Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the phase 3 KEYNOTE-024 trial, treatment with pembrolizumab conferred longer progression-free survival than did platinum-based therapy in patients with treatment-naive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) tumour proportion score of 50% or greater (PD-L1-positive). Here we report the prespecified exploratory endpoint of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In this multicentre, international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients with treatment-naive, stage IV NSCLC in 102 sites in 16 countries. Eligible patients had measurable disease (per RECIST version 1.1) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system and integrated web response system to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (35 cycles) or investigator-choice platinum-doublet chemotherapy (4–6 cycles or until documented disease progression or unacceptable toxicity). Randomisation was stratified according to geography, ECOG performance status, and histology. PROs were assessed at day 1 of cycles 1–3, every 9 weeks thereafter, at the treatment discontinuation visit, and at the 30-day safety assessment visit using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items (QLQ-C30), the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 items (QLQ-LC13), and the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire. The key exploratory PRO endpoints (analysed for all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one PRO instrument at at least one timepoint) were baseline-to-week-15 change in the QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/quality-of-life (QOL) score and time to deterioration of the composite of cough, chest pain, and dyspnoea in the QLQ-LC13. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02142738, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. Between Sept 19, 2014, and Oct 29, 2015, 305 patients were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=154) or chemotherapy (n=151). Three patients in each group did not complete any PRO instruments at any timepoints, and so 299 patients were included in the full analysis set. Of these patients, one in each group did not complete any PRO instruments before week 15, and so were not included in analyses of change from baseline to week 15. PRO compliance was greater than 90% at baseline and approximately 80% at week 15 for both groups. Least-squares mean baseline-to-week-15 change in QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL score was 6·9 (95% CI 3·3 to 10·6) for pembrolizumab and −0·9 (−4·8 to 3·0) for chemotherapy, for a difference of 7·8 (2·9 to 12·8; two-sided nominal p=0·0020). Fewer pembrolizumab-treated patients had deterioration in the QLQ-LC13 composite endpoint than did chemotherapy-treated patients (46 [31%] of 151 patients vs 58 [39%] of 148 patients). Time to deterioration was longer with pembrolizumab than with chemotherapy (median not reached [95% CI 8·5 to not reached] vs 5·0 months [3·6 to not reached]; hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·44–0·97; two-sided nominal p=0·029). Pembrolizumab improves or maintains health-related QOL compared with that for chemotherapy, and might represent a new first-line standard of care for PD-L1-expressing, advanced NSCLC. Merck & Co.

The authors randomly assigned patients with metastatic lung cancer to receive either standard oncologic care or early palliative care, focused on symptom control and psychosocial support for patients and families, together with standard oncologic care. Patients receiving early palliative care had lower rates of depression, a better quality of life, and better mood scores. They also received less aggressive care at the end of life, but surprisingly, had significantly longer survival than did patients receiving standard care alone. The quality of care and the use of medical services for seriously ill patients are key elements in the ongoing debate over reform of the U.S. health care system. 1 Oncologic care is central to this debate, largely because anticancer treatments are often intensive and costly. 2 Comprehensive oncologic services for patients with metastatic disease would ideally improve the patients' quality of life and facilitate the efficient allocation of medical resources. Palliative care, with its focus on management of symptoms, psychosocial support, and assistance with decision making, has the potential to improve the quality of care and reduce the use of medical . . .

Abstract Background Individuals with advanced, incurable cancer often experience high physical and psychological symptom burden. Family and friend caregivers are at risk for emotional distress. Purpose The aim of the study is to investigate the interrelationship of distress in patient-caregiver dyads at the time of newly diagnosed incurable cancer. Methods From May 2011 to July 2015, within 8 weeks of diagnosis of advanced lung or noncolorectal gastrointestinal cancer, 350 patients and 275 family caregivers were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of early palliative care. Actor–partner interdependence modeling was used to examine relationships between dyad's self-reported anxiety and depressive symptoms on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at baseline. Results Comparing patients with caregivers, patients reported more depressive symptoms (Mdiff = .84; t[274] = 3.17, p = .002, d = .22) and caregivers reported more anxiety symptoms (Mdiff =1.62, t[274] = 4.91, p < .001, d = .39). Dyads' anxiety symptoms were positively associated, as were depressive symptoms (rs = .21, ps ≤ .001). Actor–partner interdependence modeling showed that patients' anxiety symptoms were positively associated with their own depressive symptoms, with an equal effect for caregivers (actor effect βs = 0.52, ps < .001). Patients' own anxiety was concurrently positively associated with their caregivers' depressive symptoms, with an equal effect for caregivers to patients (partner effect βs=0.08, ps=.008). Conclusions In the context of newly diagnosed incurable cancer, caregivers experience more pronounced anxiety, while patients report greater depressive symptoms. Findings indicate that anxiety and depressive symptoms are interrelated among dyads facing newly diagnosed incurable disease. Results emphasize the importance of addressing distress in both patients and caregivers. Future research should discern when dyadic versus individual psychosocial interventions would be optimal. Trial Registration Number The trial was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02349412) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02349412.

