Patient preferences in advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Havrilesky LJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4429767 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient preferences in advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer.
Havrilesky Laura J LJ Alvarez Secord Angeles A Ehrisman Jessie A JA Berchuck Andrew A Valea Fidel A FA Lee Paula S PS Gaillard Stephanie L SL Samsa Greg P GP Cella David D Weinfurt Kevin P KP Abernethy Amy P AP Reed Shelby D SD
Cancer 20140804 23
<h4>Background</h4>The objective of this study was to elucidate relative preferences of women with ovarian cancer for symptoms, treatment-related side effects, and progression-free survival (PFS) relevant to choosing a treatment regimen.<h4>Methods</h4>Women with advanced or recurrent ovarian cancer participated in a survey that included 3 methods to measure patient preferences (ratings, rankings, and a discrete-choice experiment) for 7 attributes: mode of administration, visit frequency, periph ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ContextPrognostic information is considered important for advanced cancer patients and primary informal caregivers to prepare for the end of life. Little is known about discordance in patients' and caregivers' prognostic information preferences and prognostic perceptions, while such discordance complicates adaptive dyadic coping, clinical interactions and care plans.ObjectivesTo investigate the extent of patient-caregiver discordance in prognostic information preferences and perceptions, and the factors associated with discordant prognostic perceptions.MethodsWe conducted secondary analyses of a cross-sectional study (PROSPECT, 2019-2021). Advanced cancer patients (median overall survival ≤12 months) from seven Dutch hospitals and caregivers completed structured surveys (n = 412 dyads).ResultsSeven percent of patient-caregiver dyads had discordant information preferences regarding the likelihood of cure; 24%-25% had discordant information preferences regarding mortality risk (5/2/1 year). Seventeen percent of dyads had discordant perceptions of the likelihood of cure; 12%-25% had discordant perceptions of mortality risk (5/2/1 year). Dyads with discordant prognostic information preferences (P < 0.05) and dyads in which patients reported better physical functioning (P < 0.01) were significantly more likely to perceive the one-year mortality risk discordantly.ConclusionPhysicians should be sensitive to discordant prognostic information preferences and prognostic perceptions among patient-caregiver dyads in advanced cancer care.
| S-EPMC10285690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A randomized controlled trial was conducted of a web-based intervention to improve advanced care planning in women with ovarian cancer. A secondary analysis of 35 randomized women focused on changes in distress and knowledge about ovarian cancer through distress monitoring and information tailored to patients' cognitive coping style (monitoring, blunting). Pre-/postresults indicated the Intervention group demonstrated lower distress (p = 0.06); blunting was associated with lower depression (p = 0.04); knowledge in both groups was unchanged. Women in the Intervention vs. Control group reported their family was less likely to be upset by cancer information (p = 0.0004). This intervention reduced distress while incorporating patient preferences.
| S-EPMC6158039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Lung cancer is the deadliest and most prevalent cancer worldwide. Lung cancer treatments have different characteristics and are associated with a range of benefits and side effects for patients. Such differences may raise uncertainty among drug developers, regulators, payers, and clinicians regarding the value of these treatment effects to patients. The value of conducting patient preference studies (using qualitative and/or quantitative methods) for benefits and side effects of different treatment options has been recognized by healthcare stakeholders, such as drug developers, regulators, health technology assessment bodies, and clinicians. However, evidence-based guidelines on how and when to conduct and use these studies in drug decision-making are lacking. As part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative PREFER project, we developed a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to understand which treatment characteristics are most important to lung cancer patients and to develop attributes and levels for inclusion in a subsequent quantitative preference survey. Methods: The study protocol specifies a four-phased approach: (i) a scoping literature review of published literature, (ii) four focus group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, (iii) two nominal group discussions with stage III and IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients, and (iv) multi-stakeholder discussions involving clinicians and preference experts. Discussion: This protocol outlines methodological and practical steps as to how qualitative research can be applied to identify and develop attributes and levels for inclusion in patient preference studies aiming to inform decisions across the drug life cycle. The results of this study are intended to inform a subsequent quantitative preference survey that assesses patient trade-offs regarding lung cancer treatment options. This protocol may assist researchers, drug developers, and decision-makers in designing qualitative studies to understand which treatment aspects are most valued by patients in drug development, regulation, and reimbursement.
