Search

Objectives: Pretreatment biomarkers are needed to identify patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) likely to have worse survival. This ensures that only patients with a real chance of benefit receive immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment. In this study, we examined the associations of baseline nutritional and inflammatory biomarkers with overall survival in a real‐world cohort of NSCLC patients who received ICIs. Materials and Methods: We used prospectively collected data from the OncoLifeS data biobank. The cohort included 500 advanced‐stage NSCLC patients treated with ICIs from May 2015 to June 2021. Biomarkers were evaluated within 2 weeks before ICI treatment: neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio, C‐reactive protein (CRP), Glasgow prognostic score, CRP/albumin ratio (CAR), prognostic nutritional index (PNI), and advanced lung cancer inflammation index. For each biomarker, low‐ and high‐risk groups were defined using literature‐based cut‐offs. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated using adjusted survival analysis. Results: Most patients were male (60.8%), the mean baseline age was 65 ± 9 years, and 88% had stage IV disease. For each biomarker, low‐risk patients had better overall survival (all, p < 0.001), with CAR and PNI showing the strongest associations. In multivariable analyses a combined CAR/PNI risk score had a stronger association with overall survival (aHR 3.09, 95% CI 2.36–4.06) than CAR alone (aHR 2.22, 95% CI 1.79–2.76) or PNI alone (aHR 2.09, 95% CI 1.66–2.61). Conclusion: These results highlight the potential value of nutritional and inflammatory biomarkers, in particular CAR and PNI, in identifying NSCLC patients with highest mortality risk before starting ICI treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate the treatment goals of older patients with non-curable cancer, whether those goals changed over time, and if so, what triggered those changes. Methods: We performed a descriptive and qualitative analysis using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) to assess patient goals across four conversations with general practitioners (GPs) over 6 months. Text entries from electronic patient records (hospital and general practice) were then analyzed qualitatively for this period. Results: Of the 29 included patients, 10 (34%) rated extending life and 9 (31%) rated maintaining independence as their most important goals. Patients in the last year before death (late phase) prioritized extending life less often (3 patients; 21%) than those in the early phase (7 patients; 47%). Goals changed for 16 patients during follow-up (12 in the late phase). Qualitative analysis revealed three themes that explained the baseline OPT scores (prioritizing a specific goal, rating a goal as unimportant, and treatment choices related to goals). Another three themes related to changes in OPT scores (symptoms, disease course, and life events) and stability of OPT scores (stable situation, disease-unrelated motivation, and stability despite symptoms). Conclusion: Patients most often prioritized extending life as the most important goal. However, priorities differed in the late phase of the disease, leading to changed goals. Triggers for change related to both the disease (e.g., symptoms and course) and to other life events. We therefore recommend that goals should be discussed repeatedly, especially near the end of life. Trial registration: OPTion study: NTR5419 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To provide optimal care for patients with cancer, timely and efficient communication between healthcare providers is essential. In this study, we aimed to achieve consensus regarding the desired content of communication between general practitioners (GPs) and oncology specialists before and during the initial treatment of cancer. Methods: In a two-round Delphi procedure, three expert panels reviewed items recommended for inclusion on referral and specialist letters. Results: The three panels comprised 39 GPs (42%), 42 oncology specialists (41%) (i.e. oncologists, radiotherapists, urologists and surgeons) and 18 patients or patient representatives (69%). Final agreement was by consensus, with 12 and 35 items included in the GP referral and the specialist letters, respectively. The key requirements of GP referral letters were that they should be limited to medical facts, a short summary of symptoms and abnormal findings, and the reason for referral. There was a similar requirement for letters from specialists to include these same medical facts, but detailed information was also required about the diagnosis, treatment options and chosen treatment. After two rounds, the overall content validity index (CVI) for both letters was 71%, indicating that a third round was not necessary. Discussion: This is the first study to differentiate between essential and redundant information in GP referral and specialist letters, and the findings could be used to improve communication between primary and secondary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]