Qualitative study exploring patients experiences of being diagnosed and living with primary bone cancer in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore the experiences of patients with primary bone cancer. DESIGN: Qualitative study design using semistructured interviews and focus groups. SETTING: Hospitals across the UK and recruitment through UK sarcoma charities and support groups. METHODS: Semistructured telephone/face-to-face interviews and focus groups with a purposive sample of 26 participants. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n=26) with primary bone cancer aged 13-77 years. The majority were male (69%), white (85%); diagnosed within 4 years (54%); and had lower limb sarcoma (65%). Ten participants had undergone an upper/lower limb amputation (39%). RESULTS: The health-related quality-of-life domains of physical, emotional and social well-being and healthcare professionals' role were the overarching themes of analysis. The physical domain anchored patient experiences. The intensity and length of treatment, the severity of side-effects, the level of disability after surgery and the uncertainty of their prognosis had an impact on patient's self-image, confidence, mood and identity, and caused disruption to various aspects of the patients' social life, including their relationships (emotional and sexual) and participation in work/school and leisure activities. Adaptation was influenced by the way patients dealt with stress and adversity, with some finding a new outlook in life, and others struggling with finding their 'new normal'. Family and friends were the main source of support. Healthcare professional's expertise and support was critical. Rehabilitation services had a considerable role in patient's physical and emotional well-being, but inequitable access to these services was apparent. CONCLUSIONS: This study described the impact of primary bone cancer on patients' well-being and adjustment over time with the identification of influencing factors of better/worse experiences. It showed that impact was felt after end of treatment and affected patients at different life stages. Holistic models of survivorship care are needed.

Research priorities for young people with cancer: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a UK-wide survey of young people who have experienced cancer, carers and professionals, to identify and prioritise research questions to inform decisions of research funders and support the case for research with this unique cancer population. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. SETTING: UK health service and community. METHODS: A steering group oversaw the initiative and partner organisations were recruited. Unanswered questions were collected in an online survey. Evidence searching verified uncertainties. An interim survey was used to rank questions prior to a final prioritisation workshop. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 13-24 years with a current or previous cancer diagnosis, their families, friends, partners and professionals who work with this population. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-two respondents submitted 855 potential questions. Following a refining process and removal of 'out of scope' questions, 208 unique questions remained. Systematic evidence checking identified seven answered questions and 16 were the subject of ongoing studies. The interim survey was completed by 174 participants. The top 30 questions were prioritised at a workshop attended by 25 young people, parents and multidisciplinary professionals. The top three priorities are: (1) What psychological support package improves psychological well-being, social functioning and mental health during and after treatment? (2) What interventions, including self-care, can reduce or reverse adverse short-term and long-term effects of cancer treatment? (3) What are the best strategies to improve access to clinical trials? The remaining questions reflect the complete cancer pathway: new therapies, life after cancer, support, education/employment, relapse and end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified shared research priorities for young people with cancer using a rigorous, person-centred approach involving stakeholders typically not involved in setting the research agenda. The breadth of priorities suggest future research should focus on holistic and psychosocial care delivery as well as traditional drug/biology research.

Conceptualizing age-appropriate care for teenagers and young adults with cancer: a qualitative mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: Teenage and young adult cancer care in England is centralized around 13 principal treatment centers, alongside linked "designated" hospitals, following recommendations that this population should have access to age-appropriate care. The term age-appropriate care has not yet been defined; it is however the explicit term used when communicating the nature of specialist care. The aim of this study was to develop an evidence-based, contextually relevant and operational model defining age-appropriate care for teenagers and young adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted comprising 1) semi-structured interview data from young people with cancer and health care professionals involved in their care; 2) an integrative literature review to identify the current understanding and use of the term age-appropriate care; 3) synthesis of both sets of data to form a conceptual model of age-appropriate care. A combination of qualitative content, thematic and framework analysis techniques was used to analyze and integrate data. RESULTS: Analysis and synthesis across data sources enabled identification of seven core components of age-appropriate care, which were presented as a conceptual model: best treatment; health care professional knowledge; communication, interactions and relationships; recognizing individuality; empowering young people; promoting normality; and the environment. Subthemes emerged which included healthcare professionals clinical and holistic expertise, and the environment comprising both physical and social elements. CONCLUSION: The proposed model, necessarily constructed from multiple components, presents an evidence-based comprehensive structure for understanding the nature of age-appropriate care. It will be useful for clinicians, health service managers and researchers who are designing, implementing and evaluating interventions that might contribute to the provision of age-appropriate care. While the individual elements of age-appropriate care can exist independently or in part, age-appropriate care is optimal when all seven elements are present and could be applied to the care of young people with long-term conditions other than cancer.

UK guidelines for the management of bone sarcomas.

This document is an update of the British Sarcoma Group guidelines published in 2010. The aim is to provide a reference standard for the clinical care of patients in the UK with bone sarcomas. Recent recommendations by the European Society of Medical Oncology, The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence have been incorporated, and the literature since 2010 reviewed. The standards represent a consensus amongst British Sarcoma Group members in 2015. It is acknowledged that these guidelines will need further updates as care evolves. The key recommendations are that bone pain or a palpable mass should always lead to further investigation and that patients with clinico-radiological findings suggestive of a primary bone tumour at any site in the skeleton should be referred to a specialist centre and managed by a fully accredited bone sarcoma multidisciplinary team. Treatment recommendations are provided for the major tumour types and for localised, metastatic and recurrent disease. Follow up schedules are suggested.

The expanding role of primary care in cancer control.

The nature of cancer control is changing, with an increasing emphasis, fuelled by public and political demand, on prevention, early diagnosis, and patient experience during and after treatment. At the same time, primary care is increasingly promoted, by governments and health funders worldwide, as the preferred setting for most health care for reasons of increasing need, to stabilise health-care costs, and to accommodate patient preference for care close to home. It is timely, then, to consider how this expanding role for primary care can work for cancer control, which has long been dominated by highly technical interventions centred on treatment, and in which the contribution of primary care has been largely perceived as marginal. In this Commission, expert opinion from primary care and public health professionals with academic and clinical cancer expertise­from epidemiologists, psychologists, policy makers, and cancer specialists­has contributed to a detailed consideration of the evidence for cancer control provided in primary care and community care settings. Ranging from primary prevention to end-of-life care, the scope for new models of care is explored, and the actions needed to effect change are outlined. The strengths of primary care­its continuous, coordinated, and comprehensive care for individuals and families­are particularly evident in prevention and diagnosis, in shared follow-up and survivorship care, and in end-of-life care. A strong theme of integration of care runs throughout, and its elements (clinical, vertical, and functional) and the tools needed for integrated working are described in detail. All of this change, as it evolves, will need to be underpinned by new research and by continuing and shared multiprofessional development.