientes a largo plazo.OBJETIVO:Se evaluó la calidad de vida a largo plazo después de la quimiorradiación en pacientes con cáncer anal.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio de cohorte prospectivo.ENTORNO CLINICO:Utilizamos datos de un estudio prospectivo en pacientes con cáncer anal tratados con quimiorradiación entre 2008-2013.PACIENTES:Los pacientes con cáncer anal fueron tratados con radioterapia de intensidad modulada guiada por imágenes.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes de habla inglesa completaron los cuestionarios de calidad de vida específicos de cáncer (C30) y específicos del sitio (CR29) de la Organización Europea para la Investigación y el Tratamiento del Cáncer al inicio, al final de la radiación, 3 y 6 meses, y luego anualmente.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS:Se evaluó a largo plazo la calidad de vida clínicamente (un cambio en la puntuación de ≥10 puntos se consideraron clínicamente significativo) y estadísticamente (usando análisis de medición repetida) comparando las subescalas de puntuación al 1, 2, y 3 años. Con puntuaciones de referencia. El subanálisis comparó pacientes que recibieron 45-54 Gy versus 63 Gy.RESULTADOS:Se incluyeron un total de 96 pacientes (mediana de seguimiento: 56,5 meses). La mayoría de las escalas funcionales y de síntomas mostraron una disminución clínicamente significativa al final del tratamiento con una mejoría a los 3 meses posteriores al tratamiento. Hubo una disminución estadísticamente significativa a largo plazo en disnea, imagen corporal, vergüenza intestinal, incontinencia fecal y pérdida de cabello; y hubo un empeoramiento a largo plazo estadística y clínicamente significativo en impotencia. La dosis de radiación más alta (63 Gy) no se asoció con una calidad de vida significativamente peor.LIMITACIONES:Institución única, diseño de estudio de un solo brazo y falta de recomposición de la dosis (es decir, los análisis se basan en la dosis prescrita, en lugar de la administrada).CONCLUSIÓNES:Los pacientes con cáncer anal tratados con quimiorradiación reportaron una recuperación de la QOL en general a los niveles de base. Síntomas específicos siguieron siendo molestos, lo que enfatiza la necesidad de resolver y tartar los síntomas inducidos por la quimiorradiación no solo durante el tratamiento, sino a largo plazo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B905. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Anal Adenocarcinoma: A Rare Entity in Need of Multidisciplinary Management.

BACKGROUND: Anal adenocarcinoma is a rare clinical entity for which the optimal management is not defined. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the multidisciplinary management and outcomes of patients with anal adenocarcinoma. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted at a quaternary cancer center. PATIENTS: Men and women with anal adenocarcinoma treated between 1995 and 2016 were selected. INTERVENTIONS: Fifty-two patients were treated with either chemoradiotherapy or trimodality therapy including radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and surgical resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local failure, regional failure, and distant metastasis rates were estimated using the cumulative incidence method. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival and overall survival. The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the clinical predictors of outcome. RESULTS: There was a higher 5-year rate of local failure in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy compared with trimodality therapy (53% vs 10%; p < 0.01). The 5-year incidence of distant metastases was 29% (trimodality therapy) versus 30% (chemoradiotherapy; p = 0.9); adjuvant chemotherapy did not reduce the incidence of distant metastases (p = 0.8). Five-year overall survival was 73% (trimodality therapy) versus 49.4% (chemoradiotherapy; p = 0.1). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with worse overall survival were treatment with chemoradiotherapy, cT3-4 category disease, and node-positive disease. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its small sample size and retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Although treatment may continue to be tailored to individual patients, better outcomes with a trimodality therapy approach were observed. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B708.ADENOCARCINOMA ANAL: UNA ENTIDAD POCO FRECUENTE EN NECESIDAD DE UN MANEJO MULTIDISCIPLINARIO. ANTECEDENTES: El adenocarcinoma anal es una entidad clínica poco frecuente por lo que aún no se define el manejo óptimo. OBJETIVO: Describir el manejo multidisciplinario y los resultados de los pacientes con adenocarcinoma anal. DISEO: Estudio de cohorte retrospectivo. ENTORNO CLINICO: Centro de cáncer cuaternario. PACIENTES: Hombres y mujeres con adenocarcinoma anal tratados entre 1995 y 2016. INTERVENCIONES: Cincuenta y dos pacientes fueron tratados con quimiorradioterapia o terapia trimodal que incluyó: radioterapia, quimioterapia y resección quirúrgica. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION: Se estimaron las tasas de falla local, falla regional y metástasis a distancia mediante el método de incidencia acumulada. Se utilizó el método de Kaplan-Meier para estimar la supervivencia libre de progresión y la supervivencia global. Los riesgos proporcionales de multivariable Cox se utilizaron para evaluar los predictores clínicos de los resultados. RESULTADOS: Hubo una mayor tasa de falla local a cinco años en pacientes tratados con quimiorradioterapia en comparación con terapia trimodal (53% vs 10%; p < 0,01). La incidencia a cinco años de metástasis a distancia fue del 29% (terapia trimodal) versus 30% (quimiorradioterapia) (p = 0,9); la quimioterapia adyuvante no redujo la incidencia de metástasis a distancia (p = 0,8). La supervivencia global a cinco años fue del 73% (terapia trimodal) versus 49,4% (quimiorradioterapia); p = 0,1. En el análisis multivariable, los factores asociados con una peor supervivencia general fueron el tratamiento con quimiorradioterapia, enfermedad de categoría cT3-4 y enfermedad con ganglios positivos. LIMITACIONES: Este estudio está limitado por su pequeño tamaño de muestra y su naturaleza retrospectiva. CONCLUSIONES: Aunque el tratamiento puede seguir adaptándose a pacientes individuales, se observaron mejores resultados con un enfoque TTM. Conslute Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B708. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Caregiver bereavement outcomes in advanced cancer: associations with quality of death and patient age.

