Measurement of outcome

Long-term Outcome after Colorectal Cancer Resection. Patients’ Self-Reported Quality of Life, Sexual Dysfunction and Surgeons’ Awareness of Patients’ needs

Aims and background

Current follow-up care programs focus mainly on detection of tumor recurrence or metachronous cancer. Other aspects that affect the quality of life (QoL) of long-term survivors, such as sexual dysfunction, psychological distress or depressive symptoms, have been poorly investigated. We studied these issues, and also investigated the surgeons’ awareness of their patients’ needs in order to determine how to improve follow-up care programs.

Methods

QoL of 62 colorectal cancer patients was assessed during follow-up using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire QLQ-C30 and the symptom-specific module (QLQ-CR38). Postoperative sexual problems were evaluated with a 6-item questionnaire. Relevant needs to be examined during follow-up were investigated among patients and surgeons, by filling in the same checklist.

Results

During long-term follow-up (range, 14–74 months), rectal cancer patients reported lower QoL than colon cancer patients regarding defecation-related problems (P = 0.0001). Sixty-one percent of colon cancer patients reported no sexual dysfunction, whereas only 24% of individuals with rectal cancer reported no problems (P = 0.007). Patients reporting no sexual problems had significantly better QoL than the others, particularly with respect to physical functioning (P = 0.001), social functioning (P = 0.05), financial problems (P = 0.01) and body image (P = 0.0001). Addressing emotional problems during follow-up was important for 26% of the patients, while this was neglected by surgeons (P = 0.03).

Conclusions

QoL measurement in a clinical setting may help to detect QoL problems that could otherwise go unnoticed in the routine of follow-up care. Specifically, it was useful to detect defecation-related problems, sexual dysfunction and a mismatch in judging the importance of psychological distress between patients and their doctors. Neglecting these issues may cause long-term postoperative dissatisfaction.

Palliative chemotherapy and targeted therapies for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer

BACKGROUND

Almost half of people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer have metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy and targeted therapies are increasingly used with a palliative intent to control tumor growth, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. To date, and with the exception of ramucirumab, evidence for the efficacy of palliative treatments for esophageal and gastroesophageal cancer is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of cytostatic or targeted therapy for treating esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer with palliative intent.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Web of Science, PubMed Publisher, Google Scholar, and trial registries up to 13 May 2015, and we handsearched the reference lists of studies. We did not restrict the search to publications in English. Additional searches were run in September 2017 prior to publication, and they are listed in the 'Studies awaiting assessment' section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy versus best supportive care or control in people with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and risk of bias of eligible studies according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We calculated pooled estimates of effect using an inverse variance random-effects model for meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 41 RCTs with 11,853 participants for inclusion in the review as well as 49 ongoing studies. For the main comparison of adding a cytostatic and/or targeted agent to a control arm, we included 11 studies with 1347 participants. This analysis demonstrated an increase in overall survival in favor of the arm with an additional cytostatic or targeted therapeutic agent with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 0.84, high-quality evidence). The median increased survival time was one month. Five studies in 750 participants contributed data to the comparison of palliative therapy versus best supportive care. We found a benefit in overall survival in favor of the group receiving palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy compared to best supportive care (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92, high-quality evidence). Subcomparisons including only people receiving second-line therapies, chemotherapies, targeted therapies, adenocarcinomas, and squamous cell carcinomas all showed a similar benefit. The only individual agent that more than one study found to improve both overall survival and progression-free survival was ramucirumab. Palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy increased the frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related toxicity. However, treatment-related deaths did not occur more frequently. Quality of life often improved in the arm with an additional agent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

People who receive more chemotherapeutic or targeted therapeutic agents have an increased overall survival compared to people who receive less. These agents, administered as both first-line or second-line treatments, also led to better overall survival than best supportive care. With the exception of ramucirumab, it remains unclear which other individual agents cause the survival benefit. Although treatment-associated toxicities of grade 3 or more occurred more frequently in arms with an additional chemotherapy or targeted therapy agent, there is no evidence that palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy decrease quality of life. Based on this meta-analysis, palliative chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy can be considered standard care for esophageal and gastroesophageal junction carcinoma.

Bereavement outcomes: A quantitative survey identifying risk factors in informal carers bereaved through cancer

BACKGROUND

Enabling patients to die in their preferred place is important but achieving preferred place of death may increase the informal carer's risk into bereavement.

AIM

To determine risk factors of family carers bereaved through cancer in Northern Ireland.

