Tools to facilitate communication during physician-patient consultations in cancer care: An overview of systematic reviews.

Tools have been developed to facilitate communication and support information exchange between people diagnosed with cancer and their physicians. Patient-reported outcome measures, question prompt lists, patient-held records, tape recordings of consultations, decision aids, and survivorship care plans have all been promoted as potential tools, and there is extensive literature exploring their impact on patient outcomes. Eleven systematic reviews of studies evaluating tools to facilitate patient-physician communication were reviewed and summarized in this overview of systematic reviews. Across the systematic reviews, 87 publications reported on 84 primary studies involving 15,381 participants. Routine use of patient-reported outcome measures and feedback of results to clinicians can improve pain management, physician-patient communication, and symptom detection and control; increase utilization of supportive care; and increase patient involvement in care. Question prompt lists can increase the number of questions asked by patients without increasing consultation length and may encourage them to reflect and plan questions before the consultation. There is limited benefit in audio recording consultations or using patient-held records during consultations. Physicians should be supported by adequately resourced health services to respond effectively to the range of clinical and broader patient needs identified through the routine use of tools to facilitate communication.

iCare - a self-directed, interactive online program to improve health and wellbeing for people living with upper gastrointestinal or hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers, and their informal carers: the study protocol for a Phase II randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 70% of people diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract or hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancers experience substantial reductions in quality of life (QoL), including high distress levels, pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances, weight loss and difficulty swallowing. With few advocacy groups and support systems for adults with upper GI or HPB cancers (i.e. pancreas, liver, stomach, bile duct and oesophageal) and their carers, online supportive care programs may represent an alternate cost-effective mechanism to support this patient group and carers. iCare is a self-directed, interactive, online program that provides information, resources, and psychological packages to patients and their carers from the treatment phase of their condition. The inception and development of iCare has been driven by consumers, advocacy groups, government and health professionals. The aims of this study are to determine the feasibility and acceptability of iCare, examine preliminary efficacy on health-related QoL and carer burden at 3- and 6-months post enrolment, and the potential cost-effectiveness of iCare, from health and societal perspectives, for both patients and carers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A Phase II randomised controlled trial. Overall, 162 people with newly diagnosed upper GI or HPB cancers and 162 carers will be recruited via the Upper GI Cancer Registry, online advertisements, or hospital clinics. Patients and carers will be randomly allocated (1:1) to the iCare program or usual care. Participant assessments will be at enrolment, 3- and 6-months later. The primary outcomes are i) feasibility, measured by eligibility, recruitment, response and attrition rates, and ii) acceptability, measured by engagement with iCare (frequency of logins, time spent using iCare, and use of features over the intervention period). Secondary outcomes are patient changes in QoL and unmet needs, and carer burden, unmet needs and QoL. Linear mixed models will be fitted to obtain preliminary estimates of efficacy and variability for secondary outcomes. The economic analysis will include a cost-consequences analysis where all outcomes will be compared with costs. DISCUSSION: iCare provides a potential model of supportive care to improve QoL, unmet needs and burden of disease among people living with upper GI or HPB cancers and their carers. AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: ACTRN12623001185651. This protocol reflects Version #1 26 April 2023.

Colorectal cancer survivors' experiences and views of shared and telehealth models of survivorship care: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The number of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors is increasing and current models of survivorship care are unsustainable. There is a drive to implement alternative models of care including shared care between general practitioners (GPs) and hospital-based providers. The primary objective of this study was to explore perspectives on facilitators and barriers to shared care. The secondary objective was to explore experiences of telehealth-delivered care. METHOD: Qualitative data were collected via semi-structured interviews with participants in the Shared Care for Colorectal Cancer Survivors (SCORE) randomised controlled trial. Interviews explored patient experiences of usual and shared survivorship care during the SCORE trial. In response to the COVID pandemic, participant experiences of telehealth appointments were also explored. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty survivors of CRC were interviewed with an even number in the shared and usual care arms; 14 (70%) were male. Facilitators to shared care included: good relationships with GPs; convenience of GPs; good communication between providers; desire to reduce public health system pressures. Barriers included: poor communication between clinicians; inaccessibility of GPs; beliefs about GP capacity; and a preference for follow-up care with the hospital after positive treatment experiences. Participants also commonly expressed a preference for telehealth-based follow-up when there was no need for a clinical examination. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of few studies that have explored patient experiences with shared and telehealth-based survivorship care. Findings can guide the implementation of these models, particularly around care coordination, communication, preparation, and personalised pathways of care.

