BackgroundIn the recent years, numerous studies on the optimal treatment and prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been published, leading to updated (inter)national... Show moreBackgroundIn the recent years, numerous studies on the optimal treatment and prevention of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) have been published, leading to updated (inter)national guidelines. These include direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as the first-line treatment agent in general and the recommendation of primary thromboprophylaxis in selected ambulatory patients.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical practice regarding treatment and prevention of VTE in patients with cancer in the Netherlands and practice variation among different specialties.MethodsAn online survey was conducted between December 2021, and June 2022, among Dutch physicians (oncologists, hematologists, vascular medicine specialists, acute internal medicine specialists, and pulmonologists) treating patients with cancer, in which we explored the treatment of choice for cancer-associated VTE, the use of VTE risk stratification tools, and primary thromboprophylaxis.ResultsA total of 222 physicians participated, of whom the majority (81%) used DOACs as a first-line agent for treating cancer-associated VTE. The treatment varied between the following specialties: hematologists and acute internal medicine specialists more often prescribed low-molecular-weight heparin than physicians of the other specialties (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.80). The minimum duration of anticoagulant treatment was usually 3 to 6 months (87%), and treatment was extended when the malignancy was still active (98%). Regarding the prevention of cancer-associated VTE, no risk stratification tool was used. Three quarters of respondents never prescribed thromboprophylaxis to ambulatory patients, mostly because the thrombosis risk was not perceived high enough to justify prophylaxis.ConclusionDutch physicians largely adhere to the updated guidelines regarding the treatment of cancer-associated VTE but less to the recommendations for its prevention. Show less
Objective: Shared decision making (SDM) for cancer treatment yields positive results. However, it appears that discussing essential topics for SDM is not fully integrated into treatment decision... Show moreObjective: Shared decision making (SDM) for cancer treatment yields positive results. However, it appears that discussing essential topics for SDM is not fully integrated into treatment decision making yet. Therefore, we aim to explore to what extent discussion of therapy options, treatment consequences, and personal priorities is preferred and perceived by (former) cancer patients.Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed by the Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organisations among (former) cancer patients in 2018.Results: Among 3785 (former) cancer patients, 3254 patients (86%) had discussed treatments with their health care provider (HCP) and were included for analysis. Mean age was 62.1 +/- 11.5; 55% were female. Discussing the option to choose no (further) treatment was rated by 2751 (84.5%) as very important (median score 9/10-IQR 8-10). Its occurrence was perceived by 28% (N = 899), and short- and long-term treatment consequences were discussed in 81% (N = 2626) and 53% (N = 1727), respectively. An unmet wish to discuss short- and long-term consequences was reported by 22% and 26%, respectively. Less than half of the (former) cancer patients perceived that personal priorities (44%) and future plans (34%) were discussed.Conclusion: In the perception of (former) cancer patients, several essential elements for effective SDM are insufficiently discussed during cancer treatment decision making. Show less
Potjer, T.P.; Grinten, T.W.J. van der; Lakeman, I.M.M.; Bollen, S.H.; Rodriguez-Girondo, M.; Iles, M.M.; ... ; Stoep, N. van der 2021
Background Familial clustering of melanoma suggests a shared genetic predisposition among family members, but only 10%-40% of familial cases carry a pathogenic variant in a known high-risk melanoma... Show moreBackground Familial clustering of melanoma suggests a shared genetic predisposition among family members, but only 10%-40% of familial cases carry a pathogenic variant in a known high-risk melanoma susceptibility gene. We investigated whether a melanoma-specific Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) is associated with melanoma risk in patients with genetically unexplained familial melanoma. Methods Dutch familial melanoma cases (n=418) were genotyped for 46 SNPs previously identified as independently associated with melanoma risk. The 46-SNP PRS was calculated and standardised to 3423 healthy controls (sPRS) and the association between PRS and melanoma risk was modelled using logistic regression. Within the case series, possible differences were further explored by investigating the PRS in relation to (1) the number of primary melanomas in a patient and (2) the extent of familial clustering of melanoma. Results The PRS was significantly associated with melanoma risk, with a per-SD OR of 2.12 (95% CI 1.90 to 2.35, p<0.001), corresponding to a 5.70-fold increased risk (95% CI 3.93 to 8.28) when comparing the top 90th to the middle 40-60th PRS percentiles. The mean PRS was significantly higher in cases with multiple primary melanomas than in cases with a single melanoma (sPRS 1.17 vs 0.71, p=0.001). Conversely, cases from high-density melanoma families had a lower (but non-significant) mean PRS than cases from low-density families (sPRS 0.60 vs 0.94, p=0.204). Conclusion Our work underlines the significance of a PRS in determining melanoma susceptibility and encourages further exploration of the diagnostic value of a PRS in genetically unexplained melanoma families. Show less
Cancer-related fatigue has been related to circadian disruptions and lower levels of sleep quality. However, it is unknown whether the circadian phase, which is associated with chronotype and... Show moreCancer-related fatigue has been related to circadian disruptions and lower levels of sleep quality. However, it is unknown whether the circadian phase, which is associated with chronotype and timing of sleep, is related to fatigue after cancer. The aims of this study were to investigate the associations between (1) chronotype and cancer-related fatigue and (2) sleep quality and cancer-related fatigue. In this cross-sectional questionnaire study, 458 (non-)Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (n = 231 female, mean age 49.7 years) completed a Visual Analogue Scale for fatigue (VAS-fatigue) from 0 (no fatigue) to 10 (worst imaginable fatigue), the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire (MCTQ), and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) between October 2018 and July 2019. A hierarchical linear regression analysis was used to evaluate the associations between the dependent variable fatigue and chronotype (based on early, intermediate, or late average midsleep) in Model 1, and fatigue and sleep quality in Model 2. The results showed no indications for an association between chronotype and fatigue (all p values >= 0.50). There were associations between two (out of seven) aspects of sleep quality and fatigue: subjective sleep quality (p < 0.001) and daily dysfunctioning (p < 0.001). Therefore, it is more likely that fatigue is associated with self-reported sleep quality rather than with chronotype. However, experimental studies with objective, physiological data on circadian phase and sleep quality are necessary to confirm the conclusions of this cross-sectional study. Show less
