Regional transarterial chemoembolization combined with chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer: a retrospective study of a new combination.

Objectives: Locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has a high risk of distant metastasis (DM). Currently, many treatment courses of LARC have arisen, but patients' DM status has not significantly improved. This study was designed to compare the effect between preoperative regional transarterial chemoembolization combined with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and standard neoadjuvant therapy on preventing DM in patients with LARC. Methods: A total of 81 LARC patients between July 2013 and May 2018 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Among them, 44 patients received preoperative regional transarterial chemoembolization combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (the interventional group), and 37 patients received only neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (the control group). The baseline data; preoperative toxicities; postoperative DM rate within 1, 2, and 3 years; and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Results: All patients successfully completed their treatments. There were no significant differences between the two groups in age, gender, tumor size, distance between the tumor and anal verge, CEA level, lymphovascular invasion, or tumor stage before treatment. The pathological T staging post-treatment in the interventional group was significantly reduced compared to that of the control group (p = 0.025). There were no significant differences between groups in DM rates within 1 and 2 years after surgery. In terms of DM rate within 3 years after surgery, the interventional group was significantly lower than that of the control group (9.1% vs. 29.7%, p = 0.036). Conclusion: Preoperative regional transarterial chemoembolization combined with concurrent chemoradiotherapy may play an important role in reducing postoperative DM in LARC.

COVID-19-Related Knowledge and Practices of Cancer Patients and Their Anxiety and Depression During the Early Surge Phase of the Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Online Survey.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related knowledge and practices of cancer patients and to assess their anxiety- and depression-related to COVID-19 during the early surge phase of the pandemic. METHODS: An online questionnaire survey of cancer patients was conducted from February 10-29, 2020. Knowledge and practices related to COVID-19 were assessed using a custom-made questionnaire. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was used to assess the presence of anxiety and depression, with scores beyond 7 indicating anxiety or depressive disorder. Univariate and multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify the high-risk groups according to the level of knowledge, practices, anxiety, and depression scores. RESULTS: A total of 341 patients were included. The rate of lower level of knowledge and practices was 49.9% and 18.8%, respectively. Education level of junior high school degree or lower showed a significant association with lower knowledge score (ß: -3.503; P < 0.001) and lower practices score (ß: -2.210; P < 0.001) compared to the education level of college degree and above. The prevalence of anxiety and depression among the respondents was 17.6% and 23.2%, respectively. A higher depression score was associated with older age, marital status of the widowed, and lower level of education, knowledge score, and practices score (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted COVID-19-related education interventions are required for cancer patients with a lower level of knowledge to help improve their practices. Interventions are also required to address the anxiety and depression of cancer patients.

Long-term low-dose morphine for patients with moderate cancer pain is predominant factor effecting clinically meaningful pain reduction.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer often experience pain that affects their daily activities and quality of life. The analgesic ladder recommended by the World Health Organization has proved insufficient for many, and its scientific basis has been questioned. This retrospective study investigated factors related to adherence to long-term opioid therapy for patients with moderate cancer pain, including an evaluation of low-dose morphine relative to tramadol. METHODS: Clinical data were collected of patients with moderate cancer pain (n = 353) who received either low-dose morphine or tramadol and were followed for ≥ 27 weeks. Factors related to regime adherence were investigated, including the analgesia type, cancer therapy (antitumor therapy or palliative care), pain type (nociceptive, neuropathic, or mixed), and living distance to the hospital. Factors related to clinically meaningful pain reduction (≥ 30% reduction in pain from baseline) were also investigated. RESULTS: Patients taking tramadol, receiving antitumor therapy, experiencing neuropathic pain, and living far from the hospital were more likely to change analgesic strategy compared with, respectively, patients receiving low-dose morphine, palliative care, experiencing nociceptive pain, and living nearby. Factors that increased the likelihood of adherence to the analgesic regime were also associated with the likelihood of clinically meaningful pain reduction. Among adverse effects, a significantly higher percentage of patients experienced constipation in the tramadol group compared with those given morphine. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with moderate cancer pain, long-term low-dose morphine was safe and more effective than tramadol for clinically meaningful pain reduction, and patients were less likely to change the analgesic strategy.

Knowledge, attitudes, and influencing factors of cancer patients toward approving advance directives in China.

PURPOSE: Many cancer patients do not have advance directives (ADs), which may lead to unwanted excessive or aggressive care when patients have lost decision-making capacity. The aim of this study was to investigate knowledge and attitudes of approving ADs and explore factors associated with willing to designate ADs among cancer patients in China. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interview method investigating 753 in-patients with cancer in two cancer centers. RESULTS: Of those subjects, none of the cancer patients had an AD. Only 22.4 % (118 of 526) approved ADs. Comparing with the disapproved ADs group, the approved ADs group were more likely to discuss the AD with oncologist or nurse (χ (2) = 180.4, p < 0.001) in the cancer center (χ (2) = 244.1, p < 0.001), and they chose more comfort care (χ (2) = 18.8, p < 0.001). Most of cancer patients in the two groups wanted to die at home (72.8 %, 73.7 %, respectively). The older patients (OR, 1.04, 95 % CI, 1.02-1.07, p = 0.001), female (OR, 0.55, 95 % CI, 0.35-0.88, p = 0.013), with higher education levels (OR, 3.38, 95 % CI, 1.92-5.96, p < 0.001), with religious beliefs (OR, 2.91, 95 % CI, 1.71-4.94, p < 0.001), and with higher scores of ECOG (OR, 1.46, 95 % CI, 1.17-1.82, p = 0.001) were associated with desiring for ADs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that there was a dearth of knowledge and different attitudes toward approving ADs among cancer patients, and some factors of demographic and clinical characteristics influenced their willing to designate ADs. This research highlights the importance of propagandizing the ADs to the public, especially to the patients, and further discussing with them when the time is ripe.

[Impact factors of distress in patients with lung cancer-associated pain].

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact factors of psychological distress in patients with lung cancer-associated pain. METHODS: The cross-sectional study was applied to lung cancer pain patients received treatments in Cancer Center of West China Hospital of Sichuan University in Chengdu from July 2011 to December 2011 by distributed questionnaires. The general information of the patients, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were included in the questionnaire to evaluate the states of distress, pain and the factors related to the total distress score. RESULTS: Totally 172 effective questionnaires were obtained in 200 delivered questionnaires. The average pain score of the patients was 3.67 +/- 1.27. The Spearman correlation analysis showed that depression score, anxiety score, distress score were positively correlated with the pain intensity (P < 0.05). Patients with positive anxiety symptom was 29.0%, the depression was 29.0%, and distress was 68.6%. Mutiple linear regression analysis showed that gender (p = 0.152, P = 0.024), age (beta = -0.150, P = 0.023), marital status (beta = -0.239, P = 0.000) could affect the total score of distress; gender (beta = 0.154, P = 0.013), age (beta = -0.165, P = 0.007), the clinical pathological stage (beta = 0.155, P = 0.011) could affect the anxiety score; marital status (beta = -0.133, P = 0.047) could affect the depression score. CONCLUSION: The genders, age, marital status of the patients are related to the psychological distress of lung-cancer-pain patients.