First-line palliative systemic therapy alternated with oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: A single-arm phase II trial (CRC-PIPAC-II).

BACKGROUND: Palliative systemic therapy alternated with electrostatic precipitation oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC) has never been prospectively investigated in patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The CRC-PIPAC-II study aimed to assess safety, feasibility and efficacy of such bidirectional therapy. METHODS: This two-center, single-arm, phase II trial enrolled chemotherapy-naïve patients to undergo three treatment cycles, consisting of systemic therapy (CAPOX, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, or FOLFOXIRI, all with bevacizumab) and oxaliplatin-based ePIPAC (92 mg/m2) with intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m2) and 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m2). Primary outcome were major treatment-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included minor events, tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty patients completed 52 treatment cycles. Fifteen major events occurred in 7 patients (35 %): 5 events (33 %) related to systemic therapy; 5 (33 %) related to ePIPAC; and 5 (33 %) were biochemical events. No treatment-related deaths occurred. All patients experienced minor events, mostly abdominal pain, nausea and peripheral sensory neuropathy. After treatment, radiological, pathological, cytological, and biochemical response was observed in 0 %, 88 %, 38 %, and 31 % of patients respectively. Curative surgery was achieved in one patient. Median PFS was 10.0 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.0-13.0) and median OS was 17.5 months (95 % CI 13.0-not reached). CONCLUSIONS: Combining palliative systemic therapy with oxaliplatin-based ePIPAC in patients with unresectable CPM was feasible and showed an acceptable safety profile. Treatment-induced response and survival are promising, yet further research is required to determine the additional value of ePIPAC to systemic therapy.

European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4).

INTRODUCTION: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). METHODS: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. RESULTS: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI > 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. DISCUSSION: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.

Intraperitoneal irinotecan with concomitant FOLFOX and bevacizumab for patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of the multicentre, open-label, phase II, INTERACT-II trial.

INTRODUCTION: The peritoneum is the second most affected organ for the dissemination of colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM) face a poor prognosis, despite the majority of patients being treated with palliative systemic therapy. The efficacy of palliative systemic therapy is limited due to the plasma-peritoneum barrier. The poor prognosis of unresectable CPM patients has resulted in the development of new treatment strategies where systemic therapy is combined with local, intraperitoneal chemotherapy. In the recently published phase I study, the maximum tolerated dose and thus the recommended phase II dose of intraperitoneal irinotecan was investigated and determined to be 75 mg. In the present study, the overall survival after treatment with 75 mg irinotecan with concomitant mFOLFOX4 and bevacizumab will be investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single-arm phase II study in two Dutch tertiary referral centres, 85 patients are enrolled. Eligibility criteria are an adequate performance status and organ function, histologically confirmed microsatellite stable and unresectable CPM, no previous palliative therapy for CRC, no systemic therapy<6 months for CRC prior to enrolment and no previous cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS and HIPEC). Patients will undergo a diagnostic laparoscopy as standard work-up for CPM and if the peritoneal disease is considered unresectable (eg, Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI)>20, too extensive small bowel involvement), a peritoneal access port and a port-a-cath are placed for administration of intraperitoneal and intravenous chemotherapy, respectively. Patients may undergo up to 12 cycles of study treatment. Each cycle consists of intravenous mFOLFOX4 with bevacizumab and concomitant intraperitoneal irinotecan (75 mg), which is repeated every 2 weeks, with a maximum of 12 cycles. Modified FOLFOX-4 regimen consists of 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin plus 200 mg/m2 LV and 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus on day 1 followed by 1600 mg/m2 5-FU as a 46 hours infusion. Study treatment ends after the 12th cycle, or earlier in case of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome is overall survival and key secondary outcomes are progression-free survival, safety (measured by the amount of grade ≥3 adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0)), patient-reported outcomes and pharmacokinetics of irinotecan. It is hypothesised that the trial treatment will lead to a 4 month increase in overall survival; from a median of 12.2 to 16.2 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Dutch Authority (CCMO, the Hague, the Netherlands), by a central medical ethics committee (MEC-U, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands) and by the institutional research boards of both research centres. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented to patients and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06003998.

