Search

Background: Approximately 80% of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) are treated with chemotherapy, of whom approximately 10% undergo a resection. Cohort studies investigating local tumor ablation with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) have reported a promising overall survival of 26-34 months when given in a multimodal setting. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of RFA in combination with chemotherapy in patients with LAPC are lacking.Methods: The "Pancreatic Locally Advanced Unresectable Cancer Ablation" (PELICAN) trial is an international multicenter superiority RCT, initiated by the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group (DPCG). All patients with LAPC according to DPCG criteria, who start with FOLFIRINOX or (nab-paclitaxel/)gemcitabine, are screened for eligibility. Restaging is performed after completion of four cycles of FOLFIRINOX or two cycles of (nab-paclitaxel/)gemcitabine (i.e., 2 months of treatment), and the results are assessed within a nationwide online expert panel. Eligible patients with RECIST stable disease or objective response, in whom resection is not feasible, are randomized to RFA followed by chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. In total, 228 patients will be included in 16 centers in The Netherlands and four other European centers. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, RECIST response, CA 19.9 and CEA response, toxicity, quality of life, pain, costs, and immunomodulatory effects of RFA.Discussion: The PELICAN RCT aims to assess whether the combination of chemotherapy and RFA improves the overall survival when compared to chemotherapy alone, in patients with LAPC with no progression of disease following 2 months of systemic treatment.Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Registry NL4997 . Registered on December 29, 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03690323 . Retrospectively registered on October 1, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lung cancer has a high impact on both patients and relatives due to the high disease burden and short life expectancy. Previous studies looked into treatment goals patients have before starting a systemic treatment. However, studies on relatives' perceptions of treatment at the end of life are scarce. Therefore, we studied the perspectives of relatives in hindsight on the achievement of treatment goals and the choice to start treatment for metastatic lung cancer of their loved one. Methods: We conducted a structured telephone interview study in six hospitals across the Netherlands, one academic and five non-academic hospitals, between February 2017 and November 2019. We included 118 relatives of deceased patients diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer who started a systemic treatment as part of usual care (chemotherapy, immunotherapy or targeted therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and who completed a questionnaire on their treatment goals before the start of treatment and when treatment was finished. We asked the relatives about the achievement of patients' treatment goals and relatives' satisfaction with the choice to start treatment. This study is part of a larger study in which 266 patients with metastatic lung cancer participated who started a systemic treatment and reported their treatment goals before start of the treatment and the achievement of these goals after the treatment. Results: Relatives reported the goals 'quality of life', 'decrease tumour size' and 'life prolongation' as achieved in 21, 37 and 41% respectively. The majority of the relatives (78%) were satisfied with the choice to start a treatment and even when none of the goals were achieved, 70% of the relatives were satisfied. About 50% of relatives who were satisfied with the patients' choice mentioned negative aspects of the treatment choice, such as the treatment did not work, there were side effects or it would not have been the relatives' choice. Whereas, 80% of relatives who were not satisfied mentioned negative aspects of the treatment choice. The most mentioned positive aspects were that they tried everything and that it was the patient's choice. Conclusion: The majority of relatives reported patients' treatment goals as not achieved. However, relatives were predominantly satisfied about the treatment choice. Satisfaction does not provide a full picture of the experience with the treatment decision considering that the majority of relatives mentioned (also) negative aspects of this decision. At the time of making the treatment decision it is important to manage expectations about the chance of success and the possible side effects of the treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Children diagnosed with cancer often require extensive care for medical, psychosocial and educational problems during and after therapy. Part of this care is provided by family physicians and non-cancer specialists, but their involvement in the first years after diagnosis has barely been studied. Studying non-oncology physician visits may provide insight into the roles of different health care providers. Methods: We included 757 children diagnosed with cancer under age 15 between 1991 and 2001 from a Canadian provincial registry, and matched each to 10 controls of the same birth year and sex. We determined the number of family physician and non-cancer specialist visits in the 5 years after diagnosis (for patients) or inclusion (for controls) using data from the provincial health insurance plan. Results: In the first year after diagnosis, almost all patients visited both a family physician and non-cancer specialist. Although after 5 years percentages decreased to 85 and 76 %, respectively, these were still significantly higher than in controls. In the first year after diagnosis, both family physicians and non-cancer specialists were often consulted for neoplasms (62 and 90 %, respectively) and to discuss results of lab tests. In addition, family physicians were often consulted for general symptoms and non-cancer specialists for nervous system problems and complications of medical care. Conclusions: Family physicians and non-cancer specialists are highly involved in the care for children with cancer in the first years after diagnosis, including for health problems related to cancer or its treatment. This necessitates good communication among all physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment variation is an important issue in health care provision. An external peer review programme for multidisciplinary cancer care was introduced in 1994 in the Netherlands to improve the multidisciplinary organisation of cancer care in hospitals. So far the clinical impact of external quality assessment programmes such as external peer review and accreditation remains unclear. Our objective was to examine the degree of variation in treatment patterns and the possible effect of external peer review for multidisciplinary cancer care for breast cancer patients. Methods: Patients with breast cancer were included from 23 hospitals from two 'intervention regions' with the longest experience with the programme and 7 hospitals that never participated (control group). Data on tumour and treatment characteristics were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatment modalities investigated were: the completeness of breast conserving therapy, introduction of the sentinel node biopsy, radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), adjuvant radiotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer (T3/M0 or any T,N2-3/M0), adjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer (T1-2/N+/M0) and neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for T4/M0 breast cancer. Hospitals from the two intervention regions were dichotomised based on their implementation proportion (IP) of recommendations from the final reports of each peer review (high IP vs. low IP). This was regarded as a measure of how well a hospital participated in the programme. Results: 63,516 female breast cancer patients were included (1990-2010). Variation in treatment patterns was observed between the intervention regions and control group. Multidisciplinary treatment patterns were not consistently better for patients from hospitals with a high IP. Conclusions: There is no relationship between the external peer review programme for multidisciplinary cancer care and multidisciplinary treatment patterns for breast cancer patients. Regional factors seem to exert a stronger effect on treatment patterns than hospital participation in external peer review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]