Projected return on investment of a corporate global health programme.

BACKGROUND: Health and wellbeing initiatives vary in effectiveness due to programme design and offerings. The Partnership for Prevention programme expands access to up to 40 evidence-based clinical preventive services for all employees and eligible family members as part of a unique global health initiative. METHODS: Using a published RAND Europe model developed for the company, country-level return on investment was estimated over a five-year timeframe using programme utilisation data. Regional, global, and service-level averages were estimated using population-weighted country averages. Data were collected from 2012 to 2018 and analysed in 2018. RESULTS: The programme is estimated to generate a global return of $4.28-$11.88 (after cost of investment), based on analysis of 57 countries and nearly 125,000 delivered services. Returns were positive for all regions, and immunisations, smoking cessation, and cardiovascular treatment generated the largest individual service returns. CONCLUSIONS: This global health programme is projected to generate a significant return on investment by focusing on global utilisation of clinical preventive services.

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): late toxicity results from a randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported a low α to ß ratio for prostate cancer, suggesting that hypofractionation could enhance the biological tumour dose without increasing genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. We tested this theory in the phase 3 HYPRO trial for patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. We have previously reported acute incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity; here we report data for late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. METHODS: In this randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial, done in seven radiotherapy centres in the Netherlands, we enrolled intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years with histologically confirmed stage T1b-T4 NX-0MX-0 prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower, and WHO performance status of 0-2. A web-based application was used to randomly assign (1:1) patients to receive either standard fractionation with 39 fractions of 2 Gy in 8 weeks (five fractions per week) or hypofractionation with 19 fractions of 3·4 Gy in 6·5 weeks (three fractions per week). Randomisation was done with the minimisation procedure, stratified by treatment centre and risk group. The primary endpoint was to detect a 10% enhancement in 5-year relapse-free survival with hypofractionation. A key additional endpoint was non-inferiority of hypofractionation in cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. We planned to reject inferiority of hypofractionation for late genitourinary toxicity if the estimated hazard ratio (HR) was less than 1·11 and for gastrointestinal toxicity was less than 1·13. We scored toxicity with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) criteria from both physicians' records (clinical record form) and patients' self-assessment questionnaires. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Patient recruitment for the HYPRO trial was completed in 2010. The trial was registered with www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN85138529. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients (410 in both groups) were randomly assigned. Analyses for late toxicity included 387 assessable patients in the standard fractionation group and 395 in the hypofractionation group. The median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 51·2-67·3). The database for all analyses (both groups and both genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities) was locked on March 26, 2015. The incidence of grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity at 3 years was 39·0% (95% CI 34·2-44·1) in the standard fractionation group and 41·3% (36·6-46·4) in the hypofractionation group. The estimated HR for the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse late genitourinary toxicity was 1·16 (90% CI 0·98-1·38), suggesting that non-inferiority could not be shown. The incidence of grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity at 3 years was 17·7% (14·1-21·9) in standard fractionation and 21·9% (18·1-26·4) hypofractionation. With an estimated HR of 1·19 (90% CI 0·93-1·52) for the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse late gastrointestinal toxicity, we could not confirm non-inferiority of hypofractionation for cumulative late gastrointestinal toxicity. Cumulative grade 3 or worse late genitourinary toxicity was significantly higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group (19·0% [95% CI 15·2-23·2] vs 12·9% [9·7-16·7], respectively; p=0·021), but there was no significant difference between cumulative grade 3 or worse late gastrointestinal toxicity (2·6% [95% CI 1·2-4·7]) in the standard fractionation group and 3·3% [1·7-5·6] in the hypofractionation group; p=0·55). INTERPRETATION: Our data could not confirm that hypofractionation was non-inferior for cumulative late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity compared with standard fractionation. Before final conclusions can be made about the utility of hypofractionation, efficacy outcomes need to be reported. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society.