Potential Adverse Outcomes of Shared Decision Making about Palliative Cancer Treatment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: While shared decision making (SDM) is advocated for ethical reasons and beneficial outcomes, SDM might also negatively affect patients with incurable cancer. The current study explored whether SDM, and an oncologist training in SDM, are associated with adverse outcomes (i.e., patient anxiety, tension, helplessness/hopelessness, decisional uncertainty, and reduced fighting spirit). DESIGN: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigating the effects of SDM interventions in the context of advanced cancer. The relations between observed SDM (OPTION12), specific SDM elements (4SDM), oncologist SDM training, and adverse outcomes were analyzed. We modeled adverse outcomes as a multivariate phenomenon, followed by univariate regressions if significant. RESULTS: In total, 194 patients consulted by 31 oncologists were included. In a multivariate analysis, observed SDM and adverse outcomes were significantly related. More specifically, more observed SDM in the consultation was related to patients reporting more tension (P = 0.002) and more decisional uncertainty (P = 0.004) at 1 wk after the consultation. The SDM element "informing about the options" was especially found to be related to adverse outcomes, specifically to more helplessness/hopelessness (P = 0.002) and more tension (P = 0.016) at 1 wk after the consultation. Whether the patient consulted an oncologist who had received SDM training or not was not significantly related to adverse outcomes. No relations with long-term adverse outcomes were found. CONCLUSIONS: It is important for oncologists to realize that for some patients, SDM may temporarily be associated with negative emotions. Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and whether and how burden may be minimized for patients. HIGHLIGHTS: Observed shared decision making was related to more tension and uncertainty postconsultation in advanced cancer patientsHowever, training oncologists in SDM did not affect adverse outcomes.Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and how burden may be minimized.

Trajectories of emotional functioning and experienced care of relatives in the last year of life of patients with advanced cancer: A longitudinal analysis of the eQuiPe study.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced cancer has a major impact on both patients and their relatives. To allow for personalized support, it is important to recognize which relatives will experience a decline in emotional functioning during the patient's last year of life, when this decline will occur, and what factors are associated with it. This study aimed to examine the trajectory of emotional functioning of relatives during that time and the characteristics associated with changes in this trajectory. METHODS: A prospective, longitudinal, multicenter, observational study in patients with advanced cancer and their relatives was conducted (eQuiPe). We analyzed relatives' changes in emotional functioning in the patient's last year using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and assessed associations with sociodemographic and care characteristics using multivariable mixed-effects analysis. RESULTS: 409 relatives completed ≥1 questionnaires during the patient's last year of life. Mean age was 64 years, 61% were female and 75% were the patient's partner. During this year, mean emotional functioning declined significantly over time from 73.9 to 64.6 (p = 0.023, effect size = 0.43). The type of relationship between relatives and patients (p = 0.002), patient' sleep problems (p = 0.033), and continuity of care (p = 0.002) were significantly associated with changes in emotional functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Relatives' emotional functioning declined during the patient's last year of life. Support for them, especially partners and relatives of patients with sleep problems, is important. Relatives who experienced more continuity of care had a less steep decline in emotional functioning.

Gender differences in tumor characteristics, treatment and survival of colorectal cancer: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The importance of sex and gender as modifiers of health and disease is increasingly recognized. The aim of this study was to analyze gender differences in incidence, tumor characteristics, treatment and relative survival (RS) in colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Observational population-based study including patients diagnosed with CRC in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2020. Stratified by localization (colon/rectum) and age (18-55/56-70/≥71years), gender differences in incidence, tumor characteristics, treatment and RS were analyzed. Multivariable regression was used to analyze the influence of gender on treatment and RS. RESULTS: The age-standardized incidence per 100,000 person-years of colon and rectal cancer is higher among men than women (colon: 41.2 versus 32.4, rectum: 22.8 versus 12.6). Besides differences in patient- and tumor characteristics, differences in treatment allocation and RS were observed. Most strikingly, women aged ≥ 71 years with stage IV colon cancer are less often treated with systemic therapy (31.3 % versus 28.4 %, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.63, 95 % CI 0.48-0.83) and more often receive best supportive care only (47.6 % versus 40.0 %, adjusted OR 1.58, 95 % CI 1.19-2.11). CONCLUSION: Statistically significant and clinically relevant gender differences in incidence, patient- and tumor characteristics and treatment allocation are observed in patients with CRC. Reasons for differences in treatment allocation deserve further investigation.

