Search

Simple Summary: We conducted a retrospective, population-based study comparing overall survival (OS) between males and females with neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN). In total, 14,834 cases of NEN recorded in England's National Cancer Registry and Analysis Service (NCRAS)), were analysed. Multivariable analysis, restricted mean survival time and mediation analysis were performed. Females displayed increased survival irrespective of the stage, morphology or level of deprivation, which was statistically significant in NEN of the lung, pancreas, rectum and stomach (p < 0.001). Stage of tumour mediated improved survival in stomach, lung, and pancreatic NEN but not in rectal NEN. Females diagnosed with NEN tend to survive longer than males, and stage at presentation only accounts for part of this effect. Future research in NEN, as well as prognostication and treatment, should consider sex as an important factor. Pre-clinical studies have suggested sex hormone signalling pathways may influence tumorigenesis in neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN). We conducted a retrospective, population-based study to compare overall survival (OS) between males and females with NEN. A total of 14,834 cases of NEN diagnosed between 2012 and 2018, recorded in England's National Cancer Registry and Analysis Service (NCRAS), were analysed. The primary outcome was OS with 5 years maximum follow-up. Multivariable analysis, restricted mean survival time and mediation analysis were performed. Appendiceal, pulmonary and early-stage NEN were most commonly diagnosed in females; stomach, pancreatic, small intestinal, colonic, rectal and later-stage NEN were more often diagnosed in males. Females displayed increased survival irrespective of the stage, morphology or level of deprivation. On average, they survived 3.62 (95% CI 1.73–5.90) to 10.26 (6.6–14.45) months longer than males; this was statistically significant in NEN of the lung, pancreas, rectum and stomach (p < 0.001). The stage mediated improved survival in stomach, lung, and pancreatic NEN but not in rectal NEN. The reasons underlying these differences are not yet understood. Overall, females diagnosed with NEN tend to survive longer than males, and the stage at presentation only partially explains this. Future research, as well as prognostication and treatment, should consider sex as an important factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are drugs which treat cancer by manipulating the immune system. Exercise also influences the immune system and helps to reduce symptoms in people with cancer, particularly fatigue. However, the effect of combining exercise with ICIs has not been well established. We hypothesise that the combined approach will produce beneficial outcomes for people with cancer (such as fewer side effects from ICIs and better killing of cancer cells). To determine the need for, and design of, future studies which address this hypothesis, we first need to understand what previous research has already shown. We aim to identify previous studies which have investigated this topic. Subsequently, by summarising their findings, we aim to communicate the key gaps in current understanding and provide informed recommendations about the direction, and design, of future research addressing the role of exercise during ICI treatment for people with cancer. The impact of using exercise as a non-pharmacological intervention in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is not well known. Our objective was to determine the extent of, and identify gaps within, available literature addressing the effect of exercise on (a) oncological outcomes and (b) quality of life (QoL) in patients with cancer receiving ICIs, and (c) the underlying biological mechanisms for such effects. We conducted searches across EMBASE, APA PsycInfo and Ovid MEDLINE(R). Studies were eligible if they addressed at least one aspect of the objective and were available in the English language. Results were synthesised using a narrative approach and subsequently discussed with multidisciplinary stakeholders. As of the final search on 5 April 2022, 11 eligible studies were identified, of which 8 were preclinical and 3 were clinical. Clinical studies only focused on QoL-related outcomes. When studies were grouped by whether they addressed oncological outcomes (n = 7), QoL (n = 5) or biological mechanisms (n = 7), they were found to be heterogeneous in methodology and findings. Additional evidence, particularly in the clinical setting, is required before robust recommendations about whether, and how, to include exercise alongside ICI treatment can be made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Treatment choice for localized prostate cancer is complicated, as each treatment option comes with various pros and cons. It is well established that active surveillance (AS), may be ended with a change to curative treatment at the time of disease progression, but it is less clear whether secondary treatment after initial curative treatment is required. As part of the PIONEER project, we quantified the probabilities of treatment change. Methods: A cohort study based on PRIAS and ERSPC-Rotterdam data was conducted. Patients were followed up for 10 years or until the 31st of December 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment change following initial treatment (i.e., a change to curative treatment following AS or secondary treatment after initial RP/RT). Results: Over a period of 1 to 5 years after initial treatment, the cumulative incidence of treatment change ranged from 3.8% to 42.8% for AS, from 7.6% to 12.1% for radical prostatectomy (RP) and from no