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.

Induction chemotherapy followed by response evaluation and esophagectomy for advanced esophageal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with limited metastatic/advanced esophageal cancer not amenable for neoadjuvant therapy plus surgery have a poor prognosis and often receive palliative care. Alternatively, induction chemotherapy with response evaluation can be considered and in some patients surgery with curative intent may become feasible. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of patients treated with induction chemotherapy and to identify patient and/or tumor characteristics associated with survival. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with esophageal or junctional cancer who underwent induction chemotherapy between 2005 and 2021 were identified from an institutional database of a tertiary referral center. Response to therapy was assessed by (18F-FDG PET)/CT. Response to therapy and treatment options, including surgery or palliation, were discussed in the multidisciplinary tumor board. Overall survival (OS) was calculated using the Kaplan Meier method. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for survival. RESULTS: 238 patients were identified. The majority had esophageal adenocarcinoma (68.9 %) and were treated with a taxane/platinum-based chemotherapy (79.4 %). Response evaluation was performed in 233 patients and 154 of 238 patients (64.7 %) underwent surgical exploration. Resection was performed in 127 patients (53.4 %) resulting in a median and 5-year OS of 26.3 months (95 % CI 18.8-33.8) and 29.6 %, respectively. Presence of T4b (HR = 2.01, 95 % CI 1.02-3.92) and poorly differentiated tumor (HR = 1.45, 95 % CI 1.02-2.10) was associated with worse survival (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In carefully selected patients with advanced disease not amenable for standard curative treatment, induction chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy may result in a 5-year overall survival of approximately 30 %.

Efficacy and Safety of Panitumumab in Patients With RAF/RAS-Wild-Type Glioblastoma: Results From the Drug Rediscovery Protocol.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of malignant primary high-grade brain tumors, predominantly glioblastomas, is poor despite intensive multimodality treatment options. In more than 50% of patients with glioblastomas, potentially targetable mutations are present, including rearrangements, altered splicing, and/or focal amplifications of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) by signaling through the RAF/RAS pathway. We studied whether treatment with the clinically available anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody panitumumab provides clinical benefit for patients with RAF/RAS-wild-type (wt) glioblastomas in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP). METHODS: Patients with progression of treatment refractory RAF/RASwt glioblastoma were included for treatment with panitumumab in DRUP when measurable according to RANO criteria. The primary endpoints of this study are clinical benefit (CB: defined as confirmed objective response [OR] or stable disease [SD] ≥ 16 weeks) and safety. Patients were enrolled using a Simon-like 2-stage model, with 8 patients in stage 1 and up to 24 patients in stage 2 if at least 1 in 8 patients had CB in stage 1. RESULTS: Between 03-2018 and 02-2022, 24 evaluable patients were treated. CB was observed in 5 patients (21%), including 2 patients with partial response (8.3%) and 3 patients with SD ≥ 16 weeks (12.5%). After median follow-up of 15 months, median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.7 months (95% CI 1.6-2.1 months) and 4.5 months (95% CI 2.9-8.6 months), respectively. No unexpected toxicities were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Panitumumab treatment provides limited CB in patients with recurrent RAF/RASwt glioblastoma precluding further development of this therapeutic strategy.

Assessing real-world representativeness of prospective registry cohorts in oncology: insights from patients with esophagogastric cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the real-world representativeness of a prospective registry cohort with active accrual in oncology, applying a representativeness metric that is novel to health care. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used data from the Prospective Observational Cohort Study of Esophageal-Gastric Cancer Patients (POCOP) registry and from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). We used Representativeness-indicators (R-indicators) and overall survival to investigate the degree to which the POCOP cohort and clinically relevant subgroups were a representative sample compared to the NCR database. Calibration using inverse propensity score weighting was applied to correct differences between POCOP and NCR. RESULTS: The R-indicator of the entire POCOP registry was 0.72 95% confidence interval [0.71, 0.73]. Representativeness of palliative patients was higher than that of potentially curable patients (R-indicator 0.88 [0.85, 0.90] and 0.70 [0.68, 0.71], respectively). Stratification to clinically relevant subgroups based on treatment resulted in higher R-indicators of the respective subgroups. Both after stratification and calibration weighting survival estimates in the POCOP registry were more similar to that in the NCR population. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the assessment of real-world representativeness of patients who participated in a prospective registry cohort and showed that real-world representativeness improved when the variability in treatment was accounted for.

