Aggressive anticancer treatment in the last 2 weeks of life.

BACKGROUND: There is a concern that terminally ill cancer patients may be aggressively treated due to the rapidly growing possibilities of anticancer treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of anticancer treatment at the end of life (EoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included adult patients with advanced solid cancers who were treated at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana and died of cancer between January 2015 and December 2019. A multiple logistic regression model was used to assess an association between the aggressiveness of anticancer treatment (i.e. systemic therapy, radiotherapy and surgery) in the last 2 weeks of life and year of death, age at death, sex, prognosis of cancer and enrolment into the specialist palliative care (SPC). RESULTS: We included 1736 patients in our analysis. Overall, 13.7% of patients were enrolled into the SPC and 14.4% received anticancer treatment in the last 2 weeks of life. The odds of receiving anticancer treatment significantly increased over time [odds ratio (OR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.27]. There was an increased use of novel systemic therapy (e.g. small-molecule targeted therapy and immunotherapy) at the EoL. Older patients had significantly lower odds to receive anticancer treatment in the last 2 weeks of life as compared to younger patients (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.95-0.98). As compared to patients receiving only a standard oncology care, those also enrolled into the SPC had significantly lower odds for anticancer treatment in the last 2 weeks of life (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Terminally ill cancer patients have increased odds for receiving anticancer treatment, especially novel systemic therapies, in the last 2 weeks of life. Younger patients and those not enrolled into the SPC are at particular risk for anticancer treatment at the EoL.

CARDIOCARE: An integrated platform for the management of elderly multimorbid patients with breast cancer therapy induced cardiac toxicity.

Breast cancer (BC) remains the most diagnosed cancer in women, accounting for 12% of new annual cancer cases in Europe and worldwide. Advances in surgery, radiotherapy and systemic treatment have resulted in improved clinical outcomes and increased survival rates in recent years. However, BC therapy-related cardiotoxicity, may severely impact short- and long-term quality of life and survival. This study presents the CARDIOCARE platform and its main components, which by integrating patient-specific data from different categories, data from patient-oriented eHealth applications and wearable devices, and by employing advanced data mining and machine learning approaches, provides the healthcare professionals with a valuable tool for effectively managing BC patients and preventing or alleviating treatment induced cardiotoxicity.Clinical Relevance- Through the adoption of CARDIOCARE platform healthcare professionals are able to stratify patients for their risk for cardiotoxicity and timely apply adequate interventions to prevent its onset.

Medical Oncology Workload in Europe: One Continent, Several Worlds.

AIMS: The workload pressure on medical oncologists will increase in the near future. There are no comprehensive data available about the current workload of medical oncologists in Europe. Here we report the European results of a global survey of the workload of medical oncologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was distributed through a snowball method via national oncology societies to chemotherapy-prescribing physicians in 21 European countries. We compared the workload of medical oncologists in Eastern European countries (EECs) and Western European countries (WECs). The primary measure of workload was the annual number of new cancer patient consults seen per oncologist. RESULTS: In total, 495 oncologists from 16 European countries completed our survey: 100 from seven EECs and 395 from nine WECs. The median number of annual consults per medical oncologist was 225 in EECs compared with 175 in WECs (P < 0.001). The proportion of medical oncologists seeing more than 300 consults/year was 35% (35/100) in EECs compared with 18% (68/395) in WECs. The median number of patients seen in a full day clinic was 25 in EECs and 15 in WECs (P < 0.001). Eastern European medical oncologists reported spending a median of 25 min per new consultation compared with 45 min in WECs (P < 0.001). The top two reported barriers in both EECs and WECs to patient care were high clinical volumes and insufficient time for reading. CONCLUSION: The clinical workload of medical oncologists in EECs was substantially higher than in WECs. European health policymakers and educators need to address existing disparities in the workload of medical oncologist, undertake plans for future workforce supply and consider alternative models of care.

Medical oncology workload in Canada: infrastructure, supports, and delivery of clinical care.