change to 5.3% for radiation therapy (RT). While the possibility of treatment change in AS is known, the numbers within a five-year period were substantial. For RP and RT, the rate of change to secondary treatment was lower, but still non-neglectable, with 5 (10)-year incidences up to 12% (20%) and 5% (16%), respectively. Conclusion: This is one of the first studies comparing the incidence of guideline-recommended treatment changes in men receiving different primary treatments (i.e., AS, RT, or RP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For families with a child with chronic pain, the home environment is the context in which adaptive or maladaptive illness behaviors are developed. Supporting families to effectively cope with their child's chronic pain is a critical need. This work analyzes intervention approaches from emerging treatment programs to support families coping with pediatric pain that diverge from traditional treatment models by specifically targeting parents. Two novel parent intervention programs are presented that consider caregiver needs in both outpatient and inpatient pain treatment settings: Parents as Coping Coaches and Putting Parents FIRST. These programs are evaluated through comparing parental training components across different stages of treatment. Additionally, the efficacy of Putting Parents FIRST in promoting maintenance of children's functional gains achieved in intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment is presented, and compared to previous results of the efficacy of Putting Parents FIRST. Specifically, outcomes of 36 children whose parents received the intervention in Putting Parents FIRST were compared to a matched control sample of children whose parents did not receive the parent intervention. Similar to the findings from Parents as Coping Coaches, results indicated that patients whose parents received the intervention maintained/improved program gains in disability, coping, and pain significantly more than patients whose parents did not receive the intervention. Implications for parent-focused intervention development efforts targeting parent and youth functioning in the context of pediatric chronic pain are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Early reports during the pandemic stated that cancer patients were at increased risk of severe COVID-19 infection and mortality than non-cancer patients. However, delaying cancer treatment can cause worsening symptoms and shorten life expectancy. This study aimed to assess the outcome of cancer patients at our centre to help inform the optimal way to deliver cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study of over 4000 patients found that the delivery of cancer treatment in the first wave of the pandemic did not have a significantly negative effect on mortality. There were low COVID-19 infection (2%) and death rates (6%). As expected, there was a reduction in cancer treatments mainly in later lines of palliative treatments. This likely reflects patient and clinician choice around those more vulnerable patients. This data can be used to re-assure the continuation of cancer treatment during the pandemic. Background: This study aimed to assess the outcome of cancer patients undergoing systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) at our centre to help inform future clinical decision-making around SACT during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Patients receiving at least one episode of SACT for solid tumours at Guy's Cancer Centre between 1 March and 31 May 2020 and the same period in 2019 were included in the study. Data were collected on demographics, tumour type/stage, treatment type (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological-targeted) and SARS-CoV2 infection. Results: A total of 2120 patients received SACT in 2020, compared to 2449 in 2019 (13% decrease). From 2019 to 2020, there was an increase in stage IV disease (62% vs. 72%), decrease in chemotherapy (42% vs. 34%), increase in immunotherapy (6% vs. 10%), but similar rates of biologically targeted treatments (37% vs. 38%). There was a significant increase in 1st and 2nd line treatments in 2020 (68% vs. 81%; p < 0.0001) and reduction in 3rd and subsequent lines (26% vs. 15%; p = 0.004) compared to 2019. Of the 2020 cohort, 2% patients developed SARS-CoV2 infections. Conclusions: These real-world data from a tertiary Cancer Centre suggest that despite the challenges faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SACT was able to be continued without any significant effects on the mortality of solid-tumour patients. There was a low rate (2%) of SARS-CoV-2 infection which is comparable to the 1.4%-point prevalence in our total cancer population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Although COVID-19 vaccine side effects are generally well tolerated, information on cancer patients is lacking due to their exclusion from original clinical trials. The aim of our study was to report on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in our cancer patients. Data on vaccine side effects from our London cancer center was collected from 8 December 2020 to 28 February 2021. Reassuringly, we observed that cancer patients tolerated the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine very well with minimal serious side effects. Similar to the vaccine clinical trials, the most common side effects were having a sore arm, tiredness, and headaches. Emergency approval of vaccines against COVID-19 provides an opportunity for us to return to pre-pandemic oncology care. However, safety data in cancer patients is lacking due to their exclusion from most phase III trials. We included all