Characteristics of Untreated Cancer Patients Admitted to an Acute Supportive/Palliative Care Unit

BACKGRUND

The characteristics of patients who had never received anticancer treatments at admission of an acute supportive palliative care unit (ASPCU) have never been explored.

MEASURES

From a consecutive sample of 422 advanced cancer patients, 62 patients with no previous anticancer therapy were selected and compared with a random sample of patients who had received anticancer treatments. Age, gender, primary tumor, Karnofsky status, characteristics of admission, the level of education, economic status, awareness of disease, the presence of cachexia, and comorbidities and palliative prognostic score, symptom intensity, opioid drugs used at admission, reasons for admission to APSCU were recorded in both groups. At time of discharge, ESAS and analgesic drugs used were recorded again. Discharge modalities were also recorded. One month after the end of recruitment period (the last patient enrollment), a follow-up was performed by phone contacts with relatives to assess survival at three months after discharge.

OUTCOMES

Patients without previous anticancer therapy (14.7%) were mainly admitted to ASPCU for a low Karnofsky level and high symptom burden, often waiting for or needing a histological diagnosis to make a decision for the next therapeutic steps. This group of patients were older (P<0.0005), more frequently males (P=0.007), and had more comorbidities (P<0.0005) in comparison with treated patients. Twenty-four per cent of these patients started chemotherapy subsequently. Treatment-naive patients had a higher level of symptom burden, which was less responsive to a comprehensive palliative and more frequently died within three months in comparison with treated patients.

DISCUSSION

Treatment-naive patients showed a higher level of symptom burden, which was less responsive to a comprehensive palliative treatment. In addition they more frequently died within three months in comparison with treated patients.

Metastatic uveal melanoma: The final frontier

Treatment of primary intraocular uveal melanoma has developed considerably, its driver genes are largely unraveled, and the ways to assess its risk for metastases are very precise, being based on an international staging system and genetic data. Unfortunately, the risk of distant metastases, which emerge in approximately one half of all patients, is unaltered. Metastases are the leading single cause of death after uveal melanoma is diagnosed, yet no consensus exists regarding surveillance, staging, and treatment of disseminated disease, and survival has not improved until recently. The final frontier in conquering uveal melanoma lies in solving these issues to cure metastatic disease. Most studies on metastatic uveal melanoma are small, uncontrolled, retrospective, and do not report staging. Meta-analyses confirm a median overall survival of 10-13 months, and a cure rate that approaches nil, although survival exceeding 5 years is possible, estimated 2% either with first-line treatment or with best supportive care. Hepatic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging as surveillance methods have a sensitivity of 95-100% and 83-100%, respectively, to detect metastases without radiation hazard according to prevailing evidence, but computed tomography is necessary for staging. No blood-based tests additional to liver function tests are generally accepted. Three validated staging systems predict, each in defined situations, overall survival after metastasis. Their essential components include measures of tumor burden, liver function, and performance status or metastasis free interval. Age and gender may additionally influence survival. Exceptional mutational events in metastases may make them susceptible to checkpoint inhibitors. In a large meta-analysis, surgical treatment was associated with 6 months longer median overall survival as compared to conventional chemotherapy and, recently, tebentafusp as first-line treatment at the first interim analysis of a randomized phase III trial likewise provided a 6 months longer median overall survival compared to investigator's choice, mostly pembrolizumab; these treatments currently apply to selected patients. Promoting dormancy of micrometastases, harmonizing surveillance protocols, promoting staging, identifying predictive factors, initiating controlled clinical trials, and standardizing reporting will be critical steppingstones in reaching the final frontier of curing metastatic uveal melanoma.

Efficacy of systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers at high risk of dying in the middle and short term: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

Esophageal and gastric cancers are a significant public health problem worldwide, with most patients presenting with advanced-stage disease and, consequently, poor prognosis. Systemic oncological treatments (SOT) have been widely used over more conservative approaches, such as supportive care. Nevertheless, its effectiveness in this scenario is not sufficiently clear. This paper provides an overview of systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of SOT compared with the best supportive care (BSC) or placebo in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers in an end-of-life context.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO for eligible systematic reviews (SRs) published from 2008 onwards. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), functional status, and toxicity. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. We evaluated the methodological quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR-2 tool and the overlap of primary studies (corrected covered area, CCA). Also, we performed a de novo meta-analysis with data reported for each primary study when it was possible. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

Results

We identified 16 SRs (19 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. Most reviews had a critically low methodological quality, and there was a very high overlap of primary studies. It is uncertain whether SOT improves OS and PFS over more conservative approaches due to the very low certainty of evidence.

