RESUMO
The 124-item patient reported-outcome common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) questionnaire, assessing 78 symptoms, is widely used in cancer clinical trials to identify side effects. However, its regular use in routine cancer care is rarely reported. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of weekly PRO-CTCAE completion over 9 weeks in a prospective study with 30 patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Participants were asked to complete electronic surveys with reminders, but no feedback or incentives. Only 136 (50%) of the planned 270 time points at which a PRO-CTCAE self-report was expected were completed, with an additional 21 (8%) partially completed, and represents a failure to achieve the expected level of completion. Patients reported experiencing up to 51 and a median of 30 symptoms across all time points, highlighting the complexity of symptom assessment in acute cancer care. While weekly implementation of the PRO-CTCAE may not be feasible outside of clinical trial settings, this study highlights the breadth of symptoms experienced.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea (CID) and constipation (CIC) are among the most common and severe gastrointestinal symptoms related to chemotherapy. This review aimed to identify and describe the evidence for non-pharmacological interventions for the management of CID and CIC. METHODS: The scoping review was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Evidence from five databases were included: CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and APA PsycInfo. Data were systematically identified, screened, extracted and synthesised narratively to describe the evidence for non-pharmacological interventions and their effects on CID and CIC. RESULTS: We included 33 studies, of which 18 investigated non-pharmacological interventions for CID management, six for CIC management, and nine for both CID and CIC management. Interventions were categorized into five groups, including (1) digital health interventions, (2) physical therapies, (3) diet and nutrition therapies, (4) education, and (5) multimodal. Diet and nutrition therapies were the most common to report potential effectiveness for CID and CIC outcomes. Most of the interventions were implemented in hospitals under the supervision of healthcare professionals and were investigated in randomised control trials. CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of non-pharmacological interventions were diverse, and the outcomes were inconsistent among the same type of interventions. Diet and nutritional interventions show promise but further research is needed to better understand their role and to contribute to the evidence base. Nurses are well placed to assess and monitor for CIC and CID, and also deliver effective non-pharmacological interventions.