Background: In 2000, a Canadian task force recommended that medical oncologists (mos) meet a target of 160-175 new patient consultations per year. Here, we report the Canadian results of a global survey of mo workload compared with mo workload in other high-income countries (hics). Methods: Using a snowball method, an online survey was distributed by national oncology societies to chemotherapy-prescribing physicians in 22 hics (World Bank criteria). The survey was distributed within Canada to all members of the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists. Workload was measured as the annual number of new cancer patient consults per oncologist. Results: The survey was completed by 782 oncologists from hics, including 58 from Canada. Median annual consults per mo were 175 in Canada compared with 125 in other hics. The proportions of mos having 100 or fewer consults or more than 300 consults per year were 3% (2/58) and 5% (3/58) in Canada compared with 31% (222/724) and 16% (116/724) in other hics (p < 0.001 and p = 0.023 respectively). The median number of patients seen in a full-day clinic was 15 in Canada and 25 in other hics (p = 0.220). Canadian mos reported spending a median of 55 minutes per new consultation; new consultations of 35 minutes were reported in other hics (p < 0.001). Median hours worked per week was 55 in Canada and 45 in other hics (p = 0.200). Conclusions: Although the median annual clinical volume for Canadian mos aligns with recommended targets, half the respondents exceeded that level of activity. Health policymakers and educators have to consider mo workforce supply and alternative models of care in preparation for the anticipated surge in cancer incidence in the coming decade.

Hyperglycaemia and Survival in Solid Tumours: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

AIMS: Diabetes is associated with adverse cancer outcomes. However, the effect of hyperglycaemia in non-diabetic cancer patients is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases identified publications exploring the effect of hyperglycaemia on overall survival, disease-free survival (DFS) or progression-free survival (PFS). Data from studies reporting a hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval and/or a P-value were pooled in a meta-analysis using generic inverse-variance and random effects modelling. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on method of hyperglycaemia measurement (HbA1c, other) and stage (early, advanced, mixed). Meta-regression was performed to evaluate the influence of clinical characteristics including baseline diabetes status on the hazard ratio for overall survival. RESULTS: Twelve studies comprising a total of 9872 patients were included. All studies reported hazard ratios for overall survival. Three studies reported DFS; two reported PFS outcomes. Definitions of hyperglycaemia and cut-offs varied between studies. Hyperglycaemia was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio 2.05, 95% confidence interval 1.67-2.51; P < 0.001) and DFS (hazard ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.20-3.27; P = 0.007), but did not affect PFS (hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.62; P = 0.71). The association with worse overall survival was maintained in subgroups based on method of hyperglycaemia measurement (subgroup difference P = 0.46) and stage (P = 0.14). Meta-regression showed a significantly greater magnitude of association between hyperglycaemia and decreased overall survival in studies with higher proportions of women and diabetic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperglycaemia is associated with adverse overall survival and DFS in patients with cancer. The therapeutic role of glycaemic control in cancer patients warrants further investigation.

Evolution in the eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials for systemic cancer therapies.

BACKGROUND: Eligibility criteria in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reduce inter-patient heterogeneity, but may reduce generalizability of results. Here, we explore temporal changes in eligibility criteria of practice-changing RCTs for systemic cancer therapies and in the proportion of patients excluded from these trials after application of eligibility criteria. METHODS: An electronic search identified practice-changing RCTs published in six major journals between July 2010 and December 2012. Trial protocols were identified through journal websites and communication with authors or study sponsors. Eligibility criteria were extracted from protocols. The number of patients excluded after application of eligibility criteria was extracted from the CONSORT diagrams and text of publications. Changes in eligibility criteria over time were assessed by logistic regression and meta-regression was carried out to evaluate the impact of year of protocol on the proportion of patients who were excluded after screening. RESULTS: Eighty-six protocols written between 1987 and 2012 were included. Over time, there has been an increasing frequency of exclusion of patients with prior cerebrovascular events (OR 1.34, p=0.003), coagulation/bleeding disorders (OR 1.34, p=0.006), prior gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 1.33, p=0.01), cardiac co-morbidities (OR 1.24, p=0.004) and exclusion based on concurrent medication (OR 1.19, p=0.01). There has been a decrease in upper age limit usage (OR 0.83, p=0.01) and leukopenia (OR 0.83, p=0.009). The proportion of patients excluded from trials has increased from 9% prior to 2000 to 18% after 2010 (p-value for trend <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RCTs have become less representative of cancer patients treated in routine practice with increased use of organ-specific and co-morbidity-based exclusion criteria.

Impact of Geographic Region on Benefit of Approved Anticancer Drugs Evaluated in International Phase III Clinical Trials.

