Lucy Wall

Management of depression for people with cancer (SMaRT oncology 1): a randomised trial

BACKGROUND Major depressive disorder severely impairs the quality of life of patients with medical disorders such as cancer, but evidence to guide its management is scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy and cost of a nurse-delivered complex intervention that was designed to treat major depressive disorder in patients who have cancer. METHODS We did a randomised trial in a regional cancer centre in Scotland, UK. 200 outpatients who had cancer with a prognosis of greater than 6 months and major depressive disorder (identified by screening) were eligible and agreed to take part. Their mean age was 56.6 (SD 11.9) years, and 141 (71%) were women. We randomly assigned 99 of these participants to usual care, and 101 to usual care plus the intervention, with minimisation for sex, age, diagnosis, and extent of disease. The intervention was delivered by a cancer nurse at the centre over an average of seven sessions. The primary outcome was the difference in mean score on the self-reported Symptom Checklist-20 depression scale (range 0 to 4) at 3 months after randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered as ISRCTN84767225. FINDINGS Primary outcome data were missing for four patients. For 196 patients for whom we had data at 3 months, the adjusted difference in mean Symptom Checklist-20 depression score, between those who received the intervention and those who did not, was 0.34 (95% CI 0.13-0.55). This treatment effect was sustained at 6 and 12 months. The intervention also improved anxiety and fatigue but not pain or physical functioning. It cost an additional pound sterling 5278 (US

Emotional distress in cancer patients: the Edinburgh Cancer Centre symptom study.

10 556) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. INTERPRETATION The intervention-Depression Care for People with Cancer-offers a model for the management of major depressive disorder in patients with cancer and other medical disorders who are attending specialist medical services that is feasible, acceptable, and potentially cost effective.

Integrated collaborative care for comorbid major depression in patients with cancer (SMaRT Oncology-2): a multicentre randomised controlled effectiveness trial

To: (1) estimate the prevalence of clinically significant emotional distress in patients attending a cancer outpatient department and (2) determine the associations between distress and demographic and clinical variables, we conducted a survey of outpatients attending selected clinics of a regional cancer centre in Edinburgh, UK. Patients completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) on touch-screen computers and the scores were linked to clinical variables on the hospital database. Nearly one quarter of the cancer outpatients 674 out of 3071 (22%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 20–23%) met our criterion for clinically significant emotional distress (total HADS score 15 or more). Univariate analysis identified the following statistically significant associations: age <65, female gender, cancer type and extent of disease. Multivariate analysis indicated that age <65 (odds ratio 1.41; 95% CI 1.18–1.69), female gender (odds ratio 1.58; 95% CI 1.31–1.92) and active disease (odds ratio 1.72; 95% CI 1.43–2.05) but not cancer diagnosis, were the independent predictors of clinically significant emotional distress. Services to treat distress in cancer patients should be organised to target patients by characteristics other than their cancer diagnosis.

Screening for major depression in cancer outpatients: the diagnostic accuracy of the 9-item patient health questionnaire.

BACKGROUND Medical conditions are often complicated by major depression, with consequent additional impairment of quality of life. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of an integrated treatment programme for major depression in patients with cancer (depression care for people with cancer) with usual care. METHODS SMaRT Oncology-2 is a parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled effectiveness trial. We enrolled outpatients with major depression from three cancer centres and their associated clinics in Scotland, UK. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the depression care for people with cancer intervention or usual care, with stratification (by trial centre) and minimisation (by age, primary cancer, and sex) with allocation concealment. Depression care for people with cancer is a manualised, multicomponent collaborative care treatment that is delivered systematically by a team of cancer nurses and psychiatrists in collaboration with primary care physicians. Usual care is provided by primary care physicians. Outcome data were collected up until 48 weeks. The primary outcome was treatment response (≥50% reduction in Symptom Checklist Depression Scale [SCL-20] score, range 0-4) at 24 weeks. Trial statisticians and data collection staff were masked to treatment allocation, but participants could not be masked to the allocations. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN40568538. FINDINGS 500 participants were enrolled between May 12, 2008, and May 13, 2011; 253 were randomly allocated to depression care for people with cancer and 247 to usual care. 143 (62%) of 231 participants in the depression care for people with cancer group and 40 (17%) of 231 in the usual care group responded to treatment: absolute difference 45% (95% CI 37-53), adjusted odds ratio 8·5 (95% CI 5·5-13·4), p<0·0001. Compared with patients in the usual care group, participants allocated to the depression care for people with cancer programme also had less depression, anxiety, pain, and fatigue; and better functioning, health, quality of life, and perceived quality of depression care at all timepoints (all p<0·05). During the study, 34 cancer-related deaths occurred (19 in the depression care for people with cancer group, 15 in the usual care group), one patient in the depression care for people with cancer group was admitted to a psychiatric ward, and one patient in this group attempted suicide. None of these events were judged to be related to the trial treatments or procedures. INTERPRETATION Our findings suggest that depression care for people with cancer is an effective treatment for major depression in patients with cancer. It offers a model for the treatment of depression comorbid with other medical conditions. FUNDING Cancer Research UK and Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government.

