An eHealth App (CAPABLE) Providing Symptom Monitoring, Well-Being Interventions, and Educational Material for Patients With Melanoma Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Protocol for an Exploratory Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: Since treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is becoming standard therapy for patients with high-risk and advanced melanoma, an increasing number of patients experience treatment-related adverse events such as fatigue. Until now, studies have demonstrated the benefits of using eHealth tools to provide either symptom monitoring or interventions to reduce treatment-related symptoms such as fatigue. However, an eHealth tool that facilitates the combination of both symptom monitoring and symptom management in patients with melanoma treated with ICIs is still needed. OBJECTIVE: In this pilot study, we will explore the use of the CAPABLE (Cancer Patients Better Life Experience) app in providing symptom monitoring, education, and well-being interventions on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes such as fatigue and physical functioning, as well as patients' acceptance and usability of using CAPABLE. METHODS: This prospective, exploratory pilot study will examine changes in fatigue over time in 36 patients with stage III or IV melanoma during treatment with ICI using CAPABLE (a smartphone app and multisensory smartwatch). This cohort will be compared to a prospectively collected cohort of patients with melanoma treated with standard ICI therapy. CAPABLE will be used for a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 6 months. The primary endpoint in this study is the change in fatigue between baseline and 3 and 6 months after the start of treatment. Secondary end points include HRQoL outcomes, usability, and feasibility parameters. RESULTS: Study inclusion started in April 2023 and is currently ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study will explore the effect, usability, and feasibility of CAPABLE in patients with melanoma during treatment with ICI. Adding the CAPABLE system to active treatment is hypothesized to decrease fatigue in patients with high-risk and advanced melanoma during treatment with ICIs compared to a control group receiving standard care. The Medical Ethics Committee NedMec (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) granted ethical approval for this study (reference number 22-981/NL81970.000.22). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05827289; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05827289. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/49252.

Primary care physicians' knowledge and confidence in providing cancer survivorship care: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review existing literature on knowledge and confidence of primary care physicians (PCPs) in cancer survivorship care. METHODS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to July 2022 for quantitative and qualitative studies. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and quality. Outcomes were characterized by domains of quality cancer survivorship care. RESULTS: Thirty-three papers were included, representing 28 unique studies; 22 cross-sectional surveys, 8 qualitative, and 3 mixed-methods studies. Most studies were conducted in North America (n = 23) and Europe (n = 8). For surveys, sample sizes ranged between 29 and 1124 PCPs. Knowledge and confidence in management of physical (n = 19) and psychosocial effects (n = 12), and surveillance for recurrences (n = 14) were described most often. Generally, a greater proportion of PCPs reported confidence in managing psychosocial effects (24-47% of PCPs, n= 5 studies) than physical effects (10-37%, n = 8). PCPs generally thought they had the necessary knowledge to detect recurrences (62-78%, n = 5), but reported limited confidence to do so (6-40%, n = 5). There was a commonly perceived need for education on long-term and late physical effects (n = 6), and cancer surveillance guidelines (n = 9). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' knowledge and confidence in cancer survivorship care varies across care domains. Suboptimal outcomes were identified in managing physical effects and recurrences after cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These results provide insights into the potential role of PCPs in cancer survivorship care, medical education, and development of targeted interventions.

Quality of early prostate cancer follow-up care from the patients' perspective.

PURPOSE: To develop optimal cancer survivorship care programs, this study assessed the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care as experienced by patients shortly after completion of primary treatment. METHODS: We surveyed 402 patients with localized prostate cancer participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing specialist versus primary care-based follow-up. For the current study, we used patient-reported data at the time of the first follow-up visit at the hospital, prior to randomization. We assessed patients' ratings of the quality of follow-up care using the Assessment of Patient Experiences of Cancer Care survey. This survey includes 13 scales about different aspects of care and an overall rating of care. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with perceived follow-up quality. RESULTS: Patients reported positive experiences at first follow-up for 9 of 13 scales, with mean (M) scores ranging from 79 to 97 (on a 0-100 response scale). Patients reported most frequently (over 70%) suboptimal care regarding symptom management (84%; M = 44, SD = 37), health promotion (75%; M = 45, SD = 39), and physician's knowledge about patients' life (84%; M = 65, SD = 23). Overall, patients' lower quality of follow-up ratings were associated with younger age, higher education level, having more than one comorbid condition, having undergone primary surgery, and experiencing significant symptoms. CONCLUSION: Patients with prostate cancer are generally positive about their initial, hospital-based follow-up care. However, efforts should be made to improve symptom management, health promotion, and physician's knowledge about patients' life. These findings point to areas where prostate cancer follow-up care can be improved.