AIMS: International collaboration allows for enhanced accrual and more generalisable results of phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The impact of geographic region on the outcomes of new anticancer agents is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: International RCTs evaluating approved systemic therapy for advanced solid tumours that reported efficacy of new anticancer drugs based on geographic regions were eligible. Data for overall (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) were pooled in a meta-analysis. The primary analysis was the comparison of developed versus developing countries. A meta-regression analysis explored the impact of differences in gross national income (GNI) per capita on the hazard ratio comparing developed and developing countries. Secondary analyses compared geographic regions irrespective of GNI. RESULTS: Of the 63 identified studies, 12 independent RCTs were eligible; five reported data for OS and nine for PFS. Improvements in overall survival were greater in developed as compared with developing countries (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.99, P = 0.04). This effect was seen only among studies of cytotoxic chemotherapy and not among those of targeted agents. No difference was seen for PFS (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.09, P = 0.36). Meta-regression showed a significant negative association between GNI per capita and overall survival, but a non-significant negative association with PFS (ß = -0.774, P = 0.05 and ß = -0.211, P = 0.29, respectively). No differences were observed in PFS between Asian and non-Asian countries or North America and Western Europe. CONCLUSION: Compared with patients from developing countries, those from developed countries derive greater improvement in overall survival from cytotoxic chemotherapy, but similar benefit from targeted drugs.

Association of aromatase inhibitors with coronary heart disease in women with early breast cancer.

As compared to tamoxifen aromatase inhibitors (AIs) may increase the risk of heart disease. Here we explored the association between the use of AIs and coronary artery disease (CAD) in a population-based observational study. In a small and heterogeneous population of 74 women with early breast cancer who received adjuvant hormonal therapy and subsequently underwent cardiac angiography, AIs significantly increased the hazard for CAD (HR 3.23, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.26-8.25, p = .01) compared to tamoxifen. Our results suggest that therapy with AIs may increase the risk for CAD.

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over trial of the impact on quality of life of continuing dexamethasone beyond 24 h following adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Uncertainty remains about the optimal anti-emetic regimen for control of delayed nausea and vomiting after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Many patients receive dexamethasone but complain of insomnia, anxiety/agitation, and indigestion. The aim was to determine if patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer prefer treatment with dexamethasone or placebo for prophylaxis against delayed nausea and vomiting, and to compare quality of life (QOL) between the two treatments. In this randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial, we compared oral dexamethasone (4 mg twice daily for 2 days) versus placebo for chemotherapy-naïve patients with breast cancer. All patients received intravenous granisetron and dexamethasone pre-chemotherapy and oral granisetron on day 2. Primary endpoints were: (i) patient preference; (ii) difference between cycles in change of QOL from days 1 to 8. Median age of the 94 women was 51 years (range 27-76): 79 received fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and 15 received doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide. Thirteen withdrew pre-cycle 2 with no differences between arms. Of 80 patients stating a preference, 31 preferred placebo (39 %, 95 % CI: 28-50 %) and 37 (46 %, 95 % CI: 35-58 %) preferred dexamethasone; 12 had no preference. There were no differences in intensity of vomiting, nausea, or time to onset of vomiting. There was greater decrease in global QOL (p = 0.06) when patients received dexamethasone. No other symptom/QOL domains differed significantly. In conclusion, no significant difference was found in patient preference, QOL, or symptoms regardless of whether dexamethasone or placebo was used after adjuvant chemotherapy.

Comparison of absolute benefits of anticancer therapies determined by snapshot and area methods.

BACKGROUND: Reporting of relative risk reduction as the measure of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may be difficult to understand. Here, we compare two methods for assessing absolute benefits of anticancer therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed for RCTs comparing therapies for breast and colorectal cancers published 1975-2009 (adjuvant setting) and 2000-2010 (metastatic setting). Eligible trials reported statistically significant differences. Kaplan-Meier curves were assessed for absolute differences in time-to-event end points at a single point (snapshot method) and as the area between curves (area method). Pooled absolute benefits determined by both methods were compared by the Pitman-Morgan test. RESULTS: Eighty-three and 39 paired curves were assessed in the adjuvant and metastatic settings, respectively. In trials of adjuvant therapy, absolute benefits were larger and more variable when assessed at different time points by the snapshot compared with the area method (median and ranges for 60-month difference in overall survival: 7.6% [2.5%-28.4%] and 4.5% [1.8%-13.6%]; P = 0.002, respectively). For metastatic disease, both methods were within 0.5 month of each other in 62% of trials. CONCLUSIONS: The area method provides an alternative measure of absolute treatment effect, which uses all of the available data and is less dependent on the shape of survival curves.

How valid are claims for synergy in published clinical studies?

