Screening and Stepped Care Targeting Psychological Distress in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The TES Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a screening and stepped care program (the TES program) in reducing psychological distress compared with care as usual (CAU) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer starting with first-line systemic palliative treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this cluster randomized trial, 16 hospitals were assigned to the TES program or CAU. Patients in the TES arm were screened for psychological distress with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Distress Thermometer/Problem List (at baseline and 10 and 18 weeks). Stepped care was offered to patients with distress or expressed needs, and it consisted of watchful waiting, guided self-help, face-to-face problem-solving therapy, or referral to specialized mental healthcare. The primary outcome was change in psychological distress over time, and secondary outcomes were quality of life, satisfaction with care, and recognition and referral of distressed patients by clinicians. Linear mixed models and effect sizes were used to evaluate differences. RESULTS: A total of 349 patients were randomized; 184 received the TES program and 165 received CAU. In the TES arm, 60.3% of the patients screened positive for psychological distress, 26.1% of which entered the stepped care program (14.7% used only watchful waiting and 11.4% used at least one of the other treatment steps). The observed low use of the TES program led us to pursue a futility analysis, which showed a small conditional power and therefore resulted in halted recruitment for this study. No difference was seen in change in psychological distress over time between the 2 groups (effect size, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.03; P>.05). The TES group reported higher satisfaction with the received treatment and better cognitive quality of life (all P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: As a result of the low use of stepped care, a combined screening and treatment program targeting psychological distress in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve psychological distress. Our results suggest that enhanced evaluation of psychosocial concerns may improve aspects of patient well-being.

Tamoxifen Pharmacogenetics and Metabolism: Results From the Prospective CYPTAM Study.

PURPOSE: Tamoxifen is widely prescribed as adjuvant therapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer. It has been postulated that concentrations of endoxifen, the active metabolite of tamoxifen, are a better predictor of tamoxifen efficacy than CYP2D6 genotypes. Although in a retrospective study, an endoxifen threshold of 5.9 ng/mL for efficacy was described, confirmation based on prospective studies is lacking. The objective of the prospective CYPTAM (The Netherlands National Trial Register: NTR1509) study was to associate endoxifen concentrations and CYP2D6 genotypes with clinical outcome in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From February 2008 to December 2010, patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant tamoxifen were included. Patients could be enrolled up to a maximum of 12 months after tamoxifen initiation. Blood samples were retrieved for CYP2D6 genotyping and endoxifen measurements by Amplichip (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN) and high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, respectively. Endoxifen concentrations were analyzed as a continuous variable, classifying patients into quartiles and using an endoxifen threshold of 5.9 ng/mL. Endoxifen concentrations and CYP2D6 genotypes were associated with relapse-free survival (censored at the time of tamoxifen discontinuation; RFSt) by Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 667 pre- and postmenopausal patients were enrolled and had received tamoxifen for a median time of 0.37 years (range, 0.23 to 0.6 years) before study entry. No association was found between endoxifen concentrations and RFSt (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.946 to 1.038; P = .691). Also, neither categorizing endoxifen concentrations into quartiles nor using 5.9 ng/mL as threshold altered these results. In addition, no association was found between CYP2D6 genotype and RFSt (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.929; 95% CI, 0.525 to 1.642; P = .799). CONCLUSION: This prospective clinical study shows no association between endoxifen concentrations or CYP2D6 genotypes and clinical outcome in patients with early-stage breast cancer receiving adjuvant tamoxifen.

Independent replication of polymorphisms predicting toxicity in breast cancer patients randomized between dose-dense and docetaxel-containing adjuvant chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Although pharmacogenomics has evolved substantially, a predictive test for chemotherapy toxicity is still lacking. We compared the toxicity of adjuvant dose-dense doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (ddAC) and docetaxel-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide (TAC) in a randomized multicenter phase III trial and replicated previously reported associations between genotypes and toxicity. RESULTS: 646 patients (97%) were evaluable for toxicity (grade 2 and higher). Whereas AN was more frequent after ddAC (P < 0.001), TAC treated patients more often had PNP (P < 0.001). We could replicate 2 previously reported associations: TECTA (rs1829; OR 4.18, 95% CI 1.84-9.51, P = 0.001) with PNP, and GSTP1 (rs1138272; OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.13-3.68, P = 0.018) with PNP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with pT1-3, pN0-3 breast cancer were randomized between six cycles A60C600 every 2 weeks or T75A50C500 every 3 weeks. Associations of 13 previously reported single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with the most frequent toxicities: anemia (AN), febrile neutropenia (FN) and peripheral neuropathy (PNP) were analyzed using logistic regression models. CONCLUSIONS: In this independent replication, we could replicate an association between 2 out of 13 SNPs and chemotherapy toxicities. These results warrant further validation in order to enable tailored treatment for breast cancer patients.