Cancer-related cognitive impairment as a key contributor to psychopathology in cancer survivors: implications for prevention, treatment and supportive care.

A significant proportion of cancer survivors will experience some form of mental health compromise across domains including mood, anxiety, psychosis, eating disorders, and substance use. This psychopathology within cancer survivors is related to a range of negative outcomes and can also have a substantial negative impact on quality of life. Along with psychopathology, cognitive impairments are also commonly experienced, resulting in deficits in memory, reasoning, decision-making, speed of processing, and concentration, collectively referred to as cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). Within the non-oncology literature, cognitive deficits are consistently demonstrated to be a key transdiagnostic aetiological feature of psychopathology, functionally contributing to the development and perpetuation of symptoms. Whilst there is an acknowledgement of the role mental health concerns might play in the development of and perception of CRCI, there has been limited acknowledgement and research exploring the potential for CRCI to functionally contribute toward the development of transdiagnostic psychopathology in cancer survivors beyond simply psychosocial distress. Given the theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting cognitive deficits to be an aetiological factor in psychopathology, we provide a rationale for the potential for CRCI to be a factor in the development and perpetuation of transdiagnostic psychopathology in cancer survivors. This potential functional association has significant implications for risk identification, prevention, treatment, and supportive cancer care approaches regarding psychopathology in cancer survivorship. We conclude by providing directions for future research in this area.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

The paradox of platypnoea-orthodeoxia syndrome.

Platypnoea-orthodeoxia is a rare clinical syndrome characterised by dyspnoea and oxygen desaturation in the upright position which improves when supine. It requires two components: a sufficiently sized anatomical vascular defect (typically intra-cardiac or intra-pulmonary) combined with a functional component that promotes positional right-to-left shunting. We describe the rare occurrence of a patient with platypnoea-orthodeoxia syndrome (POS) because of a paradoxical shunt through a patent foramen ovale caused by a large right atrial line-associated thrombus in a male with metastatic oesophageal cancer undergoing chemotherapy. This case is a timely reminder to consider POS amongst differentials for hypoxia as it is often treatable if recognised.

Management of common clinical problems experienced by survivors of cancer.

Improvements in early detection and treatment have led to a growing prevalence of survivors of cancer worldwide. Models of care fail to address adequately the breadth of physical, psychosocial, and supportive care needs of those who survive cancer. In this Series paper, we summarise the evidence around the management of common clinical problems experienced by survivors of adult cancers and how to cover these issues in a consultation. Reviewing the patient's history of cancer and treatments highlights potential long-term or late effects to consider, and recommended surveillance for recurrence. Physical consequences of specific treatments to identify include cardiac dysfunction, metabolic syndrome, lymphoedema, peripheral neuropathy, and osteoporosis. Immunotherapies can cause specific immune-related effects most commonly in the gastrointestinal tract, endocrine system, skin, and liver. Pain should be screened for and requires assessment of potential causes and non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches to management. Common psychosocial issues, for which there are effective psychological therapies, include fear of recurrence, fatigue, altered sleep and cognition, and effects on sex and intimacy, finances, and employment. Review of lifestyle factors including smoking, obesity, and alcohol is necessary to reduce the risk of recurrence and second cancers. Exercise can improve quality of life and might improve cancer survival; it can also contribute to the management of fatigue, pain, metabolic syndrome, osteoporosis, and cognitive impairment. Using a supportive care screening tool, such as the Distress Thermometer, can identify specific areas of concern and help prioritise areas to cover in a consultation.

