Women with gynaecological cancer awaiting radiotherapy: Self-reported wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function, and supportive care needs.

OBJECTIVE: To better serve women with gynaecological cancers, we need a sound understanding of their health, wellbeing and needs. This study sought to explore these issues in a sample of Australian women before commencing curative radiotherapy. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of baseline data from a supportive care trial (n = 311). Descriptive statistics were used to summarise responses to measures of wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function and vaginal changes, and supportive care needs. Pre-specified regression models were used to examine sources of variation in wellbeing and sexual function. RESULTS: Women reported lower emotional, functional and physical wellbeing than population norms (all p < 0.001). The prevalence of general psychological distress was 31% (95% CI 26-36%). Distress caused by physical symptoms was typically low. Health system and information needs comprised eight of the top ten moderate-to-high supportive care needs. Most women reported no change in interest for physical contact or sex compared to pre-diagnosis, but some sexually active women (16-24%) reported smaller vaginal size, increased dryness, and more pain on intercourse. General psychological distress was a robust marker of poorer wellbeing and sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Before radiotherapy, a substantial minority of women with gynaecological cancers experience general psychological distress, reduced wellbeing and moderate-to-high health system and information needs. A model of comprehensive care incorporating assessment of unmet needs, general psychological distress, and sexual issues is recommended. Healthcare providers may require training to elicit and respond to a constellation of interrelated issues and access relevant services for women requiring additional support.

ENhAncing Lifestyle Behaviors in EndometriaL CancEr (ENABLE): A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Endometrial cancer is associated with the highest comorbid disease burden of any cancer. The aim of this trial was to assess the feasibility and safety of an allied health intervention during adjuvant treatment. METHODS: A mixed-methods pilot randomized (2:1) controlled trial with concealed allocation and assessor-blinding. Eligibility criteria: adjuvant endometrial cancer treatment scheduled, disease stage I-IIIC1, ECOG 0-2 and able to perform unsupervised physical activity (PA). Participants received usual care and 8 sessions of weekly, individualized, lifestyle education (diet and PA) with behavior change and social support (intervention group), delivered predominantly by telehealth, or usual care alone. Feasibility outcomes: recruitment and consent rates, decline reasons, program acceptability, intervention adherence and retention. RESULTS: 22/44 eligible patients (50%, 95%CI: 36%, 64%) were recruited over 10 months (14 intervention, 8 usual care). The recruitment rate was 2.2 patients/month (95%CI: 1.4, 3.3). Patients who declined had too much going on (7/22, 32%) or were not interested (6/22, 27%). Mean (SD) age and BMI were 63.2 years (6.8) and 31.9 kg/m2 (6.7). A majority were FIGO stage I (15/22, 68%) and received vaginal brachytherapy (14/22, 64%). Adherence was high, 11/14 (79%, 95%CI: 52%, 92%) participants attended >70% of scheduled sessions. Retention was 100% (95%CI: 85%, 100%) at 9 weeks, however completion of objective measures was impacted by COVID-19 restrictions. Telehealth and online questionnaires enabled participation. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: The intervention was acceptable to participants with high levels of adherence and retention. Trial findings will be used to design a future RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN12619000631101) 29/04/2019.

The Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre lung cancer clinical audit: collecting the UK National Lung Cancer Audit data from hospitals in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Clinical audit may improve practice in cancer service provision. The UK National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) collects data for all new cases of thoracic cancers. AIM: To collect similar data for our Victorian patients from six hospitals within the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre and associated Western and Central Melbourne Integrated Cancer Service. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective audit of all newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer and mesothelioma in 2013 across the six Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre/Western and Central Melbourne Integrated Cancer Service hospitals. The objectives were to adapt the NLCA data set for use in the Australian context, to analyse the findings using descriptive statistics and to determine feasibility of implementing a routine, ongoing audit similar to that in the UK. Individual data items were adapted from the NLCA by an expert steering committee. Data were collated from the Victorian Cancer Registry, Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset and individual hospital databases. Individual medical records were audited for missing data. RESULTS: Eight hundred and forty-five patients were diagnosed across the sites in 2013. Most were aged 65-80 (55%) and were male (62%). Most had non-small-cell lung cancer (81%) with 9% diagnosed with small cell lung cancer and 2% with mesothelioma. Data completeness varied significantly between fields. For those with higher levels of completeness, headline indicators of clinical care were comparable with NLCA data. The Victorian population seem to lack access to specialist lung cancer nurse services. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer care at participating hospitals appeared to be comparable with the UK in 2013. In future, prospective data collection should be harmonised across sites and correlated with survival outcomes. One area of concern was a lack of documented access to specialist nursing services.