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials evaluating drug combinations are often stimulated by claims of synergistic interactions in preclinical models. Overuse or misuse of the term synergy could lead to poorly designed clinical studies. METHODS: We searched PubMed using the terms 'synergy' or 'synergistic' and 'cancer' to select articles published between 2006 and 2010. Eligible studies were those that referred to synergy in preclinical studies to justify a drug combination evaluated in a clinical trial. RESULTS: Eighty-six clinical articles met eligibility criteria and 132 preclinical articles were cited in them. Most of the clinical studies were phase I (43%) or phase II trials (56%). Appropriate methods to evaluate synergy in preclinical studies included isobologram analysis in 18 studies (13.6%) and median effect in 10 studies (7.6%). Only 26 studies using animal models (39%) attempted to evaluate therapeutic index. There was no association between the result of the clinical trial and the use of an appropriate method to evaluate synergy (P=0.25, chi-squared test). CONCLUSIONS: Synergy is cited frequently in phase I and phase II studies to justify the evaluation of a specific drug combination. Inappropriate methods for evaluation of synergy and poor assessment of therapeutic index have been used in most preclinical articles.

Absolute benefits of medical therapies in phase III clinical trials for breast and colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have become larger and are powered to detect small absolute benefits. Temporal changes in absolute benefits of experimental medical therapies reported in RCTs are unknown. METHODS: We identified all RCTs with sample size > or =200 evaluating experimental medical therapies for breast and colorectal cancer published from 1975 to 2007. We assessed changes over three decades in absolute differences in time-to-event end points between experimental and control arms by (i) the usual method (i.e. at one point) and (ii) as the area between time-to-event curves up to a predefined time. RESULTS: We identified 236 eligible RCTs of which 57% (N = 135) evaluated adjuvant treatments. Experimental treatments became more often compared with active treatments (48% versus 59% versus 81%; P < 0.0001). Median absolute benefits of experimental adjuvant treatments decreased but outcomes in control arms improved with time. For RCTs evaluating metastatic disease, there were no changes in absolute benefit over time but incremental monthly costs of new approved treatments increased with time by 100-fold (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In RCTs of breast and colorectal cancer, new effective adjuvant treatments show decreasing absolute benefit, while new treatments of metastatic disease show unchanging levels of benefit at rapidly escalating costs.

Global drug development in cancer: a cross-sectional study of clinical trial registries.

BACKGROUND: Drug development in cancer is costly and may be directed toward 'profitable' cancers of the more developed regions (MDR) as compared with those of the less developed regions (LDR) of the world. Here, we describe drug development in relation to cancer type and geographic location. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed phase II and III clinical trials evaluating new cancer drugs, which were registered from January to June 2008. Correlations were sought between the number of clinical trials and incidence, mortality and prevalence of the cancers studied (obtained from GLOBOCAN 2002) and stratified by region of the world. RESULTS: We identified 399 newly registered trials. Most trials (N = 229, 57%) were sponsored by industry. The most common types of cancer studied were breast 73 (18%), lung 57 (14%), prostate 44 (11%) and colorectal 28 (7%). In MDR, incidence, mortality and prevalence correlated significantly (Pearson r = 0.80, 0.73 and 0.63; P < or = 0.01) with the number of all registered clinical trials, whereas in LDR, only prevalence showed significant association (Pearson r = 0.55; P = 0.03) with the number of trials for a given type of cancer. CONCLUSION: Lethal cancers that are common in the LDR (e.g. stomach, liver and esophageal cancers) deserve greater emphasis for drug development.

Targeted therapies for renal cell carcinoma: more gains from using them again.

The development of molecularly targeted agents that inhibit pathways critical to the development of renal cell carcinoma has significantly improved outcomes in patients with these cancers. Compelling scientific and phase iii data have made the use of molecularly targeted agents the standard of care in first-line treatment. Now, available data show that re-treating patients with other tyrosine kinase inhibitors after they progress on sunitinib or sorafenib, or both, is beneficial. A large phase iii trial recently showed that, as compared with placebo, treatment with everolimus, an inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), almost halved the risk of progression (37% vs. 65%) and doubled the median progression-free survival (4 months vs. 2 months). Overall survival was not improved in that study, likely reflecting treatment crossover in the placebo arm, but these data position everolimus as the second-line standard of care. A consistent and growing body of literature also suggests that re-treatment with other kinase inhibitors that the patient has not previously encountered is a reasonable option. Outcomes of initial treatment with sunitinib or sorafenib (or both) should not deter the use of second-line targeted therapy, because the first-line use of targeted agents does not appear to be predictive of outcomes with second-line therapy. However, in view of poor absolute outcomes after second-line treatment and the benefits seen with rationally developed targeted agents in the first-line setting, enrolment of second- and subsequent-line patients in further trials would be preferable.

Managing toxicities and optimal dosing of targeted drugs in advanced kidney cancer.

The toxicities of new, targeted drugs may diminish their effectiveness in advanced kidney cancer if those toxicities are not recognized and properly addressed early in patient treatment. Most of the drug-related toxicities in advanced kidney cancer are manageable with supportive care, obviating a need for long interruptions, dose reductions, or permanent discontinuation of the treatment.