Cancer survivors who fully participate in the PROFILES registry have better health-related quality of life than those who drop out

Purpose Attrition and subsequent missing data pose a challenge in longitudinal research in oncology. This study examined factors associated with attrition in the PROFILES registry, and its impact on observed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) estimates. Methods Sociodemographic, clinical, and HRQOL data were collected annually from a cohort of 2625 colorectal cancer survivors between 2010 and 2015. Participant characteristics according to time of dropout were compared using analysis of variance and chi-square tests. Predictors of attrition were examined in logistic regression analysis. Multilevel linear mixed models were constructed to investigate associations between attrition and HRQOL over time. Results Participants who dropped out were more likely to be female (OR = 1.23, CI = 1.02–1.47), older (OR = 1.20, CI = 1.09–1.33), less educated (OR = 1.64, CI = 1.30–2.11), and to have depressive symptoms (OR = 1.84, CI = 1.39–2.44) than full responders, and less likely to have high socioeconomic status (OR = 0.74, CI = 0.61–0.94). Participants who dropped out earlier reported significantly worse HRQOL, functioning, and psychosocial symptoms, which declined at a steeper rate over time, than full responders. Conclusions Cancer survivors’ HRQOL may be overestimated in longitudinal research due to attrition of the most unwell participants. Implications for Cancer Survivors Cancer survivors with the poorest health are at risk of dropping out of PROFILES and possibly withdrawing from other activities. Optimizing participation in PROFILES—a potential mechanism for providing information and access to support—is an avenue for keeping this group engaged

Perceived care and well-being of patients with cancer and matched norm participants in the COVID-19 crisis:Results of a survey of participants in the Dutch PROFILES registry

Importance As the resolution of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis is unforeseeable, and/or a second wave of infections may arrive in the fall of 2020, it is important to evaluate patients’ perspectives to learn from this. Oblective To assess how Dutch patients with cancer perceive cancer treatment and follow-up care (including experiences with telephone and video consultations [TC/VC]) and patients’ well-being in comparison with a norm population during the COVID-19 crisis. Design, setting, and participants Cross-sectional study of patients participating in the Dutch Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry and a norm population who completed a questionnaire from April to May 2020. Main outcomes and measures Logistic regression analysis assessed factors associated with changes in cancer care (treatment or follow-up appointment postponed/canceled or changed to TC/VC). Differences in quality of life, anxiety/depression, and loneliness between patients and age-matched and sex-matched norm participants were evaluated with regression models. Results The online questionnaire was completed by 4094 patients (48.6% response), of whom most were male (2493 [60.9%]) and had a mean (SD) age of 63.0 (11.1) years. Of these respondents, 886 (21.7%) patients received treatment; 2725 (55.6%) received follow-up care. Treatment or follow-up appointments were canceled for 390 (10.8%) patients, whereas 160 of 886 (18.1%) in treatment and 234 of 2725 (8.6%) in follow-up had it replaced by a TC/VC. Systemic therapy, active surveillance, or surgery were associated with cancellation of treatment or follow-up appointment. Younger age, female sex, comorbidities, metastasized cancer, being worried about getting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and receiving supportive care were associated with replacement of a consultation with a TC/VC. Patients and norm participants reported that the COVID-19 crisis made them contact their general practitioner (852 of 4068 [20.9%] and 218 of 979 [22.3%]) or medical specialist/nurse (585 of 4068 [14.4%] and 144 of 979 [14.7%]) less quickly when they had physical complaints or concerns. Most patients who had a TC/VC preferred a face-to-face consultation, but 151 of 394 (38.3%) were willing to use a TC/VC again. Patients with cancer were more worried about getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with the 977 norm participants (917 of 4094 [22.4%] vs 175 of 977 [17.9%]). Quality of life, anxiety, and depression were comparable, but norm participants more often reported loneliness (114 of 977 [11.7%] vs 287 of 4094 [7.0%]) than patients with cancer (P = .009). Conclusions and relevance Among patients with cancer in the Netherlands, 1 in 3 reported changes in cancer care in the first weeks of the COVID-19 crisis. Long-term outcomes need to be monitored. The crisis may affect the mental well-being of the general population relatively more than that of patients with cancer

