Original Report

Background Multicenter clinical trials conducted primarily at academic centers have shown that breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and mastectomy lead to equivalent overall survival (OS) for women with early-stage breast cancer.

Objective To determine rates of BCT and OS after conservation therapy in a large urban community practice, compare them with national rates, and identify risk factors for survival.

Methods We identified 1,172 T1-2, N0 breast cancer patients diagnosed during 1997-2007 in our hospital tumor registry and compared the rates of BCT and adjuvant radiotherapy with a similar population in the SEER [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] database (N = 232,898) for the same treatment period. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the influence of age at diagnosis, tumor grade, biomarker status, margin status, and receipt of hormones, radiation, or chemotherapy on OS after BCT.

Results The rate of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was higher in our practice compared with the national average (90.9% and 66.4%, respectively). The rate of adjuvant radiation after BCS in our practice was 93.7%; survival estimates were higher for patients treated with adjuvant radiation across all age groups, compared with the national estimates (92.5% and 72.9%). Younger age and receipt of radiation were associated with improved survival.

Limitations Retrospective study design; confounding factors such as comorbidities were not considered.

Conclusions We had high rates of BCT and adjuvant radiation in early-stage breast cancer patients in our community practice, which resulted in excellent survival rates that compared favorably with those in large academic centers and emphasizes the role of appropriate use of adjuvant radiation.

Funding Vantage Oncology

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Multicenter clinical trials conducted primarily at academic centers have shown that breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and mastectomy lead to equivalent overall survival (OS) for women with early-stage breast cancer.

Objective To determine rates of BCT and OS after conservation therapy in a large urban community practice, compare them with national rates, and identify risk factors for survival.

Methods We identified 1,172 T1-2, N0 breast cancer patients diagnosed during 1997-2007 in our hospital tumor registry and compared the rates of BCT and adjuvant radiotherapy with a similar population in the SEER [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] database (N = 232,898) for the same treatment period. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the influence of age at diagnosis, tumor grade, biomarker status, margin status, and receipt of hormones, radiation, or chemotherapy on OS after BCT.

Results The rate of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was higher in our practice compared with the national average (90.9% and 66.4%, respectively). The rate of adjuvant radiation after BCS in our practice was 93.7%; survival estimates were higher for patients treated with adjuvant radiation across all age groups, compared with the national estimates (92.5% and 72.9%). Younger age and receipt of radiation were associated with improved survival.

Limitations Retrospective study design; confounding factors such as comorbidities were not considered.

Conclusions We had high rates of BCT and adjuvant radiation in early-stage breast cancer patients in our community practice, which resulted in excellent survival rates that compared favorably with those in large academic centers and emphasizes the role of appropriate use of adjuvant radiation.

Funding Vantage Oncology

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Multicenter clinical trials conducted primarily at academic centers have shown that breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and mastectomy lead to equivalent overall survival (OS) for women with early-stage breast cancer.

Objective To determine rates of BCT and OS after conservation therapy in a large urban community practice, compare them with national rates, and identify risk factors for survival.

Methods We identified 1,172 T1-2, N0 breast cancer patients diagnosed during 1997-2007 in our hospital tumor registry and compared the rates of BCT and adjuvant radiotherapy with a similar population in the SEER [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] database (N = 232,898) for the same treatment period. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the influence of age at diagnosis, tumor grade, biomarker status, margin status, and receipt of hormones, radiation, or chemotherapy on OS after BCT.

Results The rate of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) was higher in our practice compared with the national average (90.9% and 66.4%, respectively). The rate of adjuvant radiation after BCS in our practice was 93.7%; survival estimates were higher for patients treated with adjuvant radiation across all age groups, compared with the national estimates (92.5% and 72.9%). Younger age and receipt of radiation were associated with improved survival.

Limitations Retrospective study design; confounding factors such as comorbidities were not considered.

Conclusions We had high rates of BCT and adjuvant radiation in early-stage breast cancer patients in our community practice, which resulted in excellent survival rates that compared favorably with those in large academic centers and emphasizes the role of appropriate use of adjuvant radiation.

