Introduction: Few studies have been conducted into how physicians use steering behaviour that may persuade patients to choose for a particular treatment, let alone to participate in a randomised... Show moreIntroduction: Few studies have been conducted into how physicians use steering behaviour that may persuade patients to choose for a particular treatment, let alone to participate in a randomised trial. The aim of this study is to assess if and how surgeons use steering behaviour in their information provision to patients in their choice to participate in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial investigating an organ sparing treatment in (curable) oesophageal cancer (SANO trial).Materials and methods: A qualitative study was performed. Thematic content analysis was applied to audiotaped and transcribed consultations of twenty patients with eight different oncological surgeons in three Dutch hospitals. Patients could choose to participate in a clinical trial in which an experimental treatment of 'active surveillance' (AS) was offered. Patients who did not want to participate underwent standard treatment: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy.Results: Surgeons used various techniques to steer patients towards one of the two options, mostly to-wards AS. The presentation of pros and cons of treatment options was imbalanced: positive framing of AS was used to steer patients towards the choice for AS, and negative framing of AS to make the choice for surgery more attractive. Further, steering language, i.e. suggestive language, was used, and surgeons seemed to use the timing of the introduction of the different treatment options, to put more focus on one of the treatment options.Conclusion: Awareness of steering behaviour can help to guide physicians in more objectively informing patients on participation in future clinical trials.(c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Hermus, M.; Wilk, B.J. van der; Chang, R.; Dekker, J.W.T.; Coene, P.P.L.O.; Nieuwenhuijzen, G.A.P.; ... ; Kranenburg, L.W. 2023
BackgroundThis study explores patients' need for information and support in deciding on esophageal cancer treatment, when experimental active surveillance and standard surgery are both feasible.... Show moreBackgroundThis study explores patients' need for information and support in deciding on esophageal cancer treatment, when experimental active surveillance and standard surgery are both feasible. MethodsThis psychological companion study was conducted alongside the Dutch SANO-trial (Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer). In-depth interviews and questionnaires were used to collect data from patients who declined participation in the trial because they had a strong preference for either active surveillance (n = 20) or standard surgery (n = 20). Data were analyzed using both qualitative and quantitative techniques. ResultsPatients prefer to receive information directly from their doctors and predominantly rely on this information to make a treatment decision. Other information resources are largely used to confirm their treatment decision. Patients highly value support from their loved ones and appreciate emphatic doctors to actively involve them in the decision-making process. Overall, patients' needs for information and support during decision-making were met. ConclusionsThe importance of shared decision-making and the role doctors have in this process is underlined. The role of doctors is essential at the initial phase of decision-making: Once patients seem to have formed their treatment preference for either active surveillance or surgery, the influence of external resources (including doctors) may be limited. Show less
va't Land, F.R.; Latifi, D.; Moskie, M.; Homs, M.Y.V.; Bosscha, K.; Bonsing, B.A.; ... ; South West Pancreatic Canc Care SW 2023
Background and purpose: In this phase I/II trial, non-progressive locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients after (modified)FOLFIRINOX therapy were treated with stereotactic body... Show moreBackground and purpose: In this phase I/II trial, non-progressive locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients after (modified)FOLFIRINOX therapy were treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) combined with heat-killed mycobacterium (IMM-101) vaccinations. We aimed to assess safety, feasibility, and efficacy of this treatment approach.Materials and methods: On five consecutive days, patients received a total of 40 Gray (Gy) of SBRT with a dose of 8 Gy per fraction. Starting two weeks prior to SBRT, they in addition received six bi-weekly intradermal vaccinations with one milligram of IMM-101. The primary outcomes were the number of grade 4 or higher adverse events and the one-year progression free-survival (PFS) rate. Results: Thirty-eight patients were included and started study treatment. Median follow-up was 28.4 months (95 %CI 24.3 - 32.6). We observed one grade 5, no grade 4 and thirteen grade 3 adverse events, none related to IMM-101. The one-year PFS rate was 47 %, the median PFS was 11.7 months (95 %CI 11.0 - 12.5) and the median overall survival was 19.0 months (95 %CI 16.2 - 21.9). Eight (21 %) tumors were resected, of which 6 (75 %) were R0 resections. Outcomes were comparable with the outcomes of the patients from the previous LAPC-1 trial, in which LAPC patients were treated with SBRT, without IMM-101.Conclusion: Combination treatment with IMM-101 and SBRT was safe and feasible for non-progressive locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients after (modified)FOLFIRINOX. No improvement in the progression-free survival could be demonstrated by adding IMM-101 to SBRT.(c) 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. Radiotherapy and Oncology 183 (2023) 109541 Show less
