Specialist versus primary care prostate cancer follow-up:A process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial

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)

Recommendations for gonadotoxicity surveillance in male childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors : a report from the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group in collaboration with the PanCareSurFup Consortium

Treatment with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery that involves reproductive organs can cause impaired spermatogenesis, testosterone deficiency, and physical sexual dysfunction in male pubertal, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors. Guidelines for surveillance and management of potential adverse effects could improve cancer survivors' health and quality of life. Surveillance recommendations vary considerably, causing uncertainty about optimum screening practices. This clinical practice guideline recommended by the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group in collaboration with the PanCareSurFup Consortium, developed using evidence-based methodology, critically synthesises surveillance recommendations for gonadotoxicity in male childhood, adolescent, and young adult (CAYA) cancer survivors. The recommendations were developed by an international multidisciplinary panel including 25 experts in relevant medical specialties, using a consistent and transparent process. Recommendations were graded according to the strength of underlying evidence and potential benefit gained by early detection and appropriate management. The aim of the recommendations is to enhance evidence-based care for male CAYA cancer survivors. The guidelines reveal the paucity of high-quality evidence, highlighting the need for further targeted research.Peer reviewe

Long-Term Survival, Quality of Life, and Psychosocial Outcomes in Advanced Melanoma Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become a standard of care option for the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. Since the approval of the first immune checkpoint (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab in 2011 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) blocking monoclonal antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab thereafter, an increasing proportion of patients with unresectable advanced melanoma achieved long-term overall survival. Little is known about the psychosocial wellbeing, neurocognitive function, and quality of life (QOL) of these survivors. Knowledge about the long term side-effects of these novel treatments is scarce as long-term survivorship is a novel issue in the field of immunotherapy. The purpose of this review is to summarize our current knowledge regarding the survival and safety results of pivotal clinical trials in the field of advanced melanoma and to highlight potential long-term consequences that are likely to impact psychosocial wellbeing, neurocognitive functioning, and QOL. The issues raised substantiate the need for clinical investigation of these issues with the aim of optimizing comprehensive health care for advanced melanoma survivors

Exploring supportive care and information needs through a proposed eHealth application among melanoma patients undergoing systemic therapy: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: During and after systemic therapy, patients with high risk and advanced melanoma experience challenges regarding cancer-related symptoms, treatment-related adverse events, and an impact of these symptoms on their physical and psychosocial well-being. Few studies have investigated the specific needs of these patients and the potential role of eHealth applications in meeting those needs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the supportive care and information needs of high risk and advanced melanoma patients, and how these needs can be supported by eHealth applications. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews with high risk and advanced melanoma patients during or after systemic treatment were conducted to understand their needs and requirements as possible end-users of mobile eHealth applications. Interview transcripts were independently coded and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Thirteen participants consented to be interviewed, aged 31 to 71 years. Nearly all patients (n = 12, 92%) experienced unmet information and supportive care needs during and after active treatment. Patients expected to value eHealth applications that facilitate information gathering, wellbeing interventions, and symptom management. The majority of patients (n = 10, 77%) anticipated various advantages from using an eHealth application, including increased autonomy, higher quality of life, and improved disease self-management. DISCUSSION: High risk and advanced melanoma patients have unmet supportive care and information needs during and after systemic treatment. The use of eHealth applications might be an effective way to meet these unmet needs. Patients anticipate a variety of advantages from using these applications, including deriving various benefits from the use of these applications, such as enhanced autonomy