Funding Vantage Oncology

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background There are limited data on the prognostic significance of human papillomavirus (HPV) status in relation to traditional risk factors for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in the postoperative setting.

Objective To clarify the impact of HPV status on the risk for HNSCC in the postoperative setting.

Methods We retrospectively evaluated an institutional cohort of 128 patients with HNSCC patients who had been treated with definitive surgery with or without adjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Patient, disease, and treatment factors were analyzed as potential prognostic indicators.

Results Lymph node extracapsular extension (ECE), perineural invasion (PNI), and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) positivity predicted poorer locoregional control (LRC), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Positive margins related to poorer DFS and OS. HPV status alone did not predict LRC, DFS, or OS. Compared with patients who were HPV-positive and ECE-negative, both HPV-positive and HPV-negative patients with ECE experienced significantly poorer OS (78.6%, 60%, and 43.7%, respectively; P = .010 and P = .018, respectively).

Limitations Retrospective, single-institution study; small patient cohort; short follow-up time

Conclusion The influence of HPV in postoperative HNSCC seems limited compared with traditional risk factors such as ECE, LVSI, and PNI. De-escalation of postoperative treatment based on HPV status alone should be approached with caution.


Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background There are limited data on the prognostic significance of human papillomavirus (HPV) status in relation to traditional risk factors for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in the postoperative setting.

Objective To clarify the impact of HPV status on the risk for HNSCC in the postoperative setting.

Methods We retrospectively evaluated an institutional cohort of 128 patients with HNSCC patients who had been treated with definitive surgery with or without adjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Patient, disease, and treatment factors were analyzed as potential prognostic indicators.

Results Lymph node extracapsular extension (ECE), perineural invasion (PNI), and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) positivity predicted poorer locoregional control (LRC), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Positive margins related to poorer DFS and OS. HPV status alone did not predict LRC, DFS, or OS. Compared with patients who were HPV-positive and ECE-negative, both HPV-positive and HPV-negative patients with ECE experienced significantly poorer OS (78.6%, 60%, and 43.7%, respectively; P = .010 and P = .018, respectively).

Limitations Retrospective, single-institution study; small patient cohort; short follow-up time

Conclusion The influence of HPV in postoperative HNSCC seems limited compared with traditional risk factors such as ECE, LVSI, and PNI. De-escalation of postoperative treatment based on HPV status alone should be approached with caution.


Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background There are limited data on the prognostic significance of human papillomavirus (HPV) status in relation to traditional risk factors for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) in the postoperative setting.

Objective To clarify the impact of HPV status on the risk for HNSCC in the postoperative setting.

Methods We retrospectively evaluated an institutional cohort of 128 patients with HNSCC patients who had been treated with definitive surgery with or without adjuvant radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Patient, disease, and treatment factors were analyzed as potential prognostic indicators.

Results Lymph node extracapsular extension (ECE), perineural invasion (PNI), and lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) positivity predicted poorer locoregional control (LRC), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Positive margins related to poorer DFS and OS. HPV status alone did not predict LRC, DFS, or OS. Compared with patients who were HPV-positive and ECE-negative, both HPV-positive and HPV-negative patients with ECE experienced significantly poorer OS (78.6%, 60%, and 43.7%, respectively; P = .010 and P = .018, respectively).

Limitations Retrospective, single-institution study; small patient cohort; short follow-up time

Conclusion The influence of HPV in postoperative HNSCC seems limited compared with traditional risk factors such as ECE, LVSI, and PNI. De-escalation of postoperative treatment based on HPV status alone should be approached with caution.


Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Breast and colorectal cancers are common cancers for which genetic risk assessment and counseling are available. However, these services are often limited to metropolitan areas and are not readily accessible to underserved populations. Moreover, ethnic and racial disparities present additional obstacles to identifying and screening high-risk individuals and have a bearing on treatment outcomes.

