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.)

Importance: Online symptom monitoring through patient-reported outcomes can enhance health-related quality of life and survival. However, widespread adoption in clinical care remains limited due to various barriers including the need to reduce health care practitioners' workload., Objective: To report the effects of patient-reported outcome (PRO) symptom monitoring on HRQOL and survival up to 1 year after initiation of any treatment in patients with lung cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: SYMPRO-Lung is a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial including patients with stage I to IV lung cancer. The inclusion period was from October 24, 2019, until September 16, 2021, and data collection ended October 8, 2022. Data analysis was conducted from November 9, 2023, until March 18, 2024., Intervention: Patients in the intervention group reported PRO symptoms weekly using the Patient Reported Outcomes version of the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events lung cancer subset. If symptoms exceeded a validated threshold, an alert was sent to the health care practitioner (active intervention subgroup) or to the patient (reactive intervention subgroup). Patients in the control group received standard care., Main Outcomes and Measures: Health-related quality of life was measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire at baseline, 15 weeks (T1), 6 months (T2), and 1 year (T3), with the summary score (SS) and physical functioning (PF) as primary end points. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to assess mean differences over time. Effect size (ES) of 0.40 or greater was considered clinically relevant. Cox proportional hazards regression survival analyses were performed to estimate the effect of the intervention on progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis., Results: A total of 515 patients (266 [51.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 65.4 [9.4] years) were included in the study (266 in the control group; 249 in the pooled intervention group). Most baseline characteristics were balanced between groups; however, the most notable exception was the distribution in cancer staging: the intervention group had a higher proportion of patients with stage IV cancer compared with the control group (139 [56%] vs 118 [44%]). The pooled intervention group had a significantly better SS (mean difference T1, 5.22; 95% CI, 2.72-7.73; P < .001; ES = 0.33; mean difference T2, 6.28; 95% CI, 3.65-8.92; P < .001; ES = 0.40; mean difference T3, 3.97; 95% CI, 1.15-6.80; P = .006; ES = 0.25) compared with the control group. Group differences improved more in PF but did not meet the ES greater than or equal to 0.40 threshold (mean difference T1, 7.00; 95% CI, 3.65-10.35; P < .001; ES = 0.27; mean difference T2, 6.79; 95% CI, 3.26-10.31; P < .001; ES = 0.26; mean difference T3, 5.01; 95% CI, 1.23-8.79; P = .009; ES = 0.19). No significant differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive (n = 89) and active (n = 160) intervention groups. The HR for progression-free survival for the active intervention group compared with the control group was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.58-1.04); the finding was not statistically significant. The HR for overall survival for both interventions groups compared with the control group were not statistically significant.(active: HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.15; reactive: HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this 1-year follow-up of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial, PRO symptom monitoring yielded improvements in long-term HRQOL in patients with lung cancer. The reactive approach proved equally effective as the active approach. A nonsignificant potential survival benefit was observed for the intervention group. These positive results provide further evidence for the usefulness of routine PRO symptom monitoring in lung cancer care., Trial Registration: The Netherlands trial register Identifier: NL7897.

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.)

Purpose: Scalp cooling can prevent chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA). Previously, the post-infusion cooling time (PICT) could be successfully reduced in docetaxel-treated patients from 90 to 45 and 20 min. Therefore, it seems plausible that the PICT can be shortened for paclitaxel-treated patients as well., Methods: Patients treated with weekly paclitaxel were included in this multi-centre trial and randomly assigned to a PICT of 45 or 20 min. The results were compared to a standard PICT of 90 min, derived from prospective collected data from the Dutch Scalp Cooling Registry. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who decide to not wear a wig or head covering. Secondary endpoints were the degree of CIA assessed with the Dean scale for assessment of hair loss; alopecia graded according to NCI CTC toxicity version 4.03 (CTCAE4.03); tolerance of scalp cooling and perceived distress of CIA., Results: Ninety-one patients were enrolled in this study; 74 patients were evaluable for hair loss. Hair preservation was successful in 27 patients (75%) with a PICT of 45 min and in 31 patients (82%) with a PICT of 20 min. There was no difference in success rate with the standard PICT of 90 min (85%, p = 0.29). Similar success rates were seen when using the Dean scale and CTCAE assessment, with no differences between groups (p = 0.12 and p = 0.38)., Conclusions: A 20 min PICT is as effective as 45 and 90 min to prevent weekly paclitaxel-induced alopecia and should be the new standard of care., Trial Register: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03266185., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) applications promise great added value for improving symptom management and health-related quality of life. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the collection and use of ePROs for cancer survivorship care, with an emphasis on ePRO-symptom monitoring. It offers many different perspectives from research settings, while current implementation in routine care is ongoing. ePRO collection optimizes survivorship care by providing insight into the patients' well-being and prioritizing their unmet needs during the whole trajectory from diagnosis to end-of-life. ePRO-symptom monitoring can contribute to timely health risk detection and subsequently allow earlier intervention. Detection is optimized by automatically generated alerts that vary from simple to complex and multilayered. Using ePRO-symptoms during in-hospital consultation enhances the patients' conversation with the health care provider before making informed decisions about treatments, other interventions, or self-management. ePRO(-symptoms) entail specific implementation issues and complementary ethics considerations. The latter is due to privacy concerns, digital divide, and scarcity of adequately representative data for particular groups of patients.