DESIGN

These results form part of a larger QUALYCARE-NI study which used postal questionnaires to capture quantitative data on carer's bereavement scores using the Texas Revised Inventory of Grief.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Participants were individuals who registered the death of a person between 1 December 2011 and 31 May 2012; where cancer (defined by ICD10 codes C00-D48) was the primary cause; where the deceased was over 18 years of age and death occurred at home, hospice, nursing home or hospital in Northern Ireland. Participants were approached in confidence by the Demography and Methodology Branch of the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. Those wishing to decline participation were invited to return the reply slip. Non-responders received a second questionnaire 6 weeks after initial invitation. Results indicated that risk factors positively influencing bereavement outcomes included patients having no preference for place of death and carers remaining in employment pre- or post-bereavement. In contrast, patients dying in hospital, carers stopping work, being of lower socio-economic status and close kinship to the deceased negatively affected bereavement scores. Family carers should be adequately supported to continue in employment; priority should be given to assessing the financial needs of families from lower socio-economic areas; and bereavement support should focus on close relatives of the deceased.

Stenting as a palliative method in the management of advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction

Advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus and gastroesophageal junction usually requires palliative treatment, and the method of choice is stenting. There are several types of stents currently available, including: self-expandable metallic stents (fully or partially covered); self-expandable plastic stents; biodegradable stents. Each of the mentioned stents has its advantages and limitations, and requires a proper, patient-tailored selection. Due to the close anatomical relationship between the oesophagus and bronchial tree, some patients may require bilateral stenting. Oesophageal stenting may not only be considered as a palliative procedure, but can also be implemented to alleviate dysphagia during preoperative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy.

Does neoadjuvant treatment before oncologic esophagectomy affect the postoperative quality of life? A prospective, longitudinal outcome study

To evaluate the cancer patients' quality of life (QoL) following esophagectomy the focus was placed on the impact of neoadjuvant treatment before surgery. For patients undergoing oncologic surgery, the QoL is generally accepted as an important outcome parameter in addition to clinical parameters. This prospective nonrandomized study evaluated QoL in patients treated by preoperative chemo(radio)therapy followed by either surgery or surgery alone with special focus on the postoperative course. QoL was assessed in 131 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer. The EORTC-QLQ-C30 and a tumor-specific module were administered before surgery, at discharge, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Clinical data were collected prospectively and a follow up was performed every 6 months. The histological type of cancer was squamous cell carcinoma in 49.6% and adenocarcinoma in 50.4%. There was no significant difference between patients that were treated neoadjuvantly and those that were first operated on with regard to morbidity, mortality, and survival rates (5-year survival rate of 34%). Most QoL scores dropped significantly below the baseline in the early postoperative period and recovered slowly during the follow-up period to almost preoperative levels in many scores. There was no statistically significant difference in any of the QoL scales between neoadjuvantly treated or primary operated patients. Esophageal resections are associated with significant deterioration of QoL, which slowly recovers during the follow-up period to an almost preoperative level. Neoadjuvant treatment seems to not further negatively affect the QoL deterioration.

Impact of radical operative treatment on the quality of life in women with vulvar cancer--a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

For patients undergoing vulva surgery the quality of life (QoL) is generally accepted as an important outcome parameter in addition to long-term survival, mortality and complication rates. Less radical operative treatment can reduce morbidity and thereby improve quality of life. This study focuses on outcome in terms of QoL in patients comparing wide local excision (WLE) with radical vulvectomy and waiver of lymphonodectomy (LNE) with inguinofemoral lymphonodectomy.

METHODS

In a retrospective single-center study from 2000 to 2010, 199 patients underwent surgery for vulvar cancer. To assess QoL, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and a tumor-specific module questionnaire were sent to all patients in the follow-up period.

RESULTS

Women who underwent WLE have a superior QoL with regard to global health status and physical, role, emotional and cognitive functioning than those who underwent radical vulvectomy. Less radical surgery also implies less fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, insomnia, appetite loss, diarrhea and financial difficulties. After radical vulvectomy 89% of patients have sexual complications.

CONCLUSION

Radical operative treatment, such as radical vulvectomy, causes deterioration in the QoL of these patients. An individualized, less radical surgery must be the aim in the treatment of vulvar cancer.

