Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most prevalent and distressing symptom among cancer patients and survivors. However, research on its prevalence and related disability in the post-treatment survivorship period remains limited. We sought to describe the occurrence of CRF within three time points in the post-treatment survivorship trajectory. Methods A self-administered mail-based questionnaire which included the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue (FACT-F) and the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 was sent to three cohorts of disease-free breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors (6–18 months; 2–3 years; and 5–6 years post-treatment). Clinical information was extracted from chart review. Frequencies of significant fatigue by diagnostic group and time cohorts were studied and compared. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to examine the associations between CRF and demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables. Results One thousand two hundred ninety-four questionnaire packages were returned (63 % response rate). A total of 29 % (95 % CI [27 % to 32 %]) of the sample reported significant fatigue (FACT-F ≤34), and this was associated with much higher levels of disability ( p  < 0.0001). Breast (40 % [35 % to 44 %]) and colorectal (33 % [27 % to 38 %]) cancer survivors had significantly higher rates of fatigue compared with the prostate group (17 % [14 % to 21 %]) ( p  < 0.0001). Fatigue levels did not differ between the three time cohorts. The main factors associated with CRF included physical symptom burden, depression, and co-morbidity (AUC, 0.919 [0.903 to 0.936]). Conclusions Clinically relevant levels of CRF are present in approximately 1/3 of cancer survivors up to 6 years post-treatment, and this is associated with high levels of disability. Implications for Cancer Survivors Clinicians need to be aware of the chronicity of CRF and assess for it routinely in medical practice. While there is no gold standard treatment, non-pharmacological interventions with established efficacy can reduce its severity and possibly minimize its disabling impact on patient functioning. Attention must be paid to the co-occurrence and need for possible treatment of depression and other co-occurring physical symptoms as contributing factors.

Radiation dermatitis (RD) results from radiotherapy and often occurs within the first 4 weeks of treatment, although late effects also occur. While RD may resolve over time, it can have a profound effect on patients’ quality of life and lead to dose modifications. A study group of international, interdisciplinary experts convened to develop RD prevention and treatment guidelines based on evidence from randomized, controlled trials. Evidence-based recommendations were developed after an extensive literature review. Randomized, controlled trials with standardized measurement of outcomes were considered the best evidence, and a majority of the recommendations were formulated from this literature. The adoption of washing with water, with or without a mild soap, and allowing the use of antiperspirants is supported by randomized trials. Use of topical prophylactic corticosteroids (mometasone) is recommended to reduce discomfort and itching. There is some evidence that silver sulfadiazine cream can reduce dermatitis score. There is insufficient evidence to support, and therefore the panel recommends against the use of trolamine, topical sulcrate, hyaluronic acid, ascorbic acid, silver leaf dressing, light-emitting diode lasers, Theta cream, dexpanthenol, calendula, proteolytic enzymes, sulcralfate, oral zinc, and pentoxifylline. Moreover, there is no evidence to support the superiority for any specific intervention in a reactive fashion. For patients with established radiation-induced telangiectasia and fibrosis, the panel suggests the use of pulse dye laser for visual appearance, and the use of pentoxifylline and vitamin E for the reduction of fibrosis.

