Browsing by Subject "ONCOLOGY"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-8 of 8
  • Kolehmainen, Anne Maarit; Pasanen, Annukka; Tuomi, Taru; Koivisto-Korander, Riitta; Butzow, Ralf; Loukovaara, Mikko (2019)
    Objective To study the association of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score with long-term outcome in endometrial cancer. Methods Overall, disease-specific and non-cancer-related survival were estimated using simple and multivariable Cox regression analyses and the Kaplan-Meier method. Results A total of 1166 patients were included in the study. Median follow-up time was 76 (range 1-136) months. All-cause and non-cancer-related mortality were increased in patients whose ASA physical status score was III (HRs 2.5 and 8.0, respectively) or IV (HRs 5.7 and 25, respectively), and cancer-related mortality was increased in patients whose score was IV (HR 2.7). Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated a worse overall, disease-specific and non-cancer-related survival for patients whose score was >= III (p= III in both subgroups of stages (p=0.003 and p=0.017 for stage I and stages II-IV, respectively). ASA physical status score remained an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR 2.2 for scores >= III), cancer-related mortality (HRs 1.7 and 2.2 for scores >= III and IV, respectively) and non-cancer related mortality (HR 3.1 for scores >= III) after adjustment for prognostically relevant clinicopathologic and blood-based covariates. ASA physical status score also remained an independent predictor of cancer-related mortality after exclusion of patients who were at risk for nodal involvement based on features of the primary tumor but who did not undergo lymphadenectomy, and patients with advanced disease who received suboptimal chemotherapy (HRs 1.6 and 2.5 for scores >= III and IV, respectively). Conclusions ASA physical status score independently predicts overall survival, disease-specific survival, and non-cancer-related survival in endometrial cancer.
  • Hui, David; Mori, Masanori; Meng, Yee-Choon; Watanabe, Sharon M.; Caraceni, Augusto; Strasser, Florian; Saarto, Tiina; Cherny, Nathan; Glare, Paul; Kaasa, Stein; Bruera, Eduardo (2018)
    Palliative care referral is primarily based on clinician judgment, contributing to highly variable access. Standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral have been proposed, but it remains unclear how best to apply them in practice. We conducted a Delphi study of international experts to identify a consensus for the use of standardized criteria to trigger automatic referral. Sixty international experts stated their level of agreement for 14 statements regarding the use of clinician-based referral and automatic referral over two Delphi rounds. A consensus was defined as an agreement of ae70% a priori. The response rate was 59/60 (98%) for the first round and 56/60 (93%) for the second round. Twenty-six (43%), 19 (32%), and 11 (18%) respondents were from North America, Asia/Australia, and Europe, respectively. The panel reached consensus that outpatient palliative care referral should be based on both automatic referral and clinician-based referral (agreement = 86%). Only 18% felt that referral should be clinician-based alone, and only 7% agreed that referral should be based on automatic referral only. There was consensus that automatic referral criteria may increase the number of referrals (agreement = 98%), facilitate earlier palliative care access, and help administrators to set benchmarks for quality improvement (agreement = 86%). Our panelists favored the combination of automatic referral to augment clinician-based referral. This integrated referral framework may inform policy and program development.
