Search

Objectives: Albeit treatable, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains incurable. To achieve remaining life years lived well, extended survival should be balanced with optimal health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and timely initiated supportive, palliative, and end-of-life care. The Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) Global Alliance identified 10 urgent and actionable goals for the decade between 2015 and 2025 to achieve substantial improvement in the lives of patients living with ABC, including MBC. Enhancements are needed for HRQoL, research, quality of care, and survival. We explore the potential of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in addressing these gaps and aim to describe opportunities and current initiatives for improving the MBC care continuum through PROMs. Data sources: Narrative description of recent literature on MBC and PROMs. Conclusion: We believe PROMs can make valuable contributions to seven of the 10 goals described: 1) enhancing the understanding of MBC through high-quality data collection, 2) improving HRQoL and raising consideration of survival versus HRQoL, 2) prolonging survival, 4) increasing referral to nonclinical support services, 5) supporting patient–healthcare provider communication, 6) encouraging improvements in healthcare access, and 7) supporting meeting patients’ informational needs. Implications for Nursing Practice: Maximizing the benefits of PROMs requires effective implementation. Because nurses and nurse practitioners are at the forefront of care, they can offer a comprehensive understanding of patients’ needs and play a crucial role in facilitating the integration of PROMs into routine care for MBC patients and ultimately optimizing patients’ outcomes and life years and months left.

The health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among long-term Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors (AYACS) and an age- and sex-matched normative population was examined. Although the HRQoL of AYACS was worse compared to the normative population before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, the scores of AYACS improved over time in contrast to the normative population. Presumably, AYACS are used to adjusting their lives to stressful life events. Furthermore, the lockdown may have been beneficial for AYACS who face difficulties fully participating in society due to the impact of cancer. AYACS who encounter HRQoL issues could benefit from support interventions to empower them and build resilience.

Aims and objectives: The self-performance of a Five-Times-Sit-To-Stand (FTSTS)-test, without the usual supervision by a medical professional, provides valuable opportunities for clinical practice and research. This study aimed: (1) to determine the validity of the self-performed FTSTS test in comparison to a supervised reference test and (2) to determine the reliability of a self-performed FTSTS test by cancer survivors.Background: Early detection of frailty in cancer survivors may enable prehabilitation interventions before surgery or intensive treatment, improving cancer outcomes.Design: A repeated measures reliability and agreement study, with one week in between measures, was performed.Methods: Cancer survivors (n = 151) performed two FTSTS tests themselves. One additional reference FTSTS test was supervised by a physical therapist. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), structural error of measurement (SEM) and minimally important clinical difference (MID) were calculated comparing a self-performed FTSTS test to the reference test, and comparing two self-performed FTSTS tests. The Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRASS) have been used.Results: Mean age of cancer survivors was 65.6 years (SD = 9.3), 54.6% were female, median time since diagnosis was 2 years [IQR = 1], and tumour type varied (e.g., breast cancer (31.8%), prostate cancer (17.2%), gastrointestinal cancer (11.9%) and haematological cancer (11.9%)). Validity of the self-performed FTSTS test at home was acceptable in comparison with the reference test (ICC = .74; SEM = 3.2; MID = 3.6) as was the reliability of the self-performed FTSTS test (ICC = .70; SEM = 2.2; MID = 3.8).Conclusions: The self-performed FTSTS test is a valid and reliable measure to assess lower body function and has potential to be used as objective (pre-)screening tool for frailty in cancer survivors.Relevance to

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to develop a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) questionnaire that captures the full range of physical, mental, and social health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues relevant to disease-free cancer survivors. In this phase III study, we pretested the provisional core questionnaire (QLQ-SURV111) and aimed to identify essential and optional scales. Methods: We pretested the QLQ-SURV111 in 492 cancer survivors from 17 countries with one of 11 cancer diagnoses. We applied the EORTC QLG decision rules and employed factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) analysis to assess and, where necessary, modify the hypothesized questionnaire scales. We calculated correlations between the survivorship scales and the QLQ-C30 summary score and carried out a Delphi survey among healthcare professionals, patient representatives, and cancer researchers to distinguish between essential and optional scales. Results: Fifty-four percent of the sample was male, mean age was 60 years, and, on average, time since completion of treatment was 3.8 years. Eleven items were excluded, resulting in the QLQ-SURV100, with 12 functional and 9 symptom scales, a symptom checklist, 4 single items, and 10 conditional items. The essential survivorship scales consist of 73 items. Conclusions: The QLQ-SURV100 has been developed to assess comprehensively the HRQOL of disease-free cancer survivors. It includes essential and optional scales and will be validated further in an international phase IV study. Implications for Cancer Survivors: The availability of this questionnaire will facilitate a standardized and robust assessment of the HRQOL of disease-free cancer survivors.

