Breaking the silence: A qualitative exploration of parental perspectives of children with Goldenhar Syndrome.

Background: Goldenhar Syndrome is a rare congenital condition, typically characterized by craniofacial abnormalities and vertebral malformations. Due to its rare and complex nature, the etiology is unconfirmed, resulting in parental uncertainty and subsequent emotional sequelae. Clinical manifestations have been researched but few studies have explored parental wellbeing and Quality of Life (QoL). In this qualitative study, we explore parental views of the challenges and lived experience of raising a child with Goldenhar Syndrome. Methods: Ten biological parents (five mothers and five fathers), recruited at the Goldenhar UK Conference, took part in audio-recorded, semi-structured interviews. Interviews explored emotional wellbeing, views surrounding causation, support accessed, challenges faced, experience of stigma and future outlooks. Reflexive thematic analysis was employed, and transcripts were subject to deductive and inductive coding. Results: Seven themes were identified: support networks (Goldenhar UK), rollercoaster of emotion; gendered coping; uncertainty; societal reactions; coping with challenge and acceptance. Conclusions: This is the first-time the life perspectives of parents, raising a child with Goldenhar Syndrome, have been explored via interviews. We have unearthed prominent issues that impact parental QoL including isolation and distress at the point of diagnosis, and throughout the multidisciplinary health journey. We have also established significant indicators of the ongoing QoL challenges faced by young people with Goldenhar Syndrome. Future work is underway exploring these issues further with teenagers, young people and adults with Goldenhar to develop a conceptual framework of their QoL. This will be used to develop a bespoke patient reported outcome (PRO) to give voice to the challenges children and young adults face during their medical journey.

Cost-Effectiveness of eRAPID eHealth Intervention for Symptom Management During Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: A randomized controlled trial of online symptom monitoring during chemotherapy with electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) system found improved symptom control and patient self-efficacy, without increasing hospital admissions and visits. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the eRAPID eHealth intervention compared with usual care for patients receiving systemic treatment for colorectal, breast, or gynecologic cancers in the United Kingdom. METHODS: An embedded economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial evaluating the effectiveness of eRAPID from health care provider and societal perspectives. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients were compared over 18 weeks of the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Uncertainty around the ICER was explored using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. Follow-up data were collected 12-months after random assignment for a subset of the study sample to conduct exploratory analysis of potential longer-term effects. RESULTS: Patients in the eRAPID group had the highest QALY gain and lowest costs over 18 weeks. Although differences were small and not statistically significant, eRAPID had a 55%-58% probability of being more cost-effective than usual care. Patient out-of-pocket costs were lower in the eRAPID group, indicating eRAPID may help patients access support needed within the National Health Service. Exploratory 12-months analysis showed small differences in costs and QALYs, with higher QALY gains in the eRAPID group but also higher costs. Exploratory subgroup analysis by disease status indicated that the eRAPID intervention was cost-effective for patients with early-stage cancers but not for patients with metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Despite small differences in QALYs and costs, the analyses show potential cost-effectiveness of online symptom monitoring, when added to usual care, particularly during adjuvant systemic treatment for early-stage cancers.

The impact of COVID-19 on PRO development, collection and implementation: views of UK and Ireland professionals.

