Search

Introduction: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) measures 15 health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scales relevant to the disease and treatment of patients with cancer. A study by Martinelli (2011) demonstrated that these scales could be grouped into three main clusters: physical, psychological and gastrointestinal. This study aims to validate Martinelli's findings in an independent dataset and evaluate whether these clusters are consistent across cancer types and patient characteristics. Methods: Pre-defined criteria for successful validation were three main clusters should emerge with a minimum R-squared value of 0.51 using pooled baseline-data. A cluster analysis was performed on the 15 QLQ-C30 HRQoL-scales in the overall dataset, as well as by cancer type and selected patient characteristics to examine the robustness of the results. Results: The dataset consisted of 20,066 patients pooled across 17 cancer types. Overall, three main clusters were identified (R-2 = 0.61); physical-cluster included role-functioning, physical functioning, social-functioning, fatigue, pain, and global-health status; psychological-cluster included emotional-functioning, cognitive-functioning, and insomnia; gastro-intestinal-cluster included nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. The results were consistent across different levels of disease severity, socio-demographic and clinical characteristics with minor variations by cancer type. Global-health status was found to be strongly linked to the scales included in the physical-functioning-related cluster. Conclusion: This study successfully validated prior findings by Martinelli (2011): the QLQC30 scales are interrelated and can be grouped into three main clusters. Knowing how these multidimensional HRQoL scales are related to each other can help clinicians and patients with cancer in managing symptom burden, guide policymakers in defining social-support plans and inform selection of HRQoL scales in future clinical trials. (C)2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background Ovarian cancer patients require monitoring for relapse. Innovative follow-up methods are increasingly being explored. An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) follow-up pathway was developed for women treated for ovarian cancer. This feasibility study explored patient acceptability and compliance. Methods A single-arm non-blinded prospective feasibility study was undertaken at two hospitals. Participants were women who had completed treatment for ovarian cancer whose clinician was happy for them to be monitored remotely. Automated 3-monthly reminders were sent to participants to complete an ePRO questionnaire and obtain blood tests. Participants were reviewed over the phone by their clinical nurse specialist instead of attending clinic-based follow-up. The primary outcome was compliance (expected ePRO completions/blood tests) across the 12-month study period. Secondary outcomes were recruitment, attrition, resource use, symptom severity/alerts and patient acceptability. Results Twenty-four women consented (50% consent rate), and 13 remained on study at 12 months. Seven women relapsed, 3 chose to withdraw, and 1 withdrew for other clinical reasons. ePRO compliance was high and consistent at 75-82%, although the two hospitals differed. Adherence to the clinical protocol was evident for blood tests and contacts with staff (fewer visits, more phonecalls compared to an earlier audit). End-of-study feedback indicated high patient satisfaction. Conclusions Remote ePRO follow-up for ovarian cancer is feasible and acceptable to patients who are able and willing to participate. However, the low recruitment rate (ineligible + declined) indicate it is not suitable/acceptable to all patients immediately post-treatment. Further large-scale research and implementation work is required, especially in a post-COVID era. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02847715 (first registered 19/05/2016).

BackgroundWomen with a new cancer diagnosis face complex decisions about interventions aiming to preserve their fertility. Decision aids are more effective in supporting decision making than traditional information provision. We describe the development and field testing of a novel patient decision aid designed to support women to make fertility preservation treatment decisions around cancer diagnosis.MethodsA prospective, mixed-method, three stage study involving: 1) co-development of the resource in collaboration with a multi-disciplinary group of key stakeholders including oncology and fertility healthcare professionals and patient partners (n=24), 2) alpha testing with a group of cancer patients who had faced a fertility preservation treatment decision in the past (n=11), and oncology and fertility healthcare professionals and stakeholders (n=14) and, 3) beta testing with women in routine care who had received a recent diagnosis of cancer and were facing a fertility preservation treatment decision (n=41) and their oncology and fertility healthcare professionals (n=3). Ten service users recruited from a closed Breast Cancer Now Facebook group and the support group Cancer and Fertility UK also provided feedback on CFM via an online survey.ResultsA 60-page paper prototype of the Cancer, Fertility and Me patient decision aid was initially developed. Alpha testing of the resource found that overall, it was acceptable to cancer patients, healthcare professionals and key stakeholders and it was considered a useful resource to support fertility preservation treatment decision-making. However, the healthcare professionals felt that the length of the patient decision aid, and elements of its content may be a barrier to its use. Subsequently, the prototype was reduced to 40 pages. During beta testing of the shortened version in routine care, women who received the resource described its positive impact on their ability to make fertility preservation decisions and support them at a stressful time. However, practical difficulties emerged which impacted upon its wider dissemination in clinical practice and limited some elements of the evaluation planned.DiscussionWomen receiving the decision aid within the cancer treatment pathway found it helped them engage with decisions about fertility preservation, and make better informed, values-based care plans with oncology and fertility teams. More work is needed to address access and implementation of this resource as part of routine oncology care pathways.

Objective This study aimed to explore experiences of follow-up after treatment and views on an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) pathway among ovarian cancer patients and clinicians. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with clinicians and patients previously treated for ovarian cancer. Interviews explored experiences of the current follow-up pathway, patients' needs and views on an ePRO pathway enabling patients to report symptoms online rather than attend clinic-based appointments. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. Results Sixteen patients and 10 clinicians participated from four hospitals in England. Four key themes were identified: transition into follow-up, key features of effective follow-up, issues in follow-up and views of ePRO. Both patients and clinicians saw benefits of an ePRO pathway alongside continued access to specialist support and discussed various practicalities (e.g., frequency, introduction and communication). Technology concerns and feelings of abandonment were highlighted as barriers. The proposed impact on clinical and individual patient outcomes was discussed. Conclusion Patient and clinician views on follow-up and an ePRO pathway informed key recommendations on the development/introduction of ePRO follow-up. Technology use in healthcare will continue to grow and may offer solutions to facilitate responsive and tailored care. Further research should explore the safety, experiences and acceptability of ePRO follow-up.

