Unmet needs and wish for support of family caregivers of primary brain tumor patients.

Background: Most primary brain tumor patients rely on family caregivers for support. Caregiving can be rewarding, but also leads to significant burden from unmet needs. We aimed to: (1) identify and characterize caregivers' unmet needs; (2) determine associations between unmet needs and wish for support; (3) evaluate acceptability of the Caregiver Needs Screen (CNS) and perceived feasibility in clinical practice. Methods: Family caregivers of primary brain tumor patients were recruited from outpatient clinics and asked to complete an adapted version of the CNS consisting of 33 common issues caregivers report (item scale 0-10), and the wish for support (yes/no). Participants ranked acceptability and feasibility (item scale 0-7; higher scores being positive) of the adapted CNS. Descriptive and non-parametric correlational analyses were applied. Results: Caregivers (N = 71) reported 1-33 unmet caregiving needs (M = 17.20, sd = 7.98) but did not always wish for support (range 0-28, M = 5.82, sd = 6.96). A weak correlation was found between total number of unmet needs and wish for support (r = 0.296, P = .014). Most distressing items were patients' changes in memory/concentration (M = 5.75, sd = 3.29), patients' fatigue (M = 5.58, sd = 3.43), and signs of disease progression (M = 5.23, sd = 3.15).Caregivers most often wished support with recognizing disease progression (N = 24), and least often with managing spiritual issues (N = 0). Caregivers evaluated acceptability and feasibility of the CNS tool positively (mean scores ranged 4.2-6.2). Conclusions: Family caregivers experience distress resulting from many neuro-oncology specific needs, but this is not directly related to wish for support. Family caregiver needs screening could be useful to tailor support to suit their preferences in clinical practice.

A Cancer Research UK First Time in Human Phase I Trial of IMA950 (Novel Multipeptide Therapeutic Vaccine) in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: To perform a two-cohort, phase I safety and immunogenicity study of IMA950 in addition to standard chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant temozolomide in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. IMA950 is a novel glioblastoma-specific therapeutic vaccine containing 11 tumor-associated peptides (TUMAP), identified on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) surface receptors in primary human glioblastoma tissue. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were HLA-A*02-positive and had undergone tumor resection. Vaccination comprised 11 intradermal injections with IMA950 plus granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) over a 24-week period, beginning 7 to 14 days prior to initiation of chemoradiotherapy (Cohort 1) or 7 days after chemoradiotherapy (Cohort 2). Safety was assessed according to NCI CTCAE Version 4.0 and TUMAP-specific T-cell immune responses determined. Secondary observations included progression-free survival (PFS), pretreatment regulatory T cell (Treg) levels, and the effect of steroids on T-cell responses. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were recruited. Related adverse events included minor injection site reactions, rash, pruritus, fatigue, neutropenia and single cases of allergic reaction, anemia and anaphylaxis. Two patients experienced grade 3 dose-limiting toxicity of fatigue and anaphylaxis. Of 40 evaluable patients, 36 were TUMAP responders and 20 were multi-TUMAP responders, with no important differences between cohorts. No effect of pretreatment Treg levels on IMA950 immunogenicity was observed, and steroids did not affect TUMAP responses. PFS rates were 74% at 6 months and 31% at 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: IMA950 plus GM-CSF was well-tolerated with the primary immunogenicity endpoint of observing multi-TUMAP responses in at least 30% of patients exceeded. Further development of IMA950 is encouraged. Clin Cancer Res; 22(19); 4776-85. ©2016 AACRSee related commentary by Lowenstein and Castro, p. 4760.

Assessment of a brain-tumour-specific Patient Concerns Inventory in the neuro-oncology clinic.

PURPOSE: Brain tumour patients may struggle to express their concerns in the outpatient clinic, creating a physician-focused rather than a shared agenda. We created a simple, practical brain-tumour-specific holistic needs assessment (HNA) tool for use in the neuro-oncology outpatient clinic. METHODS: We posted the brain tumour Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) to a consecutive sample of adult brain tumour attendees to a neuro-oncology outpatient clinic. Participants brought the completed PCI to their clinic consultation. Patients and staff provided feedback. RESULTS: Seventy seven patients were eligible and 53 participated (response rate = 68%). The PCI captured many problems absent from general cancer checklists. The five most frequent concerns were fatigue, fear of tumour coming back, memory, concentration, and low mood. Respondents used the PCI to formulate 105 specific questions, usually about the meaning of physical or psychological symptoms. Patients and staff found the PCI to be useful, and satisfaction with the instrument was high. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the clinical utility of the brain tumour PCI in a neuro-oncology clinic. The combination of a brain-tumour-specific concerns checklist and an intervention to focus patient agenda creates a simple and efficient HNA tool.