Specialist versus Primary Care Prostate Cancer Follow-Up: A Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is currently comparing the effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. This process evaluation assesses the reach and identified constructs for the implementation of primary care-based follow-up. Methods: A mixed-methods approach is used to assess the reach and the implementation through the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We use quantitative data to evaluate the reach of the RCT and qualitative data (interviews) to indicate the perspectives of patients (n = 15), general practitioners (GPs) (n = 10), and specialists (n = 8). Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview transcripts. Results: In total, we reached 402 (67%) patients from 12 hospitals and randomized them to specialist- (n = 201) or to primary care-based (n = 201) follow-up. From the interviews, we identify several advantages of primary care- versus specialist-based follow-up: it is closer to home, more accessible, and the relationship is more personal. Nevertheless, participants also identified challenges: guidelines should be implemented, communication and collaboration between primary and secondary care should be improved, quality indicators should be collected, and GPs should be compensated. Conclusion: Within an RCT context, 402 (67%) patients and their GPs were willing to receive/provide primary care-based follow-up. If the RCT shows that primary care is equally as effective as specialist-based follow-up, the challenges identified in this study need to be addressed to enable a smooth transition of prostate cancer follow-up to primary care.

Type of treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction play an important role in primary care contact during prostate cancer follow-up: results from the population-based PROFILES registry.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing attention for the role of General Practitioners (GPs) after cancer treatment, it is important to better understand the involvement of GPs following prostate cancer treatment. This study investigates factors associated with GP contact during follow-up of prostate cancer survivors, such as patient, treatment and symptom variables, and satisfaction with, trust in, and appraised knowledge of GPs. METHODS: Of 787 prostate cancer survivors diagnosed between 2007 and 2013, and selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry, 557 (71%) responded to the invitation to complete a questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate which variables were associated with GP contact during follow- up. RESULTS: In total, 200 (42%) prostate cancer survivors had contact with their GP during follow-up, and 76 (16%) survivors preferred more contact. Survivors who had an intermediate versus low educational level (OR = 2.0) were more likely to have had contact with their GP during follow-up. Survivors treated with surgery (OR = 2.8) or hormonal therapy (OR = 3.5) were also more likely to seek follow-up care from their GP compared to survivors who were treated with active surveillance. Patient reported bowel symptoms (OR = 1.4), hormonal symptoms (OR = 1.4), use of incontinence aids (OR = 1.6), and being satisfied with their GP (OR = 9.5) were also significantly associated with GP contact during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Education, treatment, symptoms and patient satisfaction were associated with GP contact during prostate cancer follow-up. These findings highlight the potential for adverse side-effects to be managed in primary care. In light of future changes in cancer care, evaluating prostate cancer follow-up in primary care remains important.

Individual risk prediction of urinary incontinence after prostatectomy and impact on treatment choice in patients with localized prostate cancer.

AIMS: Individualized information about the risk of incontinence after prostatectomy could help patients in shared decision-making. METHODS: We compared a historical control cohort (n = 254; between June 2016 and 2017) that received standardized information about the risk of incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with a prospective patient cohort (n = 254; between June 2017 and May 2018) that received individualized information of the chance of recovery of incontinence within 6 months postoperatively based on the continence prediction tool (CPRED). We measured switch in treatment choice, health-related quality of life (QoL) in both cohorts and the accuracy of the CPRED tool. RESULTS: Patients in the individualized information group with RARP as initial preference switched more often to another treatment than patients who received standardized information (16% vs. 5%; p = 0.001). Patients in the individualized information group with a high risk of incontinence and with RARP as initial preference switched more often to other treatments than patients in intermediate/low risk of incontinence (35% vs. 9.8%; p = 0.001). Patients with a low risk of incontinence choosing RARP after individualized information were less likely to use more than one diaper a day at any time postoperative (p = 0.001) compared to men with an intermediate/high incontinence risk. Overall QoL was worse in patients with incontinence than patients with continence 6 and 12 months after RARP (respectively; p < 0.0001 and p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Personalized information about the risk of incontinence after RARP makes more patients reconsidering their initial treatment preference. The CPRED correlated strongly with continence outcome after RARP and is a useful tool for shared decision-making.

The role of routine follow-up visits of prostate cancer survivors in addressing supportive care and information needs: a qualitative observational study.