PURPOSE: We investigated relationships between domains of quality of dying and death in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers' bereavement outcomes and the moderating effect of patient age at death. METHODS: Bereaved caregivers of deceased patients with advanced cancer who had participated in an early palliative care trial completed measures of grief (Texas Revised Inventory of Grief [TRIG]), complicated grief (Prolonged Grief Inventory [PG-13]), and depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression [CESD-10]). They also completed the Quality of Dying and Death measure (QODD), which assesses patients' symptom control, preparation for death, connectedness with loved ones, and sense of peace with death. RESULTS: A total of 157 bereaved caregivers completed the study. When patient age × QODD subscale interactions were included, greater death preparation was related to less grief at patient death (past TRIG: ß = - .25, p = .04), less current grief (present TRIG: ß = - .26, p = .03), less complicated grief (PG-13: ß = - .37, p = .001), and less depression (CESD-10: ß = - .35, p = .005). Greater symptom control was related to less current grief (present TRIG: ß = - .27, p = .02), less complicated grief (PG-13: ß = - .24, p = .03), and less depression (CESD-10: ß = - .29, p = .01). Significant patient age × connectedness interaction effects for current grief (present TRIG: ß = .30, p = .02) and complicated grief (PG-13: ß = .29, p = .007) indicated that, with less connectedness, younger patient age at death was associated with greater caregiver grief. CONCLUSION: Better end-of-life death preparation and symptom control for patients with cancer may attenuate later caregiver grief and depression. Less connectedness between younger patients and their families may adversely affect caregiver grief.

Considerations for Virtual Care Following the Pandemic.

The pandemic has served as an impetus for rapid uptake of virtual care into clinical practice, creating new patient and clinician needs and a willingness to adopt new technologies. It is obvious that healthcare will not return to pre-pandemic levels of in-person care and that patients expect virtual care to remain an option. However, the underlying structural and behavioural barriers related to equity, access, infrastructure, provider licensing and remuneration structures that limited pre-pandemic use of virtual care still persist. Herein, we provide recommendations and tangible next steps to sustain virtual care moving forward.

Prevalence of menopausal hormone therapy and alternative methods, health benefits experienced by peri- and postmenopausal Polish women.

The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of menopausal symptoms, and the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) and nonconventional methods of alleviating menopausal symptoms and their health benefits in peri- and postmenopausal women. A sample of 349 peri- or postmenopausal women were studied, all of whom had experienced menopausal symptoms. A pre-tested questionnaire was used to assess the kinds of menopausal symptoms experienced, the types of therapies used, and the health benefits of using MHT or alternative therapies (AT). The mean age of peri- and postmenopausal women was 49.55 (±2.51) and 61.32 (±6.77) years, respectively. The most common symptoms in both groups of peri- and postmenopausal women related to mental health. Altogether 45% of women used MHT and 27.8% AT. Those using MHT reported significant benefits in their sexual life (p < 0.001), whereas those using AT reported significant benefits of better sexual life (p < 0.001), skin condition (p < 0.001), and physical activity (p < 0.05). This study indicated that the most common symptoms connected with the menopausal transition were mental ailments. In order to prevent them, the women more frequently applied MHT in comparison to alternative methods, with postmenopausal women using MHT more often than perimenopausal women. Satisfaction was found with both conventional and alternative treatments for the relief of menopausal symptoms.

Can Oncologists Predict the Efficacy of Treatments in Randomized Trials?