BACKGROUND: PROs are valuable tools in clinical care to capture patients' perspectives of their health, symptoms and quality of life. However the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound impacts on all aspects of life, in particular healthcare and research. This study explores the views of UK and Irish health professionals, third sector and pharmaceutical industry representatives and academic researchers on the impact of COVID-19 on PRO collection, use and development in clinical practice. METHODS: A volunteer sample took part in a 10 question cross sectional qualitative survey, on the impact of COVID-19, administered online via Qualtrics. Demographic data was descriptively analysed, and the qualitative free text response data was subject to thematic analysis and summarised within the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) framework. RESULTS: Forty nine participants took part located in a range of UK settings and professions. Participants highlighted staff strengths during the pandemic including colleagues' flexibility and ability to work collaboratively and the adoption of novel communication tools. Weaknesses were a lack of staff capacity to continue or start PRO projects and insufficient digital infrastructure to continue studies online. Opportunities included the added interest in PROs as useful outcomes, the value of electronic PROs for staff and patients particularly in relation to integration into systems and the electronic patient records. However, these opportunities came with an understanding that digital exclusion may be an issue for patient groups. Threats identified included that the majority of PRO research was stopped or delayed and funding streams were cut. CONCLUSIONS: Although most PRO research was on hold during the pandemic, the consensus from participants was that PROs as meaningful outcomes were valued more than ever. From the opportunities afforded by the pandemic the development of electronic PROs and their integration into electronic patient record systems and clinical practice could be a lasting legacy from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Online Symptom Monitoring During Pelvic Radiation Therapy: Randomized Pilot Trial of the eRAPID Intervention.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) and chemoRT for pelvic cancers increase survival but are associated with serious treatment-related symptoms. Electronic-patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is a secure online system for patients to self-report symptoms, generating immediate advice for hospital contact or self-management. This pilot study aimed to establish feasibility and acceptability of the system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a prospective 2-center randomized parallel-group pilot study, patients undergoing radical pelvic RT for prostate cancer (prostateRT) or chemoRT for lower gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers were randomized to usual care (UC) or eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 12, 18, and 24 weeks). Primary outcomes were recruitment/attrition, study completion, and patient adherence. Secondary outcomes were effect on hospital services and performance of patient outcome measures. Missing data, floor/ceiling effects, and mean change scores were examined for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ C-30), self-efficacy, and EuroQol (EQ5D). RESULTS: From 228 patients approached, 167 (73.2%) were consented and randomized (83, eRAPID; 84, UC; 87, prostateRT; 80, chemoRT); 150 of 167 completed 24 study weeks. Only 16 patients (9.6%) withdrew (10, eRAPID; 6, UC). In the eRAPID arm, completion rates were higher in patients treated with prostateRT compared with chemoRT (week 1, 93% vs 69%; week 2, 93% vs 68%; week 12, 69% vs 55%). Overall, over 50% of online reports triggered self-management advice for milder adverse events. Unscheduled hospital contact was low, with no difference between eRAPID and UC. Return rates for outcome measures were excellent in prostateRT (97%-91%; 6-24 weeks) but lower in chemoRT (95%-55%; 6-24 weeks). Missing data were low (1%-4.1%), ceiling effects were evident in EQ5D-5L, self-efficacy-scale, and FACT-Physical Wellbeing. At 6 weeks, the chemoRT-eRAPID group showed less deterioration in FACT-G, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ5D-Visual Analogue Scale than UC, after baseline adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: eRAPID was successfully added to UC at 2 cancer centers in different patient populations. Acceptability and feasibility were confirmed with excellent adherence by prostate patients, but lower by those undergoing chemoRT for gynecological cancers.

'Exploring the Influence of Social Media Influencers on Intention to Attend Cervical Screening in the UK: Utilising the Theory of Planned Behaviour'.

OBJECTIVES: Cervical cancer is 99.8% preventable when detected early; however, uptake of screening in the United Kingdom is at a 20-year low. Recently, a number of social media influencers have video logged about their experiences of cervical screening through narrative communication with their audience. Here we aimed to explore if accessing cervical screening information from a social media influencer can impact the theory of planned behaviour variables and predict intention to attend cervical screening appointments. DESIGN: Utilising a cross-sectional design a volunteer sample of 102 UK women (mean age = 28; SD = 3.10; range = 25-35) took part in an online questionnaire study. RESULTS: Hierarchical regression modelling revealed attitude as a significant predictor of intention to attend a cervical screening appointment and that social media influencers affect attitudes of their audience, indirectly influencing intention to attend. CONCLUSION: Health messages communicated by social media influencers are effective in promoting positive attitudes but not directly influence intention to attend towards cervical screening. Further research should explore influencer impact on attitudes towards this health behaviour with the ultimate aim of increasing attendance and consequently saving lives.

