Feasibility and outcomes of a goal-directed physical therapy program for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of a tailored, goal-directed, and exercise-based physical therapy program for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: This was an observational, uncontrolled feasibility study. The physical therapy intervention was highly tailored to the individual patient's goals, abilities, and preferences and could include functional, strength, aerobic, and relaxation exercises. Feasibility outcomes were participation rate (expected: 25%), safety, and adherence (percentage of attended sessions relative to scheduled sessions). Additional outcomes were goal attainment, self-reported physical functioning, fatigue, health-related quality of life, and patient and physical therapist satisfaction with the program. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients (estimated participation rate: 34%) were enrolled. Three patients did not start the intervention due to early disease progression. An additional 22 patients discontinued the program prematurely, mainly due to disease progression. Median intervention adherence was 90% and no major intervention-related adverse events occurred. A goal attainment score was available for 42 patients (of whom 29 had completed the program and 13 had prematurely dropped out). Twenty-two (52%) of these patients achieved their main goal fully or largely and an additional 15 patients (36%) partially. Eighty-five percent would "definitely recommend" the program to other patients with MBC. We observed a modest improvement in patient satisfaction with physical activities (Cohen's dz 0.33). CONCLUSION: The tailored intervention program was feasible in terms of uptake, safety, and outcomes and was highly valued by patients and physical therapists. However, disease progression interfered with the program, leading to substantial dropout. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR register: NTR6475.

The value of a dedicated multidisciplinary expert panel to assess treatment strategy in patients suffering from colorectal cancer liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: For patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM), local treatment is the only treatment with curative intent. The majority of patients with CRLM are however evaluated in multidisciplinary teams of colorectal cancer specialists often lacking expertise in local treatment of liver tumors. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the value of a dedicated multidisciplinary panel consisting of hepatobiliary surgeons and interventional radiologists for patients suffering from liver-only CRLM. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with liver-only CRLM in 2016 were identified in a tertiary referral hospital, and two of the referring hospitals in the Netherlands. Diagnostic imaging was independently reviewed by a panel of four hepatobiliary surgeons and two interventional radiologists to re-evaluate treatment strategy retrospectively. If two or more panelists assessed all lesions eligible for resection and/or ablation, patients were deemed eligible for local treatment with curative intent. Interrater reliability between hepatobiliary surgeons was assessed through intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and weighted Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: Diagnostic imaging of 61 patients with liver-only metastases were reviewed. Local treatment strategies appeared feasible in 40/61 (65.6%) patients. Five out of 25 patients (20.0%) initially assigned to systemic therapy were deemed eligible for upfront local treatment with curative intent (p = 0.015). In this subgroup, interrater reliability between hepatobiliary surgeons was substantial (ICC: 0.704, 95% CI: 0.536-0.838, n = 25). CONCLUSION: Assessment of treatment strategy by a dedicated multidisciplinary panel including liver experts may result in an increased number of patients eligible for potentially curative treatment and reduce undertreatment of patients suffering from liver-only CRLM.

Randomized phase 2 study of gemcitabine and cisplatin with or without vitamin supplementation in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer.

PURPOSE: Preclinical research and prior clinical observations demonstrated reduced toxicity and suggested enhanced efficacy of cisplatin due to folic acid and vitamin B12 suppletion. In this randomized phase 2 trial, we evaluated the addition of folic acid and vitamin B12 to first-line palliative cisplatin and gemcitabine in patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer (AEGC). METHODS: Patients with AEGC were randomized to gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 (i.v. days 1, 8) and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (i.v. day 1) q 3 weeks with or without folic acid (450 µg/day p.o.) and vitamin B12 (1000 µg i.m. q 9 weeks). The primary endpoint was response rate (RR). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), toxicity, and exploratory biomarker analyses. Cisplatin sensitivity and intracellular platinum levels were determined in adenocarcinoma cell lines cultured under high and low folate conditions in vitro. RESULTS: Adenocarcinoma cells cultured in medium with high folate levels were more sensitive to cisplatin and this was associated with increased intracellular platinum levels. In the randomized phase 2 clinical trial, which ran from October 2004 to September 2013, treatment was initiated in 78 of 82 randomized pts, 39 in each study arm. The RR was similar; 42.1% for supplemented patients vs. 32.4% for unsupplemented patients; p = 0.4. Median OS and TTP were 10.0 and 5.9 months for supplemented vs. 7.7 and 5.4 months for unsupplemented patients (OS, p = 0.9; TTP, p = 0.9). Plasma homocysteine was lower in the supplemented group [n = 20, 6.9 ± 1.6 (mean ± standard error of mean, SEM) µM; vs. 12.5 ± 4.0 µM; p < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in the Cmax of gemcitabine and cisplatin in the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation do not improve the RR, PFS, or OS of cisplatin and gemcitabine in patients with AEGC.