Incidence, Stage, Treatment, and Survival of Noncardia Gastric Cancer.

Importance: Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide, and investigating its incidence, characteristics, treatment, and outcomes over the past decades can help in selecting clinical strategies and future research directions. Objective: To analyze the trends in incidence, staging, and treatment of gastric cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationwide, population-based cohort study included patients diagnosed with noncardia gastric cancer (NCGC) between 1989 and 2021 in the Netherlands. Main Outcomes and Measures: Differences in tumor characteristics, treatment, and survival were analyzed per fixed time periods (1989-1993, 1994-1998, 1999-2003, 2004-2008, 2009-2013, 2014-2018, and 2019-2021). Results: In total, 47 014 patients (median [IQR] age, 73 [64-80] years; 28 032 [60%] male patients) were identified with mostly adenocarcinomas of the antrum region (when location was known). Age-standardized incidence decreased from 20.3 to 6.1 per 100 000 person-years between 1989 and 2021. During the study period, unknown T and N stages were recorded less frequently, and metastatic disease was diagnosed more frequently (1989-1993: 2633 of 9493 patients [28%]; 2019-2021: 1503 of 3200 patients [47%] in 2019-2021). Over time, fewer patients with metastatic disease underwent surgery with or without other treatment modalities (68% in 1989-1993 vs 64% in 2019-2021), and palliative chemotherapy in metastatic NCGC increased from 9% to 40%. For patients with nonmetastatic disease, 5-year relative survival improved from 28% (95% CI, 26.5%-29.2%) to 36% (95% CI, 33.5%-37.6%) between 1989 and 2021. For patients with nonmetastatic disease undergoing a resection, 5-year survival increased from 40% (95% CI, 38.3%-41.8%) to 51% (95% CI, 47.9%-53.3%). For patients with metastatic disease, 1-year relative survival increased from 10% (95% CI, 8.7%-11.1%) to 19% (95% CI, 17.2%-21.6%), but 3-year relative survival remained poor at 5% (95% CI, 3.6%-7.5%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this nationwide cohort study involving 47 014 patients diagnosed with NCGC (1989-2021), the results showed a decrease in incidence, more accurate staging, a shift in treatment modalities, and improved patient survival.

Ex vivo drug sensitivity screening predicts response to temozolomide in glioblastoma patients and identifies candidate biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: Patient-derived glioma stem-like cells (GSCs) have become the gold-standard in neuro-oncological research; however, it remains to be established whether loss of in situ microenvironment affects the clinically-predictive value of this model. We implemented a GSC monolayer system to investigate in situ-in vitro molecular correspondence and the relationship between in vitro and patient response to temozolomide (TMZ). METHODS: DNA/RNA-sequencing was performed on 56 glioblastoma tissues and 19 derived GSC cultures. Sensitivity to TMZ was screened across 66 GSC cultures. Viability readouts were related to clinical parameters of corresponding patients and whole-transcriptome data. RESULTS: Tumour DNA and RNA sequences revealed strong similarity to corresponding GSCs despite loss of neuronal and immune interactions. In vitro TMZ screening yielded three response categories which significantly correlated with patient survival, therewith providing more specific prediction than the binary MGMT marker. Transcriptome analysis identified 121 genes related to TMZ sensitivity of which 21were validated in external datasets. CONCLUSION: GSCs retain patient-unique hallmark gene expressions despite loss of their natural environment. Drug screening using GSCs predicted patient response to TMZ more specifically than MGMT status, while transcriptome analysis identified potential biomarkers for this response. GSC drug screening therefore provides a tool to improve drug development and precision medicine for glioblastoma.

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.

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.