In the phase 3 RADIANT-4 trial, everolimus increased progression-free survival compared with placebo in patients with advanced, progressive, non-functional, well-differentiated gastrointestinal or lung neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). We now report the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) secondary endpoint. RADIANT-4 is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 97 centres in 25 countries worldwide. Adults (aged ≥18 years) were eligible for the study if they had pathologically confirmed, advanced (unresectable or metastatic), non-functional, well-differentiated (grade 1 or 2) NETs of lung or gastrointestinal origin. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) using block randomisation (block size of three) by an interactive voice response system to receive oral everolimus (10 mg per day) or placebo, both with best supportive care, with stratification by tumour origin, WHO performance status, and previous somatostatin analogue treatment. HRQOL was assessed with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—General (FACT-G) questionnaire at baseline (visit 2, day 1), every 8 weeks (± 1 week) during the study for the first 12 months after randomisation, and every 12 weeks thereafter until study drug discontinuation. The primary endpoint, reported previously, was progression-free survival assessed by central review; HRQOL was a prespecified secondary endpoint. The prespecified secondary outcome measure was time to definitive deterioration (≥7 points) in FACT-G total score. Analyses were done on the full analysis set, consisting of all randomised patients, by intention to treat. Only data obtained while receiving the randomly allocated treatment were included in this analysis. Enrolment for RADIANT-4 was completed on Aug 23, 2013, but the trial is ongoing pending final analysis of the key secondary endpoint of overall survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01524783. Between April 3, 2012, and Aug 23, 2013, 302 patients were enrolled; 205 were randomly allocated everolimus and 97 were assigned placebo. At baseline, 193 (94%) of 205 patients assigned everolimus and 95 (98%) of 97 allocated placebo had completed either fully or partly the FACT-G questionnaire; at week 48, 70 (83%) of 84 patients assigned everolimus and 22 (85%) of 26 allocated placebo completed FACT-G. Median time to definitive deterioration in FACT-G total score was 11·27 months (95% CI 9·27–19·35) with everolimus and 9·23 months (5·52–not estimable) with placebo (adjusted hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·55–1·21; log-rank p=0·31). HRQOL was maintained for patients with advanced, non-functional, gastrointestinal or lung NETs, with no relevant differences noted between the everolimus and placebo groups. In view of the previous RADIANT-4 findings of longer progression-free survival with everolimus, our findings suggest that everolimus delays disease progression while preserving overall HRQOL, even with the usual toxic effects related to active targeted drug treatment for cancer. Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Background Patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience a considerable disease burden, evident in symptomatic and psychological spheres. Advanced cancer represents a complex scenario for patients and the healthcare team. Early palliative care (EPC) has been proven as a clinically meaningful strategy in this context by several randomized trials but not in a resource-limited setting. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of EPC compared with standard oncological care (SOC) in patients with metastatic NSCLC in Mexico. Materials and Methods A prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted at Instituto Nacional de Cancerologia in Mexico. All patients had histologically confirmed metastatic NSCLC without previous treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive SOC or SOC + EPC. The EPC group was introduced to the palliative care team at baseline after randomization, which was integrated by psychologists, bachelor’s in nutrition, specialized nurses, and physicians. Patients randomized to this arm had programmed visits to meet with the team at baseline and through the 2nd, 4th-, and 6th cycles thereafter. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary outcomes included quality of life (QoL), anxiety and depression, and symptom intensity. They were assessed using the instruments EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (clinicaltrials.gov [NCT01631565]). Questionnaires were completed at baseline, at 2nd, 4th, and 6th cycles of treatment. Results Between March 2012 and June 2015, 201 patients were assessed for eligibility and 146 were enrolled and allocated to receive EPC (73) or SOC (73). Median OS for patients in the EPC vs SOC arm was 18.1 months (95% CI, 7.9-28.4) and 10.5 months (95% CI, 4.7-16.2) (P = .029). Having a poor performance status (HR 1.7 [1.2-2.5]; P = .004) and allocation to the control group (HR 1.5 [1.03-2.3]; P = .034) were independently associated with a worse OS. Those patients with a global QoL > 70 at baseline had a better OS if they were In the EPC arm (38.7 months (95% CI, 9.9-67.6) vs SOC 21.4 months (95% CI, 12.4-30.3)). Mean QoL had a numerical improvement in patients allocated to EPC after 6 cycles of follow-up, nonetheless this difference was not statistically significant (55.1 ± 23.7 vs 56.9 ± 25.3; P = .753). There were no significant differences in anxiety and depression at all study points. Conclusions EPC is associated with a significant improvement in OS, although, we observed that the greatest benefit of providing EPC was observed in those with a global QoL > 70 at baseline. This study did not identify significant changes in terms of QoL or symptom burden between the study groups after follow-up. Evidence robustly suggests that EPC should be considered part of the multidisciplinary treatment of metastatic NSCLC patients since diagnosis. According to our study, EPC can be implemented in low- or middle-income countries (LMIC). The benefit of early palliative care in a resource-limited setting is not well understood. This study examined whether early palliative care could improve the survival of Mexican patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer compared with standard oncological care.

