Quantifying physical activity and the associated barriers for women with ovarian cancer

Objective The purpose of this study was to quantify physical activity levels and determine the barriers to physical activity for women with ovarian cancer. Materials and Methods Women with ovarian cancer from 3 oncology clinics enrolled in the cross-sectional study. Physical activity and barriers to physical activity were measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and Perceived Physical Activity Barriers scale, respectively. Demographic, medical, and anthropometric data were obtained from medical records. Results Ninety-five women (response rate, 41%), with a mean (SD) age of 61 (10.6) years, a body mass index of 26.5 (6.8) kg/m2, and 36.6 (28.2) months since diagnosis, participated in the study. The majority of the participants had stage III (32%) or IV (32%) ovarian cancer, were undergoing chemotherapy (41%), and had a history of chemotherapy (93%). The majority of the participants reduced their physical activity after diagnosis, with 19% meeting recommended physical activity guidelines. The participants undergoing treatment reported lower moderate-vigorous physical activity compared with those not undergoing active treatment (mean [SD], 42 [57] vs 104 [119] min/wk; P < 0.001) and less total physical activity barriers (mean [SD], 49 vs 47; P > 0.4). The greatest barriers to physical activity included fatigue (37.8%), exercise not in routine (34.7%), lack of self-discipline (32.6%), and procrastination (27.4%). Conclusions Women with ovarian cancer have low levels of physical activity. There are disease-specific general barriers to physical activity participation. The majority of the participants reduced their physical activity after diagnosis, with these patients reporting a higher number of total barriers. Behavioral strategies are required to increase physical activity adherence in this population to ensure that recommended guidelines are met to achieve the emerging known benefits of exercise oncology.

Older workers' age as a moderator of the relationship between career adaptability and job satisfaction

Research on career adaptability and its relationships with work outcomes has so far primarily focused on the cohort of younger workers and largely neglected older workers. We investigated the relationship between career adaptability and job satisfaction in a sample of 577 older workers from Australia (M age = 59.6 years, SD = 2.4, range 54–66 years), who participated in a 4-wave substudy of the 45 and Up Study. Based on socioemotional selectivity theory, we examined older workers’ chronological age (as a proxy for retirement proximity) and motivation to continue working after traditional retirement age as moderators of the relationship between career adaptability and job satisfaction. We hypothesized that the positive relationship between career adaptability and job satisfaction is stronger among relatively younger workers and workers with a high motivation to continue working compared to relatively older workers and workers with a low motivation to continue working. Results showed that older workers’ age, but not their motivation to continue working, moderated the relationship between career adaptability and job satisfaction consistent with the expected pattern. Implications for future research on age and career adaptability as well as ideas on how to maintain and improve older workers’ career adaptability and job satisfaction are discussed.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.