A systematic review and recommendations for prom instruments for older people with frailty in emergency care.

INTRODUCTION: The current service metrics used to evaluate quality in emergency care do not account for specific healthcare outcome goals for older people living with frailty. These have previously been classified under themes of 'Autonomy' and 'Functioning'. There is no person-reported outcome measure (PROM) for older people with frailty and emergency care needs. This study aimed to identify and co-produce recommendations for instruments potentially suitable for use in this population. METHODS: In this systematic review, we searched six databases for PROMs used between 2010 and 2021 by older people living with frailty receiving acute hospital care. Studies were reviewed against predefined eligibility criteria and appraised for quality using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Data were extracted to map instrument constructs against an existing framework of acute healthcare outcome goals. Instrument face and content validity were assessed by lay collaborators. Recommendations for instruments with potential emergency care suitability were formed through co-production. RESULTS: Of 9392 unique citations screened, we appraised the full texts of 158 studies. Nine studies were identified, evaluating nine PROMs. Quality of included studies ranged from 'doubtful' to 'very good'. Most instruments had strong evidence for measurement properties. PROMs mainly assessed 'Functioning' constructs, with limited coverage of 'Autonomy'. Five instruments were considered too burdensome for the emergency care setting or too specific for older people living with frailty. CONCLUSIONS: Four PROMs were recommended as potentially suitable for further validation with older people with frailty and emergency care needs: COOP/WONCA charts, EuroQol, McGill Quality of Life (Expanded), and Palliative care Outcome Scale.

Measuring functional outcomes in major trauma: can we do better?

PURPOSE: There is relatively limited large scale, long-term unified evidence to describe how quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes are affected after polytrauma. The aim of this study is to review validated measures available to assess QoL and functional outcomes and make recommendations on how best to assess patents after major trauma. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE databases were interrogated to identify suitable patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in major trauma, and current practice in their use globally. RESULTS: Overall, 81 papers met the criteria for inclusion and evaluation. Data from these were synthesised. A full set of validated PROMs tools were identified for patients with polytrauma, as well as critique of current tools available, allowing us to evaluate practice and recommend specific outcome measures for patients following polytrauma, and system changes needed to embed this in routine practice moving forward. CONCLUSION: To achieve optimal outcomes for patients with polytrauma, we will need to focus on what matters most to them, including their needs (and unmet needs). The use of appropriate PROMs allows evaluation and improvement in the care we can offer. Transformative effects have been noted in cases where they have been used to guide treatment, and if embedded as part of the wider system, it should lead to better overall outcomes. Accordingly, we have made recommendations to this effect. It is time to seize the day, bring these measures even further into our routine practice, and be part of shaping the future.

Quality of life after VATS lung resection and SABR for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: A longitudinal study.

INTRODUCTION: Video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) lung resection is the recommended curative treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients considered at high surgical risk, are treated with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) as a lower morbidity alternative. This study aims to investigate the impact of SABR and VATS resection on patients' quality of life (QoL) over the first year after treatment. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal observational study recruiting early-stage NSCLC patients from a single UK centre. QoL was assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30 and Lung Cancer Module LC13 at baseline, 6 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment. RESULTS: From 01.03.2017 till 01.03.2018, 244/281 patients (87%) consented to participate, 225 (95 SABR and 130 VATS) were included in the analysis. SABR patients had significantly worse baseline QoL scores than VATS patients, even after adjusting for preoperative clinical factors (C-30 Global Health mean: SABR = 53.8, VATS = 71.2; Physical Functioning mean: SABR = 57, VATS = 82.2; Fatigue mean: SABR = 43.5, VATS = 23.7; C30 Dyspnea mean: SABR = 49.5, VATS = 26.2). During the 12 months post SABR treatment patients' QoL scores remained stable. In the VATS group, there was a deterioration 6-weeks after treatment in Role, Physical, Social Functions, Global Health, Fatigue, C30/LC13 Dyspnoea, Pain, Appetite loss, Constipation, LC13 Pain in Chest and Arms. The scores improved by 12 months without reaching the preoperative values. CONCLUSIONS: Although QoL outcomes for SABR and VATS are not comparable due to different medical selection criteria, the QoL impact of the two treatments during the first year showed different trends which will inform patients and clinicians during decision-making discussions.

Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial of eRAPID: eHealth Intervention During Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent. METHODS: Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246. RESULTS: Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 (P = .028) and 12 (P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) (P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks (P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy (P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS (P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.

EHealth Literacy in UK Teenagers and Young Adults: Exploration of Predictors and Factor Structure of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS).

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, teenagers and young adults (TYAs) seek out health information online; however, it is not clear whether they possess electronic health (eHealth) literacy, defined as "the ability to select, appraise, and utilize good quality health information from the internet." A number of factors are included in the Lily model proposed by Norman and Skinner underpinning the development of eHealth literacy. It is important to understand which elements may influence the development of eHealth literacy in young people, as the current generation will continue to "Google it" when faced with a health problem throughout their lives. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to explore potential factors influencing young people's eHealth literacy and explore the underlying constructs of the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) in a population of UK university students. METHODS: A total of 188 undergraduate psychology students from a large UK University were recruited as an opportunity sample. Of these, 88.8% (167/188) of participants were female with a mean age of 20.13 (SD 2.16) years and the majority were White British (159/188, 84.6%). Employing a cross-sectional design TYAs completed the following measures exploring eHealth literacy (eHEALS): Irrational Health Belief Scale; Newest Vital Sign (NVS), a measure of functional health literacy; Need for Cognition Scale, a preference for effortful cognitive activity; and General Self-Efficacy (GSE) Scale, exploring personal agency and confidence. The eHEALS was also subject to exploratory factor analysis (EFA), for which in addition to the total variance explained, the scree plot, eigenvalues, and factor loadings were assessed to verify the structure. RESULTS: eHEALS and GSE were significantly positively correlated (r=0.28, P<.001) and hierarchical linear modeling revealed GSE as the significant predictor of scores on the eHEALS (F1,186=16.16, P<.001, R2=0.08), accounting for 8.0% of the variance. Other notable relationships were GSE and need for cognition (NFC) were also positively correlated (r=0.33, P<.001), and NFC and irrational health beliefs were significantly negatively correlated (r=-.14, P=.03). Using Spearman correlations, GSE and NVS (rs=0.14, P=.04) and NFC and NVS (rs=0.19, P=.003) were positively correlated. An EFA revealed the scale to be stable and identified a 2-factor structure related to information acquisition and information application. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study in the UK to explore relationships between these key variables and verify the structure of the eHEALS in a TYA population in the UK. The findings that self-efficacy has a major influence firmly consolidate its status as fundamental to the development of eHealth literacy. Future studies will explore the influence of body image and the development of eHealth literacy in more diverse TYA populations.

Patients' views of routine quality of life assessment following a diagnosis of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: There is an increasing interest in the quality of life (QoL) evaluation following video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A qualitative interview study was conducted to gain insight into the optimal methods of assessing and discussing QoL in clinical practice. METHODS: A prospective observational longitudinal study of patients with early-stage NSCLC was conducted where repeated QoL measures were administered either online or on paper. A subset of participants was invited for qualitative interviews after the 6-month assessment or at the end of the study. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were interviewed. Generally, patients were content with recruitment and data collection procedures. Most opted to complete the assessments on paper instead of online; this choice was influenced by the level of technology literacy. Some found the questionnaires too generic to reflect their experiences. Barriers to questionnaire completion were mostly practical, and many acknowledged benefits of QoL assessment including allowing them to express problems and health issues, and following changes over time. Generally, participants would like to discuss QoL results during clinical consultations, but reported this rarely happened. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer patient interviews confirm the acceptability of repeated QoL assessments, but online data capture is limited. Patients highlight the importance of discussing QoL aspects with their clinical team. Future strategies are needed to optimize the routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice.

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.

Online tool for monitoring adverse events in patients with cancer during treatment (eRAPID): field testing in a clinical setting.