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localised prostate cancer (HYPRO): final efficacy results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported a low α/ß ratio for prostate cancer, suggesting that hypofractionation could enhance the biological tumour dose without increasing genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. In the multicentre phase 3, HYpofractionated irradiation for PROstate cancer (HYPRO) trial, hypofractionated radiotherapy was compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer. We have previously reported acute and late incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity; here we report protocol-defined 5-year relapse-free survival outcomes. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at seven Dutch radiotherapy centres. We enrolled patients with intermediate-risk to high-risk T1b-T4NX-N0MX-M0 localised prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 60 µg/L or less, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. We used a web-based application to randomly assign (1:1) patients to either hypofractionated radiotherapy of 64·6 Gy (19 fractions of 3·4 Gy, three fractions per week) or conventionally fractionated radiotherapy of 78·0 Gy (39 fractions of 2·0 Gy, five fractions per week). Based on an estimated α/ß ratio for prostate cancer of 1·5 Gy, the equivalent total dose in fractions of 2·0 Gy was 90·4 Gy for hypofractionation compared with 78·0 Gy for conventional fractionation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all eligible patients. The HYPRO trial completed recruitment in 2010 and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN85138529. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients were enrolled, of whom 804 were eligible and assessable for intention-to-treat analyses. Of these, 407 were assigned hypofractionated radiotherapy and 397 were allocated conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. 537 (67%) of 804 patients received concomitant androgen deprivation therapy for a median duration of 32 months (IQR 10-44). Median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 51-69). Treatment failure was reported in 169 (21%) of 804 patients, 80 (20%) in the hypofractionation group and 89 (22%) in the conventional fractionation group. 5-year relapse-free survival was 80·5% (95% CI 75·7-84·4) for patients assigned hypofractionation and 77·1% (71·9-81·5) for those allocated conventional fractionation (adjusted hazard radio 0·86, 95% CI 0·63-1·16; log-rank p=0·36). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy was not superior to conventional radiotherapy with respect to 5-year relapse-free survival. Our hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen cannot be regarded as the new standard of care for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society.

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): acute toxicity results from a randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, we began the randomised phase 3 multicentre HYPRO trial to investigate the effect of hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with prostate cancer. Here, we examine whether patients experience differences in acute gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse effects. METHODS: In this randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial, done in seven radiotherapy centres in the Netherlands, we enrolled intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years with histologically confirmed stage T1b-T4 NX-0MX-0 prostate cancer, a PSA concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower, and WHO performance status of 0-2. A web-based application was used to randomly assign (1:1) patients to receive either standard fractionation with 39 fractions of 2 Gy in 8 weeks (five fractions per week) or hypofractionation with 19 fractions of 3·4 Gy in 6·5 weeks (three fractions per week). Randomisation was done with minimisation procedure, stratified by treatment centre and risk group. The primary endpoint is 5-year relapse-free survival. Here we report data for the acute toxicity outcomes: the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. Non-inferiority of hypofractionation was tested separately for genitourinary and gastrointestinal acute toxic effects, with a null hypothesis that cumulative incidences of each type of adverse event were not more than 8% higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group. We scored acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic effects according to RTOG-EORTC criteria from both case report forms and patients' self-assessment questionnaires, at baseline, twice during radiotherapy, and 3 months after completion of radiotherapy. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Patient recruitment has been completed. This study is registered with www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN85138529. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with standard fractionation (n=410) or hypofractionation (n=410). 3 months after radiotherapy, 73 (22%) patients in the standard fractionation group and 75 (23%) patients in the hypofractionation group reported grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity; grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity was noted in 43 (13%) patients in the standard fractionation group and in 42 (13%) in the hypofractionation group. Grade 4 acute genitourinary toxicity was reported for two patients, one (<1%) in each group. No grade 4 acute gastrointestinal toxicities were observed. We noted no significant difference in cumulative incidence by 120 days after radiotherapy of grade 2 or worse acute genitourinary toxicity (57·8% [95% CI 52·9-62·7] in the standard fractionation group vs 60·5% (55·8-65·3) in the hypofractionation group; difference 2·7%, 90% CI -2·99 to 8·48; odds ratio [OR] 1·12, 95% CI 0·84-1·49; p=0·43). The cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute gastrointestinal toxicity by 120 days after radiotherapy was higher in patients given hypofractionation (31·2% [95% CI 26·6-35·8] in the standard fractionation group vs 42·0% [37·2-46·9] in the hypofractionation group; difference 10·8%, 90% CI 5·25-16·43; OR 1·6; p=0·0015; non-inferiority not confirmed). INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy was not non-inferior to standard fractionated radiotherapy in terms of acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity for men with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. In fact, the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute gastrointestinal toxicity was significantly higher in patients given hypofractionation than in those given standard fractionated radiotherapy. Patients remain in follow-up for efficacy endpoints. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society.

