Sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, and body image in Norwegian breast cancer survivors: a 12-year longitudinal follow-up study and comparison with the general female population.

BACKGROUND: Given the scarcity of evidence concerning the long-term sexual health of breast cancer (BC) survivors (BC-Pop), we aimed to assess how BC treatments affect short- and long-term sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, and body image, and compare with aged-matched women in the Norwegian general population (F-GenPop). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The 349 patients in BC-Pop treated at Trondheim University Hospital in 2007-2014, were assessed in clinical controls at the hospital; before starting radiotherapy (T1, baseline), immediately after ending radiotherapy (T2), and after 3, 6, and 12 months (T3-T5), and at a long-term follow-up 7-12 years after baseline (T6). Meanwhile, F-GenPop included 2254 age-matched women in the Norwegian general population. The impact of BC treatment on sexual functioning was examined using a Linear Mixed Model. Sexual functioning, sexual enjoyment, and body image were assessed with the EORTC's QLQ-BR23 scales and compared between the populations in the four age groups (30-49, 50-59, 60-69, and 70+ years) using means with 95% confidence intervals and Student t-test. Linear regression, adjusted for age and comorbidity was applied to estimate individual scores. RESULT: BC survivors treated with mastectomy had overall lower sexual functioning than patients who had received breast-conserving surgery (p = 0.017). Although BC survivors treated with chemotherapy had lower sexual functioning than those treated without chemotherapy at T1-T5 (p = 0.044), both groups showed the same level of functioning at T6. BC-Pop exhibited significantly poorer sexual functioning (p < 0.001), lower sexual enjoyment (p < 0.05), and better body image (p < 0.001) than F-GenPop in all age groups. CONCLUSION: The impact of specific BC treatments on sexual functioning was modest; only mastectomy had a persistent negative influence. Nevertheless, all age groups in BC-Pop displayed significantly poorer sexual functioning than F-GenPop at both 12 months and up to 12 years after treatment.

Randomized phase III trial comparing switch-maintenance pemetrexed with observation followed by pemetrexed at progression in advanced NSCLC.

Objectives: Two phase III trials show that maintenance pemetrexed therapy after platinum-doublet chemotherapy prolongs overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, few patients in the control arms received pemetrexed at progression in these trials, performance status (PS) two patients were ineligible and few of the participants were elderly. Thus, we designed this study comparing immediate switch-maintenance pemetrexed therapy with pemetrexed at progression after platinum-doublet chemotherapy.Methods: Patients with stage IIIB/IV non-squamous NSCLC, ≥18 years, PS 0-2, and non-progression after four courses of carboplatin/vinorelbine were randomized to receive immediate maintenance pemetrexed therapy or observation followed by pemetrexed at progression. The primary endpoint was OS, secondary endpoints were PFS, toxicity and health related quality of life (HRQoL).Results: 105 patients were randomized between May 2014 and September 2017. Median age was 67 years, 36% were >70 years, 9% had PS 2, 91% stage IV and 47% were women. In the observation arm, 73% received pemetrexed at progression. Patients in the maintenance arm had a numerically longer OS (median 12.0 vs. 10.0 months; p = .10) and a statistically significant longer PFS (median 3.1 vs. 1.9 months; p < .01). In multivariable analyses adjusting for baseline characteristics, there was a trend toward improved OS (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42-1.01); p = .05), and a significantly improved PFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.80; p < .01). There were no significant differences in toxicity or HRQoL between the treatment arms.Conclusion: There was a trend toward prolonged OS and significantly longer PFS from switch- maintenance pemetrexed therapy when 73% of patients in the control arm received pemetrexed at progression. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02004184.

Usability testing of EirV3-a computer-based tool for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer.

PURPOSE: Eir version 3 (V3) is an electronic tool for administration of patient-reported outcome measures (Eir-Patient) that immediately presents patient scores on the physician's computer (Eir-Doctor). Perceived usability is an important determinant for successful implementation. The aim of this study was to answer the following research question evaluated at the cancer outpatient clinics, in the patients' home, and at general practitioners' (GPs) offices: What are the number, type, and severity of usability issues evaluated by the patient (Eir-Patient module) and by the physician (Eir-Doctor module)? METHODS: A usability evaluation using observations, think-aloud sessions, individual interviews and focus group interviews in cancer patients and their physicians was conducted. Identified usability issues were graded on a severity scale from 1 (irritant) to 4 (unusable). RESULTS: Overall, 73 Eir registrations were performed by 37 patients, and used by 17 physicians in clinical consultations. All patients were able to complete the Eir-Patient symptom registration. Seventy-two usability issues were identified. None of them were graded as unusable. For the Eir-Patient module, 62% of the identified usability issues was graded as irritant (grade 1), 18% as moderate (grade 2), and 20% as severe (grade 3). For the Eir-Doctor module, 46% of the identified usability issues were graded as irritant, 36% as moderate and 18% as severe. CONCLUSIONS: In the updated Eir version, issues in the severe and moderate categories have been changed, to optimize the usability of using real-time PROMs in clinical practice.