Improved models of care for cancer survivors.

The number of survivors of cancer is increasing substantially. Current models of care are unsustainable and fail to address the many unmet needs of survivors of cancer. Numerous trials have investigated alternate models of care, including models led by primary-care providers, care shared between oncology specialists and primary-care providers, and care led by oncology nurses. These alternate models appear to be at least as effective as specialist-led care and are applicable to many survivors of cancer. Choosing the most appropriate care model for each patient depends on patient-level factors (such as risk of longer-term effects, late effects, individual desire, and capacity to self-manage), local services, and health-care policy. Wider implementation of alternative models requires appropriate support for non-oncologist care providers and endorsement of these models by cancer teams with their patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven some changes in practice that are more patient-centred and should continue. Improved models should shift from a predominant focus on detection of cancer recurrence and seek to improve the quality of life, functional outcomes, experience, and survival of survivors of cancer, reduce the risk of recurrence and new cancers, improve the management of comorbidities, and reduce costs to patients and payers. This Series paper focuses primarily on high-income countries, where most data have been derived. However, future research should consider the applicability of these models in a wider range of health-care settings and for a wider range of cancers.

Evaluation of the validity and screening performance of a revised single-item fear of cancer recurrence screening measure (FCR-1r).

OBJECTIVE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is highly prevalent among cancer survivors, but irregularly identified in practice. Single-item FCR measures suitable for integration into broader psychosocial screening are needed. This study evaluated the validity of a revised version of the original FCR-1 (FCR-1r) and screening performance alongside the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System - Revised (ESAS-r) anxiety item. METHODS: The FCR-1r was adapted from the FCR-1 and modelled on the ESAS-r. Associations between FCR-1r and FCR Inventory-Short Form (FCRI-SF) scores determined concurrent validity. Relationships of FCR-1r scores with variables related (e.g., anxiety, intrusive thoughts) and unrelated (e.g., employment/marital status) to FCR determined convergent and divergent validity respectively. A Receiver-Operating Characteristic analysis examined screening performance and cut-offs for the FCR-1r and ESAS-r anxiety item. RESULTS: 107 participants were recruited in two studies (Study 1, July-October 2021, n = 54; Study 2: November 2021-May 2022, n = 53). The FCR-1r demonstrated concurrent validity against the FCRI-SF (r = 0.83, p < 0.0001) and convergent validity versus the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (r = 0.63, p < 0.0001) and Impact of Event Scale-Revised Intrusion subscale (r = 0.55, p < 0.0001). It did not correlate with unrelated variables (e.g., employment/marital status), indicating divergent validity. An FCR-1r cut-off ≥5/10 had 95% sensitivity and 77% specificity for detecting clinical FCR (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, p < 0.0001); ESAS-r anxiety cut-off ≥4 had 91% sensitivity and 82% specificity (AUC = 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.98, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The FCR-1r is a valid and accurate tool for FCR screening. Further evaluation of the screening performance of the FCR-1r versus the ESAS-r anxiety item in routine care is needed.

Psychosocial care for cancer survivors: A global review of national cancer control plans.

OBJECTIVE: National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) are high-level policy documents that prioritise actions to be taken to improve cancer control activities. As the number of cancer survivors grows globally, there is an urgent need to assess whether and how psychosocial care across the cancer care continuum is included in NCCPs. This review aimed to ascertain the extent to which NCCPs referenced psycho-oncology care for cancer survivors in the post-treatment phase. METHODS: NCCPs were obtained from the International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP) portal (in November 2021) and reviewed in two phases. In Phase 1, all available NCCPs were screened to determine whether they mentioned psycho-oncology or survivorship. In Phase 2, reviewers extracted data from the NCCPs identified in Phase 1 on the degree that each plan articulated objectives/goals to improve psychosocial care in the post-treatment survivorship phase. RESULTS: We screened 237 NCCPs. Of these, initial potential reference to psycho-oncology and survivorship content were identified in 97 plans (41%). In Phase 1, 57/97 (59%) had reference to psycho-oncology or survivorship content within defined criteria. In Phase 2, 27/97 (28%) had little mention of psycho-oncology specifically in survivorship, 47/97 (48%) had some (general or brief) mention, and the remaining 23/97 (24%) had substantial content/specific sections and clearly articulated goals and/or objectives. Common goals for improving psychosocial care in the post-treatment period included building capacity of healthcare professionals, implementing rehabilitation models, and increasing the utilisation of community services. CONCLUSIONS: Most NCCPs did not reference psycho-oncology and only one-quarter contained clear objectives specifically in the post-treatment survivorship phase.