Survival of Patients With Cancer With DPYD Variant Alleles and Dose-Individualized Fluoropyrimidine Therapy-A Matched-Pair Analysis.

PURPOSE: DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing improves patient safety in carriers of DPYD variant alleles. However, the impact on treatment outcome in these patients is largely unknown. Therefore, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between DPYD variant carriers treated with a reduced dose and DPYD wild-type controls receiving a full fluoropyrimidine dose in a retrospective matched-pair survival analysis. METHODS: Data from a prospective multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02324452) in which DPYD variant carriers received a 25% (c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T) or 50% (DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G) reduced dose and data from DPYD variant carriers treated with a similarly reduced dose of fluoropyrimidines identified during routine clinical care were obtained. Each DPYD variant carrier was matched to three DPYD wild-type controls treated with a standard dose. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 156 DPYD variant carriers and 775 DPYD wild-type controls were available for analysis. Sixty-one c.1236G>A, 25 DPYD*2A, 13 c.2846A>T, and-when pooled-93 DPYD variant carriers could each be matched to three unique DPYD wild-type controls. For pooled DPYD variant carriers, PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.51; P = .053) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.51; P = .698) were not negatively affected by DPYD-guided dose individualization. In the subgroup analyses, a shorter PFS (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.86; P = .007) was found in c.1236G>A variant carriers, whereas no differences were found for DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T carriers. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory analysis, DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing does not negatively affect PFS and OS in pooled DPYD variant carriers. Close monitoring with early dose modifications based on toxicity is recommended, especially for c.1236G>A carriers receiving a reduced starting dose.

Phase I study of intraperitoneal irinotecan combined with palliative systemic chemotherapy in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases.

BACKGROUND: Patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases who are not eligible for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) owing to extensive peritoneal disease have a poor prognosis. It was hypothesized that these patients may benefit from the addition of intraperitoneal irinotecan to standard palliative systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: This was a classical 3 + 3 phase I dose-escalation trial in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases who were not eligible for CRS-HIPEC. Intraperitoneal irinotecan was administered every 2 weeks, concomitantly with systemic FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin)-bevacizumab. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicities. Secondary objectives were to elucidate the systemic and intraperitoneal pharmacokinetics, safety profile, and efficacy. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were treated. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed with 50 mg (4 patients) and 75 mg (9 patients) intraperitoneal irinotecan. Two dose-limiting toxicities occurred with 100 mg irinotecan among five patients. The maximum tolerated dose of intraperitoneal irinotecan was established to be 75 mg, and it was well tolerated. Intraperitoneal exposure to SN-38 (active metabolite of irinotecan) was high compared with systemic exposure (median intraperitoneal area under the curve (AUC) to systemic AUC ratio 4.6). Thirteen patients had a partial radiological response and five had stable disease. Four patients showed a complete response during post-treatment diagnostic laparoscopy. Five patients underwent salvage resection or CRS-HIPEC. Median overall survival was 23.9 months. CONCLUSION: Administration of 75 mg intraperitoneal irinotecan concomitantly with systemic FOLFOX-bevacizumab was safe and well tolerated. Intraperitoneal SN-38 exposure was high and prolonged. As oncological outcomes were promising, intraperitoneal administration of irinotecan may be a good alternative to other, more invasive and costly treatment options. A phase II study is currently accruing.

