Search

Background: Malnutrition and sarcopenia are challenges for patients with metastatic breast cancer and have been proposed as independent prognostic factors. Very few studies have addressed the temporal evolution of these parameters and, notably, the separate and combined analysis of sarcopenia and malnutrition. This study aimed to i) determine the prevalence of malnutrition and sarcopenia, individually and combined, and their evolution over time, ii) identify risk factors for each condition, and iii) explore their impact on overall survival (OS)., Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on 111 patients treated for at least a third-line metastatic breast cancer at the Institut Curie between January 1st and March 31st, 2018. Solitary malnutrition was defined from weight loss and body mass index values while solitary sarcopenia was defined solely based on low muscle mass. We analyzed solitary malnutrition, solitary sarcopenia, and then malnutrition with or without sarcopenia, at three key stages (T1: diagnosis of metastasis, T2: initiation of third-line treatment, and T3: 3-month re-evaluation). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the risk factors. We performed Cox proportional hazards analyses for each variable., Results: At T1, the prevalence of solitary malnutrition, solitary sarcopenia and malnutrition with or without sarcopenia was 18.6%, 36.1% and 48.9% respectively, increasing to 27.7%, 45.5% and 56.6% at T2. At T2, in multivariate logistic regression analyses, patients aged over 60 years were at an elevated risk of experiencing solitary malnutrition as well as malnutrition with or without sarcopenia, but not solitary sarcopenia. In multivariate analyses, solitary malnutrition was significantly associated with poorer OS (HR 2.2 [95% CI 1.1-4.1], p = 0.02), while solitary sarcopenia and malnutrition with or without sarcopenia showed no association., Conclusion: Solitary malnutrition and sarcopenia were highly prevalent in patients with metastatic breast cancer, affecting around a quarter and half of patients respectively at third-line treatment initiation. Notably, solitary malnutrition emerged as a prognostic factor for overall survival, whereas no significant association was observed for solitary sarcopenia or malnutrition with or without sarcopenia. This highlights the critical need for early identification of patients at risk of malnutrition and the importance of timely intervention., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to describe the implementation of integrated palliative care (PC) and the intensity of care in the last 3 months before death for patients with metastatic breast cancer., Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicentric study of all adult patients with metastatic breast cancer who died over a 4-month period. Complete data were collected and checked from clinical records, including PC interventions and criteria regarding EOL care aggressiveness., Results: A total of 340 decedent patients from 12 comprehensive cancer centres in France were included in the study. Sixty-five percent met the PC team with a median time of 39 days between the first intervention and death. In the last month before death, 11.5% received chemotherapy, the frequency of admission to intensive care unit was 2.4%, and 83% experienced acute hospitalization. The place of death was home for 16.7%, hospitalization for 63.3%, PC unit for 20%. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed factors independently associated with a higher frequency of chemotherapy in the last month before death: having a dependent person at home, meeting for the first time with a PC team < 30 days before death, and time between the first metastasis and death below the median., Conclusion: PC team integration was frequent and late for patients with metastatic breast cancer. However, PC intervention > 30 days is associated with less chemotherapy in the last month before death. Further studies are needed to better understand how to implement a more effective mode of PC integration for patients with metastatic breast cancer., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: The often poor prognosis associated with cancer necessitates empowering patients to express their care preferences. Yet, the prevalence of Advance Directives (AD) among oncology patients remains low. This study investigated oncologists' perspectives on the interests and challenges associated with implementing AD., Methods: A French national online survey targeting hospital-based oncologists explored five areas: AD information, writing support, AD usage, personal perceptions of AD's importance, and respondent's profile. The primary outcome was to assess how frequently oncologists provide patients with information about AD in daily clinical practice. Additionally, we examined factors related to delivering information on AD., Results: Of the 410 oncologists (50%) who responded to the survey, 75% (n = 308) deemed AD relevant. While 36% (n = 149) regularly inform patients about AD, 25% (n = 102) remain skeptical about AD. Among the respondents who do not consistently discuss AD, the most common reason given is the belief that AD may induce anxiety (n = 211/353; 60%). Of all respondents, 90% (n = 367) believe patients require specific information to draft relevant AD. Physicians with experience in palliative care were more likely to discuss AD (43% vs 32.3%, p = 0.027). Previous experience in critical care was associated with higher levels of distrust towards AD (31.5% vs 18.8%, p = 0.003), and 68.5% (n = 281) of the respondents expressed that designating a "person of trust" would be more appropriate than utilizing AD., Conclusion: Despite the perceived relevance of AD, only a third of oncologists regularly apprise their patients about them. Significant uncertainty persists about the safety and relevance of AD., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In 2023, the improvement of our therapeutic management has largely taken shape. The aim of our article is to highlight the major advances that will change our practices. These are not only in the field of treatment, but also in the improvement of supportive care. Here, we present these new developments organ by organ, cancer by cancer. You can read everything or concentrate on the cancers that are your areas of expertise. But this exhaustiveness should be representative of our current state of progress., (Copyright © 2024 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)