First impressions: A prospective evaluation of patient-physician concordance and satisfaction following the initial medical oncology consultation.

BACKGROUND: An especially significant event in the patient-oncologist relationship is the initial consultation, where many complex topics-diagnosis, treatment intent, and often, prognosis-are discussed in a relatively short period of time. This study aimed to measure patients' understanding of the information discussed during their first medical oncology visit and their satisfaction with the communication from medical oncologists. METHODS: Between January and August 2021, patients without prior systemic treatment of their gastrointestinal malignancy (GI) attending the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMCC) were approached within 24 h of their initial consultation to complete a paper-based questionnaire assessing understanding of their disease (diagnosis, treatment plan/intent, and prognosis) and satisfaction with the consultation. Medical oncology physicians simultaneously completed a similar questionnaire about the information discussed at the initial visit. Matched patient-physician responses were compared to assess the degree of concordance. RESULTS: A total of 184 matched patient-physician surveys were completed. The concordance rates for understanding of diagnosis, treatment plan, treatment intent, and prognosis were 92.9%, 59.2%, 66.8%, and 59.8%, respectively. After adjusting for patient and physician variables, patients who reported treatment intent to be unclear at the time of the consultation were independently associated with lower satisfaction scores (global p = 0.014). There was no statistically significant association between patient satisfaction and whether prognosis was disclosed (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: An in-depth conversation as to what treatment intent and prognosis means is reasonable during the initial medical oncology consultation to ensure patients and caregivers have a better understanding about their cancer.

User-Centered Design of a Web-Based Tool to Support Management of Chemotherapy-Related Toxicities in Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients receiving chemotherapy have high symptom needs that can negatively impact quality of life and result in high rates of unplanned acute care visits. Remote monitoring tools may improve symptom management in this patient population. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to design a prototype tool to facilitate remote management of chemotherapy-related toxicities. METHODS: User needs were assessed using a participatory, user-centered design methodology that included field observation, interviews, and focus groups, and then analyzed using affinity diagramming. Participants included oncology patients, caregivers, and health care providers (HCPs) including medical oncologists, oncology nurses, primary care physicians, and pharmacists in Ontario, Canada. Overarching themes informed development of a Web-based prototype, which was further refined over 2 rounds of usability testing with end users. RESULTS: Overarching themes were derived from needs assessments, which included 14 patients, 1 caregiver, and 12 HCPs. Themes common to both patients and HCPs included gaps and barriers in current systems, need for decision aids, improved communication and options in care delivery, secure access to credible and timely information, and integration into existing systems. In addition, patients identified missed opportunities, care not meeting their needs, feeling overwhelmed and anxious, and wanting to be more empowered. HCPs identified accountability for patient management as an issue. These themes informed development of a Web-based prototype (bridges), which included toxicity tracking, self-management advice, and HCP communication functionalities. Usability testing with 11 patients and 11 HCPs was generally positive; however, identified challenges included tool integration into existing workflows, need for standardized toxicity self-management advice, issues of privacy and consent, and patient-tailored information. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based tools integrating just-in-time self-management advice and HCP support into routine care may address gaps in systems for managing chemotherapy-related toxicities. Attention to the integration of new electronic tools into self-care by patients and practice was a strong theme for both patients and HCP participants and is a key issue that needs to be addressed for wide-scale adoption.

Hospitalisations and emergency department visits in cancer patients receiving systemic therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Emergency department visits and hospitalisations (ED+H) during systemic therapy are undesirable for both patients and the health system. We undertook a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate the frequency of unplanned all-cause and treatment-related ED+H among adults receiving adjuvant or palliative-intent systemic therapy for all cancers. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies (OS) reporting ED+H were identified from Medline and EMBASE from inception to June 2016. Quality was assessed using modified STROBE, CONSORT or PRISMA guidelines, depending on study type. A total of 112 OS (308,662 patients) and 26 RCTs (16,081 patients) met inclusion criteria. Most articles focused on palliative treatment (59%) delivered as first-line, in breast, lung and colorectal cancers. Only 20 articles reported ED frequency. Treatment-related and all-cause hospitalisations were more common in routine practice than in RCTs (29% vs. 16% and 42% vs. 28% respectively); frequency varied by treatment intent and tumour site. Methodological issues were common, particularly poor definition of the at-risk period. Hospitalisations are common, especially in unselected populations, but few articles report this and do so poorly. Routine, standardised reporting of ED+H during chemotherapy should be included in RCT reports and evaluated in routine care following adoption of new treatments.

Multi-agent chemotherapy in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite a lack of improvement in overall survival (OS) with doxorubicin-based combinations over doxorubicin alone in advanced STS, the role of multi-agent chemotherapy remains poorly defined. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate benefits and harms of multi-agent chemotherapy in advanced STS. Eligible studies were randomized trials of chemotherapy in advanced STS comparing single agent to multi-agent therapy. Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled in a meta-analysis. Meta-regression was utilized to explore the association between efficacy (OS and PFS) and both toxicity and dose intensity. RESULTS: We identified 22 trials published between 1974 and April 2016 and comprising 5044 patients. Overall, multi-agent chemotherapy was associated with improved OS (HR:0.79, p = 0.02), and borderline improvement in PFS (HR:0.86, p = 0.05). While the effect on OS was similar in trials with non-anthracycline controls compared to those with anthracycline controls (HR for OS 0.73 vs. 0.82, p for difference = 0.63) there was a non-significantly greater effect for multi-agent chemotherapy on PFS in non-anthracycline RCT (HR for PFS 0.73 vs. 0.91, p for difference = 0.13). Compared to studies with cytotoxic therapy-based multi-agent therapy, a non-significantly greater magnitude of effect among studies with biological/cytostatic experimental groups was seen (HR for OS 0.64 vs. 0.86, p for difference = 0.37). There was a borderline significant association between dose reductions (which were more common in combination arms) and worse PFS (beta = 0.70, p = 0.053). CONCLUSION: Multi-agent chemotherapy is associated with a modest, but statistically significant improvement in outcomes in STS. Combining chemotherapy with non-cytotoxic agents might represent a promising strategy.

