Health-related quality of life after a diagnosis of bladder cancer: a longitudinal survey over the first year.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients in a prospective 12-month observational cohort study of new bladder cancer diagnoses and compare with national cancer and general population surveys. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective UK study in patients with new bladder cancer diagnoses at 13 NHS Trusts. The HRQoL data were collected at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Questionnaires used included: the EuroQoL five Dimensions (EQ-5D), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-30-item core, EORTC QLQ-24-item non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer, and EORTC QLQ-30-item muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Results were compared with the Cancer Quality of Life Survey and Health Survey for England. RESULTS: A total of 349 patients were recruited, 296 (85%) completed the first (baseline) and 233 (67%) the final survey. The patients underwent transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) ± intravesical therapy (238 patients, 80%), radical cystectomy/radiotherapy (51, 17%) or palliation (seven, 2%). At baseline, patients needing radical treatment reported worse HRQoL including lower social function (74.2 vs 83.8, P = 0.002), increased fatigue (31.5 vs 26.1, P = 0.03) and more future worries (39.2 vs 29.4, P = 0.005) than patients who underwent TURBT. Post-treatment surveys showed no change/improvements for patients who underwent TURBT but deterioration for the radically treated cohort. At final survey, reports were similar to baseline, regardless of treatment. Radically treated patients continued to report poorer HRQoL including issues with body image (23.4 vs 12.5, P = 0.007) and male sexual function (75.8 vs 40.4, P < 0.001) compared to those who underwent TURBT. Radically treated patients reported lower EQ-5D utility scores and more problems with usual activities than the general population. DISCUSSION: Patients undergoing TURBT can be reassured regarding HRQoL following treatment. However, those requiring radical treatment report greater changes in HRQoL with the need for appropriate clinical and supportive care to minimise the impact of treatments.

Symptoms, concerns, and experiences of women living with and beyond breast cancer in Africa: A mixed-methods systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: A mixed-methods systematic review to determine reported symptoms, concerns, and experiences of women living with and beyond breast cancer in Africa. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Health, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Quantitative and qualitative studies that comprised study populations of women with breast cancer from countries in Africa, detailing symptoms, concerns, and experiences of living with and beyond breast cancer were included. Inductive framework analysis was applied to organise existing literature with the Adversity, Restoration, and Compatibility framework and quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: In total, 48 studies were included, comprising quantitative (n = 24), qualitative (n = 23) and mixed method (n = 1) studies. Women reported multiple complex and burdensome symptoms at all stages of the breast cancer disease trajectory. Multiple pervasive factors influencing participants' experiences included a lack of cancer knowledge, being removed from decision-making, religion, and the presence and use of traditional medicines. Literature relating to benefit finding, understanding identity for the future, and broader perspectives of well-being was absent. CONCLUSIONS: This review contributes insights and mapping of symptoms, concerns, and experiences of women with breast cancer in Africa. There is a great necessity to increase an understanding of the needs and experiences of women with breast cancer in Africa following cancer treatment, stages of remission, and longer-term monitoring and follow-up. This is required to ensure access to prompt and timely clinical and individualized supportive care for women with breast cancer in Africa.

Patient adherence to patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion in clinical care: current understanding and future recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used as an assessment and monitoring tool in clinical practice. However, patient adherence to PROMs completions are typically not well documented or explained in published studies and reports. Through a collaboration between the International Society for Quality-of-Life Research (ISOQOL) Patient Engagement and QOL in Clinical Practice Special Interest Groups (SIGs) case studies were collated as a platform to explore how adherence can be evaluated and understood. Case studies were drawn from across a range of clinically and methodologically diverse PROMs activities. RESULTS: The case studies identified that the influences on PROMs adherence vary. Key drivers include PROMs administeration methods within a service and wider system, patient capacity to engage and clinician engagement with PROMs information. It was identified that it is important to  evaluate  PROMs integration and adherence from multiple perspectives. CONCLUSION: PROM completion rates are an important indicator of patient adherence. Future research prioritizing an understanding of PROMs completion rates by patients is needed.