Impact of age and comorbidity on survival in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with colorectal cancer are often excluded from clinical trials based on age or a poor performance score. However, 70% of colorectal cancer is diagnosed in patients over 65. Evaluation on the influence of age and comorbidity on survival and cause of death in a non-selected population. METHODS: Included were 621 consecutive patients with colorectal cancer. An extensive chart review was performed for 392 patients with colon cancer and 143 patients with rectal cancer. Analyses were performed separately for both groups. RESULTS: Median survival of colon cancer patients was 5.13 years, 131 patients (34.3%) died from tumour progression. Age and comorbidity were significant predictors for overall survival (P<0.001). Age was also a significant predictor of cause of death (P=0.001). In rectal cancer patients median survival was 4.67 years, 51 (35.7%) of patients died from tumour progression. Neither age nor comorbidity was significant predictors of survival. Age was a significant predictor of cause of death (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In colon cancer patient age and comorbidity predict survival. This represents possible bias or a reduced survival benefit of treatment, and is an indication that colon cancer is not the prognosis defining illness in the majority of patients. In rectal cancer patients neither age or comorbidity significantly impacted survival.

Randomised study of tegafur-uracil plus leucovorin versus capecitabine as first-line therapy in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer--TLC study.

BACKGROUND: Prospective data on chemotherapy for (frail) elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) are scant. UFT/leucovorin might be as effective as and less toxic than capecitabine. We firstly randomized both agents in patients >65 years with aCRC not amenable to receive combination chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised between first-line oral UFT/leucovorin and capecitabine in a Dutch multicentre trial. Primarily, efficacy and toxicity were determined. Secondary, quality of life (QoL) and abbreviated common geriatric assessment (aCGA) were analysed. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were randomised with a median age of 77 years and 96% being frail. After interim analysis it was decided to stop recruitment because of low accrual. At a median follow up of 34 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar for both therapies, being 21 weeks (p=0.17) and 12 months (p=0.83), respectively. The overall response rates were 24% and 21%, respectively. Two patients died of possible treatment related complications in the UFT/leucovorin arm and 3 patients in the capecitabine arm. For UFT/leucovorin significantly less grade 3 or 4 hand/foot syndrome (0 vs 5) was observed. Overall, PFS was related to Charlson-comorbidity index (p=0.049), LDH (p=0.0011) and albumin (p=0.009). OS was related to LDH (p=0.0003), albumin (p=0.0001), QoLC30/CR38 (p=0.041), QoL visual analogue scale (VAS; p=0.016), and GFI (p=0.028). CONCLUSION: UFT/leucovorin and capecitabine had similar efficacy and different toxicity profiles in frail elderly patients with aCRC. Baseline serum levels of albumin and LDH, Charlson-comorbidity index, GFI and QoL were prognostic for clinical outcome.

Effect of Low-Intensity Physical Activity and Moderate- to High-Intensity Physical Exercise During Adjuvant Chemotherapy on Physical Fitness, Fatigue, and Chemotherapy Completion Rates: Results of the PACES Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the effectiveness of a low-intensity, home-based physical activity program (Onco-Move) and a moderate- to high-intensity, combined supervised resistance and aerobic exercise program (OnTrack) versus usual care (UC) in maintaining or enhancing physical fitness, minimizing fatigue, enhancing health-related quality of life, and optimizing chemotherapy completion rates in patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned patients who were scheduled to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy (N = 230) to Onco-Move, OnTrack, or UC. Performance-based and self-reported outcomes were assessed before random assignment, at the end of chemotherapy, and at the 6-month follow-up. We used generalized estimating equations to compare the groups over time. RESULTS: Onco-Move and OnTrack resulted in less decline in cardiorespiratory fitness (P < .001), better physical functioning (P ≤ .001), less nausea and vomiting (P = .029 and .031, respectively) and less pain (P = .003 and .011, respectively) compared with UC. OnTrack also resulted in better outcomes for muscle strength (P = .002) and physical fatigue (P < .001). At the 6-month follow-up, most outcomes returned to baseline levels for all three groups. A smaller percentage of participants in OnTrack required chemotherapy dose adjustments than those in the UC or Onco-Move groups (P = .002). Both intervention groups returned earlier (P = .012), as well as for more hours per week (P = .014), to work than the control group. CONCLUSION: A supervised, moderate- to high-intensity, combined resistance and aerobic exercise program is most effective for patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. A home-based, low-intensity physical activity program represents a viable alternative for women who are unable or unwilling to follow the higher intensity program.

High Risk Stage 2 and Stage 3 Colon Cancer, Predictors of Recurrence and Effect of Adjuvant Therapy in a Nonselected Population.

