Citations

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer include recommendations for staging and risk assessment after a prostate cancer diagnosis and for the care of patients with localized, regional, recurrent, and metastatic disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s discussions on select 2026 updates to the guidelines regarding nonmetastatic disease: the elimination of the very-low-risk group, updates to the Principles of Active Surveillance, and caution in the use of focal therapy in newly diagnosed patients.

Background Previous studies have established that higher baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We examined the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline QOL. Patients and Methods A total of 1 247 patients with mCRC participating in N9741 (comparing bolus 5-FU/LV, irinotecan [IFL] vs infusional 5-FU/leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] vs. irinotecan/oxaliplatin [IROX]) provided data at baseline on overall QOL using a single-item linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) 0–100 point scale. The association of OS according to clinically deficient (defined as CD-QOL, score 0–50) vs not clinically deficient (nCD-QOL, score 51–100) baseline QOL scores was tested. A multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to adjust for the effects of multiple baseline factors. An exploratory analysis was performed evaluating OS according to baseline QOL status among patients who did or did not receive second-line therapy. Results Baseline QOL was a strong predictor of OS for the whole cohort (CD-QOL vs nCD-QOL: 11.2 months vs 18.4 months, P < .0001), and in each arm IFL 12.4 vs 15.1 months, FOLFOX 11.1 months vs 20.6 months, and IROX 8.9 months vs 18.1 months. Baseline QOL was associated with baseline performance status (PS) ( P < .0001). After adjusting for PS and treatment arm, baseline QOL was still associated with OS ( P = .017). Conclusions Baseline QOL is an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with mCRC. The demonstration that patient-assessed QOL and PS are independent prognostic indicators suggests that these assessments provide important complementary prognostic information.

Background In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. Methods This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran–Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. Results A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach’s alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. Conclusion The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

BackgroundDecision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within‐visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled.MethodsThe interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12‐item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation.ResultsFour sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within‐visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within‐visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within‐visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within‐visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual‐care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within‐visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively).ConclusionsDAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

NT-proBNP, soluble ST2 (sST2), and galectin-3 are biomarkers of cardiac dysfunction that have been proposed as identifiers of patients experiencing asymptomatic cardiac dysfunction after anthracycline-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to compare the proportion of breast cancer (BC) survivors with elevated serum levels of these three putative biomarkers by prior receipt of anthracycline (yes vs. no). Five-hundred-eighty survivors of BC who had received anthracycline-based chemotherapy were matched by age and time between diagnosis and serum storage to 580 who had not. Cardiac biomarker levels were analyzed using immunoassays. Analyses were carried out using linear and logistic regression models. Anthracycline recipients had higher values of NT-proBNP than non-recipients (mean 116.0 ng/L vs. 97.0 ng/L, respectively; p < 0.001). Values for ST2 and galectin-3 did not significantly differ by receipt of anthracycline. After further adjustment for age at breast cancer diagnosis, ethnicity, and receipt of trastuzumab, associations between receipt of anthracycline and higher NT-proBNP persisted (p < 0.001), showing that NT-proBNP may be a biomarker of cardiovascular toxicity after receipt of anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Further research to assess the clinical utility of NT-proBNP testing after receipt of anthracycline is recommended. sST2 and galectin-3 do not appear to differentiate between anthracycline recipients and non-recipients amongst breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes may be associated with cancer outcomes. We evaluated clinically significant fatigue (CSF), overall survival, adverse events (AEs), and quality of life (QOL) during cancer treatment. METHODS: We compared outcomes in four phase II or III chemotherapy trials, two advanced non–small-cell lung cancer and two advanced hormone-refractory prostate cancer, with or without baseline CSF. CSF was defined as a rating of two or greater on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy fatigue question or a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire—Core 30 fatigue symptom score of 50% or greater. Survival was compared according to CSF using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models. Differences in AE rates by CSF were assessed via chi-squared tests, and QOL changes from baseline to 3 months via linear regression. RESULTS: Of 1,994 participants, 1,907 (median age 69 years, range: 32-91) had complete baseline QOL survey data, with 52% reporting CSF at baseline. For the two hormone-refractory prostate cancer studies, baseline CSF was associated with higher mortality rates, with adjusted hazard ratios of (95% CI, P value) 1.32 (1.13 to 1.55, P < .001) and 1.31 (1.02 to 1.67, P = .03) and with increased incidence of grade 3-5 constitutional (16.5% v 9.4%, P = .002; 13.9% v 6.3%, P = .002) and neurologic (11.7% v 6.1%, P = .006; 9.0% v 3.9%, P = .01) AEs, respectively. Baseline CSF was associated with a higher mortality rate in one non–small-cell lung cancer study: hazard ratio 1.44 and 1.04 to 2.00, P = .03. CONCLUSION: Oncology trial participants with baseline CSF had poorer survival and experienced more AEs than participants without CSF. This indicates fatigue as an important baseline prognostic factor in oncology treatment trials.