Background: Although exercise has been addressed as an adjuvant treatment for anxiety, depression and cancer-related symptoms, limited studies have evaluated the effectiveness of exercise in patients with lung cancer. Methods: We recruited 116 patients from a medical centre in northern Taiwan, and randomly assigned them to either a walking-exercise group ( n =58) or a usual-care group ( n =58). We conducted a 12-week exercise programme that comprised home-based, moderate-intensity walking for 40 min per day, 3 days per week, and weekly exercise counselling. The outcome measures included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Taiwanese version of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory. Results: We analysed the effects of the exercise programme on anxiety, depression and cancer-related symptoms by using a generalised estimating equation method. The exercise group patients exhibited significant improvements in their anxiety levels over time ( P =0.009 and 0.006 in the third and sixth months, respectively) and depression ( P =0.00006 and 0.004 in the third and sixth months, respectively) than did the usual-care group patients. Conclusions: The home-based walking exercise programme is a feasible and effective intervention method for managing anxiety and depression in lung cancer survivors and can be considered as an essential component of lung cancer rehabilitation.

BackgroundSmoking cessation was examined among high-risk participants in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) Pilot Trial of low-dose CT screening.MethodsHigh-risk individuals aged 50–75 years who completed baseline questionnaires were randomised to CT screening (intervention) or usual care (no screening control). Smoking habit was determined at baseline using self-report. Smokers were asked whether they had quit smoking since joining UKLS at T1 (2 weeks after baseline scan results or control assignment) and T2 (up to 2 years after recruitment). Intention-to-treat (ITT) regression analyses were undertaken, adjusting for baseline lung cancer distress, trial site and sociodemographic variables.ResultsOf a total 4055 individuals randomised to CT screening or control, 1546 were baseline smokers (759 intervention, 787 control). Smoking cessation rates were 8% (control n=36/479) versus 14% (intervention n=75/527) at T1 and 21% (control n=79/377) versus 24% (intervention n=115/488) at T2. ITT analyses indicated that the odds of quitting among screened participants were significantly higher at T1 (adjusted OR (aOR) 2.38, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.64, p<0.001) and T2 (aOR 1.60, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.18, p=0.003) compared with control. Intervention participants who needed additional clinical investigation were more likely to quit in the longer term compared with the control group (aOR 2.29, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.22, p=0.007) and those receiving a negative result (aOR 2.43, 95% CI 1.54 to 3.84, p<0.001).ConclusionsCT lung cancer screening for high-risk participants presents a teachable moment for smoking cessation, especially among those who receive a positive scan result. Further behavioural research is needed to evaluate optimal strategies for integrating smoking cessation intervention with stratified lung cancer screening.Trial registration numberResults, ISRCTN 78513845

