OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of scalp cooling among breast cancer patients in our study population.
METHODS: Consecutive breast cancer patients receiving FE75C, FE100C, FE100C-D, docetaxel75 or docetaxel, and cyclophosphamide (TC) at our treatment center were recruited and allocated to the treatment (scalp cooling, DigniCapTM system) or control group in this prospective nonrandomized controlled study. The assessment of alopecia was carried out using the World Health Organization grading system and clinical photographs.
RESULTS: Seventy patients were recruited, but only 25 completed the study and were evaluable for analysis. Five of 12 patients (42%) in the scalp cooling group managed to preserve hair. Two of three patients who received FE75C and TC regimens had minimal hair loss. All patients treated with FE100C had severe hair loss. Half of all patients who received scalp cooling throughout chemotherapy rated the treatment as reasonably well tolerated. The most common reason for discontinuing scalp cooling was intolerance to its side effects.
CONCLUSION: Scalp cooling is potentially effective in reducing CIA caused by docetaxel, TC, and FE75C chemotherapy regimen. However, it was not well tolerated by our study population. The dropout rate was high, and this needs to be taken into consideration when pursuing further trials in a similar setting.
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.
METHODS: Twenty focus group discussions were conducted with 102 Asian patients with cancer from diverse sociodemographic backgrounds. Thematic analysis was performed.
RESULTS: While most participants, especially younger patients with young children, experienced intense emotional distress upon receiving a cancer diagnosis, those with a family history of cancer were relatively calm and resigned. Nonetheless, the prior negative experience with cancer in the family made affected participants with a family history less eager to seek cancer treatment and less hopeful for a cure. Although a majority viewed the presence of family members during the breaking of bad news as important, a minority opted to face it alone to lessen the emotional impact on their family members. Difficulties disclosing the news of a cancer diagnosis to loved ones also emerged as an important need. Sensitive and empathetic patient-physician communication during the breaking of news of a cancer diagnosis was stressed as paramount.
CONCLUSION: A patient-centered communication approach needs to be developed to reduce the emotional distress to patients and their families after the breaking of bad news of a cancer diagnosis. This is expected to positively affect the patients' subsequent coping skills and attitudes toward cancer, which may improve adherence to cancer therapy.
METHOD: Twenty focus group discussions were conducted with 102 cancer patients from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. Thematic analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Patient narratives suggested that emotional distress arose from direct and indirect stressors. Direct stressors comprised physical and cognitive side effects of cancer surgery and therapies, and fear of recurrence. Indirect stressors included worry over dependent family members, financial distress following cancer, working with cancer and lack of practical support at home. Distress from altered physical appearances, fear of recurrence and lack of practical support were mainly raised by women, implying that men and women may have disproportionate emotional needs. Emotional support largely came from informal sources including self, family, friends and religion. While formal emotional support from professional counsellors and cancer support groups was acknowledged as important, it appeared to be largely lacking. Unmet needs in coping with fear of recurrence, financial distress, workplace discrimination and household chores were particularly highlighted.
CONCLUSION: The unmet needs revealed in this study provide insights to initiate actionable changes to improve the emotional wellbeing of people living with cancer in settings where cancer survivorship services are still in its infancy.
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: Focus group discussions were conducted with cancer patients who were diagnosed at least 1 year prior to recruitment, and either had paid work, were self-employed, currently unemployed, or currently retired (N = 66).
RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) loss of income: While some participants were entitled for a 1-year cancer-specific sick leave, many other participants recounted having insufficient paid sick leave, forcing them to take prolonged unpaid leave to complete treatment; (2) dealing with side effects of cancer and its treatment: The need for workplace accommodations was highlighted including flexible working hours, lighter workloads, and dedicated rest areas to enable patients to cope better; (3) Discrimination and stigma at workplace: Some participants mentioned being passed over on a promotion, getting demoted, or being forced to resign once their cancer diagnosis was disclosed, highlighting an urgent need to destigmatize cancer in the workplace.
CONCLUSION: In settings with limited employment protection policies, a cancer diagnosis severely impacts the working experiences of patients, leading to financial loss. Urgent interventions and legislative reforms are needed in these settings to address the unmet employment needs of cancer survivors.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This study may facilitate planning of local solutions to fulfill the unmet employment needs following cancer, such as return-to-work navigation services.
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.
METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more.
CONCLUSION: In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).
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: In a double-blind, phase III trial, 453 patients with advanced HCC and progression during or after treatment with or intolerance to sorafenib or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) or placebo once every 3 weeks for ≤ 35 cycles plus best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (one-sided significance threshold, P = .0193 [final analysis]). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR; one-sided significance threshold, P = .0134 and .0091, respectively [second interim analysis]; RECIST version 1.1, by blinded independent central review).
RESULTS: Median overall survival was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (14.6 v 13.0 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99; P = .0180). Median PFS was also longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group (2.6 v 2.3 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92; P = .0032). ORR was greater in the pembrolizumab group (12.7% [95% CI, 9.1 to 17.0]) than in the placebo group (1.3% [95% CI, 0.2 to 4.6]; P < .0001). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 66.9% of patients (grade 3, 12.0%; grade 4, 1.3%; grade 5, 1.0%) in the pembrolizumab group and 49.7% of patients (grade 3, 5.9%; grade 4, 0%; grade 5, 0%) in the placebo group.
CONCLUSION: In patients from Asia with previously treated advanced HCC, pembrolizumab significantly prolonged overall survival and PFS, and ORR was greater versus placebo.
METHODS: This retrospective study of patients with NSCLC from 18 major hospitals (public, private or university teaching hospitals) enrolled in Malaysia's National Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgical Database (NCTSD) assessed the efficacy of lower doses of afatinib on treatment outcomes in a real-world clinical practice. Data on clinical characteristics, afatinib dosing, and treatment outcomes for patients included in NCTSD from 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2020 were analyzed.
RESULTS: Of the 133 patients studied, 94.7% had adenocarcinoma. Majority of the patients (60.9%) had EGFR exon 19 deletion and 23.3% had EGFR exon 21 L858R point mutation. The mean age of patients was 64.1 years and majority (83.5%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 at diagnosis. The most common afatinib starting doses were 40 mg (37.6%), 30 mg (29.3%), and 20 mg (26.3%) once daily (OD), respectively. A quarter of patients had dose reduction (23.3%) due to side effects or cost constraints. Majority of the patients had partial response to afatinib (63.2%) whilst 2.3% had complete response. Interestingly, the objective response rate was significantly higher (72.3%) with afatinib OD doses of less than 40 mg compared to 40 mg (54.0%) (P=0.032). Patients on lower doses of afatinib were two times more likely to achieve an objective response [odds ratio =2.64; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-5.83; P=0.016]. These patients had a numerically but not statistically longer median time to treatment failure (TTF). Median TTF (95% CI) for the overall cohort was 12.4 (10.02-14.78) months. Median overall survival (95% CI) was 21.30 (15.86-26.75) months.
CONCLUSIONS: Lower afatinib doses (<40 mg OD) could be equally effective as standard dose in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC and may be more suited to Asian patients, minimizing side effects that may occur at higher dosages of afatinib leading to dose interruptions and affecting treatment outcomes.