  • Oikkonen, Jaana; Hautaniemi, Sampsa (2019)
  • Beets, Geerard; Sebag-Montefiore, David; Andritsch, Elisabeth; Arnold, Dirk; Beishon, Marc; Crul, Mirjam; Dekker, Jan Willem; Delgado-Bolton, Roberto; Flejou, Jean-Francois; Grisold, Wolfgang; Henning, Geoffrey; Laghi, Andrea; Lovey, Jozsef; Negrouk, Anastassia; Pereira, Philippe; Roca, Pierre; Saarto, Tiina; Seufferlein, Thomas; Taylor, Claire; Ugolini, Giampaolo; van de Velde, Cornelis; van Herck, Bert; Yared, Wendy; Costa, Alberto; Naredi, Peter (2017)
    Background: ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Colorectal cancer: essential requirements for quality care Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer death in Europe and has wide variation in outcomes among countries. Increasing numbers of older people are contracting the disease, and treatments for advanced stages are becoming more complex. A growing number of survivors also require specialist support. High-quality care can only be a carried out in specialised CRC units or centres which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Such units or centres are far from universal in all European countries. It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the essential requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship. Conclusion: Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality CRC service. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a 'one size fits all' system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary units or centres must be guaranteed for all those with CRC. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
  • Andritsch, Elisabeth; Beishon, Marc; Bielack, Stefan; Bonvalot, Sylvie; Casali, Paolo; Crul, Mirjam; Delgado-Bolton, Roberto; Donatih, Davide Maria; Douis, Hassan; Haas, Rick; Hogendoorn, Pancras; Kozhaeva, Olga; Lavender, Verna; Lovey, Jozsef; Negrouk, Anastassia; Pereira, Philippe; Roca, Pierre; de Lempdes, Godelieve Rochette; Saarto, Tiina; van Berck, Bert; Vassal, Gilles; Wartenberg, Markus; Yared, Wendy; Costa, Alberto; Naredi, Peter (2017)
    Background: ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Sarcoma: essential requirements for quality care Sarcomas - which can be classified into soft tissue and bone sarcomas - are rare, but all rare cancers make up more than 20% of cancers in Europe, and there are substantial inequalities in access to high-quality care. Sarcomas, of which there are many subtypes, comprise a particularly complex and demanding challenge for healthcare systems and providers. This paper presents essential requirements for quality cancer care of soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas. High-quality care must only be carried out in specialised sarcoma centres (including paediatric cancer centres) which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Access to such units is far from universal in all European countries. It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for high-quality comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis and follow-up, to treatment, to improve survival and quality of life for patients. Conclusion: Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality service for soft tissue sarcomas in adults and bone sarcomas. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a 'one size fits all' system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary teams is guaranteed to all patients with sarcoma. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
  • Joensuu, Heikki; Fraser, Judith; Wildiers, Hans; Huovinen, Riikka; Auvinen, Päivi; Utriainen, Meri; Nyandoto, Paul; Villman, Kenneth K.; Halonen, Päivi; Granstam-Björneklett, Helena; Lundgren, Lotta; Sailas, Liisa; Turpeenniemi-Hujanen, Taina; Tanner, Minna; Yachnin, Jeffrey; Ritchie, Diana; Johansson, Oskar; Huttunen, Teppo; Neven, Patrick; Canney, Peter; Harvey, Vernon J.; Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, Pirkko-Liisa; Lindman, Henrik (2018)
    IMPORTANCE Trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is the standard adjuvant treatment for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. While the standard duration of trastuzumab treatment is 12 months, the benefits and harms of trastuzumab continued beyond the chemotherapy are unclear. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant trastuzumab continued beyond chemotherapy in women treated with up-front chemotherapy containing a taxane and trastuzumab. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Open-label, randomized (1: 1) clinical trial including women with HER2-positive breast cancer. Chemotherapy was identical in the 2 groups, consisting of 3 cycles of 3-weekly docetaxel (either 80 or 100 mg/m(2)) plus trastuzumab for 9 weeks, followed by 3 cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide. Thereafter, no trastuzumab was administered in the 9-week group, whereas controls received trastuzumab to complete 1 year of administration. Disease-free survival (DFS) was compared between the groups using a Cox model and the noninferiority approach. The estimated sample size was 2168 patients (1-sided testing, with a relative noninferiority margin of 1.3). From January 3, 2008, to December 16, 2014, 2176 patients were accrued from 7 countries. INTERVENTION Docetaxel plus trastuzumab for 9 weeks, followed by 3 cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide in both groups. Controls continued trastuzumab to 1 year. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary objectivewas DFS; secondary objectives included distant disease-free survival, overall survival, cardiac DFS, and safety. RESULTS In the 2174 women analyzed, median age was 56 (interquartile range [IQR], 48-64) years. The median follow-up was 5.2 (IQR, 3.8-6.7) years. Noninferiority of the 9-week treatment could not be demonstrated for DFS (hazard ratio, 1.39; 2-sided 90% CI, 1.12-1.72). Distant disease-free survival and overall survival did not differ substantially between the groups. Thirty-six (3%) and 21 (2%) patients in the 1-year and the 9-week groups, respectively, had cardiac failure; the left ventricle ejection fraction was better maintained in the 9-week group. An interaction was detected between the docetaxel dose and DFS; patients in the 9-week group treated with 80 mg/m(2) had inferior and those treated with 100 mg/m(2) had similar DFS as patients in the 1-year group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Nine weeks of trastuzumab was not noninferior to 1 year of trastuzumab when given with similar chemotherapy. Cardiac safety was better in the 9-week group. The docetaxel dosing with trastuzumab requires further study.