Introduction\ud \ud The supportive care needs of long-term childhood brain tumour survivors, now teenagers and young adults (TYAs), and their caregivers are largely unknown. We aimed to describe their supportive care needs and explore associations between needs and quality of life (QoL).\ud \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud Participants were recruited from long-term follow-up clinics (in three NHS Trusts in England) and online. Participants included childhood brain tumour survivors, ≥ 5 years from diagnosis, currently aged 13–30, and their primary caregivers. Survivors completed the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS) Short Form and caregivers the SCNS-Partners & Caregivers, alongside validated QoL questionnaires (Peds-FACT-Br and CQOLC).\ud \ud \ud Results\ud \ud In total, 112 individuals (69 survivors/43 caregivers) participated. Survivors reported on average 9.4 (± 8.5) unmet needs. Needs were greatest in the psychological domain, with anxiety (60.3%), uncertainty about the future (50.7%) and feeling down and depressed (48.5%) most commonly reported. Caregivers reported on average 12.4 (± 12.3) unmet needs. Again, the greatest number of unmet needs was observed in the psychological domain. Many caregivers also reported information needs around financial support/government benefits (42.9%) and possible survivor fertility problems (42.9%). Multivariable linear regression analysis showed that female survivors, unemployed survivors, survivors further away from diagnosis and single caregivers were more likely to report unmet needs. More unmet needs were significantly associated with poorer QoL in survivors and caregivers.\ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud This research provides leads to improving supportive care and long-term follow-up services. Psychological support represents the biggest gap in care. Understanding unmet needs and recognising what services are required are critical to improving quality of long-term survival.

Importance Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap. Objective The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty. Interventions There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. Main Outcomes and Measures First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival. Results A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P = .34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907

Background As treatments continue to progress, patients with advanced cancer are living longer. However, ongoing physical side-effects and psychosocial concerns can compromise quality of life (QoL). Patients and physicians increasingly look to the internet and other technologies to address diverse supportive needs encountered across this evolving cancer trajectory. Objectives 1. To examine the features and delivery of web and technological interventions supporting patients with advanced cancer. 2. To explore their efficacy relating to QoL and psychosocial well-being. Methods Relevant studies were identified through electronic database searches (MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and ProQuest) and handsearching. Findings were collated and explored through narrative synthesis. Results Of 5274 identified records, 37 articles were included. Interventions were evaluated within studies targeting advanced cancer (13) or encompassing all stages (24). Five subtypes emerged: Interactive Health Communication Applications (n=12), virtual programmes of support (n=11), symptom monitoring tools (n=8), communication conduits (n=3) and information websites (n=3). Modes of delivery ranged from self-management to clinically integrated. Support largely targeted psychosocial well-being, alongside symptom management and healthy living. Most studies (78%) evidenced varying degrees of efficacy through QoL and psychosocial measures. Intervention complexity made it challenging to distinguish the most effective components. Incomplete reporting limited risk of bias assessment. Conclusion While complex and varied in their content, features and delivery, most interventions led to improvements in QoL or psychosocial well-being across the cancer trajectory. Ongoing development and evaluation of such innovations should specifically target patients requiring longer-term support for later-stage cancer.

PURPOSE Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent. METHODS Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246. RESULTS Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 (P = .028) and 12 (P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) (P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks (P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy (P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS (P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.

Hintergrund/Fragestellung: Unter Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) versteht man direkt von Patient*innen berichtete Aussagen z.B. zu ihrem Gesundheitszustand, ihrer medizinischen Behandlung, u.Ä., die mit standardisierten Fragebögen erhoben und nicht von Dritten verändert oder[zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL], Who cares? – EbM und Transformation im Gesundheitswesen; 22. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Radical and palliative treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have faced a significant evolution during last decades, which in turn has modified their effects on the patient quality of life (QoL). QoL data collection is becoming methodologically rigorous, with published recommendations and societal statements. In lung cancer surgery, there is no standardization in collecting and analyzing this outcome yet. However, to face the evolution in lung cancer therapies, few initiatives like the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) lung cancer module update project or the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), have now the potential to help thoracic surgeons to collect QoL data with validated dynamic instruments to make this outcome comparable to the clinical ones. This review aims to give an overview of the available and most commonly used QoL questionnaires in lung cancer surgery in order to facilitate future research and practical implementation.

OBJECTIVES: There is an increasing interest in the quality of life (QoL) evaluation following video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A qualitative interview study was conducted to gain insight into the optimal methods of assessing and discussing QoL in clinical practice. METHODS: A prospective observational longitudinal study of patients with early-stage NSCLC was conducted where repeated QoL measures were administered either online or on paper. A subset of participants was invited for qualitative interviews after the 6-month assessment or at the end of the study. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were interviewed. Generally, patients were content with recruitment and data collection procedures. Most opted to complete the assessments on paper instead of online; this choice was influenced by the level of technology literacy. Some found the questionnaires too generic to reflect their experiences. Barriers to questionnaire completion were mostly practical, and many acknowledged benefits of QoL assessment including allowing them to express problems and health issues, and following changes over time. Generally, participants would like to discuss QoL results during clinical consultations, but reported this rarely happened. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer patient interviews confirm the acceptability of repeated QoL assessments, but online data capture is limited. Patients highlight the importance of discussing QoL aspects with their clinical team. Future strategies are needed to optimize the routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice.

The authors regret that Dr Tomaszewski's name and affiliation were incorrectly given. These should be Tomaszewski KA of Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University, Krakow, Poland. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.