Objective To provide cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling through telemedicine to the remote, underserved primarily Hispanic population of the Texas-Mexico border region.

Methods Program participants were mailed a questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with the program so that we could determine the acceptability of video-teleconferencing for cancer risk assessment.

Results The overall level of satisfaction with the program was very high, demonstrating the acceptability of a cancer genetic risk assessment program that relied on telemedicine to reach and underserved minority community.

Limitations Delivery model requires the availability of and access to communication technologies; trained staff are needed at remote sites for sample collection and patient handling.

Conclusion Video-teleconferencing is an acceptable method of providing cancer risk assessment in a remote, underserved population.

Funding Supported primarily by a grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (PP120089 [GT]), NIH-NCI P30 CA54174 (CTRC at UTHSCSA); and a grant from the Valley Baptist Legacy Foundation. 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Breast and colorectal cancers are common cancers for which genetic risk assessment and counseling are available. However, these services are often limited to metropolitan areas and are not readily accessible to underserved populations. Moreover, ethnic and racial disparities present additional obstacles to identifying and screening high-risk individuals and have a bearing on treatment outcomes.

Objective To provide cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling through telemedicine to the remote, underserved primarily Hispanic population of the Texas-Mexico border region.

Methods Program participants were mailed a questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with the program so that we could determine the acceptability of video-teleconferencing for cancer risk assessment.

Results The overall level of satisfaction with the program was very high, demonstrating the acceptability of a cancer genetic risk assessment program that relied on telemedicine to reach and underserved minority community.

Limitations Delivery model requires the availability of and access to communication technologies; trained staff are needed at remote sites for sample collection and patient handling.

Conclusion Video-teleconferencing is an acceptable method of providing cancer risk assessment in a remote, underserved population.

Funding Supported primarily by a grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (PP120089 [GT]), NIH-NCI P30 CA54174 (CTRC at UTHSCSA); and a grant from the Valley Baptist Legacy Foundation. 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Breast and colorectal cancers are common cancers for which genetic risk assessment and counseling are available. However, these services are often limited to metropolitan areas and are not readily accessible to underserved populations. Moreover, ethnic and racial disparities present additional obstacles to identifying and screening high-risk individuals and have a bearing on treatment outcomes.

Objective To provide cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling through telemedicine to the remote, underserved primarily Hispanic population of the Texas-Mexico border region.

Methods Program participants were mailed a questionnaire to assess their satisfaction with the program so that we could determine the acceptability of video-teleconferencing for cancer risk assessment.

Results The overall level of satisfaction with the program was very high, demonstrating the acceptability of a cancer genetic risk assessment program that relied on telemedicine to reach and underserved minority community.

Limitations Delivery model requires the availability of and access to communication technologies; trained staff are needed at remote sites for sample collection and patient handling.

Conclusion Video-teleconferencing is an acceptable method of providing cancer risk assessment in a remote, underserved population.

Funding Supported primarily by a grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (PP120089 [GT]), NIH-NCI P30 CA54174 (CTRC at UTHSCSA); and a grant from the Valley Baptist Legacy Foundation. 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is typically associated with declining health-related quality of life (HR-QoL).

Objective To assess patient experience with abiraterone acetate (hereafter abiraterone) plus prednisone longitudinally.

Methods COU-AA-302 was a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind study that enrolled asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC. Patients were randomized to 1 g abiraterone daily plus 5 mg prednisone BID (n = 546) or placebo plus prednisone (n = 542) in continuous 28-day cycles. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, consisting of 4 well-being subscales (physical, social/family, emotional, functional) and a prostate cancer-specific subscale (PCS). The trial outcome index (TOI) is a composite of the physical well-being, functional well-being, and PCS scores. Least squares mean change from baseline at each cycle up to 1 year (cycle13) was compared between treatment arms using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures, which assumed that data were “missing at random.” A pattern-mixture model (PMM) with multiple imputation was performed to address the assumption that data were “missing not at random.”