Mapping disadvantage: identifying inequities in functional outcomes for prostate cancer survivors based on geography.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common internal malignancy in Australian men, and although most patients have good survival outcomes, treatment toxicities can impair function, leading to diminished quality of life for prostate cancer survivors. Socioeconomic disadvantage and geographical remoteness have been shown to be related to worse oncologic outcomes, and it is expected that they would similarly influence functional outcomes in prostate cancer. METHODS: Using data from the Victorian Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (n = 10,924), we investigated functional outcomes as measured by the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) following prostate cancer treatment, focusing on associations with socioeconomic status and geographical remoteness and controlling for clinicopathologic characteristics. A single composite score was developed from the five separate EPIC-26 domains for use in geo-mapping. RESULTS: A total of 7690 patients had complete EPIC-26 data, allowing mapping hotspots of poor function using our composite score. These hotspots were observed to relate to areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Significant heterogeneity in outcomes was seen in urban areas, with hotspots of good and poor function. Both socioeconomic disadvantage and geographical remoteness were found to predict for worse functional outcomes, although only the former is significant on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Geo-mapping of functional outcomes in prostate cancer has the potential to guide health care service provision and planning. A nuanced policy approach is required so as not to miss disadvantaged patients who live in urban areas. We have demonstrated the potential of geo-mapping to visualise population-level outcomes, potentially allowing targeted interventions to address inequities in quality of care.

Evaluation of pharmacogenomics and hepatic nuclear imaging-related covariates by population pharmacokinetic models of irinotecan and its metabolites.

BACKGROUND: Body surface area (BSA)-based dosing of irinotecan (IR) does not account for its pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) variabilities. Functional hepatic nuclear imaging (HNI) and excretory/metabolic/PD pharmacogenomics have shown correlations with IR disposition and toxicity/efficacy. This study reports the development of a nonlinear mixed-effect population model to identify pharmacogenomic and HNI-related covariates that impact on IR disposition to support dosage optimization. METHODS: Patients had advanced colorectal cancer treated with IR combination therapy. Baseline blood was analysed by Affymetrix DMET™ Plus Array and, for PD, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) by Sanger sequencing. For HNI, patients underwent 99mTc-IDA hepatic imaging, and data was analysed for hepatic extraction/excretion parameters. Blood was taken for IR and metabolite (SN38, SN38G) analysis on day 1 cycle 1. Population modelling utilised NONMEM version 7.2.0, with structural PK models developed for each moiety. Covariates include patient demographics, HNI parameters and pharmacogenomic variants. RESULTS: Analysis included (i) PK data: 32 patients; (ii) pharmacogenomic data: 31 patients: 750 DMET and 22 PD variants; and (iii) HNI data: 32 patients. On initial analysis, overall five SNPs were identified as significant covariates for CLSN38. Only UGT1A3_c.31 T > C and ABCB1_c.3435C > T were included in the final model, whereby CLSN38 reduced from 76.8 to 55.1%. CONCLUSION: The identified UGT1A3_c.31 T > C and ABCB1_c.3435C > T variants, from wild type to homozygous, were included in the final model for SN38 clearance.