Patients with extensive colorectal peritoneal metastases who are not eligible for surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy have poor survival. The authors tried to improve the survival of these patients by adding intraperitoneal (inside the abdominal cavity) chemotherapy to standard palliative chemotherapy which is administered into the bloodstream. In this trial, irinotecan (a type of chemotherapy) was administered into the abdomen of patients with extensive colorectal peritoneal metastases. The authors investigated which dose could be administered safely in combination with standard palliative chemotherapy. They also looked into toxicity, safety, benefit, and movement of the drug in the body. Eighteen patients were treated in this study. The maximum tolerated dose of intraperitoneal irinotecan was 75 mg. It was well tolerated and could be administered safely. The intra-abdominal amount of irinotecan was high, whereas the amount of irinotecan in the blood remained low. The benefits of intra-abdominal irinotecan were promising. Because of this, a new study has been started to further investigate this new combination chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

Locally recurrent rectal cancer: Oncological outcomes for patients with a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND: For patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, it is an ongoing pursuit to establish factors predicting or improving oncological outcomes. In locally advanced rectal cancer, a pCR appears to be associated with improved outcomes. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the oncological outcomes of patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer with and without a pCR. METHODS: Patients who underwent neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for locally recurrent rectal cancer with curative intent between January 2004 and June 2020 at a tertiary referral hospital were analysed. Primary outcomes included overall survival, disease-free survival, metastasis-free survival, and local re-recurrence-free survival, stratified according to whether the patient had a pCR. RESULTS: Of a total of 345 patients, 51 (14.8 per cent) had a pCR. Median follow-up was 36 (i.q.r. 16-60) months. The 3-year overall survival rate was 77 per cent for patients with a pCR and 51.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year disease-free survival rate was 56 per cent for patients with a pCR and 26.1 per cent for those without (P < 0.001). The 3-year local re-recurrence-free survival rate was 82 and 44 per cent respectively (P < 0.001). Surgical procedures (for example soft tissue, sacrum, and urogenital organ resections) and postoperative complications were comparable between patients with and without a pCR. CONCLUSION: This study showed that patients with a pCR have superior oncological outcomes to those without a pCR. It may therefore be safe to consider a watch-and-wait approach in highly selected patients, potentially improving quality of life by omitting extensive surgical procedures without compromising oncological outcomes.

Fecal levels of SCFA and BCFA during capecitabine in patients with metastatic or unresectable colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gut bacteria-derived short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) and branched-chain fatty acids (BCFA) are considered to have beneficial metabolic, anti-inflammatory as well as anti-carcinogenic effects. Previous preclinical studies indicated bidirectional interactions between gut bacteria and the chemotherapeutic capecitabine or its metabolite 5-FU. This study investigated the effect of three cycles of capecitabine on fecal SCFA and BCFA levels and their associations with tumor response, nutritional status, physical performance, chemotherapy-induced toxicity, systemic inflammation and bacterial abundances in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Forty-four patients with metastatic or unresectable CRC, scheduled for treatment with capecitabine (± bevacizumab), were prospectively enrolled. Patients collected a fecal sample and completed a questionnaire before (T1), during (T2) and after (T3) three cycles of capecitabine. Tumor response (CT/MRI scans), nutritional status (MUST score), physical performance (Karnofsky Performance Score) and chemotherapy-induced toxicity (CTCAE) were recorded. Additional data on clinical characteristics, treatment regimen, medical history and blood inflammatory parameters were collected. Fecal SCFA and BCFA concentrations were determined by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Gut microbiota composition was assessed using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing. RESULTS: Fecal levels of the SCFA valerate and caproate decreased significantly during three cycles of capecitabine. Furthermore, baseline levels of the BCFA iso-butyrate were associated with tumor response. Nutritional status, physical performance and chemotherapy-induced toxicity were not significantly associated with SCFA or BCFA. Baseline SCFA correlated positively with blood neutrophil counts. At all time points, we identified associations between SCFA and BCFA and the relative abundance of bacterial taxa on family level. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provided first indications for a potential role of SCFA and BCFA during capecitabine treatment as well as implications for further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The current study was registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NTR6957) on 17/01/2018 and can be consulted via the International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP).

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION: The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials.

The Impact of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) versus Conventional Surgery on Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Comparative Cohort Study between the CAIRO6 Trial and the PROCORE Study.

