Search

Background: Chemotherapy-induced alopecia is a common consequence of cancer treatment with a high psychological impact on patients and can be prevented by scalp cooling (SC). With this multi-center patient series, we examined the results for multiple currently used chemotherapy regimens to offer an audit into the real-world determinants of SC efficacy., Materials and Methods: The Dutch Scalp Cooling Registry collected data on 7424 scalp-cooled patients in 68 Dutch hospitals. Nurses and patients completed questionnaires on patient characteristics, chemotherapy, and SC protocol. Patient-reported primary outcomes at the start of the final SC session included head cover (HC) (eg, wig/scarf) use (yes/no) as a surrogate for patient satisfaction with SC and WHO score for alopecia (0 = no hair loss up to 3 = total alopecia) as a measure of scalp cooling success. Exhaustive logistic regression analysis stratified by chemotherapy regimen was implemented to examine characteristics and interactions associated with the SC result., Results: Overall, over half of patients (n = 4191, 56%) did not wear a HC and 53% (n = 3784/7183) reported minimal hair loss (WHO score 0/1) at the start of their final treatment. Outcomes were drug and dose dependent. Besides the chemotherapy regimen, this study did not identify any patient characteristic or lifestyle factor as a generic determinant influencing SC success. For non-gender specific cancers, gender played no statistically significant role in HC use nor WHO score., Conclusions: Scalp cooling is effective for the majority of patients. The robust model for evaluating the drug and dose-specific determinants of SC efficacy revealed no indications for changes in daily practice, suggesting factors currently being overlooked. As no correlation was identified between the determinants explaining HC use and WHO score outcomes, new methods for evaluation are warranted., (© Crown copyright 2024.)

Purpose: Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators., Patients and Methods: We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables., Results: Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P = .02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P = .06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P = .08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P < .001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P < .001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P < .001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level., Conclusion: Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams.

Purpose: This paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the need for continued development of symptom monitoring (SM) implementation, utilization, and data usage at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels., Methods: Discussions from a patient-reported SM workshop at the MASCC/ISSO 2022 annual meeting were analyzed using a macro-meso-micro analytical framework of cancer care delivery. The workshop categories "initiation and implementation, barriers to adoption and utilization, and data usage" were integrated for each level., Results: At the macro-level, policy development could encourage data sharing and international collaboration, including the exchange of SM methods, supportive care models, and self-management modules. At the meso-level, institutions should adjust clinical workflow and service delivery and promote a thorough technical and clinical integration of SM. At the micro-level, SM should be individualized, with timely feedback for patients, and should foster trust and understanding of AI decision support tools amongst clinicians to improve supportive care., Conclusions: The workshop reached a consensus among international experts on providing guidance on SM implementation, utilization, and (big) data usage pathways in cancer survivors across the cancer continuum and on macro-meso-micro levels., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Previous studies using patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) to monitor symptoms during and after (lung) cancer treatment used alerts that were sent to the health-care provider, although an approach in which patients receive alerts could be more clinically feasible. The primary aim of this study was to compare the effect of weekly PROM symptom monitoring via a reactive approach (patient receives alert) or active approach (health-care provider receives alert) with care as usual on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 15 weeks after start of treatment in lung cancer patients., Methods: The SYMPRO-Lung trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial using a stepped wedge design. Stage I-IV lung cancer patients in the reactive and active groups reported PROM symptoms weekly, which were linked to a common alerting algorithm. HRQOL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and after 15 weeks. Linear regression analyses and effect size estimates were used to assess mean QOL-C30 change scores between groups, accounting for confounding., Results: A total of 515 patients were included (160 active group, 89 reactive group, 266 control group). No differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive and active group (summary score: unstandardized beta [B] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.22 to 4.24, Cohen d effect size [ES] = 0.06; physical functioning: B = 0.25, 95% CI = -5.15 to 4.64, ES = 0.02). The combined intervention groups had statistically and clinically significantly better mean change scores on the summary score (B = 4.85, 95% CI = 1.96 to 7.73, ES = 0.57) and physical functioning (B = 7.00, 95% CI = 2.90 to 11.09, ES = 0.71) compared with the control group., Conclusions: Weekly PRO symptom monitoring statistically and clinically significantly improves HRQOL in lung cancer patients. The logistically less intensive, reactive approach may be a better fit for implementation., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: Preventing chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) is related to the degree of temperature reduction during scalp cooling. Wetting hair before scalp cooling reduces the scalp skin temperature. This observational study investigated the effects of wetting hair before scalp cooling on preventing CIA and on tolerance in cancer patients., Methods: This Dutch multi-center cohort study comprised 1825 patients receiving ≥1 cycle of docetaxel (D), 5-fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide (FEC), 5-fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide-docetaxel (FECD), paclitaxel (P), or paclitaxel-carboplatin (PC). Patients underwent scalp cooling with wet or dry hair. Primary and secondary outcomes were the effects of wetting hair on head cover use and tolerance, respectively., Results: None of the associations between wetting hair and head cover use in patients on D, FEC, P, or PC was significant; however, results all tended to be in favor of wetting hair. For FECD, univariate (p=0.005; OR=1.6; CI=1.1-2.1) and multivariable associations (p=0.007; OR=1.8; CI=1.2-2.6) were significant. Scalp cooling discontinuation due to intolerance differed significantly between groups that wetted hair or not (3% and 1% respectively; p=0.034)., Conclusion: In a large patient group with mainly a European hair type and a high hair mass, no convincing evidence was found whether wetting hair prior to scalp cooling contributes to better prevention of CIA. Since it is argued that a higher reduction in scalp skin temperature by wetting hair contributes positively to scalp cooling efficacy, only a randomized controlled trial can provide an ultimate conclusion at the highest level of evidence. Until that time, healthcare professionals have to take into account that wetting hair may introduce lower compliance to the scalp cooling procedure., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)