Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
ESMO Open ; 7(6): 100610, 2022 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36356416

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Solid cancer is an independent prognostic factor for poor outcome with COVID-19. As guidelines for patient management in that setting depend on retrospective efforts, we here present the first analyses of a nationwide database of patients with cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 in Belgium, with a focus on changes in anticancer treatment plans at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Nineteen Belgian hospitals identified all patients with a history of solid cancer hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2021. Demographic, cancer-specific and COVID-specific data were pseudonymously entered into a central Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO)-COVID database. The association between survival and primary cancer type was analyzed through multivariate multinomial logistic regression. Group comparisons for categorical variables were carried out through a Chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 928 patients were registered in the database; most of them were aged ≥70 years (61.0%) and with poor performance scores [57.2% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) ≥2]. Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was 19.8%. In multivariate analysis, a trend was seen for higher mortality in patients with lung cancer (27.6% versus 20.8%, P = 0.062) and lower mortality for patients with breast cancer (13.0% versus 23.3%, P = 0.052) compared with other tumour types. Non-curative treatment was associated with higher 30-day COVID-related mortality rates compared with curative or no active treatment (25.8% versus 14.3% versus 21.9%, respectively, P < 0.001). In 33% of patients under active treatment, the therapeutic plan was changed due to COVID-19 diagnosis, most frequently involving delays/interruptions in systemic treatments (18.6%). Thirty-day COVID-related mortality was not significantly different between patients with and without treatment modifications (21.4% versus 20.5%). CONCLUSION: Interruption in anticancer treatments at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with a reduction in COVID-related mortality in our cohort of patients with solid cancer, highlighting that treatment continuation should be strived for, especially in the curative setting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung Neoplasms , Humans , Belgium/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19 Testing , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Medical Oncology , Registries
2.
Qual Life Res ; 28(3): 663-676, 2019 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30511255

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Using the EORTC Global Health Status (GHS) scale, we aimed to determine minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes for older cancer patients with a geriatric risk profile, as defined by the geriatric 8 (G8) health screening tool, undergoing treatment. Simultaneously, we assessed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes. METHODS: Our analysis included 1424 (G8 ≤ 14) older patients with cancer scheduled to receive chemotherapy (n = 683) or surgery (n = 741). Anchor-based methods, linking the GHS score to clinical indicators, were used to determine MCID between baseline and follow-up at 3 months. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) was used to exclude MCID estimates too small for interpretation. Logistic regressions analysed baseline patient characteristics prognostic for HRQOL changes. RESULTS: The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS15), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for Fatigue and ECOG Performance Status (PS) were selected as clinical anchors. In the surgery group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (5*, 11*), GDS15 (5*, 2) and VAS Fatigue (3, 9*). In the chemotherapy group, MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were ECOG PS (8*, 7*), GDS15 (5, 4) and VAS Fatigue (5, 5*). Estimates with * were > 0.2 SD threshold. Patients experiencing pain or malnutrition (surgery group) or fatigue (chemotherapy group) at baseline showed a significantly stable or improved HRQOL (p < 0.05) after their treatment. CONCLUSION: The reported MCID for improvement and deterioration depended on the anchor used and treatment received. The estimates can be used to evaluate significant changes in HRQOL and to determine sample sizes in clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Geriatric Assessment/methods , Health Status , Minimal Clinically Important Difference , Neoplasms/therapy , Quality of Life/psychology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pain/pathology , Pain Measurement/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires
3.
Ann Oncol ; 29(9): 1987-1994, 2018 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29905766