Results Significant differences favoring abiraterone-prednisone were observed for FACT-P total, TOI, and PCS scores, and for all well-being subscales except social/family well-being over the first year of treatment. These results were supported by the PMM with multiple imputation.

Limitations Attrition after 1 year limited our ability to analyze the PRO data beyond that time point.

Conclusions Abiraterone-prednisone confers sustained HR-QoL benefits over the course of treatment.

Funding Janssen Research & Development

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is typically associated with declining health-related quality of life (HR-QoL).

Objective To assess patient experience with abiraterone acetate (hereafter abiraterone) plus prednisone longitudinally.

Methods COU-AA-302 was a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind study that enrolled asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC. Patients were randomized to 1 g abiraterone daily plus 5 mg prednisone BID (n = 546) or placebo plus prednisone (n = 542) in continuous 28-day cycles. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, consisting of 4 well-being subscales (physical, social/family, emotional, functional) and a prostate cancer-specific subscale (PCS). The trial outcome index (TOI) is a composite of the physical well-being, functional well-being, and PCS scores. Least squares mean change from baseline at each cycle up to 1 year (cycle13) was compared between treatment arms using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures, which assumed that data were “missing at random.” A pattern-mixture model (PMM) with multiple imputation was performed to address the assumption that data were “missing not at random.”

Results Significant differences favoring abiraterone-prednisone were observed for FACT-P total, TOI, and PCS scores, and for all well-being subscales except social/family well-being over the first year of treatment. These results were supported by the PMM with multiple imputation.

Limitations Attrition after 1 year limited our ability to analyze the PRO data beyond that time point.

Conclusions Abiraterone-prednisone confers sustained HR-QoL benefits over the course of treatment.

Funding Janssen Research & Development

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is typically associated with declining health-related quality of life (HR-QoL).

Objective To assess patient experience with abiraterone acetate (hereafter abiraterone) plus prednisone longitudinally.

Methods COU-AA-302 was a phase 3, multinational, randomized, double-blind study that enrolled asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic, chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC. Patients were randomized to 1 g abiraterone daily plus 5 mg prednisone BID (n = 546) or placebo plus prednisone (n = 542) in continuous 28-day cycles. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, consisting of 4 well-being subscales (physical, social/family, emotional, functional) and a prostate cancer-specific subscale (PCS). The trial outcome index (TOI) is a composite of the physical well-being, functional well-being, and PCS scores. Least squares mean change from baseline at each cycle up to 1 year (cycle13) was compared between treatment arms using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures, which assumed that data were “missing at random.” A pattern-mixture model (PMM) with multiple imputation was performed to address the assumption that data were “missing not at random.”

Results Significant differences favoring abiraterone-prednisone were observed for FACT-P total, TOI, and PCS scores, and for all well-being subscales except social/family well-being over the first year of treatment. These results were supported by the PMM with multiple imputation.

Limitations Attrition after 1 year limited our ability to analyze the PRO data beyond that time point.

Conclusions Abiraterone-prednisone confers sustained HR-QoL benefits over the course of treatment.

Funding Janssen Research & Development

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.

Background Concurrent chemotherapy radiation therapy may result in significant nausea and vomiting. There have been few studies reporting effective interventions for preventing treatment-related nausea and vomiting.

Objective To compare olanzapine with fosaprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving concurrent highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck or esophageal cancer.

Methods 120 chemotherapy and radiotherapy naïve patients with head and neck cancer who were receiving concurrent local radiation and cisplatin were randomized to receive either olanzapine or fosaprepitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiation-induced nausea and vomiting. The olanzapine, palonosetron, dexamethasone (OPD) regimen was 10 mg oral olanzapine , 0.25 mg IV palonosetron, and 20 mg IV dexamethasone before chemotherapy on day 1, and 10 mg/day of oral olanzapine before chemotherapy on days 2-4. The fosaprepitant, palonosetron, dexamethasone (FPD) regimen was 150 mg IV fosaprepitant, 0.25 mg IV palonosetron, and 12 mg IV dexamethasone before chemotherapy on day 1, and 4 mg dexamethasone PO BID, before chemotherapy days 2 and 3.

