Search

The effectiveness of abdominal compression for motion management in hepatobiliary-pancreatic (HPB) radiotherapy has not been systematically evaluated. A systematic review was carried out using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases up to 1 July 2021. No date restrictions were applied. Additional searches were carried out using the University of Manchester digital library, Google Scholar and of retrieved papers' reference lists. Studies conducted evaluating respiratory motion utilising imaging with and without abdominal compression in the same patients available in English were included. Studies conducted in healthy volunteers or majority non-HPB sites, not providing descriptive motion statistics or patient characteristics before and after compression in the same patients or published without peer-review were excluded. A narrative synthesis was employed by tabulating retrieved studies and organising chronologically by abdominal compression device type to help identify patterns in the evidence. The inclusion criteria were met by 6 studies with a total of 152 patients. Designs were a mix of retrospective and prospective quantitative designs with chronological, non-randomised recruitment. Abdominal compression reduced craniocaudal respiratory motion in the majority of patients, although in four studies there were increases seen in at least one direction. The influence of patient comorbidities on effectiveness of compression, and/or comfort with compression was not evaluated in any study. Abdominal compression may not be appropriate for all patients, and benefit should be weighed with potential increase in motion or discomfort in patients with small initial motion (<5 mm). Patient factors including male sex, and high body mass index (BMI) were found to impact the effectiveness of compression, however with limited evidence. High-quality studies are warranted to fully assess the clinical impact of abdominal compression on treatment outcomes and toxicity prospective in comparison to other motion management strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the potentially fatal consequences of inadequate adherence with oral anticancer treatment in persons with cancer, understanding the determinants of adherence is vital. This paper aims at identifying psychosocial determinants of adherence to oral anticancer treatment. We reviewed the literature on psychosocial determinants of adherence with oral anticancer treatment, based on published literature in English, from 2015 to present. Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Emcare, and PsychINFO, with 'cancer', 'medication adherence', 'psychology', and 'oral anticancer treatment' as search terms. The obtained 608 papers were screened by two independent reviewers. In the 25 studies identified, illness perceptions, medication beliefs, health beliefs, and depression were found to be the major psychosocial determinants of adherence to oral anticancer treatment; sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were found to be of no major importance. The quality of the identified studies as assessed by two independent reviewers was found to be acceptable overall. The majority of papers were from North America and focused on patients with breast cancer; sample size varied from 13 to 1371; adherence was assessed with questionnaires derived from various theoretical models, pill counts and electronic pharmacy records; illness perceptions reflecting adaptive coping, and medication beliefs reflecting high necessity and low concerns were found to be associated with adherence. Psychosocial concepts are major determinants of adherence with oral anticancer treatment. 'Beliefs about medicines' and 'illness perceptions' in particular determine adherence with this treatment. Studies aiming at impacting adherence would benefit from interventions with a solid basis in behavioral theory in order to help health care providers explore and address illness perceptions and medication beliefs. Pre-consultation screening of adherence behavior may be a helpful supportive approach to improve adherence. Blaming the victim ('patients should be educated about the importance of adherence') is better replaced by encouraging health professionals to identify and address maladaptive psychosocial determinants of adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is a commonly reported complaint among non-CNS cancer patients. Even subtle CRCI may have detrimental effects on quality of life and identifying patients at increased risk for CRCI to improve survivorship care is important. In the present paper, we systematically reviewed available studies of possible genetic risk factors for developing CRCI. Methods: Keyword-based systematic searches were undertaken on 24 July 2018 in PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Three authors independently evaluated full-texts of identified papers and excluded studies with registration of reasons. Seventeen studies reporting results from 14 independent samples were included for review. Two authors independently quality assessed the included studies. The review was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42018107689). Results: Ten studies investigated apolipoprotein E (APOE), with four studies reporting that carrying at least one risk allele (APOE4 (ε4)) was associated with CRCI, while six studies found no association. The remaining identified genetic risk variants associated with CRCI located in: COMT, four DNA repair genes, five oxidative stress genes, 22 genes related to breast cancer phenotype, and GNB3. No associations were found between CRCI and genes coding for interleukin-6 (IL6), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF), interleukin 1 beta (IL1B), and brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF). With the exception of APOE, the genetic risk factors had only been investigated in one or two studies each. Conclusions: Overall, the available evidence of possible genetic risk factors for CRCI is limited. While some research suggests a role for the ε4 allele, the literature is generally inconsistent, and the currently available evidence does not allow clear-cut conclusions regarding the role of genetic factors in the development of CRCI. Larger genetic studies and studies investigating additional genetic variants are needed to uncover genetic risk factors for CRCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The treatment options for patients with therapy refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are sparse. TAS-102 (FTD/TPI) is a new oral anti-tumour agent composed of a nucleoside analogue, trifluridine, and a thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor, tipiracil, indicated for patients with mCRC who are refractory to standard therapies. This study summarizes published and unpublished experience with FTD/TPI in clinical practice settings. Patients and methods: The Medline/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify observational studies on FTD/TPI monotherapy for mCRC. Papers describing use of FTD/TPI monotherapy outside clinical trials in series of patients evaluable for effectiveness were eligible. The outcomes of interest were median progression free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS) as well as mean PFS time restricted to six months (PFS6m) and mean OS time restricted to one year (OS1y). Results of the pooled analyses of observational studies were compared to the results of the Japanese phase II trial and the two phase III trials, RECOURSE and TERRA. Results: Seven published and two unpublished studies with 1008 patients from 64 centres were included for analysis. The pooled mPFS was 2.2 months (95% CI 2.1 to 2.3 months), and the pooled mOS was 6.6 months (95% CI 6.1 to 7.1 months). PFS6m was 2.9 months (95% CI 2.6 to 3.1 months) and OS1y was 6.8 (95% CI 6.0 to 7.5) months. While these results all reflect RECOURSE, the pooled mOS is lower than in the phase II trial and the OS1y is inferior to both the phase II trial and TERRA. Conclusion: This systematic review and a meta-analysis indicates that in real life settings, the survival benefit of FTD/TPI monotherapy in patients with therapy refractory mCRC reflects the outcomes in RECOURSE but is inferior to outcomes in the two Asian efficacy trials. TAS 102 (Lonsurf) is an oral fixed dose combination of trifluridine (FTD) and tipiracil (TPI) indicated as salvage-line treatment in patients with therapy refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A Japanese phase II trial and two phase III trials, RECOURSE and TERRA, demonstrated that FTD/TPI prolonged overall survival. This systematic review and meta-analysis of real life data from 64 sites indicates that the effectiveness in daily clinical practice settings of FTD/TPI monotherapy in late stage mCRC reflects the outcomes in RECOURCE but is inferior to the outcomes in the Japanese phase II trial and TERRA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introdution: Variation in shape, position and treatment response of both tumor and organs at risk are major challenges for accurate dose delivery in radiotherapy. Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) has been proposed to customize the treatment to these motion/response patterns of the individual patients, but increases workload and thereby challenges clinical implementation. This paper reviews strategies and workflows for clinical and in silico implemented ART for prostate, bladder, gynecological (gyne) and ano-rectal cancers.Material and methods: Initial identification of papers was based on searches in PubMed. For each tumor site, the identified papers were screened independently by two researches for selection of studies describing all processes of an ART workflow: treatment monitoring and evaluation, decision and execution of adaptations. Both brachytherapy and external beam studies were eligible for review.Results: The review consisted of 43 clinical studies and 51 in silico studies. For prostate, 1219 patients were treated with offline re-planning, mainly to adapt prostate motion relative to bony anatomy. For gyne 1155 patients were treated with online brachytherapy re-planning while 25 ano-rectal cancer patients were treated with offline re-planning, all to account for tumor regression detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/computed tomography (CT). For bladder and gyne, 161 and 64 patients, respectively, were treated with library-based online plan selection to account for target volume and shape variations. The studies reported sparing of rectum (prostate and bladder cancer), bladder (ano-rectal cancer) and bowel cavity (gyne and bladder cancer) as compared to non-ART.Conclusion: Implementations of ART were dominated by offline re-planning and online brachytherapy re-planning strategies, although recently online plan selection workflows have increased with the availability of cone-beam CT. Advantageous dosimetric and outcome patterns using ART was documented by the studies of this review. Despite this, clinical implementations were scarce due to challenges in target/organ re-contouring and suboptimal patient selection in the ART workflows. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer and cancer treatments may impact the brain through several pathways leading to cognitive impairment. Neuroimaging evidence has begun to elucidate the neurobiological underpinnings of cancer-related cognitive impairment. The aim of this paper was to systematically review available literature on structural brain alterations following adult non-central nervous system (CNS) cancers and associated treatments. Methods: This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (ID#107387). Comprehensive searches were conducted in June 2018 using PubMed and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were English peer-reviewed journal articles of formal, controlled studies that examined structural neuroimaging outcomes in adult non-CNS cancer patients and survivors. Selected articles were assessed for quality and risk of bias using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: Thirty-six publications of prospective and cross-sectional studies met inclusion criteria and were included. Structural brain alterations following cancer and its treatment were reported in a majority of the publications as evidenced by reduced global and local gray matter volumes, impaired white matter microstructural integrity, and brain network alterations. Structural alterations were most often evident when cancer-treated groups were compared with healthy controls, and more subtle when compared with cancer controls. Regarding the existence of pretreatment impairments, the evidence was equivocal. There was significant between-study heterogeneity in imaging analytical approaches and use of statistical adjustments. Over half reported associations with cognitive outcomes, though regions and associated cognitive domains were heterogeneous. Conclusions: Structural brain alterations following cancer and cancer treatments were reported in a majority of the reviewed studies. However, the extent of observed alterations depended on the choice of comparison groups. Methodological issues exist that will need to be addressed systematically to ensure the validity of findings. Large-scale prospective studies with extended assessment points are warranted to replicate and build upon initial findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Evidence for the safety and benefits of exercise training as a therapeutic and rehabilitative intervention for cancer survivors is accumulating. However, whereas the evidence for the efficacy of exercise training has been established in several meta-analyses, synthesis of qualitative research is lacking. In order to extend healthcare professionals' understanding of the meaningfulness of exercise in cancer survivorship care, this paper aims to identify, appraise and synthesize qualitative studies on cancer survivors' experience of participation in exercise-based rehabilitation. Material and methods. Five electronic databases (PubMed, PsychINFO, EMBASE, Cinahl and Scopus) were searched systematically for articles published up to May 2014 using keywords and MeSH terms. To be included, studies had to contain primary data pertaining to patient experiences from participation in supervised, structured moderate to vigorous-intensity exercise. Results. In total 2447 abstracts were screened and 37 papers were read in full. Of these, 19 studies (n = 390) were selected for inclusion and critically appraised. Synthesis of data extracted from eight studies including in total 174 patients (77% women, age 28-76 years) exclusively reporting experiences of participation in structured, supervised exercise training resulted in nine themes condensed into three categories: 1) emergence of continuity; 2) preservation of health; and 3) reclaiming the body reflecting the benefits of exercise-based rehabilitation according to cancer survivors. Accordingly, the potential of rebuilding structure in everyday life, creating a normal context and enabling the individual to re-establish confidentiality and trust in their own body and physical potential constitute substantial qualities fundamental to the understanding of the meaningfulness of exercise-based rehabilitation from the perspective of patients. Conclusions. In addition to the accumulating evidence for the efficacy of exercise training in cancer rehabilitation, it is incumbent upon clinicians and policy-makers to acknowledge and promote the meaningfulness of exercise for the individual, and to use this knowledge to provide new solutions to current problems related to recruitment of underserved populations, long-term adherence and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:The introduction of adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery for early breast cancer (BC) and its integration into routine clinical practice has consistently improved clinical outcomes. Since the addition of other agents to the contemporary standard of care containing an anthracycline, cyclophosphamide and a taxane has not lead to further prolongation of survival, subsequent efforts concentrated on escalating the administered doses and reducing the time interval between chemotherapy cycles. These strategies have been extensively evaluated in randomized trials and dose dense chemotherapy is now recommended by clinical practice guidelines. Method:Eligible trials were identified by searching the EMBASE, Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases, as well as conference papers. The findings, shortcomings and impact of these studies are presented and critically discussed. Results:Although a large number of randomized trials has established the value of adjuvant chemotherapy, important questions remain unanswered. Ongoing research focuses on omitting treatment in good risk patients, identifying patients most likely to benefit from a dose dense approach and on administering personalized doses such as in tailored dose chemotherapy. Conclusions:Adjuvant chemotherapy for early BC is an evolving art. Further optimizations could potentially improve outcomes for a patient subset and spare others