BackgroundThe diagnostic process of patients with suspect pancreatic lesions is often lengthy and prone to repeated diagnostic procedures due to inconclusive results. Targeted Next-Generation... Show moreBackgroundThe diagnostic process of patients with suspect pancreatic lesions is often lengthy and prone to repeated diagnostic procedures due to inconclusive results. Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) performed on cytological material obtained with fine needle aspiration (FNA) or biliary duct brushing can speed up this process. Here, we study the incremental value of NGS for establishing the correct diagnosis, and subsequent treatment plan in patients with inconclusive diagnosis after regular diagnostic work-up for suspect pancreatic lesions.Methods In this prospective cross-sectional cohort study, patients were screened for inclusion in four hospitals. NGS was performed with AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 and v4b in patients with inconclusive cytology results or with an uncertain diagnosis. Diagnostic results were evaluated by the oncology pancreatic multidisciplinary team. The added value of NGS was determined by comparing diagnosis (malignancy, cystic lesion or benign condition) and proposed treatment plan (exploration/resection, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, follow-up, palliation or repeated FNA) before and after integration of NGS results. Final histopathological analysis or a 6-month follow-up period were used as the reference standard in case of surgical intervention or non-invasive treatment, respectively.Results In 50 of the 53 included patients, cytology material was sufficient for NGS analysis. Diagnosis before and after integration of NGS results differed in 24% of the patients. The treatment plan was changed in 32% and the diagnosis was substantiated by the NGS data in 44%. Repetition of FNA/brushing was prevented in 14% of patients. All changes in treatment plan were correctly made after integration of NGS. Integration of NGS increased overall diagnostic accuracy from 68% to 94%.Interpretation This study demonstrates the incremental diagnostic value of NGS in patients with an initial inconclusive diagnosis. Integration of NGS results can prevent repeated EUS/FNA, and can also rigorously change the final diagnosis and treatment plan. Show less
Stoop, T.F.; Mackay, T.M.; Brada, L.J.H.; Harst, E. van der; Daams, F.; Land, F.R. van 't; ... ; Dutch Pancreatic Canc Grp 2022
Introduction: Arterial resections in pancreatic surgery may be planned to obtain a radical oncological resection, or unplanned after iatrogenic injury during dissection. Most data on planned... Show moreIntroduction: Arterial resections in pancreatic surgery may be planned to obtain a radical oncological resection, or unplanned after iatrogenic injury during dissection. Most data on planned arterial resection come from single, very-high-volume centres and suggest that these resections might be feasible and even beneficial after preoperative chemotherapy in highly selected patients with pancreatic cancer1–3. However, real-world data on such planned and unplanned arterial resection at a nationwide level are scarce4. Furthermore, distinctions between planned and unplanned arterial resection are seldomly reported, even though this might have clinical implications. The present study evaluated the incidence and surgical outcome of all planned and unplanned arterial resections for pancreatic and periampullary cancer in The Netherlands. Show less
Hermus, M.; Wilk, B.J. van der; Chang, R.T.H.; Collee, G.; Noordman, B.J.; Coene, P.P.L.O.; ... ; Kranenburg, L.W. 2022
Active surveillance may be a safe and effective treatment in oesophageal cancer patients with a clinically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). In the NOSANO-study we... Show moreActive surveillance may be a safe and effective treatment in oesophageal cancer patients with a clinically complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). In the NOSANO-study we gained insight in patients' motive to opt for either an experimental treatment called active surveillance or for standard immediate surgery. Both qualitative and quantitative analyses methods were used. Forty patients were interviewed about their treatment preference, 3 months after completion of nCRT (T1). Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed according to the principles of grounded theory. In addition, at T1 and T2 (12 months after completion of nCRT) questionnaires on health-related quality of life, coping, anxiety and decisional regret (only T2) were administered. Interview data analyses resulted in a conceptual model with 'dealing with threat of cancer' as the central theme. Patients preferring active surveillance tend to cope with this threat by confiding in their bodies and good outcomes. Their mind-set is one of 'enjoy life now'. Patients preferring surgery tend to cope by minimizing uncertainty and eliminating the source of cancer. Their mind-set is one of 'don't give up, act now'. Furthermore, questionnaire results showed that patients with a preference for standard surgery had a lower quality of life. Patient preferences are individualized and thus difficult to predict. Our model can help healthcare professionals to determine patient preferences for treatment. Coping style and mind-set seem to be determining factors here. Show less
