Purpose To investigate the proportion of patients with lymphoma with persistent clinically relevant cognitive impairment, and its relation to treatment, fatigue, and psychological distress.Methods... Show morePurpose To investigate the proportion of patients with lymphoma with persistent clinically relevant cognitive impairment, and its relation to treatment, fatigue, and psychological distress.Methods Patients with diffuse-large-B-cell-lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular-lymphoma (FL), and chronic-lymphocytic-leukemia (CLL)/small-lymphocytic-lymphoma (SLL), diagnosed between 2004-2010 or 2015-2019, were followed up to 8 years post-diagnosis. Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Population-based HAematological Registry for Observational Studies. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was used to assess cognitive functioning and fatigue, and the HADS to assess psychological distress. Individual growth curve models were performed. Results were compared with an age- and sex-matched normative population.Results A total of 924 patients were included (70% response rate). Persistent cognitive impairment was twice as high in patients (30%) compared to the normative population (15%). Additionally, 74% of patients reported co-occurring symptoms of persistent fatigue and/or psychological distress. Patients with FL (- 23 points, p < 0.001) and CLL/SLL (- 10 points, p < 0.05) reported clinically relevant deterioration of cognitive functioning, as did the normative population (FLnorm - 5 points, DLBCLnorm - 4 points, both p < 0.05). Younger age, higher fatigue, and/or psychological distress at inclusion were associated with worse cognitive functioning (all p's < 0.01). Treatment appeared less relevant.Conclusion Almost one-third of patients with lymphoma report persistent cognitive impairment, remaining present up to 8 years post-diagnosis. Early onset and co-occurrence of symptoms highlight the need for clinicians to discuss symptoms with patients early.Implications for Cancer Survivors Early recognition of cognitive impairment could increase timely referral to suitable supportive care (i.e., lifestyle interventions) and reduce (long-term) symptom burden. Show less
BackgroundCheckpoint inhibitors have been shown to substantially improve the survival of patients with advanced melanoma. With this growing group of survivors treated with immunotherapies,... Show moreBackgroundCheckpoint inhibitors have been shown to substantially improve the survival of patients with advanced melanoma. With this growing group of survivors treated with immunotherapies, assessing their health-state utilities is essential and can be used for the calculation of quality-adjusted life years and for cost-effectiveness analyses. Therefore, we evaluated the health-state utilities in long-term advanced melanoma survivors.MethodsHealth-state utilities were evaluated in a cohort of advanced melanoma survivors 24-36 months (N = 37) and 36-plus months (N = 47) post-ipilimumab monotherapy. In addition, the health-state utilities of the 24-36 months survivor group were assessed longitudinally, and utilities of the combined survival groups (N = 84) were compared with a matched control population (N = 168). The EQ-5D was used to generate health-state utility values, and quality-of-life questionnaires were used to establish correlations and influencing factors of utility scores.ResultsHealth-state utility scores were similar between the 24-36 months'- and the 36-plus months' survival group (0.81 vs 0.86; p = .22). In survivors, lower utility scores were associated with symptoms of depression (beta = - .82, p = .022) and fatigue burden (beta = - .29, p = .007). Utility scores did not significantly change after 24-36 months of survival, and the utilities of survivors were comparable to the matched control population (0.84 vs 0.87; p = .07).DiscussionOur results show that long-term advanced melanoma survivors treated with ipilimumab monotherapy experience relatively stable and high health-state utility scores. Show less
Neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates (pRRs) in clinical stage III nodal melanoma, and pathologic response is strongly associated with prolonged relapse-free... Show moreNeoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates (pRRs) in clinical stage III nodal melanoma, and pathologic response is strongly associated with prolonged relapse-free survival (RFS). The PRADO extension cohort of the OpACIN-neo trial (NCT02977052) addressed the feasibility and effect on clinical outcome of using pathologic response after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab as a criterion for further treatment personalization. In total, 99 patients with clinical stage IIIb-d nodal melanoma were included and treated with 6 weeks of neoadjuvant ipilimumab 1 mg kg(-1) and nivolumab 3 mg kg(-1). In patients achieving major pathologic response (MPR, <= 10% viable tumor) in their index lymph node (ILN, the largest lymph node metastasis at baseline), therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) and adjuvant therapy were omitted. Patients with pathologic partial response (pPR; >10 to <= 50% viable tumor) underwent TLND only, whereas patients with pathologic non-response (pNR; >50% viable tumor) underwent TLND and adjuvant systemic therapy +/- synchronous radiotherapy. Primary objectives were confirmation of pRR (ILN, at week 6) of the winner neoadjuvant combination scheme identified in OpACIN-neo; to investigate whether TLND can be safely omitted in patients achieving MPR; and to investigate whether RFS at 24 months can be improved for patients achieving pNR. ILN resection and ILN-response-tailored treatment were feasible. The pRR was 72%, including 61% MPR. Grade 3-4 toxicity within the first 12 weeks was observed in 22 (22%) patients. TLND was omitted in 59 of 60 patients with MPR, resulting in significantly lower surgical morbidity and better quality of life. The 24-month relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival rates were 93% and 98% in patients with MPR, 64% and 64% in patients with pPR, and 71% and 76% in patients with pNR, respectively. These findings provide a strong rationale for randomized clinical trials testing response-directed treatment personalization after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab. Show less