Purpose-To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) for colorectal peritoneal metastases to PROs of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients undergoing conventional surgery. Methods-Data were extracted from the CAIRO6 trial (CRS-HIPEC group) and the PROCORE study (conventional surgery group). Nine predefined PROs (derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire) were compared at baseline, in the early postoperative period and one year postoperatively, with correction for treatment with systemic therapy using linear mixed modeling. Results-In total, 331 patients were included: 71 in the CRS-HIPEC group and 260 in the conventional surgery group. All predefined PROs (fatigue, diarrhea, C30 summary score, Global Health Status, physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning) did not differ significantly between the groups at all three timepoints, and differential effects over time for all PROs did not differ significantly between the groups. Significant worsening of fatigue, C30 summary score, physical and role functioning (both groups), and cognitive and social functioning (conventional surgery group only) was present in the early postoperative period. All scores returned to baseline at one year postoperatively, except for physical and cognitive functioning in the conventional surgery group. Emotional functioning improved postoperatively in both groups compared to baseline. Conclusion-Despite a more extensive procedure with greater risk of morbidity, CRS-HIPEC in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases did not have a greater negative impact on PROs than conventional surgery in patients with CRC. Further, systemic therapy did not affect these PROs. These findings may facilitate future patient counseling and shared decision making in clinical practice.

Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Unresectable Peritoneal Surface Malignancies.

Malignancies of the peritoneal cavity are associated with a dismal prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy is the gold standard for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, but its intraperitoneal effect is hampered by the peritoneal-plasma barrier. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy, which is administered repeatedly into the peritoneal cavity through a peritoneal implanted port, could provide a novel treatment modality for this patient population. This review provides a systematic overview of intraperitoneal used drugs, the performed clinical studies so far, and the complications of the peritoneal implemental ports. Several anticancer drugs have been studied for intraperitoneal application, with the taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel as the most commonly used drug. Repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, mostly in combination with systemic chemotherapy, has shown promising results in Phase I and Phase II studies for several tumor types, such as gastric cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Two Phase III studies for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer have been performed so far, but the results regarding the superiority over standard systemic chemotherapy alone, are contradictory. Pressurized intraperitoneal administration, known as PIPAC, is an alternative way of administering intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the first prospective studies have shown a tolerable safety profile. Although intraperitoneal chemotherapy might be a standard treatment option for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, more Phase II and Phase III studies focusing on tolerability profiles, survival rates, and quality of life are warranted in order to establish optimal treatment schedules and to establish a potential role for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the approach to unresectable peritoneal disease.

Beyond Median Overall Survival: Estimating Trends for Multiple Survival Scenarios in Patients With Metastatic Esophagogastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, clinical trials have shown improved survival of patients with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. The number of patients participating in clinical trials is limited, and survival improvements observed from clinical trials are unrepresentative for the full population. The aim of our study was to assess trends in survival for the best-case, typical, and worst-case scenarios in patients with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. METHODS: We selected patients with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2020 from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Survival was calculated for different percentiles of the survival curve for each incidence year (eg, the 10th percentile [p10] represents the top 10% of patients with the best survival): p10 (best-case), p25 (upper-typical), p50 (median), p75 (lower-typical), and p90 (worst-case). Weighted linear regression analyses were performed to test whether changes in survival were significant. RESULTS: The overall median survival between 2006 and 2020 remained unchanged for patients with esophageal cancer (n=10,448; from 5.2 to 5.2 months, respectively; P=.06) and improved for patients with gastric cancer (n=10,512; from 3.5 to 4.3 months, respectively; P=.001). For patients with esophageal cancer, survival for the best-case scenario (p10; best 10% of patients) significantly improved from 17.2 to 21.0 months (P=.006). For patients with gastric cancer, survival significantly improved for the best-case scenario (p10) from 15.9 to 23.5 months (P<.001) and the upper-typical scenario (p25) scenario improved from 7.9 to 9.9 months (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant survival improvements in clinical trials, survival improvements were not observed for the majority of patients treated in daily clinical practice. An increase in survival was only observed for patients with the best prognosis.

Attitudes Toward Striving for Quality and Length of Life Among Patients With Advanced Cancer and a Poor Prognosis.