Is it possible to detect an improvement in cancer pain management? A comparison of two Norwegian cross-sectional studies conducted 5 years apart.

PURPOSE: Cancer pain (CP) management is challenging. In recent years, efforts were undertaken to achieve better CP management, e.g. clinical research, new treatment modalities, development of guidelines, education and focus on implementation. The aim of the present study was to compare the prevalence and characteristics of pain and breakthrough pain (BTP) between cross-sectional studies conducted in 2008 and 2014. It was hypothesized that an improvement in pain control would be observed the years in between. METHODS: Two cross-sectional studies were conducted where adult cancer patients answered questions from Brief Pain Inventory and the Alberta Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool for cancer patients. Physicians reported socio-demographic and medical data. Regression models were applied for analysis. RESULTS: In total, 168 inpatients, 92 in 2008 and 76 in 2014, and 675 outpatients, 301 in 2008 and 374 in 2014, were included. The patient characteristics of the samples were comparable. Prevalence of CP among inpatients was 55 % in 2008 and 53 % in 2014, and among outpatients, 39 and 35 %, respectively. Inpatients reported average pain intensity (0-10 numerical rating scale, NRS) of 3.60 (standard deviation, SD 1.84) (2008) and 4.08 (SD 2.11) (2014); prevalence of BTP was 52 % (2008) and 41 % (2014). For outpatients, average pain intensity was 3.60 (SD 2.04) (2008) and 3.86 (SD 2.20) (2014); prevalence of BTP was 43 % (2008) and 37 % (2014). None of the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Unexpectedly, no improvement in pain control was observed. Efforts are still needed to improve cancer pain management.

A cross-sectional study on prevalence of pain and breakthrough pain among an unselected group of outpatients in a tertiary cancer clinic.

PURPOSE: Systematic knowledge about the prevalence and the treatment effects of cancer pain in patients attending a general oncology outpatient department is limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of pain in a large representative cohort of patients attending a general oncology outpatient department in order to guide further screening, classification, and treatment of pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study among patients visiting the outpatient clinic with histologically verified cancer, age≥18 years, adequate cognitive function, and no surgical procedures last 24 h were included. Pain was assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory and the Alberta Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool. RESULTS: Three hundred five patients were included. The mean age was 60 years, 94% had a WHO performance status of 0-1 and 59% received oncological treatment with a curative intent. The mean score for average pain last 24 h (numerical rating scale, 0-10) and current pain was 1.84 and 1.08, respectively. Twenty-two percent reported pain score of ≥4 as their average pain in the previous 24 h. Twenty-one percent reported breakthrough pain (BTP). In multivariate analyses, sleep, BTP, age, treatment intent, and comorbidity was significantly associated with mean average pain in the previous 24 h and explained 29% of the variability of average pain in the previous 24 h. CONCLUSION: Of the patients at an oncology outpatient clinic, 22% reported clinically significant pain. These findings indicate that all patients are candidates to be screened for pain and, if present, a more detailed pain diagnosis should be established before any interventions can be recommended.

Zopiclone versus placebo for short-term treatment of insomnia in patients with advanced cancer: study protocol for a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of insomnia in patients with advanced cancer, there are no randomized controlled trials on pharmacological interventions for insomnia in this group of patients. A variety of pharmacological agents is recommended to manage sleep disturbance for insomnia in the general population, but their efficacy and safety in adults with advanced cancer are not established. Thus, there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of medications for insomnia in order to improve the evidence in patients with advanced cancer. One of the most used sleep medications at present in patients with cancer is zopiclone. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter trial. A total of 100 patients with metastatic cancer who report insomnia will be randomly allocated to zopiclone or placebo. The treatment duration with zopiclone/placebo is 6 consecutive nights. The primary endpoint is patient-reported sleep quality during the final study night (night 6) assessed on a numerical rating scale of 0-10, where 0 = Best sleep and 10 = Worst possible sleep. Secondary endpoints include the mean patient-reported total sleep time and sleep onset latency during the final study night (night 6). DISCUSSION: Results from this study on treatment of insomnia in advanced cancer will contribute to clinical decision-making and improve the treatment of sleep disturbance in this patient cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02807922 . Registered on 21 June 2016.