Doxorubicin Exposure and Breast Cancer Risk in Survivors of Adolescent and Adult Hodgkin Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Female Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors treated with chest radiotherapy (RT) at a young age have a strongly increased risk of breast cancer (BC). Studies in childhood cancer survivors have shown that doxorubicin exposure may also increase BC risk. Although doxorubicin is the cornerstone of HL chemotherapy, the association between doxorubicin and BC risk has not been examined in HL survivors treated at adult ages. METHODS: We assessed BC risk in a cohort of 1,964 female 5-year HL survivors, treated at age 15-50 years in 20 Dutch hospitals between 1975 and 2008. We calculated standardized incidence ratios, absolute excess risks, and cumulative incidences. Doxorubicin exposure was analyzed using multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 21.6 years (IQR, 15.8-27.1 years), 252 women had developed invasive BC or ductal carcinoma in situ. The 30-year cumulative incidence was 20.8% (95% CI, 18.2 to 23.4). Survivors treated with a cumulative doxorubicin dose of >200 mg/m2 had a 1.5-fold increased BC risk (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.1), compared with survivors not treated with doxorubicin. BC risk increased 1.18-fold (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.32) per additional 100 mg/m2 doxorubicin (Ptrend = .004). The risk increase associated with doxorubicin (yes v no) was not modified by age at first treatment (hazard ratio [HR]age <21 years, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.9 to 2.6]; HRage ≥21 years, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.9 to 1.9) or chest RT (HRwithout mantle/axillary field RT, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.06 to 3.3]; HRwith mantle/axillary field RT, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.8 to 1.8]). CONCLUSION: This study shows that treatment with doxorubicin is associated with increased BC risk in both adolescent and adult HL survivors. Our results have implications for BC surveillance guidelines for HL survivors and treatment strategies for patients with newly diagnosed HL.

Offering a treatment choice in the irradiation of prostate cancer leads to better informed and more active patients, without harm to well-being.

PURPOSE: To examine, in prostate cancer patients, the effect of (1) being offered a choice between radiation doses in three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy, and of (2) accepting or declining the possibility to choose. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 150 patients with localized prostate cancer (T1-3N0M0) were offered a choice with a decision aid between two radiation doses (70 and 74 Gy). A control group of 144 patients received a fixed radiation dose without being offered a choice. Data were collected at baseline (before choice), before treatment (after choice), and 2 weeks and 6 months after treatment completion. RESULTS: Compared with the control group, the involvement group, receiving the decision aid, showed increased participation in decision making (p < 0.001), increased knowledge (p < 0.001), and improved risk perception (p < 0.001); they were more satisfied with the quality of information (p = 0.002) and considered their treatment a more appropriate treatment (p = 0.01). No group differences were found in well-being (e.g., general health, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life, anxiety). Within the involvement group, accepting or declining the option to choose did not affect well-being either. CONCLUSIONS: Offering a choice of radiation dose, with a decision aid, increased involvement in decision making and led to a better-informed patient. In contrast to earlier suggestions, a strong increase in involvement did not result in improved well-being; and in contrast to clinical concerns, well-being was not negatively affected either, not even in those patients who preferred to leave the decision to their physician. This study shows that older patients, such as prostate cancer patients, can be informed and involved in decision making.

Systematic review of the effect of radiation dose on tumor control and morbidity in the treatment of prostate cancer by 3D-CRT.