Defining research and infrastructure priorities for cancer survivorship in Australia: a modified Delphi study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to establish research and infrastructure priorities for cancer survivorship. METHODS: A two-round modified online Delphi study was completed by Australian experts in cancer survivorship. Initial priorities were generated from the literature and organized into four research categories: physiological outcomes, psychosocial outcomes, population groups, and health services; and one research infrastructure category. In round 1 (R1), panelists ranked the importance of 77 items on a five-point scale (not at all important to very important). In round 2 (R2), panelists ranked their top 5 priorities within each category. Panelists also specified the type of research needed, such as biological, exploratory, intervention development, or implementation, for the items within each research category. RESULTS: Response rates were 76% (63/82) and 82% (68/82) respectively. After R1, 12 items were added, and 16 items combined or reworded. In R2, the highest prioritized research topics and the preferred type of research in each category were: biological research in cancer progression and recurrence; implementation and dissemination research for fear of recurrence; exploratory research for rare cancer types; and implementation research for quality of care topics. Data availability was listed as the most important priority for research infrastructure. CONCLUSIONS: This study has defined priorities that can be used to support coordinated action between researchers, funding bodies, and other key stakeholders. Designing future research which addresses these priorities will expand our ability to meet survivors' diverse needs and lead to improved outcomes.

Disparities in quality of life, social distress and employment outcomes in Australian cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: To examine how socio-demographic, comorbidities and information needs influence quality of life (QoL) outcomes of survivors of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma or melanoma. METHODS: Cross-sectional postal survey with eligible participants identified through a population-based cancer registry. QoL outcomes were assessed by EQ-5D-5L, social difficulties index (SDI) and, for those employed at diagnosis, current employment. Regression analyses explored associations between outcome variables and cancer type, age, time since diagnosis, residential location, socio-economic disadvantage, comorbidities and unmet information needs. Mediation analyses examined whether comorbidities and information needs explained relationships between outcome variables and socio-economic disadvantage. RESULTS: 2115 survivors participated. Mean EQ-5D-5L scores (mean = 0.84) were similar to population averages and SDI scores were low for the entire sample (mean = 3.80). In multivariate analyses, being aged over 80, greater socio-economic disadvantage, comorbidities and unmet information needs decreased EQ-5D-5L scores. Higher SDI scores were associated with socio-economic disadvantage, comorbidities and unmet information needs. Not being employed was associated with being aged over 50, more comorbidities and socio-economic disadvantage. Comorbidities but not information needs partially mediated the impact of socio-economic disadvantage on EQ-5D-5L and SDI accounting for 17% and 14% of the total effect of socio-economic disadvantage respectively. Neither comorbidities nor information needs mediated the association between socio-economic disadvantage and employment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: To improve quality of life, survivorship care should be better tailored to address the needs of individuals given their overall health and impact of comorbidities, their age and type of cancer and not simply time since diagnosis.

Facilitators and barriers to shared primary and specialist cancer care: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To care for the growing population of cancer survivors, health services worldwide must reconsider how to deliver care to people living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis. Shared care, defined as cancer care that is shared between specialist and primary care providers, is one model that has been investigated; however, practical guidance to support implementation is lacking. This systematic review aimed to explore facilitators and barriers to implementing shared cancer care and to develop practice and policy recommendations to support implementation. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in June 2019 across MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycINFO databases. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review question were extracted and synthesized following a mixed methods approach. RESULTS: Thirteen papers were included in the review, 10 qualitative and three quantitative. Included articles were from Australia (n = 8), the USA (n = 3), and one each from the UK and the Netherlands. Sixteen themes were developed under four categories of patient, healthcare professional, process, and policy factors. Key themes included the perceived need for primary care provider training, having clearly defined roles for each healthcare provider, providing general practitioners with diagnostic and treatment summaries, as well as protocols or guidelines for follow-up care, ensuring rapid and accurate communication between providers, utilizing electronic medical records and survivorship care plans as communication tools, and developing consistent policy to reduce fragmentation across services. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for practice and policy were generated based on review findings that may support broader implementation of shared cancer care.