Study protocol of the GLOW study: maximising treatment options for recurrent glioblastoma patients by whole genome sequencing-based diagnostics-a prospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM), the most common glial primary brain tumour, is without exception lethal. Every year approximately 600 patients are diagnosed with this heterogeneous disease in The Netherlands. Despite neurosurgery, chemo -and radiation therapy, these tumours inevitably recur. Currently, there is no gold standard at time of recurrence and treatment options are limited. Unfortunately, the results of dedicated trials with new drugs have been very disappointing. The goal of the project is to obtain the evidence for changing standard of care (SOC) procedures to include whole genome sequencing (WGS) and consequently adapt care guidelines for this specific patient group with very poor prognosis by offering optimal and timely benefit from novel therapies, even in the absence of traditional registration trials for this small volume cancer indication. METHODS: The GLOW study is a prospective diagnostic cohort study executed through collaboration of the Hartwig Medical Foundation (Hartwig, a non-profit organisation) and twelve Dutch centers that perform neurosurgery and/or treat GBM patients. A total of 200 patients with a first recurrence of a glioblastoma will be included. Dual primary endpoint is the percentage of patients who receive targeted therapy based on the WGS report and overall survival. Secondary endpoints include WGS report success rate and number of targeted treatments available based on WGS reports and number of patients starting a treatment in presence of an actionable variant. At recurrence, study participants will undergo SOC neurosurgical resection. Tumour material will then, together with a blood sample, be sent to Hartwig where it will be analysed by WGS. A diagnostic report with therapy guidance, including potential matching off-label drugs and available clinical trials will then be sent back to the treating physician for discussing of the results in molecular tumour boards and targeted treatment decision making. DISCUSSION: The GLOW study aims to provide the scientific evidence for changing the SOC diagnostics for patients with a recurrent glioblastoma by investigating complete genome diagnostics to maximize treatment options for this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05186064.

Population-based study of treatment and outcome of recurrent oesophageal or junctional cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction have a high risk of recurrence after treatment with curative intent. The aim of this study was to analyse the site of recurrence, treatment, and survival in patients with recurrent disease. METHODS: Patients with non-metastatic oesophageal or junctional carcinoma treated with curative intent between January 2015 and December 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Data on recurrence were collected in the second half of 2019. Overall survival (OS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: In total, 862 of 1909 patients (45.2 per cent) for whom information on follow-up was available had disease recurrence, and 858 patients were included. Some 161 of 858 patients (18.8 per cent) had locoregional recurrence only, 415 (48.4 per cent) had distant recurrence only, and 282 (32.9 per cent) had combined locoregional and distant recurrence. In all, 518 of 858 patients (60.4 per cent) received best supportive care only and 315 (39.6 per cent) underwent tumour-directed therapy. Patients with locoregional recurrence alone more often received chemoradiotherapy than those with distant or combined locoregional and distant recurrence (19.3 per cent versus 0.7 and 2.8 per cent), and less often received systemic therapy (11.2 per cent versus 30.1 and 35.8 per cent). Median OS was 7.6, 4.2, and 3.3 months for patients with locoregional, distant, and combined locoregional and distant recurrence respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Disease recurred after curative treatment in 45.2 per cent of patients. Locoregional recurrence developed in only 18.8 per cent. The vast majority of patients presented with distant or combined locoregional and distant recurrence, and received best supportive care.

A population-based study in resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer aligned with CheckMate 577.