Results 101 of the 120 patients were evaluable. In 51 patients who received the OPD regimen, the complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue medication) rate was 88% for the acute period (24 h after chemotherapy), 76% for the delayed period (days 2-5), and 76% for the overall period (0-120 h). In 50 patients who received the FPD regimen, the CR was 84% acute, 74% delayed, and 74% overall (P > .01 for all periods). Patients with no nausea (0, on a scale 0-10, visual analogue scale) were: OPD: 86% acute, 71% delayed, 71% overall; FPD: 78% acute, 40% delayed, 40% overall (P > .01 for acute; P < .01 for delayed and overall) There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities.

Conclusions CR was similar for OPD and FPD; nausea in the delayed and overall periods was signifcantly improved with OPD compared with FPD (P < .01).

Funding Reich Endowment for the Care of the Whole Patient
 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
 

Background Concurrent chemotherapy radiation therapy may result in significant nausea and vomiting. There have been few studies reporting effective interventions for preventing treatment-related nausea and vomiting.

Objective To compare olanzapine with fosaprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving concurrent highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck or esophageal cancer.

Methods 120 chemotherapy and radiotherapy naïve patients with head and neck cancer who were receiving concurrent local radiation and cisplatin were randomized to receive either olanzapine or fosaprepitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiation-induced nausea and vomiting. The olanzapine, palonosetron, dexamethasone (OPD) regimen was 10 mg oral olanzapine , 0.25 mg IV palonosetron, and 20 mg IV dexamethasone before chemotherapy on day 1, and 10 mg/day of oral olanzapine before chemotherapy on days 2-4. The fosaprepitant, palonosetron, dexamethasone (FPD) regimen was 150 mg IV fosaprepitant, 0.25 mg IV palonosetron, and 12 mg IV dexamethasone before chemotherapy on day 1, and 4 mg dexamethasone PO BID, before chemotherapy days 2 and 3.

Results 101 of the 120 patients were evaluable. In 51 patients who received the OPD regimen, the complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue medication) rate was 88% for the acute period (24 h after chemotherapy), 76% for the delayed period (days 2-5), and 76% for the overall period (0-120 h). In 50 patients who received the FPD regimen, the CR was 84% acute, 74% delayed, and 74% overall (P > .01 for all periods). Patients with no nausea (0, on a scale 0-10, visual analogue scale) were: OPD: 86% acute, 71% delayed, 71% overall; FPD: 78% acute, 40% delayed, 40% overall (P > .01 for acute; P < .01 for delayed and overall) There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities.

Conclusions CR was similar for OPD and FPD; nausea in the delayed and overall periods was signifcantly improved with OPD compared with FPD (P < .01).

Funding Reich Endowment for the Care of the Whole Patient
 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
 

Background Concurrent chemotherapy radiation therapy may result in significant nausea and vomiting. There have been few studies reporting effective interventions for preventing treatment-related nausea and vomiting.

Objective To compare olanzapine with fosaprepitant for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving concurrent highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) and radiotherapy for locally advanced head and neck or esophageal cancer.

Methods 120 chemotherapy and radiotherapy naïve patients with head and neck cancer who were receiving concurrent local radiation and cisplatin were randomized to receive either olanzapine or fosaprepitant in combination with palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of chemotherapy- and radiation-induced nausea and vomiting. The olanzapine, palonosetron, dexamethasone (OPD) regimen was 10 mg oral olanzapine , 0.25 mg IV palonosetron, and 20 mg IV dexamethasone before chemotherapy on day 1, and 10 mg/day of oral olanzapine before chemotherapy on days 2-4. The fosaprepitant, palonosetron, dexamethasone (FPD) regimen was 150 mg IV fosaprepitant, 0.25 mg IV palonosetron, and 12 mg IV dexamethasone before chemotherapy on day 1, and 4 mg dexamethasone PO BID, before chemotherapy days 2 and 3.

