Effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool in patients with asthma, COPD, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and heart failure: A pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool was developed to optimise chronic care. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the ABCC-tool in patients with COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and/or heart failure in primary care in the Netherlands. METHODS: The study had a pragmatic, clustered, two-armed, quasi-experimental design. The intervention group (41 general practices; 176 patients) used the ABCC-tool during routine consultations and the control group (14 general practices; 61 patients) received usual care. The primary outcome was a change in perceived quality of care (PACIC; Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care) after 18 months. Secondary outcomes included change in the PACIC after 6 and 12 months, and in quality of life (EQ-5D-5L; EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICECAP-A; ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), and patients' activation (PAM; Patient Activation Measure) after 6, 12, and 18 months for the total group and conditions separately. RESULTS: We observed a significant difference in the PACIC after 6, 12, and 18 months (18 months: 0.388 points; 95%CI: 0.089-0.687; p = 0.011) for the total group and after 6 and 12 months for type 2 diabetes. After 18 months, we observed a significant difference in the PAM for the total group but not at 6 and 12 months, and not for type 2 diabetes. All significant effects were in favour of the intervention group. No significant differences were found for the EQ-5D-5L and the ICECAP-A. CONCLUSION: Use of the ABCC-tool has a positive effect on perceived quality of care and patients' activation, which makes the tool ready for use in clinical practice. Healthcare providers (e.g. general practitioners and practice nurses) can use the tool to provide person-centred care.Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383).

The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC)-tool aims to support disease management for one or multiple chronic condition(s), currently COPD, asthma, type 2 diabetes, and heart failure.Statistically significant differences in patients' perceived quality of care and patient activation were found between the group that used the ABCC-tool and the care-as-usual group. No effect was found on generic quality of life or capability well-being.Healthcare providers can use the ABCC-tool in primary care.

The Influence of Personalised Sarcoma Care (PERSARC) Prediction Modelling on Clinical Decision Making in a Multidisciplinary Setting.

BACKGROUND: With soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremity (ESTS) representing a heterogenous group of tumors, management decisions are often made in multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. To optimize outcome, nomograms are more commonly used to guide individualized treatment decision making. PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of Personalised Sarcoma Care (PERSARC) on treatment decisions for patients with high-grade ESTS and the ability of the MDT to accurately predict overall survival (OS) and local recurrence (LR) rates. METHODS: Two consecutive meetings were organised. During the first meeting, 36 cases were presented to the MDT. OS and LR rates without the use of PERSARC were estimated by consensus and preferred treatment was recorded for each case. During the second meeting, OS/LR rates calculated with PERSARC were presented to the MDT. Differences between estimated OS/LR rates and PERSARC OS/LR rates were calculated. Variations in preferred treatment protocols were noted. RESULTS: The MDT underestimated OS when compared to PERSARC in 48.4% of cases. LR rates were overestimated in 41.9% of cases. With the use of PERSARC, the proposed treatment changed for 24 cases. CONCLUSION: PERSARC aids the MDT to optimize individualized predicted OS and LR rates, hereby guiding patient-centered care and shared decision making.

A phase II study on the neo-adjuvant combination of pazopanib and radiotherapy in patients with high-risk, localized soft tissue sarcoma.

