Search

Abstract Introduction The Utrecht Symptom Diary (USD) is a validated Dutch patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) tool - based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System - to assess and monitor symptoms in cancer patients. The USD contains 11 items concerning frequently occurring symptoms in cancer patients (pain, sleeping problems, dry mouth, dysphagia, lack of appetite, abnormal stool, nausea, shortness of breath, fatigue, anxiety and depressed mood) and an item on overall well-being. For the outpatient USD 11 items concerning frequently occurring signs and symptoms in patients receiving chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy were added to the USD: taste alteration, oral pain, weight loss, diarrhoea, hair changes, skin problems, nail problems, eye problems, tingling, concentration problems and problems with sexuality. This current study aimed to evaluate the 11 added items on this treatment specific outpatient USD in cancer patients receiving intravenous chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy. Methods Observational longitudinal retrospective cohort study including all adult outpatients with cancer receiving intravenous chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy in an academic hospital in the Netherlands who completed at least one outpatient USD as part of routine care (2012–2021). Relevance, comprehensiveness as well as criterion and construct validity were assessed. Results 1733 patients who completed ≥ 1 outpatient USD during intravenous chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy were included for analysis. Relevance as well as comprehensiveness of the items on the outpatient USD in this patient population was shown. Criterion validation was demonstrated for all added items of the outpatient USD – except for the item on oral pain. An additional analysis showed that mouth problems were detected with both outpatient USD items oral pain and dry mouth. Construct validity was demonstrated for the items hair changes and skin and nail problems. Construct validity on eye problems was not tested due to the low number of paired outpatient USDs. Conclusions The treatment specific outpatient USD is a validated PROM in outpatients with cancer receiving intravenous chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy. Considering its validity in this broad group of patients, we think the treatment-specific outpatient USD is widely applicable. In addition to providing tailored supportive symptom care, the USD-data can be used to increase knowledge about symptom burden in daily practice in this population.

Summary: The primary objective of the prospective, randomized, multicenter, phase 3 biomarker Microarray Analysis in breast cancer to Taylor Adjuvant Drugs Or Regimens trial (MATADOR: ISRCTN61893718) is to generate a gene expression profile that can predict benefit from either docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) or dose-dense scheduled doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (ddAC). Patients with a pT1-3, pN0-3 tumor were randomized 1:1 between ddAC and TAC. The primary endpoint was a gene profile-treatment interaction for recurrence-free survival (RFS). We observed 117 RFS events in 664 patients with a median follow-up of 7 years. Hallmark gene set analyses showed significant association between enrichment in immune-related gene expression and favorable outcome after TAC in hormone receptor-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer (BC) (triple-negative breast cancer [TNBC]). We validated this association in TNBC patients treated with TAC on H&E slides; stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) ≥20% was associated with longer RFS (hazard ratio 0.18, p = 0.01), while in patients treated with ddAC no difference in RFS was seen (hazard ratio 0.92, p = 0.86, pinteraction = 0.02).

Abstract Background Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a common symptom in cancer patients treated with opioids with a prevalence of up to 59%. International guidelines recommend standard laxatives such as macrogol/electrolytes and magnesium hydroxide to prevent OIC, although evidence from randomized controlled trials is largely lacking. The aim of our study is to compare magnesium hydroxide with macrogol /electrolytes in the prevention of OIC in patients with incurable cancer and to compare side-effects, tolerability and cost-effectiveness. Methods Our study is an open-label, randomized, multicenter study to examine if magnesium hydroxide is non-inferior to macrogol/electrolytes in the prevention of OIC. In total, 330 patients with incurable cancer, starting with opioids for pain management, will be randomized to treatment with either macrogol/electrolytes or magnesium hydroxide. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with a score of

Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of eHealth in palliative care is scarce. Oncokompas, a fully automated behavioral intervention technology, aims to support self-management in cancer patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of the eHealth application Oncokompas among incurably ill cancer patients, compared to care as usual. In this randomized controlled trial, patients were randomized into the intervention group (access to Oncokompas) or the waiting-list control group (access after three months). Healthcare costs, productivity losses, and health status were measured at baseline and three months. Intervention costs were also taken into account. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 5000 replications was used to obtain 95% confidence intervals around the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A probabilistic approach was used because of the skewness of cost data. Altogether, 138 patients completed the baseline questionnaire and were randomly assigned to the intervention group (69) or the control group (69). In the base case analysis, mean total costs and mean total effects were non-significantly lower in the intervention group (−€806 and −0.01 QALYs). The probability that the intervention was more effective and less costly was 4%, whereas the probability of being less effective and less costly was 74%. Among patients with incurable cancer, Oncokompas does not impact incremental costs and seems slightly less effective in terms of QALYs, compared to care as usual. Future research on the costs of eHealth in palliative cancer care is warranted to assess the generalizability of the findings of this study.