Palliative brachytherapy with or without primary stent placement in patients with oesophageal cancer, a randomised phase III trial

PURPOSE

To investigate whether a combination of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) and brachytherapy provided more rapid and prolonged effect on dysphagia without increased pain compared to brachytherapy alone in patients with incurable oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

41 Patients were randomised to SEMS followed by brachytherapy, 8 Gy×3 (n=21) or brachytherapy alone, 8 Gy×3 (n=20). Change in dysphagia and pain three and seven weeks after randomisation (FU1 and FU2) was assessed by patient-reported outcome. Dysphagia, other symptoms and health-related quality of life were assessed every four weeks thereafter. The study was closed before the estimated patient-number was reached due to slow recruitment.

RESULTS

Patients receiving SEMS followed by brachytherapy had significantly improved dysphagia at FU1 compared to patients receiving brachytherapy alone (n=35). Difference in pain was not observed. At FU2, patients in both arms (n=21) had less dysphagia. Four patients in the combined treatment arm experienced manageable complications, no complications occurred after brachytherapy alone.

CONCLUSION

For the relief of dysphagia, SEMS followed by brachytherapy is preferable and safe for patients in need of immediate alleviation, while brachytherapy with or without preceding SEMS provides relief within a few weeks after treatment.

Patient-reported outcomes evaluating palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and assessments of treatment-related toxicity provide important information on the effect of palliative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. The aim of this study was to review the effect of palliative radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy on symptoms and quality of life assessed by PROs and measurement of toxicity for patients with oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

The Central, Medline and Embase databases (1990 to November 2011) were systematically searched for prospective studies of palliative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer with PRO- and/or toxicity outcomes. The risks of bias were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 2677 records identified, only 32 included PROs, of which eight were randomised controlled trials. In studies with sufficient standard of PRO (n = 18), either Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) (n = 14) or patient-reported dysphagia (n = 4), were assessed. Docetaxel added to cisplatin + fluorouracil (CF) improved HRQL compared to CF only, even though toxicity increased. Epirubicin added to CF resulted in longer preserved HRQL than its comparator in two trials, and non-inferiority in one. All phase II chemotherapy studies reported maintained HRQL or improved dysphagia combined with low level of toxicity. Brachytherapy resulted in better HRQL compared to stent placement in two trials, and external radiotherapy relieved dysphagia. The quality of the HRQL methodology and the interpretation and presentation of the PRO results varied, and clinical significance was seldom discussed.

CONCLUSION

PRO endpoints are seldom used and further studies of homogenous patient groups with valid measures and methodology of PROs should be encouraged in the evaluation of palliative treatment. Brachytherapy, external radiotherapy and combination chemotherapy improved HRQL and dysphagia in the few identified studies with sufficient PRO methodology.

WITHDRAWN: Chemotherapy for metastatic carcinoma of the esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction

BACKGROUND

More than 50% of patients with esophageal cancer have metastatic disease at presentation. The use of chemotherapy for this patient group is increasing with the intention of local and distant tumor control, improving quality of life and prolongation of survival.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of a) chemotherapy versus best supportive care or b) different chemotherapy regimes against each other, in metastatic esophageal carcinoma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified by searching MEDLINE 1950- November week 3 2008, Central (Cochrane Library 4th Quarter 2008), Embase 1980 - 2008 week 50. We did not confine our search to English language publications. Searches in all databases were updated in February 2005, February 2006 and December 2008.The Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomized trials in MEDLINE, Sensitivity maximising version; Ovid format was combined with the following search terms to identify RCTs in MEDLINE. The MEDLINE search strategy was adapted for use in the other databases searched. Members of the Cochrane UGPD Group, and experts in the field were contacted and asked to provide details of outstanding clinical trials and any relevant unpublished materials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing chemotherapy versus best supportive care, or different chemotherapy regimes against each other in patients with metastatic carcinoma of the esophagus or gastro-esophageal junction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (MYVH/EJK) extracted data and assessed trial quality. Study authors were contacted to obtain subgroup results of patients with metastatic esophageal carcinoma.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two RCTs with a total of 42 participants compared chemotherapy with best supportive care for metastatic esophageal cancer. No survival benefit was shown for chemotherapy treatment in these RCTs. Five RCTs with a total of 1242 participants compared different chemotherapy regimes. Due to variation in patient population and chemotherapy regimes, it was not possible to perform a formal pooled analysis. There was no consistent benefit of any specific chemotherapy regimen.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for well designed, adequately powered, phase III trials comparing chemotherapy versus best supportive care for patients with metastatic esophageal cancer. Chemotherapy agents with promising response rates and tolerable toxicity are cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), paclitaxel and antracyclins. Future trials comparing palliative treatment modalities should assess quality of life with validated quality of life measures.