PURPOSE: A prior phase I study showed that the neo-adjuvant combination of pazopanib and radiotherapy was well tolerated, and induced promising pathological responses in soft-tissue sarcoma patients. Results of the subsequent prospective, multicenter phase II, PASART-2 trial are presented here, further investigating the efficacy and safety of this combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with high-risk, localized soft-tissue sarcoma received neo-adjuvant radiotherapy, 50 Gy in 25 fractions (PASART-2A) or with a subsequent dose de-escalation to 36 Gy in 18 fractions (PASART-2B). This was combined with 800 mg once daily pazopanib, which started one week before radiotherapy and finished simultaneously. After an interval of 4-8 weeks, surgical resection was performed. The primary endpoint was the rate of pathological complete responses (pCR), defined as ≤5% viable cells. RESULTS: 25 patients were registered in the study, 21 in PASART-2A and 4 in PASART-2B. After central pathology review, the combination treatment led to a pCR in 5 patients (20%). 17 patients (68%) experienced grade 3+ toxicities during neo-adjuvant treatment, of which the most common were alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevation, and hypertension, all asymptomatic. Grade 3+ acute post-operative toxicities occurred in 5 patients (20%), of which the most common was wound infection. All patients completed the full radiotherapy regimen and underwent surgery. Pazopanib was discontinued before completion in 9 patients (36%), due to elevated ALT and/or AST, and shortly interrupted in 2 patients (8%), due to hypertension. CONCLUSION: Apart from asymptomatic hepatotoxicity, the study regimen was well tolerated. Although the pre-specified efficacy endpoint (30% pCR) was not met, a more than doubling of historical pCR rates after neo-adjuvant radiotherapy alone was observed, which warrants further investigation.

Primary sarcoma of the heart: case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Primary cardiac tumors are extremely rare. Most primary cardiac tumors are benign and around one quarter is malign. Sarcomas are accounting for 95% of these malign tumors and they show different histologies. The prognosis is poor with a mean survival of 3 months to 1 year, even with complete radical resection. We report the cases of two patients with primary cardiac sarcoma treated with surgery and radiation and/or chemotherapy. In addition we retrospectively collected data of patients with primary cardiac sarcoma treated between 2005 and 2019 with minimum follow-up of 12 months. Clinical characteristics, treatment modalities and outcomes were collected and analyzed. Finally a literature review was done. CASE PRESENTATION: The first patient presented with cerebellar infarction. When she developed a recurrence analysis showed a suspicious myocardial lesion for which irradical surgery (R2) was performed. Histopathology showed an intimal sarcoma of the left atrium. Postoperative radiotherapy was applied without complications. Three months after treatment multiple metastases were diagnosed and she died 13 months after initial diagnosis. The second patient presented with pericardial effusion. A tumor was found located in the right atrium and radical surgery was performed. Histopathology showed an angiosarcoma, without signs of metastases. Adjuvant radiotherapy was added because of close margins and based on high risk of recurrence and metastases it was decided to add chemotherapy. One year after finishing treatment, evaluation showed local recurrence together with pulmonary metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery combined with postoperative radiotherapy is feasible in patients with resectable cardiac sarcoma. Distant metastases occur frequently. In patients with an irresectable sarcoma of the heart primary radiotherapy should be considered.

Radiation Therapy as Sole Management for Solitary Fibrous Tumors (SFT): A Retrospective Study From the Global SFT Initiative in Collaboration With the Sarcoma Patients EuroNet.

PURPOSE: Solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs) are extremely rare mesenchymal malignancies. Given the lack of large prospective studies on radiation therapy (RT) with definitive and/or palliative intent in SFT patients, this retrospective study aimed to better define the benefit of RT in this disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective observational study was performed across 7 sarcoma centers. Clinical information was retrieved from all patients receiving RT without surgery over the course of their locally advanced and/or metastatic disease. Differences in treatment characteristics between subgroups were tested using analysis-of-variance tests. Local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) rates were calculated as time from the start of RT until local progression and death from any cause, respectively. RESULTS: Since 1990, a total of 40 patients were identified. RT was applied with definitive intent in 16 patients and with palliative intent in 24. The median follow-up period was 62 months. In patients treated with definitive RT (receiving approximately 60 Gy), the objective response rate was 67%. At 5 years, the LC rate was 81.3%, and the OS rate was 87.5%. In the case of palliative RT (typically 39 Gy), the objective response rate was 38%. The LC and OS rates at 5 years were 62.5% and 54.2%, respectively. In both subgroups, RT-associated toxicities were mild with predominantly grade 1 acute and late side effects. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study suggests a clinically meaningful benefit for RT given with either definitive or palliative intent without surgery in SFT management. Prospective registries potentially in collaboration with patient advocacy groups are warranted to further assess the role of RT in patients with this rare malignancy.

