International development of a patient-centered core outcome set for assessing health-related quality of life in metastatic breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: For patients living with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), achieving best possible health-related quality of life, along with maximizing survival, is vital. Yet, we have no systemic way to determine if we achieve these goals. A Core Outcome Set (COS) that allows standardized measurement of outcomes important to patients, but also promotes discussing these outcomes during clinical encounters, is long overdue. METHODS: An international expert group (EG) of patient advocates, researchers, medical specialists, nurse specialists, and pharmaceutical industry representatives (n = 17) reviewed a list of relevant outcomes retrieved from the literature. A broader group (n = 141: patients/patient advocates (n = 45), health care professionals/researchers (n = 64), pharmaceutical industry representatives (n = 28), and health authority representatives (n = 4)) participated in a modified Delphi procedure, scoring the relevance of outcomes in two survey rounds. The EG finalized the COS in a consensus meeting. RESULTS: The final MBC COS includes 101 variables about: (1) health-related quality of life (HRQoL, n = 26) and adverse events (n = 24); (2) baseline patient characteristics (n = 9); and (3) clinical variables (n = 42). Many outcome that cover aspects of HRQoL relevant to MBC patients are included, e.g. daily functioning (including ability to work), psychosocial/emotional functioning, sexual functioning, and relationship with the medical team. CONCLUSION: The COS developed in this study contains important administrative data, clinical records, and clinician-reported measures that captures the impact of cancer. The COS is important for standardization of clinical research and implementation in daily practice and has received accreditation by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM).

2013 President's Plenary International Psycho-oncology Society: embracing the IPOS standards as a means of enhancing comprehensive cancer care.

BACKGROUND: The second President's Plenary at the 2013 International Psycho-oncology Society's World Congress in Rotterdam, the Netherlands aimed to progress and, where needed, initiate changes to achieve comprehensive cancer care. Recent initiatives have been driven by the need to see psychosocial care as an integrated part of holistic multidisciplinary quality cancer care. The President's Plenary session covered the need for the following: An internationally agreed standard of quality cancer care, which includes psychosocial care for patients and their families and caregivers. An endorsement to assess distress as the 6th vital sign. Psycho-oncology professionals to integrate into a federation promoting better national and international outcomes. CONCLUSION: This overview highlights progress in terms of enhanced communication between and within different professionals groups supporting the implementation of a model of comprehensive patient care that is inclusive of psychosocial support and screening for distress. Tasks and challenges for the future are set out but the primary message is of the importance of collaboration in order to achieve recognition that psychosocial care is integrated into comprehensive cancer care; in this way, patient, family and carer needs can be more appropriately met.

Changes over time in self-efficacy to cope with cancer and well-being in women with breast cancer: a cross-cultural study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether self-efficacy to cope with cancer changes over time in patients with breast cancer and whether these potential changes are similar across patients. It also aimed to examine whether these trajectories are related to patient psychological well-being and overall quality of life. METHODS: Participants (N = 404) from four countries (i.e. Finland, Israel, Italy, and Portugal) were enrolled in the study few weeks after breast surgery or biopsy. Self-efficacy to cope with cancer was assessed at baseline, six and 12 months later. Well-being indices were assessed at baseline, 12 and 18 months later. RESULTS: Using Latent Class Growth Analysis, two groups of patients were identified. The majority of patients reported high levels of self-efficacy to cope, which increased over time. For almost 15% of the patients, however, self-efficacy declined over time. Diminishing levels of self-efficacy to cope predicted worse levels of well-being. The pattern of self-efficacy changes and their relationships to well-being was consistent across countries. CONCLUSION: Monitoring self-efficacy to cope with cancer is probably important in order to detect alarming changes in its levels, as a declining self-efficacy to cope may serve as a signal of the need for intervention to prevent adaptation difficulties.