BACKGROUND: Results of CheckMate 577 show an improved disease-free survival for patients with resected esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer treated with adjuvant nivolumab compared with placebo (22.4 versus 11.0 months). Population-based data can provide insights in outcomes from clinical practice. The aim of our study was to investigate disease-free and overall survival in a nationwide population aligned with the inclusion criteria of CheckMate 577. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Resected patients with stage II/III esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer (2015-2016) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients with cervical esophageal cancer, irradical resection, or complete pathological response were excluded. Disease-free and overall survival were assessed from 12 weeks after resection using Kaplan-Meier methods. In addition, to adjust for differences in characteristics between CheckMate 577 and our population-based cohort, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison was performed for pathological lymph node status and pathological tumor status. RESULTS: We identified 634 patients. Sixty percent of patients were diagnosed with recurrence or were deceased at the end of follow-up. Median disease-free survival was 19.7 months and median overall survival was 32.2 months. After the matching procedure, the median disease-free survival was 17.2 months and median overall survival was 28.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Disease-free survival in our population-based study was considerably longer than the placebo population of CheckMate-577 (19.7 versus 11.0 months). Possible explanations are differences in characteristics, quality of esophageal cancer care, or differential strategies for evaluation of recurrence. In the Netherlands postoperative imaging is not part of the standard follow-up as opposed to the standard postoperative imaging in the CheckMate 577 trial. The difference in postoperative imaging could partially explain the longer disease-free survival observed in our study. Quality and optimization of current treatment modalities remain important aspects of esophageal cancer care.

A population-based study in synchronous versus metachronous metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.

Background: Real-world data on treatment and outcomes in patients with synchronous metastatic disease compared with patients with metachronous metastatic disease in esophagogastric cancer have not been published before. The aim of our study was to explore treatment, overall survival (OS), and time to treatment fialure (TTF) in patients with synchronous and metachronous metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Methods: Patients with synchronous metastatic disease (2015-2017) and patients with metachronous metastatic disease initially treated with curative intent for nonmetastatic disease (2015-2016) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS and TTF were assessed from metastatic diagnosis for patients with synchronous, early metachronous (⩽6 months) or late metachronous (>6 months) metastatic disease using Kaplan-Meier curves with two-sided log-rank test. Results: Median OS was 4.2, 2.1, and 4.4 months in patients with synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving systemic treatment was 41.3%, 21.5%, and 32.5% for synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively (p = 0.001). Among patients receiving systemic treatment, median OS was 8.8, 4.5, and 9.1 months (p < 0.001) and median TTF was 6.1, 3.8, and 5.7 months (p < 0.001) in synchronous, early metachronous, and late metachronous metastatic disease, respectively. Conclusion: Patients with early metachronous metastatic disease have a worse survival compared with patients with synchronous or late metachronous metastatic disease. These patients less often receive systemic treatment, and even when treated, survival is worse compared with patients with synchronous or late metachronous metastatic disease, suggesting a more aggressive tumor behavior.

Definitions and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer according to multidisciplinary tumour boards in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. MATERIAL AND METHODS: European expert centers (n = 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into upfront local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%), or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 47 MDTs across 16 countries fully discussed the cases (96%). Oligometastatic disease was considered in patients with 1-2 metastases in either the liver, lung, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, adrenal gland, soft tissue or bone (consensus). At follow-up, oligometastatic disease was considered after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy when no progression or progression in size only of the oligometastatic lesion(s) was seen (consensus). If at restaging after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy the number of lesions progressed, this was not considered as oligometastatic disease (fair agreement). There was no consensus on treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease. CONCLUSION: A broad consensus on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was found among MDTs of oesophagogastric cancer expert centres in Europe. However, high practice variability in treatment strategies exists.

Patients with Rare Cancers in the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) Benefit from Genomics-Guided Treatment.

PURPOSE: Patients with rare cancers (incidence less than 6 cases per 100,000 persons per year) commonly have less treatment opportunities and are understudied at the level of genomic targets. We hypothesized that patients with rare cancer benefit from approved anticancer drugs outside their label similar to common cancers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), patients with therapy-refractory metastatic cancers harboring an actionable molecular profile are matched to FDA/European Medicines Agency-approved targeted therapy or immunotherapy. Patients are enrolled in parallel cohorts based on the histologic tumor type, molecular profile and study drug. Primary endpoint is clinical benefit (complete response, partial response, stable disease ≥ 16 weeks). RESULTS: Of 1,145 submitted cases, 500 patients, including 164 patients with rare cancers, started one of the 25 available drugs and were evaluable for treatment outcome. The overall clinical benefit rate was 33% in both the rare cancer and nonrare cancer subgroup. Inactivating alterations of CDKN2A and activating BRAF aberrations were overrepresented in patients with rare cancer compared with nonrare cancers, resulting in more matches to CDK4/6 inhibitors (14% vs. 4%; P ≤ 0.001) or BRAF inhibitors (9% vs. 1%; P ≤ 0.001). Patients with rare cancer treated with small-molecule inhibitors targeting BRAF experienced higher rates of clinical benefit (75%) than the nonrare cancer subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive molecular testing in patients with rare cancers may identify treatment opportunities and clinical benefit similar to patients with common cancers. Our findings highlight the importance of access to broad molecular diagnostics to ensure equal treatment opportunities for all patients with cancer.

