Efficacy and Safety of Single Agent or Combination Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients With Colon Cancer: A Canadian Cancer Institute Experience

BackgroundThe pattern of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) use, toxicity profile, and survival benefit in elderly patients with colon cancer (CC) is unclear. We sought to (1) determine whether patients ≥ 65 years with stage III CC were offered single-agent or combination AC, (2) evaluate the reason for selecting single-agent versus combination AC, (3) evaluate the toxicity profile of single-agent and combination AC in the elderly, and (4) determine whether a survival benefit exists for elderly patients receiving combination AC.Patients and MethodsA retrospective analysis of records of patients ≥ 65 years diagnosed with stage III CC from 2004 to 2010 was performed to identify baseline characteristics, AC protocols, toxicity, dose intensity, and survival.ResultsTwo hundred sixty-eight patients ≥ 65 years were diagnosed and treated with AC from 2004 to 2010. Of these patients, 178 were treated with single-agent AC and 90 were treated with combination AC. The most common reasons for choosing single-agent AC were patient preference, comorbidities, and lack of drug coverage. For each year over 65 years, the odds of receiving combination over single-agent AC decreased by 22%. There were more dose delays, dose reductions, and early chemotherapy discontinuation in the combination AC group because of hematologic toxicity. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 73% in patients who received single-agent AC compared with 84% in those who received combination AC. There was no difference in cancer-related deaths between the groups.ConclusionIn elderly patients treated with AC for stage III CC, single-agent AC is used more frequently than combination AC, based on age, comorbidities, and patient choice. Toxicity with combination AC in elderly patients is high. No survival benefit was seen with combination AC over single-agent AC.     

胸腔镜与小切口开胸肺切除术后生活质量的对比性研究

目的比较电视辅助胸腔镜手术(video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery,VATS)和小切口开胸(mini-thoracotomy,MT)肺切除治疗临床早期肺癌术后的生活质量。方法2004年3月~2006年12月,有38例CT提示临床早期肺癌且肿物直径≤6cm的患者随机分为胸腔镜组(n=20)和小切口组(n=18)手术,利用肺癌症状量表(lung cancer symptom scale,LCSS)评估术前和术后第1、3、6个月生活质量评分。结果术后1个月气促、1和3个月疼痛评分胸腔镜组均较小切口组低(11.1±6.9 vs 16.1±7.3,t=-2.170,P=0.037;12.7±8.6 vs 20.3±11.4,t=-2.335,P=0.025;6.4±4.5 vs 10.8±6.7,t=-2.398,P=0.022)。其余生活质量评分(包括食欲、疲劳、咳嗽、肺癌症状、疾病对正常活动的影响、总的生活质量)2组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论与小切口肺切除对比,胸腔镜术后在疼痛和气促方面具有较高的生活质量。     

A decision support tool for the detection of pancreatic cancer in general practice: A modified Delphi consensus

Background/objectivesDiagnosis of pancreatic cancer is often delayed, contributing to patient and family distress and leading to worse survival. We aimed to develop a decision support tool to support primary care providers to identify patients that should undergo investigations for pancreatic cancer, and to recommend initial diagnostic pathways.MethodsA modified Delphi process, including a series of three surveys, was undertaken to ascertain clinical expert opinion on which combinations of signs, symptoms and risk factors should be included in a tool for the early identification of pancreatic cancer. A group of clinical specialists finalised the development of the tool during a focus group meeting.ResultsThe tool presents individual or combinations of signs, symptoms, and risk factors in three tiers which direct the urgency of investigation. Tier 1 includes 5 clinical presentation and risk factors clusters that indicate the need for urgent investigation of the pancreas. A further five clusters are included as Tier 2 aiming to elimate other causes and reduce the time to investigating the pancreas. Tier 3 includes a list of non-specific signs, symptoms and risk factors that indicate the need to consider pancreatic cancer as a potential diagnosis, but without specific recommendations for investigation.ConclusionsProspective validation studies are now required prior to implementation in the primary care setting. Implementation into primary care practice and as an educational resource may facilitate rapid diagnosis and improve outcomes such as distress and survival.     

Genomic tools for health: Secondary findings as findings to be shared

PurposeWhether and how to disclose secondary finding (SF) information to children is ethically debated. Some argue that genetic testing of minors should be limited to preserve the child’s future autonomy. Others suggest that disclosure of SFs can occur if it is in the best interests of the child. However, the ways that parents conceptualize and weigh their child’s future autonomy against the interests of their child and other family members are unknown.MethodsTo explore how parents understand SF disclosure in the context of their child and other family members’ lives, we conducted semistructured interviews with 30 families (40 parents in total). All parents had children who were enrolled in a genetic sequencing protocol that returned results by default.ResultsWe found that parents did not routinely conceptualize SFs as distinctive health information. Rather parents saw this information as part of their child’s overall health. To make decisions about disclosure, parents weighed their child’s ability to understand the SF information and their other family member’s need to know.ConclusionBecause most families desired SF information, we argue that disclosure of SF be reconceptualized to reflect the lived experiences of those who may receive this information.