Patients with stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer often are treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. However, patients seen in daily practice have more comorbidity than those enrolled in clinical trials. This study aims to evaluate prognostic factors for recurrence and to ascertain the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy on recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients in a nonselected population. Furthermore, the impact of relative dose intensity (RDI) of adjuvant therapy on RFS is examined. Chart review was performed for 243 consecutive patients diagnosed and treated at a single center for stage 2 and stage 3 colon cancer from 2002 to 2008. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 66 patients. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.84 years and median RFS was 5.37 years. For stage 2 disease, patients treated with or without adjuvant therapy had a median RFS of 5.49 and 5.73, respectively (p = ns). For stage 3 disease, median RFS rates were 5.08 and 1.19, respectively (p = 0.084). Overall RDI of oxaliplatin based chemotherapy higher than median was associated with increased RFS (p = 0.045). In conclusion, adjuvant therapy did not significantly increase recurrence-free survival. This could be the result of comorbidity in patients. Relative dose intensity of oxaliplatin based therapy is associated with RFS.

The localisation of cancer in the sigmoid, rectum or rectosigmoid junction using endoscopy or radiology-What is the most accurate method?

INTRODUCTION: There is a difference in approach between colon and rectal cancer. AIM: EVALUATE THE METHODS OF LOCALISATION: endoscopy and radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with cancer in the sigmoid or rectum diagnosed with endoscopy, were included. Patients underwent additional radiological examinations. The resection specimen served as the gold standard. A tumour surrounded by serosa was considered a sigmoid cancer, surrounded by perirectal fat, than it was rectal cancer. If the frontal edge of the tumour showed serosa and the dorsal plane perirectal fat than the tumour was located in the "rectosigmoid". RESULTS: A total of 182 cancers were diagnosed. Of the 128 cancers with gold standard, endoscopy had the correct localisation in 112 (87.5%), and radiology in 114 (90.5%) cases. Concordance between both techniques was present in 80%. In 28 cases there was discordance. Radiology located 10 sigmoidal cancers wrongly in the rectum. One rectal cancer was placed in the sigmoid. In 16 cases the endoscopic localisation wrongly was the sigmoid. Sensitivity and specificity for endoscopy in sigmoidal cancer is 100% and 77% respectively, for rectal cancer 77% and 100%. Sensitivity of radiology for cancer in the sigmoid and rectum are 80% and 98% respectively. Specificity for both cancers is 98% and 80% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopist and the radiologist should not be too overconfident with localisation of the tumour in cases of high rectal or low sigmoidal cancer.

[Centralising cancer treatment: there are better ways]. / Centraliseren van kankerzorg: er zijn betere oplossingen.

The Netherlands is strongly leaning towards treating cancer patients at a limited number of hospitals. This approach has been poorly investigated and there is little evidence that the quality of care and the outcome of treatment in the Dutch system are related to the size of the institute. Oncological care is getting more and more complicated and requires a certain scale, but the formation of networks offers more possibilities than centralisation. Technical developments may offer alternatives to centralisation. In addition, care given closer to home to an increasingly older patient population is very valuable. Comorbidity is another reason to provide care at a general hospital in close cooperation with general practitioners. Strong ties with a university clinic is an important requirement for such a network to work well.

Prognostic value of resection of primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: retrospective analysis of two randomized studies and a review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with an asymptomatic primary tumor, there is no consensus on the indication for resection of the primary tumor. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on the outcome of stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with or without resection of the primary tumor treated in the phase III CAIRO and CAIRO2 studies. A review of the literature was performed. RESULTS: In the CAIRO and CAIRO2 studies, 258 and 289 patients had undergone a primary tumor resection and 141 and 159 patients had not, respectively. In the CAIRO study, a significantly better median overall survival and progression-free survival was observed for the resection compared to the nonresection group, with 16.7 vs. 11.4 months [P<0.0001, hazard ratio (HR) 0.61], and 6.7 vs. 5.9 months (P=0.004; HR 0.74), respectively. In the CAIRO2 study, median overall survival and progression-free survival were also significantly better for the resection compared to the nonresection group, with 20.7 vs. 13.4 months (P<0.0001; HR 0.65) and 10.5 vs. 7.8 months (P=0.014; HR 0.78), respectively. These differences remained significant in multivariate analyses. Our review identified 22 nonrandomized studies, most of which showed improved survival for mCRC patients who underwent resection of the primary tumor. CONCLUSIONS: Our results as well as data from literature indicate that resection of the primary tumor is a prognostic factor for survival in stage IV CRC patients. The potential bias of these results warrants prospective studies on the value of resection of primary tumor in this setting; such studies are currently being planned.

Weekly docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer patients: no superior benefits compared to three-weekly docetaxel.

