Survival outcome differences based on treatments used and knowledge of the primary tumour site for patients with cancer of unknown and known primary in Ontario.

Introduction: Patients with cancer of unknown primary (cup) have pathologically confirmed metastatic tumours with unidentifiable primary tumours. Currently, very little is known about the relationship between the treatment of patients with cup and their survival outcomes. Thus, we compared oncologic treatment and survival outcomes for patients in Ontario with cup against those for a cohort of patients with metastatic cancer of known primary site. Methods: Using the Ontario Cancer Registry and the Same-Day Surgery and Discharge Abstract databases maintained by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, we identified all Ontario patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2005. Ontario Health Insurance Plan treatment records were linked to identify codes for surgery, chemotherapy, or therapeutic radiation related to oncology. Multivariable Cox regression models were constructed, adjusting for histology, age, sex, and comorbidities. Results: In 45,347 patients (96.3%), the primary tumour site was identifiable, and in 1743 patients (3.7%), cup was diagnosed. Among the main tumour sites, cup ranked as the 6th largest. The mean Charlson score was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in patients with cup (1.88) than in those with a known primary (1.42). Overall median survival was 1.9 months for patients with cup compared with 11.9 months for all patients with a known-primary cancer. Receipt of treatment was more likely for patients with a known primary site (n= 35,012, 77.2%) than for those with cup (n = 891, 51.1%). Among patients with a known primary site, median survival was significantly higher for treated than for untreated patients (19.0 months vs. 2.2 months, p < 0.0001). Among patients with cup, median survival was also higher for treated than for untreated patients (3.6 months vs. 1.1 months, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In Ontario, patients with cup experience significantly lower survival than do patients with metastatic cancer of a known primary site. Treatment is associated with significantly increased survival both for patients with cup and for those with metastatic cancer of a known primary site.

Phase I study of concurrent and consolidation cisplatin and docetaxel chemotherapy with thoracic radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: We designed a phase i study of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (ccrt) with docetaxel (D) and cisplatin (C), followed by consolidation dc, for unresectable stage iii non-small cell lung cancer (nsclc). METHODS: Patients with histologically proven and unresectable stage iii nsclc were eligible. During ccrt, C was given every 3 weeks (75 mg/m2) and D given weekly. The starting dose of D was 20 mg/m2, escalated in cohorts of 3 to define the maximum tolerated dose (mtd). Radiotherapy was prescribed to a dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions. This was followed by 2 cycles of consolidation dc, which were dose escalated if ccrt was tolerated. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled, with 1 excluded following evidence of metastatic disease. Nineteen patients completed both phases of treatment. There were 7 grade 3 events during ccrt (5 esophagitis, 2 nausea), and 8 grade 3 events during consolidation (2 neutropenia, 2 leukopenia, 1 esophagitis, 2 nausea, and 1 pneumonitis). Three patients had grade 4 neutropenia. No patients died due to toxicities. The mtd of concurrent weekly D was 20 mg/m2. Consolidation D and C were each dose escalated to 75 mg/m2 in 8 patients. The median overall survival (os) and progression-free survival (pfs) of all patients were 33.6 months and 17.2 months, respectively, with median follow-up of 26.6 months (range 0.43-110.8). CONCLUSIONS: The use of docetaxel 20 mg/m2 weekly and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks concurrent with thoracic radiotherapy, followed by consolidation docetaxel and cisplatin, both given at 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, appears to be safe in this phase i trial.

Assessing fitness to drive in brain tumour patients: a grey matter of law, ethics, and medicine.

BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive deficits from brain tumours may impair the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Although certain jurisdictions in Canada legally require that physicians report patients who are unfit to drive, criteria for determining fitness are not clearly defined for brain tumours. METHODS: Patients receiving brain radiotherapy at our institution from January to June 2009 were identified using the Oncology Patient Information System. In addition to descriptive statistics, details of driving assessment were reviewed retrospectively. The Fisher exact test was used to determine factors predictive of reporting a patient to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (mto) as unfit to drive. A logistic regression model was constructed to further determine factors predictive of reporting. RESULTS: Of the 158 patients available for analysis, 48 (30%) were reported to the mto, and 64 (41%) were advised to stop driving. With respect to the 53 patients with seizures, a report was submitted to the mto for 30 (57%), and a documented discussion about the implications of driving was held with 35 (66%). On univariate analysis, younger age, a central nervous system primary, higher brain radiotherapy dose, unifocal disease, and the presence of seizures were predictive of physician reporting (p < 0.05). On logistic regression modelling, the presence of seizures (odds ratio: 3.9) and a higher radiotherapy dose (odds ratio: 1.3) remained predictive of reporting. INTERPRETATION: Physicians frequently do not discuss the implications of driving with brain tumour patients or are not properly documenting such advice (or both). Clear and concise reporting guidelines need to be drafted given the legal, medical, and ethical concerns surrounding this public health issue.

Multidisciplinary assessment of fitness to drive in brain tumour patients in southwestern Ontario: a grey matter.

BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive impairments from brain tumours may interfere with the ability to drive safely. In 9 of 13 Canadian provinces and territories, physicians have a legal obligation to report patients who may be medically unfit to drive. To complicate matters, brain tumour patients are managed by a multidisciplinary team; the physician most responsible to make the report of unfitness is often not apparent. The objective of the present study was to determine the attitudes and reporting practices of physicians caring for these patients. METHODS: A 17-question survey distributed to physicians managing brain tumour patients elicited Respondent demographicsKnowledge about legislative requirementsExperience of reportingBarriers and attitudes to reporting Fisher exact tests were performed to assess differences in responses between family physicians (fps) and specialists. RESULTS: Of 467 physicians sent surveys, 194 responded (42%), among whom 81 (42%) were specialists and 113 (58%) were fps. Compared with the specialists, the fps were significantly less comfortable with reporting, less likely to consider reporting, less likely to have patients inquire about driving, and less likely to discuss driving implications. A lack of tools, concern for the patient-physician relationship, and a desire to preserve patient quality of life were the most commonly cited barriers in determining medical fitness of patients to drive. CONCLUSIONS: Legal requirements to report medically unfit drivers put physicians in the difficult position of balancing patient autonomy and public safety. More comprehensive and definitive guidelines would be helpful in assisting physicians with this public health issue.

Fitness to drive in patients with brain tumours: the influence of mandatory reporting legislation on radiation oncologists in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Certain jurisdictions in Canada legally require that physicians report unfit drivers. Physician attitudes and patterns of practice have yet to be evaluated in Canada for patients with brain tumours. METHODS: We conducted a survey of 97 radiation oncologists, eliciting demographics, knowledge of reporting laws, and attitudes on reporting guidelines for unfit drivers. Eight scenarios with varying disability levels were presented to determine the likelihood of a patient being reported as unfit to drive. Statistical comparisons were made using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Of physicians approached, 99% responded, and 97 physicians participated. Most respondents (87%) felt that laws in their province governing the reporting of medically unfit drivers were unclear. Of the responding physicians, 23 (24%) were unable to correctly identify whether their province had mandatory reporting legislation. Physicians from provinces without mandatory reporting legislation were significantly less likely to consider reporting patients to provincial authorities (p = 0.001), and for all clinical scenarios, the likelihood of reporting significantly depended on the physician's provincial legal obligations. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of provincial legislation is of primary importance in determining whether physicians will report brain tumour patients to drivers' licensing authorities. In Canada, clear guidelines have to be developed to help in the assessment of whether brain tumour patients should drive.

A retrospective analysis of 52 cases of spinal cord glioma managed with radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To describe the outcome of primary spinal cord glioma treated with radiation therapy after surgery and to identify variables predictive of outcome. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A chart review of 52 patients with a diagnosis of spinal cord non-ependymoma glioma at the Princess Margaret Hospital was conducted. Thirty-two patients (62%) were male and 20 (38%) were female. Median age was 32 years (2-76 years). Median follow-up was 3.7 years (2 months to 27 years). Initial surgical management consisted of biopsy alone in 27 (52%) cases, subtotal resection in 20 (38%) cases, and gross total resection in 5 (10%) cases. All patients received postoperative radiation therapy; median total dose was 50 Gy, given in 25 daily fractions (20-60 Gy). Actuarial survival rates were calculated and the influence of patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related variables on outcome was determined. RESULTS: Five-year overall, cause-specific, and progression-free survivals were 54%, 62%, and 58%, respectively. Ten-year survivals were 45%, 50%, and 43%, respectively. A total of 29 (56%) patients died during the period of review. For 23 (79%) of these patients, death was cancer specific. Progression of tumor was documented in 28 of 52 (54%) patients. The following factors predicted for improved outcome on univariate analysis: age < 18 years, low-grade histology, and length of symptoms prior to diagnosis > 6 months. CONCLUSION: The outcome of patients in this series is consistent with that of other similar published reports. Specific recommendations are made for the management of this tumor.