Searching for a written patient feedback instrument for patient-medical student consultations

Objective: The Patient Teaching Associate (PTA) program at Eastern Health Clinical School uses volunteer patients with chronic illnesses in consultation-based medical student education. The PTA program aims to develop students’ patient-centeredness and associated skills. Our study aims, 1) to identify key desirable characteristics of written patient feedback to doctors and/or students that focuses on patient-centeredness in consultations, and 2) to critically evaluate existing instruments to identify any suitable instrument for use for medical student teaching. Methods: We reviewed our experience with the PTA program and explored the literature on patient-centeredness and patient feedback to identify desirable characteristics of written feedback for our program. A systematic search was conducted to identify existing patient feedback instruments. These were then evaluated in light of criteria based on desirable characteristics. Results: Eight instruments met the inclusion criteria. While all were designed for patient use, none were ideal for the PTA program. The Doctors’ Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire (DISQ), while not used with medical students, is the closest fit to criteria. Conclusion: The lack of instruments specifically designed for written patient feedback to medical students highlights a gap in the current literature. Practice implications: The DISQ provides a good basis for developing a new feedback instrument focused on patient-centeredness in medical students

An interpretative phenomenological study of midwives supporting home birth for women with complex needs

Background As the landscape of women presenting for maternity care changes, so do the challenges associated with providing quality, informed and compassionate care, particularly for women with complex needs. Aim To explore the lived experience of midwives in facilitating care for women with complex needs who choose to birth at home. Method A qualitative design is employed, using an interpretative phenomenological analysis informed by hermeneutic principles. Purposive sampling is used to recruit midwives through social media and JiscMail. Data are collected via semi-structured interviews. Findings Two interpretative themes arose. A ‘radical midwife’ embraces the phrase ‘radical’ by positioning midwives between traditional beliefs and practices, physiological processes, midwife knowledge and skill set by applying current evidence and professional context. A ‘conflicted midwife’ arises out of this dichotomy and exposes the realities of striving for radicality while the negotiating ‘the system’. Conclusions It is no longer acceptable to assume that home birth for women with complex needs is exceptional. This must be the catalyst to move towards a constructive discourse with midwives, women and the wider team to address and expand the evidence base and pathways to support those who are already facilitating this care and those who will inevitably continue to provide care ‘outside of current guidelines

Confidentiality, anonymity and amnesty for midwives in distress seeking online support – Ethical?

BACKGROUND: Midwife health is intrinsically linked to the quality of safe patient care. To ensure safe patient care, there is a need to deliver emotional support to midwives. One option that midwives may turn to may be a confidential online intervention, instead of localised, face-to-face support. RESEARCH DESIGN: Following the Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards publication standards, this realist synthesis approach explores the ethical considerations in permitting confidentiality, anonymity and amnesty in online interventions to support midwives in work-related psychological distress. An iterative search methodology was used to select nine papers for review. To assimilate information, papers were examined for ideas relating to ethical dimensions of online interventions to support midwives in work-related psychological distress. This review takes a narrative approach. FINDINGS: Online interventions can support the development of insight, help seeking and open discussion. Additionally, Internet support groups can become morally persuasive in nature. Anonymity and confidentiality are both effective and therapeutic features of online interventions when used in collaboration with effective online moderation. Yet, ethical dilemmas remain where users cannot be identified. DISCUSSION: Confidentiality and anonymity remain key components of successful online interventions. However, sanctioning the corollary component of amnesty may provoke moral discomfort for those seeking immediate accountability. For others, amnesty is seen as essential for open disclosure and help seeking. Ultimately, the needs of midwives must be balanced with the requirement to protect the public and the professional reputation of midwifery. CONCLUSION: In supporting midwives online, the principles of anonymity, confidentiality and amnesty may evoke some resistance on ethical grounds. However, without offering identity protection, it may not be possible to create effective online support services for midwives. The authors of this article argue that the principles of confidentiality, anonymity and amnesty should be upheld in the pursuit of the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people

