Search

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by esophagectomy is a standard treatment for potentially curable esophageal cancer. Active surveillance in patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) 12 weeks after nCRT is regarded as possible alternative to standard surgery. The aim of this study is to monitor the safety, adherence and effectiveness of active surveillance in patients outside a randomized trial., Methods: This nationwide prospective cohort study aims to accrue operable patients with non-metastatic histologically proven adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction. Patients receive nCRT and response evaluation consists of upper endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies, endoscopic ultrasonography plus fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes and 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan. When residue or regrowth of tumor in the absence of distant metastases is detected, surgical resection is advised. Patients with cCR after nCRT are suitable to undergo active surveillance. Patients can consult an independent physician or psychologist to support decision-making. Primary endpoint is the number and severity of adverse events in patients with cCR undergoing active surveillance, defined as complications from response evaluations, delayed surgery and the development of distant metastases. Secondary endpoints include timing and quality of diagnostic modalities, overall survival, progression-free survival, fear of cancer recurrence and decisional regret., Discussion: Active surveillance after nCRT may be an alternative to standard surgery in patients with esophageal cancer. Similar to organ-sparing approaches applied in other cancer types, the safety and efficacy of active surveillance needs monitoring before data from randomized trials are available., Trial Registration: The SANO-2 study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04886635 (May 14, 2021) - Retrospectively registered., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Significant comorbidities, advanced age, and a poor performance status prevent surgery and systemic treatment for many patients with localized (non-metastatic) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). These patients are currently treated with 'best supportive care'. Therefore, it is desirable to find a treatment option which could improve both disease control and quality of life in these patients. A brief course of high-dose high-precision radiotherapy i.e. stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) may be feasible., Methods: A nationwide multicenter trial performed within a previously established large prospective cohort (the Dutch Pancreatic cancer project; PACAP) according to the 'Trial within cohorts' (TwiCs) design. Patients enrolled in the PACAP cohort routinely provide informed consent to answer quality of life questionnaires and to be randomized according to the TwiCs design when eligible for a study. Patients with localized PDAC who are unfit for chemotherapy and surgery or those who refrain from these treatments are eligible. Patients will be randomized between SABR (5 fractions of 8 Gy) with 'best supportive care' and 'best supportive care' only. The primary endpoint is overall survival from randomization. Secondary endpoints include preservation of quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30 and -PAN26), NRS pain score response and WHO performance scores at baseline, and, 3, 6 and 12 months. Acute and late toxicity will be scored using CTCAE criteria version 5.0: assessed at baseline, day of last fraction, at 3 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6 and 12 months following SABR., Discussion: The PANCOSAR trial studies the added value of SBRT as compared to 'best supportive care' in patients with localized PDAC who are medically unfit to receive chemotherapy and surgery, or refrain from these treatments. This study will assess whether SABR, in comparison to best supportive care, can relieve or delay tumor-related symptoms, enhance quality of life, and extend survival in these patients., Trial Registration: Clinical trials, NCT05265663 , Registered March 3 2022, Retrospectively registered., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Chemoradiation with capecitabine followed by surgery is standard care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Severe diarrhea is considered a dose-limiting toxicity of adding capecitabine to radiation therapy. The aim of this study was to describe the risk factors and the impact of body composition on severe diarrhea in patients with LARC during preoperative chemoradiation with capecitabine., Methods: A single centre retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary referral centre. All patients treated with preoperative chemoradiation with capecitabine for LARC from 2009 to 2015 were included. Patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer who received chemoradiation for the first time were included as well. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for severe diarrhea., Results: A total of 746 patients were included. Median age was 64 years (interquartile range 57-71) and 477 patients (64%) were male. All patients received a radiation dosage of 25 × 2 Gy during a period of five weeks with either concomitant capecitabine administered on radiation days or continuously during radiotherapy. In this cohort 70 patients (9%) developed severe diarrhea. In multivariable logistic regression analyses female sex (OR: 4.42, 95% CI 2.54-7.91) and age ≥ 65 (OR: 3.25, 95% CI 1.85-5.87) were the only risk factors for severe diarrhea., Conclusions: Female patients and patients aged sixty-five or older had an increased risk of developing severe diarrhea during preoperative chemoradiation therapy with capecitabine. No relation was found between body composition and severe diarrhea., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The objective of this study is to investigate the role and experience of early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient in decision making process concerning treatment selection in the current clinical practice., Methods: Stage I-II NSCLC patients (surgery 55 patients, SBRT 29 patients, median age 68) were included in this prospective study and completed a questionnaire that explored: (1) perceived patient knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment options, (2) experience with current clinical decision making, and (3) the information that the patient reported to have received from their treating physician. This was assessed by multiple-choice, 1-5 Likert Scale, and open questions. The Decisional Conflict Scale was used to assess the decisional conflict. Health related quality of life (HRQoL) was measured with SF-36 questionnaire., Results: In 19% of patients, there was self-reported perceived lack of knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment options. Seventy-four percent of patients felt that they were sufficiently involved in decision-making by their physician, and 81% found it important to be involved in decision making. Forty percent experienced decisional conflict, and one-in-five patients to such an extent that it made them feel unsure about the decision. Subscores with regard to feeling uninformed and on uncertainty, contributed the most to decisional conflict, as 36% felt uninformed and 17% of patients were not satisfied with their decision. HRQoL was not influenced by patient experience with decision-making or patient preferences for shared decision making., Conclusions: Dutch early-stage NSCLC patients find it important to be involved in treatment decision making. Yet a substantial proportion experiences decisional conflict and feels uninformed. Better patient information and/or involvement in treatment-decision-making is needed in order to improve patient knowledge and hopefully reduce decisional conflict.