scholarly journals A Pilot Feasibility Study of TNFerade™ Biologic with Capecitabine and Radiation Therapy Followed by Surgical Resection for the Treatment of Rectal Cancer

Oncology ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 79 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 382-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Citrin ◽  
Kevin Camphausen ◽  
Bradford J. Wood ◽  
Martha Quezado ◽  
John Denobile ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerri M. Winters-Stone ◽  
Karen S. Lyons ◽  
Tomasz M. Beer ◽  
Meghan B. Skiba ◽  
Arthur Hung

Abstract Introduction Prostate cancer can negatively impact the health of patients and their spouse, particularly early on in the cancer trajectory. Purpose To determine the feasibility and acceptability of dyadic exercises during radiation therapy and preliminary efficacy on physical, mental, and relational outcomes for men and their spouses. Exercising Together©, originally designed as a 6-month dyadic resistance training program for couples post-treatment, was adapted for the radiation setting. Methods We conducted a single-group pilot feasibility study of Exercising Together© in men scheduled for radiation therapy for prostate cancer and their spouse. Couples attended supervised exercise sessions thrice weekly throughout radiation treatment and were followed up 8 weeks later. Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability with secondary outcomes of changes in physical (physical functioning (short physical performance battery (sPPB)), gait speed (m/s), functional capacity (400-m walk (min), physical activity (min/week)), mental (depressive symptoms (CES-D), and anxiety (SCL-90 ANX)), and relationship (Dyadic Coping, Role Overload, and Physical Intimacy Behavior Scales) health outcomes for each partner. Participants completed an evaluation post-intervention. Results Ten couples enrolled and 8 completed the intervention, attending 83% of scheduled sessions. Couple satisfaction with the intervention was high (patients: mean difference (MD) = 9.4 ± 1.9 and spouses: MD = 10.0 ± 0.0, on a 1–10 scale). At post-intervention, gait speed (MD = 0.1; 95%CI: 0.1, 0.2; p = 0.003; d = 0.94) and functional capacity (MD = −0.6; 95%CI: −0.9, 0.3; p = 0.002; d = −0.42) improved in patients and sPPB in spouses (MD = 1.3; 95%CI: 0.3, 2.2; p = 0.02; d = 0.71). Total physical activity increased non-significantly for patients and significantly for spouses at post-intervention and decreased at follow-up (MD = 179.6; 95%CI: 55.4, 303.7; p = 0.01; d = 1.35 and MD = −139.9; 95%CI: −266.5, 13.3; p = 0.03; d=1.06). Among patients, anxiety and active engagement significantly improved post-intervention (MD = −2.3; 95%CI: −3.8, 0.7; p = 0.01; d = −0.43 and MD = 2.5; 95%CI: 0.7, 4.3; p = 0.01; d = 0.98, respectively). There were modest effects on other physical, mental, and relationship health domains in patients and spouses. Conclusion A modified version of Exercising Together© is a feasible and acceptable program during radiation therapy for prostate cancer and shows preliminary evidence for improvements on physical, mental, and relational health in both patient and spouse. A larger, fully powered randomized controlled trial is warranted and could help shift the landscape toward dyadically targeted interventions. Trial registration This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on February 18th, 2018 (NCT03418025).


2015 ◽  
Vol 37 (7) ◽  
pp. e412-e418
Author(s):  
Aliva De ◽  
Leo Mascarenhas ◽  
Sunil Kamath ◽  
Alejandro LaRiviere ◽  
Fariba Goodarzian ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 901
Author(s):  
Mary E. Medysky ◽  
Jessica C. Sitemba ◽  
Kimi Daniel ◽  
Arthur Hung ◽  
Kerri M. Winters-Stone

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerri Winters-Stone ◽  
Karen Lyons ◽  
Tomasz M. Beer ◽  
Meghan B. Skiba ◽  
Arthur Hung

