Fentanyl is a strong opioid that is available for various administration routes, and which is widely used to treat cancer-related pain. Many factors influence the fentanyl pharmacokinetics leading to a wide inter-and intrapatient variability. This systematic review summarizes multiple studied factors that potentially influence fentanyl pharmacokinetics with a focus on implications for cancer patients. The use of CYP3A4 inhibitors and inducers, impaired liver function, and heating of the patch potentially influence fentanyl pharmacokinetics in a clinically relevant way. In elderly patients, current data suggest that we should carefully dose fentanyl due to alterations in absorption and metabolism. The influence of BMI and gender on fentanyl pharmacokinetics is questionable, most probably due to a large heterogeneity in the published studies. Pharmacogenetics, e.g. the CYP3A5*3 gene polymorphism, may influence fentanyl pharmacokinetics as well, although further study is warranted. Several other factors have been studied but did not show significant and clinically relevant effects on fentanyl pharmacokinetics. Unfortunately, most of the published papers that studied factors influencing fentanyl pharmacokinetics describe healthy volunteers instead of cancer patients. Results from the studies in volunteers may not be simply extrapolated to cancer patients because of multiple confounding factors. To handle fentanyl treatment in a population of cancer patients, it is essential that physicians recognize factors that influence fentanyl pharmacokinetics, thereby preventing potential side-effects and increasing its efficacy. British Journal of Clinical PharmacologyBr J Clin Pharmacol (2017) 83 294-313 294

No abstract

PURPOSE Determining the estrogen receptor (ER) status is essential in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) management. Whole-body ER imaging with 16α-[18F]fluoro-17β-estradiol positron emission tomography ([18F]FES-PET) is increasingly used for this purpose. To establish the clinical validity of the [18F]FES-PET, we studied the diagnostic accuracy of qualitative and quantitative [18F]FES-PET assessment to predict ER expression by immunohistochemistry in a metastasis. METHODS In a prospective multicenter trial, 200 patients with newly diagnosed MBC underwent extensive workup including molecular imaging. For this subanalysis, ER expression in the biopsied metastasis was related to qualitative whole-body [18F]FES-PET evaluation and quantitative [18F]FES uptake in the corresponding metastasis. A review and meta-analysis regarding [18F]FES-PET diagnostic performance were performed. RESULTS Whole-body [18F]FES-PET assessment predicted ER expression in the biopsied metastasis with good accuracy: a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI, 89 to 97), a specificity of 80% (66 to 89), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 93% (87 to 96), and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 85% (72 to 92) in 181 of 200 evaluable patients. Quantitative [18F]FES uptake predicted ER immunohistochemistry in the corresponding metastasis with a sensitivity/specificity of 91%/69% and a PPV/NPV of 90%/71% in 156 of 200 evaluable patients. For bone metastases, PPV/NPV was 92%/81%. Meta-analysis with addition of our data has increased diagnostic performance and narrowed the 95% CIs compared with previous studies with a sensitivity/specificity of both 86% (81 to 90 and 73 to 93, respectively). CONCLUSION In this largest prospective series so far, we established the clinical validity of [18F]FES-PET to determine tumor ER status in MBC. In view of the high diagnostic accuracy of qualitatively assessed whole-body [18F]FES-PET, this noninvasive imaging modality can be considered a valid alternative to a biopsy of a metastasis to determine ER status in newly MBC (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01957332 ).

Background Patients with incurable cancer face complex medical decisions. Their family caregivers play a prominent role in shared decision making processes, but we lack insights into their experiences. In this study, we explored how bereaved family caregivers experienced the shared decision making process. Methods We performed a qualitative interview study with in-depth interviews analysed with inductive content analysis. We used a purposive sample of bereaved family caregivers (n = 16) of patients with cancer treated in a tertiary university hospital in the Netherlands. Results Four themes were identified: 1. scenarios of decision making, 2. future death of the patient 3. factors influencing choices when making a treatment decision, and 4. preconditions for the decision making process. Most family caregivers deferred decisions to the patient or physician. Talking about the patient’s future death was not preferred by all family caregivers. All family caregivers reported life prolongation as a significant motivator for treatment, while the quality of life was rarely mentioned. A respectful relationship, close involvement, and open communication with healthcare professionals in the palliative setting were valued by many interviewees. Family caregivers’ experiences and needs seemed to be overlooked during medical encounters. Conclusions Family caregivers of deceased patients with cancer mentioned life prolongation, and not quality of life, as the most important treatment aim. They highly valued interactions with the medical oncologist and being involved in the conversations. We advise medical oncologists to take more effort to involve the family caregiver, and more explicitly address quality of life in the consultations.