Abstract The primary treatment of pancreatic cancer was the topic of the 3rd St. Gallen Conference 2016. A multidisciplinary panel reviewed the current evidence and discussed controversial issues in ...a moderated consensus session. Here we report on the key expert recommendations. It was generally accepted that radical surgical resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy offers the only evidence-based treatment with a chance for cure. Initial staging should classify localised tumours as resectable or unresectable (i.e. locally advanced pancreatic cancer) although there remains a large grey-zone of potentially resectable disease between these two categories which has recently been named as borderline resectable, a concept which was generally accepted by the panel members. However, the definition of these borderline-resectable (BR) tumours varies between classifications due to their focus on either (i) technical hurdles (e.g. the feasibility of vascular resection) or (ii) oncological outcome (e.g. predicting the risk of a R1 resection and/or occult metastases). The resulting expert discussion focussed on imaging standards as well as the value of pretherapeutic laparoscopy. Indications for biliary drainage were seen especially before neoadjuvant therapy. Following standard resection, the panel unanimously voted for the use of adjuvant chemotherapy after R0 resection and considered it as a reasonable standard of care after R1 resection, even though the optimal pathologic evaluation and the definition of R0/R1 was the issue of an ongoing debate. The general concept of BR tumours was considered as a good basis to select patients for preoperative therapy, albeit its current impact on the therapeutic strategy was far less clear. Main focus of the conference was to discuss the limits of surgical resection and to identify ways to standardise procedures and to improve curative outcome, including adjuvant and perioperative treatment.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer globally and the second leading cause of cancer death. We examined colon and rectal cancer treatment patterns in Australia.
From cancer registry ...records, we identified 1,236 and 542 people with incident colon and rectal cancer, respectively, diagnosed during 2006-2013 in the 45 and Up Study cohort (267,357 participants). Cancer treatment and deaths were determined via linkage to routinely collected data, including hospital and medical services records. For colon cancer, we examined treatment categories of "surgery only", "surgery plus chemotherapy", "other treatment" (i.e. other combinations of surgery/chemotherapy/radiotherapy), "no record of cancer-related treatment, died"; and, for rectal cancer, "surgery only", "surgery plus chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy", "other treatment", and "no record of cancer-related treatment, died". We analysed survival, time to first treatment, and characteristics associated with treatment receipt using competing risks regression.
86.4% and 86.5% of people with colon and rectal cancer, respectively, had a record of receiving any treatment ≤2 years post-diagnosis. Of those treated, 93.2% and 90.8% started treatment ≤2 months post-diagnosis, respectively. Characteristics significantly associated with treatment receipt were similar for colon and rectal cancer, with strongest associations for spread of disease and age at diagnosis (p<0.003). For colon cancer, the rate of "no record of cancer-related treatment, died" was higher for people with distant spread of disease (versus localised, subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR)=13.6, 95% confidence interval (CI):5.5-33.9), age ≥75 years (versus age 45-74, SHR=3.6, 95%CI:1.8-7.1), and visiting an emergency department ≤1 month pre-diagnosis (SHR=2.9, 95%CI:1.6-5.2). For rectal cancer, the rate of "surgery plus chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy" was higher for people with regional spread of disease (versus localised, SHR=5.2, 95%CI:3.6-7.7) and lower for people with poorer physical functioning (SHR=0.5, 95%CI:0.3-0.8) or no private health insurance (SHR=0.7, 95%CI:0.5-0.9).
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, most people with colon or rectal cancer received treatment ≤2 months post-diagnosis, however, treatment patterns varied by spread of disease and age. This work can be used to inform future healthcare requirements, to estimate the impact of cancer control interventions to improve prevention and early diagnosis, and serve as a benchmark to assess treatment delays/disruptions during the pandemic. Future work should examine associations with clinical factors (e.g. performance status at diagnosis) and interdependencies between characteristics such as age, comorbidities, and emergency department visits.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
ObjectivesThe study aims to investigate the perceptions of patients with thyroid cancer on the potential impact of diagnosis and treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignThis study ...involved qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, analysed using the thematic framework analysis method and reported using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.SettingParticipants in the study were treated and/or managed at hospital sites across New South Wales and Victoria, Australia.Participants17 patients with thyroid cancer were interviewed and included in the analysis (14 females and 3 males).ResultsThe delays experienced by patients ranged from <3 months to >12 months. The patients reported about delays to diagnostic tests, delays to surgery and radioactive iodine treatment, perceived disease progression and, for some, the financial burden of choosing to go through private treatment to minimise the delay. Most patients also reported not wanting to experience delays any longer than they did, due to unease and anxiety.ConclusionsThis study highlights an increased psychological burden in patients with thyroid cancer who experienced delayed diagnosis and/or treatment during COVID-19. The impacts experienced by patients during this time may be similar in the case of other unexpected delays and highlight the need for regular clinical review during delays to diagnosis or treatment.