Background: There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners' experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care., Methods: Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings., Results: In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia-Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as "high frequency users" who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P < .0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P = .006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P = .001) as an implementation barrier., Conclusions: Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Lung cancer and its treatment cause a wide range of symptoms impacting the patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to monitor symptoms during and after cancer treatment has been shown not only to improve symptom management but also to improve HRQoL and overall survival (OS). Collectively, these results favour implementation of PRO-symptom monitoring in daily clinical care. However, these promising outcomes have been obtained under trial conditions in which patients were selected based on stringent inclusion criteria, and in countries with a dissimilar healthcare system than in the Netherlands.The primary aim of the SYMptom monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes using a web application among patients with Lung cancer in the Netherlands (SYMPRO-Lung) study is to evaluate the effect of PRO-symptom monitoring during and after lung cancer treatment on HRQoL in daily clinical practice. Secondary objectives include assessing the effect of PRO-symptom monitoring on progression-free survival, OS, the incidence and grade of PRO symptoms, medication adherence, implementation fidelity and cost-effectiveness., Methods and Analysis: The SYMPRO-Lung study is a prospective, multicentre trial with a stepped wedge cluster randomised design. Study participants (n=292 intervention, n=292 controls) include patients with lung cancer (stages I-IV) starting treatment with surgery, systemic treatment, targeted treatment and/or radiotherapy.Every participating centre will consecutively switch from the control period to the intervention period, in which patients report their symptoms weekly via an online tool. In the intervention group, we evaluate two alert approaches: the active and reactive approach. If the symptoms exceed a predefined threshold, an alert is sent to the healthcare provider (active approach) or to the patient (reactive approach). Both the control and intervention group complete HRQoL questionnaires at 4 time points: at baseline, 15 weeks, 6 months and 1-year post treatment). Differences in HRQoL between the groups will be compared using linear mixed modelling analyses, accounting for within-centre clustering, potential time effects and confounding., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board and the Medical Ethics Committee of the Amsterdam UMC (under number NL 68440.029.18) and the institutional review boards of the participating study sites. The dissemination of the results will be conducted through publication in peer-reviewed journals and through scientific conferences., Trial Registration Number: Trial register identifier: Netherlands Trial register Trial NL7897. Date of registration: 24 July 2019. https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7897., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The aim of this study is to compare long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and survival in metastatic NSCLC patients with (M+) and without (M-) a targetable driver mutation., Methods: An observational study was performed within the prospective SYMPRO-lung study (NL7897). HRQOL questionnaires were completed at baseline, 15 weeks, and 6 months. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to assess clinically significant declines in HRQOL (>10 points) over time. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted for both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: 81 metastatic NSCLC patients were included (M+ patients; 16 (20%)). M+ patients had a significantly better global HRQOL (mean difference 12.8, ES 0.61), physical functioning (mean difference 13.4, ES 0.63), and less appetite loss (mean difference 23.1, ES 0.73) at 15 weeks of follow-up compared to M- patients. Patients with a clinically relevant decline in HRQOL at 6 months of follow-up had a significantly shorter PFS (5 months vs. 12 months, p -value < 0.001) and OS (11 months vs. 16 months, p -value 0.002)., Conclusions: M- NSCLC patients have less favorable HRQOL over time compared to M+ patients. Furthermore, clinically relevant HRQOL declines over time were significantly associated with worse survival. HRQOL can therefore play an important role in in shaping patients' expectations of their prognosis.

