Desmoid tumor (DT; other synonymously used terms: Desmoid-type fibromatosis, aggressive fibromatosis) is a rare and locally aggressive monoclonal, fibroblastic proliferation characterised by a variable and often unpredictable clinical course. Previously surgery was the standard primary treatment modality; however, in recent years a paradigm shift towards a more conservative management has been introduced and an effort to harmonise the strategy amongst clinicians has been made. We present herein an evidence-based, joint global consensus guideline approach to the management of this disease focussing on: molecular genetics, indications for an active treatment, and available systemic therapeutic options. This paper follows a one-day consensus meeting held in Milan, Italy, in June 2018 under the auspices of the European Reference Network for rare solid adult cancers, EURACAN, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) as well as Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN) and The Desmoid tumour Research Foundation (DTRF). The meeting brought together over 50 adult and pediatric sarcoma experts from different disciplines, patients and patient advocates from Europe, North America and Japan.

Background: Providing information that is congruent with patients’ needs is an important determinant for patient satisfaction and might also affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and anxiety and depression levels of cancer survivors. Design: The authors systematically reviewed the available literature on the relationship between information provision and HRQoL, anxiety and depression. A PubMed literature search for original articles published until February 2010 was carried out. Twenty-five articles, all conducted between 1996 and 2009, which met the predefined inclusion criteria, were subjected to a quality checklist. Results: Satisfied patients, patients with fulfilled information needs, and patients who experience less information barriers, in general have a better HRQoL and less anxiety and depression. Out of eight intervention studies that aimed to improve information provision, only one showed a positive association with better HRQoL. Conclusion: Health care providers must pay more attention to patient-centred information provision. Additional research is needed to make definitive conclusions about information interventions as most results did not reach statistical significance due to methodological constraints. The quick development of the relatively young research field of patient-reported outcomes in cancer survivorship will make it possible to conduct better quality studies in the future.

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has been shown to be a prognostic factor for cancer survival in randomized clinical trials and observational “real-world” cohort studies; however, it remains unclear which HRQoL domains are the best prognosticators. The primary aims of this population-based, observational study were to (a) investigate the association between the novel European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core30 (QLQ-C30) summary score and all-cause mortality, adjusting for the more traditional sociodemographic and clinical prognostic factors; and (b) compare the prognostic value of the QLQ-C30 summary score with the global quality of life (QoL) and physical functioning scales of the QLQ-C30. Materials and Methods: Between 2008 and 2015, patients with cancer (12 tumor types) were invited to participate in PROFILES disease-specific registry studies (response rate, 69%). In this secondary analysis of 6,895 patients, multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to investigate the association between the QLQ-C30 scores and all-cause mortality. Results: In the overall Cox regression model including sociodemographic and clinical variables, the QLQ-C30 summary score was associated significantly with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.71–0.82). In stratified analyses, significant associations between the summary score and all-cause mortality were observed for colon, rectal, and prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and multiple myeloma. The QLQ-C30 summary score had a stronger association with all-cause mortality than the global QoL scale (HR, 0.82; 99% CI, 0.77–0.86) or the physical functioning scale (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77–0.85). Conclusion: In a real-world setting, the QLQ-C30 summary score has a strong prognostic value for overall survival for a number of populations of patients with cancer above and beyond that provided by clinical and sociodemographic variables. The QLQ-C30 summary score appears to have more prognostic value than the global QoL, physical functioning, or any other scale within the QLQ-C30.

The number of cancer survivors is growing steadily and increasingly, clinical trials are being designed to include long-term follow-up to assess not only survival, but also late effects and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Therefore it is is essential to develop patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that capture the full range of issues relevant to disease-free cancer survivors. The objectives of this project are: 1) to develop a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaire that captures the full range of physical, mental and social HRQOL issues relevant to disease-free cancer survivors; and 2) to determine at which minimal time since completion of treatment the questionnaire should be used. We reviewed 134 publications on cancer survivorship and interviewed 117 disease-free cancer survivors with 11 different types of cancer across 14 countries in Europe to generate an exhaustive, provisional list of HRQOL issues relevant to cancer survivors. The resulting issue list, the EORTC core questionnaire (QLQ-C30), and site-specific questionnaire modules were completed by a second group of 458 survivors. We identified 116 generic survivorship issues. These issues covered body image, cognitive functioning, health behaviors, negative and positive outlook, health distress, mental health, fatigue, sleep problems, physical functioning, pain, several physical symptoms, social functioning, and sexual problems. Patients rated most of the acute symptoms of cancer and its treatment (e.g. nausea) as no longer relevant approximately one year after completion of treatment. Compared to existing cancer survivorship questionnaires, our findings underscore the relevance of assessing issues related to chronic physical side effects of treatment such as neuropathy and joint pain. We will further develop a core survivorship questionnaire and three site-specific modules for disease-free adult cancer survivors who are at least one year post-treatment.

Worldwide, more than 1.2 million adolescents and young adults (AYAs; those aged 15–39 years) are diagnosed with cancer each year. Although considerable variability exists according to cancer site and stage of disease, the 5-year relative survival at the time of diagnosis has been estimated at >80% for all AYA patients with cancer combined. Extensive survivorship research in recent decades has focused on patients diagnosed with cancer as children (39 years), yet few studies to date have reported outcomes specifically for patients diagnosed as AYAs. With increasing incidence and improving survival for many tumor types, leading to the majority of AYA patients with cancer becoming long-term survivors, there is a critical need for research efforts to inform the survivorship care of this growing population. This article describes the population of AYA cancer survivors according to their epidemiology and late and long-term effects, the challenges and models of AYA survivorship care, as well as future opportunities for research and healthcare.

Objective: The objective of the study was to conduct systematic review and meta-analysis to establish the effect of exercise interventions on cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in cancer survivors, compared to non-exercise intervention controls. Methods: Trials published between January 1st 2000 and August 17th 2016 were included through PubMed database search and search of references. Eligible trials compared the effect of an exercise intervention on CRF compared to non-exercise intervention controls, with CRF as primary outcome and measured by validated self-report questionnaire, in cancer survivors not receiving palliative care. We evaluated risk of bias of individual trials following Cochrane Quality criteria. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis in the low risk of bias trials with intervention type, exercise intensity, adherence, and cancer type as moderators, and also performed meta-regression analyses and a sensitivity analysis including the high risk of bias trials. Results: Out of 274 trials, 11 met the inclusion criteria, of which six had low risk of bias. Exercise improved CRF with large effect size (Cohen’s d 0.605, 95% CI 0.235–0.975) with no significant difference between types of cancer. Aerobic exercise (Δ=1.009, CI 0.222–1.797) showed a significantly greater effect than a combination of aerobic and resistance exercises (Δ=0.341, CI 0.129–0.552). Moderator and meta-regression analyses showed high adherence yielding best improvements. Conclusion: Exercise has a large effect on CRF in cancer survivors. Aerobic interventions with high adherence have the best result.