COMBAT study - Computer based assessment and treatment - A clinical trial evaluating impact of a computerized clinical decision support tool on pain in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The prevalence of pain in cancer patients are relatively high and indicate inadequate pain management strategies. Therefore, it is necessary to develop new methods and to improve implementation of guidelines to assess and treat pain. The vast improvement in information technology facilitated development of a computerized symptom assessment and decision support system (CCDS) - the Combat system - which was implemented in an outpatient cancer clinic to evaluate improvement in pain management. METHODS: We conducted a controlled before-and-after study between patient cohorts in two consecutive study periods: before (n=80) and after (n=134) implementation of the Combat system. Patients in the first cohort completed questionnaires with the paper-and-pencil method and this data was not shown to physicians. Patients in the latter cohort completed an electronic questionnaire by using an iPad and the data were automatically transferred and presented to physicians at point of care. Additionally, the system provided computerized decision support at point of care for the physician based on the electronic questionnaires completed by the patients, an electronic CRF completed by physicians and clinical guidelines. RESULTS: The Combat system did not improve pain intensity and there were no significant alterations in the prescribed dose of opiates compared to the cohort of patients managed without the Combat system. CONCLUSION: The Combat system did not improve pain management. This may be explained by several factors, however, we consider lack of proper implementation of the CCDS in the clinic to be the most important factor. As a result, we did not manage to change the behaviour of the physicians in the clinic. IMPLICATIONS: There is a need to conduct larger prospective studies to evaluate the efficacy of modern information technology to improve pain management in cancer patients. Before introducing new information technology in the clinics, it is important to have a well thought out implementation strategy. The trial is registered at Clinialtrials.gov, number NCT01795157.

Development of EirV3: A Computer-Based Tool for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cancer.

PURPOSE: Immediate transfer of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in medical consultations is facilitated by electronic assessments. We aimed to describe the rationale and development of Eir version 3 (EirV3), a computer-based symptom assessment tool for cancer, with emphasis on content and user-friendliness. METHODS: EirV3's specifications and content were developed through multiprofessional, stepwise, and iterative processes (from 2013 to 2016), with literature reviews on traditional and electronic assessment and classification methods, formative iterative usability tests with end-users, and assessment of patient preferences for paper versus electronic assessments. RESULTS: EirV3 has the following two modules: Eir-Patient for PROMs registration on tablets and Eir-Doctor for presentation of PROMs in a user-friendly interface on computers. Eir-Patient starts with 19 common cancer symptoms followed by specific, in-depth questions for endorsed symptoms. The pain section includes a body map for pain location and intensity, whereas physical functioning, nutritional intake, and well-being are standard questions for all. Data are wirelessly transferred to Eir-Doctor. Symptoms with intensity scores ≥ 3 (on a 0 to 10 scale) are marked in red, with brighter colors corresponding to higher intensity, and supplemented with graphs displaying symptom development over time. Usability results showed that patients and health care providers found EirV3 to be intuitive, easy to use, and relevant. When comparing PROM assessments on paper versus tablets (n = 114), 19% of patients preferred paper, 41% preferred tablets, and 40% had no preference. Median intraclass correlation coefficient between paper and tablets (0.815) was excellent. CONCLUSION: Iterative test rounds followed by continuous improvements led to a user-friendly, applicable symptom assessment tool, EirV3, developed for and by end-users. EirV3 is undergoing international testing of clinical and cross-cultural adaptability.

Computer-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based treatment guidelines embedded in computer-based clinical decision support systems (CCDSS) may improve patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We systematically reviewed the literature for content and application of CCDSS, and their effects on PRO. METHODS: A systematic review in MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted according to PRISMA standards. Searches were limited to the publication period 1996-May 2014 and the English language. The search terms covered "computerized clinical decision systems" and "patient-reported outcomes". Screening and extraction was done independently by two reviewers according to predefined inclusion (computer and guideline) and exclusion criteria (no trial, no PRO). Study and CCDSS quality was rated according to predefined criteria. RESULTS: The database searches identified 1,331 references. Eighty-seven full-text articles were analyzed. The main reason for exclusion was no PRO as a study outcome measure. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 13,480 patients. Nine studies used a computerized device to fill in data; in four studies, this was used by the patients themselves. Most of the studies presented the data to the clinician at point of care and incorporated international guidelines. Three studies showed a positive effect on PRO, but only on symptoms. Overall, no negative effects were reported. There was no association with study quality or year of study publication. CONCLUSION: There are marginal positive effects of CCDSS on specific PRO. Factors that facilitate the use and effect are identified. Easy to use systems with difficult to ignore evidence-based advice need to be developed and tested.