Search

Background Conventional first-line combination therapy for ovarian cancer comprises 6 cycles of adjuvant or neoadjuvant carboplatin (AUC5-6) with paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) every 3 weeks (PC-3W). Weekly scheduling of paclitaxel may maximize its antiangiogenic effect and reduce adverse effects. We compared the efficacy and safety of PC-3W with a modified protocol of weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 and weekly carboplatin AUC2 administered on days 1, 8, and 15 in a 28-day cycle (i.e., with 1 week off-treatment [PC-W]). Materials and Methods Medical records of consecutive patients treated between 2000 and 2018 were reviewed; 707 patients were analyzed for demographic and clinical characteristics, effectiveness and toxicity. Results PC-3W was administered to 402 patients (median age, 60.5 years) and PC-W to 305 patients (median age, 62.5 years). Most patients (91.4%) were diagnosed at stage III–IV. Notwithstanding a higher proportion of residual disease and older patients in the PC-W group, median progression-free survival was 21.4 months and 13.2 months for PC-W and PC-3W, respectively; median overall survival was 75.2 and 54.0 months for PC-W and PC-3W, respectively. Cox proportional hazards model indicated improved survival for patients treated with PC-W (hazard ratio, 0.54). Similar results were observed for older patients diagnosed at ≥75 years. PC-W demonstrated a better safety profile, with lower incidence of neuropathy, neutropenia, and alopecia. Conclusion PC-W is as active and better tolerated than the standard PC-3W regimen. PC-W may serve as an alternative option for elderly or frail patients. Implications for Practice Weekly scheduling of paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC2, administered on days 1, 8, and 15 in a 28-day cycle (PC-W) for first-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer, is as active and better tolerated than the standard regimen of carboplatin and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) every 3 weeks (PC-3W). It is possible that the weekly holiday on day 21 in the PC-W regimen may ensure better completion rates (which may result in treatment delays for toxicity in PC-3W). The results of this retrospective analysis highlight the weekly regimen as a valid treatment option, especially for elderly patients and those with significant comorbidities.

Introduction The use of telemedicine in oncology practice is rapidly expanding and is considered safe and cost effective. However, the implications of telemedicine on patient‐physician interaction, patient satisfaction, and absence of the personal touch have not been studied to date. Following the spread of COVID‐19, telemedicine services were rapidly incorporated at the Oncology Division of Tel Aviv Medical Center. We aimed to evaluate patients' perspectives and preferences regarding telemedicine and to assess whether this virtual communication platform affects the patient‐physician relationship. Methods Between March 2020 and May 2020, adult cancer patients who conducted at least one successful telemedicine meeting were interviewed by trained medical personnel. The interview was based on validated patient satisfaction questionnaires and focused on patient‐physician interaction in relation to the last in‐patient visit. Results Of 236 patients, 172 (74%) patients agreed to participate. The study population comprised mainly patients with gastrointestinal malignancies (n = 79, 46%) with a median age of 63 years (range 21–88). The majority of patients were male (n = 93, 54%). Eighty‐nine (51.7%) patients were receiving active oncologic treatment, and 58 (33.7%) were under routine surveillance following completion of active therapy. Almost all had a sense of secured privacy (n = 171, 96%), the majority of patients affirmed that their concerns were met (n = 166, 93%) and perceived that eye contact with the treating physician was perceived (n = 156, 87%). Only a minority felt that the absence of physical clinic visits harmed their treatment (n = 36, 20%). Most patients (n = 146, 84.9%) wished to continue telemedicine services. A multivariate analysis revealed that higher satisfaction and visits for routine surveillance were both predictors of willingness to continue future telemedicine meetings over physical encounters (odds ratio [OR] = 2.41, p = .01; OR = 3.34, p = .03, respectively). Conclusion Telemedicine is perceived as safe and effective, and patients did not feel that it compromised medical care or the patient‐physician relationship. Integration of telemedicine is ideal for patients under surveillance after completion of active oncologic treatment. Physician communication skills workshops are warranted with implementing this platform. Implications for Practice During the COVID‐19 pandemic, telemedicine was rapidly implemented worldwide to facilitate continuity of quality care and treatment. Despite many potential setbacks, telemedicine has become a useful and safe tool for oncology practitioners to care for their patients. The use of telemedicine regarding patients' perspectives, emotions, and patient‐physician communication in daily oncology practice has not been studied to date. This study demonstrated telemedicine is perceived as safe and effective and does not compromise medical care or the patient‐physician relationship. Its use is ideal for surveillance after completion of active oncologic treatment. Physician communication skills workshops are warranted with implementing this platform., The use of telemedicine in oncology practice is rapidly expanding; however, the implications for patient‐physician interaction and patient satisfaction have not been well studied. This article evaluates patients' perspectives and preferences regarding telemedicine and whether a virtual communication platform affects the patient‐physician relationship.

This letter to the editor responds to recent advice related to delivering difficult news via telemedicine, further encouraging productive discussions on this challenging topic.