Boda Guo and Ming Liu
Siew Tzuh Tang, Tsang-Wu Liu, Fur-Hsing Wen, Chiun Hsu, Yi-Heng Chang, Cheng-Shyong Chang, Yung-Chuan Sung, Cheng-I Hsieh, Shou-Yi Chang, Li Ni Liu, and Ming-Chu Chiang
Background: Changes over time in preferences for life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) at end of life (EOL) in different patient cohorts are not well established, nor is the concept that LST preferences represent more than 2 groups (uniformly prefer/not prefer). Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore heterogeneity and changes in patterns of LST preferences among 2 independent cohorts of terminally ill patients with cancer recruited a decade apart. Methods: Preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, intensive care unit care, cardiac massage, intubation with mechanical ventilation, intravenous nutritional support, nasogastric tube feeding, and dialysis were surveyed among 2,187 and 2,166 patients in 2003–2004 and 2011–2012, respectively. Patterns and changes in LST preferences were examined by multigroup latent class analysis. Results: We identified 7 preference classes: uniformly preferring, uniformly rejecting, uniformly uncertain, favoring nutritional support but rejecting other treatments, favoring nutritional support but uncertain about other treatments, favoring intravenous nutritional support with mixed rejection of or uncertainty about other treatments, and preferring LSTs except intubation with mechanical ventilation. Probability of class membership decreased significantly over time for the uniformly preferring class (15.26%–8.71%); remained largely unchanged for the classes of uniformly rejecting (41.71%–40.54%) and uniformly uncertain (9.10%–10.47%), and favoring nutritional support but rejecting (20.68%–21.91%) or uncertain about (7.02%–5.47%) other treatments, and increased significantly for the other 2 classes. The LST preferences of Taiwanese terminally ill patients with cancer are not a homogeneous construct and shifted toward less-aggressive treatments over the past decade. Conclusions: Identifying LST preference patterns and tailoring interventions to the unique needs of patients in each LST preference class may lead to the provision of less-aggressive EOL care.
Li-Ting Liu, Qiu-Yan Chen, Lin-Quan Tang, Shan-Shan Guo, Ling Guo, Hao-Yuan Mo, Yang Li, Qing-Nan Tang, Xue-Song Sun, Yu-Jing Liang, Chong Zhao, Xiang Guo, Chao-Nan Qian, Mu-Sheng Zeng, Jin-Xin Bei, Ming-Huang Hong, Jian-Yong Shao, Ying Sun, Jun Ma, and Hai-Qiang Mai
Background: The goal of this study was to explore the value of adding neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) or adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) with different risks of treatment failure. Patients and Methods: A total of 2,263 eligible patients with stage III–IVb NPC treated with CCRT ± NACT or ACT were included in this retrospective study. Distant metastasis–free survival (DMFS), overall survival, and progression-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and differences were compared using the log-rank test. Results: Patients in the low-risk group (stage N0–1 disease and Epstein-Barr virus [EBV] DNA <4,000 copies/mL) who received NACT followed by CCRT achieved significantly better 5-year DMFS than those treated with CCRT alone (96.2% vs 91.3%; P= .008). Multivariate analyses also demonstrated that additional NACT was the only independent prognostic factor for DMFS (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22–0.80; P=.009). In both the intermediate-risk group (stage N0–1 disease and EBV DNA ≥4,000 copies/mL and stage N2–3 disease and EBV DNA <4,000 copies/mL) and the high-risk group (stage N2–3 disease and EBV DNA ≥4,000 copies/mL), comparison of NACT or ACT + CCRT versus CCRT alone indicated no significantly better survival for all end points. Conclusions: The addition of NACT to CCRT could reduce distant failure in patients with low risk of treatment failure.