Purpose: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) plays an essential role in health outcomes and quality of life. However, it is often not assessed nor estimated. Objective CRF assessment is costly, labour intensive and not widely available. Patient-reported outcome measures estimate CRF more cost-efficiently, but current questionnaires lack accuracy. The aim of this study is to develop a new self-reported questionnaire to estimate CRF.

Purpose: The aim was to investigate the level of self-perceived cognitive functioning and its associated factors among a large population-based cohort of cancer survivors and their matched controls. Methods: Data were obtained from population-based PROFILES registry cohorts, including colon, rectum, prostate or thyroid cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma (MM), melanoma, or basal cell carcinoma (BCC)/squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). All patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 from which self-perceived cognitive functioning, fatigue, functioning, and global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) were used. The PROFILES registry data were linked with the Netherlands Cancer Registry to obtain sociodemographic and clinical data. Results: Six thousand seven hundred eighty-six survivors were included (response rate=76%). Survivors, except for melanoma and BCC/SCC, reported on average lower self-perceived cognitive functioning scores compared to their matched controls (all p’s<0.01). Largest differences with the norm were observed in thyroid cancer, HL, NHL and MM, and younger survivors (<50 years). Survivors with lower emotional functioning and more fatigue were more likely to report impaired self-perceived cognitive functioning. Conclusion:S elf-perceived impaired cognitive functioning is prevalent among a wide range of cancer survivors, especially among survivors <50 years. Approaches targeting cognitive problems including attention for co-occurring symptoms such as fatigue and emotional impairments are needed to improve care for these patients. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Cancer survivors and clinicians should be aware that impaired self-perceived cognitive functioning is a frequently reported consequence of cancer and its treatment among survivors of various cancer types. Clinicians can redirect survivors to a relevant healthcare provider or program t

To take cancer survivorship research to the next level, it's important to gain insight in trajectories of changing patient-reported outcomes and impaired recovery after cancer. This is needed as the number of survivors is increasing and a large proportion is confronted with changing health after treatment. Mechanistic research can facilitate the development of personalized risk-stratified follow-up care and tailored interventions to promote healthy cancer survivorship. We describe how these trajectories can be studied by taking the recently extended Dutch population-based Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry as an example. PROFILES combines longitudinal assessment of patient-reported outcomes with novel, ambulatory and objective measures (eg, activity trackers, blood draws, hair samples, online food diaries, online cognitive tests, weighing scales, online symptoms assessment), and cancer registry and pharmacy databases. Furthermore, we discuss methods to optimize the use of a multidomain data collection-like return of individual results to participants, which may improve not only patient empowerment but also long-Term cohort retention. Also, advanced statistical methods are needed to handle high-dimensional longitudinal data (with missing values) and provide insight into trajectories of changing patient-reported outcomes after cancer. Our coded data can be used by academic researchers around the world. Registries like PROFILES, which go beyond boundaries of disciplines and institutions, will contribute to better predictions of who will experience changes and why. This is needed to prevent and mitigate long-Term and late effects of cancer treatment and to identify new interventions to promote health.

Background: In 2016, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) defined an international consensus recommendation of the most important outcomes for lung cancer patients. The European Health Outcomes Observatory (H2O) initiative aimed to develop an updated patient-centered core outcome set (COS) for lung cancer, to capture the patient perspective of the impact of lung cancer and (novel) treatments using a combination of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and clinical data as a means to drive value-based health-care. Material and methods: An international, expert team of patient representatives, multidisciplinary healthcare professionals, academic researchers and pharmaceutical industry representatives (n = 17) reviewed potential outcomes generated through literature review. A broader group of patients/patient representatives (n = 31), healthcare professionals / academic researchers (n = 83), pharmaceutical industry representatives (n = 26), and health authority representatives (n = 6) participated in a Delphi study. In two survey rounds, participants scored the relevance of outcomes from a preliminary list. The threshold for consensus was defined as ≥ 70 % of participants scoring an outcome as ‘highly relevant’. In concluding consensus-meeting rounds, the expert multidisciplinary team finalized the COS. Results: The preliminary list defined by the core group consisted of 102 outcomes and was prioritized in the Delphi procedure to 64. The final lung cancer COS includes: 1) case-mix factors (n = 27); 2) PROs related to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (n = 25); 3) clinical outcomes (n = 12). Patient-reported symptoms beyond domains included in the ICHOM lung cancer set in 2016 were insomnia, nausea, vomiting, anxiety, depression, lack of appetite, gastric problems, constipation, diarrhoea, dysphagia, and haemoptysis. Conclusions: We will implement the lung cancer COS in Europe within the H2O initiative by collecting the outco

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care. Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266).