Open communication between patients and relatives about illness & death in advanced cancer-results of the eQuiPe Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree of openness of communication about illness and death between patients with advanced cancer and their relatives during the last three months of the patient's life, and its association with relatives' characteristics and bereavement distress. METHODS: We used data from bereaved relatives of patients with advanced cancer from the prospective, longitudinal, multicenter, observational eQuipe study. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analyses were used to assess the association between the degree of openness of communication (measured using the validated Caregivers' Communication with patients about Illness and Death scale), the a priori defined characteristics of the relatives, and the degree of bereavement distress (measured using the Impact of Event Scale). RESULTS: A total of 160 bereaved relatives were included in the analysis. The average degree of open communication about illness and death between patients with advanced cancer and their relatives was 3.86 on a scale of 1 to 5 (SE=0.08). A higher degree of open communication was associated with a lower degree of bereavement distress (p=0.003). No associations were found between the degree of open communication and the relatives' age (p=0.745), gender (p=0.196), level of education (p>0.773), (religious) worldview (p=0.435), type of relationship with the patient (p>0.548), or level of emotional functioning before the patient's death (p=0.075). CONCLUSIONS: Open communication about illness and death between patients and relatives seems to be important, as it is associated with a lower degree of bereavement distress. Healthcare professionals can play an important role in encouraging the dialogue. However, it is important to keep in mind that some people not feel comfortable talking about illness and death.

Assessing the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments in the Netherlands: The impact of different thresholds for effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, the clinical benefit of systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACTs) is assessed by the Committee for the Evaluation of Oncological Agents (cieBOM). For non-curative SACTs, the assessment is based on the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival and/or overall survival (OS), and the difference in median survival. We evaluated the impact of different thresholds for effectiveness by reassessing the clinical benefit of SACTs. METHODS: We reassessed SACTs that were initially assessed by cieBOM between 2015 and 2017. Four scenarios were formulated: replacing an "OR" approach (initial assessment) by an "AND" approach (used in all scenarios), changing the HR threshold from < 0.70 (initial assessment) to < 0.60, changing the threshold for the difference in median survival from > 12 weeks (initial assessment) to > 16 weeks, and including thresholds for OS rates. The outcomes of these scenarios were compared to the outcomes of the initial assessment. RESULTS: Reassessments were conducted for 41 treatments. Replacing the "OR" approach by an "AND" approach substantially decreased the number of positive assessments (from 33 to 22), predominantly affecting immunotherapies. This number further decreased (to 21 and 19, respectively) in case more restrictive thresholds for the HR and difference in median survival were used. Including thresholds for OS rates slightly mitigated the impact of applying an "AND" approach. CONCLUSIONS: The scenario-specific thresholds had a substantial impact; the number of negative assessments more than doubled. Since this was not limited to treatments with marginal survival benefits, understanding the potential challenges that may arise from applying more restrictive thresholds is essential.

Relatives' Unmet Needs in the Last Year of Life of Patients With Advanced Cancer: Results of a Dutch Prospective, Longitudinal Study (eQuiPe).

Objective(s): Unmet needs of relatives of patients with advanced cancer not only reduce their own health-related quality of life, but may also negatively affect patients' health outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess changes in relatives' unmet needs of patients with advanced cancer in the last year of life and to identify differences in unmet needs by gender and type of relationship. Methods: Relatives of patients with advanced cancer in the Netherlands were included in a prospective, longitudinal, observational study. Relatives' unmet needs were measured every 3 months with an adapted version of the Problems and Needs in Palliative Care (PNPC) questionnaire Caregiver form (44 items, 12 domains). Questionnaires completed in the patients' last year of life were analyzed. Change of unmet needs in the last year, and differences in unmet needs by gender and type of relationship were analyzed. Results: A total of 409 relatives were included with a median of 4 unmet needs in the patient's last year. Unmet needs were most prevalent at all time points during the last year in the domains "caring for the patient" (highest need = 35%) and "psychological issues" (highest need = 40%). The number of unmet needs of relatives did not change significantly during the last year of life (P=.807). There were no significant differences in the number of unmet needs between male and female partners and between partners and other relatives. Conclusion: The most unmet needs for relatives were in the domains "caring for the patient" and "psychological issues." Professional support should focus on these items. Within these domains, it seems especially important that relatives get more knowledge and support about what scenarios to expect and how to deal with them.

Tailored anticoagulant treatment after a first venous thromboembolism: protocol of the Leiden Thrombosis Recurrence Risk Prevention (L-TRRiP) study - cohort-based randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with a first venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at risk of recurrence. Recurrent VTE (rVTE) can be prevented by extended anticoagulant therapy, but this comes at the cost of an increased risk of bleeding. It is still uncertain whether patients with an intermediate recurrence risk or with a high recurrence and high bleeding risk will benefit from extended anticoagulant treatment, and whether a strategy where anticoagulant duration is tailored on the predicted risks of rVTE and bleeding can improve outcomes. The aim of the Leiden Thrombosis Recurrence Risk Prevention (L-TRRiP) study is to evaluate the outcomes of tailored duration of long-term anticoagulant treatment based on individualised assessment of rVTE and major bleeding risks. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The L-TRRiP study is a multicentre, open-label, cohort-based, randomised controlled trial, including patients with a first VTE. We classify the risk of rVTE and major bleeding using the L-TRRiP and VTE-BLEED scores, respectively. After 3 months of anticoagulant therapy, patients with a low rVTE risk will discontinue anticoagulant treatment, patients with a high rVTE and low bleeding risk will continue anticoagulant treatment, whereas all other patients will be randomised to continue or discontinue anticoagulant treatment. All patients will be followed up for at least 2 years. Inclusion will continue until the randomised group consists of 608 patients; we estimate to include 1600 patients in total. The primary outcome is the combined incidence of rVTE and major bleeding in the randomised group after 2 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of rVTE and major bleeding, functional outcomes, quality of life and cost-effectiveness in all patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft. Results are expected in 2028 and will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and during (inter)national conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06087952.