Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are part of the standard cancer care process in many European countries. In France, they are a mandatory condition in the authorization system for cancer care administration, with the goal to ensure that all new patients diagnosed with cancer are presented in MDTMs. Aim Identify the factors associated with non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs, and study the impact of presentation in MDTMs on quality of care and survival in patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods 3999 CRC patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2014 in the area covered by the “Calvados Registry of Digestive Tumours” were included. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the factors associated with presentation in MDTMs. Univariate analyses were performed to study the impact of MDTMs on quality of care. Multivariate Cox model and the Log-Rank test were used to assess the impact of MDTMs on survival. Results Non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs were associated with higher age at diagnosis, dying within 3 months after diagnosis, unknown metastatic status, non-metastatic cancer and colon cancer. Non-presentation was associated with a diagnosis after 2010. Unknown presentation was associated with a diagnosis before 2007 and a longer travel time to the reference care centres. Presentation in MDTMs was associated with more chemotherapy administration for patients with metastatic cancer and more adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. After excluding poor prognosis patients, lower survival was significantly associated with higher age at diagnosis, unknown metastatic status or metastatic cancer, presence of comorbidities, rectal cancer and non-presentation in MDTMs (HR = 1.5 [1.1–2.0], p  < 0.001). Conclusions Elderly and poor prognosis patients were less presented in MDTMs. Geriatric assessments before presentation in MDTMs were shown to improve care plan establishment. The 100% objective is not coherent if MDTMs are only to discuss diagnosis and curative cares. They could also be a place to discuss therapeutic limitations. MDTMs were associated with better treatment and longer survival. We must ensure that there is no inequity in presentation in MDTMs that could lead to a loss of chance for patients.

Background We previously reported that CEA kinetics are a marker of progressive disease (PD) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study was specifically designed to confirm CEA kinetics for predicting PD and to evaluate CA19-9, cell-free DNA (cfDNA), circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) and circulating tumour cell (CTC) kinetics. Methods Patients starting a chemotherapy (CT) with pre-treatment CEA > 5 ng/mL and/or CA19.9 > 30 UI/mL were prospectively included. Samples were collected from baseline to cycle 4 for CEA and CA19-9 and at baseline and the sixth week for other markers. CEA kinetics were calculated from the first to the third or fourth CT cycle. Results A total of 192 mCRC patients were included. CEA kinetics based on the previously identified >0.05 threshold was significantly associated with PD ( p  < 0.0001). By dichotomising by the median value, cfDNA, ctDNA and CA19-9 were associated with PD, PFS and OS in multivariate analysis. A circulating scoring system (CSS) combining CEA kinetics and baseline CA19-9 and cfDNA values classified patients based on high ( n  = 58) and low risk ( n  = 113) of PD and was independently associated with PD (ORa = 4.6, p  < 0.0001), PFS (HRa = 2.07, p  < 0.0001) and OS (HRa = 2.55, p  < 0.0001). Conclusions CEA kinetics alone or combined with baseline CA19-9 and cfDNA are clinically relevant for predicting outcomes in mCRC. Trial registration number NCT01212510.

Abstract Introduction Predictive markers of LV5FU2 maintenance benefit after first-line induction with FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer are necessary to select patients who will not be harmed by this strategy. Patients and Methods We focused on patients who received 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX (arm A, N = 88) or 8 cycles of FOLFIRINOX followed by LV5FU2 maintenance in controlled patients (arm B, N = 91) from the PRODIGE-35 trial. Prognostic factors and predictors of efficiency were identified by using Cox regression. Median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and time to deterioration of quality of life (TTD-QoL) were evaluated. Results Poor independent prognostic factors were primary tumor in place, age <65 years and the presence of liver metastases for PFS, a baseline neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥5 and CA19.9 ≥500 UI/L for OS, independent of the treatment arm. Patients with one metastatic site had a longer PFS in arm A, whereas patients with ≥2 metastatic sites had a longer PFS in arm B. We also identified predictors of OS and TTD-QoL in arm B but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion Except for patients with one metastatic site who benefited more from 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, a maintenance strategy with LV5FU2 should be widely offered to mPC patients whose survival and QoL are preserved after 4 months of FOLFIRINOX. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02352337). This retrospective analysis of the PRODIGE-35 trial showed that LV5FU2 maintenance after 8 cycles of FOLFIRINOX is feasible in patients treated first line for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

In the field of cancer pain, therapeutic patient education (TPE) allows patients to develop skills to better manage their pain. In the Lower Normandy region of France, the management of pain is based on networking, thus allowing proximity and accessibility for all concerned. We have thus designed and initiated a broad five-stage research program that includes the following: (1) training for caregivers in TPE; (2) identifying the educational expectations of patients and their relatives with regard to cancer pain; (3) the design of a TPE program; (4) the evaluation of its quality; and (5) the evaluation of its effectiveness by comparative randomization. This article presents this approach and more particularly the research phases (stages 2, 4, 5) for which the objectives, the methodology, and the expected results are justified. Among the key points, particular attention is paid to the evaluation of the educational dimension that provides patients with self-efficacy to participate actively in the management of their pain, their perception of changes in relation to it and its impact. The choice of a specific assessment criterion (subscale 9 of the Brief Pain Inventory) and of the step-wedge design are thus argued. This approach, which is based on a partnership between health care professionals and researchers, aims to demonstrate the benefits provided by TPE to patients in order to enable them to better manage their pain on a daily basis.

Women with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 ( BRCA1 / 2 ) mutations are considered as an extreme risk population for developing breast cancer. Prophylactic mastectomy provides a valid option to reduce such risk, impacting however, the quality of life. Medical prevention by aromatase inhibitor that has also recently shown to have preventive effect may thus be considered as an alternative. LIBER is an ongoing double-blind, randomized phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy of 5-year letrozole versus placebo to decrease breast cancer incidence in post-menopausal BRCA1 / 2 mutation carriers (NCT00673335). We present data on the uptake of this trial. We compared characteristics of women in the LIBER trial ( n  = 113) to those of women enrolled in the prospective ongoing national GENEPSO cohort ( n  = 1,505). Uptake was evaluated through a survey sent to all active centres, with responses obtained from 17 to the 20 (85%) centres. According to the characteristics of the women enrolled in the GENEPSO cohort and the survey, approximately one-third of BRCA1 / 2 mutation carriers were eligible for the trial. Five hundred and thirty-four women eligible from chart review have been informed by mail about the prevention trial and were invited to an oral information by participating centres. Forty-four percentage of them came to the dedicated medical visit. Uptake of drug prevention trial was 32% among women informed orally and 15% of all the eligible women. The main reasons of refusal were: potential side effects, probability to receive the placebo and lack of support from their physicians. Additionally, we noticed that prior prophylactic oophorectomy and previous unilateral breast cancer were more frequent in women enrolled in the LIBER trial than in the French cohort (93% vs. 60% and 50% vs. 39%, respectively). Based on an overall 15% uptake among all eligible subjects, greater and wider information of the trial should be offered to women with BRCA1 / 2 mutation to improve recruitment. Women with previous unilateral breast cancer or prior prophylactic oophorectomy are more likely to enter a medical prevention trial.