| 1. |
- Derksen, Jeroen W. G., et al.
(författare)
-
European practice patterns and barriers to smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis in the setting of curative versus palliative cancer treatment
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 138, s. 99-108
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis is associated with improved overall survival. Few studies have reported oncologists' cessation practice patterns, but differences between the curative and palliative settings have not been described. We aimed to study the oncologist's perceptions on patients' tobacco use, current practices and barriers to providing smoking cessation support, while distinguishing between treatment with curative (C) and palliative (P) intent.Methods: In 2019, an online 34-item survey was sent to approximately 6235 oncologists from 16 European countries. Responses were descriptively reported and compared by treatment setting.Results: Responses from 544 oncologists were included. Oncologists appeared to favour addressing tobacco in the curative setting more than in the palliative setting. Oncologists believe that continued smoking impacts treatment outcomes (C: 94%, P: 74%) and that cessation support should be standard cancer care (C: 95%, P: 63%). Most routinely assess tobacco use (C: 93%, P: 78%) and advise patients to stop using tobacco (C: 88%, P: 54%), but only 24% (P)–39% (C) routinely discuss medication options, and only 18% (P)–31% (C) provide cessation support. Hesitation to remove a pleasurable habit (C: 13%, P: 43%) and disbelieve on smoking affecting outcomes (C: 3%, P: 14%) were disparate barriers between the curative and palliative settings (p < 0.001), but dominant barriers of time, resources, education and patient resistance were similar between settings.Conclusion: Oncologists appear to favour addressing tobacco use more in the curative setting; however, they discuss medication options and/or provide cessation support in a minority of cases. All patients who report current smoking should have access to evidence-based smoking cessation support, also patients treated with palliative intent given their increasing survival.
|
|
| 2. |
- Goey, Kaitlyn K. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus statement on essential patient characteristics in systemic treatment trials for metastatic colorectal cancer : Supported by the ARCAD Group
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : ELSEVIER SCI LTD. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 100, s. 35-45
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Patient characteristics and stratification factors are key features influencing trial outcomes. However, there is substantial heterogeneity in reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to develop a minimum set of essential baseline characteristics and stratification factors to include in such trials. Methods: We performed a modified, two-round Delphi survey among international experts with wide experience in the conduct and methodology of phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. Results: Thirty mCRC experts from 15 different countries completed both consensus rounds. A total of 14 patient characteristics were included in the recommended set: age, performance status, primary tumour location, primary tumour resection, prior chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, liver-only disease, liver involvement, surgical resection of metastases, synchronous versus metachronous metastases, (K)RAS and BRAF mutation status, microsatellite instability/mismatch repair status and number of prior treatment lines. A total of five patient characteristics were considered the most relevant stratification factors: RAS/BRAF mutation status, performance status, primary tumour sidedness and liver-only disease. Conclusions: This survey provides a minimum set of essential baseline patient characteristics and stratification factors to include in phase 3 trials of systemic treatment of mCRC. Inclusion of these patient characteristics and strata in study protocols and final study reports will improve interpretation of trial results and facilitate cross-study comparisons.
|
|
| 3. |
- Goey, Kaitlyn K. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Reporting of patient characteristics and stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer : A systematic review
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 96, s. 115-124
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Patient characteristics and stratification factors are important factors influencing trial outcomes. Uniform reporting on these parameters would facilitate cross-study comparisons and extrapolation of trial results to clinical practice. In 2007, standardisation on patient characteristics reporting and stratification in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) trials was proposed. We investigated the reporting of prognostic factors and implementation of this proposal in mCRC trials published from 2005 to 2016.Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase (January 2005 – June 2016) for first-line phase 3 mCRC trials. Patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification factors were extracted and analysed for adherence to the proposal from 2007.Results: Sixty-seven trials (35,315 patients) were identified, reporting 48 different patient characteristics (median: 9 [range: 5–18] per study). Age, gender, performance status (PS), primary tumour site and adjuvant chemotherapy were frequently reported (87%–100%), in contrast to laboratory values, such as alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase and white blood cell count (10%–25%). We identified 29 different stratification factors (median: 3 [range: 1–9] per study). The most common strata were PS and treatment centre (>60%). A median of 8/12 (range: 4–11) of the proposed parameters was reported. Although the percentage of studies reporting each factor slightly increased over time, there was no significant correlation between publication year and adherence to the proposal from 2007.Conclusions: We observed persistent heterogeneity in the reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in first-line mCRC trials. The proposal from 2007 has not led to increased uniformity of patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification over time. There is an urgent need to address this issue to improve the interpretation of trial results.