Barriers and facilitators for shared decision-making in oncology inpatient practice: an explorative study of the healthcare providers' perspective.

BACKGROUND: In cancer care, shared decision-making (SDM) is especially relevant as different treatment options have a different impact on prognosis and patients' quality of life. However, evidence suggests that SDM is not routinely practiced. Furthermore, literature is mostly focussed on the outpatient setting. This study explored healthcare providers' perspectives on SDM for oncology inpatients and identified barriers and facilitators. METHOD: In this qualitative study, focus groups and semi-structured interviews were held with five nurses, eleven residents, four oncologists, and two healthcare managers caring for oncology inpatients of the Elisabeth-TweeSteden hospital. RESULTS: Healthcare professionals do not always clearly state when a decision is required. On a patient level, comprehension barriers, language barrier, and distraction by emotions or sickness are recognized as barriers for adequate patient's communication. On a healthcare professional level, having awareness to inform about choices, being able to transfer this information, connecting to the patient, having substantial experience, and a good patient-physician relationship were facilitators. On an organizational, level, time, private rooms, continuity in care, and suboptimal use of the electronic health record were barriers. CONCLUSION: While SDM is recognized and valued, its implementation is inconsistent. Addressing the several barriers found and optimizing the facilitators is imperative. A start could be by raising awareness for SDM in the inpatient setting, adding SDM as part of the care pathway, stating to patients when a decision is required, reporting on the SDM process in the electronic health record, and describing the nurses' role in SDM.

Life-prolonging treatment restrictions and outcomes in patients with cancer and COVID-19: an update from the Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly impacted cancer care. In this study, clinical patient characteristics related to COVID-19 outcomes and advanced care planning, in terms of non-oncological treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-resuscitate codes), were studied in patients with cancer and COVID-19. METHODS: The Dutch Oncology COVID-19 Consortium registry was launched in March 2020 in 45 hospitals in the Netherlands, primarily to identify risk factors of a severe COVID-19 outcome in patients with cancer. Here, an updated analysis of the registry was performed, and treatment restrictions (e.g. do-not-intubate codes) were studied in relation to COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer. Oncological treatment restrictions were not taken into account. RESULTS: Between 27th March 2020 and 4th February 2021, 1360 patients with cancer and COVID-19 were registered. Follow-up data of 830 patients could be validated for this analysis. Overall, 230 of 830 (27.7%) patients died of COVID-19, and 60% of the remaining 600 patients with resolved COVID-19 were admitted to the hospital. Patients with haematological malignancies or lung cancer had a higher risk of a fatal outcome than other solid tumours. No correlation between anticancer therapies and the risk of a fatal COVID-19 outcome was found. In terms of end-of-life communication, 50% of all patients had restrictions regarding life-prolonging treatment (e.g. do-not-intubate codes). Most identified patients with treatment restrictions had risk factors associated with fatal COVID-19 outcome. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of a negative impact of anticancer therapies on COVID-19 outcomes. Timely end-of-life communication as part of advanced care planning could save patients from prolonged suffering and decrease burden in intensive care units. Early discussion of treatment restrictions should therefore be part of routine oncological care, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The association between effectiveness of first-line treatment and second-line treatment in gastro-oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Population-based predictive factors for the effectiveness of second-line palliative systemic therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer are not available. This study investigates the predictive value of effectiveness of first-line treatment for second-line treatment outcomes in gastro-oesophageal cancer in a real-world setting. METHODS: Patients with metastatic gastro-oesophageal cancer diagnosed in 2010-2017 who were treated with second-line therapy after disease progression on first-line therapy were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into four groups as per duration of time to treatment failure (TTF) of the first line (0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months), and the association with overall survival (OS) and second-line TTF was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and two-sided multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Median OS since the start of the second line of patients (n = 611) with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 4.0, 4.1, 5.5 and 7.1 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Median second-line TTF of patients with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 2.8, 2.4, 3.0 and 4.5 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients with first-line TTF of >9 months showed a longer OS than patients with first-line TTF of 0-3 months (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-2.47), 3-6 months (adjusted HR 1.88; 95% CI 1.47-2.39) and 6-9 months (adjusted HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.04-1.65). Results for second-line TTF were similar. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a positive correlation between effectiveness of first-line therapy and outcomes of second-line therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer. Physicians should take duration of the first line into account when considering second-line palliative systemic therapy.

