Lenvatinib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, fibroblast growth factor receptors 1 through 4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed clinical activity in a phase 2 study involving patients with differentiated thyroid cancer that was refractory to radioiodine (iodine-131).

Purpose To address whether all medically fit patients with curatively resected stage II colon cancer should be offered adjuvant chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice, to identify patients with poor prognosis characteristics, and to describe strategies for oncologists to use to discuss adjuvant chemotherapy in practice. Methods An American Society of Clinical Oncology Panel, in collaboration with the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guideline Initiative, reviewed pertinent information from the literature through May 2003. Results A literature-based meta-analysis found no evidence of a statistically significant survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II patients. Recommendations The routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for medically fit patients with stage II colon cancer is not recommended. However, there are populations of patients with stage II disease that could be considered for adjuvant therapy, including patients with inadequately sampled nodes, T4 lesions, perforation, or poorly differentiated histology. Conclusion Direct evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II colon cancer. Patients and oncologists who accept the relative benefit in stage III disease as adequate indirect evidence of benefit for stage II disease are justified in considering the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly for those patients with high-risk stage II disease. The ultimate clinical decision should be based on discussions with the patient about the nature of the evidence supporting treatment, the anticipated morbidity of treatment, the presence of high-risk prognostic features on individual prognosis, and patient preferences. Patients with stage II disease should be encouraged to participate in randomized trials.

Review from JAMA — Effectiveness of Specialized Palliative Care — A Systematic Review

Background: Early palliative care is increasingly recommended but seldom practised. We sought to examine perceptions of palliative care among patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Methods: After conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial of early palliative care versus standard care for patients with advanced cancer, we approached patients and their caregivers to participate in semistructured interviews seeking to assess, qualitatively, their attitudes and perceptions about palliative care. We used the grounded theory method for data collection and analysis. Results: A total of 48 patients (26 intervention, 22 control) and 23 caregivers (14 intervention, 9 control) completed interviews. Participants’ initial perceptions of palliative care in both trial arms were of death, hopelessness, dependency and end-of-life comfort care for inpatients. These perceptions provoked fear and avoidance, and often originated from interactions with health care professionals. During the trial, those in the intervention arm developed a broader concept of palliative care as “ongoing care” that improved their “quality of living” but still felt that the term itself carried a stigma. Participants in the intervention group emphasized the need for palliative care to be reframed and better explained by health care professionals. Participants in the control group generally considered it pointless to rename palliative care, but many in the intervention group stated emphatically that a different name was necessary in the early outpatient setting. Interpretation: There is a strong stigma attached to palliative care, which may persist even after positive experiences with an early palliative care intervention. Education of the public, patients and health care providers is paramount if early integration of palliative care is to be successful.

Background Cancer patients receive numerous medications, including antineoplastic agents, drugs for supportive care, and medications for comorbid illnesses. Therefore, they are at risk for drug interactions and duplicate prescribing. Methods A questionnaire eliciting information on demographics and medications taken in the previous 4 weeks was given to adult outpatients receiving systemic anticancer therapy for solid tumors. The Drug Interaction Facts software, version 4.0, was used to identify potential drug interactions and to classify them by level of severity (major, moderate, or minor) and the strength of scientific evidence for them (using categories [1–5] of decreasing certainty). Summary statistics and logistic regression were used to analyze the data. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results The survey was completed by 405 patients. We observed 276 potential drug interactions, and at least one potential interaction was identified in 109 patients (27%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 23% to 31%). Of the potential interactions, 25 (9%) were classified as major and 211 (77%) as moderate. Nearly half (49%) of potential interactions were supported by level 1 or 2 scientific evidence. Most potential drug interactions (87%) involved non-anticancer agents such as warfarin, antihypertensive drugs, corticosteroids, and anticonvulsants, but some (n = 36, 13%) involved antineoplastic agents. In multivariable analysis, increased risk of receiving drug combinations in which there were potential drug interactions was associated with receipt of increasing numbers of drugs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4 per additional drug, 95% CI = 1.26 to 1.58, P<.001 from the Wald chi-square test), type of medication (drugs to treat comorbid conditions versus supportive care medications only; OR = 8.6, 95% CI = 2.9 to 25, P<.001), and the presence of brain tumors. Thirty-two (8%) patients were exposed to duplicate medications, most often corticosteroids, proton pump inhibitors, or benzodiazepines. Conclusion Potential drug interactions were common among cancer patients and most often involved medications to treat comorbid conditions. Duplicate medications were infrequent.