from unnecessary treatment-related toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background. Intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) has been given for primary and locally recurrent rectal cancer for 30 years. Still, its effect is not clear. Material and methods. PubMed and EMBASE search for papers after 1989 on surgical treatment and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for primary advanced and locally recurrent rectal cancer, with and without IORT. From each center the most recent paper was generally selected. Survival and local recurrence at five years was tabulated for the total groups and separate R-stages. Also, the technique for IORT, use of EBRT and chemotherapy as well as surgical approach was registered. Results. In primary cancer 18 papers from 14 centers were tabulated, including one randomized and five internally comparing studies, as well as seven studies without IORT. In locally recurrent cancer 18 papers from 13 centers were tabulated, including four internally comparing studies and also five without IORT. Overall survival (OS) and local recurrence rate (LRR) were higher for primary cancer compared to recurrent cancer. Patients with R0 resections had better outcome than patients with R1 or R2 resections. For primary cancer OS and LR rate of the total groups and R0 stages was not influenced by IORT. An effect on R1/R2 stages cannot be excluded. The only randomized study (primary cancer) did not show any effect of IORT. Conclusion. IORT does not convincingly improve OS and LR rate for primary and locally recurrent rectal cancer. If there is an effect of IORT, it is small and cannot be shown outside randomized studies analyzing the separate R stages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Screening for distress is controversial with many advocates and detractors. Previously it was reasonable to assert that there was a lack of evidence but this position is no longer tenable. The question is now: what does the evidence show and, in particular, when is screening successful and when is screening unsuccessful? The aim of this paper is to review the most up-to-date recent findings from randomized and non-randomized trials regarding the merits of screening for distress in cancer settings. Methods. A search was made of the Embase/Medline and Web of knowledge abstract databases from inception to December 2012. Online theses and experts were contacted. Inclusion criteria were interventional (randomized and non-randomized) trials concerning screening for psychological distress and related disorders. Studies screening for quality of life were included. Results. Twenty-four valid interventional studies of distress/QoL screening were identified, 14 being randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six of 14 screening RCTs reported benefits on patient well-being and an additional three showed benefits on secondary outcomes such as communication between clinicians and patients. Five randomized screening trials failed to show any benefits. Only two of 10 non-randomized sequential cohort screening studies reported benefits on patient well-being but an additional six showed secondary benefits on quality of care (such as receipt of psychosocial referral). Two non-randomized screening trials failed to show benefits. Of 24 studies, there were 17 that reported some significant benefits of screening on primary or secondary outcomes, six that reported no effect and one that reported a non-significantly deleterious effect upon communication. Across all studies, barriers to screening success were significant. The most significant barrier was receipt of appropriate aftercare. The proportion of cancer patients who received psychosocial care after a positive distress screen was only one in three. Screening was more effective when it was linked with mandatory intervention or referral. Conclusions. Screening for distress/QoL is likely to benefit communication and referral for psychosocial help. Screening for distress has the potential to influence patient well-being but only if barriers are addressed. Quality of care barriers often act as a rate limiting step. Key barriers are lack of training and support, low acceptability and failure to link treatment to the screening results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Determining the non-inferiority margin is an essential step in the design and interpretation of non-inferiority trials, and this margin should be preferably justified on clinical and statistical grounds. Methods. After a PubMed search for phase III trials in advanced breast cancer (BC) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) published between January 1998 and December 2009 in 11 leading journals, non-inferiority trials were selected by manual search of the full papers. Results. Twenty-four of 195 trials had a primary non-inferiority hypothesis. When the two six-year study periods were compared, there were time trends within BC and NSCLC, with most non-inferiority trials in BC reported in the first six-year period, and vice-versa for NSCLC. The median sample size was larger for non-inferiority than superiority trials (p < 0.01). The choice of a non-inferiority margin was reportedly justified in only five cases. Non-inferiority trials were more likely than superiority trials to yield positive results (p < 0.001), as were trials in breast cancer (p = 0.02). Conclusions. Non-inferiority margins for cancer trials appear to be chosen mostly on historical grounds. Since nearly three-quarters of non-inferiority trials achieve their primary objective, the extent to which the choice of margins has influence on trial results remains to be determined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]