No abstract

ObjectiveOne key aspect of cancer survivorship is return-to-work. Unfortunately, many cancer survivors face problems upon their return-to-work. For that reason, we developed a hospital-based work support intervention aimed at enhancing return-to-work. We studied effectiveness of the intervention compared to usual care for female cancer patients in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.MethodsBreast and gynaecological cancer patients who were treated with curative intent and had paid work were randomised to the intervention group (n = 65) or control group (n = 68). The intervention involved patient education and support at the hospital and improvement of communication between treating and occupational physicians. In addition, we asked patient's occupational physician to organise a meeting with the patient and the supervisor to make a concrete gradual return-to-work plan. Outcomes at 12 months of follow-up included rate and time until return-to-work (full or partial), quality of life, work ability, work functioning, and lost productivity costs. Time until return-to-work was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.ResultsReturn-to-work rates were 86% and 83% (p = 0.6) for the intervention group and control group when excluding 8 patients who died or with a life expectancy of months at follow-up. Median time from initial sick leave to partial return-to-work was 194 days (range 14–435) versus 192 days (range 82–465) (p = 0.90) with a hazard ratio of 1.03 (95% CI 0.64–1.6). Quality of life and work ability improved statistically over time but did not differ statistically between groups. Work functioning and costs did not differ statistically between groups.ConclusionThe intervention was easily implemented into usual psycho-oncological care and showed high return-to-work rates. We failed to show any differences between groups on return-to-work outcomes and quality of life scores. Further research is needed to study which aspects of the intervention are useful and which elements need improvement.Trial RegistrationNederlands Trial Register (NTR) 1658

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose To perform a process evaluation of a hospital-based work support intervention for cancer patients aimed at enhancing return to work and quality of life. The intervention involves the delivery of patient education and support at the hospital and involves the improvement of the communication between the treating physician and the occupational physician. In addition, the research team asked patient’s occupational physician to organise a meeting with the patient and the supervisor to make a concrete gradual return-to-work plan. Methods Eligible were cancer patients treated with curative intent and who have paid work. Data were collected from patients assigned to the intervention group (N = 65) and from nurses who delivered the patient education and support at the hospital (N = 4) by means of questionnaires, nurses’ reports, and checklists. Data were quantitatively and qualitatively analysed. Results A total of 47 % of all eligible patients participated. Nurses delivered the patient education and support in 85 % of the cases according to the protocol. In 100 % of the cases at least one letter was sent to the occupational physician. In 10 % of the cases the meeting with the patient, the occupational physician and the supervisor took place. Patients found the intervention in general very useful and nurses found the intervention feasible to deliver. Conclusions We found that a hospital- based work support intervention was easily accepted in usual psycho-oncological care but that it proved difficult to involve the occupational physician. Patients were highly satisfied and nurses found the intervention feasible.

A dose-escalation, phase I study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacogenomics, and efficacy of ES-285, a novel agent isolated from a marine mollusc, in adult cancer patients. Patients received a 24-hour i.v. infusion of ES-285 once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The starting dose was 4 mg/m 2 . Dose escalation in cohorts of at least three patients proceeded according to the worst toxicity observed in the previous cohort. Twenty-eight patients were treated with 72 courses of ES-285 across eight dose levels. No dose-limiting toxicities were seen between 4 and 128 mg/m 2 . Two of four patients treated at 256 mg/m 2 had dose-limiting reversible grade 3 transaminitis; one patient at 256 mg/m 2 also had transient grade 3 central neurotoxicity. One of three patients subsequently treated at 200 mg/m 2 died following drug-related central neurotoxicity. Other toxicities included phlebitis, nausea, fatigue, and fever. Pharmacokinetic studies indicated dose proportionality with high volume of distribution (median V ss at 256 mg/m 2 was 2,389 liters; range, 1,615-4,051 liters) and long elimination half life (median t 1/2 at 256 m g / m 2 was 28 h; range, 21-3 2 h ) . T h e t h r e e patients with dose-limiting toxicity had the highest drug exposure. Pharmacogenomic studies of paired surrogate tissue samples identified changes in gene expression following treatment that correlated with increasing dose. Disease stabilization for 6 to 18 weeks was recorded in nine patients. Using this schedule, 128 mg/m 2 was considered safe and feasible. At this dose, pharmacologically relevant concentrations of the drug were safely achieved with pharmacogenomic studies indicating changes in the expression of genes of potential mechanistic relevance.

Objective. To date, data regarding the potential of cannabinoids to modulate cytochrome P450 isozyme 3A (CYP3A) activity are contradictory. Recently, a standardized medicinal cannabis product was introduced in The Netherlands. We anticipated an increased use of medicinal cannabis concurrent with anticancer drugs, and undertook a drug-interaction study to evaluate the effect of concomitant medicinal cannabis on the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and docetaxel, both subject to CYP3A-mediated biotransformation.Patients and Methods. Twenty-four cancer patients were treated with i.v. irinotecan (600 mg, n ‫؍‬ 12) or docetaxel (180 mg, n ‫؍‬ 12), followed 3 weeks later by the same drugs concomitant with medicinal cannabis (200 ml herbal tea, 1 g/l) for 15 consecutive days, starting 12 days before the second treatment. Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article.

Pertuzumab represents the first in a new class of targeted therapeutics known as HER dimerisation inhibitors. We conducted a phase Ib study to determine the maximum-tolerated dose, the dose limiting toxicities (DLT), and pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction of docetaxel when administered in combination with pertuzumab. Initially, two dose levels of docetaxel (60 and 75 mg m À2 ) were explored in combination with a fixed dose of 1050 mg of pertuzumab; then two dose levels of docetaxel (75 and 100 mg m À2 ) were explored in combination following a fixed dose of 420 mg of pertuzumab with a loading dose of 840 mg. Both drugs were administered intravenously every 3 weeks. The latter dose of pertuzumab was allowed after an amendment to the original protocol when phase II data suggesting no difference in toxicity or activity between the 2 doses became available. Two patients out of two treated at docetaxel 75 mg m À2 in combination with pertuzumab 1050 mg suffered DLT (grade 3 diarrhoea and grade 4 febrile neutropaenia). Two out of five patients treated at docetaxel 100 mg m À2 in combination with pertuzumab 420 mg with a loading dose of 840 mg suffered DLT (grade 3 fatigue and grade 4 febrile neutropaenia). Stable disease was observed at four cycles in more than half of the patients treated and a confirmed radiological partial response with a 450% decline in PSA in a patient with hormone refractory prostate cancer were observed. There were no pharmacokinetic drug -drug interactions. The recommended phase II dose of this combination was docetaxel 75 mg m À2 and 420 mg pertuzumab following a loading dose of 840 mg.