| S-EPMC7900128 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Unlabelled: Our primary objective is to review the safety and tolerability profile of olaparib, a novel anticancer therapy, and to discuss key considerations for symptom management in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Olaparib is the first of a new class of anticancer therapies, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors that target tumors that have deficits in homologous recombination repair (such as BRCA mutations) by a process known as synthetic lethality. Through this process, neither the deficiency in homologous recombination repair nor PARP inhibition alone is cytotoxic, but the combination of these two conditions leads to cell death. In December 2014, olaparib received accelerated approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as monotherapy for patients with known or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated (as detected by an FDA-approved test) advanced ovarian cancer who had been treated with at least three lines of chemotherapy. Most adverse events (AEs) reported during olaparib clinical trials conducted in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer and measurable disease were of grade 2 or less severity according to the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Fatigue and gastrointestinal AEs are among the most common in ovarian cancer clinical trials and can be particularly bothersome to patients. We focus on interventions to address these AEs in patients who are candidates for treatment with olaparib and allow them to remain on therapy for as long as clinically indicated.Implications for practiceOlaparib therapy represents a new approach to treating recurrent ovarian cancer. Some associated adverse events can have a substantial effect on quality of life. It is therefore important for patients, caregivers, and health care providers to have realistic expectations and a thorough understanding of the safety and tolerability profile of olaparib to prevent or alleviate key symptoms so that therapy can continue uninterrupted if possible. This report summarizes a practical approach to supportive care for patients receiving olaparib therapy.
| S-EPMC4978548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Malignant ovarian disease is characterised by high rates of mortality due to high rates of recurrent chemoresistant disease. Anecdotal evidence indicates this may be due to chemoresistant properties of cancer stem cells (CSCs). However, our understanding of the role of CSCs in recurrent ovarian disease remains sparse. In this study we used gene microarrays and meta-analysis of our previously published microRNA (miRNA) data to assess the involvement of cancer stemness signatures in recurrent ovarian disease. METHODS: Microarray analysis was used to characterise early regulation events in an embryonal carcinoma (EC) model of cancer stemness. This was then compared to our previously published microarray data from a study of primary versus recurrent ovarian disease. In parallel, meta-analysis was used to identify cancer stemness miRNA signatures in tumor patient samples. RESULTS: Microarray analysis demonstrated a 90% difference between gene expression events involved in early regulation of differentiation in murine EC (mEC) and embryonic stem (mES) cells. This contrasts the known parallels between mEC and mES cells in the undifferentiated and well-differentiated states. Genelist comparisons identified a cancer stemness signature set of genes in primary versus recurrent data, a subset of which are known p53-p21 regulators. This signature is present in primary and recurrent or in primary alone but essentially never in recurrent tumors specifically. Meta-analysis of miRNA expression showed a much stronger cancer stemness signature within tumor samples. This miRNA signature again related to p53-p21 regulation and was expressed prominently in recurrent tumors. Our data indicate that the regulation of p53-p21 in ovarian cancer involves, at least partially, a cancer stemness component. CONCLUSION: We present a p53-p21 cancer stemness signature model for ovarian cancer. We propose that this may, at least partially, differentially regulate the p53-p21 mechanism in ovarian disease. Targeting CSCs within ovarian cancer represents a potential therapeutic avenue.
| S-EPMC3285047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePatients with recurrent head and neck cancer (HNC) may feel overwhelmed at the prospect of having to consider treatment options particularly if they recently completed treatment for their primary disease or when they have no options that may lead to long-term survival. The purpose of this study was to examine patient priorities and preferences during treatment decision-making for recurrent HNC.MethodsIndividuals with newly diagnosed recurrent HNC were recruited at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center. Participants were interviewed using a structured interview guide. Descriptive statistics were used to describe participants, and qualitative template analysis was used to analyze interview data.ResultsParticipants (n = 38) considered information from healthcare providers, likelihood of treatment success, and other patient-specific factors in making their treatment decisions.ConclusionsAlthough patients with recurrent HNC endorse a myriad of decision-making factors, the recommendation of their healthcare provider and the likelihood of treatment success are of paramount importance. Future research should focus on methods to rapidly identify patient priorities at the time of diagnosed recurrence while respecting patient coping and communication styles.