Background Rapid ethical access to personal health information (PHI) to support research is extremely important during pandemics, yet little is known regarding patient preferences for consent during such crises. This follow-up study sought to ascertain whether there were differences in consent preferences between pre-pandemic times compared to during Wave 1 of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and to better understand the reasons behind these preferences. Methods A total of 183 patients in the pandemic cohort completed the survey via email, and responses were compared to the distinct pre-pandemic cohort (n = 222); all were patients of a large Canadian cancer center. The survey covered (a) broad versus study-specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out contact approach; (c) levels of comfort sharing with different recipients; (d) perceptions of commercialization; and (e) options to track use of information and be notified of results. Four focus groups (n = 12) were subsequently conducted to elucidate reasons motivating dominant preferences. Results Patients in the pandemic cohort were significantly more comfortable with sharing all information and biological samples (90% vs. 79%, p  = 0.009), sharing information with the health care institution (97% vs. 83%, p  < 0.001), sharing information with researchers at other hospitals (85% vs. 70%, p  < 0.001), sharing PHI provincially (69% vs . 53%, p  < 0.002), nationally (65% vs. 53%, p  = 0.022) and internationally (48% vs. 39%, p  = 0.024) compared to the pre-pandemic cohort. Discomfort with sharing information with commercial companies remained unchanged between the two cohorts (50% vs. 51% uncomfortable, p  = 0.58). Significantly more pandemic cohort patients expressed a wish to track use of PHI (75% vs. 61%, p  = 0.007), and to be notified of results (83% vs. 70%, p  = 0.012). Thematic analysis uncovered that transparency was strongly desired on outside PHI use, particularly when commercialization was involved. Conclusions In pandemic times, patients were more comfortable sharing information with all parties, except with commercial entities, where levels of discomfort (~ 50%) remained unchanged. Focus groups identified that the ability to track and receive results of studies using one’s PHI is an important way to reduce discomfort and increase trust. These findings meaningfully inform wider discussions on the use of personal health information for research during global crises.

Background Immense volumes of personal health information (PHI) are required to realize the anticipated benefits of artificial intelligence in clinical medicine. To maintain public trust in medical research, consent policies must evolve to reflect contemporary patient preferences. Methods Patients were invited to complete a 27-item survey focusing on: (a) broad versus specific consent; (b) opt-in versus opt-out approaches; (c) comfort level sharing with different recipients; (d) attitudes towards commercialization; and (e) options to track PHI use and study results. Results 222 participants were included in the analysis; 83% were comfortable sharing PHI with researchers at their own hospital, although younger patients (≤ 49 years) were more uncomfortable than older patients (50 + years; 13% versus 2% uncomfortable, p  < 0.05). While 56% of patients preferred broad consent, 38% preferred specific consent; 6% preferred not sharing at all. The majority of patients (63%) preferred to be asked for permission before entry into a contact pool. Again, this trend was more pronounced for younger patients (≤ 49 years: 76%). Approximately half of patients were uncomfortable sharing PHI with commercial enterprises (51% uncomfortable, 27% comfortable, 22% neutral). Most patients preferred to track PHI usage (61%), with the highest proportion once again reported by the youngest patients (≤ 49 years: 71%). A majority of patients also wished to be notified regarding study results (70%). Conclusions While most patients were willing to share their PHI with researchers within their own institution, many preferred a transparent and reciprocal consent process. These data also suggest a generational shift, wherein younger patients preferred more specific consent options. Modernizing consent policies to reflect increased autonomy is crucial in fostering sustained public engagement with medical research.

A 3-year structured exercise program after adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer improved disease-free and overall survival, physical functioning, and fitness, as compared with health education alone.

Background The legal criteria for medical assistance in dying (MAiD) for adults with a grievous and irremediable medical condition were established in Canada in 2016. There has been concern that potentially reversible states of depression or demoralization may contribute to the desire for death (DD) and requests for MAiD. However, little is known about the emergence of the DD in patients, its impact on caregivers, and to what extent supportive care interventions affect the DD and requests for MAiD. The present observational study is designed to determine the prevalence, predictors, and experience of the DD, requests for MAiD and MAiD completion in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer and the impact of these outcomes on their primary caregivers. Methods A cohort of patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumour cancers and their primary caregivers will be recruited from a large tertiary cancer centre in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, to a longitudinal, mixed methods study. Participants will be assessed at baseline for diagnostic information, sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, quality of life, physical and psychological distress, attitudes about the DD and MAiD, communication with physicians, advance care planning, and use of psychosocial and palliative care interventions. Measures will subsequently be completed every six months and at the time of MAiD requests. Quantitative assessments will be supplemented by qualitative interviews in a subset of participants, selected using quota sampling methods. Discussion This study has the potential to add importantly to our understanding of the prevalence and determinants of the DD, MAiD requests and completions in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer and of the experience of both patients and caregivers in this circumstance. The findings from this study may also assist healthcare providers in their conversations about MAiD and the DD with patients and caregivers, inform healthcare providers to ensure appropriate access to MAiD, and guide modifications being considered to broaden MAiD legislation and policy.

