Effect of general practitioner-led versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care, with or without eHealth support, on quality of life (I CARE): an interim analysis of 1-year results of a randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colon cancer is associated with an increased risk of physical and psychosocial morbidity, even after treatment. General practitioner (GP) care could be beneficial to help to reduce this morbidity. We aimed to assess quality of life (QOL) in patients who received GP-led survivorship care after treatment for colon cancer compared with those who received surgeon-led care. Furthermore, the effect of an eHealth app (Oncokompas) on QOL was assessed in both patient groups. METHODS: We did a pragmatic two-by-two factorial, open-label, randomised, controlled trial at eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Eligible patients were receiving primary surgical treatment for stage I-III colon cancer or rectosigmoid carcinoma and qualified for routine follow-up according to Dutch national guidelines. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1)-via computer-generated variable block randomisation stratified by age and tumour stage-to survivorship care overseen by a surgeon, survivorship care overseen by a surgeon with access to Oncokompas, survivorship care overseen by a GP, or survivorship care overseen by a GP with access to Oncokompas. Blinding of the trial was not possible. The primary endpoint of the trial was QOL at 5 years, as measured by the change from baseline in the European Organistion for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 summary score. Here, we report an unplanned interim analysis of QOL at the 12-month follow-up. Grouped comparisons were done (ie, both GP-led care groups were compared with both surgeon-led groups, and both Oncokompas groups were compared with both no Oncokompas groups). Differences in change of QOL between trial groups were estimated with linear mixed-effects models. A change of ten units was considered clinically meaningful. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR4860. FINDINGS: Between March 26, 2015, and Nov 21, 2018, 353 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. There were 50 early withdrawals (27 patient decisions and 23 GP withdrawals). Of the remaining 303 participants, 79 were assigned to surgeon-led care, 83 to surgeon-led care with Oncokompas, 73 to GP-led care, and 68 to GP-led care with Oncokompas. Median follow-up was 12·2 months (IQR 12·0-13·0) in all groups. At baseline, QOL was high in all trial groups. At 12 months, there was no clinically meaningful difference in change from baseline in QOL between the GP-led care groups and the surgeon-led care groups (difference in summary score -2·3 [95% CI -5·0 to 0·4]) or between the Oncokompas and no Oncokompas groups (-0·1 [-2·8 to 2·6]). INTERPRETATION: In terms of QOL, GP-led survivorship care can be considered as an alternative to surgeon-led care within the first year after colon cancer treatment. Other outcomes, including patient and physician preferences, will be important for decisions about the type of survivorship care. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society (KWF).

Prevalence of adjustment disorder among cancer patients, and the reach, effectiveness, cost-utility and budget impact of tailored psychological treatment: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Information on the prevalence of adjustment disorders among cancer patients and the value of psychological interventions in this group of patients is limited. This study investigates the prevalence of adjustment disorders among cancer patients as well as the reach, effectiveness, cost-utility and budget impact of a tailored psychological intervention. METHOD: This study consists of two parts. Part 1 is an observational study among a representative group of mixed cancer patients after cancer treatment on the prevalence of adjustment disorder as well as the uptake (i.e. reach) of psychological treatment. In Part 2, patients diagnosed with an adjustment disorder are invited to participate in a randomized controlled trial. Patients will be randomized to the intervention (access to the tailored psychological intervention) or control group (waitlist period of 6 months). The psychological intervention consists of three modules: one module containing psycho-education (3 sessions, all patients) and two additional modules (maximum of 6 sessions per module) provided as continuum, in case needed. Module 2 and 3 can consist of several evidence-based interventions (e.g. group interventions, mindfulness, eHealth) The primary outcome is psychological distress (HADS). Secondary outcomes are mental adjustment to cancer (MAC) and health-related quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30). To assess the cost-utility and budget impact, quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L) and costs (iMCQ and iPCQ) will be measured. Measures will be completed at baseline and 3 and 6-months after randomization. DISCUSSION: This study will provide data of the prevalence of adjustment disorders and the reach, effectiveness, cost-utility and budget impact of a tailored psychological intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register identifier: NL7763. Registered on 3 June 2019.

Prospective evaluation of health-related quality of life in long-term oral and oropharyngeal cancer survivors and the perceived need for supportive care.

PURPOSE: To evaluate long-term changes in health related quality of life (HRQOL) in oral/oropharyngeal cancer survivors and their need for and use of supportive care. METHODS: Between 1999 and 2001, 80 advanced oral or oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with free-flap reconstruction and postoperative radiotherapy were included in a prospective study of whom 27 patients were long-term survivors (mean 9.2 years, range 8-11 years). The HRQOL of 26 patients (response rate 96%) was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35 questionnaires at four points in time: pretreatment (baseline), and at 6 months, 12 months (short term) and 8-11 years (long-term) follow up. A study specific questionnaire was developed to evaluate the need for and use of supportive care (allied health services, peer contact, psychosocial care, and complementary care) and was completed at the period of treatment and at long-term follow up. RESULTS: A number of HRQOL domains worsened significantly (p < 0.01) in the long-term: emotional functioning, social functioning, swallowing, speech, taste/smell, dry mouth, sticky saliva and coughing assessed by the mixed effects statistical model. At time of treatment, the need for supportive care was the highest for a dental hygienist (77%), a physical therapist (73%), a speech therapist (42%), a dietician (38%), and a special diet (62%). At long-term follow up, the need for supportive care was limited to a dental hygienist (46%) and a physical therapist (23%). Only small differences were observed between the perceived need for and actual use of supportive care. CONCLUSION: A range of HRQOL domains in head and neck cancer survivors were deteriorated in the long-term compared to baseline and to the first year after treatment. At time of treatment and less frequently at long-term follow up, patients reported needing and using a variety of supportive care services.