Surgical gastrojejunostomy or endoscopic stent placement for the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (SUSTENT study): a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Both gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) and stent placement are commonly used palliative treatments of obstructive symptoms caused by malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO).

OBJECTIVE

Compare GJJ and stent placement.

DESIGN

Multicenter, randomized trial.

SETTING

Twenty-one centers in The Netherlands.

PATIENTS

Patients with GOO.

INTERVENTIONS

GJJ and stent placement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Outcomes were medical effects, quality of life, and costs. Analysis was by intent to treat.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were randomized to GJJ and 21 to stent placement. Food intake improved more rapidly after stent placement than after GJJ (GOO Scoring System score > or = 2: median 5 vs 8 days, respectively; P < .01) but long-term relief was better after GJJ, with more patients living more days with a GOO Scoring System score of 2 or more than after stent placement (72 vs 50 days, respectively; P = .05). More major complications (stent: 6 in 4 patients vs GJJ: 0; P = .02), recurrent obstructive symptoms (stent: 8 in 5 patients vs GJJ: 1 in 1 patient; P = .02), and reinterventions (stent: 10 in 7 patients vs GJJ: 2 in 2 patients; P < .01) were observed after stent placement compared with GJJ. When stent obstruction was not regarded as a major complication, no differences in complications were found (P = .4). There were also no differences in median survival (stent: 56 days vs GJJ: 78 days) and quality of life. Mean total costs of GJJ were higher compared with stent placement ($16,535 vs $11,720, respectively; P = .049 [comparing medians]). Because of the small study population, only initial hospital costs would have been statistically significant if the Bonferroni correction for multiple testing had been applied.

LIMITATIONS

Relatively small patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite slow initial symptom improvement, GJJ was associated with better long-term results and is therefore the treatment of choice in patients with a life expectancy of 2 months or longer. Because stent placement was associated with better short-term outcomes, this treatment is preferable for patients expected to live less than 2 months. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN 06702358.).

Impact of the site of anastomosis after oncologic esophagectomy on quality of life--a prospective, longitudinal outcome study

BACKGROUND

For patients undergoing oncologic surgery, the quality of life (QoL) is generally accepted as an important outcome parameter in addition to long-term survival, mortality, and complication rates. Our study focused on outcome in terms of QoL in patients with esophageal cancer, comparing the sites of anastomosis (cervical versus thoracic anastomosis).

METHODS

In a prospective longitudinal single-center study from 1998 to 2005, 105 patients underwent surgery for esophageal cancer. To assess QoL the EORTC-QLQ-C-30 and a tumor-specific module were administered before surgery, at discharge, and three, six, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Clinical data were collected prospectively and follow-up was performed every six months.

RESULTS

The histological type was squamous cell carcinoma in 51.4% of the cases, adenocarcinoma in 41.9%, and some other type in 6.7%. There was no significant difference between cervical and thoracic anastomosis with regard to morbidity, mortality, and survival rates (30% five-year survival rate), whereas tumor stage was a significant (p < 0.001) prognostic factor. Most QoL scores dropped significantly below baseline in the early postoperative period. Even though they recovered slowly during the follow-up period, they never reached preoperative levels again. There was no statistically significant difference in any of the QoL scales between patients with a cervical or a thoracic anastomosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal resections are associated with significant deterioration of QoL, which persists during the follow-up period. The surgical technique and position of the esophagogastrostomy did not affect QoL deterioration.

Chemotherapy for metastatic carcinoma of the esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction

BACKGROUND

More than 50% of patients with esophageal cancer have metastatic disease at presentation. The use of chemotherapy for this patient group is increasing with the intention of local and distant tumor control, improving quality of life and prolongation of survival.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of a) chemotherapy versus best supportive care or b) different chemotherapy regimes against each other, in metastatic esophageal carcinoma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches were conducted on the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials--CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2004) MEDLINE (1966 to February 2004), EMBASE (1980 to February 2004) and Cancerlit. Reference lists from trials selected by electronic searching were handsearched to identify further relevant trials. Published abstracts from conference proceedings from the United European Gastroenterology Week (published in Gut) and Digestive Disease Week (published in Gastroenterology) were handsearched. The search was updated in February 2005 and February 2006. Members of the Cochrane UGPD Group, and experts in the field were contacted and asked to provide details of outstanding clinical trials and any relevant unpublished materials

