Health-related quality-of-life trajectories during/after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with colon cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate quality of life trajectory during the first year after surgical treatment in patients with resectable primary colon cancer. METHODS: Patients with resectable primary colon cancer diagnosed between 2013 and 2019 who received surgical treatment and adjuvant chemotherapy if indicated were selected from the Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort study (PLCRC). Health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) was assessed using EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire before surgery, and three and twelve months after surgery. HR-QoL scores varied between 0 and 100 and outcomes were compared according to age (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years), comorbidity (yes, no) and treatment type (adjuvant chemotherapy, surgical treatment only). The extent of resilience, defined as a recovery of HR-QoL to baseline level after a clinically relevant decline in HR-QoL at months, was calculated twelve months post-surgery. RESULTS: For all 458 patients, the mean age was 66.4 years (SD 9.5), 40% were aged 70 years and older and 68% were men. Baseline level of HR-QoL summary score was relatively high with a mean of 87.9 (SD 11.5), and did not significantly differ between older and younger patients. The strongest decline of HR-QoL compared to baseline was observed at three months with a gradual recovery over time. Fourteen percent of all patients were non-resilient or showed a late decline at twelve months post-surgery. Compared to younger patients, older patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy were less resilient (respectively, 53 and 32%, p = 0.07) and at risk of a late decline in HR-QoL 1 year post-surgery (respectively, 3% versus 16%, p = 0.02). Comorbidity status had no significant impact on the HR-QoL trajectory. CONCLUSION: Colon cancer treatment was associated with a decline in HR-QoL three months post-surgery, but most patients return to baseline level within twelve months. Still, particularly older patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy were less resilient and at risk of a late decline in HR-QoL. These data could help in patients counselling regarding colon cancer treatment.

Study objectives in clinical trials in older patients with solid malignancies: do we measure what matters?

PURPOSE: We set out to determine study objectives of clinical trials which included older patients with the four most common malignancies, to assess the extent to which the inclusion of patient-related outcomes (PROs) has changed over the last fifteen years. METHOD: A search of the National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry was performed to identify currently recruiting or completed phase II or III clinical trials started between 2005 and 2020, which addressed chemotherapy or immunotherapy in patients aged > 65 years with the four most common solid malignancies. Trial characteristics and study objectives were extracted from the registry website. RESULTS: Compared to disease- and treatment-related outcomes, PROs were the least measured outcomes. Of the 1,663 trials, PROs were addressed in only 21% of all trials, in which quality of life as primary objective was found in less than 1% of all trials. Compared to all trials, trials exclusively for older patients addressed more often PROs (respectively, 30% vs 21%, p < 0.001). Over the last fifteen years, there was an incremental trend in the reporting of PROs from 17 to 24% of all trials (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Despite a slight incremental trend over the past 15 years, PROs appear to be underrepresented in clinical trials which include patients with a solid malignancy. In order to provide physicians and older patients with cancer realistic information about the impact of chemo- or immunotherapy on quality of life or functioning, researchers should strongly consider including PROs in their future clinical trials.

Treatment patterns and primary reasons for adjusted treatment in older and younger patients with stage II or III colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess age-related treatment patterns and primary reasons for adjusted treatment in patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with colorectal cancer stage II or III diagnosed between 2015 and 2018 in the Netherlands were eligible for this study. Data were provided by the Netherlands Cancer Registry and included socio-demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and primary reasons for adjusted treatment. Treatment patterns and reasons for adjusted treatment were analysed according to age groups. RESULTS: Of all 29,620 patients, 30% were aged <65 years (n = 8994), 34% between 65 and 75 years (n = 10,173), 27% between 75 and 85 years (n = 8102) and 8% were ≥85 years (n = 2349). Irrespective of cancer location or stage, older patients received less frequently a combination of surgery and (neo)adjuvant therapy compared to younger patients (decreasing from 55% to 1% in colon cancer patients, and from 71% to 23% in rectal cancer patients aged <65 years and ≥85 years respectively). Omission of surgical treatment increased with age in both patients with colon cancer (ranging from 1% in patients aged <65 years to 16% in those ≥85 years) and rectal cancer (ranging from 12% in patients aged <65 years to 56% in those ≥85 years). The most common reasons for adjusted treatment were patient preference (27%) and functional status (20%), both reasons increased with advancing age. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline non-adherence increased with advancing age and omission of standard treatment was mainly based on patient preference and functional status. These findings provides insight in the treatment decision-making process in patients with colorectal cancer. Future research is necessary to further assess patient's role in the treatment decision-making process.

Perceived social support in patients with endometrial or ovarian cancer: A secondary analysis from the ROGY care study.