To develop a practice guideline report on the questions: What are the optimal methods to prevent acute skin reactions (occurring within the first 6 months of irradiation) related to radiation therapy? What are the optimal methods to manage acute skin reactions related to radiation therapy? Cancer Care Ontario's Supportive Care Guidelines Group (SCGG) conducted a systematic review of literature on this topic. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated to guide clinical decision making, and a formal external review process was conducted to validate the relevance of these opinions for Ontario practitioners. Twenty-eight trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Of the twenty-three trials that evaluated preventative methods, washing was the only practice which significantly prevented skin reaction. Some evidence suggested topical steroid creams and calendula ointment might be effective. None of the five trials evaluating skin reaction management detected a positive effect using steroid cream, sucralfate cream, or dressings. Skin washing, including gentle washing with water alone with or without mild soap, should be permitted in patients receiving radiation therapy to prevent acute skin reaction. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute specific topical or oral agents for the prevention or management of acute skin reaction. In the expert opinion from the SCGG, the use of a plain, non-scented, lanolin-free hydrophilic cream may be helpful in preventing radiation skin reactions. In addition, a low dose (i.e., 1%) corticosteroid cream may be beneficial in the reduction of itching and irritation.

Palliative treatment options for painful hepatic cancer can be restricted due to patients eventually becoming refractory to standard treatment. The aim of this study was to determine whether radiotherapy improves hepatic pain from cancer. In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (CCTG HE1) done in nine cancer centres across Canada, we included patients aged 18 years or older with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases, who were refractory to standard treatment, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–3, with life expectancy of more than 3 months, and pain or discomfort at its worst in the past 24 hours on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) of at least 4 out of 10, which was stable for up to 7 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via a minimisation method after stratification by centre and type of cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma vs liver metastases), to single-fraction radiotherapy (8 Gy) to the liver with 8 mg ondansetron (or equivalent) orally and 4 mg dexamethasone orally given 1–2 h before radiotherapy plus best supportive care (including non-opioid or opioid analgesia, or dexamethasone, or a combination of these) or best supportive care alone. The primary endpoint was improvement in patient-reported liver cancer pain or discomfort of at least 2 points on worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month after randomisation. All patients with both baseline and 1-month assessments were included in the primary endpoint analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02511522, and is complete. Between July 25, 2015, and June 2, 2022, 66 patients were screened and randomly assigned to radiotherapy plus best supportive care (n=33) or best supportive care (n=33). Median age was 65 years (IQR 57–72), 37 (56%) of 66 patients were male, 29 (44%) were female, 43 (65%) had liver metastases, and 23 (35%) had hepatocellular carcinoma (data on race and ethnicity were not collected). As of data cutoff (Sept 8, 2022), median follow-up was 3·2 months (95% CI 3·0–3·4). 24 (73%) of 33 in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group and 18 (55%) of 33 in the best supportive care only group completed baseline and 1-month assessments. An improvement in hepatic pain of at least 2 points in worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month was seen in 16 (67%) of 24 patients in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group versus four (22%) of 18 patients in the best supportive care group (p=0·0042). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events within 1 month after randomisation were abdominal pain (three [9%] of 33 in the radiotherapy group vs one [3%] of 33 in best supportive care group) and ascites (two [6%] vs one [3%]). No serious adverse events or treatment-related deaths were observed. Single-fraction radiotherapy plus best supportive care improved pain compared with best supportive care alone in patients with liver cancer, and could be considered a standard palliative treatment. Canadian Cancer Society.