Truth and dare: patients dare to tell the truth when using PROMs in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical practice for screening, monitoring, and management, the potential for response bias has been raised (e.g., over-reporting problems for attention, under-reporting to avoid treatment changes/discontinuation). We investigated whether patients systematically bias their responses when they know clinicians will review their PROM results. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of three experimental studies evaluating PROMs in adult and pediatric care. Prior to PROM completion, intervention group patients were informed that the results would be shown to their clinicians ("feedback" arm), whereas control group patients were told that their clinicians would not see their responses ("no feedback" arm). Independent sample t-tests compared the "feedback" and "no feedback" arms' PROM scores at baseline. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Cohen's d statistics with Hedges' g correction, and effect sizes > 0.50 were considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Across the 29 domains assessed in the three studies, no between-arm differences reached an effect size of ± 0.50. Only 3/29 effect sizes exceeded ± 0.30. The confidence intervals for 14 domains included ± 0.50, with 4 favoring the "no feedback" arm and 10 favoring the "feedback" arm. Two domains reached statistical significance, one favoring the "no feedback" arm and one favoring the "feedback" arm. CONCLUSION: This study does not support the hypothesis that patients systematically bias their PROM responses if they know that clinicians will see their results. These findings support using PROMs in clinical practice as a valid mechanism to promote patient-centered care.

The experience of interval scans for adults living with primary malignant brain tumors.

PURPOSE: People with primary malignant brain tumors (PMBT) undergo anti-tumor treatment and are followed up with MRI interval scans. There are potential burdens and benefits to interval scanning, yet high-quality evidence to suggest whether scans are beneficial or alter outcomes of importance for patients is lacking. We aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of how adults living with PMBTs experience and cope with interval scanning. METHODS: Twelve patients diagnosed with WHO grade III or IV PMBT from two sites in the UK took part. Using a semi-structured interview guide, they were asked about their experiences of interval scans. A constructivist grounded theory approach was used to analyze data. RESULTS: Although most participants found interval scans uncomfortable, they accepted that scans were something that they had to do and were using various coping methods to get through the MRI scan. All participants said that the wait between their scan and results was the most difficult part. Despite the difficulties they experienced, all participants said that they would rather have interval scans than wait for a change in their symptoms. Most of the time, scans provided relief, gave participants some certainty in an uncertain situation, and a short-term sense of control over their lives. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that interval scanning is important and highly valued by patients living with PMBT. Although interval scans are anxiety provoking, they appear to help people living with PMBT cope with the uncertainty of their condition.

Sexual Activity, Function and Dysfunction After a Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sexual dysfunction is common in those affected by cancer and local and radical treatments for Bladder Cancer (BC) can affect sexual function directly. AIM: To evaluate sexual function following a bladder cancer (BC) diagnosis. METHODS: Self-reported sexual function was collected 10 years after a diagnosis of BC as part of a cross-sectional patient reported outcome measure (PROM) survey exploring life after BC diagnosis and treatment. OUTCOMES: Participants completed a combined EORTC QLQ-BLM30 and QLQ-NMIBC24 questionnaire, including questions on sexual activity, intimacy, erectile/ejaculatory function and vaginal dryness. RESULTS: A total of 1796 participants returned a completed survey out of 3279 eligible participants (55%). Of the participants who returned a completed survey, a total of 1530 (85%) participants answered sexual function questions. The median (IQR) age was 75 (70-81). Participants were predominantly men (78%) and married/in civil partnerships (66%). In total, 31% were sexually active. Vaginal dryness was common (66%) in women. Erectile and ejaculatory dysfunction (80% and 58% respectively) were common in men. Compared to TURBT +/- intravesical treatments, those who had radical treatment were less likely to be sexually active (adjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.44-0.72, P<0.001) and had worse mean scores for intimacy problems (29.1 [radical treatment] vs 12.1, P<0.001), male sexual problems (72.2 [radical treatment] vs 45.7, P<0.001) and overall sexual function (17.1 [radical treatment] vs 20.3, P=0.01). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings highlight the magnitude of sexual dysfunction in the BC patient cohort and can help inform patients during the pre-op counselling process and shared decision making prior to BC treatments. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study provides the largest in-depth analysis of sexual activity and function after BC diagnosis and treatment, to date. Limitations include the lack of data on participants' sexual function prior to BC treatment and the heterogeneity with respect to time passed since last BC treatment. CONCLUSION: Sexual dysfunction in BC patients is common and rates appear higher following radical treatments compared to endoscopic. It is important to elicit these problems in clinics to enable counselling and treatment. Jubber I, Rogers Z, Catto JWF, et al. Sexual Activity, Function and Dysfunction After a Diagnosis of Bladder Cancer. J Sex Med 2022;19:1431-1441.