Leeuwen, M. van; Kieffer, J.M.; Young, T.E.; Aaronson, N.K.; Poll-franse, L.V. van de; EORTC QLG 2022
Purpose The use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for individual patient management within clinical practice is becoming increasingly important. New evidence about graphic visualization... Show morePurpose The use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for individual patient management within clinical practice is becoming increasingly important. New evidence about graphic visualization formats for PROMs scores has become available. This systematic literature review evaluated evidence for graphic visualization formats of PROMs data in clinical practice for patients and clinicians, for both individual and group level PROMs data. Methods Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were extracted from CINAHL, PubMed, PsychInfo, and Medline. Studies included patients >= 18 years old in daily clinical practice. Papers not available in English, without full-text access, or that did not specifically describe visualization of PROMs data were excluded. Outcomes were: visualization preferences; interpretation accuracy; guidance for clinical interpretation. Results Twenty-five out of 789 papers were included for final analysis. Most frequently studied formats were: bar charts, line graphs, and pie charts. Patients preferred bar charts and line graphs as these were easy and quick for retrieving information about their PROMs scores over time. Clinicians' interpretation accuracy and preferences were similar among graphic visualization formats. Scores were most often compared with patients' own previous scores; to further guide clinical interpretation, scores were compared to norm population scores. Different 'add-ons' improved interpretability for patients and clinicians, e.g. using colors, descriptions of measurement scale directionality, descriptive labels, and brief definitions. Conclusion There was no predominant graphical visualization format approach in terms of preferences or interpretation accuracy for both patients and clinicians. Detailed clarification of graph content is essential.Plain English summary Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) capture patients' self-reported health through the use of questionnaires. PROMs measure health related quality of life, daily functioning, and symptom experience, which are becoming increasingly important to incorporate in clinical practice for individual patient management. To present PROMs within clinical practice, raw or summarized PROMs scores can be visualized in graphical formats. To be useful during clinical encounters, both patients and clinicians ought to interpret such formats correctly. New evidence about graphic visualization formats for PROMs scores has become available. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate evidence for graphic visualization formats of PROMs data in clinical practice. In 25 included papers, most studies used graphical formats like bar charts, line graphs, and pie charts for presenting PROMs scores. There was no predominant graphical visualization format approach in terms of preferences or interpretation accuracy for both patients and clinicians. Patients preferred bar charts and line graphs as these were easy and quick for retrieving information about their PROMs scores over time. Clinicians' interpretation accuracy and preferences were similar among graphic visualization formats. The graphical interpretation of PROMs data for patients and clinicians can be improved by using colors, descriptions of measurement scale directionality, descriptive labels, and brief definitions. Show less
Neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates (pRRs) in clinical stage III nodal melanoma, and pathologic response is strongly associated with prolonged relapse-free... Show moreNeoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab induces high pathologic response rates (pRRs) in clinical stage III nodal melanoma, and pathologic response is strongly associated with prolonged relapse-free survival (RFS). The PRADO extension cohort of the OpACIN-neo trial ( NCT02977052 ) addressed the feasibility and effect on clinical outcome of using pathologic response after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab as a criterion for further treatment personalization. In total, 99 patients with clinical stage IIIb-d nodal melanoma were included and treated with 6 weeks of neoadjuvant ipilimumab 1 mg kg-1 and nivolumab 3 mg kg-1. In patients achieving major pathologic response (MPR, ≤10% viable tumor) in their index lymph node (ILN, the largest lymph node metastasis at baseline), therapeutic lymph node dissection (TLND) and adjuvant therapy were omitted. Patients with pathologic partial response (pPR; >10 to ≤50% viable tumor) underwent TLND only, whereas patients with pathologic non-response (pNR; >50% viable tumor) underwent TLND and adjuvant