Mary Ann O'Brien

Randomized trial comparing epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and methotrexate in advanced esophagogastric cancer.

PURPOSE We report the results of a prospectively randomized study that compared the combination of epirubicin, cisplatin, and protracted venous infusion fluorouracil (5-FU) (ECF regimen) with the standard combination of 5-FU, doxorubicin, and methotrexate (FAMTX) in previously untreated patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred seventy-four patients with adenocarcinoma or undifferentiated carcinoma were randomized and analyzed for survival, tumor response, toxicity, and quality of life (QL). RESULTS The overall response rate was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36% to 54%) with ECF and 21% (95% CI, 13% to 29%) with FAMTX (P = .0002). Toxicity was tolerable and there were only three toxic deaths. The FAMTX regimen caused more hematologic toxicity and serious infections, but ECF caused more emesis and alopecia. The median survival duration was 8.9 months with ECF and 5.7 months with FAMTX (P = .0009); at 1 year, 36% (95% CI, 27% to 45%) of ECF and 21% (95% CI, 14% to 29%) of FAMTX patients were alive. The median failure-free survival duration was 7.4 months with ECF and 3.4 months with FAMTX (P = .00006). The global QL scores were better for ECF at 24 weeks, but the remaining QL data showed no differences between either arm of the study. Hospital-based cost analysis on a subset of patients was similar for each arm and translated into an increment cost of

Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback

975 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION The ECF regimen results in a survival and response advantage, tolerable toxicity, better QL and cost-effectiveness compared with FAMTX chemotherapy. This regimen should now be considered the standard treatment for advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Multicenter Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Protracted Venous Infusion (PVI) Fluorouracil (5-FU) With PVI 5-FU Plus Mitomycin in Inoperable Pancreatic Cancer

Background: Many people advocate audit and feedback as a strategy for improving professional practice. The main results of an update of a Cochrane review on the effects of audit and feedback are reported. Data sources: The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group’s register up to January 2004 was searched. Randomised trials of audit and feedback that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes were included. Review methods: Data were independently extracted and the quality of studies were assessed by two reviewers. Quantitative, visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. Main results: 118 trials are included in the review. In the primary analysis, 88 comparisons from 72 studies were included that compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a component to no intervention. For dichotomous outcomes, the median-adjusted risk difference of compliance with desired practice was 5% (interquartile range 3–11). For continuous outcomes, the median-adjusted percentage change relative to control was 16% (interquartile range 5–37). Low baseline compliance with recommended practice and higher intensity of audit and feedback appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback. Conclusions: Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. The effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low and intensity of audit and feedback is high.

Modafinil for the Treatment of Fatigue in Lung Cancer: Results of a Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Randomized Trial

PURPOSE To compare protracted venous infusion (PVI) fluorouracil (5-FU) with PVI 5-FU plus mitomycin (MMC) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in a multicenter, prospectively randomized study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred eight patients were randomized to PVI 5-FU (300 mg/m(2)/d for a maximum of 24 weeks) or PVI 5-FU plus MMC (7 mg/m(2) every 6 weeks for four courses). The major end points were tumor response, survival, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS The two treatment groups were balanced for baseline demographic factors, and 62% had metastatic disease. The overall response rate was 8.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]) 3.2% to 13.7% for patients treated with PVI 5-FU alone compared with 17.6%; 95% CI 10.3% to 25.1% for PVI 5-FU plus MMC (P =.04). Median failure-free survival was 2.8 months for PVI 5-FU and 3.8 months for PVI 5-FU plus MMC (P =.14). Median survival was 5.1 months for PVI 5-FU and 6.5 months for PVI 5-FU plus MMC (P =.34). Toxicities in both arms were mild. There was an increased incidence of neutropenia in the 5-FU plus MMC arm (P <.01), although no differences in infection were seen. No patients developed hemolytic uremic syndrome. Global QOL improved significantly after 24 weeks of treatment compared with baseline for patients receiving 5-FU plus MMC, although there was no statistically significant difference in QOL between arms. CONCLUSION PVI 5-FU plus MMC resulted in a superior response rate in comparison with PVI 5-FU alone in advanced pancreatic cancer, but this did not translate into a survival advantage. These results emphasize the importance of chemotherapy in this setting and the continuing value of the fluoropyrimidines in pancreatic cancer.

A phase II trial of palliative radiotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE Fatigue is a distressing symptom occurring in more than 60% of patients with cancer. The CNS stimulants modafinil and methylphenidate are recommended for the treatment of cancer-related fatigue, despite a limited evidence base. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of modafinil in the management of fatigue in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Adults with advanced NSCLC and performance status of 0 to 2, who were not treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy within the last 4 weeks, were randomly assigned to daily modafinil (100 mg on days 1 to 14; 200 mg on days 15 to 28) or matched placebo. The primary outcome was change in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) -Fatigue score from baseline to 28 days, adjusted for baseline fatigue and performance status. Secondary outcomes included safety and patient-reported measures of depression, daytime sleepiness, and quality of life. RESULTS A total of 208 patients were randomly assigned, and 160 patients (modafinil, n = 75; placebo, n = 85) completed questionnaires at both baseline and day 28 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. FACIT-Fatigue scores improved from baseline to day 28 (mean score change: modafinil, 5.29; 95% CI, 2.57 to 8.02; placebo, 5.09; 95% CI, 2.54 to 7.65), but there was no difference between treatments (0.20; 95% CI, -3.56 to 3.97). There was also no difference between treatments for the secondary outcomes; 47% of the modafinil group and 23% of the placebo group stated that the intervention was not helpful. CONCLUSION Modafinil had no effect on cancer-related fatigue and should not be prescribed outside a clinical trial setting. Its use was associated with a clinically significant placebo effect.

