Background: Esophageal cancer and curative treatment have a significant impact on the physical fitness of patients. Knowledge about the course of physical fitness during neoadjuvant therapy and esophagectomy is helpful to determine the needs for interventions during and after curative treatment. This study aims to review the current evidence on the impact of curative treatment on the physical fitness of patients with esophageal cancer. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to March 29, 2021. We included observational studies investigating the change of physical fitness (including exercise capacity, muscle strength, physical activity and activities of daily living) from pre-to post-neoadjuvant therapy and/or from pre-to post-esophagectomy. Quality of the studies was assessed and a meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean differences. Results: Twenty-seven articles were included. After neoadjuvant therapy, physical fitness decreased significantly. In the first three months after surgery, physical fitness was also significantly decreased compared to preoperative values. Subgroup analysis showed a restore in exercise capacity three months after surgery in patients who followed an exercise program. Six months after surgery, there was limited evidence that exercise capacity restored to preoperative values. Conclusion: Curative treatment seems to result in a decrease of physical fitness in patients with esophageal cancer, up to three months postoperatively. Six months postoperatively, results were conflicting. In patients who followed a pre- or postoperative exercise program, the postoperative impact of curative treatment seems to be less.
This pilot study explores the reasons patients have for refusing chemotherapy, and the ways oncologists respond to them. Our hypothesis, generated from interviews with patients and oncologists, is that an ethical approach that views a refusal as an autonomous choice, in which patients are informed about the pros and cons of treatment and have to decide by weighing them, is not sufficient.A different ethical approach is needed to deal with the various evaluations that play a role in treatment refusal. If patients forgo further treatment, while curative or palliative methods are available, there is no perspective from which to integrate the weighing of pros and cons of treatment and the preferences and values of individual cancer patients.A discrepancy thus results as regards what "good reasons" are, evoking misunderstandings or even breaking off communication. Suggestions are given for follow up research.
Introduction: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEPNENs) are often diagnosed in an advanced stage. As the optimal sequence of therapy remains largely unclear, all treatment-related outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) prospects, should be assessed according to patients' preferences. Methods: A targeted search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE to identify studies on treatment effect and HRQoL, measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30 tool, in patients with advanced, well-differentiated GEPNENs. Study quality was assessed, and meta-analyses were performed for global health status/QOL and tumour response. Results: The search yielded 1,322 records, and 20 studies were included, examining somatostatin analogues (SSA), peptide receptor radionuclide therapies (PRRT), chemotherapy, SSA-based combination therapies, and targeted therapies. Global HRQoL was stable, and rates for disease stabilisation were moderate to high across all treatments. Meta-analyses for global health status/QOL after SSA treatment were not significant (mean difference: –0.3 [95% CI: −1.3 to 0.7]). The highest pooled overall tumour response rate was 33% (95% CI: 24–45%) for PRRT. The highest pooled clinical benefit rate was 94% (95% CI: 65–99%) for chemotherapy. Conclusion: All treatments appeared beneficial for disease stabilisation while maintaining stable global health status/QOL. High-quality HRQoL reporting was lacking. HRQoL should be a central outcome next to well-established outcomes.