Local Protocol Variations for Image Guided Radiation Therapy in the Multicenter Dutch Hypofractionation (HYPRO) Trial: Impact of Rectal Balloon and MRI Delineation on Anorectal Dose and Gastrointestinal Toxicity Levels.

PURPOSE: The phase 3 HYpofractionated irradiation for PROstate cancer (HYPRO) trial randomized patients with intermediate- to high-risk localized prostate cancer to conventionally fractionated (78 Gy in 39 fractions) or hypofractionated (64.6 Gy in 19 fractions) radiation therapy. Differences in techniques and treatment protocols were present between participating centers. This study aimed to compare dose parameters and patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms between these centers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From the trial population, we selected patients (N=572) from 4 treatment centers who received image guided (IG) intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Center A (n=242) applied planning target volume (PTV) margins of 5 to 6 mm and was considered the reference center. In center B (n=170, 7-mm margins), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was integrated in treatment planning. An endorectal balloon (ERB) was applied in center C (n=85, 7-mm margins). Center D (n=75) applied the largest PTV margins of 8 mm. The study protocol provided identical anorectal dose constraints, and local protocols were applied for further treatment optimization. Anorectal dose-surface histograms were compared by applying t tests. Rectal complaints during follow-up (6 months to 4 years) were compared in a generalized linear model, adjusting for age, follow-up, treatment arm, and hormone therapy. RESULTS: Favorable anorectal dose distributions were found for center B (MRI delineation) and center C (ERB application) as compared with centers A and D. These were associated with significantly lower incidences of patient-reported complaints of rectal incontinence, use of incontinence pads, and rectal discomfort in these centers. Furthermore, lower incidences of increased stool frequency (≥4 per day) and mucous loss were observed for center C. CONCLUSIONS: Despite comparable IG-IMRT techniques and predefined dose constraints, pronounced differences in dose distributions and toxicity rates were observed. MRI delineation and ERB application were associated with favorable rectal dose parameters and toxicity profiles, whereas a 2- to 3-mm difference in PTV margins did not translate into observed differences. We conclude that choices for treatment optimization of IG-IMRT are important and clinically relevant for patients since these affect symptoms experienced in daily life.

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with localised prostate cancer (HYPRO): final efficacy results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported a low α/ß ratio for prostate cancer, suggesting that hypofractionation could enhance the biological tumour dose without increasing genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. In the multicentre phase 3, HYpofractionated irradiation for PROstate cancer (HYPRO) trial, hypofractionated radiotherapy was compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for treatment of prostate cancer. We have previously reported acute and late incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity; here we report protocol-defined 5-year relapse-free survival outcomes. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial at seven Dutch radiotherapy centres. We enrolled patients with intermediate-risk to high-risk T1b-T4NX-N0MX-M0 localised prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 60 µg/L or less, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. We used a web-based application to randomly assign (1:1) patients to either hypofractionated radiotherapy of 64·6 Gy (19 fractions of 3·4 Gy, three fractions per week) or conventionally fractionated radiotherapy of 78·0 Gy (39 fractions of 2·0 Gy, five fractions per week). Based on an estimated α/ß ratio for prostate cancer of 1·5 Gy, the equivalent total dose in fractions of 2·0 Gy was 90·4 Gy for hypofractionation compared with 78·0 Gy for conventional fractionation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis in all eligible patients. The HYPRO trial completed recruitment in 2010 and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN85138529. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients were enrolled, of whom 804 were eligible and assessable for intention-to-treat analyses. Of these, 407 were assigned hypofractionated radiotherapy and 397 were allocated conventionally fractionated radiotherapy. 537 (67%) of 804 patients received concomitant androgen deprivation therapy for a median duration of 32 months (IQR 10-44). Median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 51-69). Treatment failure was reported in 169 (21%) of 804 patients, 80 (20%) in the hypofractionation group and 89 (22%) in the conventional fractionation group. 5-year relapse-free survival was 80·5% (95% CI 75·7-84·4) for patients assigned hypofractionation and 77·1% (71·9-81·5) for those allocated conventional fractionation (adjusted hazard radio 0·86, 95% CI 0·63-1·16; log-rank p=0·36). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy was not superior to conventional radiotherapy with respect to 5-year relapse-free survival. Our hypofractionated radiotherapy regimen cannot be regarded as the new standard of care for patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk prostate cancer. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society.

