Perioperative Systemic Therapy Versus Cytoreductive Surgery and HIPEC Alone for Resectable Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases: Patient-Reported Outcomes of a Randomized Phase II Trial

BACKGROUND

As part of a randomized phase II trial in patients with isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPMs), the present study compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients treated with perioperative systemic therapy versus cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) alone. Also, PROs of patients receiving perioperative systemic therapy were explored.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were randomized to perioperative systemic therapy (experimental) or CRS-HIPEC alone (control). PROs were assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29, and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires at baseline, after neoadjuvant treatment (experimental), and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Linear mixed modeling was used to compare five predefined PROs (visual analog scale, global health status, physical functioning, fatigue, C30 summary score) between arms and to longitudinally analyze PROs in the experimental arm.

RESULTS

Of 79 analyzed patients, 37 (47%) received perioperative systemic therapy. All predefined PROs were comparable between arms at all timepoints and returned to baseline at 3 or 6 months postoperatively. The experimental arm had worsening of fatigue [mean difference (MD) + 14, p = 0.001], loss of appetite (MD + 15, p = 0.003), hair loss (MD + 18, p < 0.001), and loss of taste (MD + 27, p < 0.001) after neoadjuvant treatment. Except for loss of appetite, these PROs returned to baseline at 3 or 6 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with resectable CPM randomized to perioperative systemic therapy or CRS-HIPEC alone, PROs were comparable between arms and returned to baseline postoperatively. Together with the trial's previously reported feasibility and safety data, these findings show acceptable tolerability of perioperative systemic therapy in this setting.

Multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of frozen gloves for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of wearing frozen gloves (FGs) during chemotherapy to prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) as reported by patients and influence on quality of life (QoL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cancer patients starting treatment with oxaliplatin, docetaxel or paclitaxel between February 2013 and May 2016 at the medical oncology department were eligible. Patients were randomized into groups wearing FGs on both hands during treatment and those not wearing FGs during treatment. Self-reported CIPN and QoL were measured with the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ) CIPN20 and QLQ-C30 at four time points: baseline (t₀), after three cycles (t₁), end of chemotherapy (t₂) and after 6 months (t₃).

RESULTS

The study included 180 patients with 90 patients in both arms. They mostly underwent treatment of colorectal or breast cancer. Thirty-one patients (34%) discontinued FGs, mainly due to discomfort. Intention-to-treat analyses showed no important differences in reported EORTC QLQ CIPN20 subscales between the FG group and control group; however, the analyses showed the patients experienced reduced tingling in fingers/hands [β = -10.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -3.94 to -3.14, P = 0.005] and less trouble opening a jar or bottle due to loss of strength in hands (β = -6.97, 95% CI = -13.53 to -0.40, P = 0.04) in the FG group compared with the control group. Per-protocol analyses showed similar results: reduced aching or burning pain in fingers/hands (β = -4.37, 95% CI = -7.90 to -0.83, P = 0.02) and cramps in hands (β = -3.76, 95% CI = -7.38 to -0.14, P = 0.04). Differences in tingling in fingers/hands at t₁ were clinically relevant. In addition, those treated with FGs reported overall better QoL (β = 4.79, 95% CI = 0.37 to 9.22, P = 0.03) and physical functioning (β = 5.66, 95% CI = 1.59 to 9.73, P = 0.007) than the control. No difference in dose reductions was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference in CIPN subscales was reported between intervention arms. Wearing FGs might reduce some neuropathy symptoms in the hands, potentially resulting in a better QoL; however, one-third of the FG group discontinued the study before the end of treatment. Future studies should focus on the method of limb hypothermia to prevent CIPN.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL39650.015.12.

Painful and non-painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors: results from the population-based PROFILES registry

Purpose

This study aims to (1) examine the prevalence of painful versus non-painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) among long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors, (2) identify sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors associated with painful and non-painful CIPN, and (3) examine the associations of painful CIPN with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in comparison with non-painful CIPN, i.e., numbness/tingling.

Methods

All CRC survivors diagnosed between 2000 and 2009 as registered by the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (Eindhoven region) were eligible for participation. Chemotherapy-treated survivors (n = 477) completed questions on CIPN (EORTC QLQ-CIPN20) and HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30).

Results

Painful CIPN was reported by 9% (n = 45) of survivors and non-painful CIPN was reported by 22% (n = 103). Time since diagnosis was related to painful CIPN, and time since diagnosis, a higher disease stage, osteoarthritis, and more anxiety symptoms were related to non-painful CIPN. Finally, survivors with painful CIPN reported a worse global quality of life and worse physical, role, cognitive, and social functioning compared to survivors with non-painful CIPN and those without any sensory CIPN. No differences were found between survivors with non-painful CIPN and those without sensory CIPN.

Conclusions

It seems that painful CIPN must be distinguished from non-painful CIPN, as only painful CIPN was related to a worse HRQoL. Future research is needed to examine whether painful CIPN must be distinguished from non-painful CIPN regarding predictors, mechanisms, and treatment.

Quality of life in elderly patients with an ostomy - a study from the population-based PROFILES registry

AIM

Ostomies are being placed frequently in surgically treated elderly patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). An insight into the (potential) impact of ostomies on quality of life (QoL) could be useful in patient counselling as well as in the challenging shared treatment decision-making.

METHOD

Patients with CRC diagnosed between 2000 and 2009 and registered in the population-based Eindhoven Cancer Registry received a QoL questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) in 2010. In addition, QoL was compared with an age- and sex-matched normative population.

RESULTS

The study included 2299 CRC patients, of whom 494 had an ostomy. No differences were found in reported ostomy-related problems between patients aged ≤65, 66-75 and ≥76 years. Ostomy patients aged 66-75 and ≥76 years reported significantly lower physical functioning compared with those without an ostomy. In the elderly (those aged ≥76 years) ostomates reported a worse physical and social functioning compared with the normative population. All these differences were of small clinical relevance. The impact of an ostomy seems to be more prominent in younger (≤75 years old) ostomates, as they experience more functional limitations and a decrease in global health status compared with younger nonostomy patients and the normative population.

CONCLUSION

Although elderly (≥76 years old) patients with an ostomy report significantly more limitations in functioning compared with a normative population and elderly CRC patients without an ostomy, the clinical relevance of this finding is limited. In contrast, the impact of an ostomy is more prominent in younger patients. Thus, age itself is not a reason for withholding an ostomy.