PURPOSE: To understand the role of routine follow-up visits in addressing prostate cancer survivors' supportive care and information needs. METHODS: We audio-recorded follow-up visits of 32 prostate cancer survivors. Follow-up visits were analyzed according to the Verona Network of Sequence Analysis. We categorized survivors' cues, concerns, and questions into five supportive care domains and divided the responses by the healthcare professionals into providing versus reducing space that is to determine whether or not the response invites the patient to talk more about the expressed cue or concern. RESULTS: Prostate cancer survivors mostly expressed cues, concerns, and questions (in the health system and information domain) about test results, potential impotence treatment, follow-up appointments, and (their) cancer treatment during follow-up visits. Survivors also expressed urinary complaints (physical and daily living domain) and worry about the recurrence of prostate cancer (psychological domain). Healthcare professionals were two times more likely to provide space on cues and concerns related to the physical and daily living domain than to psychological related issues. CONCLUSION: Follow-up visits can serve to address prostate cancer survivors' supportive care and information needs, especially on the health system, information, and physical and daily living domain. Survivors also expressed problems in the psychological domain, although healthcare professionals scarcely provided space to these issues. We would like to encourage clinicians to use these results to personalize follow-up care. Also, these data can be used to develop tailored (eHealth) interventions to address supportive care and information needs and to develop new models of survivorship care delivery.

Perceived Care and Well-being of Patients With Cancer and Matched Norm Participants in the COVID-19 Crisis: Results of a Survey of Participants in the Dutch PROFILES Registry.

Importance: As the resolution of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis is unforeseeable, and/or a second wave of infections may arrive in the fall of 2020, it is important to evaluate patients' perspectives to learn from this. Objective: To assess how Dutch patients with cancer perceive cancer treatment and follow-up care (including experiences with telephone and video consultations [TC/VC]) and patients' well-being in comparison with a norm population during the COVID-19 crisis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of patients participating in the Dutch Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry and a norm population who completed a questionnaire from April to May 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Logistic regression analysis assessed factors associated with changes in cancer care (treatment or follow-up appointment postponed/canceled or changed to TC/VC). Differences in quality of life, anxiety/depression, and loneliness between patients and age-matched and sex-matched norm participants were evaluated with regression models. Results: The online questionnaire was completed by 4094 patients (48.6% response), of whom most were male (2493 [60.9%]) and had a mean (SD) age of 63.0 (11.1) years. Of these respondents, 886 (21.7%) patients received treatment; 2725 (55.6%) received follow-up care. Treatment or follow-up appointments were canceled for 390 (10.8%) patients, whereas 160 of 886 (18.1%) in treatment and 234 of 2725 (8.6%) in follow-up had it replaced by a TC/VC. Systemic therapy, active surveillance, or surgery were associated with cancellation of treatment or follow-up appointment. Younger age, female sex, comorbidities, metastasized cancer, being worried about getting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and receiving supportive care were associated with replacement of a consultation with a TC/VC. Patients and norm participants reported that the COVID-19 crisis made them contact their general practitioner (852 of 4068 [20.9%] and 218 of 979 [22.3%]) or medical specialist/nurse (585 of 4068 [14.4%] and 144 of 979 [14.7%]) less quickly when they had physical complaints or concerns. Most patients who had a TC/VC preferred a face-to-face consultation, but 151 of 394 (38.3%) were willing to use a TC/VC again. Patients with cancer were more worried about getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with the 977 norm participants (917 of 4094 [22.4%] vs 175 of 977 [17.9%]). Quality of life, anxiety, and depression were comparable, but norm participants more often reported loneliness (114 of 977 [11.7%] vs 287 of 4094 [7.0%]) than patients with cancer (P = .009). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with cancer in the Netherlands, 1 in 3 reported changes in cancer care in the first weeks of the COVID-19 crisis. Long-term outcomes need to be monitored. The crisis may affect the mental well-being of the general population relatively more than that of patients with cancer.

