Search

Importance: Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal., Objective: To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival., Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients)., Intervention: The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score)., Results: Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705.

Background: Pancreatic cancer is the fourth largest cause of cancer death in the United States and Europe with over 100,000 deaths per year in Europe alone. The overall 5-year survival ranges from 2-7 % and has hardly improved over the last two decades. Approximately 15 % of all patients have resectable disease at diagnosis, and of those, only a subgroup has a resectable tumour at surgical exploration. Data from cohort studies have suggested that outcome can be improved by preoperative radiochemotherapy, but data from well-designed randomized studies are lacking. Our PREOPANC phase III trial aims to test the hypothesis that median overall survival of patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer can be improved with preoperative radiochemotherapy.Methods/design: The PREOPANC trial is a randomized, controlled, multicentric superiority trial, initiated by the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. Patients with (borderline) resectable pancreatic cancer are randomized to A: direct explorative laparotomy or B: after negative diagnostic laparoscopy, preoperative radiochemotherapy, followed by explorative laparotomy. A hypofractionated radiation scheme of 15 fractions of 2.4 gray (Gy) is combined with a course of gemcitabine, 1,000 mg/m(2)/dose on days 1, 8 and 15, preceded and followed by a modified course of gemcitabine. The target volumes of radiation are delineated on a 4D CT scan, where at least 95 % of the prescribed dose of 36 Gy in 15 fractions should cover 98 % of the planning target volume. Standard adjuvant chemotherapy is administered in both treatment arms after resection (six cycles in arm A and four in arm B). In total, 244 patients will be randomized in 17 hospitals in the Netherlands. The primary endpoint is overall survival by intention to treat. Secondary endpoints are (R0) resection rate, disease-free survival, time to locoregional recurrence or distant metastases and perioperative complications. Secondary endpoints for the experimental arm are toxicity and radiologic and pathologic response.Discussion: The PREOPANC trial is designed to investigate whether preoperative radiochemotherapy improves overall survival by means of increased (R0) resection rates in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.Trial Registration: Trial open for accrual: 3 April 2013 The Netherlands National Trial Register - NTR3709 (8 November 2012) EU Clinical Trials Register - 2012-003181-40 (11 December 2012). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the 1990s, a number of new cytotoxic agents with clinically relevant activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and with a more favourable therapeutic index than drugs already in use, became available. Given the high prices of these new drugs and the large number of patients affected, it is important to compare the relative benefits and costs of these treatments with the existing regimens before treatment policy decisions are changed.Purpose: An economic evaluation of three different regimens of chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC was performed from the perspective of the Dutch health insurance system using tariffs valid for 2002. The economic evaluation was integrated into a phase III clinical trial in which the reference regimen cisplatin-paclitaxel was compared with two experimental regimens: cisplatin-gemcitabine and gemcitabine-paclitaxel.Materials and Methods: Unit costs were applied to resource use data collected prospectively on case report forms during the trial. The average total (uncensored) cost per patient was determined for each of the treatment groups. The principal outcome measure for the economic evaluation was the estimated mean survival time per treatment group. This outcome was then incorporated into incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on costs corrected for censoring. The impact of uncertainty was assessed by bootstrap techniques, and the analysis and interpretation of the data focused on the bivariate density of differences in outcomes and costs in the incremental cost-effectiveness plane. The final results were summarised by the derivation of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.Results: The estimated mean survival time was equivalent in the two cisplatin-based regimens with largely overlapping confidence intervals. There was a 99% probability that cisplatin-gemcitabine is the least costly regimen of the two and a 72% probability that this regimen reduces costs while at the same time improving survival. Compared with cisplatin-paclitaxel, the gemcitabine-paclitaxel regimen engendered a borderline significant reduction in mean survival time combined with an almost 90% probability of an increase in costs.Conclusion: The two cisplatin-based regimens are equivalent in terms of survival, but cisplatin-gemcitabine may reduce costs by approximately 2000 Euros patient compared with cisplatin-paclitaxel. Gemcitabine-paclitaxel is a dominated option with higher costs and a reduction in mean survival time compared with cisplatin-paclitaxel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]