Development of a hospital-based patient-reported outcome framework for lung cancer patients: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is central to the delivery of quality health care. Establishing sustainable, reliable and cost-efficient methods for routine collection and integration of PRO data into health information systems is challenging. This protocol paper describes the design and structure of a study to develop and pilot test a PRO framework to systematically and longitudinally collect PRO data from a cohort of lung cancer patients at a comprehensive cancer centre in Australia. METHODS: Best-practice guidelines for developing registries aimed at collecting PROs informed the development of this PRO framework. Framework components included: achieving consensus on determining the purpose of the framework, the PRO measures to be included, the data collection time points and collection methods (electronic and paper), establishing processes to safeguard the quality of the data collected and to link the PRO framework to an existing hospital-based lung cancer clinical registry. Lung cancer patients will be invited to give feedback on the PRO measures (PROMs) chosen and the data collection time points and methods. Implementation of the framework will be piloted for 12 months. Then a mixed-methods approach used to explore patient and multidisciplinary perspectives on the feasibility of implementing the framework and linking it to the lung cancer clinical registry, its clinical utility, perceptions of data collection burden, and preliminary assessment of resource costs to integrate, implement and sustain the PRO framework. The PRO data set will include: a quality of life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30) and the EORTC lung cancer specific module (QLQC-LC-13). These will be collected pre-treatment (baseline), 2, 6 and 12 months post-baseline. Also, four social isolation questions (PROMIS) will be collected at baseline. DISCUSSION: Identifying and deciding on the overall purpose, clinical utility of data and which PROs to collect from patients requires careful consideration. Our study will explore how PRO data collection processes that link to a clinical data set can be developed and integrated; how PRO systems that are easy for patients to complete and professionals to use in practice can be achieved, and will provide indicative costs of developing and integrating a longitudinal PRO framework into routine hospital data collection systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is not a clinical trial and is therefore not registered in any trial registry. However, it has received human research ethics approval (LNR/16/PMCC/45).

Acceptability of early integration of palliative care in patients with incurable lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death, and it is known many affected will have significant palliative care needs. Evidence suggests that early involvement of palliative care can translate into improvements in quality of care, quality of life, and survival. However, routine early integration is yet to be embraced as standard of care for the majority of patients, and it is unclear what lung cancer clinicians continue to perceive as the barriers to this model of care. METHODS: We performed a qualitative exploration of lung cancer clinicians' perceptions, focusing on current experiences of engaging with palliative care, perceptions of palliative care for patients with lung cancer, and views of barriers and benefits of referring to palliative care. RESULTS: Focus group and targeted interviews were conducted with 28 clinicians, with four key emergent themes: 1) Competence/skill--with referrers needing to be confident in the quality and capability of palliative care provision; 2) Care Coordination--the need to ensure integrated care, with defined lines of responsibility and clear team communication; 3) Ease of referral--the need for ready access to a palliative care provider in the lung cancer clinic; and 4) Perceptions--concerns about loss of hope and fears of negative patient reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Early and routine involvement of palliative care in patients with incurable lung cancer is acceptable to the majority of treating clinicians. To facilitate early integration of palliative care, palliative care providers need to become front-line team members who provide a high-quality service. Lung cancer clinicians need further education as to the role and benefits of early palliative care, and how best to introduce this.