METHODS: Radiofrequency and microwave ablation of liver tumours were performed on 20 patients (40 lesions) with the assistance of a CT-guided robotic positioning system. The accuracy of probe placement, number of readjustments and total radiation dose to each patient were recorded. The performance level was evaluated on a five-point scale (5-1: excellent-poor). The radiation doses were compared against 30 patients with 48 lesions (control) treated without robotic assistance.
RESULTS: Thermal ablation was successfully completed in 20 patients with 40 lesions and confirmed on multiphasic contrast-enhanced CT. No procedure related complications were noted in this study. The average number of needle readjustment was 0.8 ± 0.8. The total CT dose (DLP) for the entire robotic assisted thermal ablation was 1382 ± 536 mGy.cm, while the CT fluoroscopic dose (DLP) per lesion was 352 ± 228 mGy.cm. There was no statistically significant (p > 0.05) dose reduction found between the robotic-assisted versus the conventional method.
CONCLUSION: This study revealed that robotic-assisted planning and needle placement appears to be safe, with high accuracy and a comparable radiation dose to patients.
KEY POINTS: • Clinical experience on liver thermal ablation using CT-guided robotic system is reported. • The technical success, radiation dose, safety and performance level were assessed. • Thermal ablations were successfully performed, with an average performance score of 4.4/5.0. • Robotic-assisted ablation can potentially increase capabilities of less skilled interventional radiologists. • Cost-effectiveness needs to be proven in further studies.
METHODS: We report our preliminary experience of performing radiofrequency ablation of the liver using a robotic-assisted CT guidance system on 11 patients (17 lesions).
RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted planning and needle placement appears to have high accuracy, is technically easier than the non-robotic-assisted procedure, and involves a significantly lower radiation dose to both patient and support staff.
KEY POINTS: • An early experience of robotic-assisted radiofrequency ablation is reported • Robotic-assisted RFA improves accuracy of hepatic lesion targeting • Robotic-assisted RFA makes the procedure technically easier with significant lower radiation dose.
METHODS: Patients with advanced solid cancers were randomized 1:1 to 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2, with or without sunitinib 12.5 mg daily for 7 days prior to docetaxel, stratified by primary tumour site. Primary endpoints were objective-response (ORR:CR + PR) and clinical-benefit rate (CBR:CR + PR + SD); secondary endpoints were toxicity and progression-free-survival (PFS).
RESULTS: We enrolled 68 patients from 2 study sites; 33 received docetaxel-sunitinib and 35 docetaxel alone, with 33 breast, 25 lung and 10 patients with other cancers. There was no difference in ORR (30.3% vs 28.6%, p = 0.432, odds-ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% CI 0.38-3.18); CBR was lower in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (48.5% vs 71.4%, p = 0.027 OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-1.01). Median PFS was shorter in the docetaxel-sunitinib arm (2.9 vs 4.9 months, hazard-ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% CI 1.15-3.48, p = 0.014) overall, as well as in breast (4.2 vs 5.6 months, p = 0.048) and other cancers (2.0 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.009), but not in lung cancers (2.9 vs 4.1 months, p = 0.597). Median OS was similar in both arms overall (9.9 vs 10.5 months, HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.51-1.67, p = 0.789), and in the breast (18.9 vs 25.8 months, p = 0.354), lung (7.0 vs 6.7 months, p = 0.970) and other cancers (4.5 vs 8.8 months, p = 0.449) subgroups. Grade 3/4 haematological toxicities were lower with docetaxel-sunitinib (18.2% vs 34.3%, p = 0.132), attributed to greater discretionary use of prophylactic G-CSF (90.9% vs 63.0%, p = 0.024). Grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities were similar (12.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.792).
CONCLUSIONS: The addition of sunitinib to docetaxel was well-tolerated but did not improve outcomes. The possible negative impact in metastatic breast cancer patients is contrary to results of adding sunitinib to neoadjuvant AC. These negative results suggest that the intermittent administration of sunitinib in the current dose and schedule with docetaxel in advanced solid tumours, particularly breast cancers, is not beneficial.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered ( NCT01803503 ) prospectively on clinicaltrials.gov on 4th March 2013.
METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of NSCLC patients with sensitising EGFR mutation experiencing disease progression (PD) whilst on first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs with subsequent investigations to detect acquired T790M mutation at the University of Malaya Medical Centre from 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2017.
RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were included. Upon PD, acquired T790M mutation was found in 55 (63.2%) patients and was significantly more common in patients who achieved partial response (PR) whilst on the EGFR-TKIs (p = 0.008) or had new lung metastasis upon PD (p = 0.048). It was less frequent in patients who developed new symptomatic brain lesions (p = 0.021). Patients with exon 19 deletion were more likely to acquire T790M mutation compared to those with exon 21 L858R point mutation (p = 0.077). Multivariate analysis revealed PR whilst on EGFR-TKI treatment was an independent predictor of acquiring T790M mutation (p = 0.021), whereas development of new symptomatic brain lesions (p = 0.034) or new lymph node metastases (p = 0.038) upon PD was independently against acquiring T790M mutation. Patients with exon 19 deletion were more likely to acquire T790M mutation compared to those with exon 21 L858R point mutation (odds ratio: 2.3, 95% confidence interval: 0.84-6.25, p = 0.104).
CONCLUSION: The best tumour response of PR to first- or second-generation EGFR-TKI treatment independently predicts acquired T790M mutation. Patients with exon 19 deletion are likely to acquire T790M mutation. This would prove useful for clinicians to prognosticate and plan subsequent treatments for patients with advanced NSCLC harbouring EGFR mutations.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: KEYNOTE-122 was an open-label, randomized study conducted at 29 sites, globally. Participants with platinum-pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic NPC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to pembrolizumab or chemotherapy with capecitabine, gemcitabine, or docetaxel. Randomization was stratified by liver metastasis (present versus absent). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population using the stratified log-rank test (superiority threshold, one-sided P = 0.0187). Safety was assessed in the as-treated population.
RESULTS: Between 5 May 2016 and 28 May 2018, 233 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (pembrolizumab, n = 117; chemotherapy, n = 116); Most participants (86.7%) received study treatment in the second-line or later setting. Median time from randomization to data cut-off (30 November 2020) was 45.1 months (interquartile range, 39.0-48.8 months). Median OS was 17.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.7-22.9 months] with pembrolizumab and 15.3 months (95% CI 10.9-18.1 months) with chemotherapy [hazard ratio, 0.90 (95% CI 0.67-1.19; P = 0.2262)]. Grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12 of 116 participants (10.3%) with pembrolizumab and 49 of 112 participants (43.8%) with chemotherapy. Three treatment-related deaths occurred: 1 participant (0.9%) with pembrolizumab (pneumonitis) and 2 (1.8%) with chemotherapy (pneumonia, intracranial hemorrhage).
CONCLUSION: Pembrolizumab did not significantly improve OS compared with chemotherapy in participants with platinum-pretreated recurrent and/or metastatic NPC but did have manageable safety and a lower incidence of treatment-related adverse events.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional study using self-administered questionnaires, a total of 24 nurses and 43 doctors were assessed for patient-centredness, psychological distress, and job satisfaction using the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Job Satisfaction Scale. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, independent samples t-test and MANCOVA, with p<0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: Overall response rate was 95.6% (43/45) for physicians and 85.7% (24/28) for nurses. Even after adjusting for known covariates, our principal finding was that doctors reported greater psychological distress compared to nurses (p=0.009). Doctors also reported lower job satisfaction compared to nurses (p = 0.017), despite higher levels of patient-centredness found in nurses (p=0.001). Findings may be explained in part by differences in job characteristics and demands.
CONCLUSIONS: Mental health is an important concern not just in cancer patients but among healthcare professionals in oncology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 19-item electronic survey was sent to two research committee members from the 14 representative national radiation oncology organizations (N = 28) that are a part of FARO.
