Search

Summary Previous studies on fear of cancer recurrence after endoscopic treatment for early Barrett’s neoplasia focused on fear during a relatively short period after the intervention. The aim of this study was to explore whether fear of cancer (recurrence) persists during long-term follow-up in patients treated endoscopically for Barrett’s neoplasia compared to patients treated surgically for a more advanced stage of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Participants previously participated in a prospective longitudinal study investigating quality of life and fear of cancer recurrence and were treated endoscopically for early Barrett’s neoplasia (high-grade dysplasia—T1sm1N0M0) or surgically for a more advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1N0M0–T3N1M0). For the present study, participants were again invited to complete a set of questionnaires including the fear of cancer recurrence scale (FORS), worry for cancer scale (WOCS), and the anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS Anxiety). Thirty-nine patients were eligible in the endoscopy group and 28 in the surgical group. The median time between the baseline measurement (original study) and the long-term follow-up assessment was 4 years (interquartile range 3–5 years). Fear and worry for cancer recurrence and general anxiety diminished over time in both treatment groups. However, at long-term follow-up, endoscopically treated patients had significantly higher levels of worry for cancer and general anxiety than surgically treated patients. Fear of cancer recurrence did not significantly differ between endoscopically and surgically treated patients. We found that worry and fear of cancer recurrence and general anxiety in endoscopically treated patients declined over time, but not as much as in surgically treated patients.

Two figures in the Abstract should read Nausea/vomiting (-14) and Appetite loss (-15) (instead of -1 to 4 and -1 to 5, respectively). One figure in Table 3 (row Nausea and/or vomiting, last column) should read -8 (instead of 8).

Purpose The extant response shift definitions and theoretical response shift models, while helpful, also introduce predicaments and theoretical debates continue. To address these predicaments and stimulate empirical research, we propose a more specific formal definition of response shift and a revised theoretical model. Methods This work is an international collaborative effort and involved a critical assessment of the literature. Results Three main predicaments were identified. First, the formal definitions of response shift need further specification and clarification. Second, previous models were focused on explaining change in the construct intended to be measured rather than explaining the construct at multiple time points and neglected the importance of using at least two time points to investigate response shift. Third, extant models do not explicitly distinguish the measure from the construct. Here we define response shift as an effect occurring whenever observed change (e.g., change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) scores) is not fully explained by target change (i.e., change in the construct intended to be measured). The revised model distinguishes the measure (e.g., PROM) from the underlying target construct (e.g., quality of life) at two time points. The major plausible paths are delineated, and the underlying assumptions of this model are explicated. Conclusion It is our hope that this refined definition and model are useful in the further development of response shift theory. The model with its explicit list of assumptions and hypothesized relationships lends itself for critical, empirical examination. Future studies are needed to empirically test the assumptions and hypothesized relationships. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-021-02846-w.

Purpose: It is plausible that patients with pancreatic cancer experience fear of tumor recurrence or progression (FOP). The aim of this study was to compare FOP in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with surgical resection, palliative systemic treatment, or best supportive care (BSC) and analyze the association between quality of life (QoL) and FOP and the effect of FOP on overall survival (OS). Methods: This study included patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2015 and 2018, who participated in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP). The association between QoL and WOPS was assessed with logistic regression analyses. OS was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier curves with the log-rank tests and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses adjusted for clinical covariates and QoL. Results: Of 315 included patients, 111 patients underwent surgical resection, 138 received palliative systemic treatment, and 66 received BSC. Patients who underwent surgical resection had significantly lower WOPS scores (i.e., less FOP) at initial diagnosis compared to patients who received palliative systemic treatment or BSC only (P < 0.001). Better QoL was independently associated with the probability of having a low FOP in the BSC (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91–0.98) but not in the surgical resection (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94–1.01) and palliative systemic treatment groups (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94–1.00). The baseline WOPS score was not independently associated with OS in any of the subgroups. Conclusion: Given the distress that FOP evokes, FOP should be explicitly addressed by health care providers when guiding pancreatic cancer patients through their treatment trajectory, especially those receiving palliative treatment or BSC.

The article “Response shift in patient‑reported outcomes: definition, theory, and a revised model”, written by Antoine Vanier, Frans J. Oort, Leah McClimans, Nikki Ow, Bernice G. Gulek, Jan R. Böhnke, Mirjam Sprangers, Véronique Sébille, Nancy Mayo and the Response Shift - in Sync Working Group, was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal on 28 April 2021 without open access. With the author(s)’ decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on 17 May 2021 to

Purpose: This work is part of an international, interdisciplinary initiative to synthesize research on response shift in results of patient-reported outcome measures. The objective is to critically examine current response shift methods. We additionally propose advancing new methods that address the limitations of extant methods. Methods: Based on literature reviews, this critical examination comprises design-based, qualitative, individualized, and preference-based methods, latent variable models, and other statistical methods. We critically appraised their definition, operationalization, the type of response shift they can detect, whether they can adjust for and explain response shift, their assumptions, and alternative explanations. Overall limitations requiring new methods were identified. Results: We examined 11 methods that aim to operationalize response shift, by assessing change in the meaning of one’s self-evaluation. Six of these methods distinguish between change in observed measurements (observed change) and change in the construct that was intended to be measured (target change). The methods use either (sub)group-based or individual-level analysis, or a combination. All methods have underlying assumptions to be met and alternative explanations for the inferred response shift effects. We highlighted the need to address the interpretation of the results as response shift and proposed advancing new methods handling individual variation in change over time and multiple time points. Conclusion: No single response shift method is optimal; each method has strengths and limitations. Additionally, extra steps need to be taken to correctly interpret the results. Advancing new methods and conducting computer simulation studies that compare methods are recommended to move response shift research forward.