| S-EPMC7644586 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAdvanced ovarian cancer (AOC) and its treatment cause several symptoms and impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aim to reach a consensus on the most relevant patient-reported outcome (PROs), the corresponding measures (PROMs), and measurement frequency during AOC patients' follow-up from patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCP) perspective.MethodsThe project comprised five steps: 1) a literature review, 2) a focus group with patients, 3) a nominal group with HCP, 4) two round-Delphi consultations with patients and HCP, and 5) a final meeting with HCP. Delphi questionnaire was elaborated based on literature review, focus group (n=5 patients), and nominal group (n=16 HCP). The relevance of each PRO and the appropriateness (A) and feasibility (F) of the proposed PROM were assessed (Likert scale 1=strongly agree; 9=strongly disagree). The consensus was reached when at least 75% of the panelists rated it as 'relevant', 'appropriate', or 'feasible' (score 7-9).ResultsA total of 56 HCP [51.8% Hospital Pharmacy; 41.1% Oncology; 3.6% Nursing; and 3.6% Psycho-oncology; mean time in specialty 12.5 (8.0) years] and 10 AOC patients [mean time diagnosis 5.4 (3.0) years] participated in the 1st round. All PROs achieved consensus regarding their relevance, except dry skin (58.0%). Agreement was reached for PRO-CTCAE to be used to assess fatigue (A:84.9%; F:75.8%), neuropathy (A:92.4%; F:77.3%), diarrhea (A:87.9%; F:88.7%), constipation (A:86.4%; F:75.8%), nausea (A:89.4%; F:75.8%), insomnia (A:81.8%; F:88.7%), abdominal bloating (A:82.2%; F:82.2%) and sexuality (A:78.8%; F:88.6%); EQ-5D to determine patients' HRQoL (A:87.9%; F:80.3%), pain (A:87.9%; F:75.8%) and mood (A:77.7%; F:85.5%); to assess treatment adherence the Morisky-Green (A:90.9%; F:84.9%) and the dispensing register (A:80.3%; F:80.3%) were chosen. It was agreed to note in the medical record whether the patient's treatment preferences had been considered during decision-making (A:78.8%; F:78.8%) and to use a 5-point Likert scale to assess treatment satisfaction (A:86.4%; F:86.4%). Panelists agreed (A:92.4%; F: 77.3%) to collect these PROs (1) at the time of diagnosis/relapse; (2) one month after starting treatment/change therapeutic strategy; (3) every three months during the 1st-year of treatment; and later (4) every six months until treatment completion/change.ConclusionsThe consensus reached represents the first step towards including the patient's perspective in AOC follow-up. The standardized collection of PROs in clinical practice may contribute to optimizing the follow-up of these patients and thus improving the quality of care.
| S-EPMC9159390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The best course of treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer is uncertain. We sought to determine whether secondary cytoreductive surgery for first recurrence of ovarian cancer improves overall survival compared with other treatments.We assessed survival using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data for advanced stage ovarian cancer cases diagnosed from January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2007 with survival data through 2010 using multinomial propensity weighted finite mixture survival regression models to distinguish true from misclassified recurrences. Of 35,995 women ages 66 years and older with ovarian cancer, 3439 underwent optimal primary debulking surgery with 6 cycles of chemotherapy; 2038 experienced a remission.One thousand six hundred thirty-five of 2038 (80%) women received treatment for recurrence of whom 72% were treated with chemotherapy only, 16% with surgery and chemotherapy and 12% received hospice care. Median survival of women treated with chemotherapy alone, surgery and chemotherapy, or hospice care was 4.1, 5.4, and 2.2 years, respectively (P<0.001). Of those receiving no secondary treatments, 75% were likely true nonrecurrences with median survival of 15.9 years and 25% misclassified with 2.4 years survival. Survival among women with recurrence was greater for those treated with surgery and chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio=1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-2.47). Women who were older with more comorbidities and high-grade cancer had worse survival.Secondary surgery with chemotherapy to treat recurrent ovarian cancer increases survival by 1.3 years compared with chemotherapy alone and pending ongoing randomized trial results, may be considered a standard of care.
