Search

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a scarcity of resources with various effects on the care of cancer patients. This paper provides an English summary of a German guideline on prioritization and resource allocation for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in the context of the pandemic. Based on a selective literature review as well as empirical and ethical analyses, the research team of the CancerCOVID Consortium drafted recommendations for prioritizing diagnostic and treatment measures for both entities. The final version of the guideline received consent from the executive boards of nine societies of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), 20 further professional organizations and 22 other experts from various disciplines as well as patient representatives. The guiding principle for the prioritization of decisions is the minimization of harm. Prioritization decisions to fulfill this overall goal should be guided by (1) the urgency relevant to avoid or reduce harm, (2) the likelihood of success of the diagnostic or therapeutic measure advised, and (3) the availability of alternative treatment options. In the event of a relevant risk of harm as a result of prioritization, these decisions should be made by means of a team approach. Gender, age, disability, ethnicity, origin, and other social characteristics, such as social or insurance status, as well as the vehemence of a patient's treatment request and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status should not be used as prioritization criteria. The guideline provides concrete recommendations for (1) diagnostic procedures, (2) surgical procedures for cancer, and (3) systemic treatment and radiotherapy in patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer within the context of the German healthcare system., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a disease of older patients, but evidence-based guidelines for chemotherapy in older patients are scarce. Geriatric assessment (GA) evaluates a patient's functional status (FS) and helps in decision-making when choosing chemotherapy for older patients. However, the change of FS during chemotherapy is rarely studied as GA is mostly performed once instead of sequentially., Methods: We performed a subgroup analysis of a prospective, multicenter study EpiReal 75. Patients aged ≥75 years with gastrointestinal malignancy prior to initiation of chemotherapy or receiving palliative chemotherapy were screened. We defined geriatric core assessments including the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, Barthel's activities of daily living (ADL) scale, Lawton's instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) scale, and G-8 questionnaire, which were performed at baseline and repeated every 3 months. Quality of life (QoL) assessed by QLQ-C30 questionnaire was also re-evaluated every 3 months. We defined any deterioration in any of the geriatric parameters as unstable in the corresponding function., Results: 28 patients with CRC were enrolled between April 2014 and December 2018. 20 patients were evaluable for statistical analysis with a mean age of 78.5 years (range, 75-88). Most patients received chemotherapy in palliative setting. During 3 months of chemotherapy, 25% of patients became more dependent as measured by ADL or IADL. During a median follow-up of 15 months, patients with unstable ADL or IADL had a significantly shorter overall survival (OS) than those with stable ADL or IADL (plogrank = 0.0055 and 0.0253, respectively), without a significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS). Also, unstable IADL correlated with a deterioration in aspects of QoL such as role functioning and emotional functioning (p = 0.0189 and 0.0239, respectively). 20% of patients experienced treatment-related grade 3 adverse events (AEs), no grade 4-5 AEs occurred., Conclusion: Sequential GA revealed changes in FS in older patients with CRC receiving chemotherapy. A deterioration of FS during chemotherapy did not influence PFS but had a negative impact on OS and QoL. It is therefore important to maintain FS in older patients with cancer, and regular performance of geriatric core assessments should be encouraged in the clinical practice., (© 2022 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Financial toxicity of cancer has so far been discussed primarily in the US health care system and is associated with higher morbidity and mortality. In European health care systems, the socio-economic impact of cancer is poorly understood. This study investigates the financial burden and patient-reported outcomes of neuroendocrine (NET) or colorectal (CRC) cancer patients at a German Comprehensive Cancer Center., Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study surveyed 247 advanced stage patients (n = 122 NET/n = 125 CRC) at the National Center for Tumor Diseases, in Germany about cancer-related out-of-pocket costs, income loss, distress, and quality of life. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to demonstrate the effects of economic deterioration on patients' quality of life and distress., Results: 81% (n = 199) of the patients reported out-of-pocket costs, and 37% (n = 92) income loss as a consequence of their disease. While monthly out-of-pocket costs did not exceed 200€ in 77% of affected patients, 24% of those with income losses reported losing more than 1.200€ per month. High financial loss relative to income was significantly associated with patients' reporting a worse quality of life (p < .05) and more distress (p < .05)., Conclusions: Financial toxicity in third-party payer health care systems like Germany is caused rather by income loss than by co-payments. Distress and reduced quality of life due to financial problems seem to amplify the burden that already results from a cancer diagnosis and treatment. If confirmed at a broader scale, there is a need for targeted support measures at the individual and system level.

Cross-sectoral cancer care is complex and involves collaboration from health care professionals (HCPs) across multiple sectors. However, when health information exchange (HIE) is not adequate, it results in impeded coordination and continuity of care. A web-based personal electronic health record (PEPA) under patients' control, providing access to personal health data across sectors, is being developed. Aim of this study was to explore perceived benefits and concerns. Using a qualitative approach, 10 focus groups were performed collecting views of three prospective user groups: patients with colorectal cancer (n = 12), physicians (n = 17) and other HCPs (n = 16). Representatives from different health sectors across the Rhine-Neckar region (Germany) participated. Data were audio- and videotaped, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Our study shows that patients and HCPs expected a PEPA to enhance cross-sectoral availability of information, cross-sectoral cooperation and facilitate data management. Quality of cancer care was expected to be improved. Concerns were expressed in terms of data protection and data security. Concepts like a PEPA offer the chance to support HIE and avoid gaps of information in cross-sectoral cancer care. This may lead to improvements in coordination and continuity of care. Issues concerning data security and protection have to be addressed., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)