Conclusions

The evidence is very uncertain about the effectiveness of SOT for advanced esophageal or gastric cancers. High-quality SRs and further randomized clinical trials that include a thorough assessment of patient-centered outcomes are needed.

Trial registration

Open Science Framework, 10.17605/OSF.IO/7CHX6.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08330-5.

Recommendations for supportive care and best supportive care in NCCN clinical practice guidelines for treatment of cancer: Differences between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines

PURPOSE

It is unclear how NCCN guidelines recommend "supportive care" and "best supportive care" in oncology practice. We examined the usage of "supportive care" and "best supportive care" in NCCN guidelines and compared between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines.

METHODS

We reviewed all updated NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer in October 2019. We documented the frequency of occurrence, definition, and timing of introduction of each term. We compared between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 37 solid tumor and 16 hematologic guidelines. Thirty-seven (70%) guidelines mentioned "supportive care" and 36 (68%) mentioned "best supportive care." Hematologic guidelines were significantly more likely than solid tumor guidelines to use the term "supportive care" (median occurrence 19 vs. 2; P = 0.001) and to describe "supportive care" as management of cancer-related complications (N = 11/15, 73% vs. N = 2/22, 9%; P < 0.001). Domains of specialist palliative care were infrequently mentioned (N = 10/37, 27%). In contrast, solid tumor guidelines were significantly more likely than hematologic guidelines to mention "best supportive care" (median occurrence 6 vs. 0; P = 0.016). This term was rarely defined and mostly used in the advanced disease setting.

CONCLUSION

"Supportive care" and "best supportive care" were frequently used in NCCN guidelines, with significant variations in usage between solid tumor and hematologic oncologists. "Supportive care" was mostly limited to management of cancer-related complications and treatment adverse effects in NCCN guidelines, highlighting the need to go beyond the traditional biomedical model to more a patient-centered care model with greater integration of palliative care.

A review of systemic anticancer therapy in disease palliation

BACKGROUND

Systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) is a collective term to describe the growing number of differing therapies used in malignancy to achieve palliation. Improving symptoms, quality of life (QOL) and where possible quantity of life are the goals of these treatments.

SOURCES OF DATA

A comprehensive literature review was undertaken using Medline, Embase and the Cochrane database.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

The use of palliative SACT can lead to increases in symptom control, QOL and survival. The breadth of treatable cancers has increased along with the number of therapeutic options.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The increasing use of SACT in the last weeks of life and the lack of consistency about the terms Supportive Care/Best Supportive Care in the trial setting.

GROWING POINTS

Integration between oncology and other palliative services leads to better outcomes.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Improved prognostication tools to elucidate which patients will benefit from SACT.

Oesophageal cancer

Oesophageal cancer is a clinically challenging disease that requires a multidisciplinary approach. Extensive treatment might be associated with a considerable decline in health-related quality of life and yet still a poor prognosis. In recent decades, prognosis has gradually improved in many countries. Endoscopic procedures have increasingly been used in the treatment of premalignant and early oesophageal tumours. Neoadjuvant therapy with chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy has supplemented surgery as standard treatment of locally advanced oesophageal cancer. Surgery has become more standardised and centralised. Several therapeutic alternatives are available for palliative treatment. This Seminar aims to provide insights into the current clinical management, ongoing controversies, and future needs in oesophageal cancer.