Patients' confidence in treatment decisions for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: In early-stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients, little is known about how to measure patient participation in Shared-Decision Making (SDM). We examined the psychometric properties and clinical acceptability of the Decision Self-Efficacy scale (DSE) in a cohort of patients undergoing to Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) or Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) to capture patient involvement in treatment decisions. METHODS: In the context of a prospective longitudinal study (Life after Lung Cancer-LiLAC) involving 244 patients with early-stage NSCLC, 158 (64.7%) patients completed the DSE either on paper or electronically online prior to treatment with SABR or VATS pulmonary resection. DSE psychometric properties were examined using: principal components analysis of item properties and internal structure, and internal construct validity; we also performed a sensitivity analysis according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), gender, age and treatment received (VATS or SABR) difference. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis using polychoric correlations substantiated that the 11 item DSE is one scale accounting for 81% of the variance. We calculated a value of 0.96 for Cronbach's alpha for the total DSE score. DSE scores did not differ by gender (p = 0.37), between the two treatment groups (p = 0.09) and between younger and older patients (p = 0.4). However, patients with an ECOG PS > 1 have a DSE mean of 73.8 (SD 26) compared to patients with a PS 0-1 who have a DSE mean of 85.8 (SD 20.3 p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Findings provide preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the DSE questionnaire in this population. However, future studies are warranted to identify the most appropriate SDM tool for clinical practice in the lung cancer treatment field.

Engaging Patients and Clinicians in Online Reporting of Adverse Effects During Chemotherapy for Cancer: The eRAPID System (Electronic Patient Self-Reporting of Adverse Events: Patient Information and aDvice).