Evaluation of the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores for prediction of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Khorana score is a validated tool to identify cancer patients at higher risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVE: We compared its predictive performance to that of the clinical PROTECHT and the polygenic 5-SNP scores in patients who participated in the Dutch CPCT-02 study. PATIENTS/METHODS: Data on VTE and its risk factors were retrospectively collected for 2729 patients with advanced stage solid tumors planned for systemic cancer treatment. Patients were followed for 6 months. Overall discriminatory performance of the scores was evaluated by time-dependent c-indices. The scores were additionally evaluated dichotomously in competing risk models. RESULTS: A total of 160 (5.9%) patients developed VTE during follow-up. Time-dependent c-indices at 6 months for the Khorana, PROTECHT, and 5-SNP scores were 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.60), 0.60 (95% CI: 0.57-0.62), and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.51-0.57), respectively. The dichotomous scores classified 9.6%, 16.8%, and 9.5% as high-risk, respectively. VTE risk was about 2-fold higher among high-risk patients than low-risk patients for the Khorana (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.9, 95% CI: 1.3-3.0), PROTECHT (SHR 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5-3.0), and 5-SNP scores (SHR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.03-2.8). The sensitivity at 6 months was 16.6% (95% CI: 10.5-22.7), 28.9% (95% CI: 21.5-36.3), and 14.9% (95% CI: 8.5-21.2), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the PROTECHT or 5-SNP score was not superior to that of the Khorana score. The majority of cancer patients who developed VTE during 6-month follow-up were not identified by these scores. Future directions for studies on cancer-associated VTE prediction may include combined clinical-genetic scores.

Validation of the updated renal graded prognostic assessment (GPA) for patients with renal cancer brain metastases treated with gamma knife radiosurgery.

INTRODUCTION: Prognosis of patients with brain metastasis (BM) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is relevant for treatment decisions and can be estimated with the Renal Graded Prognostic Assessment (GPA). The aim of this study is to validate the updated version of this instrument in a cohort treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery (GKRS) without prior local intracerebral therapy. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2018, 106 RCC patients with BM were treated with GKRS. They were categorized according to the updated Renal GPA. Overall survival (OS), distant intracranial failure and local failure were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and risk factors were identified with Cox proportional hazard regressions. RESULTS: Median OS was 8.6 months. Median OS for GPA categories 0.0-1.0 (15%), 1.5-2.0 (12%), 2.5-3.0 (35%) and 3.5-4.0 (29%) was 2.9, 5.5, 8.1 and 20.4 months, respectively. Karnofsky performance status < 90, serum hemoglobin ≤ 12.5 g/dL, age > 65 years and time from primary diagnosis to brain metastasis < 1 year were significantly related with shorter survival, while presence of extracranial disease, the volume and total number of BM had no significant impact on OS. A total count of > 4 BM was the only predictive factor for distant intracranial failure, while none of the investigated factors predicted local failure. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the updated Renal GPA in an independent cohort as a valuable instrument to estimate survival in patients with BM from RCC treated with GKRS.