Search

ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe pretreatment patient characteristics and baseline quality-of-life scores as they relate to the development of grade 3 or 4 toxicity in patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced/recurrent cervical cancer.MethodsThe study sample was drawn from Gynecologic Oncology Group protocols 179 and 204. Grade 3 or 4 toxicities were considered in 4 specified categories as follows: peripheral neuropathy, fatigue, hematological, and gastrointestinal (GI). The data variables explored included age, stage, pretreatment radiation, performance status (PS) at treatment initiation, and baseline Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix (FACT-Cx) score. A logistic regression model was developed with various adverse events as binary (0/1) outcomes.ResultsSix hundred seventy-three patient-reported questionnaires were used in the analyses. At baseline, pain was the most severe patient-reported symptom. Baseline line-item patient concerns did demonstrate specific correlations with the development of individual toxicities. In 401 patients who were enrolled on Gynecologic Oncology Group 204 (fatigue not measured on 179), a worse PS predicted the development of grade 3 or 4 fatigue (odds ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-4.68). Exposure to previous radiation, treatment regimen, and a worse FACT-Cx score were associated with the reporting of both grade 3 or 4 leukopenia (P < 0.05) and anemia (P < 0.0005). Performance status and treatment regimen (P < 0.05) were associated with the development of grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia. Age and treatment regimen (P < 0.05) were associated with the development of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. The FACT-Cx score (P = 0.0016) predicted grade 3 or 4 GI toxicity.ConclusionsThe development of fatigue, hematological, and GI toxicity might be predictable based on factors other than treatment assignment such as age, PS, and patient-reported quality-of-life measurement.

Drug discovery in the ovarian cancer arena continues to launch important new clinical trials. Many biologic agents are being studied in phase II and phase III clinical trials for recurrent disease. These agents include compounds that disrupt angiogenesis through a variety of mechanisms. Other oncogenic pathways are also specifically targeted such as PARP, MEK, and topoisomerase inhibitors which are currently being studied in phase III trials. Various cytotoxic agents, as well as therapeutic vaccines, are also under investigation, and continue to demonstrate promising new data. The relevant agents in the treatment of ovarian cancer which have demonstrated positive phase II activity will be discussed.

OBJECTIVE.: To identify patient characteristics which predict receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) versus standard therapy (ST) in metastatic ovarian cancer. METHODS.: A retrospective matched case control study was conducted of 52 women treated with NCT compared to 104 women who received standard treatment from 1996 to 2007. The t test was used for comparison of means between the groups, and the chi(2) test was used for categorical data. Multivariable analysis was performed with logistic regression models and only two-tailed analyses with a P value

Supportive care is a multidimensional field, that involves caring for a patient's symptoms either during and/or after treatment. Ideally, once these supportive care needs are met, patients can enjoy an improved quality of life. Supportive care needs include all body systems, and are, therefore, difficult to manage, secondary to the fact that they require collaboration among multiple medical specialties. In this review, several components of supportive care are separated into two categories: tumor-related morbidities and treatment-related morbidities. Some of the themes discussed include nausea and vomiting, cancer pain, psychological distress, fatigue and anemia, small bowel obstruction and peripheral neuropathy. While all of these components are challenging to manage, it is perhaps the psychosocial realm that remains the most unmet need. Regardless, the oncologist must act as a facilitator who addresses these needs and, if unable to address the issue alone, knows how to steer the patient toward the appropriate provider. As these needs are met, the goal is for quality of life to improve; and with the improvement in quality of life we may expect to see improved survival outcomes.

Aim: To assess maintenance preference and trade-offs for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Methods: Patients completed a time trade-off exercise ranking five maintenance approaches. Patients' preferred approach was compared with alternatives to determine the progression-free time they would trade off to remain on their preferred approach. Results: Of 152 patients (median age 53 years, 68% White), 56% chose one of four maintenance medications, mostly to feel proactive and 44% chose active surveillance. Compared with their preferred approach, patients were willing to trade a mean progression-free time before switching of 2.3 months for once-daily oral medications, 3.2 months for twice-daily oral medications, 5.5 months for intravenous infusions every 3 weeks (iv. q3), 6.1 months for active surveillance and 7.5 months for iv. q3 and twice-daily oral. Conclusion: Findings highlight the importance of patients' awareness of all maintenance approaches and involving them in the decision-making process. The VOCAL study looked at maintenance approach preferences of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Maintenance approach refers to the methods used after a patient has completed their initial chemotherapy to prevent disease progression for as long as possible. US patients completed an online survey, ranking five different maintenance approaches: No medication (active surveillance); Once-daily oral medication (e.g. pills); Twice-daily oral medication; Medication by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks; Medication by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks and oral twice-daily. Patients were asked to assume the same time to disease progression for all five approaches and the same side effects for the four approaches involving medications (2–5). Each patient then indicated how much time to disease progression they were willing to trade off to remain on their preferred approach before switching to an alternative. Overall, 152 patients completed the survey (median age: 53 years, 68% White). Most patients preferred a medication approach (56%, n = 85) to active surveillance (44%, n = 67). Of the 85 patients who preferred medication, 66% (n = 56) reported this was to feel proactive in preventing their cancer returning. Once-daily oral medication was the most acceptable alternative to the patients' preferred maintenance approach, given they were willing to trade the least 'disease-free' time (2.3 months) before accepting a switch. Individual patient preferences vary, and healthcare professionals should work with patients to determine which approach is most appropriate for them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]