INTRODUCTION: During cancer treatment the timely detection and management of adverse events is essential for patient safety and maintaining the quality of life. Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) was devised to support oncology practice, by allowing patients to self-report symptoms online at home during and beyond cancer treatment. Fundamentally the eRAPID intervention delivers immediate severity-tailored feedback directly to patients to guide self-management strategies or hospital contact. Patient data are available in electronic health records for hospital staff to access and review as part of clinical assessments. METHODS FOR INTERPRETING AND ADDRESSING PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME (PRO) SCORES:: The eRAPID intervention has 5 main interconnecting components (clinical integration into standard care pathways, patient symptom reports, self-management advice, information technology, and staff/patient training). Following guidance for the development of complex interventions and using a mixed methods approach, eRAPID was created through a number of stages and tested in a series of usability settings before undergoing systematic evaluation in a randomized controlled trial. These developmental stages are described here with a focus on how decisions were made to enhance patient and professional engagement with symptom reports and encourage interpretation and clinical utilization of the data. DISCUSSION: Clinically embedded PRO interventions involve a number of elements and stakeholders with different requirements. Following extensive developmental work eRAPID was pragmatically designed to fit into current oncology practices for reviewing and managing chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Developing a real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following cancer-related surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing major cancer surgery frequently require post-acute care for complications and adverse effects. Enhanced recovery after surgery programmes mean that patients are increasingly discharged home earlier. Symptom/complication detection post-discharge is sub-optimal. Systematic patient monitoring post-discharge following surgery may be optimally achieved through routine electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data capture. ePRO systems that employ clinical algorithms to guide management of patients and automatically alert clinicians of clinically-concerning symptoms can improve patient outcomes and decrease hospital admissions. ePRO systems that provide individually-tailored self-management advice and integrate live ePRO data into electronic health records (EHR) may also advance personalised health and patient-centred care. This study aims to develop a hospital EHR-integrated ePRO system to improve detection and management of complications post-discharge following cancer-related surgery. METHODS: The ePRO system was developed in two phases: (1) Development of a web-based ePRO symptom-report from validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, clinical opinion and patient interviews, followed by hospital EHR integration; (2) Development of clinical algorithms triggering symptom severity-dependent patient advice and clinician alerts from: (i) prospectively-collected patient-completed ePRO symptom-report data; (ii) stakeholder meetings; (iii) patient interviews. Patient advice was developed from: (i) clinician-patient telephone consultations and patient interviews; (ii) review of hospital patient information leaflets (PIL) and patient support websites. RESULTS: Phase 1, including interviews with 18 patients, identified 35 symptom-report items. In phase 2, 130/300 (43%) screened patients were eligible. 61 (47%) consented to participate and 59 (97%) provided 444 complete self-reports. Stakeholder meetings (9 clinicians, 1 patient/public representative) and patient interviews (n = 66) refined advice/alert accuracy. 15 telephone consultations, 7 patient interviews and review of 28 PILs and 3 patient support websites identified 4 themes to inform self-management advice. Comparisons between ePRO symptom-report data, telephone consultations and clinical events/outcomes (n = 27 patients) further refined clinical algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: A hospital EHR-integrated ePRO system that alerts clinicians and provides patient self-management advice has been developed to improve the detection and management of problems and complications after discharge following surgery. An ongoing pilot study will inform a multicentre randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the ePRO system compared to usual care.

Electronic Systems for Patients to Report and Manage Side Effects of Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There has been a dramatic increase in the development of electronic systems to support cancer patients to report and manage side effects of treatment from home. Systems vary in the features they offer to patients, which may affect how patients engage with them and how they improve patient-centered outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to (1) describe the features and functions of existing electronic symptom reporting systems (eg, symptom monitoring, tailored self-management advice), and (2) explore which features may be associated with patient engagement and patient-centered outcomes. METHODS: The review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and followed guidelines from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York, United Kingdom). Primary searches were undertaken of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Health Technology Assessment databases. Secondary searches were undertaken by screening reference lists and citations. Two researchers applied broad inclusion criteria to identify and select relevant records. Data were extracted and summarized using Microsoft Excel. In order to meet the aims, the study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis comprised two stages: (1) identifying and characterizing available systems and (2) summarizing data on patient engagement and patient-centered outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 77 publications relating to 41 distinct systems. In Stage 1, all publications were included (N=77). The features identified that supported clinicians and care were facility for health professionals to remotely access and monitor patient-reported data (24/41, 58%) and function to send alerts to health professionals for severe symptoms (17/41, 41%). Features that supported patients were facility for patients to monitor/review their symptom reports over time (eg, graphs) (19/41, 46%), general patient information about cancer treatment and side effects (17/41, 41%), tailored automated patient advice on symptom management (12/41, 29%), feature for patients to communicate with the health care team (6/41, 15%), and a forum for patients to communicate with one another (4/41, 10%). In Stage 2, only publications that included some data on patient engagement or patient-centered outcomes were included (N=29). A lack of consistency between studies in how engagement was defined, measured, or reported, and a wide range of methods chosen to evaluate systems meant that it was not possible to compare across studies or make conclusions on relationships with system features. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic systems have the potential to help patients manage side effects of cancer treatment, with some evidence to suggest a positive effect on patient-centered outcomes. However, comparison across studies is difficult due to the wide range of assessment tools used. There is a need to develop guidelines for assessing and reporting engagement with systems, and a set of core outcomes for evaluation. We hope that this review will contribute to the field by introducing a taxonomy for characterizing system features. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016035915; www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016035915.