BackgroundThe UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial is a randomised pilot trial of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening for individuals at high risk of lung cancer. We assessed the long-term psychosocial impact on individuals participating in the UKLS trial.MethodsA random sample of individuals aged 50–75 years was contacted via primary care. High-risk individuals who completed T0 questionnaires (baseline) were randomised to LDCT screening (intervention) or usual care (no screening control). T1 questionnaires were sent 2 weeks after baseline scan results or control assignment. T2 questionnaires were sent up to 2 years after recruitment. Measures included cancer distress, anxiety, depression and decision satisfaction.ResultsA total of 4037 high-risk individuals were randomised and they completed T0 questionnaires (n=2018 intervention, n=2019 control). Cancer distress was higher at T1 in intervention arm participants who received positive screening results (p≤0.001), but not at T2 (p=0.04). T2 anxiety (p≤0.001) and depression (p≤0.01) were higher in the control arm, but the absolute differences were small and not clinically relevant. At both time points, fewer control than screened participants were satisfied with their decision to participate in UKLS (p≤0.001). Regardless of trial allocation, cancer distress was higher in women (p≤0.01), participants aged ≤65 years (p≤0.001), current smokers (p≤0.001), those with lung cancer experience (p≤0.001) and those recruited from the Liverpool area (p≤0.001).ConclusionLung cancer screening using LDCT appears to have no clinically significant long-term psychosocial impact on high-risk participants. Strategies for engaging and supporting underserved groups are the key to implement routine lung cancer screening in the UK.Trial registration numberISRCTN 78513845; results.

IntroductionPatients with metastatic oncogene-driven non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are experiencing longer and uncertain trajectories of life-limiting illness due to advances in precision medicine. These advanced cancer survivors face new challenges related to living with uncertainty and desire more support to maximize their health and quality of life. Therefore, we developed a population-specific, blended palliative and survivorship care intervention to address the supportive care needs of patients recently diagnosed with advanced lung cancer and who are receiving targeted therapy for NSCLC with EGFR, ALK, ROS1 or RET driver mutations.Methods and analysisThis study is a single-site, non-blinded pilot randomised controlled trial of an intervention for patients with metastatic oncogene-driven NSCLC, Patient-centred, Optimal Integration of Survivorship and palliative carE (POISE) versus usual care. POISE consists of a brief series of structured visits with a trained palliative care clinician to address coping with uncertainty, increase prognostic awareness and promote healthy lifestyle behaviours. We will recruit 60 patients from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center. Patients will be randomised into a 1:1 ratio to the intervention arm or the usual care arm. Patients randomised to the intervention arm will complete four 60 min virtual or in-person visits with a palliative care physician. The usual care arm will receive standard oncology care. Patients in both arms will complete survey assessments at enrolment, 12 weeks and 20 weeks after enrolment, and patients in the intervention group will complete an exit interview. The primary outcome measure of this trial is feasibility, which will be defined by ≥60% enrolment among eligible patients, ≥70% completion of all sessions for participants in the intervention arm and ≥70% completion of all surveys for all study participants. Exploratory outcomes include acceptability, emotional coping with prognosis, self-efficacy for chronic disease management, prognostic awareness, quality of life, anxiety, depression, intolerance of uncertainty and documentation of goals and values discussions in the electronic health record.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center’s institutional review board (protocol 20-722). The protocol is reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials guidelines, and the study will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological trials.Trial registration numberNCT04900935.

Background We present the final results of the effect of lung cancer screening with low-dose CT on the smoking habits of participants in a 5-year screening trial. Methods The Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST) was a 5-year screening trial that enrolled 4104 subjects; 2052 were randomised to annual low-dose CT (CT group) and 2052 received no intervention (control group). Participants were current and ex-smokers (≥4 weeks abstinence from smoking) with a tobacco consumption of ≥20 pack years. Smoking habits were determined annually. Missing values for smoking status at the final screening round were handled using two different models. Results There were no statistically significant differences in annual smoking status between the CT group and control group. Overall the ex-smoker rates (CT + control group) significantly increased from 24% (baseline) to 37% at year 5 of screening (p<0.001). The annual point prevalence quit rate increased from 11% to 24% during the five screening rounds; the ex-smokers’ relapse rate remained stable, around 11%, across the same period. Conclusions Screening with low-dose CT had no extra effect on smoking status compared with the control group, but overall the screening programme probably promoted smoking cessation. Clinical Trial Registration: The DLCST is registered in Clinical Trials.gov Protocol Registration System (identification no. NCT00496977).