BACKGROUND: In anthracycline-pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients, it is unknown whether weekly single-agent docetaxel is preferable to 3-weekly docetaxel regarding its toxicity and efficacy profile. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomised, open-label phase III trial, 162 patients were randomised to weekly docetaxel (group A) or 3-weekly docetaxel (group B). The primary end-point was tolerability; secondary end-points were efficacy and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Group A (weekly docetaxel, n=79) experienced less haematological toxicity, with just 1.3% versus 16.9% febrile neutropenia in group B (3-weekly docetaxel, n=77) (p=0.001). Not this difference, but fatigue and general malaise foremost led to more patient withdrawals in group A (24 versus 12 patients, p=0.032), less patients completing treatment (29 versus 43 patients, p=0.014) and reduced dose-intensity (15.6 versus 26mg/m(2)/week, 58% versus 70% of projected dose, p=0.017). As a result, 3-weekly docetaxel was related to better overall survival in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 0.70, p=0.036), although in univariate analysis efficacy was similar in both groups. Reported QoL was similar in both groups, but less effective treatment with more general toxicity led to less completed QoL forms in group A (65.4% versus 50%, p=0.049). CONCLUSION: Weekly docetaxel is less well tolerated than a 3-weekly schedule, due to more non-haematological toxicity, despite less febrile neutropenia. Also, no efficacy benefits can be demonstrated for weekly docetaxel, which may even be inferior based on multivariate analysis. Therefore, a 3-weekly schedule should be preferred in the setting of MBC.

Phase III study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer.

The progression-free survival (PFS) of cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/etoposide (CDE) and carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) was compared in chemonaive patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). A total of 203 patients were randomised to three-weekly CDE (n=102) or CP (n=101) for five cycles. Tumour response rates in CDE and CP were 60% and 61%. PFS of CP was 5.2 months, PFS of CDE 4.9 months (p=0.60). The major difference in toxicity between CDE and CP was grade 4 leukocytopaenia in 64% and 9% of the patients (p<0.0001), leading to febrile neutropaenia in 30% and 4% of the patients (p<0.0001), respectively. This was the reason for differences in the total number of hospital admissions (63 for CDE and 40 for CP, p=0.0025). This study failed to demonstrate any benefit in PFS with CP compared with CDE. CP was associated with significantly less haematological toxicity, leading to 37% less hospital admissions for febrile neutropaenia.

Sequential versus combination chemotherapy with capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in advanced colorectal cancer (CAIRO): a phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum use of cytotoxic drugs for advanced colorectal cancer has not been defined. Our aim was to investigate whether combination treatment is better than sequential administration of the same drugs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 820 patients with advanced colorectal cancer to receive either first-line treatment with capecitabine, second-line irinotecan, and third-line capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (sequential treatment; n=410) or first-line treatment capecitabine plus irinotecan and second-line capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (combination treatment; n=410). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT00312000. FINDINGS: 17 patients (nine in the sequential treatment group, eight in the combination group) were found to be ineligible and were excluded from the analysis. 675 (84%) patients died during the study: 336 in the sequential group and 339 in the combination group. Median overall survival was 16.3 (95% CI 14.3-18.1) months for sequential treatment and 17.4 (15.2-19.2) months for combination treatment (p=0.3281). The hazard ratio for combination versus sequential treatment was 0.92 (95% CI 0.79-1.08; p=0.3281). The frequency of grade 3-4 toxicity over all lines of treatment did not differ significantly between the two groups, except for grade 3 hand-foot syndrome, which occurred more often with sequential treatment than with combination treatment (13%vs 7%; p=0.004). INTERPRETATION: Combination treatment does not significantly improve overall survival compared with the sequential use of cytotoxic drugs in advanced colorectal cancer. Thus sequential treatment remains a valid option for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

POSSUM predicts decreased overall survival in curative resection for colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Poor condition at operation determined by the physiologic POSSUM score is related to postoperative mortality and morbidity of colorectal cancer surgery. This study was designed to analyze the relationship between condition of patients with colorectal cancer at operation and long-term overall survival. METHODS: A total of 542 patients survived a radical resection for Stages I, II, or III colorectal cancer. Physiologic POSSUM score at surgery, exclusive of age, was calculated for all patients. Mean physiologic POSSUM score was used as cutoff point to determine low-risk and high-risk group patients. A Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to study the effect of low-risk and high-risk group on overall survival and to identify independent risk factors. RESULTS: Five-year overall survival was significantly higher in low-risk group patients than in high-risk group patients (low-risk group 66.6 percent vs. high-risk group 48.5 percent; P < 0.001). Differences in overall survival also were found when patients in Stages I, II, and III were analyzed separately. Risk factors for overall survival were advanced stage of disease, poor tumor differentiation, mucinous adenocarcinoma, older than age 70 years, and poor condition of the patient at time of operation. CONCLUSIONS: Poor condition at operation, as determined by physiologic POSSUM score, is a risk indicator for long-term overall survival in colorectal cancer patients.