Geriatric assessment in older patients with a hematologic malignancy: a systematic review

The aim of this systematic review is to give an update of all currently available evidence on the relevance of a geriatric assessment in the treatment of older patients with hematologic malignancies. A systematic search in MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to find studies in which a geriatric assessment was used to detect impaired geriatric domains or to address the association between geriatric assessment and survival or clinical outcome measures. The literature search included 4,629 reports, of which 54 publications from 44 studies were included. Seventy-three percent of the studies were published in the last 5 years. The median age of the patients was 73 years (range, 58-86) and 71% had a good World Health Organization (WHO) performance status. The median prevalence of geriatric impairments varied between 17% and 68%, even in patients with a good WHO performance status. Polypharmacy, nutritional status and instrumental activities of daily living were most frequently impaired. Whereas several geriatric impairments and frailty (based on a frailty screening tool or summarized geriatric assessment score) were predictive for a shorter overall survival, WHO performance status lost its predictive value in most studies. The association between geriatric impairments and treatment-related toxicity varied, with a trend towards a higher risk of (non-)hematologic toxicity in frail patients. During the follow-up, frailty seemed to be associated with treatment non-completion, especially when patients were malnourished. Patients with a good physical capacity had a shorter stay in hospital and a lower rate of hospitalization. Geriatric assessment, even in patients with a good performance status, can detect impaired geriatric domains and these impairments may be predictive of mortality. Moreover, geriatric impairments suggest a higher risk of treatment-related toxicity, treatment non-completion and use of healthcare services. A geriatric assessment should be considered before starting treatment in older patients with hematologic malignancies

Web-based self-management for patients with lymphoma:Assessment of the reach of intervention of a randomized controlled trial

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often provide accurate estimates of the internal validity of an intervention but lack information on external validity (generalizability). We conducted an RCT on the effectiveness of a self-management intervention among patients with lymphoma in a population-based setting. Objective: The objectives of the current study were to describe the proportion of RCT participants compared to all patients invited to participate, and compare sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of RCT participants with all respondents, all patients invited to participate, and all patients selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) to determine the reach of the intervention. An additional objective was to assess differences on RCT outcome variables between RCT and paper respondents. Methods: Patients with lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia ≥18 years old at diagnosis from 13 hospitals in the Netherlands were selected from the population-based NCR, which routinely collects data on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Eligible patients were invited to participate in an RCT and complete a questionnaire. Web-based completion determined RCT enrollment, whereas paper respondents were followed observationally. Results: A total of 1193 patients were selected from the NCR, 892 (74.77%) of whom were invited to participate in the trial by their hematologist after verifying eligibility. Among those invited, 25.4% (227/892) completed the web-based questionnaire and were enrolled in the RCT. The RCT participants were younger and there was a higher proportion of men than nonparticipants (P<.001). In addition, 25.7% (229/892) of those invited opted to participate in the paper-based observational follow-up study. Compared with paper respondents, RCT participants were younger (P<.001), with a higher proportion of men (P=.002), and had higher education levels (P=.02). RCT participants more often wanted to receive all available information on their disease (P<.001), whereas paper respondents reported higher levels of emotional distress (P=.009). Conclusions: From a population-based sample of eligible patients, the participation rate in the RCT was approximately 25%. RCT participants may not be representative of the target population because of different sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Since RCT participants represent a minority of the target population, RCT results should be interpreted with caution as patients in the RCT may be those least in need of a self-management intervention. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register NTR5953; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/579