PURPOSE: A higher radiation dose is believed to result in a larger probability of tumor control and a higher risk of side effects. To make an evidence-based choice of dose, the relation between dose and outcome needs to be known. This study focuses on the dose-response relation for prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A systematic review was carried out on the literature from 1990 to 2003. From the selected studies, the radiation dose, the associated 5-year survival, 5-year bNED (biochemical no evidence of disease), acute and late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) morbidity Grade 2 or more, and sexual dysfunction were extracted. With logistic regression models, the relation between dose and outcome was described. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies met our criteria, describing 87 subgroups and involving up to 3000 patients per outcome measure. Between the (equivalent) dose of 70 and 80 Gy, various models estimated an increase in 5-year survival (ranging from 10% to 11%), 5-year bNED for low-risk patients (5-7%), late GI complications (12-16%), late GU complications (8-10%), and erectile dysfunction (19-24%). Only for the overall 5-year bNED, results were inconclusive (range, 0-18%). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest a relationship between dose and outcome measures, including survival. However, the strength of these conclusions is limited by the sometimes small number of studies, the incompleteness of the data, and above all, the correlational nature of the data. Unambiguous proof for the dose-response relationships can, therefore, only be obtained by conducting randomized trials.

Depression related to (neo)adjuvant hormonal therapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We studied whether hormonal therapy, (neo)adjuvant to radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer, is related to an increase in depression and whether this is caused by the hormonal therapy itself or by the relatively poor prognosis of patients who get (neo)adjuvant hormonal therapy. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2005, 288 patients, irradiated for prostate cancer (T1-3N0M0), were studied prospectively in two clinics. In one clinic almost all patients received (neo)adjuvant androgen deprivation (Bicalutamide+Gosereline). In a second clinic hormonal therapy was prescribed mainly for high risk patients. This allowed us to separate the effects of hormonal therapy and the patient's prognosis. RESULTS: During the course of hormonal therapy, depression was significantly heightened by both hormone use (p<0.001) and poor prognosis (p<0.01). After completion of hormonal therapy, poor prognosis continued to affect the depression score (p<0.01). The increase was, however, small. CONCLUSIONS: Depression was mildly increased in patients receiving hormonal therapy. The increase appeared to be related to both the hormone therapy itself and the high risk status of patients. High risk status, with the associated poor prognosis, had a more sustained effect on depression. The rise was statistically significant, but was too small, however, to bear clinical significance.

Low-dose palliative radiotherapy for cutaneous B- and T-cell lymphomas.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy of low-dose palliative radiotherapy for both low-grade malignant cutaneous B-cell lymphomas (CBCLs) and cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (mycosis fungoides). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 18 patients with low-grade CBCL (10 primary cutaneous marginal zone B-cell and 8 primary cutaneous follicle center lymphomas) with 44 symptomatic plaques and tumors underwent low-dose (4 Gy in two fractions) local radiotherapy. A total of 31 patients with mycosis fungoides were treated at 82 symptomatic sites, initially with 4 Gy and later with 8 Gy in two fractions. RESULTS: The complete response rate for CBCL lesions was 72%. Of the 44 B-cell lymphoma lesions, 13 were re-treated to the same site after a median of 6.3 months because of persistent (n = 8) or recurrent (n = 5) symptomatic disease. Of the mycosis fungoides patients treated with 4 Gy in two fractions (17 lesions), 70% failed to respond. Increasing the dose to 8 Gy in two fractions yielded a complete response rate of 92% (60 of 65 lesions). The patients in whom low-dose radiotherapy failed were retreated with 20 Gy in eight fractions. CONCLUSION: Our results have demonstrated that low-dose involved-field radiotherapy induces a high response rate in both CBCL and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma lesions without any toxicity. Therefore, this treatment is now our standard palliative treatment. At progression, it is safe and feasible to apply greater radiation doses.