Synchronous Versus Metachronous Metastatic Disease: Impact of Time to Metastasis on Patient Outcome-Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) may present with primary metastases (synchronous disease) or develop metastases during follow-up (metachronous disease). The impact of time to metastasis on patient outcome is poorly characterised. OBJECTIVE: To characterise overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) based on time to metastasis in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy (tyrosine kinase inhibitors [TKIs]). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) to compare synchronous (metastases within ≤3 mo of initial diagnosis of cancer) versus metachronous disease (evaluated by >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr intervals). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS and TFF were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox multivariable regressions analyses (MVAs) were adjusted for baseline factors. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 7386 patients with mRCC treated with first-line TKIs, 3906 (53%) and 3480 (47%) had synchronous and metachronous metastasis, respectively. More patients with synchronous versus metachronous disease had higher T stage (T1-2: 19% vs 34%), N1 disease (21% vs 6%), presence of sarcomatoid differentiation (15.8% vs 7.9%), Karnofsky performance status <80 (25.9% vs 15.1%), anaemia (62.5% vs 42.3%), elevated neutrophils (18.9% vs 10.9%), elevated platelets (21.6% vs 11.4%), bone metastases (40.4% vs 29.8%), and IMDC poor risk (40.6% vs 11.3%). Synchronous versus metachronous disease by intervals >3-12 mo, >1-2 yr, >2-7 yr, and >7 yr correlated with poor TTF (5.6 mo vs 7.3, 8.0, 10.8, and 13.3 mo, p <  0.0001) and poor OS (median 16.7 mo vs 23.8, 30.2, 34.8, and 41.7 mo, p <  0.0001). In MVAs, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.00 (reference), 0.98 (0.90-1.06), 0.81 (0.73-0.91), 0.74 (0.68-0.81), and 0.60 (0.54-0.67), respectively, for OS (p <  0.0001), and 1.00 (reference), 0.99 (0.92-1.06), 0.98 (0.90-1.07), 0.83 (0.77-0.89), and 0.66 (0.60-0.72), respectively, for TTF (p <  0.0001). Data were collected retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of metastases after initial RCC diagnosis may impact the outcomes from targeted therapy in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at the impact of the timing of metastatic outbreak on survival outcomes in kidney cancer patients treated with targeted therapy. We found that the longer time to metastatic development was associated with improved outcome

Early Post-treatment Prostate-specific Antigen at 4 Weeks and Abiraterone and Enzalutamide Treatment for Advanced Prostate Cancer: An International Collaborative Analysis.

Background Declines in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels at 12wk are used to evaluate treatment response in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PSA fall by ≥30% at 4wk (PSA4w30) has been reported to be associated with better outcome in a single-centre cohort study.Objective To evaluate clinical relevance of early PSA decline in mCRPC patients treated with next-generation hormonal treatments (NGHTs) such as abiraterone and enzalutamide.Design, setting, and participants This was a retrospective multicentre analysis. Eligible patients received NGHT for mCRPC between 6 January 2006 and 31 December 2017 in 13 cancer centres worldwide, and had PSA levels assessed at baseline and at 4 and/or 12wk after treatment. PSA response was defined as a ≥30% decline (progression as a ≥25% increase) from baseline.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Association with overall survival (OS) was analysed using landmark multivariable Cox regression adjusting for previous chemotherapy, including cancer centre as a shared frailty term.Results and limitations We identified 1358 mCRPC patients treated with first-line NGHT (1133 had PSA available at 4wk, and 948 at both 4 and 12wk). Overall, 583 (52%) had a PSA4w30; it was associated with longer OS (median: 23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 21-25) compared with no change (median: 17; 95% CI: 15-18) and progression (median: 13; 95% CI: 10-15). A PSA12w30 was associated with lower mortality (median OS 22 vs 14; hazard ratio=0.57; 95% CI=0.48-0.67; p<0.001). PSA4w30 strongly correlated with PSA12w30 (ρ=0.91; 95% CI=0.90-0.92; p<0.001). In total, 432/494 (87%) with a PSA4w30 achieved a PSA12w30. Overall, 11/152 (7%) patients progressing at 4wk had a PSA12w30 (1% of the overall population).Conclusions PSA changes in the first 4wk of NGHT therapies are strongly associated with clinical outcome from mCRPC and can help guide early treatment switch decisions.Patient summary Prostate-specific antigen changes at 4wk after abiraterone/enzalutamide treatment are important to determine patients' outcome and should be taken into consideration in clinical practice

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. METHODS: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0–2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86–107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61–74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8–86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6–52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53–0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9–81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3–59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55–0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83–1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3–5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas

Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Tissue Acquisition From Bone Metastases for Molecular Analyses.