PURPOSE: When deliberating palliative cancer treatment, insight into patients' attitudes toward striving for quality of life (QL) and length of life (LL) may facilitate goal-concordant care. We investigated the (1) attitudes of patients with advanced cancer toward striving for QL and/or LL and whether these change over time, and (2) characteristics associated with these attitudes (over time). METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial on improving shared decision making (SDM), without differentiation between intervention arms. Patients (n = 173) with advanced cancer, a median life expectancy of < 12 months without anticancer treatment, and a median survival benefit of < 6 months from systemic therapy were included in seven Dutch hospitals. We used audio-recorded consultations and surveys at baseline (T0), shortly after the consultation (T2), at 3 and 6 months (T3 and T4). Primary outcomes were patients' attitudes toward striving for QL and LL (Quality Quantity Questionnaire; T2, T3, and T4). RESULTS: Overall, patients' attitudes toward striving for QL became less positive over 6 months (P < .01); attitudes toward striving for LL did not change on group level. Studying individual patients, 76% showed changes in their attitudes toward striving for QL and/or LL at some point during the study, which occurred in various directions. More helplessness/hopelessness (P < .001), less fighting spirit (P < .05), less state anxiety (P < .001), and more observed SDM (P < .05) related to more positive attitudes toward striving for QL. Lower education, less helplessness/hopelessness, more fighting spirit, and more state anxiety (P < .001) related to more positive attitudes toward striving for LL. CONCLUSION: Oncologists may explore patients' attitudes toward striving for QL and LL repeatedly and address patients' coping style and emotions during SDM to facilitate goal-concordant care throughout the last phase of life.

Emotional functioning during bereavement after the death of patients with advanced cancer and associated factors.

OBJECTIVE: The death of a loved one is considered to be the most stressful of all life events. However, the impact of bereavement on quality of life varies between individuals. The aim of our study was to assess emotional functioning (EF), which is a domain of quality of life, of bereaved relatives after the death of their loved one and its associated factors. METHOD: A prospective, longitudinal, multicenter, observational study on quality of care and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives was conducted (eQuiPe). The association between EF of relatives during bereavement and the following factors was investigated: gender, type of relationship, educational level, pre-bereavement emotional and social functioning and global quality of life, social support pre- and during bereavement, anticipatory complicated grief, support of healthcare professionals during bereavement, age of patient and bereaved relative and duration of survival after primary cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: 150 bereaved relatives completed the bereavement questionnaire. In 41% of the bereaved relatives EF was ≤71, indicating clinically relevant low EF. Multivariable logistic regression showed that females experienced more often emotional problems (OR = 2.82). Emotional functioning pre-bereavement (OR = 0.96) and social support during bereavement (OR = 0.97) were associated with low EF during bereavement. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the bereaved relatives of patients with advanced cancer experienced low EF and this was associated with low EF pre-bereavement and low social support during bereavement. Support for relatives should be initiated before the patient's death. Future research is needed to investigate the impact of such support on relatives' wellbeing during bereavement.

A Multidisciplinary Approach for the Personalised Non-Operative Management of Elderly and Frail Rectal Cancer Patients Unable to Undergo TME Surgery.

Despite it being the optimal curative approach, elderly and frail rectal cancer patients may not be able to undergo a total mesorectal excision. Frequently, no treatment is offered at all and the natural course of the disease is allowed to unfold. These patients are at risk for developing debilitating symptoms that impair quality of life and require palliative treatment. Recent advancements in non-operative treatment modalities have enhanced the toolbox of alternative treatment strategies in patients unable to undergo surgery. Therefore, a proposed strategy is to aim for the maximal non-operative treatment, in an effort to avoid the onset of debilitating symptoms, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. The complexity of treating elderly and frail patients requires a patient-centred approach to personalise treatment. The main challenge is to optimise the balance between local control of disease, patient preferences, and the burden of treatment. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is a crucial element within the multidisciplinary dialogue. Since limited knowledge is available on the optimal non-operative treatment strategy, these patients should be treated by dedicated multidisciplinary rectal cancer experts with special interest in the elderly and frail. The aim of this narrative review was to discuss a multidisciplinary patient-centred treatment approach and provide a practical suggestion of a successfully implemented clinical care pathway.