Background Gastric cancer is a global health problem accounting for 10% of all new cancer cases and 12% of all cancer deaths worldwide. Many clinical trials and meta-analyses have explored the value of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy in gastric cancer; however, these studies have produced conflicting results. The purpose of this guidance document was to determine whether patients with resectable gastric cancer should receive neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy in addition to surgery. Outcomes of interest were overall survival, disease-free survival, and adverse events. Methods A systematic review was undertaken to inform recommendations regarding neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in resectable gastric cancer in Ontario, Canada. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting proceedings and American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO) proceedings were systematically searched from 2002 to 2010. Oral fluoropyrimidine trials were excluded owing to the unavailability of these agents in North America. Results Overall, 22 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 13 meta-analyses, and two secondary analyses were included. The systematic review informed the development of a clinical practice guideline with the following recommendations. Postoperative 5-fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy based on the Macdonald approach or perioperative ECF (epirubicin, cisplatin, fluorouracil) chemotherapy based on the Cunningham/MAGIC (Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy) approach are both acceptable standards of care in North America. Choice of treatment should be made on a case-by-case basis. Adjuvant chemotherapy is a reasonable option for those patients for whom the Macdonald and MAGIC protocols are contraindicated. All patients with resectable gastric cancer should undergo a pretreatment multidisciplinary assessment to determine the best plan of care. Conclusions Overall survival in patients with resectable gastric cancer is significantly improved with the use of either postoperative chemoradiation (Macdonald approach) or perioperative ECF (MAGIC protocol).

Although repeat radiation treatment has been shown to palliate pain in patients with bone metastases from multiple primary origin sites, data for the best possible dose fractionation schedules are lacking. We aimed to assess two dose fractionation schedules in patients with painful bone metastases needing repeat radiation therapy. We did a multicentre, non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial in nine countries worldwide. We enrolled patients 18 years or older who had radiologically confirmed, painful (ie, pain measured as ≥2 points using the Brief Pain Inventory) bone metastases, had received previous radiation therapy, and were taking a stable dose and schedule of pain-relieving drugs (if prescribed). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 8 Gy in a single fraction or 20 Gy in multiple fractions by a central computer-generated allocation sequence using dynamic minimisation to conceal assignment, stratified by previous radiation fraction schedule, response to initial radiation, and treatment centre. Patients, caregivers, and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall pain response at 2 months, which was defined as the sum of complete and partial pain responses to treatment, assessed using both Brief Pain Inventory scores and changes in analgesic consumption. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00080912. Between Jan 7, 2004, and May 24, 2012, we randomly assigned 425 patients to each treatment group. 19 (4%) patients in the 8 Gy group and 12 (3%) in the 20 Gy group were found to be ineligible after randomisation, and 140 (33%) and 132 (31%) patients, respectively, were not assessable at 2 months and were counted as missing data in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the intention-to-treat population, 118 (28%) patients allocated to 8 Gy treatment and 135 (32%) allocated to 20 Gy treatment had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·21; response difference of 4·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 9·2, less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). In the per-protocol population, 116 (45%) of 258 patients and 134 (51%) of 263 patients, respectively, had an overall pain response to treatment (p=0·17; response difference 6·00% [upper limit of the 95% CI 13·2, greater than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%]). The most frequently reported acute radiation-related toxicities at 14 days were lack of appetite (201 [56%] of 358 assessable patients who received 8 Gy vs 229 [66%] of 349 assessable patients who received 20 Gy; p=0·011) and diarrhoea (81 [23%] of 357 vs 108 [31%] of 349; p=0·018). Pathological fractures occurred in 30 (7%) of 425 patients assigned to 8 Gy and 20 (5%) of 425 assigned to 20 Gy (odds ratio [OR] 1·54, 95% CI 0·85–2·75; p=0·15), and spinal cord or cauda equina compressions were reported in seven (2%) of 425 versus two (<1%) of 425, respectively (OR 3·54, 95% CI 0·73–17·15; p=0·094). In patients with painful bone metastases requiring repeat radiation therapy, treatment with 8 Gy in a single fraction seems to be non-inferior and less toxic than 20 Gy in multiple fractions; however, as findings were not robust in a per-protocol analysis, trade-offs between efficacy and toxicity might exist. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, US National Cancer Institute, Cancer Council Australia, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Dutch Cancer Society, and Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris.