Search

Background: The Dutch guidelines for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer recommend discussion of patients by a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT). Despite this recommendation, one previous study in the Netherlands suggested that therapeutic guidance was missing for palliative care of patients with esophageal cancer. The aim of the current study was therefore to assess the impact of an MDT discussion on initial palliative treatment and outcome of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer. Material and methods: The population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry was used to identify patients treated for esophageal or GEJ cancer with palliative intent between 2010 and 2017 in 7 hospitals. We compared patients discussed by the MDT with patients not discussed by the MDT in a multivariate analysis. Primary outcome was type of initial palliative treatment. Secondary outcome was overall survival. Results: A total of 389/948 (41%) patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer were discussed by the MDT before initial palliative treatment. MDT discussion compared to non-MDT discussion was associated with more patients treated with palliative intent external beam radiotherapy (38% vs. 21%, OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.8–3.9]) and systemic therapy (30% vs. 23%, OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.0–2.5]), and fewer patients treated with stent placement (4% vs. 12%, OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1–0.6]) and best supportive care alone (12% vs. 33%, OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1–0.3]). MDT discussion was also associated with improved survival (169 days vs. 107 days, HR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1–1.6]). Conclusion: Our study shows that MDT discussion of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer resulted in more patients treated with initial palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy compared with patients not discussed by the MDT. Moreover, MDT discussion may have a positive effect on survival, highlighting the importance of MDT meetings at all stages of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physical activity has been shown to reduce side-effects of breast cancer and its treatment. As physical activity levels of patients with breast cancer are largely unknown, we investigated these levels and compared them to women from the general population. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, physical activity levels of women with breast cancer participating in the UMBRELLA cohort were assessed at radiotherapy intake and thereafter every 6 months up to 3 years with the SQUASH questionnaire, which was also used in a random sample of the Dutch population. We compared physical activity levels (no activity, low, moderate or high levels of sports, leisure time or total activity) between patients and the Dutch female population using multinomial logistic regression. Standardized Prevalence Ratios (SPR) were calculated to compare adherence to Dutch physical activity guidelines. Results: Women with breast cancer (nbaseline = 1655, n6 months = 1414, n12 months = 1186, n18 months = 957, n24 months = 744, n30 months = 555, and n36 months = 377) were less likely to spend time in physical activity compared to the general population (n = 11,710) until 3 years post-diagnosis, especially after 6 months (ORhigh-vs.-no activity = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.28–0.41). From 12 months onwards, patients were more likely to perform sports compared to the general population, especially patients who underwent systemic therapy. Guideline adherence was significantly lower in patients at baseline and 6 months (SPRbaseline = 89, 95% CI: 82–97; SPR6 months = 88, 95% CI: 81–96), and comparable to the general population at 12–36 months, especially in older women. Conclusions: Physical activity levels in women with breast cancer during and after treatment were lower compared to the Dutch female population. Three years post-treatment, they were still less physically active, although they spend more time in sport activities. As about half of the patients did not perform any sports, physical activity needs to be stimulated during and after treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The increasing sub-classification of cancer patients due to more detailed molecular classification of tumors, and limitations of current trial designs, require innovative research designs. We present the design, governance and current standing of three comprehensive nationwide cohorts including pancreatic, esophageal/gastric, and colorectal cancer patients (NCT02070146). Multidisciplinary collection of clinical data, tumor tissue, blood samples, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures with a nationwide coverage, provides the infrastructure for future and novel trial designs and facilitates research to improve outcomes of gastrointestinal cancer patients. Material and methods: All patients aged ≥18 years with pancreatic, esophageal/gastric or colorectal cancer are eligible. Patients provide informed consent for: (1) reuse of clinical data; (2) biobanking of primary tumor tissue; (3) collection of blood samples; (4) to be informed about relevant newly identified genomic aberrations; (5) collection of longitudinal PROs; and (6) to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cohort multiple randomized controlled trials (cmRCT) in the future. Results: In 2015, clinical data of 21,758 newly diagnosed patients were collected in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Additional clinical data on the surgical procedures were registered in surgical audits for 13,845 patients. Within the first two years, tumor tissue and blood samples were obtained from 1507 patients; during this period, 1180 patients were included in the PRO registry. Response rate for PROs was 90%. The consent rate to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cmRCTs in the future was >85%. The number of hospitals participating in the cohorts is steadily increasing. Conclusion: A comprehensive nationwide multidisciplinary gastrointestinal cancer cohort is feasible and surpasses the limitations of classical study designs. With this initiative, novel and innovative studies can be performed in an efficient, safe, and comprehensive setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]