Search

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are validated tools to assess the impact of efficacy and toxicities of cancer treatments on patients' health status. Because of the demonstrated little reliability of humans in reporting memories of painful experiences, this work explores the reliability of cancer patients in reporting chemotherapy-related toxicities., Aim: This study aims to evaluate the concordance between toxicities experienced by the patients during chemotherapy and toxicities reported to the doctor at the end of the cycles., Methods: Questionnaires concerning chemotherapy-related toxicities were administered on days 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 of each chemo cycle and at the end of the same cycle to patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. The co-primary end-points were Lins's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and mean difference between real-time and retrospective toxicity assessments., Results: In total, 7182 toxicity assessments were collected from 1096 questionnaires. Concordance was observed between the retrospective evaluations and the toxicity assessments at early (day 2), peak (maximum toxicity), late (day 14 or 17), and mean real-time evaluations for each chemotherapy cycle (CCC for mean ranging from 0.52 to 0.77). No systematic discrepancy was found between real-time and retrospective evaluations, except for peak, which was systematically underestimated retrospectively., Conclusions: Toxicities reported by the patients to the doctor at the end of each chemotherapy cycle reflect what they actually experienced without any substantial distortion. This result is very relevant both for the clinical implications in daily patients' management and in the light of the current growing impact on digital monitoring of PROs., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: the APICE study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel - Nab-P) + gemcitabine (G) vs G alone in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) from the Italian National Health Service (INHS) standpoint., Research Design and Methods: A 4-year, 4 health states (progression-free; progressed; end of life; death) Markov model based on the MPACT trial was developed to estimate costs (Euro [€], 2017 values), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Patients were assumed to receive intravenously Nab-P 125 mg/m 2  + G 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or G alone 1000 mg/m 2 weekly for 7 out of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles) until progression. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the uncertainty surrounding the baseline incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR)., Results: Nab-P + G totals 0.154 incremental QALYs and €7082.68 incremental costs vs G alone. ICUR (€46,021.58) is lower than the informal threshold value of €87,330 adopted by the Italian Medicines Agency during 2010-2013 for reimbursing oncological drugs. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the baseline findings., Conclusions: Nab-P + G in MPC patients can be considered cost-effective for the INHS.

Although lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) serum levels, indirect markers of angiogenesis, are associated with a worse outcome in several tumours, their prognostic value is not defined in pancreatic cancer. Moreover, high levels are associated even with a lack of efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, contributing to explain negative results in clinical trials. We assessed the role of LDH in advanced pancreatic cancer receiving sorafenib. Seventy-one of 114 patients included in the randomised phase II trial MAPS (chemotherapy plus or not sorafenib) and with available serum LDH levels, were included in this analysis. Patients were categorized according to serum LDH levels (LDH ≤ vs.> upper normal rate). A significant difference was found in progression free survival (PFS) and in overall survival (OS) between patients with LDH values under or above the cut-off (PFS: 5.2 vs. 2.7 months, p = 0.0287; OS: 10.7 vs. 5.9 months, p = 0.0021). After stratification according to LDH serum levels and sorafenib treatment, patients with low LDH serum levels treated with sorafenib showed an advantage in PFS (p = 0.05) and OS (p = 0.0012). LDH appears to be a reliable parameter to assess the prognosis of advanced pancreatic cancer patients, and it may be a predictive parameter to select patients candidate to receive sorafenib.