Bone Modifier Use as Adjuvant Therapy for Early Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many studies have examined the effects of adjuvant bisphosphonates on long-term breast cancer outcomes. However, results have been inconsistent. Here, we review the evidence for their role in early breast cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: In a recent meta-analysis, no significant decreases in recurrence or breast cancer mortality were observed in the overall population. In postmenopausal women, statistically significant, but modest, reductions in distant recurrence were observed, driven by decreased bone recurrence. This translated to decreased breast cancer mortality. While most individual studies were not performed exclusively in postmenopausal patients and were not adequately powered to detect subgroup effects based on menopausal status, observed effects were highly consistent. Adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women should be considered in individual cases of high-risk patients, where the absolute benefit justifies associated risks. There is no evidence supporting their routine use in premenopausal women except in selected patients receiving ovarian function suppression.

Evolution of Randomized Trials in Advanced/Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma: End Point Selection, Surrogacy, and Quality of Reporting.

PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in soft tissue sarcoma (STS) have used varying end points. The surrogacy of intermediate end points, such as progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and 3-month and 6-month PFS (3moPFS and 6moPFS) with overall survival (OS), remains unknown. The quality of efficacy and toxicity reporting in these studies is also uncertain. METHODS: A systematic review of systemic therapy RCTs in STS was performed. Surrogacy between intermediate end points and OS was explored using weighted linear regression for the hazard ratio for OS with the hazard ratio for PFS or the odds ratio for RR, 3moPFS, and 6moPFS. The quality of reporting for efficacy and toxicity was also evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-two RCTs published between 1974 and 2014, comprising 9,762 patients, met the inclusion criteria. There were significant correlations between PFS and OS (R = 0.61) and between RR and OS (R = 0.51). Conversely, there were nonsignificant correlations between 3moPFS and 6moPFS with OS. A reduction in the use of RR as the primary end point was observed over time, favoring time-based events (P for trend = .02). In 14% of RCTs, the primary end point was not met, but the study was reported as being positive. Toxicity was comprehensively reported in 47% of RCTs, whereas 14% inadequately reported toxicity. CONCLUSION: In advanced STS, PFS and RR seem to be appropriate surrogates for OS. There is poor correlation between OS and both 3moPFS and 6moPFS. As such, caution is urged with the use of these as primary end points in randomized STS trials. The quality of toxicity reporting and interpretation of results is suboptimal.

Update in treatment of early breast cancer in post-menopausal women.

In the last few years there have been significant advances in knowledge related to the treatment of post-menopausal women with early stage breast cancer. These include new information about the survival benefits with hormonal therapies and bone targeted treatments as well as identification of patient populations who may be able to avoid toxic treatments. In this paper we discuss these advances and provide suggested management algorithms.

Hospitalizations During Systemic Therapy for Metastatic Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review of Real World vs Clinical Trial Outcomes.

IMPORTANCE: Understanding the risk of hospitalization due to treatment-related toxic effects is essential for patients, their clinicians, and health systems. Unplanned hospitalizations represent potential gaps in patient care; definition of these gaps allows characterization and identification of areas for quality improvement. OBJECTIVE: To compare the rates of hospitalization in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) receiving chemotherapy in the "real world" vs clinical trial settings and to identify factors associated with hospitalization. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A systematic review of Medline and EMBASE was conducted for records dating from database inception (1946 and 1974, respectively) through December 2014 to identify articles reporting rates of hospitalization during chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Both observational studies and clinical trials were eligible. This report focuses on patients with mNSCLC receiving chemotherapy because data were available for this clinical scenario in both the clinical trial and observational setting, allowing comparison. Summary statistics were used to describe results, and the χ2 test was used to compare hospitalization rates. FINDINGS: Of the 74 articles reporting hospitalization rates during chemotherapy, 10 studies, all published after 2004, examined chemotherapy in mNSCLC, 5 randomized clinical trials (3962 patients) and 5 observational studies (8624 patients). Chemotherapy regimens included doublet therapy, single-agent therapy, or chemotherapy type unspecified. The real world cohort was older (71 vs 63 years). All real world studies reported on comorbidities, while clinical trials reported performance status. The aggregate hospitalization rate among real world patients was significantly higher than among trial patients (51% vs 16%) (odds ratio, 7.7; 95% CI, 7.0-8.4; P < .001). Performance status and type of chemotherapy were associated with hospitalization during chemotherapy in clinical trials, while type of chemotherapy was a risk factor in observational studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinical trials in mNSCLC consistently report significantly lower rates of hospitalization than reports of real world cohorts of patients undergoing similar therapies. However, very few clinical trials report hospitalization information.