Web-based return of individual patient-reported outcome results among patients with lymphoma:Randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: There has been a cultural shift toward patient engagement in health, with a growing demand from patients to access their results. OBJECTIVE: The Lymphoma Intervention (LIVE) trial is conducted to examine the impact of return of individual patient-reported outcome (PRO) results and a web-based self-management intervention on psychological distress, self-management, satisfaction with information, and health care use in a population-based setting. METHODS: Return of PRO results included comparison with age- and sex-matched peers and was built into the Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-Term Evaluation of Survivorship registry. The self-management intervention is an adaptation of a fully automated evidence-based intervention for breast cancer survivors. Patients with lymphoma who completed the web-based questionnaire were equally randomized to care as usual, return of PRO results, and return of PRO results plus self-management intervention. Patients completed questionnaires 9 to 18 months after diagnosis (T0; n=227), 4 months (T1; n=190), 12 months (T2; n=170), and 24 months (T3; n=98). RESULTS: Of all invited patients, 51.1% (456/892) responded and web-based participants (n=227) were randomly assigned to care as usual (n=76), return of PRO results (n=74), or return of PRO results and access to Living with lymphoma (n=77). Return of PRO results was viewed by 76.7% (115/150) of those with access. No statistically significant differences were observed for psychological distress, self-management, satisfaction with information provision, and health care use between patients who received PRO results and those who did not (P>.05). Use of the self-management intervention was low (2/76, 3%), and an effect could therefore not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Return of individual PRO results seems to meet patients’ wishes but had no beneficial effects on patient outcome. No negative effects were found when individual PRO results were disclosed, and the return of individual PRO results can therefore be safely implemented in daily clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR5953; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5790 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-017-1943-

Web-based return of individual patient-reported outcome results among patients with lymphoma: Randomized controlled trial

Background: There has been a cultural shift toward patient engagement in health, with a growing demand from patients to access their results. Objective: The Lymphoma Intervention (LIVE) trial is conducted to examine the impact of return of individual patient-reported outcome (PRO) results and a web-based self-management intervention on psychological distress, self-management, satisfaction with information, and health care use in a population-based setting. Methods: Return of PRO results included comparison with age- and sex-matched peers and was built into the Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-Term Evaluation of Survivorship registry. The self-management intervention is an adaptation of a fully automated evidence-based intervention for breast cancer survivors. Patients with lymphoma who completed the web-based questionnaire were equally randomized to care as usual, return of PRO results, and return of PRO results plus self-management intervention. Patients completed questionnaires 9 to 18 months after diagnosis (T0; n=227), 4 months (T1; n=190), 12 months (T2; n=170), and 24 months (T3; n=98). Results: Of all invited patients, 51.1% (456/892) responded and web-based participants (n=227) were randomly assigned to care as usual (n=76), return of PRO results (n=74), or return of PRO results and access to Living with lymphoma (n=77). Return of PRO results was viewed by 76.7% (115/150) of those with access. No statistically significant differences were observed for psychological distress, self-management, satisfaction with information provision, and health care use between patients who received PRO results and those who did not (P>.05). Use of the self-management intervention was low (2/76, 3%), and an effect could therefore not be determined. Conclusions: Return of individual PRO results seems to meet patients’ wishes but had no beneficial effects on patient outcome. No negative effects were found when individual PRO results were disclosed, and the return of individual PRO results can therefore be safely implemented in daily clinical practice. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register NTR5953; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5790 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-017-1943-

Web-Based Return of Individual Patient-Reported Outcome Results among Patients with Lymphoma: Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: There has been a cultural shift toward patient engagement in health, with a growing demand from patients to access their results. Objective: The Lymphoma Intervention (LIVE) trial is conducted to examine the impact of return of individual patient-reported outcome (PRO) results and a web-based self-management intervention on psychological distress, self-management, satisfaction with information, and health care use in a population-based setting. Methods: Return of PRO results included comparison with age- and sex-matched peers and was built into the Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-Term Evaluation of Survivorship registry. The self-management intervention is an adaptation of a fully automated evidence-based intervention for breast cancer survivors. Patients with lymphoma who completed the web-based questionnaire were equally randomized to care as usual, return of PRO results, and return of PRO results plus self-management intervention. Patients completed questionnaires 9 to 18 months after diagnosis (T0; n=227), 4 months (T1; n=190), 12 months (T2; n=170), and 24 months (T3; n=98). Results: Of all invited patients, 51.1% (456/892) responded and web-based participants (n=227) were randomly assigned to care as usual (n=76), return of PRO results (n=74), or return of PRO results and access to Living with lymphoma (n=77). Return of PRO results was viewed by 76.7% (115/150) of those with access. No statistically significant differences were observed for psychological distress, self-management, satisfaction with information provision, and health care use between patients who received PRO results and those who did not (P>.05). Use of the self-management intervention was low (2/76, 3%), and an effect could therefore not be determined. Conclusions: Return of individual PRO results seems to meet patients' wishes but had no beneficial effects on patient outcome. No negative effects were found when individual PRO results were disclosed, and the return of individual PRO results can therefore be safely implemented in daily clinical practice