Patients' quality of life during active cancer treatment: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients' quality of life has become a major objective of care in oncology. At the same time, it has become the object of increasing interest by researchers, working with both quantitative and qualitative methods. Progress in oncology has enabled more patients to survive longer, so that cancer is increasingly often a chronic disease that requires long-term treatment that can have negative effects on patients' quality of daily life. Nonetheless, no qualitative study has explored what patients report affects their quality of daily life during the treatment period. This study is intended to fill this gap. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter qualitative study based on 30 semi-structured interviews. Participants, purposively selected until data saturation, had diverse types of cancer and had started treatment at least 6 months before interview. Data were examined by thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our analysis found two themes: (1) what negatively affected for patient's quality of daily life during the treatment period, a question to which patients responded by talking only about the side effects of treatment; and (2) what positively affected their quality of daily life during the treatment period with three sub-themes: (i) The interest in having -investing in - a support object that can be defined as an object, a relationship or an activity particularly invested by the patients which makes them feel good and makes the cancer and its treatment bearable, (ii)The subjective perception of the efficacy of the antitumor treatment and (iii) the positive effects of relationships, with friends and family, and also with their physician. CONCLUSIONS: Patients must be involved in their care if they are to be able to bear their course of treatment and find ways to endure the difficult experience of cancer care. The support object represents an important therapeutic lever that can be used by their oncologists. They should be interested in their support objects, in order to support the patients in this investment and to help them to maintain it throughout the health care pathway. Furthermore, showing interest in this topic, important to the patient, could improve the physician-patient relation without using up very much of the physician's time.

Decisional procalcitonin thresholds are not adapted to elderly patients admitted to the emergency room.

CONTEXT: Diagnosis of sepsis in elderly is challenging. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether procalcitonin concentrations in elderly differed from values for the general population. METHODS: Procalcitonin measurement was assessed prospectively in 307 apyretic patients ≥75 years visiting the emergency department. RESULTS: Median age was 86 years [IQR81-90] and 222 (72%) were female. Procalcitonin concentration was 0.057 µg/L [0.040-0.092]; 99th percentile was 0.661 µg/L. Patients with procalcitonin concentrations above decisional thresholds had lower glomerular filtration rate and higher C-reactive protein concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline procalcitonin levels are increased in elderly. Elevated values are common and associated to low-grade inflammation and lower eGFR.

Crossing the perspectives of patients, families, and physicians on cancer treatment: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Patients, family members, and physicians participate in cancer care, but their perspectives about what is helpful during cancer treatment have rarely been compared. The aim of this study was to compare these three perspectives. METHODS: Multicenter qualitative study (with previously published protocol) based on 90 semi-structured interviews. Participants (purposively selected until data saturation) came from three different subsamples: (i) patients with cancer (n=30), (ii) their relatives (n=30), and (iii) their referring physicians (n=10, interviewed more than once). RESULTS: Our analysis found 3 main axes (perceived positive effects of cancer treatment, perceived negative effects of cancer treatment, doctor-physician relationship), each composed of 2 main themes. The findings showed that patients, families, and physicians shared the long-term objective of increasing survival (while reducing side effects). However, patients and relatives also pointed out the importance of living with cancer each day and thus of factors helping them to live as well as possible in daily life. The physicians' difficulty in coping with patients' suffering may limit their access to elements that can improve patients' capacity to live as well as possible. CONCLUSIONS: During cancer treatment (and not only at the end of life), attention should be given to enhancing the capacity of patients to live as well as possible (not only as long as possible) to meet the goals of patient-centered care and satisfy this important need of patients and families.