patients aged less than 65 years who received a COVID-19 vaccine from 8 December 2020 to 28 February 2021 at our London tertiary oncology centre. Solicited and unsolicited vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) were collected using telephone or face-to-face consultation. Within the study period, 373 patients received their first dose of vaccine: Pfizer/BioNTech (75.1%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (23.6%), Moderna (0.3%), and unknown (1.1%). Median follow-up was 25 days (5–85). Median age was 56 years (19–65). Of the patients, 94.9% had a solid malignancy and 76.7% were stage 3–4. The most common cancers were breast (34.0%), lung (13.4%), colorectal (10.2%), and gynaecological (10.2%). Of the patients, 88.5% were receiving anti-cancer treatment (36.2% parenteral chemotherapy and 15.3% immunotherapy), 76.1% developed any grade VRAE of which 2.1% were grade 3. No grade 4/5 or anaphylaxis were observed. The most common VRAEs within 7 days post-vaccination were sore arm (61.7%), fatigue (18.2%), and headaches (12.1%). Most common grade 3 VRAE was fatigue (1.1%). Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines in oncology patients have mild reactogenicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a detrimental impact on cancer patients globally. Whilst there are several studies looking at the potential risk factors for COVID-19 disease and related death, most of these include non-cancerous patients as the COVID-19 negative comparator group, meaning it is difficult to draw hard conclusions as to the implications for cancer patients. In our study, we utilized data from over 2000 cancer patients from a large tertiary Cancer Centre in London. In summary, our study found that patients who are male, of Black or Asian ethnicity, or with a hematological malignancy are at an increased risk of COVID-19. The use of cancer patients as the COVID-19 negative comparator group is a major advantage to the study as it means we can better understand the true impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients and identify which factors pose the biggest risk to their likelihood of infection with SARS-CoV2. Very few studies investigating COVID-19 in cancer patients have included cancer patients as controls. We aimed to identify factors associated with the risk of testing positive for SARS CoV2 infection in a cohort of cancer patients. We analyzed data from all cancer patients swabbed for COVID-19 between 1st March and 31st July 2020 at Guy's Cancer Centre. We conducted logistic regression analyses to identify which factors were associated with a positive COVID-19 test. Results: Of the 2152 patients tested for COVID-19, 190 (9%) tested positive. Male sex, black ethnicity, and hematological cancer type were positively associated with risk of COVID-19 (OR = 1.85, 95%CI:1.37–2.51; OR = 1.93, 95%CI:1.31–2.84; OR = 2.29, 95%CI:1.45–3.62, respectively) as compared to females, white ethnicity, or solid cancer type, respectively. Male, Asian ethnicity, and hematological cancer type were associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 (OR = 3.12, 95%CI:1.58–6.14; OR = 2.97, 95%CI:1.00–8.93; OR = 2.43, 95%CI:1.00–5.90, respectively). This study is one of the first to compare the risk of COVID-19 incidence and severity in cancer patients when including cancer patients as controls. Results from this study have echoed those of previous reports, that patients who are male, of black or Asian ethnicity, or with a hematological malignancy are at an increased risk of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: A better understanding of the reality for cancer patients during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic will help us readapt current prediction models. There is a need to dive into rich data sources from apex cancer centres. The aim of our retrospective study was to report on the outcomes of cancer patients receiving radical surgery with curative intent during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from two cancer centres that were at the epicentre of the outbreak from March to September 2020 (as well as a comparator group in 2019) were utilised for this study. We observed that while there was a decline in number of surgeries performed, the implemented COVID-19 minimal pathways were safe for cancer patients requiring surgical treatment. The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a large effect on the management of cancer patients. This study reports on the approach and outcomes of cancer patients receiving radical surgery with curative intent between March and September 2020 (in comparison to 2019) in the European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS (IEO) in Milan and the South East London Cancer Alliance (SELCA). Both institutions implemented a COVID-19 minimal pathway where patients were required to self-isolate prior to admission and were swabbed for COVID-19 within 72 h of surgery. Positive patients had surgery deferred until a negative swab. At IEO, radical surgeries declined by 6% as compared to the same period in 2019 (n = 1477 vs. 1560, respectively). Readmissions were required for 3% (n = 41), and <1% (n = 9) developed COVID-19, of which only one had severe disease and died. At SELCA, radical surgeries declined by 34% (n = 1553 vs. 2336). Readmissions were required for 11% (n = 36), <1% (n = 7) developed COVID-19, and none died from it. Whilst a decline in number of surgeries was observed in both centres, the implemented COVID-19 minimal pathways have shown to be safe for cancer patients requiring radical treatment, with limited complications and almost no COVID-19 infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]