| S-EPMC5665721 | biostudies-other
Project description:Importance:There is an unmet medical need for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer, and new approaches are needed to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. Objective:This phase 1/2 study evaluated the activity of alisertib in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with breast (phase 1) and ovarian cancer (phase 1 and phase 2). Design, Setting, and Participants:An open-label phase 1 and randomized phase 2 clinical trial conducted from April 16, 2010, for phase 1 and March 28, 2012, to August 12, 2013, for phase 2 was conducted at 33 sites (United States, France, and Poland). Data are reported from a cutoff date of August 12, 2014, with a median duration of follow-up of 7.2 months in the alisertib plus paclitaxel arm and 4.6 months in the paclitaxel arm. A total of 191 women with advanced breast (phase 1 only) or recurrent ovarian cancer were enrolled, including 142 patients randomized to alisertib plus paclitaxel (n?=?73) or paclitaxel alone (n?=?69) in the phase 2 study. Interventions:Patients were randomized 1:1 stratified by platinum-free interval (refractory, 0-6 months, 6-12 months) and prior weekly taxane treatment (yes, no) to receive alisertib 40 mg twice per day orally and 3 days on and 4 days off for 3 weeks, plus paclitaxel (60 mg/m2 intravenously, days 1, 8, and 15), or weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 intravenously in 28-day cycles. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary endpoint was PFS; primary efficacy analysis and safety analysis used modified intention to treat (mITT) population (all randomized patients who received ?1 dose of study drug). Results:The median age for the 191 patients enrolled in phase 1 was 59 (range, 29-75) years. The median age for the 142 patients enrolled in phase 2 was 63 (range, 30-81) years for patients receiving alisertib plus paclitaxel and 61 (range, 41-81) years for patients receiving paclitaxel. At data cutoff, 107 (75%) patients had a documented PFS event; 52 (71%) in the alisertib plus paclitaxel arm, and 55 (80%) in the paclitaxel arm. Median PFS was 6.7 months with alisertib plus paclitaxel vs 4.7 months with paclitaxel (HR, 0.75; 80% CI, 0.58-0.96; P?=?.14; 2-sided P value cutoff?=?.20 to be considered worthy of further investigation). Drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported in 63 (86%) vs 14 (20%) patients in the alisertib plus paclitaxel and paclitaxel arms, including 56 (77%) vs 7 (10%) neutropenia, 18 (25%) vs 0 stomatitis, and 10 (14%) vs 2 (3%) anemia; 54 (74%) vs 17 (25%) had adverse events leading to dose reductions. Two patients died during the study (1 in each arm); neither death was considered related to study drug. Conclusions and Relevance:The primary endpoint, PFS, significantly favored alisertib plus paclitaxel over paclitaxel alone. Further investigation is warranted. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01091428.
| S-EPMC6439781 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSecondary surgical cytoreduction in women with platinum-sensitive, recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian-tube ("ovarian") cancer is widely practiced but has not been evaluated in phase 3 investigation.MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who had received one previous therapy, had an interval during which no platinum-based chemotherapy was used (platinum-free interval) of 6 months or more, and had investigator-determined resectable disease (to no macroscopic residual disease) to undergo secondary surgical cytoreduction and then receive platinum-based chemotherapy or to receive platinum-based chemotherapy alone. Adjuvant chemotherapy (paclitaxel-carboplatin or gemcitabine-carboplatin) and use of bevacizumab were at the discretion of the investigator. The primary end point was overall survival.ResultsA total of 485 patients underwent randomization, 240 to secondary cytoreduction before chemotherapy and 245 to chemotherapy alone. The median follow-up was 48.1 months. Complete gross resection was achieved in 67% of the patients assigned to surgery who underwent the procedure. Platinum-based chemotherapy with bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance was administered to 84% of the patients overall and was equally distributed between the two groups. The hazard ratio for death (surgery vs. no surgery) was 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.72; P = 0.08), which corresponded to a median overall survival of 50.6 months and 64.7 months, respectively. Adjustment for platinum-free interval and chemotherapy choice did not alter the effect. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death (surgery vs. no surgery) was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.01; median progression-free survival, 18.9 months and 16.2 months, respectively). Surgical morbidity at 30 days was 9%; 1 patient (0.4%) died from postoperative complications. Patient-reported quality of life decreased significantly after surgery but did not differ significantly between the two groups after recovery.ConclusionsIn this trial involving patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, secondary surgical cytoreduction followed by chemotherapy did not result in longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; GOG-0213 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00565851.).
| S-EPMC6941470 | biostudies-literature