Symptom clusters in 1330 survivors of 7 cancer types from the PROFILES registry:A network analysis

BACKGROUND: Research into the clustering of symptoms may improve the understanding of the underlying mechanisms that affect survivors' symptom burden. This study applied network analyses in a balanced sample of cancer survivors to 1) explore the clustering of symptoms and 2) assess differences in symptom clustering between cancer types, treatment regimens, and short‐term and long‐term survivors. METHODS: This study used cross‐sectional survey data, collected between 2008 and 2018, from the population‐based Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long Term Evaluation of Survivorship registry, which included survivors of 7 cancer types (colorectal cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma, and non‐Hodgkin lymphoma). Regularized partial correlation network analysis was used to explore and visualize the associations between self‐reported symptoms (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire) and the centrality of these symptoms in the network (ie, how strongly a symptom was connected to other symptoms) for the total sample and for subgroups separately. RESULTS: In the total sample (n = 1330), fatigue was the most central symptom in the network with moderate direct relationships with emotional symptoms, cognitive symptoms, appetite loss, dyspnea, and pain. These relationships persisted after adjustments for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Connections between fatigue and emotional symptoms, appetite loss, dyspnea, and pain were consistently found across all cancer types (190 for each), treatment regimens, and short‐term and long‐term survivors. CONCLUSIONS: In a heterogenous sample of cancer survivors, fatigue was consistently the most central symptom in all networks. Although longitudinal data are needed to build a case for the causal nature of these symptoms, cancer survivorship rehabilitation programs could focus on fatigue to reduce the overall symptom burden

Health state utility and health-related quality of life measures in patients with advanced ovarian cancer

Purpose: Measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in ovarian cancer patients is critical to understand the impact of disease and treatment. Preference-based HRQoL measures, called health state utilities, are used specifically in health economic evaluations. Real-world patient-reported data on HRQoL and health state utilities over the long-term course of ovarian cancer are limited. This study aims to determine HRQoL and health state utilities in different health states of ovarian cancer. Methods: This cross-sectional, multicenter study included patients with stage III-IV ovarian cancer in six health states: at diagnosis, during chemotherapy, after cytoreductive surgery (CRS), after chemotherapy, in remission, and at first recurrence. HRQoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire C30, and the ovarian cancer-specific module OV28. Health state utilities were assessed using the EuroQol five-dimension five-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire. Descriptive analyses were performed for each health state. Results: Two hundred thirty-two patients participated, resulting in 319 questionnaires. Median age was 66 years. The lowest HRQoL was observed during chemotherapy and shortly after CRS. Physical and role functioning were most affected and the highest symptom prevalence was observed in the fatigue, nausea, pain, dyspnea, gastrointestinal, neuropathy, attitude, and sexuality domains. Patients in remission had the best HRQoL. Mean utility values ranged from 0.709 (±0.253) at diagnosis to 0.804 (±0.185) after chemotherapy.Conclusions: This study provides clinicians with a valuable resource to aid in patient counseling and clinical decision-making. The utilities, in particular, are crucial for researchers conducting economic analyses to inform policy decisions.</p

Opportunities for personalised follow-up care among patients with breast cancer: A scoping review to identify preference-sensitive decisions

Abstract Introduction Current follow‐up arrangements for breast cancer do not optimally meet the needs of individual patients. We therefore reviewed the evidence on preferences and patient involvement in decisions about breast cancer follow‐up to explore the potential for personalised care. Methods Studies published between 2008 and 2017 were extracted from MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE. We then identified decision categories related to content and form of follow‐up. Criteria for preference sensitiveness and patient involvement were compiled and applied to determine the extent to which decisions were sensitive to patient preferences and patients were involved. Results Forty‐one studies were included in the full‐text analysis. Four decision categories were identified: “surveillance for recurrent/secondary breast cancer; consultations for physical and psychosocial effects; recurrence‐risk reduction by anti‐hormonal treatment; and improving quality of life after breast cancer.” There was little evidence that physicians treated decisions about anti‐hormonal treatment, menopausal symptoms, and follow‐up consultations as sensitive to patient preferences. Decisions about breast reconstruction were considered as very sensitive to patient preferences, and patients were usually involved. Conclusion Patients are currently not involved in all decisions that affect them during follow‐up, indicating a need for improvements. Personalised follow‐up care could improve resource allocation and the value of care for patients

Seizing the moment: The time for harnessing electronic patient-reported outcome measures for enhanced and sustainable metastatic breast cancer care is now

The sustainability of healthcare systems is under pressure. Unlike care for many other chronic diseases, cancer care has yet to empower patients in effectively self-managing both the medical and emotional consequences of their condition, including adapting to changes in lifestyle and work, which is essential to achieve optimal health and recovery. Although proposed as a potential solution for sustainable healthcare and support for optimal health and recovery already decades ago, practical implementation of digital care lags behind. We believe electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) could play an important role in creating sustainable healthcare, both to guide complex treatment pathways and to empower survivors to self-manage consequences of diagnosis and treatment. That is, ePROMs can be used for screening and monitoring of symptoms, but also for treatment decision-making and to facilitate communication about quality of life. We therefore see opportunities for improvements in quality of care, quality of life, and survival of cancer patients, as well as research opportunities, as ePROMs collection can lead to better understanding of care needs. The ‘10 Actions for Change report’ of the Advanced Breast Cancer Global Alliance stresses a critical need for improvement of care for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. We therefore in this paper focus on MBC care and research

The added value of immediate breast reconstruction to health-related quality of life of breast cancer patients

Background: Postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) may improve the quality of life (QoL) of breast cancer patients. Guidelines recommend to discuss the option IBR with all patients undergoing mastectomy. However, substantial hospital variation in IBR-rates was previously observed in the Netherlands, influenced by patient, tumour and hospital factors and clinicians’ believes. Information provision about IBR may have a positive effect on receiving IBR and therefore QoL. This study investigated patient-reported QoL of patients treated with mastectomy with and without IBR. Methods: An online survey, encompassing the validated BREAST-Q questionnaire, was distributed to a representative sample of 1218 breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy. BREAST-Q scores were compared between patients who had undergone mastectomy either with or without IBR. Results: A total of 445 patients were included for analyses: 281 patients with and 164 without IBR. Patients who had received IBR showed significantly higher BREAST-Q scores on “psychosocial well-being” (75 versus 67, p < 0.001), “sexual well-being” (62 versus 52, p < 0.001) and “physical well-being” (77 versus 74, p = 0.021) compared to patients without IBR. No statistically significant difference was found for “satisfaction with breasts” (64 versus 62, p = 0.21). Similar results were found after multivariate regression analyses, revealing IBR to be an independent factor for a better patient-reported QoL. Conclusions: Patients diagnosed with breast cancer with IBR following mastectomy report a better QoL on important psychosocial, sexual and physical well-being domains. This further supports the recommendation to discuss the option of IBR with all patients with an indication for mastectomy and to enable shared decision-making