Patient-reported outcomes in survivors of breast cancer one, three, and five years post-diagnosis: a cancer registry-based feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The burden of treatment toxicities in breast cancer requires longitudinal assessment of patient-centered outcomes. The current study aimed to assess the feasibility of collecting general and breast cancer-specific quality of life (QoL), ongoing symptoms and unmet needs, in patients identified from a population-based cancer registry, and to assess the contribution of demographic, disease, and care-related factors. METHODS: Eligible patients were identified from the Victorian Cancer Registry (Victoria, Australia) using the ICD-10 code C50, diagnosed during 2013, 2011, and 2009. Data included age, area of residence, cancer diagnosis, date of diagnosis, treatment modality, and staging. Patients completed a number of validated tools including the EQ-5D-5L and FACT-B, symptom items, and unmet needs. RESULTS: Of 1006 eligible patients, the overall response rate was 45.6%. Survivors 1 year post-diagnosis had significantly greater problems with pain or discomfort (59.2%) and with anxiety or depression (51.3%) compared with survivors 5 years post-diagnosis (45.1% with pain or discomfort, p < 0.05, and 32.7% with anxiety or depression, p < 0.01). For the 5 years group, pain or discomfort and anxiety or depression were significantly higher than for the general population (32.2% and 21.6%, respectively). Improved quality of life was found in those who did not receive chemotherapy (coefficient = 0.2269, p = 0.0409) and those who did not have a longstanding health condition (coefficient = 0.6342, p < 0.001). Poorer quality of life was associated with those who were not certain what was happening with their breast cancer (coefficient = - 0.3674, p = 0.0094) and those whose cancer had not been treated, had been treated but was still present, or had returned after treatment (coefficient = - 0.5314, p = 0.0136). Across the total cohort, women were bothered by changes in weight (21.3%) and concerned about the effects of stress on their cancer (19.6%). Fear of cancer recurrence was commonly reported and did not diminish over time (60.7%, 52.2%, and 56.9% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively). CONCLUSION: Collecting patient-reported outcomes from a population-based sample of breast cancer survivors was feasible. Physical symptoms and psychosocial issues are common and are persistent. Use of chemotherapy was the only treatment modality that significantly impacted on QoL.

Translating research into practice: outcomes from the Healthy Living after Cancer partnership project.

BACKGROUND: Healthy Living after Cancer (HLaC) was a national dissemination and implementation study of an evidence-based lifestyle intervention for cancer survivors. The program was imbedded into existing telephone cancer information and support services delivered by Australian state-based Cancer Councils (CC). We report here the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the program. METHODS: In this phase IV study (single-group, pre-post design) participants - survivors of any type of cancer, following treatment with curative intent - received up to 12 nurse/allied health professional-led telephone health coaching calls over 6 months. Intervention delivery was grounded in motivational interviewing, with emphasis on evidence-based behaviour change strategies. Using the RE-AIM evaluation framework, primary outcomes were reach, indicators of program adoption, implementation, costs and maintenance. Secondary (effectiveness) outcomes were participant-reported anthropometric, behavioural and psychosocial variables including: weight; physical activity; dietary intake; quality-of-life; treatment side-effects; distress; and fear of cancer recurrence and participant satisfaction. Changes were evaluated using linear mixed models, including terms for timepoint (0/6 months), strata (Cancer Council), and timepoint x strata. RESULTS: Four of 5 CCs approached participated in the study. In total, 1183 cancer survivors were referred (mostly via calls to the Cancer Council telephone information service). Of these, 90.4% were eligible and 88.7% (n = 791) of those eligible consented to participate. Retention rate was 63.4%. Participants were mostly female (88%), aged 57 years and were overweight (BMI = 28.8 ± 6.5 kg/m2). Improvements in all participant-reported outcomes (standardised effect sizes of 0.1 to 0.6) were observed (p < 0.001). The program delivery costs were on average AU$427 (US$296) per referred cancer survivor. CONCLUSIONS: This telephone-delivered lifestyle intervention, which was feasibly implemented by Cancer Councils, led to meaningful and statistically significant improvements in cancer survivors' health and quality-of-life at a relatively low cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) - ACTRN12615000882527 (registered on 24/08/2015).