Purpose: Scalp cooling as a method to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) is increasingly used in daily practice worldwide. However, in patients treated with 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (FEC), scalp cooling fails in 48-67% of patients. This study investigated the efficacy of extended duration of post-infusion scalp cooling in breast cancer patients treated with this regimen., Methods: In this prospective multi-centre randomised study, 102 patients with early breast cancer treated with adjuvant FEC chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a post-infusion cooling time of 90 or 150 min. The primary endpoint was the need to wear a wig or other head covering to mask visible hair loss., Results: Sixteen out of 48 patients (33%) treated with 90 min of post-infusion cooling did not need any head covering, compared with 21 out of 46 patients (45%) treated with 150 min of post-infusion cooling (p = 0.2). WHO grades 2-3 (moderate-complete) alopecia were reported more often in patients treated with 90-min post-infusion cooling time (n = 25/51 (49%) versus n = 17/51 (33%); p = 0,02). Scalp cooling was well-tolerated (mean Visual Analogue Score 7.4) and only three patients (3%) stopped due to intolerance during treatment., Conclusions: Extending the duration of 90-min post-infusion scalp cooling to 150 min in patients treated with adjuvant FEC chemotherapy was well-tolerated but did not significantly diminish the need for head covering. However, grades 2-3 alopecia was seen less often with prolonged post-infusion scalp cooling.

Purpose: Alopecia is one of the most distressing side effects of chemotherapy. Evaluating and comparing the efficacy of potential therapies to prevent chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA) has been complicated by the lack of a standardized measurement for hair loss. In this study we investigated the correlation between patient-reported outcome assessments and quantitative measurement with the hair check to assess CIA in clinical practice., Method: Scalp cooling efficacy was evaluated by patients by World Health Organisation (WHO) of CIA, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and wig use. The Hair Check was used to determine the amount of hair (in mm 2 ) per unit of scalp skin area (in cm 2 ) (Hair Mass Index, HMI). CIA was also evaluated by doctors, nurses and hairdressers., Results: Baseline HMI was not predictive for hair loss. HMI declined throughout all chemotherapy cycles, which was not reflected by patient-reported measures. HMI correlated with patient-reported hair quantity before the start of the therapy, but not with WHO and/or VAS during therapy. Patient's opinion correlated moderately with the opinion of doctors and nurses (ρ = 0.50-0.56 respectively), but strongly with hair dressers (ρ = 0.70)., Conclusions: The Hair check is suitable to quantify the amount of hair loss and could complement research on refining outcome of scalp cooling, but the patient's opinion should be considered as the best method to assess hair loss in clinical practice., Trial Registration: Trialregister.nl NTR number 3082., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The success of scalp cooling in preventing or reducing chemotherapy induced alopecia (CIA) is highly variable between patients undergoing similar chemotherapy regimens. A decrease of the scalp skin temperature seems to be an important factor, but data on the optimum temperature reached by scalp cooling to prevent CIA are lacking. This study investigated the relation between scalp skin temperature and its efficacy to prevent CIA., Materials and Methods: In this explorative study, scalp skin temperature was measured during scalp cooling in 62 breast cancer patients undergoing up to six cycles of anthracycline containing chemotherapy. Scalp skin temperature was measured by using two thermocouples at both temporal sides of the head. The primary end-point was the need for a wig or other head covering., Results: Maximal cooling was reached after 45 min and was continued for 90 min after chemotherapy infusion. The scalp skin temperature after 45 min cooling varied from 10 °C to 31 °C, resulting in a mean scalp skin temperature of 19 °C (SEM: 0,4). Intrapersonal scalp skin temperatures during cooling were consistent for each chemotherapy cycle (ANOVA: P = 0,855). Thirteen out of 62 patients (21%) did not require a wig or other head covering. They appeared to have a significantly lower mean scalp skin temperature (18 °C; SEM: 0,7) compared to patients with alopecia (20 °C; SEM: 0,5) (P = 0,01)., Conclusion: The efficacy of scalp cooling during chemotherapy is temperature dependent. A precise cut-off point could not be detected, but the best results seem to be obtained when the scalp temperature decreases below 18 °C. TRIALREGISTER., Nl Ntr Number: 3082., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)