RESULTS: Thirteen of the 14 member organizations (93%) and 20 of 28 members (71.5%) responded to the questionnaire. Only 50% of the members stated that an active research environment existed in their country. Retrospective audits (80%) and observational studies (75%) were the most common type of research conducted in these centers. Lack of time (80%), lack of funding (75%), and limited training in research methodology (40%) were cited as the most common hindrances in conducting research. To promote research initiatives in the collaborative setting, 95% of the members agreed to the creation of site-specific groups, with head and neck (45%) and gynecological cancers (25%) being the most preferred disease sites. Projects focused on advanced external beam radiotherapy implementation (40%), and cost-effectiveness studies (35%) were cited as some of the potential areas for future collaboration. On the basis of the survey results, after result discussion and the FARO officers meeting, an action plan for the research committee has been created.
CONCLUSION: The results from the survey and the initial policy structure may allow facilitation of radiation oncology research in the collaborative setting. Centralization of research activities, funding support, and research-directed training are underway to help foster a successful research environment in the FARO region.
METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines .
NOTICE: It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.
Methods: Data were derived from 20 focus group discussions that were conducted in five public and private Malaysian hospitals, which included 102 adults with breast, cervical, colorectal or prostate cancers. The discussions were segregated by type of healthcare setting and gender. Thematic analysis was performed.
Results: Five major themes related to cancer costs emerged: 1) cancer therapies and imaging services, 2) supportive care, 3) complementary therapies, 4) non-medical costs and 5) loss of household income. Narratives on out-of-pocket medical costs varied not only by type of healthcare setting, clinical factors and socioeconomic backgrounds, but also by private health insurance ownership. Non-health costs (e.g. transportation, food) and loss of income were nonetheless recurring themes. Coping mechanisms that were raised included changing of cancer treatment decisions, continuing work despite ill health and seeking financial assistance from third parties. Unmet needs in coping with financial distress were especially glaring among the women.
Conclusion: The long-term costs of cancer (medications, cancer surveillance, supportive care, complementary medicine) should not be overlooked even in settings where there is access to highly subsidised cancer care. In such settings, patients may also have unmet needs related to non-health costs of cancer and loss of income.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study where family caregivers and patients who were diagnosed of cancers within 12 months were recruited. QOL of caregivers were measured using The Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOLC). Psychological distress was measured using Hospital anxiety and depressive scale. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the related factors of QOL of caregivers.
RESULTS: A total of 458 patients/caregiver pairs were included. Symptoms of anxiety and depression reported by caregivers were 24.9% and 24.2% respectively. Caregivers of patients with solid tumors have better CQOLC score compared to those who cared for patients with hematological cancers (91.25 vs 86.75). Caregivers of non-Malay ethnicity, those caring for patients with advanced stage cancer and with hematological cancers had significantly poorer QOL. QOL of caregivers are also significantly affected when patients demonstrated anxiety symptoms.
CONCLUSION: This study provides detailed evaluation of the QOL of caregivers of cancer patients in Malaysia. The significant psychological distress and low caregiver QOL indicate the urgent need for comprehensive supports for caregivers with cancer patients, especially those caring for patients with haematological cancers.
METHODS: A double-blind randomized study was carried out with 140 colorectal cancer patients on chemotherapy. Subjects were separated into two groups to receive either placebo or MCP [30 billion colony-forming unit (CFUs) per sachet] at a dose of two sachets daily for 4 weeks, and omega-3 fatty acid at a dose of 2 g daily for 8 weeks. Outcomes measured were quality of life, side effects of chemotherapy and levels of inflammatory markers such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and C-reactive protein.
RESULTS: The supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid improved the overall quality of life and alleviated certain side effects of chemotherapy. The supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid also managed to reduce the level of IL-6 (P = 0.002). There was a significant rise in the placebo group's serum TNF-α (P = 0.048) and IL-6 (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSION: The combined supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid may improve quality of life, reduce certain inflammatory biomarkers and relieve certain side effects of chemotherapy in colorectal patients on chemotherapy.