Results 101 of the 120 patients were evaluable. In 51 patients who received the OPD regimen, the complete response (CR; no emesis, no rescue medication) rate was 88% for the acute period (24 h after chemotherapy), 76% for the delayed period (days 2-5), and 76% for the overall period (0-120 h). In 50 patients who received the FPD regimen, the CR was 84% acute, 74% delayed, and 74% overall (P > .01 for all periods). Patients with no nausea (0, on a scale 0-10, visual analogue scale) were: OPD: 86% acute, 71% delayed, 71% overall; FPD: 78% acute, 40% delayed, 40% overall (P > .01 for acute; P < .01 for delayed and overall) There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities.

Conclusions CR was similar for OPD and FPD; nausea in the delayed and overall periods was signifcantly improved with OPD compared with FPD (P < .01).

Funding Reich Endowment for the Care of the Whole Patient
 

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
 

Objective To assess the symptom burden experienced by Yemeni cancer patients by using VR and systematic assessment (SA).

Methods 50 cancer patients were asked an open question to voluntarily report their symptoms. This was followed by an SA of a list of 20 common physical symptoms that was drawn up based on the literature.

Results From 375 symptom entries related to the 20 symptoms, VR accounted for 66 entries (18%) and SA for 309 (82%). The mean number of VR symptoms/patient was 1.3, and the mean number of VR plus SA symptoms was 7.5 (P < .001). In all, 74% of VR symptoms and 57% of SA symptoms were moderate or severe. For each symptom, the percentage of patients who experienced it and did not report it voluntarily (missed) was 100% for bleeding, constipation, early satiety, hoarseness, taste changes, and weight loss. These were followed by anorexia (97%), skin symptoms (92%), dry mouth (91%), edema (89%), dyspnea (88%), sore mouth (88%), fatigue/weakness (85%), diarrhea (80%), dysphagia (80%), nausea (76%), cough (75%), urinary symptoms (75%), vomiting (62%), and pain (18%). Pain was the most common voluntarily reported symptom (56% of patients), the most commonly distressing (42%), and the least under-reported (18%).

Limitations Relatively small sample size; the SA included only 20 symptoms.

Conclusions SA of symptoms yields a more accurate estimation of symptom burden than does VR. As with many developing countries where the majority of cancer patients present at an incurable disease stage, Yemeni cancer patients suffer a high symptom burden, especially pain.

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article. 

Objective To assess the symptom burden experienced by Yemeni cancer patients by using VR and systematic assessment (SA).

Methods 50 cancer patients were asked an open question to voluntarily report their symptoms. This was followed by an SA of a list of 20 common physical symptoms that was drawn up based on the literature.

Results From 375 symptom entries related to the 20 symptoms, VR accounted for 66 entries (18%) and SA for 309 (82%). The mean number of VR symptoms/patient was 1.3, and the mean number of VR plus SA symptoms was 7.5 (P < .001). In all, 74% of VR symptoms and 57% of SA symptoms were moderate or severe. For each symptom, the percentage of patients who experienced it and did not report it voluntarily (missed) was 100% for bleeding, constipation, early satiety, hoarseness, taste changes, and weight loss. These were followed by anorexia (97%), skin symptoms (92%), dry mouth (91%), edema (89%), dyspnea (88%), sore mouth (88%), fatigue/weakness (85%), diarrhea (80%), dysphagia (80%), nausea (76%), cough (75%), urinary symptoms (75%), vomiting (62%), and pain (18%). Pain was the most common voluntarily reported symptom (56% of patients), the most commonly distressing (42%), and the least under-reported (18%).

Limitations Relatively small sample size; the SA included only 20 symptoms.

Conclusions SA of symptoms yields a more accurate estimation of symptom burden than does VR. As with many developing countries where the majority of cancer patients present at an incurable disease stage, Yemeni cancer patients suffer a high symptom burden, especially pain.