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing chemotherapy versus best supportive care, or different chemotherapy regimes against each other in patients with metastatic carcinoma of the esophagus or gastro-esophageal junction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors (MYVH/EJK) extracted data and assessed trial quality. Study authors were contacted to obtain subgroup results of patients with metastatic esophageal carcinoma.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two RCTs with a total of 42 participants compared chemotherapy with best supportive care for metastatic esophageal cancer. No survival benefit was shown for chemotherapy treatment in these RCTs. Five RCTs with a total of 1242 participants compared different chemotherapy regimes. Due to variation in patient population and chemotherapy regimes, it was not possible to perform a formal pooled analysis. There was no consistent benefit of any specific chemotherapy regimen.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for well designed, adequately powered, phase III trials comparing chemotherapy versus best supportive care for patients with metastatic esophageal cancer. Chemotherapy agents with promising response rates and tolerable toxicity are cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), paclitaxel and antracyclins. Future trials comparing palliative treatment modalities should assess quality of life with validated quality of life measures.

Palliative therapy

There are a wide variety of palliative treatments for esophageal cancer. The aim of most treatments is to maintain oral food intake, which should stabilize or even improve quality of life. Stent placement is currently the most widely used treatment modality for palliation of dysphagia from esophageal cancer. Stent placement offers a rapid relief of dysphagia, however, the rate of complications (late hemorrhage) and recurrent dysphagia (stent migration, tumor overgrowth) is relatively high. The scientific evidence to advocate the use of anti-reflux stents for the prevention of gastro-esophageal reflux is currently too low. Photodynamic therapy is mostly used in North America; however, due to the high costs of the treatment, the long-lasting side effects and the necessity of repeated treatments, it is not an ideal treatment for palliation of malignant dysphagia. Nd:YAG laser is a relatively effective and safe treatment modality, although laser treatment is also expensive, technically difficult and requiring repeated treatment sessions at 4-6 weeks intervals. Single dose brachytherapy compares favorably to stent placement in long-term effectiveness and safety. Effective treatment strategies are probably 12 Gy given in one fraction or 16 Gy given in two fractions. Palliative chemotherapy offers response rates in recent trials (including partial and complete responses) ranging from 35% to 50%. Whether palliative chemotherapy also results in a survival benefit is not established yet. For clinical trials on palliation of esophageal cancer, the measurement of quality of life is an important outcome measure. The cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 and the esophageal cancer-specific EORTC-OES-18 are validated measures for establishing quality of life status. For the future, a multimodality approach with stent placement or brachytherapy in combination with chemotherapy may be indicated.

EuroQol and survival prediction in terminal cancer patients: a multicenter prospective study in hospice-palliative care units

GOALS OF WORK

Although the EuroQol (EQ-5D) is widely used for economic evaluation, it remains unclear whether it can be combined with medical data to predict survival in patients with terminal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We carried out this prospective study on 142 terminal cancer patients in four hospice-palliative care units. Association was sought between survival time and a range of variables such as cancer site, performance, previous treatment, age, sex, pain, and EuroQol. The EQ-5D was transformed into the corresponding EQ-5D utility. For univariate analysis, we estimated differences in survival with the Gehan generalized Wilcoxon test. For those variables that were significant, we performed multivariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model.

MAIN RESULTS

Univariate analysis showed that sex, age, performance, previous use of chemotherapy, and the EQ-5D utility provided statistically significant prognostic survival information. The median survival time was 13.0 days for the group with an EQ-5D utility score lower than -0.5 and 21.0 days for the group with an EQ-5D utility score above -0.5. In multivariate analysis with the Cox proportional hazard model, an EQ-5D utility score < or = 0.5 (RR 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.06-2.33) was an independent negative predictor of survival.

CONCLUSIONS

The EQ-5D quality-of-life assessment tool might be useful for predicting survival time for terminal cancer patients.

Single-dose brachytherapy versus metal stent placement for the palliation of dysphagia from oesophageal cancer: multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Both single-dose brachytherapy and self-expanding metal stent placement are commonly used for palliation of oesophageal obstruction due to inoperable cancer, but their relative merits are unknown. We undertook a randomised trial to compare the outcomes of brachytherapy and stent placement in patients with oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