ABSTRACT

Background: In the general older population, geriatric assessment (GA)-guided treatment plans can improve overall survival, quality of life and functional status (FS). In GA-related research in geriatric oncology, studies mainly focused on geriatric screening and GA but not on geriatric recommendations, interventions and follow-up. The aim of this study was to investigate the adherence to geriatric recommendations and subsequent actions undertaken in older patients with cancer. Patient and methods: A prospective Belgian multicenter (N = 22) cohort study included patients ≥70 years with a malignant tumor upon oncologic treatment decision. Patients with an abnormal result on the geriatric screening (G8 ≤14/17) underwent GA. Geriatric recommendations were formulated based on GA results. At follow-up the adherence to geriatric recommendations was documented including a description of actions undertaken. Results: From November 2012 till February 2015, G8 screening was carried out in 8451 patients, of which 5838 patients had an abnormal result. Geriatric recommendations data were available for 5631 patients. Geriatric recommendations were made for 4459 patients. Geriatric interventions data were available for 4167 patients. A total of 12 384 geriatric recommendations were made. At least one different geriatric recommendation was implemented in 2874 patients. A dietician, social worker and geriatrician intervened most frequently for problems detected on the nutritional, social and functional domain. A total of 7569 actions were undertaken for a total of 5725 geriatric interventions, most frequently nutritional support and supplements, extended home care and psychological support. Conclusions: This large-scale Belgian study focuses on the adherence to geriatric recommendations and subsequent actions undertaken and contributes to the optimal management of older patients with cancer. We identified the domains for which geriatric recommendations are most frequently made and adhered to, and which referrals to other health care workers and facilities are frequently applied in the multidisciplinary approach of older patients with cancer.


Subject(s)
Aftercare/statistics & numerical data , Geriatric Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Aftercare/standards , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Belgium , Clinical Decision-Making , Female , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/standards , Medical Oncology/standards , Neoplasms/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life
4.
J Geriatr Oncol ; 9(2): 152-162, 2018 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29167064

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We aim to assess short and long term effects of chemotherapy on patient-reported quality of life (QOL) and patient versus clinician symptom reporting in older patients with breast cancer adjusted for tumour and aging parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, non-interventional, observational study, women aged ≥70years were enrolled after surgery and assigned to a TC chemotherapy (docetaxel and cyclophosphamide) group or a control group depending on their planned adjuvant treatment. Longitudinal multivariate models were used to assess the statistical and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the impact of TC chemotherapy over time on QOL and symptom burden adjusted for baseline aging and tumour parameters. Statistical significance was set at 5% and MCID at 10 points. RESULTS: In total, 57 patients were enrolled in the chemotherapy and 52 patients in the control group. Within the chemotherapy group, clinical deterioration was reported at 3months for Fatigue (17.73), Dyspnoea (17.05), Diarrhoea (12.06) and Appetite Loss (17.05) scores (all p<0.001). However, the scores had returned to baseline (or even better for Role Functioning) at year 1. No clinical deterioration was reported in the control group. Symptom scores as reported by patients were significantly (p<0.05) higher than those reported by the clinicians, even more so for Fatigue, Dyspnoea, and Pain. CONCLUSION: Our results show that symptom burden and diminished QOL in an older breast cancer population receiving adjuvant TC chemotherapy are short-lived and disappear after a while with no long-term differences compared to a similar population not receiving chemotherapy.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant/adverse effects , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Quality of Life , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Breast Neoplasms/psychology , Case-Control Studies , Female , Frailty/classification , Humans , Prospective Studies , Time Factors
5.
J Nutr Health Aging ; 20(1): 60-70, 2016 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26728935

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe a large-scale, Belgian implementation project about geriatric assessment (=GA) in daily oncology practice and to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing GA in this setting. Design / setting / participants: The principal investigator of every participating hospital (n=22) was invited to complete a newly developed questionnaire with closed- and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions surveyed how GA was implemented. The open-ended questions identified barriers and facilitators for the implementation of GA in daily oncology practice. Descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis were performed as appropriate. RESULTS: Qualifying criteria (e.g. disease status and cancer type) for GA varied substantially between hospitals. Thirteen hospitals (59.1%) succeeded to screen more than half of eligible patients. Most hospitals reported that GA data and follow-up data had been collected in almost all screened patients. Implementing geriatric recommendations and formulating new geriatric recommendations at the time of follow-up are important opportunities for improvement. The majority of identified barriers were organizational, with high workload, lack of time or financial/staffing problems as most cited. The most cited facilitators were all related to collaboration. CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer need to address a wide range of factors, with organization and collaboration as key elements. All stakeholders, seeking to improve the implementation of GA in older patients with cancer, should consider and address the identified barriers and facilitators.


Subject(s)
Geriatric Assessment , Hospitals , Mass Screening , Neoplasms/therapy , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Belgium , Female , Health Services for the Aged , Health Status , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Care Planning , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...