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): late toxicity results from a randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported a low α to ß ratio for prostate cancer, suggesting that hypofractionation could enhance the biological tumour dose without increasing genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. We tested this theory in the phase 3 HYPRO trial for patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. We have previously reported acute incidence of genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity; here we report data for late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. METHODS: In this randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial, done in seven radiotherapy centres in the Netherlands, we enrolled intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years with histologically confirmed stage T1b-T4 NX-0MX-0 prostate cancer, a prostate-specific antigen concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower, and WHO performance status of 0-2. A web-based application was used to randomly assign (1:1) patients to receive either standard fractionation with 39 fractions of 2 Gy in 8 weeks (five fractions per week) or hypofractionation with 19 fractions of 3·4 Gy in 6·5 weeks (three fractions per week). Randomisation was done with the minimisation procedure, stratified by treatment centre and risk group. The primary endpoint was to detect a 10% enhancement in 5-year relapse-free survival with hypofractionation. A key additional endpoint was non-inferiority of hypofractionation in cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. We planned to reject inferiority of hypofractionation for late genitourinary toxicity if the estimated hazard ratio (HR) was less than 1·11 and for gastrointestinal toxicity was less than 1·13. We scored toxicity with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (RTOG/EORTC) criteria from both physicians' records (clinical record form) and patients' self-assessment questionnaires. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Patient recruitment for the HYPRO trial was completed in 2010. The trial was registered with www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN85138529. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients (410 in both groups) were randomly assigned. Analyses for late toxicity included 387 assessable patients in the standard fractionation group and 395 in the hypofractionation group. The median follow-up was 60 months (IQR 51·2-67·3). The database for all analyses (both groups and both genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities) was locked on March 26, 2015. The incidence of grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity at 3 years was 39·0% (95% CI 34·2-44·1) in the standard fractionation group and 41·3% (36·6-46·4) in the hypofractionation group. The estimated HR for the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse late genitourinary toxicity was 1·16 (90% CI 0·98-1·38), suggesting that non-inferiority could not be shown. The incidence of grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity at 3 years was 17·7% (14·1-21·9) in standard fractionation and 21·9% (18·1-26·4) hypofractionation. With an estimated HR of 1·19 (90% CI 0·93-1·52) for the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse late gastrointestinal toxicity, we could not confirm non-inferiority of hypofractionation for cumulative late gastrointestinal toxicity. Cumulative grade 3 or worse late genitourinary toxicity was significantly higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group (19·0% [95% CI 15·2-23·2] vs 12·9% [9·7-16·7], respectively; p=0·021), but there was no significant difference between cumulative grade 3 or worse late gastrointestinal toxicity (2·6% [95% CI 1·2-4·7]) in the standard fractionation group and 3·3% [1·7-5·6] in the hypofractionation group; p=0·55). INTERPRETATION: Our data could not confirm that hypofractionation was non-inferior for cumulative late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity compared with standard fractionation. Before final conclusions can be made about the utility of hypofractionation, efficacy outcomes need to be reported. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society.

Hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer (HYPRO): acute toxicity results from a randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, we began the randomised phase 3 multicentre HYPRO trial to investigate the effect of hypofractionated radiotherapy compared with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy on relapse-free survival in patients with prostate cancer. Here, we examine whether patients experience differences in acute gastrointestinal and genitourinary adverse effects. METHODS: In this randomised non-inferiority phase 3 trial, done in seven radiotherapy centres in the Netherlands, we enrolled intermediate-risk or high-risk patients aged between 44 and 85 years with histologically confirmed stage T1b-T4 NX-0MX-0 prostate cancer, a PSA concentration of 60 ng/mL or lower, and WHO performance status of 0-2. A web-based application was used to randomly assign (1:1) patients to receive either standard fractionation with 39 fractions of 2 Gy in 8 weeks (five fractions per week) or hypofractionation with 19 fractions of 3·4 Gy in 6·5 weeks (three fractions per week). Randomisation was done with minimisation procedure, stratified by treatment centre and risk group. The primary endpoint is 5-year relapse-free survival. Here we report data for the acute toxicity outcomes: the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute and late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity. Non-inferiority of hypofractionation was tested separately for genitourinary and gastrointestinal acute toxic effects, with a null hypothesis that cumulative incidences of each type of adverse event were not more than 8% higher in the hypofractionation group than in the standard fractionation group. We scored acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxic effects according to RTOG-EORTC criteria from both case report forms and patients' self-assessment questionnaires, at baseline, twice during radiotherapy, and 3 months after completion of radiotherapy. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Patient recruitment has been completed. This study is registered with www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN85138529. FINDINGS: Between March 19, 2007, and Dec 3, 2010, 820 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with standard fractionation (n=410) or hypofractionation (n=410). 3 months after radiotherapy, 73 (22%) patients in the standard fractionation group and 75 (23%) patients in the hypofractionation group reported grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity; grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity was noted in 43 (13%) patients in the standard fractionation group and in 42 (13%) in the hypofractionation group. Grade 4 acute genitourinary toxicity was reported for two patients, one (<1%) in each group. No grade 4 acute gastrointestinal toxicities were observed. We noted no significant difference in cumulative incidence by 120 days after radiotherapy of grade 2 or worse acute genitourinary toxicity (57·8% [95% CI 52·9-62·7] in the standard fractionation group vs 60·5% (55·8-65·3) in the hypofractionation group; difference 2·7%, 90% CI -2·99 to 8·48; odds ratio [OR] 1·12, 95% CI 0·84-1·49; p=0·43). The cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute gastrointestinal toxicity by 120 days after radiotherapy was higher in patients given hypofractionation (31·2% [95% CI 26·6-35·8] in the standard fractionation group vs 42·0% [37·2-46·9] in the hypofractionation group; difference 10·8%, 90% CI 5·25-16·43; OR 1·6; p=0·0015; non-inferiority not confirmed). INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy was not non-inferior to standard fractionated radiotherapy in terms of acute genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity for men with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer. In fact, the cumulative incidence of grade 2 or worse acute gastrointestinal toxicity was significantly higher in patients given hypofractionation than in those given standard fractionated radiotherapy. Patients remain in follow-up for efficacy endpoints. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society.

Impact of cardiovascular counseling and screening in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.

PURPOSE: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common nonmalignant cause of death in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors, especially after mediastinal irradiation. The role of screening for CVD in HL survivors is unclear, but confrontation with risks of CVD may have a negative influence on health-related quality of life (HRQL). As part of a phase 2 screening study using computed tomography angiography (CTA) among HL survivors, an HRQL analysis was done to evaluate the emotional and practical burden and perceived benefits of screening and the effect of CVD-specific counseling on patient satisfaction. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients who participated in the screening study also took part in the HRQL study. The impact of undergoing screening was evaluated with a 9-item questionnaire, and impact on HRQL with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Core Questionnaire C30, version 3.0. The effect of counseling of CVD on perceived provision of information was evaluated with EORTC INFO-25. All questionnaires were completed at baseline and after screening. RESULTS: Baseline questionnaires were received from 48 participants, and 43 completed questionnaires after screening. Mean age was 47 years, and mean time since diagnosis was 21 years. Of the total, 93% of subjects were content with participating, and 80% did not find the emphasis placed on late effects burdensome, although screening did have a small impact on social functioning and global quality of life. Perceived information on disease, medical tests, and treatment increased significantly after screening (P<.01). Differences were clinically relevant. There were no differences in perceived information between patients with and without screen-detected CVD. CONCLUSIONS: Screening was evaluated favorably, whether CTA showed abnormalities or not. Extensive counseling resulted in substantially increased provision of information and improved information satisfaction. Screening by means of CTA and subsequent cardiac intervention was highly valued, and the benefits were felt to outweigh the emotional and practical burden.