Abstract Introduction: Prostate cancer can negatively impact the health of patients and their spouse, particularly early on in the cancer trajectory. Purpose: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of dyadic exercise during radiation therapy and preliminary efficacy on physical, mental and relational outcomes for men and their spouses. Exercising Together©, originally designed as a 6-month dyadic resistance training program for couples post-treatment, was adapted for the radiation setting.Methods: We conducted a single-group pilot feasibility study of Exercising Together© in men scheduled for radiation therapy for prostate cancer and their spouse. Couples attended supervised exercise sessions thrice weekly throughout radiation treatment and were followed-up 8 weeks later. Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability with secondary outcomes of changes in physical (physical functioning (short physical performance battery (SPPB)), gait speed (m/sec), functional capacity (400-meter walk (min), physical activity (min/week)), mental (depressive symptoms (CES-D) and anxiety (SCL-90 ANX)), and relationship (Dyadic Coping, Role Overload and Physical Intimacy Behavior Scales) health outcomes for each partner. Participants completed an evaluation post-intervention.Results: Ten couples enrolled and 8 completed the intervention, attending 83% of scheduled sessions. Couple satisfaction with the intervention was high (patients: x̄=9.4±1.9 and spouses: x̄=10.0±0.0, on a 1-10 scale). At post-intervention, gait speed (x̄=0.1; 95%CI: 0.1, 0.2; p=0.003; d=0.94) and functional capacity (x̄=-0.6; 95%CI: -0.9, 0.3; p=0.002; d=-0.42) improved in patients and SPPB in spouses (x̄=1.3; 95%CI: 0.3, 2.2; p=0.02; d=0.71). Total physical activity increased non-significantly for patients and significantly for spouses at post-intervention and decreased at follow-up (x̄=179.6; 95%CI: 55.4, 303.7; p=0.01; d=1.35 and x̄=-139.9; 95%CI: -266.5,13.3; p=0.03; d=1.06). Among patients, anxiety and active engagement significantly improved post-intervention (x̄=-2.3; 95%CI: -3.8, 0.7; p=0.01; d=-0.43 and x̄=2.5; 95%CI: 0.7, 4.3; p=0.01; d=0.98, respectively). There were modest effects on other physical, mental, and relationship health domains in patients and spouses.Conclusion: A modified version of Exercising Together© is a feasible and acceptable program during radiation therapy for prostate cancer and shows preliminary evidence for improvements on physical, mental, and relational health in both patient and spouse. A larger, fully powered randomized controlled trial is warranted and could help shift the landscape toward dyadically-targeted interventions.Trial Registration: This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on February 18th, 2018 (NCT03418025; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03418025).


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 650-650
Author(s):  
Dhaval Chauhan ◽  
Atuhani S. Burnett ◽  
Taufiek Konrad Rajab ◽  
Marisa Cevasco ◽  
Philip Ernst ◽  
...  

650 Background: Radiation in patients with rectal cancer is an important adjuvant therapy. It can be given either pre-operative or post-operative phase or both. However the optimum timing of the radiation in terms of pre-operative or post-op phase remains a question of debate in octogenarian patients as there is lack of enough evidence. Methods: In this study we aim to find the optimum time of radiation therapy in octogenarians with rectal cancer undergoing surgical resection. Octogenarians with rectal cancer were selected from surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database collected between 1998 and 2009. The data set contained 4,026 patients with rectal cancer who underwent surgical resection and radiation therapy. They were divided into 3 groups. 1,586 (39%) patients had radiation before the surgery. 66 (2%) patients had radiation before and after the surgery, also called the combination group. 2,347(59%) patients had radiation after the surgery. Taking in the consideration of unequal sample sizes, Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests was used to compare the mean survival of the patients in each group. Results: The mean survival in pre-operative radiation group was 37.7 months, in combination group was 48.41 months and post-operative radiation group was 44.3 months. There was no statistically significant difference in survival time between the combination group and the radiation after surgery group (p-value=0.64). There was marginal statistical significance in survival time between the combination group and the before surgery group (p-value=.05). There was a statistically significant difference in survival time between the radiation after surgery group and the radiation before surgery group (p-value<0.0001). Conclusions: Octogenarian patients with rectal cancer undergoing adjuvant radiation therapy, with or without neoadjuvant radiation, have greater survival than compared to neoadjuvant only radiation. There appears to be survival advantage of postoperative radiation therapy in octogenarian patients with rectal cancer.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 648-648
Author(s):  
Zachary D. Horne ◽  
Stephen Abel ◽  
Shaakir Hasan ◽  
Alexander V. Kirichenko ◽  
Rodney E Wegner

648 Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation represents the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer prior to surgical resection. Traditionally, 3D conformal radiation therapy (3D CRT) was used in this setting. With advancing technology, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) was developed with the goal of delivering a more conformal radiation dose, with the potential for reduced toxicity providing a potential advantage across many disease sites. We sought to use the national cancer database (NCDB) to examine trends and predictors for IMRT use in rectal cancer. Methods: We queried the NCDB from 2004-2015 for patients with rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation to a standard doses (50.4-54Gy) followed by surgical resection. Odds ratios were used to determine predictors of IMRT use. Univariable and multivariable cox regressions were used to determine potential predictors of overall survival (OS). Propensity matching was used to account for any indication bias. Results: We identified 21,490 patients satisfying eligibility criteria, of which 3,131 were treated with IMRT. IMRT use increased from 1% in 2004 to 22% in 2014. Predictors for IMRT use included increased N stage, more recent treatment year, treatment at an academic facility, increased income, and higher educational level. On multivariable analysis including propensity score male gender, increased distance to facility, higher comorbidity score, IMRT technique, government insurance, African American race, and non-metro location were predictive of worse OS. Of note, the complete response rate at time of surgery was 28% with non-IMRT and 21% with IMRT. Conclusions: IMRT use has steadily increased in the treatment of rectal cancer, but still remains only a fraction of overall treatment technique. IMRT use correlated with worse survival likely due to utilization in higher stages and patients with worse disease features.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document