Doctors' and patients' preferences for participation and treatment in curative prostate cancer radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Physicians hold opinions about unvoiced patient preferences, so-called substitute preferences. We studied whether doctors can predict preferences of patients supported with a decision aid. METHODS: A total of 150 patients with prostate cancer facing radiotherapy were included. After the initial consultation, without discussing any treatment choice, physicians gave substitute judgments for patients' decision-making and radiation dose preferences. Physicians knew that several weeks later, patients would be empowered by a decision aid supporting a choice between two radiation doses involving a trade-off between disease-free survival and adverse effects. Subsequently, patient preferences for decision making (whether or not they wanted to choose a radiation dose) and for treatment (low or high dose) were obtained. The chosen radiation dose actually was administered. RESULTS: Of the patients studied, 79% chose a treatment; physicians believed that 66% of the patients wanted to choose. Agreement was poor (64%; = 0.13; P = .11), and was better as patients became more hopeful (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4 per unit; P = .001) and as physicians' experience increased (OR = 1.09 per year; P = .02). Twenty percent of physicians' preferences, 51% of physicians' substitute preferences, and 71% of patients' preferences favored the lower dose; agreement was again poor (70%; = 0.2; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Physicians had problems predicting the preferences of patients empowered with a decision aid. They slightly underestimated patients' decision-making preferences, and underestimated patients' preferences for the less toxic treatment. Counseling might be improved by first informing patients-possibly using a decision aid--before discussing patient preferences.

Do prostate cancer patients want to choose their own radiation treatment?

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to investigate whether prostate cancer patients want to be involved in the choice of the radiation dose, and which patients want to be involved. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This prospective study involved 150 patients with localized prostate cancer treated with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. A decision aid was used to explain the effects of two alternative radiation doses (70 and 74 Gy) in terms of cure and side effects. Patients were then asked whether they wanted to choose their treatment (accept choice), or leave the decision to the physician (decline choice). The treatment preference was carried out. RESULTS: Even in this older population (mean age, 70 years), most patients (79%) accepted the option to choose. A lower score on the designations Pre-existent bowel morbidity, Anxiety, Depression, Hopelessness and a higher score on Autonomy and Numeracy were associated with an increase in choice acceptance, of which only Hopelessness held up in multiple regression (p < 0.03). The uninformed participation preference at baseline was not significantly related to choice acceptance (p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Uninformed participation preference does not predict choice behavior. However, once the decision aid is provided, most patients want to choose their treatment. It should, therefore, be considered to inform patients first and ask participation preferences afterwards.

Long-term risk of cardiovascular disease in 5-year survivors of testicular cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in survivors of testicular cancer (TC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared CVD incidence in 2,512 5-year survivors of TC, who were treated between 1965 and 1995, with general population rates. Treatment effects on CVD risk were quantified in multivariate Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 18.4 years, 694 cardiovascular events occurred, including 141 acute myocardial infarctions (MIs). The standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for coronary heart disease was 1.17 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.31), with 14 excess cases per 10,000 person-years. The SIR for MI was significantly increased in nonseminoma survivors with attained ages of less than 45 (SIR = 2.06) and 45 to 54 years (SIR = 1.86) but significantly decreased for survivors with attained ages of 55 years or older (SIR = 0.53). In Cox analysis, mediastinal irradiation was associated with a 3.7-fold (95% CI, 2.2- to 6.2-fold) increased MI risk compared with surgery alone, whereas infradiaphragmatic irradiation was not associated with an increased MI risk. Cisplatin, vinblastine, and bleomycin (PVB) chemotherapy (CT) was associated with a 1.9-fold (95% CI, 1.7- to 2.0-fold) increased MI risk, and bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) CT was associated with a 1.5-fold (95% CI, 1.0- to 2.2-fold) increased CVD risk and was not associated with increased MI risk (hazard ratio = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.7 to 2.1). Recent smoking was associated with a 2.6-fold (95% CI, 1.8- to 3.9-fold) increased MI risk. CONCLUSION: Nonseminomatous TC survivors experience a moderately increased MI risk at young ages. Physicians should be aware of excess CVD risk associated with mediastinal radiotherapy, PVB CT, and recent smoking. Intervention in modifiable cardiovascular risk factors is especially important in TC survivors. Whether BEP treatment increases CVD risk should be evaluated after more prolonged follow-up.