OBJECTIVES: Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online system developed to support patient care during cancer treatment by improving the detection and management of treatment-related symptoms. Patients can complete symptom reports from home and receive severity-based self-management advice, including notifications to contact the hospital for severe symptoms. Patient data are available in electronic records for staff to review. Prior to the commencement of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), field testing of the intervention was undertaken to troubleshoot practical issues with intervention integration in clinical practice. DESIGN: Observational clinical field testing. SETTING: Medical oncology breast service in a UK cancer centre. PARTICIPANTS: 12 patients receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer and 10 health professionals (oncologists and specialist nurses). INTERVENTION: Patients were asked to use the eRAPID intervention and complete weekly online symptom reports during four cycles of chemotherapy. Clinical staff were invited to access and use patient data in clinical assessments. ANALYSIS: Descriptive data on the frequency of online symptom report completion and severe symptom notifications were collated. Verbal and written feedback was collected from patients and staff and semistructured interviews were conducted to explore patient experiences. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: The testing ran from January 2014 to March 2014. Feedback from patients and staff was largely positive. Patients described eRAPID as 'reassuring' and 'comforting' and valued the tailored management advice. Several changes were made to refine eRAPID. In particular, improvement of the clinical notification, patient reminder systems and changes to patient and staff training. CONCLUSIONS: The field testing generated valuable results used to guide refinement of eRAPID prior to formal intervention evaluation. Feedback indicated that eRAPID has the potential to improve patients' self-efficacy, knowledge and confidence with managing symptoms during treatment. A large-scale RCT is underway with data collection due to finish in October 2018.

eRAPID electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice: a pilot study protocol in pelvic radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 17,000 patients are treated annually in the UK with radical radiotherapy (RT) for pelvic cancer. New treatment approaches in RT have increased survivorship and changed the subjective toxicity profile for patients who experience acute and long-term pelvic-related adverse events (AE). Multi-disciplinary follow-up creates difficulty for monitoring and responding to these events during treatment and beyond. Originally developed for use in systemic oncology therapy eRAPID (electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice) is an online system for patients to report AEs from home. eRAPID enables patient data to be integrated into the electronic patient records for use in clinical practice, provides patient management advice for mild and moderate AE and advice to contact the hospital for severe AE. The system has now been developed for pelvic RT patients, and we aim to test the intervention in a pilot study with staff and patients to inform a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Eligible patients are those attending St James's University hospital cancer centre and The Christie Hospital Manchester undergoing pelvic radiotherapy+/-chemotherapy/hormonotherapy for prostate, lower gastrointestinal and gynaecological cancers. A prospective 1:1 randomised (intervention or usual care) parallel group design with repeated measures and mixed methods will be employed. We aim to recruit 168 patients following recommendations for sample size estimates for pilot studies. Participants using eRAPID will report AE (at least weekly) from home weekly for 6 weeks and 6 weeks post-treatment (12-week total) then at 18 and 24 weeks. Hospital staff will review eRAPID reports and use information during consultations. Notifications will be sent to the relevant clinical team when severe symptoms are reported. We will measure patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires (Functional Assessment in Cancer Therapy Scale-General (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30), process of care impact (hospital records of patient contacts and admissions) and economic variables (EQ5D-5L, patient use of resources)). Staff and patient experiences will be explored via semi-structured interviews. DISCUSSION: The objectives are to establish feasibility, recruitment, integrity of the system and attrition rates, determine effect sizes and aid selection of the primary outcome measure for a future RCT. We will also refine the intervention by exploring staff and patient views. The overall goal of this complex intervention is to improve the safe delivery of cancer treatments, enhance patient care and standardise documentation of AE within the clinical datasets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264.

Patient reported outcomes following video assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) resection or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: protocol for an observational pilot study (LiLAC).