Early palliative care for adults with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Incurable cancer, which often constitutes an enormous challenge for patients, their families, and medical professionals, profoundly affects the patient's physical and psychosocial well-being. In standard cancer care, palliative measures generally are initiated when it is evident that disease-modifying treatments have been unsuccessful, no treatments can be offered, or death is anticipated. In contrast, early palliative care is initiated much earlier in the disease trajectory and closer to the diagnosis of incurable cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of early palliative care interventions versus treatment as usual/standard cancer care on health-related quality of life, depression, symptom intensity, and survival among adults with a diagnosis of advanced cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, OpenGrey (a database for grey literature), and three clinical trial registers to October 2016. We checked reference lists, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) on professional palliative care services that provided or co-ordinated comprehensive care for adults at early advanced stages of cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and collected information on adverse events. For quantitative synthesis, we combined respective results on our primary outcomes of health-related quality of life, survival (death hazard ratio), depression, and symptom intensity across studies in meta-analyses using an inverse variance random-effects model. We expressed pooled effects as standardised mean differences (SMDs, or Hedges' adjusted g). We assessed certainty of evidence at the outcome level using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven randomised and cluster-randomised controlled trials that together recruited 1614 participants. Four studies evaluated interventions delivered by specialised palliative care teams, and the remaining studies assessed models of co-ordinated care. Overall, risk of bias at the study level was mostly low, apart from possible selection bias in three studies and attrition bias in one study, along with insufficient information on blinding of participants and outcome assessment in six studies.Compared with usual/standard cancer care alone, early palliative care significantly improved health-related quality of life at a small effect size (SMD 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.38; participants analysed at post treatment = 1028; evidence of low certainty). As re-expressed in natural units (absolute change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) score), health-related quality of life scores increased on average by 4.59 (95% CI 2.55 to 6.46) points more among participants given early palliative care than among control participants. Data on survival, available from four studies enrolling a total of 800 participants, did not indicate differences in efficacy (death hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28; evidence of very low certainty). Levels of depressive symptoms among those receiving early palliative care did not differ significantly from levels among those receiving usual/standard cancer care (five studies; SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.03; participants analysed at post treatment = 762; evidence of very low certainty). Results from seven studies that analysed 1054 participants post treatment suggest a small effect for significantly lower symptom intensity in early palliative care compared with the control condition (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.10; evidence of low certainty). The type of model used to provide early palliative care did not affect study results. One RCT reported potential adverse events of early palliative care, such as a higher percentage of participants with severe scores for pain and poor appetite; the remaining six studies did not report adverse events in study publications. For these six studies, principal investigators stated upon request that they had not observed any adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review of a small number of trials indicates that early palliative care interventions may have more beneficial effects on quality of life and symptom intensity among patients with advanced cancer than among those given usual/standard cancer care alone. Although we found only small effect sizes, these may be clinically relevant at an advanced disease stage with limited prognosis, at which time further decline in quality of life is very common. At this point, effects on mortality and depression are uncertain. We have to interpret current results with caution owing to very low to low certainty of current evidence and between-study differences regarding participant populations, interventions, and methods. Additional research now under way will present a clearer picture of the effect and specific indication of early palliative care. Upcoming results from several ongoing studies (N = 20) and studies awaiting assessment (N = 10) may increase the certainty of study results and may lead to improved decision making. In perspective, early palliative care is a newly emerging field, and well-conducted studies are needed to explicitly describe the components of early palliative care and control treatments, after blinding of participants and outcome assessors, and to report on possible adverse events.

Discovery of new BTK inhibitors with B cell suppression activity bearing a 4,6-substituted thieno[3,2-d]pyrimidine scaffold

Seventeen compounds with 4,6-substituted thieno[3,2-d]pyrimidine scaffold were prepared as new Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Compound 8 exhibits anti-BTK activity, immunosuppressive activity, enzymatic selectivity and low toxicity.

Efficacy of pancreatic exocrine replacement therapy for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer in a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Weight loss in pancreatic cancer is associated with maldigestion due to pancreatic duct obstruction. Pancreatic exocrine replacement therapy (PERT) may significantly improve fat and protein absorption.

OBJECTIVES

This prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial assessed whether PERT could reduce or prevent weight loss in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Sixty seven patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were randomized to receive enteric coated PERT, consisting of 6-9 capsules of pancreatin (457.7 mg/capsule), or placebo. Patients took two capsules each three times daily during main meals and one capsule each up to three times daily when having between-meal snacks. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in body weight at eight weeks.

RESULTS

The mean percentage change in body weight (1.49% [1.12 kg] vs. 2.99% [1.63 kg], P = 0.381) and the mean percent change in Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) score (8.85% vs. 15.69%, p = 0.18) did not differ significantly between the PERT and placebo groups. There was no improvement in quality of life and overall survival did not differ significantly between the PERT and placebo groups (5.84 months vs 8.13 months, p = 0.744).

CONCLUSIONS

PERT did not reduce weight loss in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. Larger randomized trials are needed to identify those patients who may benefit from PERT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Number NCT01587534.