Integrated collaborative care for major depression comorbid with a poor prognosis cancer (SMaRT Oncology-3): a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with lung cancer

Systematic screening for depression has been recommended for patients who have medical conditions like cancer. The 9‐item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9) is becoming widely used, but its diagnostic accuracy has not yet been tested in a cancer patient population. In this article, the authors report on the performance of the PHQ‐9 as a screening instrument for major depressive disorder (MDD) in patients with cancer.

Physical Activity Monitoring: A Responsive and Meaningful Patient-Centered Outcome for Surgery, Chemotherapy, or Radiotherapy?

BACKGROUND The management of depression in patients with poor prognosis cancers, such as lung cancer, creates specific challenges. We aimed to assess the efficacy of an integrated treatment programme for major depression in patients with lung cancer compared with usual care. METHODS Symptom Management Research Trials (SMaRT) Oncology-3 is a parallel-group, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We enrolled patients with lung cancer and major depression from three cancer centres and their associated clinics in Scotland, UK. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the depression care for people with lung cancer treatment programme or usual care by a database software algorithm that used stratification (by trial centre) and minimisation (by age, sex, and cancer type) with allocation concealment. Depression care for people with lung cancer is a manualised, multicomponent collaborative care treatment that is systematically delivered by a team of cancer nurses and psychiatrists in collaboration with primary care physicians. Usual care is provided by primary care physicians. The primary outcome was depression severity (on the Symptom Checklist Depression Scale [SCL-20], range 0-4) averaged over the patients time in the trial (up to a maximum of 32 weeks). Trial statisticians and data collection staff were masked to treatment allocation, but patients and clinicians could not be masked to the allocations. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN75905964. FINDINGS 142 participants were recruited between Jan 5, 2009, and Sept 9, 2011; 68 were randomly allocated to depression care for people with lung cancer and 74 to usual care. 43 (30%) of 142 patients had died by 32 weeks, all of which were cancer-related deaths. No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred. 131 (92%) of 142 patients provided outcome data (59 in the depression care for people with lung cancer group and 72 in the usual care group) and were included in the intention-to-treat primary analysis. Average depression severity was significantly lower in patients allocated to depression care for people with lung cancer (mean score on the SCL-20 1·24 [SD 0·64]) than in those allocated to usual care (mean score 1·61 [SD 0·58]); difference -0·38 (95% CI -0·58 to -0·18); standardised mean difference -0·62 (95% CI -0·94 to -0·29). Self-rated depression improvement, anxiety, quality of life, role functioning, perceived quality of care, and proportion of patients achieving a 12-week treatment response were also significantly better in the depression care for people with lung cancer group than in the usual care group. INTERPRETATION Our findings suggest that major depression can be treated effectively in patients with a poor prognosis cancer; integrated depression care for people with lung cancer was substantially more efficacious than was usual care. Larger trials are now needed to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this care programme in this patient population, and further adaptation of the treatment will be necessary to address the unmet needs of patients with major depression and even shorter life expectancy. FUNDING Cancer Research UK and Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government.

Anti-tumour effects of lanreotide for pancreatic and intestinal neuroendocrine tumours: the CLARINET open-label extension study

CONTEXT In surgical and clinical oncology, there is a growing need for patient-centered outcomes that are responsive, meaningful, and fit for purpose. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to validate physical activity (PA) monitoring as a responsive outcome measure at different stages of disease and treatment, by verifying correlations between PA, performance score, and quality of life (QoL). METHODS Daily life PA of 162 cancer patients, monitored by a device that records time sitting/lying, time standing, time walking, number of steps taken, and walking cadence, was compared with 20 healthy volunteers. In a subgroup of patients, functional status and QoL were assessed using the World Health Organization/Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and the Karnofsky Performance Status scores and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire. RESULTS The PA of patients with resectable gastrointestinal cancer did not differ significantly from controls. In contrast, patients with advanced cancer took 45% fewer steps and spent an extra 2.8 hours/day lying/sitting (P=0.001). Patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery (5-6 weeks after operation) experienced a similar reduction in PA. There were significant correlations between PA and the physical and role domains as well as fatigue subscale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale. CONCLUSION Objective PA scores correlate significantly with disease stage, functional status, and QoL of patients with cancer. Therefore, activity monitoring can make meaningful objective estimates of patient function in response to cancer and its treatment and may provide surrogate outcomes of QoL.

Sorafenib in combination with transarterial chemoembolisation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (TACE 2): a randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

