Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.     

Prognostic and predictive significance of nuclear HIF1α expression in locally advanced HNSCC patients treated with chemoradiation with or without nimotuzumab

Background Anti-EGFR-based therapies have limited success in HNSCC patients. Predictive biomarkers are greatly needed to identify the patients likely to be benefited from these targeted therapies. Here, we present the prognostic and predictive association of biomarkers in HPV-negative locally advanced (LA) HNSCC patients.Methods Treatment-naive tumour tissue samples of 404 patients, a subset of randomised Phase 3 trial comparing cisplatin radiation (CRT) versus nimotuzumab plus cisplatin radiation (NCRT) were analysed to evaluate the expression of HIF1α, EGFR and pEGFR by immunohistochemistry and EGFR gene copy change by FISH. Progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method. Hazard ratios were estimated by Cox proportional hazard models.Results Baseline characteristics of the patients were balanced between two treatment groups (CRT vs NCRT) and were representative of the trial cohort. The median follow-up was of 39.13 months. Low HIF1α was associated with better PFS [HR (95% CI) = 0.62 (0.42–0.93)], LRC [HR (95% CI) = 0.56 (0.37–0.86)] and OS [HR (95% CI) = 0.63 (0.43–0.93)] in the CRT group. Multivariable analysis revealed HIF1α as an independent negative prognostic biomarker. For patients with high HIF1α, NCRT significantly improved the outcomes [PFS:HR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.37–0.82), LRC:HR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.36–0.85) and OS:HR (95% CI) = 0.54 (0.36–0.81)] compared to CRT. While in patients with low HIF1α, no difference in the clinical outcomes was observed between treatments. Interaction test suggested a predictive value of HIF1α for OS (P = 0.008).Conclusions High HIF1α expression is a predictor of poor clinical response to CRT in HPV-negative LA-HNSCC patients. These patients with high HIF1α significantly benefited with the addition of nimotuzumab to CRT.Clinical trial registration Registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (Trial registration identifier—CTRI/2014/09/004980).Subject terms: Tumour biomarkers, Head and neck cancer, Tumour biomarkers, Head and neck cancer, Predictive markers     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

Patient-Reported Quality of Life Before and After Chemoradiation for Intact Pancreas Cancer: A Prospective Registry Study

PurposeOur purpose was to determine the effect of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on patient-reported quality of life (QOL) for patients with intact pancreas cancer.Methods and MaterialsWe reviewed a prospective QOL registry for patients with intact, clinically localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated with CRT between June 2015 and November 2018. QOL was assessed pre-CRT (immediately before CRT, after neoadjuvant chemotherapy) and at the completion of CRT with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary (FACT-Hep) and its component parts: FACT-General (FACT-G) and hepatobiliary cancer subscore (HCS). A minimally important difference from pre-CRT was defined as ≥ 6, 5, and 8 points for FACT-G, HCS, and FACT-Hep, respectively.ResultsOf 157 patients who underwent CRT, 100 completed both pre- and post-CRT surveys and were included in the primary analysis. Median age at diagnosis was 65 years (range, 23-90). National Comprehensive Cancer Network resectability status was resectable (3%), borderline resectable (40%), or locally advanced (57%). Folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) (75%) or gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (42%) were given for a median of 6 cycles (range, 0-42) before CRT. Radiation therapy techniques included 3-dimensional conformal (22%), intensity modulated photon (55%), and intensity modulated proton (23%) radiation therapy to a median dose of 50 Gy (range, 36-62.5). Concurrent chemotherapy was most commonly capecitabine (82%). Sixty-three patients (63%) had surgery after CRT. The mean decline in FACT-G, HCS subscale, and FACT-Hep from pre- to post-CRT was 3.5 (standard deviation [SD], 13.7), 1.7 (SD 7.8), and 5.2 (SD 19.4), respectively. Each of these changes were statistically significant, but did not meet the minimally important difference threshold. Pancreatic head tumor location was associated with decline in FACT-Hep. Nausea was the toxicity with the greatest increase from pre- to post-CRT by both physician-assessment and patient-reported QOL.ConclusionsFor patients with intact pancreatic adenocarcinoma, modern CRT is well tolerated with minimal decline in QOL during treatment.