Background: This study aimed to provide insights into the real-world use of palbociclib, dose reductions, and drug effectiveness in (older) patients with advanced breast cancer (BC). Patients and methods: Patients with advanced BC treated with palbociclib from 2017 to 2020 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate time to next treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) for patients with or without dose reductions. These clinical outcomes were also compared in subgroup analyses for older patients (≥70 years) and younger patients (

Summary: Background: Many patients with incurable cancer have symptoms affecting their health-related quality of life. The eHealth application ‘Oncokompas’ supports patients to take an active role in managing their palliative care needs, to reduce symptoms and improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL). This randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine the efficacy of Oncokompas compared to care as usual among incurably ill cancer patients with a life expectancy of more than three months. Methods: Patients were recruited in six hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to the intervention (direct access to Oncokompas) or the control group (access to Oncokompas after three months). The primary outcome measure was patient activation (i.e., patients’ knowledge, skills and confidence for self-management). Secondary outcomes were general self-efficacy and HRQOL. Measures were assessed at baseline, two weeks after randomization, and three months after the baseline measurement. Linear mixed models were used to compare longitudinal changes between both groups from baseline to the three-month follow-up. Findings: In total, 219 patients were eligible of which 138 patients completed the baseline questionnaire (response rate 63%), and were randomized to the intervention (69) or control group (69). There were no significant differences between the intervention and control group over time in patient activation (estimated difference in change T0-T2; 1·8 (90% CI: -1·0 to 4·7)), neither in general self-efficacy and HRQOL. Of the patients in the intervention group who activated their account, 74% used Oncokompas as intended. The course of patient activation, general self-efficacy, and HRQOL was not significantly different between patients who used Oncokompas as intended versus those who did not. Interpretation: Among incurably ill cancer patients with a life expectancy of more than three months and recruited in the hospital setting, Oncokompas did not significantly improve patient activation, self-efficacy, or HRQOL. Funding: ZonMw, Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (844001105).

Abstract Background Gene drive technologies (GDTs) promote the rapid spread of a particular genetic element within a population of non-human organisms. Potential applications of GDTs include the control of insect vectors, invasive species and agricultural pests. Whether, and if so, under what conditions, GDTs should be deployed is hotly debated. Although broad stances in this debate have been described, the convictions that inform the moral views of the experts shaping these technologies and related policies have not been examined in depth in the academic literature. Methods In this qualitative study, we interviewed GDT experts (n = 33) from different disciplines to identify and better understand their moral views regarding these technologies. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically. Results The respondents’ moral views were principally influenced by their attitudes towards (1) the uncertainty related to GDTs; (2) the alternatives to which they should be compared; and (3) the role humans should have in nature. Respondents agreed there is epistemic uncertainty related to GDTs, identified similar knowledge gaps, and stressed the importance of realistic expectations in discussions on GDTs. They disagreed about whether uncertainty provides a rationale to refrain from field trials (‘risks of intervention’ stance) or to proceed with phased testing to obtain more knowledge given the harms of the status quo (‘risks of non-intervention’ stance). With regards to alternatives to tackle vector-borne diseases, invasive species and agricultural pests, respondents disagreed about which alternatives should be considered (un)feasible and (in)sufficiently explored: conventional strategies (‘downstream solutions’ stance) or systematic changes to health care, political and agricultural systems (‘upstream solutions’ stance). Finally, respondents held different views on nature and whether the use of GDTs is compatible with humans’ role in nature (‘interference’ stance) or not (‘non-interference stance’). Conclusions This interview study helps to disentangle the debate on GDTs by providing a better understanding of the moral views of GDT experts. The obtained insights provide valuable stepping-stones for a constructive debate about underlying value conflicts and call attention to topics that deserve further (normative) reflection. Further evaluation of these issues can facilitate the debate on and responsible development of GDTs.

Depression, anxiety and other psychosocial factors are hypothesized to be involved in cancer development. We examined whether psychosocial factors interact with or modify the effects of health behaviors, such as smoking and alcohol use, in relation to cancer incidence. Two‐stage individual participant data meta‐analyses were performed based on 22 cohorts of the PSYchosocial factors and CAncer (PSY‐CA) study. We examined nine psychosocial factors (depression diagnosis, depression symptoms, anxiety diagnosis, anxiety symptoms, perceived social support, loss events, general distress, neuroticism, relationship status), seven health behaviors/behavior‐related factors (smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, body mass index, sedentary behavior, sleep quality, sleep duration) and seven cancer outcomes (overall cancer, smoking‐related, alcohol‐related, breast, lung, prostate, colorectal). Effects of the psychosocial factor, health behavior and their product term on cancer incidence were estimated using Cox regression. We pooled cohort‐specific estimates using multivariate random‐effects meta‐analyses. Additive and multiplicative interaction/effect modification was examined. This study involved 437,827 participants, 36,961 incident cancer diagnoses, and 4,749,481 person years of follow‐up. Out of 744 combinations of psychosocial factors, health behaviors, and cancer outcomes, we found no evidence of interaction. Effect modification was found for some combinations, but there were no clear patterns for any particular factors or outcomes involved. In this first large study to systematically examine potential interaction and effect modification, we found no evidence for psychosocial factors to interact with or modify health behaviors in relation to cancer incidence. The behavioral risk profile for cancer incidence is similar in people with and without psychosocial stress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]