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is increasingly a disease of the elderly and frail population with a median age of 70 years at diagnosis. Therefore, consideration of the impact of interventions on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and not only absolute survival is especially important. For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has been gaining popularity over the last few decades, replacing traditional open lobectomies. For high-risk patients who are not deemed suitable for surgery, stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) provides a potentially curative alternative. However, little is known about how VATS and SABR affect HRQOL measured using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The LiLAC study (Life after Lung Cancer) aims to explore HRQOL following intervention with VATS or SABR using validated PROMs and to pilot the use of an online questionnaire system (QTool) in this setting. We hope the results will aid both patients and clinicians in decision making and improve the management of post-intervention problems. METHODS: In total, 300 patients (150 VATS and 150 SABR) patients will be recruited over the study period. Patients will be approached prior to intervention and asked to complete baseline HRQOL questionnaires. They will be given access to the QTool online system and then in the 12 months following intervention will be asked to complete questionnaires (paper or online) at 4-time points. Answers will available for patients and clinicians to view throughout the study period. Clinical information (age, gender, co-morbidity, current medications and smoking status along with treatment-specific information) will also be collected. Primary outcome will be to detect changes of PROs (HRQOL and patient satisfaction) after VATS lung resections or SABR in early stage lung cancer patients. Secondary outcomes include correlation of patient's clinical data with HRQOL results to identify predictors of poor outcomes and exploration of patient and clinician views on the usefulness of QOL measurements. DISCUSSION: (I) This first study will primarily compare multiple patients reported outcomes for 12 months after VATS lobectomy and SABR in early stages NSCLC patients. We will explore the acceptability of an online assessment of the HRQOL in NSCLC patients. (II) The study is also focused on the patients' opinion during the shared decision-making process, which has rarely been investigated in surgical lung cancer patients. (III) This is not a randomised trial. As a consequence, inherent cohort selection bias and unknown or unaccounted confounders correlated with the outcome of interest may influence the results of the comparison between the treatment groups. (IV) LILAC is not looking at a direct comparison, but to depict the trajectory of recovery post-treatments and preservation or improvement of the HRQOL. This study has received ethical approval from NRES Yorkshire and the Humber- Leeds East Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 16/YH/0407). Results of this study will be shared with participating hospitals and made available to the academic community through submission for publication in international peer-reviewed journals and presentation at relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02882750.

Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID): a randomised controlled trial in systemic cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: eRAPID (electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice) is an internet based system for patients to self-report symptoms and side effects (adverse events or AE) of cancer treatments. eRAPID allows AE reporting from home and patient reported data is accessible via Electronic Patient Records (EPR) for use in routine care. The system can generate alerts to clinical teams for severe AE and provides patient advice on managing mild AEs. The overall aims of eRAPID are to improve the safe delivery of cancer treatments, enhance patient care and standardise AE documentation. METHODS: The trial is a prospective randomised two-arm parallel group design study with repeated measures and mixed methods. Participants (adult patients with breast cancer on neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, colorectal and gynaecological cancer receiving chemotherapy) are randomised to receive the eRAPID intervention or usual care over 18 weeks of treatment. Participants in the intervention arm receive training in using the eRAPID system to provide routine weekly adverse event reports from home. Hospital staff can access eRAPID reports via the EPR and use the information during consultations or phone calls with patients. Prior to commencing the full trial an internal pilot phase was conducted (N = 87 participants) to assess recruitment procedures, consent and attrition rates, the integrity of the intervention information technology and establish procedures for collecting outcome data. The overall target sample for the trial is N = 504. The primary outcome of the trial is quality of life (FACT-G) with secondary outcomes including health economics (costs to patients and the NHS), process of care (e.g. contacts with the hospital, number of admissions, clinic appointments and changes to treatment/medications) and patient self-efficacy. Outcome data is collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18 weeks and 12 months. The intervention is also being evaluated via end of study interviews with patient participants and clinical staff. DISCUSSION: The pilot phase was completed in February 2016 and recruitment and attrition rates met criteria for continuing to the full trial. Recruitment recommenced in May 2016 and is planned to continue until December 2017. Overall findings will determine the value of the eRAPID intervention for supporting the care of patients receiving systemic cancer treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88520246 . Registered 11 September 2014.