Eyck, B.; Wilk, B.J. van der; Noordman, B.J.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; Lagarde, S.M.; Hartgrink, H.H.; ... ; SANO Study Grp 2021
Background: The Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer (SANO) trial compares active surveillance with standard oesophagectomy for patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant... Show moreBackground: The Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer (SANO) trial compares active surveillance with standard oesophagectomy for patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The last patient with a clinically complete response is expected to be included in May 2021. The purpose of this update is to present all amendments to the SANO trial protocol as approved by the Institutional Research Board (IRB) before accrual is completed.Design: The SANO trial protocol has been published (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4034-1). In this ongoing, phase-III, non-inferiority, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial, patients with cCR (i.e. after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy no evidence of residual disease in two consecutive clinical response evaluations [CREs]) undergo either active surveillance or standard oesophagectomy. In the active surveillance arm, CREs are repeated every 3 months in the first year, every 4 months in the second year, every 6months in the third year, and yearly in the fourth and fifth year. In this arm, oesophagectomy is offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant metastases. The primary endpoint is overall survival.Update: Amendments to the study design involve the first cluster in the stepped-wedge design being partially randomised as well and continued accrual of patients at baseline until the predetermined number of patients with cCR is reached. Eligibility criteria have been amended, stating that patients who underwent endoscopic treatment prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy cannot be included and that patients who have highly suspected residual tumour without histological proof can be included. Amendments to the study procedures include that patients proceed to the second CRE if at the first CRE the outcome of the pathological assessment is uncertain and that patients with a non-passable stenosis at endoscopy are not considered cCR. The sample size was recalculated following new insights on response rates (34% instead of 50%) and survival (expected 2-year overall survival of 75% calculated from the moment of reaching cCR instead of 3-year overall survival of 67% calculated from diagnosis). This reduced the number of required patients with cCR from 264 to 224, but increased the required inclusions from 480 to approximately 740 patients at baseline.Conclusion: Substantial amendments were made prior to closure of enrolment of the SANO trial. These amendments do not affect the outcomes of the trial compared to the original protocol. The first results are expected late 2023. If active surveillance plus surgery as needed after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer leads to non-inferior overall survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, active surveillance can be implemented as a standard of care. Show less
Background Neoadjuvant therapy has several potential advantages over upfront surgery in patients with localized pancreatic cancer; more patients receive systemic treatment, fewer patients undergo... Show moreBackground Neoadjuvant therapy has several potential advantages over upfront surgery in patients with localized pancreatic cancer; more patients receive systemic treatment, fewer patients undergo futile surgery, and R0 resection rates are higher, thereby possibly improving overall survival (OS). Two recent randomized trials have suggested benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over upfront surgery, both including single-agent chemotherapy regimens. Potentially, the multi-agent FOLFIRINOX regimen (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) may further improve outcomes in the neoadjuvant setting for localized pancreatic cancer, but randomized studies are needed. The PREOPANC-2 trial investigates whether neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX improves OS compared with neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients.MethodsThis nationwide multicenter phase III randomized controlled trial includes patients with pathologically confirmed resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with a WHO performance score of 0 or 1. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial and <= 90 degrees venous involvement; borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as <= 90 degrees arterial and <= 270 degrees venous involvement without occlusion. Patients receive 8cycles of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy followed by surgery without adjuvant treatment (arm A), or 3cycles of neoadjuvant gemcitabine with hypofractionated radiotherapy (36Gy in 15 fractions) during the second cycle, followed by surgery and 4cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine (arm B). The primary endpoint is OS by intention-to-treat. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, quality of life, resection rate, and R0 resection rate. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after inclusion of 368 eligible patients assuming an accrual period of 3years and 1.5years follow-up.DiscussionThe PREOPANC-2 trial directly compares two neoadjuvant regimens for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Our study will provide evidence on the neoadjuvant treatment of choice for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.Trial registrationPrimary registry and trial identifying number: EudraCT: 2017-002036-17.Date of registration: March 6, 2018.Secondary identifying numbers: The Netherlands National Trial Register - NL7094, NL61961.078.17, MEC-2018-004. Show less
Background. The time interval between CRT and surgery in rectal cancer patients is still the subject of debate. The aim of this study was to first evaluate the nationwide use of restaging magnetic... Show moreBackground. The time interval between CRT and surgery in rectal cancer patients is still the subject of debate. The aim of this study was to first evaluate the nationwide use of restaging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its impact on timing of surgery, and, second, to evaluate the impact of timing of surgery after chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on short- and long-term outcomes.Methods. Patients were selected from a collaborative rectal cancer research project including 71 Dutch centres, and were subdivided into two groups according to time interval from the start of preoperative CRT to surgery (< 14 and ae14 weeks).Results. From 2095 registered patients, 475 patients received preoperative CRT. MRI restaging was performed in 79.4% of patients, with a median CRT-MRI interval of 10 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 8-11) and a median MRI-surgery interval of 4 weeks (IQR 2-5). The CRT-surgery interval groups consisted of 224 (< 14 weeks) and 251 patients (>= 14 weeks), and the long-interval group included a higher proportion of cT4 stage and multivisceral resection patients. Pathological complete response rate (n = 34 [15.2%] vs. n = 47 [18.7%], p = 0.305) and CRM involvement (9.7% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.145) did not significantly differ. Thirty-day surgical complications were similar (20.1% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.943), however no significant differences were found for local and distant recurrence rates, disease-free survival, and overall survival.Conclusions. These real-life data, reflecting routine daily practice in The Netherlands, showed substantial variability in the use and timing of restaging MRI after preoperative CRT for rectal cancer, as well as time interval to surgery. Surgery before or after 14 weeks from the start of CRT resulted in similar short- and long-term outcomes. Show less
Braak, R.R.J.C. van den; Rijssen, L.B. van; Kleef, J.J. van; Vink, G.R.; Berbee, M.; Henegouwen, M.I.V.; ... ; PLCRC Working Grp 2018
Aim A Snapshot study design eliminates changes in treatment and outcome over time. This population based Snapshot study aimed to determine current practice and outcome of rectal cancer treatment... Show moreAim A Snapshot study design eliminates changes in treatment and outcome over time. This population based Snapshot study aimed to determine current practice and outcome of rectal cancer treatment with published landmark randomized controlled trials as a benchmark.Method In this collaborative research project, the dataset of the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit was extended with additional treatment and long-term outcome data. All registered patients who underwent resection for rectal cancer in 2011 were eligible. Baseline characteristics and outcome were evaluated against the results of the Dutch TME trial and the COLOR II trial from which the original datasets were obtained.Results A total of 71 hospitals participated, and data were completed for 2102 out of the potential 2633 patients (79.8%). Median follow-up was 41 (interquartile range 25-47) months. Overall circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement was 9.3% in the Snapshot cohort and 18.5% in the Dutch TME trial. CRM positivity after laparoscopic resection was 7.8% in the Snapshot and 9.5% in the COLOR II trial. Three-year overall local recurrence rate in the Snapshot was 5.9%, with a disease-free survival of 67.1% and overall survival of 79.5%. Benchmarking with the randomized controlled trials revealed an overall favourable long-term outcome of the Snapshot cohort.Conclusion This study showed that current rectal cancer care in a large unselected Dutch population is of high quality, with less positive CRM since the TME trial and oncologically safe implementation of minimally invasive surgery after the COLOR II trial. Show less