BACKGROUND: Decisions about trial funding, ethical approval, or clinical practice guideline recommendations require expert judgments about the potential efficacy of new treatments. We tested whether individual and aggregated expert opinion of oncologists could predict reliably the efficacy of cancer treatments tested in randomized controlled trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An international sample of 137 oncologists specializing in genitourinary, lung, and colorectal cancer provided forecasts on primary outcome attainment for five active randomized cancer trials within their subspecialty; skill was assessed using Brier scores (BS), which measure the average squared deviation between forecasts and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 40% of trials in our sample reported positive primary outcomes. Experts generally anticipated this overall frequency (mean forecast, 34%). Individual experts on average outperformed random predictions (mean BS = 0.29 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28-0.33] vs. 0.33) but underperformed prediction algorithms that always guessed 50% (BS = 0.25) or that were trained on base rates (BS = 0.19). Aggregating forecasts improved accuracy (BS = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.16-0.36]). Neither individual experts nor aggregated predictions showed appreciable discrimination between positive and nonpositive trials (area under the curve of a receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.52 and 0.43, respectively). CONCLUSION: These findings are based on a limited sample of trials. However, they reinforce the importance of basing research and policy decisions on the results of randomized trials rather than expert opinion or low-level evidence. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Predictions of oncologists, either individually or in the aggregate, did not anticipate reliably outcomes for randomized trials in cancer. These findings suggest that pooled expert opinion about treatment efficacy is no substitute for randomized trials. They also underscore the challenges of using expert opinion to prioritize interventions for clinical trials or to make recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

Timing of Palliative Care Referral Before and After Evidence from Trials Supporting Early Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from randomized controlled trials has demonstrated benefits in quality of life outcomes from early palliative care concurrent with standard oncology care in patients with advanced cancer. We hypothesized that there would be earlier referral to outpatient palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center following this evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Administrative databases were reviewed for two cohorts of patients: the pre-evidence cohort was seen in outpatient palliative care between June and November 2006, and the post-evidence cohort was seen between June and November 2015. Timing of referral was categorized, according to time from referral to death, as early (>12 months), intermediate (>6 months to 12 months), and late (≤6 months from referral to death). Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to determine demographic and medical factors associated with timing of referral. RESULTS: Late referrals decreased from 68.8% pre-evidence to 44.8% post-evidence; early referrals increased from 13.4% to 31.1% (p < .0001). The median time from palliative care referral to death increased from 3.5 to 7.0 months (p < .0001); time from diagnosis to referral was also reduced (p < .05). On multivariable regression analysis, earlier referral to palliative care was associated with post-evidence group (p < .0001), adjusting for shorter time since diagnosis (p < .0001), referral for pain and symptom management (p = .002), and patient sex (p = .04). Late referrals were reduced to <50% in the breast, gynecological, genitourinary, lung, and gastrointestinal tumor sites. CONCLUSIONS: Following robust evidence from trials supporting early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer, patients were referred substantially earlier to outpatient palliative care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Following published evidence demonstrating the benefit of early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer, there was a substantial increase in early referrals to outpatient palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center. The increase in early referrals occurred mainly in tumor sites that have been included in trials of early palliative care. These results indicate that oncologists' referral practices can change if positive consequences of earlier referral are demonstrated. Future research should focus on demonstrating benefits of early palliative care for tumor sites that have tended to be omitted from early palliative care trials.

The use of bevacizumab in the modern era of targeted therapy for ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal systemic therapy strategy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess oncologic outcomes and toxicity of bevacizumab combination treatment in advanced EOC. METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of all phase 2 and 3 clinical trials involving bevacizumab combination therapy in advanced-stage EOC between 2010 and March 2020, using Embase, Medline, Epub Ahead of Print, Cochrane for clinical trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science and clinicaltrials.gov databases. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and their hazard ratios (HR) when available were extracted. Pooled HR were calculated for each efficacy endpoint in the meta-analysis using inverse variance weighted method. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias I (ROB1) tool for randomized controlled trials. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included in the qualitative analysis and eight studies in the quantitative synthesis. In the first-line setting, bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy revealed a significant improvement in PFS (pooled HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.81) when compared to chemotherapy alone but no significant OS benefit (pooled HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.06). In the recurrent setting, bevacizumab combinations showed significant PFS (pooled HR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.47-0.58) and OS benefits (pooled HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.99) compared with non-bevacizumab regimens. Rate of bowel perforation was low at 1.24% (range 0-4.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab-containing regimens are associated with significant PFS benefit in advanced and recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. While the difference in OS did not reach statistical significance in the first-line setting, bevacizumab was associated with improved survival in the recurrent setting.