In the CLARINET study, lanreotide Autogel (depot in USA) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic pancreatic/intestinal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). We report long-term safety and additional efficacy data from the open-label extension (OLE). Patients with metastatic grade 1/2 (Ki-67 ≤10%) non-functioning NET and documented baseline tumour-progression status received lanreotide Autogel 120 mg (n=101) or placebo (n=103) for 96 weeks or until death/progressive disease (PD) in CLARINET study. Patients with stable disease (SD) at core study end (lanreotide/placebo) or PD (placebo only) continued or switched to lanreotide in the OLE. In total, 88 patients (previously: lanreotide, n=41; placebo, n=47) participated: 38% had pancreatic, 39% midgut and 23% other/unknown primary tumours. Patients continuing lanreotide reported fewer adverse events (AEs) (all and treatment-related) during OLE than core study. Placebo-to-lanreotide switch patients reported similar AE rates in OLE and core studies, except more diarrhoea was considered treatment-related in OLE (overall diarrhoea unchanged). Median lanreotide PFS (core study randomisation to PD in core/OLE; n=101) was 32.8 months (95% CI: 30.9, 68.0). A sensitivity analysis, addressing potential selection bias by assuming that patients with SD on lanreotide in the core study and not entering the OLE (n=13) had PD 24 weeks after last core assessment, found median PFS remaining consistent: 30.8 months (95% CI: 30.0, 31.3). Median time to further PD after placebo-to-lanreotide switch (n=32) was 14.0 months (10.1; not reached). This OLE study suggests long-term treatment with lanreotide Autogel 120 mg maintained favourable safety/tolerability. CLARINET OLE data also provide new evidence of lanreotide anti-tumour benefits in indolent and progressive pancreatic/intestinal NETs.

Capecitabine combined with oxaliplatin (CapOx) in clinical practice: how significant is peripheral neuropathy?

BACKGROUND Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is the standard of care for patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma, while the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib improves survival in patients with advanced disease. We aimed to determine whether TACE with sorafenib improves progression-free survival versus TACE with placebo. METHODS We did a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TACE 2) in 20 hospitals in the UK for patients with unresectable, liver-confined hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients were eligible if they were at least aged 18 years, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and had Child-Pugh A liver disease. Patients were randomised 1:1 by computerised minimisation algorithm to continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice-daily) or matching placebo combined with TACE using drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE), which was given via the hepatic artery 2-5 weeks after randomisation and according to radiological response and patient tolerance thereafter. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre and serum α-fetoprotein concentration (<400 ng/mL and ≥400 ng/mL). Only the trial coordinator was unmasked to treatment allocation before patient progression during the study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival defined as the interval between randomisation and progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or death due to any cause, and was analysed by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed by intention-to-treat. The trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2008-005073-36, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN93375053. FINDINGS Between Nov 4, 2010, and Dec 7, 2015, the trial enrolled 399 patients and was terminated after a planned interim futility analysis. 86 patients failed screening and 313 remaining patients were randomly assigned: 157 to sorafenib and 156 to placebo. The median daily dose was 660 mg (IQR 389·2-800·0) sorafenib versus 800 mg (758·2-800·0) placebo, and median duration of therapy was 120·0 days (IQR 43·0-266·0) for sorafenib versus 162·0 days (70·0-323·5) for placebo. There was no evidence of difference in progression-free survival between the sorafenib group and the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·77-1·27], p=0·94); median progression-free survival was 238·0 days (95% CI 221·0-281·0) in the sorafenib group and 235·0 days (209·0-322·0) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (29 [18%] of 157 patients in the sorafenib group vs 21 [13%] of 156 patients in the placebo group), abdominal pain (20 [13%] vs 12 [8%]), diarrhoea (16 [10%] vs four [3%]), gastrointestinal disorders (18 [11%] vs 12 [8%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (12 [8%] and none). At least one serious adverse event was reported in 65 (41%) of 157 patients in the sorafenib group and 50 (32%) of 156 in the placebo group, and 181 serious adverse events were reported in total, 95 (52%) in the sorafenib group and 86 (48%) in the placebo group. Three deaths occurred in each group that were attributed to DEB-TACE. Four deaths were attributed to study drug; three in the sorafenib group and one in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION The addition of sorafenib to DEB-TACE does not improve progression-free survival in European patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Alternative systemic therapies need to be assessed in combination with TACE to improve patient outcomes. FUNDING Bayer PLC and BTG PLC.

Aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: economics of high-dose therapy.

BACKGROUND There is speculation that peripheral neuropathy (PN) with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapOx; 130 mg/m(2), day 1, every 21 days) may be more common than with FOLFOX4 (5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), day 1, every 14 days). We aimed to determine PN incidence and associations during CapOx, and 6 and 12 months after CapOx. PATIENTS AND METHODS Retrospective audit of 188 oxaliplatin-naive colorectal cancer patients (87 adjuvant, 101 palliative) who received at least one cycle of CapOx. Neurosensory Common Toxicity Criteria Adverse Events version 3 were applied. RESULTS Overall, 94% experienced acute PN. Worst severities for adjuvant and palliative patients, respectively, were grade 1, 44% and 54%; grade 2, 35% and 32%; grade 3, 16% and 3%; grade 4, 0% and 1% and grade unclear 1% and 1%. Two patients developed PN after CapOx completion despite no symptoms during treatment. Chronic PN at 6 months affected 57% and 18% of adjuvant and palliative patients, respectively. At 12 months, 35% and 16% were affected. Chronic PN at 12 months was associated with cumulative oxaliplatin dose but not age, gender, acute myotonia, pseudolaryngospasm or grade 2 or more PN during treatment. CONCLUSION Incidence of acute PN during CapOx appears similar to FOLFOX4 but chronic PN in adjuvant patients may be more common with CapOx.