Search

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a scarcity of resources with various effects on the care of cancer patients. This paper provides an English summary of a German guideline on prioritization and resource allocation for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in the context of the pandemic. Based on a selective literature review as well as empirical and ethical analyses, the research team of the CancerCOVID Consortium drafted recommendations for prioritizing diagnostic and treatment measures for both entities. The final version of the guideline received consent from the executive boards of nine societies of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), 20 further professional organizations and 22 other experts from various disciplines as well as patient representatives. The guiding principle for the prioritization of decisions is the minimization of harm. Prioritization decisions to fulfill this overall goal should be guided by (1) the urgency relevant to avoid or reduce harm, (2) the likelihood of success of the diagnostic or therapeutic measure advised, and (3) the availability of alternative treatment options. In the event of a relevant risk of harm as a result of prioritization, these decisions should be made by means of a team approach. Gender, age, disability, ethnicity, origin, and other social characteristics, such as social or insurance status, as well as the vehemence of a patient's treatment request and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status should not be used as prioritization criteria. The guideline provides concrete recommendations for (1) diagnostic procedures, (2) surgical procedures for cancer, and (3) systemic treatment and radiotherapy in patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer within the context of the German healthcare system., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a disease of older patients, but evidence-based guidelines for chemotherapy in older patients are scarce. Geriatric assessment (GA) evaluates a patient's functional status (FS) and helps in decision-making when choosing chemotherapy for older patients. However, the change of FS during chemotherapy is rarely studied as GA is mostly performed once instead of sequentially., Methods: We performed a subgroup analysis of a prospective, multicenter study EpiReal 75. Patients aged ≥75 years with gastrointestinal malignancy prior to initiation of chemotherapy or receiving palliative chemotherapy were screened. We defined geriatric core assessments including the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, Barthel's activities of daily living (ADL) scale, Lawton's instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) scale, and G-8 questionnaire, which were performed at baseline and repeated every 3 months. Quality of life (QoL) assessed by QLQ-C30 questionnaire was also re-evaluated every 3 months. We defined any deterioration in any of the geriatric parameters as unstable in the corresponding function., Results: 28 patients with CRC were enrolled between April 2014 and December 2018. 20 patients were evaluable for statistical analysis with a mean age of 78.5 years (range, 75-88). Most patients received chemotherapy in palliative setting. During 3 months of chemotherapy, 25% of patients became more dependent as measured by ADL or IADL. During a median follow-up of 15 months, patients with unstable ADL or IADL had a significantly shorter overall survival (OS) than those with stable ADL or IADL (plogrank = 0.0055 and 0.0253, respectively), without a significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS). Also, unstable IADL correlated with a deterioration in aspects of QoL such as role functioning and emotional functioning (p = 0.0189 and 0.0239, respectively). 20% of patients experienced treatment-related grade 3 adverse events (AEs), no grade 4-5 AEs occurred., Conclusion: Sequential GA revealed changes in FS in older patients with CRC receiving chemotherapy. A deterioration of FS during chemotherapy did not influence PFS but had a negative impact on OS and QoL. It is therefore important to maintain FS in older patients with cancer, and regular performance of geriatric core assessments should be encouraged in the clinical practice., (© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Cancer patients often face decisions whether to proceed with cancer-specific treatment or to switch to best supportive care. In these decisions, patients' preferences should be determining cornerstones. The aim of this survey was to elicit patients' preferences regarding discussions about forgoing treatment and factors influencing their preferences., Methods: We surveyed 194 patients at the National Center for Tumor Diseases, Germany. Quality of life (FACT-G), cancer-specific distress (QSC-R10), anxiety/depression (PHQ-4/GAD-2), preferences regarding quality/length of life (QQ), patient-physician communication (CARES-SF), and family role (CCAT-P) were assessed., Results: Patients weighting quality of life over lifetime wanted their oncologists to address treatment limitations as early as possible (p = 0.00). Patients striving for a longer lifetime did not want such discussions (p = 0.05). Having discussed treatment limitations was not associated with increased anxiety, depression, or distress. Limiting treatment was discussed only with one-third of the patients with a prognosis of less than 6 months and rather with elderly patients or patients in a worse medical condition. Attributing an important role to family decisions was associated with striving for lifetime (p = 0.01)., Conclusion: Preferences for either quality or length of life were associated with patients' willingness to discuss forgoing cancer-specific treatment. Timely discussion of realistic treatment goals is one way to avoid overtreatment. Patients striving for lifetime require increased attention and opportunities to address prognosis and risks of treatment., (© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Eliciting and integrating patients' preferences in decision-making in palliative oncology is an important criterion for the quality of end-of-life care. It is an essential prerequisite in supporting the integrity of patients' decision-making process, enhancing patients' right to self-determination and facilitating patients' autonomy. In this review we summarize the data on: (1) patients' preference for a decisional model in advanced cancer, (2) patients' preferences for quality versus length of life and the enrollment of patients in early-phase clinical studies, and (3) preferences for caregiver involvement in decision-making. Timely assessment of patients' preferences enables advance care planning with respect to considering patients' values, discussing therapy goals and planning for patients' end-of-life care. It helps avoiding overtreatment near the end of life and giving care that is aligned to patients' wishes and family capacities., (© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Against the background of limited resources, the rise in the cost of therapy as well as in the number of cancer patients fuels the discussion about the necessity to ration, i.e., setting limits to beneficial treatment for cost reasons. Recently, we presented the self-reported prevalence of bedside rationing among German oncologists. Here, we describe oncologists' views on cost containment strategies and their role therein., Methods: We performed an online survey including structured questions and free field sections with the members of the German Society of Hematology and Oncology., Results: In the perception of oncologists, cost considerations and negotiations are gaining in importance and consume considerable working time. This negatively affects job satisfaction in 72% of the 345 respondents. Oncologists are concerned that the quality of care will suffer from rationalization and implicit rationing. They are ambivalent as to who is best suited to decide about resource rationing: 66% support the view that limits for costly procedures should be set by a form of commission; nevertheless, 48% consider physicians as the best decision makers in these situations., Conclusion: We suggest a broad public discussion and an interdisciplinary debate among the oncology community to define and legitimize decisions on rationing by setting explicit criteria., (© 2017 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg.)

Background: Decision-making with patients with incurable cancer often requires trade-offs between quality and length of life. The 'Quality and Quantity Questionnaire' (QQ) is an English-language measure of patients' preference for length or quality of life. The aim of this study was to translate and validate this questionnaire., Materials and Methods: 1 new item was formulated to improve the 'Quality of life' scale. Construct validity including exploratory factor analysis, convergent and discriminant validity, and reliability was determined in n = 194 patients., Results: The acceptability of the questionnaire among patients was high. The item-non-response rate was very low (2.5-4%). The 2 QQ scales 'Quality of life' (QL) and 'Length of life' (LL) had good and acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's = 0.71 for LL and 0.59 for QL). Convergent validity was shown by significant correlation of the QL subscale with the CCAT (Cancer Communication Assessment Tool) subscale 'Limitation of treatment' (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) and the LL scale with the CCAT subscale 'Continuing treatment' (r = 0.24, p = 0.00)., Conclusion: The German version of 'QQ' has satisfactory psychometric properties for measuring patients' preferences for LL or QL. It can be used in all research fields that should be informed by patients' preferences: shared decision-making, palliative care, and health services., (© 2014 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg.)