BackgroundIn the last decade, the health care sector has been enriched by numerous innovations such as apps and connected devices that assist users in weight reduction and diabetes management. However, only a few native apps in the oncological context exist, which support patients during treatment and aftercare.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to analyze patients’ acceptance regarding app use and to investigate the functions of an oncological app that are most required, and the primary reasons for patients to refuse app-assisted cancer care.MethodsWe designed and conducted a survey with 23 questions, inquiring patients about their technical knowledge and equipment, as well as the possible advantages and disadvantages, data transfer, and general functionality of an app.ResultsA total of 375 patients participated; the participation rate was 60.7% (375/618). Gender distribution was about 3:4 (female:male) with a median age of 59 years (range 18-92 years). Whereas 69.6% (261/375) of patients used mobile devices, 16.3% (61/375) did not own one, and 9.1% (34/375) only used a personal computer (PC). About half of the patients rated their usability skills as very good and good (18.9% 71/375; 35.2% 132/375), 23.5% (88/375) described their skills as intermediate, and 14.4% (54/375) as bad. Of all patients, 182 (48.5%, 182/375) were willing to send data to their treating clinic via an app, that is, to a server (61.0% 111/182) or as email (33.5%, 61/182). About two-thirds (68.7%, 125/182) believed that additional and regularly sent data would be an ideal complement to the standard follow-up procedure. Additionally, 86.8% (158/182) wished to be contacted by a physician when entered data showed irregularities. Because of lack of skills (34.4%, 56/163), concerns about the use of data (35.0%, 57/163), lack of capable devices (25.8%, 42/163), and the wish for personal contact with the treating physician (47.2%, 77/163), a total of 163 (43.5%, 163/375) patients refused to use an app. Pearson correlation showed a significant but mild relationship between age and app use (P=.03, r=−.12), favoring younger age; male gender correlated as well (P=.04; r=−.11).ConclusionsThe results show that the introduction of mobile apps needs to follow different strategies depending on the patients’ attitude. Age and gender seem to be the strongest predictive factors. For oncology patients, our survey showed that about half of the patients were willing to send data via an app supporting their treatment. In the future, clinical data such as quality of life and treatment satisfaction recorded by mobile health (mHealth) devices could be used to evaluate and improve therapy workflow. Furthermore, apps could support classical visits, document adverse effects, and remind patients of treatment dates or drug intake.

IntroductionTo understand if and which patients would be open-minded to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use parallel to their oncological treatment. Moreover, we sought to determine which methods are most accepted and which are the primary motivators to use CAM.MethodsWe developed and anonymously conducted a questionnaire for patients in the oncology center (TU Munich). Questions focus on different CAM methods, previous experiences, and willingness to apply or use CAM when offered in a university-based setting.ResultsA total of 171 of 376 patients (37.4% women, 62.0% men, 0.6% unknown) participated. This corresponds to a return rate of 45%. Median age was 64 years (17–87 years). Of all participants, 15.2% used CAM during their oncological therapy; 32.7% have used it in the past. The majority (81.9%) was not using CAM during therapy; 55.5% have not used CAM in the past respectively. The analysis revealed a significant correlation between education and CAM use during therapy (r = 0.18; p = 0.02), and CAM use in the past (r = 0.17; p = 0.04). Of all patients using CAM during therapy, favored methods were food supplements (42.3%), vitamins/minerals (42.3%), massage (34.6%). Motivations are especially the reduction of side effect and stress, the positive effect of certain CAM-treatments on the immune system and tumor therapy. Results showed no difference between women and men. Most patients not having had any experience with CAM complain about the deficiency of information by their treating oncologist (31.4%) as well as missing treatment possibilities (54.3%).ConclusionSince many patients believe in study results demonstrating the efficacy of CAM, it stresses our task to develop innovative study protocols to investigate the outcomes of certain CAM on symptom reduction or other endpoints. Thus, prospective trials and innovative evidence-based treatment concepts to include CAM into high-end oncology is what patients demand and what a modern oncology center should offer.

BackgroundMore than 25% of patients with solid cancers develop intracerebral metastases. Aside of surgery, radiation therapy (RT) is a mainstay in the treatment of intracerebral metastases. Postoperative fractionated stereotactic RT (FSRT) to the resection cavity of intracerebral metastases is a treatment of choice to reduce the risk of local recurrence. However, FSRT has to be delayed until a sufficient wound healing is attained; hence systemic therapy might be postponed. Neoadjuvant stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) might offer advantages over adjuvant FSRT in terms of better target delineation and an earlier start of systemic chemotherapy. Here, we conducted a study to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of neoadjuvant SRS for intracerebral metastases.MethodsThis is a single-center, phase I dose escalation study on neoadjuvant SRS for intracerebral metastases that will be conducted at the Klinikum rechts der Isar Hospital, Technical University of Munich. The rule-based traditional 3 + 3 design for this trial with 3 dose levels and 4 different cohorts depending on lesion size will be applied. The primary endpoint is the MTD for which no dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) occur. The adverse events of each participant will be evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 continuously during the study until the first follow-up visit (4–6 weeks after surgery). Secondary endpoints include local control rate, survival, immunological tumor characteristics, quality of life (QoL), CTCAE grade of late clinical, neurological, and neurocognitive toxicities. In addition to the intracerebral metastasis which is treated with neoadjuvant SRS and resection up to four additional intracerebral metastases can be treated with definitive SRS. Depending on the occurrence of DLT up to 72 patients will be enrolled. The recruitment phase will last for 24 months.DiscussionNeoadjuvant SRS for intracerebral metastases offers potential advantages over postoperative SRS to the resection cavity, such as better target volume definition with subsequent higher efficiency of eliminating tumor cells, and lower damage to surrounding healthy tissue, and much-needed systemic chemotherapy could be initiated more rapidly.Trial registration The local ethical review committee of Technical University of Munich (199/18S) approved this study on September 05, 2018. This trial was registered on German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00016613; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00016613) on January 29, 2019.