Search

Objective: In the COVID‐19 crisis context, the main objective of the study is to investigate factors associated with perceived concerns of change in long‐term cancer care in patients currently under treatment. Methods: A French population‐based cross‐sectional study was performed using an online questionnaire in April 2020. All persons currently receiving cancer treatment and belonging to the Seintinelles Association (https://www.seintinelles.com) were included in this present analysis. Individual sociodemographic characteristics, medical status and information regarding cancer care were collected. Multivariate binomial logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: We included 298 women in the analysis. Younger participants (OR = 0.96 [0.94–0.99]), the need to visit healthcare facilities to receive treatment (OR = 2.93 [1.16–8.52]), deterioration in the quality of communication with the medical team since the beginning of the COVID‐19 crisis (OR = 3.24 [1.61–7.02]) and being cared for by a university hospital or a public hospital (OR = 2.19 [1.16–4.23] versus comprehensive cancer centre) were associated with a perceived fear of change in long‐term cancer care. Conclusion: To address patients' concerns regarding changes in their long‐term cancer care, medical teams should consider the patients' own perceptions of the situation and provide clear, appropriate, precise information on cancer care, especially in the centres mostly affected by the COVID‐19 crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Over recent decades, supportive care and patient quality of life, advocated by dedicated guidelines, have become a core focus of the concept of integrative medicine. The Calista 2 survey was conducted in France between September 2016 and October 2017 among oncologists and their patients being treated for early breast cancer, adjuvant colorectal cancer or advanced lung cancer. The present analysis sought to ascertain, understand and rank the expectations of cancer patients with regard to supportive care. Methods: Data were collected from 467 questionnaires from patients recruited by 82 oncologists. Inclusion criteria were patients already on treatment for breast cancer, colorectal cancer or lung cancer. Most supportive care facilities were available at the point of care. Results: Physicians were mainly seen to offer management of adverse events (81%), and pain (72%), psychological support (56%), and advice on diet/nutrition (49%). Patient uptake of supportive care related essentially to management of adverse events (72%) and pain (61%), diet/nutrition (34%), and self‐image improvement techniques (31%). The main unmet needs voiced by patients were information on complementary medicines (28%), management of fatigue (27%), and relaxation techniques (24%). Conclusion: Supportive care was essentially seen to satisfy patient requirements with regard to the management of adverse events and pain. However, patients highlighted the need for a wider access to fatigue management and information on complementary medicine and relaxation techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is a poor prognosis disease partly linked to diagnosis at an advanced stage. The quality of care management is a factor that needs to be explored, more specifically optimal organisation of first‐line treatment. Methods: A retrospective study, dealing with all patients diagnosed within the Rhone‐Alpes region with initial diagnosis EOC in 2012, was performed. The aim was to describe the impact of multidisciplinary tumour boards (MTB) in the organisation of care and the consequence on the patient's outcomes. Results: 271 EOC were analysed. 206 patients had an advanced EOC. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) is 17.8 months (CI95%, 14.6–21.2) for AOC. 157 patients (57.9%) had a front‐line surgery versus 114 patients (42.1%) interval debulking surgery. PFS for AOC patients with no residual disease is 24.3 months compared with 15.3 months for patients with residual disease (p =.01). No macroscopic residual disease is more frequent in the patients discussed before surgery in MTB compared with patients not submitted before surgery (73% vs. 56.2%, p <.001). Conclusion: These results highlight the heterogeneity of medical practices in terms of front‐line surgery versus interval surgery, in the administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and in the setting of MTB discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]