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.

Being Transparent About Brilliant Failures: An Attempt to Use Real-World Data in a Disease Model for Patients with Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Real-world disease models spanning multiple treatment lines can provide insight into the (cost) effectiveness of treatment sequences in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore whether a disease model based solely on real-world data (RWD) could be used to estimate the effectiveness of treatments for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) that could then be suitably used in a cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: We developed a patient-level simulation model using patient-level data from the Dutch CAPRI registry as input parameters. Time to event (TTE) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with multivariate regression models, and type of event (i.e., next treatment or death) was estimated with multivariate logistic regression models. To test internal validity, TTE and OS from the simulation model were compared with the observed outcomes in the registry. RESULTS: Although patient characteristics and survival outcomes of the simulated data were comparable to those in the observed data (median OS 20.6 vs. 19.8 months, respectively), the disease model was less accurate in estimating differences between treatments (median OS simulated vs. observed population: 18.6 vs. 17.9 [abiraterone acetate plus prednisone], 24.0 vs. 25.0 [enzalutamide], 20.2 vs. 18.7 [docetaxel], and 20.0 vs. 23.8 months [radium-223]). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the disease model accurately approximated the observed data in the total CRPC population. However, the disease model was unable to predict differences in survival between treatments due to unobserved differences. Therefore, the model is not suitable for cost-effectiveness analysis of CRPC treatment. Using a combination of RWD and data from randomised controlled trials to estimate treatment effectiveness may improve the model.

High-Intensity Care in the End-of-Life Phase of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients: Results from the Dutch CAPRI-Registry.

Background: Intensive end-of-life care (i.e., the overuse of treatments and hospital resources in the last months of life), is undesirable since it has a minimal clinical benefit with a substantial financial burden. The aim was to investigate the care in the last three months of life (end-of-life [EOL]) in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods: Castration-resistant prostate cancer registry (CAPRI) is an investigator-initiated, observational multicenter cohort study in 20 hospitals retrospectively including patients diagnosed with CRPC between 2010 and 2016. High-intensity care was defined as the initiation of life-prolonging drugs (LPDs) in the last month, continuation of LPD in last 14 days, >1 admission, admission duration ≥14 days, and/or intensive care admission in last three months of life. Descriptive and binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: High-intensity care was experienced by 41% of 2429 patients in the EOL period. Multivariable analysis showed that age (odds ratio [OR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.99), performance status (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33-0.97), time from CRPC to EOL (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97-0.98), referral to a medical oncologist (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.55-2.55), prior LPD treatment (>1 line OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.31-2.28), and opioid use (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.08-1.95) were significantly associated with high-intensity care. Conclusions: High-intensity care in EOL is not easily justifiable due to high economic cost and little effect on life span, but further research is awaited to give insight in the effect on patients' and their caregivers' quality of life.

Health-related Quality of Life and Pain in a Real-world Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Population: Results From the PRO-CAPRI Study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine generic, cancer-specific, and prostate cancer-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pain and changes over time in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in daily practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PRO-CAPRI is an observational, prospective study in 10 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with mCRPC completed the EQ-5D, European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) every 3 months and European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Prostate Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-PR25) every 6 months for a maximum of 2 years. Subgroups were identified based on chemotherapy pretreatment. Outcomes were generic, cancer-specific, and prostate cancer-specific HRQoL and self-reported pain. Descriptive statistics were performed including changes over time and minimal important differences (MID) between subgroups. RESULTS: In total, 151 included patients answered 873 questionnaires. The median follow-up from the start of the study was 19.5 months, and 84% were treated with at least 1 life-prolonging agent. Overall, patients were in good clinical condition (Eatern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 in 78%) with normal baseline hemoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, and alkaline phosphatase. At inclusion, generic HRQoL was high with a mean EQ visual analog score of 73.2 out of 100. The lowest scores were reported on role and physical functioning (mean scores of 69 and 76 of 100, respectively), and fatigue, pain, and insomnia were the most impaired domains. These domains deteriorated in > 50% of patients. CONCLUSION: Although most patients were treated with new treatments during follow-up, mCRPC has a negative impact on HRQoL with deterioration in all domains over time, especially role and physical functioning. These domains need specific attention during follow-up to maintain HRQoL as long as possible by timely start of adequate supportive care management.