OBJECTIVE: Social support may reduce the amount of psychological distress and increase quality of life. This study assessed whether socio-demographic, personality, and clinical characteristics predict the level of perceived social support in patients with endometrial or ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients with endometrial or ovarian cancer who participated in the ROGY Care study and completed the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support(MSPSS) 12 months after inclusion were eligible for this study (n=238). Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the predictive value of socio-demographic characteristics, personality and clinical characteristics after initial treatment on the perceived level of social support after 12 months. RESULTS: Of the 238 patients (mean age 64.8 ± 9.4 years), 139 patients had endometrial cancer (58%) and 99 patients had ovarian cancer (42%). One year after inclusion, the level of perceived social support was high in 79% of all patients (n=189). Patients experiencing low level of perceived social support (n=49) less often had a partner (69% versus 83% in patients with high level of perceived social support; p=0.029), had a higher education level (24% versus 15% respectively; p=0.013) and a distressed (type D) personality was more common (40% versus 16% respectively; p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, a type D personality, characterized by negative affect and social inhibition, was the only independent predictor of a low level of perceived social support (OR 2.96; 95% CI 1.37-6.37; p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with endometrial or ovarian cancer, the level of perceived social support is mainly associated with a distressed (type D) personality. Those patients can be at risk of experiencing less social support. Future research is needed to assess whether they might benefit from additional support during cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Reasons for guideline non-adherence in older and younger women with advanced stage ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the reasons for guideline non-adherence in women with advanced stage ovarian cancer and whether these reasons differ according to age. METHODS: All women diagnosed with advanced stage ovarian cancer, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) IIb-IV, between 2015 and 2018 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatment patterns and reasons for guideline non-adherence were analyzed according to age groups. RESULTS: 4210 women were included, of whom 34%, 33%, 26%, and 8% were aged <65, 65-75, 75-85, and ≥85 years respectively. With advancing age, less women received guideline-adherent treatment (decreasing from 70% to 2% in women aged <65 and ≥85 years respectively) and more women received best supportive care only (ranging from 4% to 69% in women aged <65 and ≥85 years respectively). The most prevalent reasons for guideline non-adherence differed according to age and included patient preference in older women, and functional status and extent of disease in younger women. CONCLUSIONS: Most older women did not receive guideline-adherent care and patient preference was the most common reason for this decision. This knowledge provides insight in the current treatment decision-making process and highlights the importance of eliciting patient treatment preferences. Further prospective research is necessary to study the underlying motivation for women to decline guideline care and the extent to which shared decision-making influences treatment choice.

Older ovarian cancer survivors report lower long-term health-related quality of life than younger survivors: A study from the population-based profiles registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of older ovarian cancer survivors compared to both an age-matched normative population and to younger survivors. In addition, the differential effect of chemotherapy on HRQoL between older and younger survivors was compared. METHODS: Ovarian cancer survivors (n = 348) diagnosed between 2000 and 2010, as registered by the Dutch population-based Eindhoven Cancer Registry, were invited to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30 HRQoL questionnaire in 2012. HRQoL outcomes of survivors were compared with an age-matched normative population and older survivors (≥70 years) were compared with younger survivors. RESULTS: The questionnaire was returned by 191 ovarian cancer survivors (55%), 31% were aged ≥70 years (n = 59). Compared to the normative population, survivors ≥70 years scored lower on global health status and all functioning subscales except emotional functioning, and they reported more symptoms. Survivors aged <70 years only reported worse physical and cognitive functioning in comparison with the normative population. Most differences were of medium to small clinical relevance. Age appeared to moderate the effect of chemotherapy on HRQoL. Older survivors who had received chemotherapy experienced better physical functioning and less pain and insomnia while the opposite was found in younger survivors. CONCLUSION: In comparison with an age-matched normative population, older ovarian cancer survivors report lower HRQoL scores than younger survivors. As this represents a selection of long-term survivors, future research should focus on the trajectory of HRQoL from diagnosis throughout treatment and follow-up to identify which factors are related to worse HRQoL in the entire older ovarian cancer population and whether timely interventions are able to improve HRQoL.

Treatment decision-making in elderly women with ovarian cancer: an age-based comparison.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate treatment choices and outcomes in women with ovarian cancer, comparing elderly (≥75 years) and younger patients (<75 years). METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2010 and 2015. The initial treatment plan and course of treatment were extracted from medical files. RESULTS: Of 128 included patients, 34% were aged ≥75 years. The initial treatment plan consisted of the combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (ie, standard treatment) in only 10% of the elderly patients with an indication for this treatment. 5% of these patients completed this treatment without adaptations (compared with 85% and 48%, respectively, in younger patients). 38% of the elderly patients with an indication for cytoreductive surgery and chemotherapy received best supportive care only. Patient preference was an important reason to withhold standard treatment. Surgery- and chemotherapy-related complications and hospital admissions did not differ between groups. Median survival was lower in the elderly (p=0.002) and in patients receiving best supportive care (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients were less frequently treated in accordance with the treatment guideline. To select those older patients who may benefit from (adapted) treatment is challenging. Future studies should evaluate determinants associated with treatment completion to improve outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Chemotherapy and healthcare utilisation near the end of life in patients with cancer.

The quality of medical care delivered to patients with cancer near the end of life is a significant issue. Previous studies have defined several areas suggestive of aggressive cancer treatment as potentially representing poor quality care. The primary objective of current analysis was to examine chemotherapy and healthcare utilisation in the last 3 months of life among patients with cancer that received palliative chemotherapy. Patients were selected from the hospital administration database of the Diakonessenhuis Utrecht, the Netherlands. Data were extracted from the medical files. A total of 604 patients were included for analysis (median age: 64 years). For 300 patients (50%) chemotherapy was given in the last 3 months (CT+). For 76% (n = 229) of CT+ patients unplanned hospital admissions were made in these last 3 months, compared to 44% (n = 133) of CT- patients (p < .001). Visits to the emergency room in last 3 months were made by 67% (n = 202) of CT+ patients compared to 43% (n = 132) of CT- patients (p < .001). Healthcare consumption was significantly higher in patients who received chemotherapy in the last 3 months of life. Being able to inform our patients about these aspects of treatment can help to optimise both the quality of life and the quality of dying in patients with cancer.