Towards OPtimal TIming and Method for promoting sUstained adherence to lifestyle and body weight recommendations in postMenopausal breast cancer survivors (the OPTIMUM-study):protocol for a longitudinal mixed-method study

BACKGROUND: The majority of postmenopausal breast cancer (PMBC) survivors do not adhere to lifestyle recommendations and have excess body weight. In this group, this is associated with poorer health-related quality of life and an increased risk of type II diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, second primary cancers, cancer recurrences, and mortality. Gaining and maintaining a healthy lifestyle and body composition is therefore important. It is unknown when and how sustained adherence to these recommendations can be promoted optimally in PMBC survivors. Therefore, the OPTIMUM study aims to identify the optimal timing and method for promoting sustained adherence to lifestyle and body weight recommendations in PMBC survivors. METHODS: The OPTIMUM-study has a mixed-methods design. To assess optimal timing, a longitudinal observational study will be conducted among approximately 1000 PMBC survivors. The primary outcomes are adherence to lifestyle and body weight recommendations, readiness for change, and need for support. Questionnaires will be administered at 4–6 months after cancer diagnosis (wave 1: during treatment and retrospectively before diagnosis), 1 year after diagnosis (wave 2: after completion of initial treatment), and 1.5 years after diagnosis (wave 3: during follow-up). Wave 2 and 3 include blood sampling, and either wearing an accelerometer for 7 days or completing a 3-day online food diary (randomly assigned at hospital level). To assess the optimal method, behavioural determinants of the primary outcomes will be matched with Behavior Change Techniques using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy. Qualitative research methods will be used to explore perceptions, needs and preferences of PMBC survivors (semi-structured interviews, focus groups) and health care providers (Delphi study). Topics include perceptions on optimal timing to promote adherence; facilitators and motivators of, and barriers towards (sustained) adherence to recommendations; and acceptability of the selected methods. DISCUSSION: The OPTIMUM study aims to gain scientific knowledge on when and how to promote sustained adherence to lifestyle and body weight recommendations among PBMC survivors. This knowledge can be incorporated into guidelines for tailored promotion in clinical practice to improve health outcomes

Adjustment disorder in cancer patients after treatment:Prevalence and acceptance of psychological treatment

PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of adjustment disorder (AD) among cancer patients and the acceptance of psychological treatment, in relation to sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors. METHODS: Breast, prostate, and head and neck cancer patients of all stages and treatment modalities (N = 200) participated in this observational study. Patients completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Checklist Individual Strength, Distress Thermometer and problem list. Patients with increased risk on AD based on these questionnaires were scheduled for a diagnostic interview. Patients diagnosed with AD were invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial on the cost-effectiveness of psychological treatment. Participation in this trial was used as a proxy of acceptance of psychological treatment. Logistic regression analyses were used to investigate associated factors. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of AD was estimated at 13.1%. Sensitivity analyses showed prevalence rates of AD of 11.5%, 15.0%, and 23.5%. Acceptance of psychological treatment was estimated at 65%. AD was associated both with being employed (OR = 3.3, CI = 1.3–8.4) and having a shorter time since diagnosis (OR = 0.3, CI = 0.1–0.8). CONCLUSION: Taking sensitivity analysis into account, the prevalence of AD among cancer patients is estimated at 13 to 15%, and is related to being employed and having a shorter time since diagnosis. The majority of cancer patients with AD accept psychological treatment

LISS panel - NKI Standard questionnaire 2017

This study investigates health (complaints) in general and the possible consequences of cancer in daily life in particular.Suggestions for data usage: The data files are accessible via Centerdata. For more information, please use the link under Relations or www.lissdata.nl