Patient-reported outcomes in melanoma survivors at 1, 3 and 5 years post-diagnosis: a population-based cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: There is a lack of population-based data describing patient reported outcomes (PROs) in melanoma survivors which could guide the development of interventions and resources. This study assessed overall quality of life (QoL), self-reported symptoms and unmet information needs in melanoma survivors 1, 3 or 5 years post-diagnosis. METHODS: A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted in Victoria, Australia, with eligible melanoma survivors identified from a population-based cancer registry. Patient-reported outcome measures included the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and self-reported symptoms, difficulties and information needs. Associations between demographic, disease and care-related factors and QoL were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 476 melanoma survivors participated in the study (response rate 46.5%). Anxiety and depressive symptoms were more prevalent in survivors compared to the general population (30.7% vs 21.6%; p < 0.01). Fear of cancer recurrence (48.3%) and fear of cancer spreading (37.8%) were the most commonly reported symptom items, and approximately one in five melanoma survivors had unmet information needs related to psychological aspects of living with melanoma. Recurrent melanoma, living in a nursing home, chronic comorbidities, and melanoma diagnosed at > 2 mm thickness were associated with lower QoL. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of melanoma survivors reported ongoing quality of life deficits, fear of cancer recurrence, as well as unmet information needs up to 5 years after diagnosis. Patients may benefit from tailored informational resources and interventions that address the psychological aspects of living with and beyond melanoma.

Supporting and preparing patients for radiotherapy: Patients' and radiation therapists' perspectives on their one-to-one consultations.

OBJECTIVE: Patients are often anxious and lack knowledge of radiotherapy prior to commencing treatment. Evidence-based interventions are required to reduce patient anxiety and increase patient preparation before treatment. This study is part of a larger project examining the effectiveness of an innovative preparatory intervention "RT Prepare," to reduce patient psychological distress prior to treatment for breast cancer. This study aimed to explore patients' and RTs' perceptions about the "RT Prepare" intervention and was conducted to assist with refinement of the intervention for future implementation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients and radiation therapists (RTs) to elicit their perspectives on the "RT Prepare" intervention. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Telephone interviews were conducted with 21 patients who had received the intervention and 15 RTs who had delivered the intervention. Patients and RTs described the intervention positively and highlighted that it was beneficial for preparing patients for treatment planning and treatment. The overarching themes were communication skills; preparation; information provision and dedicated space and time. CONCLUSION: RT Prepare was well received by patients and RTs. Practice implications Based on the results of this study and our quantitative findings, implementation of the intervention would be beneficial for both patients and RTs.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of RT Prepare: A radiation therapist-delivered intervention for reducing psychological distress prior to radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of RT Prepare in reducing breast cancer patients' psychological distress before treatment, compared with usual care. METHODS: RT Prepare, an intervention involving patient education and support consultations with a radiation therapist (RT), was implemented at three Australian sites (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registration: ACTRN12611001000998). The primary outcome was change in psychological distress using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS); secondary outcomes were changes in quality of life (QoL) and additional health service use. Costs (2015 $AU) included consultation time and training delivery. Between-group comparisons of HADS and QoL used generalised linear mixed models, and comparisons of health service use used negative binomial regression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) indicated mean costs per 1-point decrease in HADS score. Sensitivity analyses explored variation in facility size and uncertainty in intervention effectiveness. RESULTS: Among 218 controls and 189 intervention participants, the intervention significantly lowered HADS scores at treatment commencement (adjusted mean difference 1.06 points). There was no significant effect on QoL or additional service use. Mean intervention costs were AU$171 per participant (US$130, €119) mostly related to RT training (approximately AU$142 (US$108, €99). An ICER of $158 (US$120, €110) was estimated. Cost-effectiveness improved in a sensitivity analysis representing a large facility with higher patient numbers. CONCLUSION: This study provides new data on the cost-effectiveness of an RT-delivered intervention to reduce psychological distress prior to treatment, which will be useful to inform delivery of similar services. As most costs were upfront, cost-effectiveness would likely improve if implemented as standard care.