A Communication Intervention for Training Southern European Oncologists to Recognize Psychosocial Morbidity in Cancer. I - Development of the Model and Preliminary Results on Physicians' Satisfaction

BACKGROUND: The detection of psychosocial distress is a significant communication problem in Southern Europe and other countries. Work in this area is hampered by a lack of data. Because not much is known about training aimed at improving the recognition of psychosocial disorders in cancer patients, we developed a basic course model for medical oncology professionals. METHODS: A specific educational and experiential model (12 hours divided into 2 modules) involving formal teaching (ie, journal articles, large-group presentations), practice in small groups (ie, small-group exercises and role playing), and discussion in large groups was developed with the aim of improving the ability of oncologists to detect emotional disturbances in cancer patients (ie, depression, anxiety, and adjustment disorders). RESULTS: A total of 30 oncologists from 3 Southern European countries (Italy, Portugal, and Spain) participated in the workshop. The training course was well accepted by most participants who expressed general satisfaction and a positive subjective perception of the utility of the course for clinical practice. Of the total participants, 28 physicians (93.3%) thought that had they been exposed to this material sooner, they would have incorporated the techniques received in the workshop into their practices; 2 participants stated they would likely have done so. Half of the doctors (n = 15) believed that their clinical communication techniques were improved by participating in the workshop, and the remaining half thought that their abilities to communicate with cancer patients had improved. CONCLUSIONS: This model is a feasible approach for oncologists and is easily applicable to various oncology settings. Further studies will demonstrate the effectiveness of this method for improving oncologists skills in recognizing emotional disorders in their patients with cancer.

Locally Advanced and Metastatic Prostate Cancer Treated with Intermittent Androgen Monotherapy or Maximal Androgen Blockade: Results from a Randomised Phase 3 Study by the South European Uroncological Group

BACKGROUND: Few randomised studies have compared antiandrogen intermittent hormonal therapy (IHT) with continuous maximal androgen blockade (MAB) therapy for advanced prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To determine whether overall survival (OS) on IHT (cyproterone acetate; CPA) is noninferior to OS on continuous MAB. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 3 randomised trial compared IHT and continuous MAB in patients with locally advanced or metastatic PCa. INTERVENTION: During induction, patients received CPA 200 mg/d for 2 wk and then monthly depot injections of a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH; triptoreline 11.25 mg) analogue plus CPA 200 mg/d. Patients whose prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was <4 ng/ml after 3 mo of induction treatment were randomised to the IHT arm (stopped treatment and restarted on CPA 300 mg/d monotherapy if PSA rose to ≥20 ng/ml or they were symptomatic) or the continuous arm (CPA 200 mg/d plus monthly LHRH analogue). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measurement was OS. Secondary outcomes included cause-specific survival, time to subjective or objective progression, and quality of life. Time off therapy in the intermittent arm was recorded. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We recruited 1045 patients, of which 918 responded to induction therapy and were randomised (462 to IHT and 456 to continuous MAB). OS was similar between groups (p=0.25), and noninferiority of IHT was demonstrated (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.07). There was a trend for an interaction between PSA and treatment (p=0.05), favouring IHT over continuous therapy in patients with PSA ≤1 ng/ml (HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.02). Men treated with IHT reported better sexual function. Among the 462 patients on IHT, 50% and 28% of patients were off therapy for ≥2.5 yr or >5 yr, respectively, after randomisation. The main limitation is that the length of time for the trial to mature means that other therapies are now available. A second limitation is that T3 patients may now profit from watchful waiting instead of androgen-deprivation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Noninferiority of IHT in terms of survival and its association with better sexual activity than continuous therapy suggest that IHT should be considered for use in routine clinical practice.