Search

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary care is pivotal in cancer centres and the interaction of all cancer disease specialists in decision making processes is state-of-the-art. AIM: To describe differences of MDTMs by tumour type. METHODS: Twelve multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) with participation of different cancer disease specialists at a tertiary hospital were assessed by an exploratory sequential mixed method approach with interviews, observations and a survey to address the following five topics: organisational structure and supporting technology; leadership; teamwork; decision-making, perceived value and motivation. Thirteen persons with different tumour specialities and levels of seniority were interviewed. The 12 MDTMs were observed twice by uninvolved persons and evaluated by the participating physicians with a survey. RESULTS: There were no systematic differences between MDTMs for different tumour types with the exception of the non-disease specific type MDTM, which was the only one for which the organisational structure was not driven by an electronic tool. However, several factors could be identified that generally influenced the functioning of the MDTMs. In particular, the quality of decision-making was highly dependent on the availability of case-based information and the presence of relevant cancer disease specialists. Leadership and teamwork were rated as important and were comparable across the MDTM. Team participants' motivation and perceived value of MDTMs was high across all meetings. CONCLUSION: MDTM at a single institution did not demonstrate disease specific characteristics. An effective MDTM, irrespective of the tumour type, can be successfully structured by technical means and a chairperson coordinating the interaction of cancer disease specialists to improve the decision-making process.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III SOLE trial, the extended use of intermittent versus continuous letrozole for 5 years did not improve disease-free survival in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Intermittent therapy with 3-month breaks may be beneficial for patients' quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In the SOLE QoL sub-study, 956 patients completed the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT) symptom and further QoL scales up to 24 months after randomisation. Differences in change of QoL from baseline between the two administration schedules were tested at 12 and 24 months using repeated measures mixed-models. The primary outcome was change in hot flushes at 12 months. RESULTS: There was no difference in hot flushes at 12 months between the two schedules, but patients receiving intermittent letrozole reported significantly more improvement at 24 months. They also indicated less worsening in vaginal problems, musculoskeletal pain, sleep disturbance, physical well-being and mood at 12 months. Overall, 25-30% of patients reported a clinically relevant worsening in key symptoms and global QoL. CONCLUSION: Less symptom worsening was observed during the first year of extended treatment with the intermittent administration. For women experiencing an increased symptom burden of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy, an intermittent administration is a safe alternative. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: Clinical trial information: NCT00651456.

Background:: A phase I-II multicenter trial was conducted to define the maximal tolerated dose and describe the activity of an OCFL combination using oxaliplatin (OHP), irinotecan (CPT-11) and 5-fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients and methods:: CRC patients not pretreated with palliative chemotherapy, with performance status ≤1 and adequate haematological, kidney and liver function, were eligible. Treatment consisted in weekly 24-h infusion 5-FU (2300 mg/m2)/LV (30 mg) and alternating OHP (70-85 mg/m2, days 1 and 15) and CPT-11 (80-140 mg/m2, days 8 and 22) repeated every 5 weeks. OHP and CPT-11 were escalated in cohorts of three to six patients. Results:: Thirty patients received a median of five cycles. Dose-limiting toxicity occurred at dose level 3, and the recommended dose was OHP 70 mg/m2, CPT-11 100 mg/m2, LV 30 mg and 5-FU 2300 mg/m2/24 h. Grade ≥3 toxicities were diarrhea 23%, neutropenia 20%, fatigue 7%, and neurologic 7%. Two febrile neutropenia episodes (one fatal) were recorded. Among 28 patients with measurable disease (90%), we observed two complete and 20 partial responses; overall RR was 78% (95% CI, 59% to 92%). Median time to progression and overall survival were 9.5 and 25.4 months, respectively. Seven patients underwent liver metastases resection. Conclusion:: OCFL is an overall well tolerated regimen with very high efficacy, which makes it most suitable for tumour control before surgery of metastatic disease

Background: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and bevacizumab are active agents in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We carried out a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of PLD and bevacizumab as first-line treatment in MBC patients. Methods: Bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) and PLD (20 mg/m2) were infused on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles. Thereafter, bevacizumab monotherapy was continued at the same dose until progression or toxicity. The primary objective was safety and tolerability, and the secondary objective was to evaluate efficacy of the combination. Results: Thirty-nine of 43 patients were assessable for the primary end point. Eighteen of 39 patients (46%, 95% confidence interval 30% to 63%) had a grade 3 toxicity. Sixteen (41%) had grade 3 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, one had grade 3 mucositis, and one severe cardiotoxicity. Secondary end point of overall response rate among 43 assessable patients was 21%. Conclusions: In this nonrandomized single-arm trial, the combination of bimonthly PLD and bevacizumab in locally recurrent and MBC patients demonstrated higher than anticipated toxicity while exhibiting only modest activity. Based on these results, we would not consider this combination for further investigation in this setting

Background: To determine the activity and tolerability of adding cetuximab to the oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) combination in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC). Patients and methods: In a multicenter two-arm phase II trial, patients were randomized to receive oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks alone or in combination with standard dose cetuximab. Treatment was limited to a maximum of six cycles. Results: Seventy-four patients with good performance status entered the trial. Objective partial response rates after external review and radiological confirmation were 14% and 41% in the XELOX and in the XELOX + Cetuximab arm, respectively. Stable disease has been observed in 62% and 35% of the patients, with 76% disease control in both arms. Cetuximab led to skin rash in 65% of the patients. The median overall survival was 16.5 months for arm A and 20.5 months for arm B. The median time to progression was 5.8 months for arm A and 7.2 months for arm B. Conclusion: Differences in response rates between the treatment arms indicate that cetuximab may improve outcome with XELOX. The correct place of the cetuximab, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combinations in first-line treatment of MCC has to be assessed in phase III trials

Background: Oesophageal carcinoma is a rare disease with often dismal prognosis. Despite multiple trials addressing specific issues, currently, many questions in management remain unanswered. This work aimed to specifically address areas in the management of oesophageal cancer where high level evidence is not available, performing trials is very demanding and for many questions high-level evidence will not be available in the forseeable future. Methods: Two experts of each national, oesophageal cancer research group from Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland were asked to provide statements to controversial issues. After an initial survey, further questions were formulated and answered by all experts. The answers were then discussed and qualitatively analysed for consensus and controversy. Results: Topics such as indications for PET-CT, reasons for induction chemotherapy, radiotherapy dose, the choice of definitive chemo-radiotherapy versus surgery in squamous cell cancer, the role of radiotherapy in adenocarcinoma and selected surgical issues were identified as topics of interest and discussed. Conclusion: Areas of significant controversy exist in the management of oesophageal cancer, mostly due to high-level evidence. This is not expected to change in the upcoming years.

Background: Oesophageal carcinoma is a rare disease with often dismal prognosis. Despite multiple trials addressing specific issues, currently, many questions in management remain unanswered. This work aimed to specifically address areas in the management of oesophageal cancer where high level evidence is not available, performing trials is very demanding and for many questions high-level evidence will not be available in the forseeable future. Methods: Two experts of each national, oesophageal cancer research group from Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland were asked to provide statements to controversial issues. After an initial survey, further questions were formulated and answered by all experts. The answers were then discussed and qualitatively analysed for consensus and controversy. Results: Topics such as indications for PET-CT, reasons for induction chemotherapy, radiotherapy dose, the choice of definitive chemo-radiotherapy versus surgery in squamous cell cancer, the role of radiotherapy in adenocarcinoma and selected surgical issues were identified as topics of interest and discussed. Conclusion: Areas of significant controversy exist in the management of oesophageal cancer, mostly due to high-level evidence. This is not expected to change in the upcoming years.