Background The urgent need for castration-resistant prostate cancer molecular characterization to guide treatment has been constrained by the disease's predilection to metastasize primarily to bone. We hypothesized that the use of clinical and imaging criteria could maximize tissue acquisition from bone marrow biopsies (BMBs). We aimed to develop a score for the selection of patients undergoing BMB.Materials and methods A total of 115 BMBs were performed in 101 patients: 57 were included in a derivation set and 58 were used as the validation set. The clinical and laboratory data and prebiopsy computed tomography parameters (Hounsfield units [HUs]) were determined. A score for the prediction of biopsy positivity was developed from logistic regression analysis of the derivation set and tested in the validation set.Results Of the 115 biopsy specimens, 75 (62.5%) were positive; 35 (61.4%) in the test set and 40 (69%) in the validation set. On univariable analysis, hemoglobin (P = .019), lactate dehydrogenase (P = .003), prostate-specific antigen (P = .005), and mean HUs (P = .004) were selected. A score based on the LDH level (≥ 225 IU/L) and mean HUs (≥ 125) was developed in multivariate analysis and was associated with BMB positivity in the validation set (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.9%-13.4%; P = .001). The area under the curve of the score was 0.79 in the test set and 0.77 in the validation set.Conclusion BMB of the iliac crest is a feasible technique for obtaining tumor tissue for genomic analysis in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer metastatic to the bone. A signature based on the mean HUs and LDH level can predict a positive yield with acceptable internal validity. Prospective studies of independent cohorts are needed to establish the external validity of the score

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutation analysis, gene expression profiling and EGFR protein expression in primary prostate cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Activating mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (<it>EGFR</it>) confer sensitivity to the tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKi), gefitinib and erlotinib. We analysed EGFR expression, EGFR mutation status and gene expression profiles of prostate cancer (PC) to supply a rationale for EGFR targeted therapies in this disease.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Mutational analysis of EGFR TK domain (exons from 18 to 21) and immunohistochemistry for EGFR were performed on tumour tissues derived from radical prostatectomy from 100 PC patients. Gene expression profiling using oligo-microarrays was also carried out in 51 of the PC samples.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>EGFR protein overexpression (EGFR_high) was found in 36% of the tumour samples, and mutations were found in 13% of samples. Patients with EGFR_hightumours experienced a significantly increased risk of biochemical relapse (hazard ratio-HR 2.52, p=0.02) compared with patients with tumours expressing low levels of EGFR (EGFR_low). Microarray analysis did not reveal any differences in gene expression between EGFR_highand EGFR_lowtumours. Conversely, in EGFR_hightumours, we were able to identify a 79 gene signature distinguishing mutated from non-mutated tumours. Additionally, 29 genes were found to be differentially expressed between mutated/EGFR_high(n=3) and mutated/EGFR_lowtumours (n=5). Four of the down-regulated genes, U19/EAF2, ABCC4, KLK3 and ANXA3 and one of the up-regulated genes, FOXC1, are involved in PC progression.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Based on our findings, we hypothesize that accurate definition of the EGFR status could improve prognostic stratification and we suggest a possible role for EGFR-directed therapies in PC patients. Having been generated in a relatively small sample of patients, our results warrant confirmation in larger series.</p

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone for metastatic patients starting hormone therapy: 5-year follow-up results from the STAMPEDE randomised trial (NCT00268476)

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long-term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard-of-care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC-alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly-diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow-up, 329 SOC-alone deaths (118 low-risk, 178 high-risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low-risk, 145 high-risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71; P = 0.31 × 10−9) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5-years survival improved from 41% SOC-alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low-risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76) and high-risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions