Coping with breast cancer during medical and occupational rehabilitation: a qualitative study of strategies and contextual factors.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of the coping processes of breast cancer survivors (BCSs) during medical and occupational rehabilitation after acute treatment. METHODS: This study is part of the mixed-methods Breast Cancer Patients' Return to Work study conducted in Germany. Data were collected through semistructured interviews with 26 female BCSs 5-6 years after their diagnosis. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to investigate the coping strategies and contextual factors of coping of BCSs. RESULTS: The participants used different strategies for coping with their breast cancer, namely, approach- versus avoidance-oriented coping and emotion- versus problem-focused coping. During the medical rehabilitation process, coping behavior was used mainly to address disease management and its consequences. During the occupational rehabilitation process, most coping strategies were used to overcome discrepancies between the patient's current work capacity and the job requirements. The contextual factors of coping were in the health, healthcare, work-related, and personal domains. CONCLUSION: The study findings provide in-depth insights into the coping processes for BCSs during the rehabilitation phase and highlight the importance of survivorship care after acute cancer treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The results indicate that BCSs employ approach- and avoidance-oriented strategies to cope with their cancer during rehabilitation. As both attempts are helpful in the short term to cope with physical and emotional consequences of the cancer, healthcare and psychosocial personnel should respect the coping strategies of BCSs while also being aware of the potential long-term negative impact of avoidance-oriented coping on the rehabilitation process.

[Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer-data from 17,149 patients from 125 certified centers]. / Harninkontinenz nach radikaler Prostatektomie beim Prostatakarzinom ­ aktuelle Daten von 17.149 Patienten aus 125 zertifizierten Zentren.

BACKGROUND: In addition to erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence is the most common functional limitation after radical prostatectomy (RPE) for prostate cancer (PCa). The German S3 guideline recommends informing patients about possible effects of the therapy options, including incontinence. However, only little data on continence from routine care in German-speaking countries after RPE are currently available, which makes it difficult to inform patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to present data on the frequency and severity of urinary incontinence after RPE from routine care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information from the PCO (Prostate Cancer Outcomes) study is used, which was collected between 2016 and 2022 in 125 German Cancer Society (DKG)-certified prostate cancer centers in 17,149 patients using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26). Changes in the "incontinence" score before (T0) and 12 months after RPE (T1) and the proportion of patients who used pads, stratified by age and risk group, are reported. RESULTS: The average score for urinary incontinence (value range: 0-worst possible to 100-best possible) was 93 points at T0 and 73 points 12 months later. At T0, 97% of the patients did not use a pad, compared to 56% at T1. 43% of the patients who did not use a pad before surgery used at least one pad a day 12 months later, while 13% use two or more. The proportion of patients using pads differs by age and risk classification. CONCLUSION: The results provide a comprehensive insight into functional outcome 12 months after RPE and can be taken into account when informing patients.

Prediction models of incontinence and sexual function one year after radical prostatectomy based on data from 20 164 prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Incontinence and sexual dysfunction are long-lasting side effects after surgical treatment (radical prostatectomy, RP) of prostate cancer (PC). For an informed treatment decision, physicians and patients should discuss expected impairments. Therefore, this paper firstly aims to develop and validate prognostic models that predict incontinence and sexual function of PC patients one year after RP and secondly to provide an online decision making tool. METHODS: Observational cohorts of PC patients treated between July 2016 and March 2021 in Germany were used. Models to predict functional outcomes one year after RP measured by the EPIC-26 questionnaire were developed using lasso regression, 80-20 splitting of the data set and 10-fold cross validation. To assess performance, R2, RMSE, analysis of residuals and calibration-in-the-large were applied. Final models were externally temporally validated. Additionally, percentages of functional impairment (pad use for incontinence and firmness of erection for sexual score) per score decile were calculated to be used together with the prediction models. RESULTS: For model development and internal as well as external validation, samples of 11 355 and 8 809 patients were analysed. Results from the internal validation (incontinence: R2 = 0.12, RMSE = 25.40, sexual function: R2 = 0.23, RMSE = 21.44) were comparable with those of the external validation. Residual analysis and calibration-in-the-large showed good results. The prediction tool is freely accessible: https://nora-tabea.shinyapps.io/EPIC-26-Prediction/. CONCLUSION: The final models showed appropriate predictive properties and can be used together with the calculated risks for specific functional impairments. Main strengths are the large study sample (> 20 000) and the inclusion of an external validation. The models incorporate meaningful and clinically available predictors ensuring an easy implementation. All predictions are displayed together with risks of frequent impairments such as pad use or erectile dysfunction such that the developed online tool provides a detailed and informative overview for clinicians as well as patients.

Cancer rehabilitation support by cancer counselling centres (CARES): study protocol of a quasi-experimental feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: While maintaining or restoring work ability after a cancer diagnosis is an essential aim of the rehabilitation process for working-age patients, problems can arise during the return to work (RTW) or when retaining work. Counselling could provide support for patients with or after cancer with employment-related questions (eg, questions related to RTW and work retention). Outpatient psychosocial cancer counselling centres in Germany offer counselling on work-related questions; however, resources for this are limited. This protocol presents a feasibility study of an intensified needs-based counselling intervention that supports those seeking employment-related advice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CARES (cancer rehabilitation support by cancer counselling centres) project is a feasibility study for a newly developed counselling intervention. The intervention is being developed as part of the project and piloted in about 20 outpatient cancer counselling centres. The CARES study has a quasi-experimental pre-post design with a control cohort. First, patients who undergo regular counselling are recruited. Second, after the counsellors have been trained for the newly developed intervention, participants for the intervention group are recruited from the cancer counselling centres. Quantitative and formative evaluations will be performed in accordance with the existing guidelines. The quantitative evaluation comprises three patient surveys (at the beginning of the counselling process, 3 months into the counselling process and, for the intervention group, at the end of the counselling process) and routine data of the counselling process. The formative evaluation includes interviews with patients, counsellors and other stakeholders, as well as participatory observations of counselling sessions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been obtained from the ethics committee of the Medical Faculty of the University Bonn (061/22; 09.04.2022). A data protection concept ensures adherence to data protection regulations for the handled data. The dissemination strategies include discussing the results with the cancer counselling centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00028121); Pre-results.

Outcome Quality After Colorectal Cancer Resection in Certified Colorectal Cancer Centers­Patient-Reported and Short-Term Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In this observational study, patient-reported outcomes and short-term clinical outcome parameters in patients with colorectal cancer were studied 12 months after the start of treatment. Outcomes were also compared across German Certified Colorectal Cancer Centres. METHODS: Data were collected from 4239 patients with colorectal cancer who had undergone elective tumor resection in one of 102 colorectal cancer centers and had responded to a quality-of-life questionnaire before treatment (EORTC QLQ-C30 and -CR29). 3142 (74.1%) of these patients completed a post-treatment questionnaire 12 months later. Correlation analyses were calculated and case-mix adjusted comparisons across centers were made for selected patient-reported outcomes, anastomotic insufficiency, and 30-day-mortality. RESULTS: At 12 months, mild improvements were seen in mean quality-of-life scores (66 vs. 62 points), constipation (16 vs. 19), and abdominal pain (15 vs. 17). Worsening was seen in physical function (75 vs. 82) and pain (22 vs. 19). Better patient-reported outcomes at 12 months were associated with better scores before treatment. Better results in at least three of the five scores were associated with male sex, higher educational level, higher age, and private health insurance. Major worsening of fecal incontinence was seen among patients with rectal cancer without a stoma. The largest differences across centers were found with respect to physical function. Anastomotic insufficiency was found in 4.3% of colon cancer patients and 8.2% of rectal cancer patients. 1.9% of patients died within 30 days after their resection. CONCLUSION: Clinicians can use these findings to identify patients at higher risk for poorer patient-reported outcomes. The differences among cancer centers that were found imply that measures for quality improvement would be desirable.

Variation across operating sites in urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy in localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: The extent of variation in urinary and sexual functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RPE) between prostate cancer (PC) operating sites remains unknown. Therefore, this analysis aims to compare casemix-adjusted functional outcomes (EPIC-26 scores incontinence, irritative/obstructive function and sexual function) between operating sites 12 months after RPE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of a cohort of 7065 men treated with RPE at 88 operating sites (prostate cancer centers, "PCCs") between 2016 and 2019. Patients completed EPIC-26 and sociodemographic information surveys at baseline and 12 months after RPE. Survey data were linked to clinical data. EPIC-26 domain scores at 12 months after RPE were adjusted for relevant confounders (including baseline domain score, clinical and sociodemographic information) using regression analysis. Differences between sites were described using minimal important differences (MIDs) and interquartile ranges (IQR). The effects of casemix adjustment on the score results were described using Cohen's d and MIDs. RESULTS: Adjusted domain scores at 12 months varied between sites, with IQRs of 66-78 (incontinence), 89-92 (irritative/obstructive function), and 20-29 (sexual function). Changes in domain scores after casemix adjustment for sites ≥ 1 MID were noted for the incontinence domain (six sites). Cohen's d ranged between - 0.07 (incontinence) and - 0.2 (sexual function), indicating a small to medium effect of casemix adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Variation between sites was greatest in the incontinence and sexual function domains for RPE patients. Future research will need to identify the factors contributing to this variation. TRIAL REGISTRY: The study is registered at the German Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/ ) with the following ID: DRKS00010774.

Incorporating psychosocial care into routine oncological care: Insights into challenges and strategies from certified cancer centers' audit data.

PURPOSE: Provision of psychosocial care is obligatory in cancer centers certified in accordance with the criteria of the German Cancer Society, but the extent to which it is utilized differs greatly between centers. Anomalous utilization percentages are discussed during certification audits. This analysis aims to describe (1) how certified centers explain psychosocial care utilization percentages during audits and (2) the measures they then plan for improving psychosocial care utilization. The aim of the analysis is to help understand patterns of psychosocial care utilization in oncology and reduce potential disparities by describing the challenges that cancer centers face and their strategies for integrating psychosocial care into routine oncological care. METHODS: The content of free-text comments regarding psychosocial utilization percentages by certified centers during certification audits in 2019 was analyzed. In total, 178 comments were analyzed from 116 prostate, colorectal, and breast cancer centers in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, and Luxembourg. RESULTS: The explanations for utilization percentages most often mentioned involved patients' levels of interest and need, outpatient care, staff shortages, inclusion of psychosocial care in other processes in the center, documentation issues, and factors regarding different legal regulations in countries outside Germany. The measures most often planned for improving psychosocial care utilization involved adjusting work processes, increasing staff resources, optimizing documentation, and establishing quality-assurance groups/task forces. CONCLUSION: This exploratory analysis shows that the challenges and strategies involved in incorporating psychosocial care into routine oncological care are diverse. Further research should identify process-level strategies that can promote the integration of psychosocial care.

Prevalence and determinants of anxiety and depression in long-term breast cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: There is a significant number of long-term breast cancer survivors in Germany. However, research on the psychological challenges of cancer survivors is limited. This analysis describes prevalence, development and determinants of depression and anxiety 5 to 6 years after diagnosis and identifies predictors for an increase of anxiety and depression over time. METHODS: Data from 164 women was collected by survey and tumour documentation during post-operative hospital stay, 40 weeks and 5 to 6 years after diagnosis. Anxiety and depression were measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Sankey-diagrams were created for visual presentation of prevalence over time. Logistic and linear regression models were calculated to identify determinants of anxiety and depression. RESULTS: Respondents had higher levels of depression and anxiety 5 to 6 years than 40 weeks after the diagnosis. Lower vocational status and having children were associated with depression, surgery type was correlated with anxiety, and age, as well as comorbidities, were predictors for both anxiety and depression 5 to 6 years after diagnosis. An increase of depression over time was more likely when having children and comorbidities. An increase in anxiety was less likely after cancer recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight that anxiety and depression are relevant burdens for breast cancer survivors in Germany. Several sociodemographic and clinical predictors are identified. There is need for psychosocial support after acute treatment and in the long-term. Research on psychological burdens of long-term breast cancer survivors in the identified vulnerable groups is needed.

Predictors for the utilization of social service counseling by prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Social service counseling (SSC) is an important instrument to support cancer patients, for example, regarding legal support, or rehabilitation. Several countries have established on-site SSC in routine care. Previous analyses have shown that SSC utilization varies across cancer centers. This analysis investigates patient and center-level predictors that explain variations in SSC utilization between centers. METHODS: Logistic multilevel analysis was performed with data from 19,865 prostate cancer patients from 102 prostate cancer centers in Germany and Switzerland. Data was collected within an observational study between July 2016 and June 2020 using survey (online and paper) and tumor documentation. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient for the null model implies that 51% of variance in SSC utilization is attributable to the center a patient is treated in. Patients aged 80 years and older, with higher education, private insurance, without comorbidities, localized intermediate risk, and undergoing androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion were less likely to utilize SSC. Undergoing primary radiotherapy, active surveillance, or watchful waiting as compared to prostatectomy was associated with a lower likelihood of SSC utilization. Significant negative predictors at the center level were university hospital, center's location in Switzerland, and a short period of certification. CONCLUSION: The results show that patient and center characteristics contribute to explaining the variance in SSC utilization in prostate cancer centers to a large extent. The findings may indicate different organizational processes in the countries included and barriers in the sectoral structure of the healthcare system. In-depth analyses of processes within cancer centers may provide further insights into the reasons for variance in SSC utilization.

Involuntariness of job changes is related to less satisfaction with occupational development in long-term breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Considering that breast cancer survivors (BCSs) have been dealing with unwanted job changes after diagnosis, this study aimed to investigate involuntary job changes (unwanted modifications in employment since diagnosis) and explore the association between job changes, involuntariness, and occupational development satisfaction in BCSs 5-6 years after diagnosis. METHODS: Data were drawn from the mixed-methods breast cancer patients' return to work (B-CARE) study. We surveyed 184 female BCSs who were working at the time of study enrollment during hospitalization (T1), 10 weeks after discharge (T2), 40 weeks after discharge (T3), and 5-6 years after diagnosis (T4) and used descriptive measures and stepwise linear regression models for data analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of BCSs was 57 years. A total of 105 participants reported 410 job changes, of which 16.1% were reportedly (rather) involuntary. The most commonly reported involuntary changes were increased workload (15.2%) and increased scope of work (15.2%). In the final model, significant predictors of satisfaction with occupational development 5-6 years after diagnosis were age, state of health ΔT2-T3, state of health ΔT3-T4, and involuntariness of job changes. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of job changes alone is not substantially associated with BCSs' satisfaction with occupational development, experiencing involuntary job changes is. Sociodemographic, disease-related, and work(place)-related factors may influence occupational satisfaction among BCSs. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The findings indicate the importance of strengthening one's ability to work as desired to prevent involuntary job changes and enable desired work participation in long-term support. The significance of workplace characteristics highlights the need for employers to encourage satisfying work participation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00016982), 12 April 2019.

Trastuzumab treatment of patients with early, HER2-positive breast cancer in 17 certified German breast cancer centers.

PURPOSE: Since 2008, guidelines recommend that patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (BC) should receive adjuvant chemotherapy in combination with trastuzumab in Germany. However, recent studies highlight that a substantial share of patients do not receive trastuzumab. We investigate which patient characteristics are associated with a tumor board recommendation for trastuzumab in Breast Cancer Centers (BCC) certified by the German Cancer Society (DKG) and the German Society for Senology, and if the recommendation differs between BCCs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multi-level modeling was performed using quality assurance data based on 3052 HER2-positive, operated patients with a first diagnosis of early BC treated between 2006 and 2019 in 17 BCCs in Germany to investigate whether trastuzumab recommendation varies with patient sex, age, and disease characteristics, as well as over time and across BCCs. RESULTS: Tumor board recommendations for trastuzumab differ substantially between BCCs (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] null model: 0.11). Our final model (ICC 0.17, Akaike Information Criterion [AIC], 1328.0, R2 0.69) shows that physicians in BCCs more often recommend trastuzumab to patients who are younger than 60 years and those with a recommendation for any additional therapy (chemotherapy, radiation or endocrine therapy) (all p < 0.05). Furthermore, there is a significant time-dependent increase of trastuzumab recommendations (odds ratio [OR] = 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.31-1.46, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In certified BCCs in Germany, guideline concordant trastuzumab recommendation is increasing since 2006 (positive cohort effect). Recommendation of trastuzumab for HER2-positive BC patients in BCCs is significantly associated with patients' age and the recommendations for other additional therapy strategies, apart from surgery. The quality assurance data analyzed do not include potentially relevant confounders, such as socioeconomic status or comorbidities.

PRO B: evaluating the effect of an alarm-based patient-reported outcome monitoring compared with usual care in metastatic breast cancer patients-study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the progress of research and treatment for breast cancer, still up to 30% of the patients afflicted will develop distant disease. Elongation of survival and maintaining the quality of life (QoL) become pivotal issues guiding the treatment decisions. One possible approach to optimise survival and QoL is the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to timely identify acute disease-related burden. We present the protocol of a trial that investigates the effect of real-time PRO data captured with electronic mobile devices on QoL in female breast cancer patients with metastatic disease. METHODS: This study is a randomised, controlled trial with 1:1 randomisation between two arms. A total of 1000 patients will be recruited in 40 selected breast cancer centres. Patients in the intervention arm receive a weekly request via an app to complete the PRO survey. Symptoms will be assessed by study-specific optimised short forms based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 domains using items from the EORTC CAT item banks. In case of deteriorating PRO scores, an alarm is sent to the treating study centre as well as to the PRO B study office. Following the alarm, the treating breast cancer centre is required to contact the patient to inquire about the reported symptoms and to intervene, if necessary. The intervention is not specified and depends on the clinical need determined by the treating physician. Patients in the control arm are prompted by the app every 3 months to participate in the PRO survey, but their response will not trigger an alarm. The primary outcome is the fatigue level 6 months after enrolment. Secondary endpoints include among others hospitalisations, use of rescue services and overall QoL. DISCUSSION: Within the PRO B intervention group, we expect lower fatigue levels 6 months after intervention start, higher levels of QoL, less unplanned hospitalisations and less emergency room visits compared to controls. In case of positive results, our approach would allow a fast and easy transfer into clinical practice due to the use of the already nationwide existing IT infrastructure of the German Cancer Society and the independent certification institute OnkoZert. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS (German Clinical Trials Register) DRKS00024015 . Registered on 15 February 2021.

Different Approaches for Case-Mix Adjustment of Patient-Reported Outcomes to Compare Healthcare Providers-Methodological Results of a Systematic Review.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being used to compare the quality of outcomes between different healthcare providers (medical practices, hospitals, rehabilitation facilities). However, such comparisons can only be fair if differences in the case-mix between different types of provider are taken into account. This can be achieved with adequate statistical case-mix adjustment (CMA). To date, there is a lack of overview studies on current CMA methods for PROs. The aim of this study was to investigate which approaches are currently used to report and examine PROs for case-mix-adjusted comparison between providers. A systematic MEDLINE literature search was conducted (February 2021). The results were examined by two reviewers. Articles were included if they compared (a) different healthcare providers using (b) case-mix-adjusted (c) patient-reported outcomes (all AND conditions). From 640 hits obtained, 11 articles were included in the analysis. A wide variety of patient characteristics were used as adjustors, and baseline PRO scores and basic sociodemographic and clinical information were included in all models. Overall, the adjustment models used vary considerably. This evaluation is an initial attempt to systematically investigate different CMA approaches for PROs. As a standardized approach has not yet been established, we suggest creating a consensus-based methodological guideline for case-mix adjustment of PROs.

Conflicting demands, coping, and adjustment: A grounded theory to understand rehabilitation processes in long-term breast cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores rehabilitation processes in long-term cancer survivors (CSs) and explains the causes, contexts, and consequences under which decisions related to rehabilitation are made. METHODS: Within the mixed-methods Breast Cancer Patients' Return to Work (B-CARE) project, conducted from 2018-2020, data were collected through a written survey and semi-structured interviews with CSs 5-6 years after their diagnosis. In total, 184 female CSs participated in the survey, and 26 were interviewed. A qualitative grounded theory approach was applied. RESULTS: The 26 interviewees were 57 years old on average, 70% were married, and 65% had children. The participants experienced incompatibilities caused by the cancer disease in their areas of life and the demands that arose from it. To reconcile demands from the areas family, work, leisure time, household, and disease, the interviewed CSs used different coping mechanisms and adjusted their lives by prioritizing certain areas as a consequence. This prioritizing was often to the detriment of work and rehabilitation. Furthermore, it worked as a barrier for participation in rehabilitation programs and explains why CSs experienced job changes after their return to work. CONCLUSIONS: Physical and mental long-term effects were observed in the interviewees' lives 5-6 years into survival. The study results stress the importance of individualized and needs-oriented survivorship care.

Individual courses and determinants of fear of cancer recurrence in long-term breast cancer survivors with and without recurrence.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the prevalence, individual courses, and determinants of fear of cancer recurrence (FoR) in long-term breast cancer survivors (BCSs) with and without recurrence. METHODS: A total of 184 breast cancer survivors were surveyed at four measurement time points: during hospitalization (T1), 10 weeks (T2), 40 weeks (T3), and 5-6 years (T4) after hospital discharge. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: Respondents were females and 57 years old, on average. At T1, T3, and T4, 54.8%, 31.6%, and 29.7% of BCSs, respectively, were classified as having dysfunctional levels of FoR. Dysfunctional FoR decreased from T1 to T3 (χ2(1) = 17.11, p = 0.000; N = 163) and remained stable afterwards. Eight subgroups of individual courses of FoR over time could be described: (1) constant functional FoR; (2) constant dysfunctional FoR; (3) improving from dysfunctional to functional FoR from T1 to T3; (4) improving from dysfunctional to functional FoR from T3 to T4; (5) worsening from functional to dysfunctional FoR from T1 to T3; (6) worsening from functional to dysfunctional FoR from T3 to T4; (7) dysfunctional FoR at T1 and T4, and functional FoR in between; and (8) functional FoR at T1 and T4, and dysfunctional FoR in between. Logistic regression analysis revealed that being divorced/widowed, showing high levels of fatigue, being treated by chemotherapy, and having low confidence in treatment were associated with dysfunctional FoR 5 to 6 years after diagnosis (Nagelkerkes' Pseudo-R2 = 0.648). CONCLUSIONS: The findings reveal that FoR is a significant issue in long-term BCSs and has the potential to become a persistent psychological strain. We emphasize the need for increased awareness of FoR among BCSs and the need for support programs.

Use of social service counseling by cancer patients: an analysis of quality assurance data of 6339 breast cancer patients from 13 certified centers in Germany treated between 2015 and 2017.

BACKGROUND: Integrated social care may help to mitigate social risk factors in order to achieve more equitable health outcomes. In cancer centers certified according to the criteria set out by the German Cancer Society, every patient must be given low-threshold access to qualified social workers at the center for in-house social service counseling (SSC). Previous analyses have demonstrated large variation in the utilization of these services across individual centers. Therefore, this research aims at investigating whether SSC utilization varies regarding breast cancer patient characteristics and center characteristics presenting a unique approach of using routine data. METHODS: Multilevel modeling was performed using quality assurance data based on 6339 patients treated in 13 certified breast cancer centers in Germany in order to investigate whether SSC utilization varies with patient sex, age, and disease characteristics as well as over time and across centers. RESULTS: In the sample, 80.3% of the patients used SSC. SSC use varies substantially between centers for the unadjusted model (ICC = 0.24). Use was statistically significantly (P < .001) more likely in women, patients with invasive (in comparison to tumor in situ/ductal carcinoma in situ) diseases (P < .001), patients with both breasts affected (P = .03), patients who received a surgery (P < .001), patients who were diagnosed in 2015 or 2017 compared to 2016 (P < .001) and patients older than 84 years as compared to patients between 55 and 64 years old (P = .002). CONCLUSION: The analysis approach allows a unique insight into the reality of cancer care. Sociodemographic and disease-related patient characteristics were identified to explain SSC use to some extent.

Could existing infrastructure for using patient-reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest in integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine oncological practice. To date, however, PROs have rarely been implemented in Germany. Currently, PROs are being used as performance measures in colorectal cancer centers in Germany. This content analysis identified factors that may inhibit or facilitate the additional use of PROMs for individual patient management. METHODS: The analysis follows an exploratory approach. Out of 103 centers that participated in a multicentric PRO quality management and benchmarking program in Germany, twelve oncological health-care providers from eight certified colorectal cancer centers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviewees were clinicians (physicians, nurses, psycho-oncologist and physician assistant) who care for colorectal cancer patients. This analysis evaluated whether and how PROs that are primarily collected for quality management/benchmarking reasons could also be used for the management of individual patients. The data was analyzed using a content-analysis approach. RESULTS: The interviewees were not using PRO in their routine clinical work, but they recognized its added value and pointed out potential example uses. Identified inhibiting factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work were effortful access to PRO reports, lacking coordinating structures, time delays and time points of measurements as well as redundancy with other instruments. Facilitating factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work that were identified included access via electronic patient records, implementation of coordinating structures for PRO processes in the center, clear PRO reports that are easy to interpret, and measurements at relevant time points. DISCUSSION: Clinicians had quite a positive attitude toward PROs and recognized their added value. Inhibiting and facilitating factors of an organizational and technical nature were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate how PROs used for quality management purposes may also be used for the management of individual patients. Therefore, existing structures and processes in the certified colorectal cancer centers, as well as lessons learned from the literature on the implementation of PROs monitoring individual patients need to be taken into account.

Clinicians' knowledge and attitudes towards patient reported outcomes in colorectal cancer care - insights from qualitative interviews.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be used in cancer care to monitor patients' disease-related symptoms and functional status. However, successful implementation of such instruments is only possible if clinical staff are convinced of the clinical benefits. It is therefore crucial to investigate the attitudes of clinical staff to PROs in routine cancer care. METHODS: Semi-structured, guideline-based interviews were held with 12 clinicians working in certified colorectal cancer centers in Germany who are taking part in an observational study on PROs (five surgeons, two oncologists, one psycho-oncologist, two oncological care nurses, one stoma therapist, and one physician assistant) in order to investigate firstly, how clinicians describe PRO instruments ("wording"); and secondly, the clinicians' general attitude toward PROs. A qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz was performed. RESULTS: The wording used to describe PROs was not consistent. Statements on attitudes toward PROs were very heterogeneous and were therefore categorized into "(rather) positive" and "(rather) negative." The principal advantages of PROs mentioned by participants included broader, structured knowledge about patients and treatment, as well as relevance for patients. Subcategories for (rather) negative attitudes included statements expressing doubts about the questionnaires and "no need for PROs." DISCUSSION: The clinicians participating mainly expressed fairly positive attitudes toward PROs. However, they had little knowledge about PROs in general and the interviews therefore mainly reflect their expectations and assumptions about them. These initial impressions may be regarded as providing a basis for future implementation strategies and for training of clinicians on how to use PROs in routine cancer care.

[Consulting Ethics Committees about a Multicenter Observational Study in Germany - A Report on Effort and Costs]. / Die Beratung durch Ethikkommissionen bei einer multizentrischen Beobachtungsstudie in Deutschland ­ Aufwand und Kosten.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Ethics committees (ECs) have an indispensable monitoring and regulatory function in research on human beings. In multicenter observational studies, approvals of several local ECs are often required. The aim of this analysis was to provide an overview of the resources used and the process for consulting ECs about a multicenter observational study in Germany. METHODS: For this purpose, a cross-sectional analysis was carried out. Resources and activities within the consultation process were documented by the central study management for the period April 2018-April 2019. The study for which the consultation was obtained involved 106 certified colorectal cancer centers in 15 federal states in Germany. RESULTS: We submitted applications to ECs in 14 medical associations and 7 university hospitals. In total, 6,305 euros consultation fees were charged by the ECs, with the fees varying between 50 and 1,400 euros. For the application documents, at least 2,986 sheets of DIN A4 paper were printed and sent by post to the EC. Partly, several copies of the application documents were required. The central study management spent about 210 working hours. The median of the processing time was 32 days (range: 5-177 days). CONCLUSION: In order to significantly reduce the financial, material and personnel costs for scientists and ECs, a standardized and nationwide procedure for consulting ECs about multicenter studies should be pursued in the future. In the interests of economic and ecological sustainability, online procedures should be considered.

Use of psycho-oncological services by prostate cancer patients: A multilevel analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often suffer from psychological distress. Psycho-oncological services (POS) have been established in some health care systems in order to address such issues. This study aims to identify patient and center characteristics that elucidate the use of POS by patients in prostate cancer centers (PCCs). METHODS: Center-reported certification and patient survey data from 3094 patients in 44 certified PCCs in Germany were gathered in the observational study (Prostate Cancer Outcomes). A multilevel analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Model 1 showed that utilization of POS in PCCs is associated with patients' age (OR = 0.98; 95%-CI = 0.96-0.99; P < .001), number of comorbidities (1-2 vs 0, OR = 1.27; 95%-CI = 1.00-1.60; P=.048), disease staging (localized high-risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.41; 95%-CI = 1.14-1.74; P < .001), receiving androgen deprivation therapy before study inclusion (OR = 0.19; 95%-CI = 0.10-0.34; P < .001), and hospital teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.09; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.55; P = .009). Model 2 additionally includes information on treatment after study inclusion and shows that after inclusion, patients who receive primary radiotherapy (OR = 0.05; 95%-CI = 0.03-0.10; P < .001) or undergo active surveillance/watchful waiting (OR = 0.06; 95%-CI = 0.02-0.15; P < .001) are less likely to utilize POS than patients who undergo radical prostatectomy. Disease staging (localized high-risk vs localized intermediate risk, OR = 1.31; 95%-CI = 1.05-1.62; P = .02) and teaching status (university vs academic, OR = 0.08; 95%-CI = 0.01-0.65; P = .02) are also significant predictors for POS use. The second model did not identify any other significant patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should explore the role of institutional teaching status and whether associations with therapy after study inclusion are due to treatment effects - for example, less need following radiotherapy - or because access to POS is more difficult for those receiving radiotherapy.