  • Thunnissen, Erik; Weynand, Birgit; Udovicic-Gagula, Dalma; Brcic, Luka; Szolkowska, Malgorzata; Hofman, Paul; Smojver-Jezek, Silvana; Anttila, Sisko; Calabrese, Fiorella; Kern, Izidor; Skov, Birgit; Perner, Sven; Dale, Vibeke G.; Eri, Zivka; Haragan, Alex; Leonte, Diana; Carvallo, Lina; Prince, Spasenja Savic; Nicholson, Siobhan; Sansano, Irene; Ryska, Ales (2020)
    A questionnaire on biomarker testing previously used in central European countries was extended and distributed in Western and Central European countries to the pathologists participating at the Pulmonary Pathology Society meeting 26-28 June 2019 in Dubrovnik, Croatia. Each country was represented by one responder. For recent biomarkers the availability and reimbursement of diagnoses of molecular alterations in non-small cell lung carcinoma varies widely between different, also western European, countries. Reimbursement of such assessments varies widely between unavailability and payments by the health care system or even pharmaceutical companies. The support for testing from alternative sources, such as the pharmaceutical industry, is no doubt partly compensating for the lack of public health system support, but it is not a viable or long-term solution. Ideally, a structured access to testing and reimbursement should be the aim in order to provide patients with appropriate therapeutic options. As biomarker enabled therapies deliver a 50% better probability of outcome success, improved and unbiased reimbursement remains a major challenge for the future.
  • Hui, David; Mori, Masanori; Watanabe, Sharon M.; Caraceni, Augusto; Strasser, Florian; Saarto, Tiina; Cherny, Nathan; Glare, Paul; Kaasa, Stein; Bruera, Eduardo (2016)
    Although outpatient specialty palliative-care clinics improve outcomes, there is no consensus on who should be referred or the optimal timing for referral. In response to this issue, we did a Delphi study to develop consensus on a list of criteria for referral of patients with advanced cancer at secondary or tertiary care hospitals to outpatient palliative care. 60 international experts (26 from North America, 19 from Asia and Australia, and 11 from Europe) on palliative cancer care rated 39 needs-based criteria and 22 time-based criteria in three iterative rounds. Nearly all experts responded in each round. Consensus was defined by an a-priori agreement of 70% or more. Panellists reached consensus on 11 major criteria for referral: severe physical symptoms, severe emotional symptoms, request for hastened death, spiritual or existential crisis, assistance with decision making or care planning, patient request for referral, delirium, spinal cord compression, brain or leptomeningeal metastases, within 3 months of advanced cancer diagnosis for patients with median survival of 1 year or less, and progressive disease despite second-line therapy. Consensus was also reached on 36 minor criteria for specialist palliative-care referral. These criteria, if validated, could provide guidance for identification of patients suitable for outpatient specialty palliative care.