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): An open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has previously been described as being less responsive to radiotherapy (RT) than other tumor types. The authors conducted a prospective study to assess the effect of RT on symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in patients with metastatic RCC.

Implementing and evaluating a program to facilitate chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: A mixed methods program evaluation

Summary Background Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. Methods The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin–etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up. Findings Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35–58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24–34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21–31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95–1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50–62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45–57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI −3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3–4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3–4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group). Interpretation Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting. Funding Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups).

Views of family physicians about survivorship care plans to provide breast cancer follow-up care: exploration of results from a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe objectives of this paper are to describe the planned implementation and evaluation of the Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER 2) program which originated from the BETTER trial. The pragmatic trial, informed by the Chronic Care Model, demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) involving the use of a new role, the prevention practitioner. The desired goals of the program are improved clinical outcomes, reduction in the burden of chronic disease, and improved sustainability of the health-care system through improved CDPS in primary care.Methods/designThe BETTER 2 program aims to expand the implementation of the intervention used in the original BETTER trial into communities across Canada (Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia). This proactive approach provides at-risk patients with an intervention from the prevention practitioner, a health-care professional. Using the BETTER toolkit, the prevention practitioner determines which CDPS actions the patient is eligible to receive, and through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, develops a unique and individualized `prevention prescription’ with the patient. This intervention is 1) personalized; 2) addressing multiple conditions; 3) integrated through linkages to local, regional, or national resources; and 4) longitudinal by assessing patients over time. The BETTER 2 program brings together primary care providers, policy/decision makers and researchers to work towards improving CDPS in primary care. The target patient population is adults aged 40-65. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintain (RE-AIM) framework will inform the evaluation of the program through qualitative and quantitative methods. A composite index will be used to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of the prevention practitioner intervention. The CDPS actions comprising the composite index include the following: process measures, referral/treatment measures, and target/change outcome measures related to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and associated lifestyle factors.DiscussionThe BETTER 2 program is a collaborative approach grounded in practice and built from existing work (i.e., integration not creation). The program evaluation is designed to provide an understanding of issues impacting the implementation of an effective approach for CDPS within primary care that may be adapted to become sustainable in the non-research setting.

Interventions to improve care coordination between primary healthcare and oncology care providers: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND The U.S. Institute of Medicine recommends that cancer patients receive survivorship care plans, but evaluations to date have found little evidence of the effectiveness of such plans. We conducted a qualitative follow-on study to a randomized controlled trial (rct) to understand the experiences of family physicians using survivorship care plans to support the follow-up of breast cancer patients. METHODS A subset of family physicians whose patients were enrolled in the parent rct in Ontario and Nova Scotia were eligible for this study. In interviews, the physicians discussed survivorship care plans (intervention) or usual discharge letters (control), and their confidence in providing follow-up cancer care. RESULTS Of 123 eligible family physicians, 18 (10 intervention, 8 control) were interviewed. In general, physicians receiving a survivorship care plan found only the 1-page care record to be useful. Physicians who received only a discharge letter had variable views about the letters usefulness; several indicated that it lacked information about potential cancer- or treatment-related problems. Most physicians were comfortable providing care 3-5 years after diagnosis, but desired timely and informative communication with oncologists. CONCLUSIONS Although family physicians did not find extensive survivorship care plans useful, discharge letters might not be sufficiently comprehensive for follow-up breast cancer care. Effective strategies for two-way communication between family physicians and oncologists are still lacking.

Primary care physicians' perspectives on computer-based health risk assessment tools for chronic diseases: a mixed methods study.

Coordination of patient care between primary care and oncology care providers is vital to care quality and outcomes across the cancer continuum, yet it is known to be challenging. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate current or new models of care and/or interventions aimed at improving coordination between primary care and oncology care providers for patients with adult breast and/or colorectal cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination were searched for existing English language studies published between January 2000 and 15 May 2015. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies were included if they evaluated a specific model/intervention that was designed to improve care coordination between primary care and oncology care providers, for any stage of the cancer continuum, for patients with adult breast and/or colorectal cancer. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Twenty-two studies (5 systematic reviews, 6 RCTs and 11 non-randomised studies) were included and varied with respect to the targeted phase of the cancer continuum, type of model or intervention tested, and outcome measures. The majority of studies showed no statistically significant changes in any patient, provider or system outcomes. Owing to conceptual and methodological limitations in this field, the review is unable to provide specific conclusions about the most effective or preferred model/intervention to improve care coordination. Imprecise results that lack generalisability and definitiveness provide limited evidence to base the development of future interventions and policies. Trial registration number CRD42015025006.