|
|
| 4. |
- Netterberg, Ida, 1988-, et al.
(författare)
-
Circulating tumor cell counts is a better predictor of overall survival than dynamic tumor size changes – a quantitative modeling framework
-
Ingår i: Clinical Cancer Research. - 1078-0432 .- 1557-3265.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Purpose: Quantitative relationships between treatment-induced changes in tumor size and circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts, and their links to overall survival (OS), are lacking. We here present a population modeling framework identifying and quantifying such relationships, based on longitudinal data collected in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to evaluate the value of tumor size and CTC counts as predictors of OS.Experimental design: A pharmacometric approach (i.e., population pharmacodynamic modeling) was used to characterize the changes in tumor size and CTC count and evaluate them as predictors of OS in 451 patients with mCRC treated with chemotherapy and targeted therapy in a prospectively randomized phase 3 study (CAIRO2).Results: A tumor size model of tumor quiescence and drug-resistance, was used to characterize the tumor size time-course, and was, in addition to the total normalized dose (i.e., of all administered drugs) in a given cycle, related to the CTC counts through a negative binomial model (CTC model). A CTC count≥3/7.5 mL (hazard ratio=3.51, 95% confidence interval: 2.85-4.32), as described by the CTC model, was a better predictor of OS than tumor size changes. The modeling framework was applied to explore if dose-modifications (increased and reduced) would result in a CTC count below 3/7.5 mL after 1-2 weeks of treatment.Conclusions: Time-varying CTC counts can be useful for early predicting OS in patients with mCRC, and may therefore have potential for model-based treatment individualization. Although tumor size had a strong connection to CTC, its link to OS was weaker.
|
|
| 5. |
- Netterberg, Ida, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparing Circulating Tumor Cell Counts with Dynamic Tumor Size Changes as Predictor of Overall Survival : A Quantitative Modeling Framework
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Clinical Cancer Research. - : AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH. - 1078-0432 .- 1557-3265. ; 26:18, s. 4892-4900
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: Quantitative relationships between treatment-induced changes in tumor size and circulating tumor cell (CTC) counts, and their links to overall survival (OS), are lacking. We present a population modeling framework identifying and quantifying such relationships, based on longitudinal data collected in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to evaluate the value of tumor size and CTC counts as predictors of OS. Experimental Design: A pharmacometric approach (i.e., population pharmacodynamic modeling) was used to characterize the changes in tumor size and CTC count and evaluate them as predictors of OS in 451 patients with mCRC treated with chemotherapy and targeted therapy in a prospectively randomized phase III study (CAIRO2). Results: A tumor size model of tumor quiescence and drug resistance was used to characterize the tumor size time-course, and was, in addition to the total normalized dose (i.e., of all administered drugs) in a given cycle, related to the CTC counts through a negative binomial model (CTC model). Tumor size changes did not contribute additional predictive value when themean CTC count was a predictor of OS. Treatment reduced the typical mean count from 1.43 to 0.477 (HR = 3.94). The modeling framework was applied to explore whether dose modifications (increased and reduced) would result in a CTC count below 1/7.5 mL after 1 to 2 weeks of treatment. Conclusions: Time-varying CTC counts can be useful for early predicting OS in patients with mCRC, and may therefore have potential for model-based treatment individualization. Although tumor size was connected to CTC, its link to OS was weaker.
|
|
