Search

Cancer survivorship was recently identified as a prostate cancer (PCa) research priority by PIONEER, a European network of excellence for big data in PCa. Despite being a research priority, cancer survivorship lacks a clear and agreed definition, and there is a distinct paucity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data available on the subject. Data collection on cancer survivorship depends on the availability and implementation of (validated) routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There have been recent advances in the availability of such PROMs. For instance, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) is developing survivorship questionnaires. This provides an excellent first step in improving the data available on cancer survivorship. However, we propose that an agreed, standardised definition of (prostate) cancer survivorship must first be established. Only then can real-world data on survivorship be collected to strengthen our knowledge base. With more men than ever surviving PCa, this type of research is imperative to ensure that the quality of life of these men is considered as much as their quantity of life. Patient summary: As there are more prostate cancer survivors than ever before, research into cancer survivorship is crucial. We highlight the importance of such research and provide recommendations on how to carry it out. The first step should be establishing agreement on a standardised definition of survivorship. From this, patient-reported outcome measures can then be used to collect important survivorship data.

Abstract Background There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub‐optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision‐making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area. Objectives To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic RCC study design, participants and methods The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7–9 range by ≥70% and 1–3 by ≤15% will be regarded as ‘consensus in’, and the vice versa of this will constitute ‘consensus out’. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi. Discussion The R‐COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC. Study registration The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.

PurposeThe objective of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the available evidence on the effectiveness of web-based interventions for fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and a discussion of drawbacks and possible improvements for web-based interventions identified in the reviewed studies. These steps fulfil the aim of this review, which is to offer suggestions for developing future web-based interventions based on the reviewed studies.MethodsFive databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science) were searched. Original peer-reviewed articles, written in English, on web-based interventions for FCR were included for review. The data from the included studies was synthesised thematically.ResultsWe included 34 papers reporting on 28 interventions. Most of the studies in the papers were quantitative and mixed quantitative studies with a qualitative element, e.g. an interview post-intervention. Interventions were most commonly trialled with women breast cancer patients. Top three countries where studies were conducted were USA, Australia and the Netherlands. The most common theoretical framework for interventions is cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), followed by mindfulness-based and mixed CBT, mindfulness, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), relaxation approaches. FCR was the primary focus/measure in 19 Studies, in 9 studies FCR was a secondary/related outcome/measure. Overall, the evidence of efficacy of web-based interventions on FCR is mixed.ConclusionsThe existing research suggests several key points for producing more robust evidence about the effectiveness of web-based interventions for FCR. First, the studies suggest that it is a priority to better define eligibility criteria to proactively include people with higher levels of FCR. Second, there is a need for longer-term follow-up and outcome measuring period. Third, research examining the reasons for dropout from web-based interventions for FCR is critical to improve the effectiveness of web-based interventions. Fourth, while web-based interventions do not involve the costs of transportation, traveling time, space, equipment, cleaning, and other expenses, further cost utility analyses should be performed. Finally, future studies should assess how intervention accessibility, adherence, and effectiveness can be improved across different intervention designs, varying from intensive synchronous individual therapist-assisted web-based programme to blended designs combining the advantages of face-to-face and internet-based elements, to entirely self-managed programmes.Implications for cancer survivorsDeveloping and evaluating more accessible FCR treatments have been identified among top international FCR research priorities (Shaw et al. 2021). While there is some evidence that web-based interventions can be as effective as face-to-face interventions, currently there is a dearth of systematic data about the ways in which the web-based modality specifically can enhance supportive care for FCR. Developing knowledge about effective web-based interventions has implications for cancer survivors as they can be presented with more accessible, low-cost and low-burden options for managing fear of cancer recurrence.

Abstract Background Various washout policies are widely used in adults living with long-term catheters (LTC). There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefits and potential harms of prophylactic LTC washout policies in the prevention of blockages and other LTC-related adverse events, such as urinary tract infections. CATHETER II tests the hypothesis that weekly prophylactic LTC washouts (normal saline or citric acid) in addition to standard LTC care reduce the incidence of catheter blockage requiring intervention compared to standard LTC care only in adults living with LTC. Methods CATHETER II is a pragmatic three-arm open multi-centre superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic analysis, and embedded qualitative study. Eligible participants are adults aged ≥ 18 years, who have had a LTC in use for ≥ 28 days, have no plans to discontinue the use of the catheter, are able to undertake the catheter washouts, and complete trial documentation or have a carer able to help them. Participants are identified from general practitioner practices, secondary/tertiary care, community healthcare, care homes, and via public advertising strategies. Participants are randomised 1:1:1 to receive a weekly saline (0.9%) washout in addition to standard LTC care, a weekly citric acid (3.23%) washout in addition to standard LTC care or standard LTC care only. Participants and/or carers will receive training to administer the washouts. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline and for 24 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is catheter blockage requiring intervention up to 24 months post-randomisation expressed per 1000 catheter days. Secondary outcomes include symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics, catheter change, adverse events, NHS/ healthcare use, and impact on quality of life. Discussion This study will guide treatment decision-making and clinical practice guidelines regarding the effectiveness of various prophylactic catheter washout policies in men and women living with LTC. This research has received ethical approval from Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 (19/WA/0015). Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN17116445 . Registered prospectively on 06 November 2019

Abstract Background The impacts of interventions designed to change health behaviours are potentially affected by the complex social systems in which they are embedded. This study uses Scottish data to explore how men receive and utilise partner support when attempting to change dietary practices and physical activity within the context of Football Fans in Training (FFIT), a gender-sensitised weight management and healthy living programme for men who are overweight/obese. Methods Separate semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 20 men and their cohabiting female partners (total n = 40), 3–12 months after the men had completed FFIT. Data were thematically analysed and individual interviews were combined for dyadic analysis. Results Men’s and women’s accounts suggested variations in men’s need for, and utilisation of, partner support in order to make changes to dietary practices and physical activity. There were also differences in descriptions of women’s involvement in men’s behaviour changes. Typologies were developed categorising men as ‘resolute’, ‘reliant’/‘receptive’ and ‘non-responsive’ and women as ‘very involved’, ‘partially involved’ and ‘not involved’. Men were more reliant, and women more involved, in changes to dietary practices compared to physical activity. The role of partner involvement in promoting men’s behaviour change seemed contingent on men’s resoluteness, or their reliance on the partner support. Conclusions These results highlight how interactions between men’s resoluteness/reliance on cohabiting female partners and the partners’ involvement impact the extent to which female partners influence men’s changes to dietary practices and physical activity following a weight loss intervention. Understanding this interaction could increase the impact of health interventions aimed at one individual’s behaviour by considering other family members’ roles in facilitating those changes. The typologies developed for this study might contribute towards the development of behaviour change theories within the cohabiting couple context.