systemic therapy ± synchronous radiotherapy. Primary objectives were confirmation of pRR (ILN, at week 6) of the winner neoadjuvant combination scheme identified in OpACIN-neo; to investigate whether TLND can be safely omitted in patients achieving MPR; and to investigate whether RFS at 24 months can be improved for patients achieving pNR. ILN resection and ILN-response-tailored treatment were feasible. The pRR was 72%, including 61% MPR. Grade 3-4 toxicity within the first 12 weeks was observed in 22 (22%) patients. TLND was omitted in 59 of 60 patients with MPR, resulting in significantly lower surgical morbidity and better quality of life. The 24-month relapse-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival rates were 93% and 98% in patients with MPR, 64% and 64% in patients with pPR, and 71% and 76% in patients with pNR, respectively. These findings provide a strong rationale for randomized clinical trials testing response-directed treatment personalization after neoadjuvant ipilimumab and nivolumab. Show less
Background: Checkpoint inhibitors have changed overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. However, there is a lack of data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of long-term advanced... Show moreBackground: Checkpoint inhibitors have changed overall survival for patients with advanced melanoma. However, there is a lack of data on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of long-term advanced melanoma survivors, years after treatment. Therefore, we evaluated HRQoL in long-term advanced melanoma survivors and compared the study outcomes with matched controls without cancer.Material and methods: Ipilimumab-treated advanced melanoma survivors without evidence of disease and without subsequent systemic therapy for a minimum of two years following last administration of ipilimumab were eligible for this study. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma questionnaire (FACT-M) were administered. Controls were individually matched for age, gender, and educational status. Outcomes of survivors and controls were compared using generalized estimating equations, and differences were interpreted as clinically relevant according to published guidelines.Results: A total of 89 survivors and 265 controls were analyzed in this study. After a median follow-up of 39 (range, 17-121) months, survivors scored significantly lower on physical (83.7vs. 89.8, difference (diff) = -5.80,p=.005), role (83.5vs.90, diff = -5.97,p=.02), cognitive (83.7vs.91.9, diff = -8.05,p=.001), and social functioning (86.5vs.95.1, diff = -8.49,p= <.001) and had a higher symptom burden of fatigue (23.0vs.15.5, diff = 7.48,p=.004), dyspnea (13.3vs.6.7, diff = 6.47p=.02), diarrhea (7.9vs.4.0, diff = 3.78,p=.04), and financial impact (10.5vs.2.5, diff = 8.07,p=.001) than matched controls. Group differences were indicated as clinically relevant.Discussion: Compared to matched controls, long-term advanced melanoma survivors had overall worse functioning scores, more physical symptoms, and financial difficulties. These data may contribute to the development of appropriate survivorship care. Show less
Soomers, V.L.M.N.; Desar, I.M.E.; Poll-franse, L.V. van de; Sande, M.A.J. van de; Haan, J.J. de; Verhoef, C.; ... ; Husson, O. 2020
Background: Sarcoma patients often experience a long time to diagnosis, known as the total interval. This interval can be divided into the patient (time from symptoms to doctor consultation) and... Show moreBackground: Sarcoma patients often experience a long time to diagnosis, known as the total interval. This interval can be divided into the patient (time from symptoms to doctor consultation) and diagnostic intervals (time from first consultation to diagnosis). In other cancers, a long total interval has been associated with worse outcomes, but its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has never been investigated among sarcoma patients. This study investigates the association between (1) the actual time to diagnosis and HRQoL; (2) the perceived impact of the diagnostic interval length and HRQoL; (3) the actual length and perceived impact of the length and the HRQoL of sarcoma survivors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed among sarcoma patients aged >= 18, diagnosed 2-10 years ago in the Netherlands. The participants completed a questionnaire on HRQoL, the time to diagnosis, the perceived impact of the diagnostic interval on HRQoL, and coping. Results: 1099 participants were included (response rate, 58%). The mean time since diagnosis was 67.4 months. More than half reported a patient (60%) or diagnostic interval (55%) >= 1 month. A third (31%) perceived a negative impact of the diagnostic interval length on HRQoL. Patient or diagnostic interval length was not associated with HRQoL. By contrast, participants perceiving a negative impact (32%) had lower HRQoL scores than those perceiving a positive (11%) or no impact (58%) (p= 0.000). This association remained significant in a multivariable model, in which maladaptive coping strategies and tumour characteristics were also found to be associated with HRQoL. Participants perceiving a negative impact of the length of the diagnostic interval related this to high psychological distress levels, more physical disabilities, and worse prognosis. Conclusion: The perceived impact of the diagnostic interval length was associated with the HRQoL of sarcoma survivors, whereas the actual length was not associated with HRQoL. Maladaptive coping strategies were independently associated with HRQoL. This offers opportunities for early intervention to improve HRQoL. Show less