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article. 

Objective To assess the symptom burden experienced by Yemeni cancer patients by using VR and systematic assessment (SA).

Methods 50 cancer patients were asked an open question to voluntarily report their symptoms. This was followed by an SA of a list of 20 common physical symptoms that was drawn up based on the literature.

Results From 375 symptom entries related to the 20 symptoms, VR accounted for 66 entries (18%) and SA for 309 (82%). The mean number of VR symptoms/patient was 1.3, and the mean number of VR plus SA symptoms was 7.5 (P < .001). In all, 74% of VR symptoms and 57% of SA symptoms were moderate or severe. For each symptom, the percentage of patients who experienced it and did not report it voluntarily (missed) was 100% for bleeding, constipation, early satiety, hoarseness, taste changes, and weight loss. These were followed by anorexia (97%), skin symptoms (92%), dry mouth (91%), edema (89%), dyspnea (88%), sore mouth (88%), fatigue/weakness (85%), diarrhea (80%), dysphagia (80%), nausea (76%), cough (75%), urinary symptoms (75%), vomiting (62%), and pain (18%). Pain was the most common voluntarily reported symptom (56% of patients), the most commonly distressing (42%), and the least under-reported (18%).

Limitations Relatively small sample size; the SA included only 20 symptoms.

Conclusions SA of symptoms yields a more accurate estimation of symptom burden than does VR. As with many developing countries where the majority of cancer patients present at an incurable disease stage, Yemeni cancer patients suffer a high symptom burden, especially pain.

Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article. 

Background Oral anticancer agents are more convenient to use and better tolerated than traditional intravenous therapy but come with significant concerns about patient noncompliance, adverse effects, and high cost. Identifying areas for improvement in the medication use process may help ensure optimal use of these agents.

Results Most of the patients were satisfied with their oral treatment, reporting ease of use with minimal side effect occurrence. Oncologists and pharmacists were equally named as sources of drug information.

Limitations Sample size was small and patients were overwhelmingly male. Response bias may be partially responsible for the observed results for regimen management, side effect occurrence, missed doses, and overall treatment satisfaction.

Conclusion Oral anticancer therapy represents a significant therapeutic advance for many types of cancer. Pharmacists can serve as vital informational resources to these patients. Further studies examining the role of pharmacist-led educational programs in terms of overall patient outcomes are warranted.

Background Oral anticancer agents are more convenient to use and better tolerated than traditional intravenous therapy but come with significant concerns about patient noncompliance, adverse effects, and high cost. Identifying areas for improvement in the medication use process may help ensure optimal use of these agents.

Results Most of the patients were satisfied with their oral treatment, reporting ease of use with minimal side effect occurrence. Oncologists and pharmacists were equally named as sources of drug information.

Limitations Sample size was small and patients were overwhelmingly male. Response bias may be partially responsible for the observed results for regimen management, side effect occurrence, missed doses, and overall treatment satisfaction.

Conclusion Oral anticancer therapy represents a significant therapeutic advance for many types of cancer. Pharmacists can serve as vital informational resources to these patients. Further studies examining the role of pharmacist-led educational programs in terms of overall patient outcomes are warranted.

Background Oral anticancer agents are more convenient to use and better tolerated than traditional intravenous therapy but come with significant concerns about patient noncompliance, adverse effects, and high cost. Identifying areas for improvement in the medication use process may help ensure optimal use of these agents.

Results Most of the patients were satisfied with their oral treatment, reporting ease of use with minimal side effect occurrence. Oncologists and pharmacists were equally named as sources of drug information.

Limitations Sample size was small and patients were overwhelmingly male. Response bias may be partially responsible for the observed results for regimen management, side effect occurrence, missed doses, and overall treatment satisfaction.

Conclusion Oral anticancer therapy represents a significant therapeutic advance for many types of cancer. Pharmacists can serve as vital informational resources to these patients. Further studies examining the role of pharmacist-led educational programs in terms of overall patient outcomes are warranted.