Design of the PROstate cancer follow-up care in Secondary and Primary hEalth Care study (PROSPEC): a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up of localized prostate cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: In its 2006 report, From cancer patient to cancer survivor: lost in transition, the U.S. Institute of Medicine raised the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive care model for cancer survivors. Given the ever increasing number of cancer survivors, in general, and prostate cancer survivors, in particular, there is a need for a more sustainable model of follow-up care. Currently, patients who have completed primary treatment for localized prostate cancer are often included in a specialist-based follow-up care program. General practitioners already play a key role in providing continuous and comprehensive health care. Studies in breast and colorectal cancer suggest that general practitioners could also consider to provide survivorship care in prostate cancer. However, empirical data are needed to determine whether follow-up care of localized prostate cancer survivors by the general practitioner is a feasible alternative. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority study will compare specialist-based (usual care) versus general practitioner-based (intervention) follow-up care of prostate cancer survivors who have completed primary treatment (prostatectomy or radiotherapy) for localized prostate cancer. Patients are being recruited from hospitals in the Netherlands, and randomly (1:1) allocated to specialist-based (N = 195) or general practitioner-based (N = 195) follow-up care. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of primary care-based follow-up, in comparison to usual care, in terms of adherence to the prostate cancer surveillance guideline for the timing and frequency of prostate-specific antigen assessments, the time from a biochemical recurrence to retreatment decision-making, the management of treatment-related side effects, health-related quality of life, prostate cancer-related anxiety, continuity of care, and cost-effectiveness. The outcome measures will be assessed at randomization (≤6 months after treatment), and 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment. DISCUSSION: This multicenter, prospective, randomized study will provide empirical evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of specialist-based follow-up care compared to general practitioner-based follow-up care for localized prostate cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry, Trial NL7068 (NTR7266). Prospectively registered on 11 June 2018.

Unmet expectations in prostate cancer patients and their association with decision regret.

PURPOSE: Information about prostate cancer patients' experiences with their treatment is crucial to optimize shared decision-making. This study examined unmet expectations in prostate cancer patients and their association with decision regret. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational, multi-center study of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2014 and 2016. Questionnaires were completed at baseline (pre-treatment), and up to 12 months after treatment. Unmet expectations were reported as the proportion of patients who experienced side effects as worse than expected. Linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated significantly (p ≤ 0.05) with unmet expectations and its association with decision regret. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, the majority of the patients (71%, 210/296) reported at least one unmet expectation. The proportion of patients who reported worse than expected erectile problems was 56%, recovery period = 29%, urinary problems = 28%, fatigue = 24%, and bowel problems = 17%. Unmet expectations were comparable between treatment groups, except for fatigue. A passive role in the decision-making process (eta squared (η2) = 0.02) and higher scores on the decisional conflict scale (η2 = 0.02) were associated with more unmet expectations, and unmet expectations were associated with decision regret (η2 = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Unmet expectations are common among men treated for localized prostate cancer. Involving patients in the treatment decision-making process and offering additional counseling to patients who indicate uncertainty about their decision, may help to avoid unmet expectations. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The current study emphasizes the need for involving prostate cancer patients in the decision-making process in order to mitigate unmet expectations.

The risk of developing cardiovascular disease is increased for patients with prostate cancer who are pharmaceutically treated for depression.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between pharmaceutically treated anxiety and depression and incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) among 1-year prostate cancer survivors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A registry-based cohort study design was used to describe the risk of incident CVD in adult 1-year prostate cancer survivors without a history of CVD. Patients with prostate cancer diagnosed between 1999 and 2011 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Drug dispenses were retrieved from the PHARMO Database Network and were used as proxy for CVD, anxiety, and depression. Data were analysed using Cox regression analysis to examine the risk associations between pharmaceutically treated anxiety and depression entered as a time-varying predictor with incident CVD in 1-year prostate cancer survivors, while controlling for age, traditional CVD risk factors, and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 5262 prostate cancer survivors, 327 (6%) developed CVD during the 13-year follow-up period. Prostate cancer survivors who were pharmaceutically treated for depression had an increased risk of incident CVD after full adjustment compared to prostate cancer survivors who were not pharmaceutically treated for depression (hazard ratio [HR] 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-2.15). The increased risk of incident CVD amongst those pharmaceutically treated for depression compared to those who were not pharmaceutically treated for depression, was only valid among: prostate cancer survivors who were aged ≤65 years (HR 2.91; 95% CI 1.52-5.55); those who were not treated with radiotherapy (HR 1.63; 95% CI 1.01-2.65); those who were treated with hormones (HR 1.76; 95% CI 1.09-2.85); those who were not operated upon (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.07-2.25); and those with tumour stage III (HR 2.21; 95% CI 1.03-4.74) and stage IV (HR 2.47; 95% CI 1.03-5.89). CONCLUSION: Patients with prostate cancer who were pharmaceutically treated for depression had a 51% increased risk of incident CVD after adjustment for anxiety, age, traditional CVD risk factors, and clinical characteristics. The results emphasise the need to pay attention to (pharmaceutically treated) depressed patients with prostate cancer prior to deciding on prostate cancer treatment and for a timely detection and treatment of CVD.