Nine hospitals in the Netherlands participated in our study. Between December, 1999, and June, 2002, 209 patients with dysphagia from inoperable carcinoma of the oesophagus or oesophagogastric junction were randomly assigned to stent placement (n=108) or single-dose (12 Gy) brachytherapy (n=101), and were followed up after treatment. Primary outcome was relief of dysphagia during follow-up, and secondary outcomes were complications, treatment for persistent or recurrent dysphagia, health-related quality of life, and costs. Analysis was by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Nine patients (six [brachytherapy] vs three [stent placement]) did not receive their allocated treatments. None was lost to follow-up. Dysphagia improved more rapidly after stent placement than after brachytherapy, but long-term relief of dysphagia was better after brachytherapy. Stent placement had more complications than brachytherapy (36 [33%] of 108 vs 21 [21%] of 101; p=0.02), which was mainly due to an increased incidence of late haemorrhage (14 [13%] of 108 vs five [5%] of 101; p=0.05). Groups did not differ for persistent or recurrent dysphagia (p=0.81), or for median survival (p=0.23). Quality-of-life scores were in favour of brachytherapy compared with stent placement. Total medical costs were also much the same for stent placement (8215) and brachytherapy (8135).

INTERPRETATION

Despite slow improvement, single-dose brachytherapy gave better long-term relief of dysphagia than metal stent placement. Since brachytherapy was also associated with fewer complications than stent placement, we recommend it as the primary treatment for palliation of dysphagia from oesophageal cancer.

Quality of life after palliative treatment for oesophageal carcinoma -- a prospective comparison between stent placement and single dose brachytherapy

Metal stent placement and single dose brachytherapy are commonly used treatment modalities for the palliation of inoperable oesophageal carcinoma. We investigated generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after these palliative treatments. Patients with dysphagia from inoperable oesophageal carcinoma were randomised to placement of a covered Ultraflex stent (n = 108) or single dose (12 Gy) brachytherapy (n = 101). We obtained longitudinal data on disease-specific (dysphagia score, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) OES-23, visual analogue pain scale) and generic (EORTC Quality of Life-Core 30 Questionnaire (QLQ-C30), Euroqol (EQ)-5D) HRQoL at monthly home visits by a specially-trained research nurse. We compared HRQoL between the two treatments and analysed changes in HRQoL during follow-up. Dysphagia improved more rapidly after stent placement than after brachytherapy, but long-term relief of dysphagia was better after brachytherapy. For generic HRQoL, there was an overall significant difference in favour of brachytherapy on four out of five functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (role, emotional, cognitive and social) (P < 0.05). Generic HRQoL deteriorated over time on all functional scales of the EORTC QLQ C-30 and EQ-5D, in particular physical and role functioning (on average -23 and -24 on a 100 points scale during 0.5 years of follow-up). This decline was more pronounced in the stent group. Major improvements were seen on the dysphagia and eating scales of the EORTC OES-23, in contrast to other scales of this disease-specific measure, which remained almost stable during follow-up. Reported levels of chest or abdominal pain remained stable during follow-up in both treatment groups, general pain levels increased to a minor extent. The effects of single dose brachytherapy on HRQoL compared favourably to those of stent placement for the palliation of oesophageal cancer. Future studies on palliative care for oesophageal cancer should at least include generic HRQoL scales, since these were more responsive in measuring patients' functioning and well-being during follow-up than disease-specific HRQoL scales.

Assessment of satisfaction with care after inpatient treatment for oesophageal and gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients' views are becoming increasingly important in the current health system. They provide information on effectiveness of healthcare and how it may be improved. This study aimed to measure patients' satisfaction with care received for treatment of oesophageal and gastric cancer, and to identify areas that contribute most to overall satisfaction scores.

METHODS

Consecutive inpatients with oesophageal and gastric cancer treated in one surgical unit were recruited prospectively during a 2-year period. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 'satisfaction with in-hospital care' questionnaire (QLQ-SAT32) was completed following discharge. Scores ranged from 0 to 100 for each satisfaction scale. Univariable and multivariable analysis was used to define the relationships between the different dimensions of satisfaction with care and the overall score.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients (mean age 67 years, 60 men) completed the questionnaire a mean of 40 days after treatment. The highest scores were for doctors (mean 72), nurses (mean 67) and overall satisfaction (mean 68). Univariable analysis showed that all dimensions of satisfaction with care contributed significantly to overall satisfaction (P < 0.001). Multivariable analyses, however, showed that most of the variation in overall satisfaction could be attributed to levels of satisfaction with doctors, nurses, and hospital comfort and cleanliness.

CONCLUSION

Satisfaction with care in these surgical patients was high and could be measured using a multidimensional instrument. Overall satisfaction was not influenced equally by all aspects of care. The strongest contributors to overall satisfaction in this study were doctors, nurses and hospital cleanliness.

Survival of the quality of life concept

Will depend on making clinical work more efficient