To the Editor: Lyman and colleagues (May 24 issue)1 discuss the benefits of biosimilar medications for the health care system. I would like to highlight another opportunity afforded by the ...development of biosimilars — the extension of the use of biosimilars in indications beyond those originally targeted for the innovator biologic. For example, in many countries, trastuzumab, which targets human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), is currently approved for the treatment of breast cancer and gastric cancer. However, HER2 is also overexpressed in a number of other less common tumor types for which trastuzumab is not currently marketed. Investigating . . .
Background The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 study showed that patients with advanced colorectal cancer had improved overall survival when cetuximab, an epidermal ...growth factor receptor–targeting antibody, was given in addition to best supportive care. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using prospectively collected resource utilization and health utility data for patients in the CO.17 study who received cetuximab plus best supportive care (N = 283) or best supportive care alone (N = 274). Methods Direct medical resource utilization data were collected, including medications, physician visits, toxicity management, blood products, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. Mean survival times for the study arms were calculated for the entire population and for the subset of patients with wild-type KRAS tumors over an 18- to 19-month period. All costs were presented in 2007 Canadian dollars. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to determine the robustness of the results. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were determined. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and the incremental cost–utility ratios were estimated by use of a nonparametric bootstrapping method (with 1000 iterations). Results For the entire study population, the mean improvement in overall and quality-adjusted survival with cetuximab was 0.12 years and 0.08 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), respectively. The incremental cost with cetuximab compared with best supportive care was $23 969. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $199 742 per life-year gained (95% CI = $125 973 to $652 492 per life-year gained) and the incremental cost–utility ratio was $299 613 per QALY gained (95% CI = $187 440 to $898 201 per QALY gained). For patients with wild-type KRAS tumors, the incremental cost with cetuximab was $33 617 and mean gains in overall and quality-adjusted survival were 0.28 years and 0.18 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $120 061 per life-year gained (95% CI = $88 679 to $207 075 per life-year gained) and the incremental cost–utility ratio was $186 761 per QALY gained (95% CI = $130 326 to $334 940 per QALY gained). In a sensitivity analysis, cetuximab cost and patient survival were the only variables that influenced cost-effectiveness. Conclusions The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of cetuximab over best supportive care alone in unselected advanced colorectal cancer patients is high and sensitive to drug cost. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were lower when the analysis was limited to patients with wild-type KRAS tumors.
In the EORTC-ISG-AGITG trial 946 patients with advanced gastro-intestinal stromal tumours (GIST) were randomised to receive 400 or 800
mg of imatinib daily. An increase in progression free survival ...(PFS) was demonstrated for patients randomised to the high-dose arm. Patients randomised to low-dose could cross-over to high-dose upon progression. We evaluated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of this policy. Of the 241 patients available for follow-up, 133 patients (55%) crossed over to high-dose imatinib according to the protocol. Of these patients, 92% had not had a prior dose reduction. The cumulative incidence of subsequent dose reductions after cross-over was 17% after six months with 51% discontinuing therapy without requiring a dose reduction. The extent of anaemia and fatigue increased significantly after cross-over, whilst neutropenia was less severe than during low-dose treatment. Objective responses after cross-over included three patients (2%) with a partial response and 36 (27%) with stable disease. The median PFS after cross-over was 81 days, although 18.1% of patients were still alive and progression free one year after cross-over. We conclude that a cross-over to high-dose imatinib is feasible and safe in GIST patients who progress on low-dose therapy.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Background
Non‐metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is classified as resectable (R), borderline resectable (BR) or locally advanced (LA). International Consensus Guidelines on these ...definitions exist, but have not been integrated into everyday Australian practice. The anatomical features on CT imaging lend themselves to synoptic reporting which should enhance completeness, comparability and consistency.
Methods
We developed and tested a synoptic report for PDAC derived from the International Consensus Guidelines at two metropolitan pancreatic cancer services to standardize CT reporting in the region. Consecutive scans with suspected PDAC discussed at multidisciplinary meetings were reported using the template between October 2020 and September 2021. A purpose‐built database captured data regarding resectability and image‐quality parameters.
Results
Ninety‐five scans were reviewed, 57.9% (N = 55) of which conformed to high‐quality pancreatic CT protocols. Of suboptimal scans, meaningful synoptic reports were able to be issued for a further 24/40 (due to metastases in 9, and unequivocal resectability status in 15). Of 79 classifiable scans, 20% were metastatic, 51% deemed resectable, 16% locally advanced and 13% borderline resectable.
Discussion
PDAC lends itself to synoptic reporting given the specific anatomical considerations that classify resectability. This relies, however, on high‐quality CT imaging and it was surprising that over 40% of scans reviewed were of suboptimal quality. Despite this, resectability status according to the International Consensus Guidelines was designated for 83% of scans. Optimal treatment algorithms for LA, BR and resectable disease vary widely underscoring the critical importance of accurately differentiating these anatomic subtypes of PDAC, and thus support further implementation of a synoptic report of this nature.
Synoptic reporting of CT scans for pancreas cancer was tested in a pilot study reported here. The pilot was well received by clinicians and provided valuable data on CT image quality and resectability status designation. Image quality was surprisingly low and rates of borderline resectable disease documented at 13%.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
