Structural distress screening and supportive care for patients with lung cancer on systemic therapy: A randomised controlled trial

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Radiation Oncology

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessments arguably provide the most accurate description of the patient experience, as they are directly derived from the patient without the filter of a provider. Utilizing instruments to assess PROs in radiation oncology enables a provider to measure pretreatment, on-treatment, and posttreatment symptoms. In the clinic, PROs are supplemental to physician-derived ratings that help create a complete clinical picture of a patient at a given time point to inform shared decision-making. A compilation of PROs that arise within trials, specific for given treatment regimes, will be invaluable for patients faced with choosing between options.

Identifying and exploring patient engagement interventions for people diagnosed with lung cancer: A rapid systematic review

PURPOSE

To identify and synthesise evidence describing patient engagement interventions that have been used to support people diagnosed with lung cancer.

METHODS

A rapid systematic review was conducted following guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods group and reported using the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Keyword searches were performed in MEDLINE and supplemented by Google Scholar searches. Searches were restricted to peer-reviewed articles conducted in high-income countries and published in English. Data was extracted using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, tabulated, and narratively synthesised. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were included in the final analysis. Studies show a positive impact of interventions across a range of engagement outcomes including patient and caregiver knowledge, patient activation, and decision making. Interventions were also shown to reduce healthcare use, reduce symptom severity, and improve psychosocial outcomes. Barriers to implementing interventions included: the timing/delivery of interventions, poor digital literacy, system and technical barriers, and poor uptake and adherence by advanced patients. Factors supporting intervention implementation included: participatory research/co-production approaches, providing training and support for those delivering interventions, involving caregivers, and employing broad recruitment strategies. The overall risk of bias for studies ranged from moderate to high.

CONCLUSION

The identified interventions demonstrate significant potential for enhancing patient engagement and improving outcomes for lung cancer patients. Findings from this review will support the design and implementation of future interventions to help people with cancer engage with healthcare.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42024521052) on 06/03/24.

Systematic Review for the Follow-up of Curatively Treated Patients With Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The follow-up of patients with lung cancer after curative-intent treatment should include strategies to improve their quality of life and survival. These could include the monitoring and management of symptoms of recurrence and late toxicities from cancer treatments, the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools, and smoking cessation interventions. The objective of this systematic review was to examine these follow-up strategies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review was developed by Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario)'s Program in Evidence-Based Care. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of clinicians, PRO tools, smoking cessation interventions, and management strategies for signs, symptoms, risk factors, comorbidities, or late toxicities in adult patients with NSCLC or SCLC after curative-intent treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-five RCTs and nineteen systematic reviews were included. For nurse-led interventions, either significant effects were found in favor of the intervention, or no significant effects were found. The results for the use of PRO tools were mixed, possibly due to differences in comparators and settings. Evidence suggested that smoking cessation interventions might benefit these patients (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03). There was limited evidence in the target population for the management of signs, symptoms, risk factors, comorbidities, or late toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation interventions, exercise training, and the use of PRO tools may benefit these patients. The results of this systematic review were used to inform recommendations in a clinical practice guideline. Further RCTs in this patient population are needed.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cancer Care: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) come directly from the patient, without clinician interpretation, to provide a patient-centered perspective.

Objective

To understand the association of PROM integration into cancer care with patient-related, therapy-related, and health care utilization outcomes.

Data Sources

Searches included MEDLINE and MEDLINE Epub ahead of print, in-process, and other nonindexed citations; Embase databases (OvidSP); PsychINFO; CENTRAL; and CINAHL from January 1, 2012 to September 26, 2022.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that enrolled adult patients (ages 18 years and older) with active cancer receiving anticancer therapy using a PROM as an intervention.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Pairs of review authors, using prepiloted forms, independently extracted trial characteristics, disease characteristics, and intervention details. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was followed. Random-effects analyses were conducted.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures, and hospital utilization outcomes.

Results

From 1996 to 2022, 45 RCTs including 13 661 participants addressed the association of PROMs with outcomes considered important to patients. The addition of a PROM likely reduced the risk of overall mortality (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98; moderate certainty), improved HRQoL (range 0-100) at 12 weeks (mean difference [MD], 2.45; 95% CI, 0.42-4.48; moderate certainty). Improvements of HRQoL at 24 weeks were not significant (MD, 1.87; 95% CI, -1.21 to 4.96; low certainty). There was no association between the addition of a PROM and HRQoL at 48 weeks. The addition of a PROM was not associated with reduced ED visits (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-1.02; low certainty) or hospital admissions (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.02; low certainty).

Conclusion and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that the integration of PROMs into cancer care may improve overall survival and quality of life.

Interventions for Concerning Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine cancer care improves patient-clinician communication, decision making, and overall patient satisfaction. Recommendations exist regarding standardized ways to collect, store, and interpret PRO data. However, evidence on incorporating PROs into cancer process of care, especially the type of HIs that are warranted after observing a concerning PRO and the effectiveness of these HIs are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study summarizes HIs triggered after PRO completion and their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes for adults being treated for cancer types that are resource intensive and associated with high symptom burden [i.e., gastrointestinal (GI), lung, and head and neck cancer (HNC)]. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with poor implementation of PROs.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A literature search of peer-reviewed publications on MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, APA PsycInfo, Scopus, and Cochrane was conducted following PRISMA guidelines from 1 January 2012, to 31 July 2022. Trial and real-world studies describing HIs after PRO completion for adult patients being treated for GI, lung, and HNC were included. Sixteen studies involving 144,496 patients were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist was used to assess risk of bias.

FINDINGS

Of the 16 included studies, 5 included patients with HNC. Commonly used PRO measurement tools were the PRO-CTCAE and ESAS. Only three studies reported specific HIs delivered in response to concerning PROs and measured their effectiveness on patient outcomes. In all three studies, these HIs significantly improved cancer-related care. The most common HIs undertaken in response to concerning PROs were referrals to other specialists/allied healthcare professionals, medication changes, or self-management advice. Provider-related barriers to PRO measurement and delivery included the overwhelming number of alerts, the time required to address each PRO and the unclear role of healthcare providers in response to these alerts. Patient-related barriers included lower digital literacy and socioeconomic status, older age, rural living, and patients suffering from GI and HNC.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review highlights that PRO-triggered HIs are heterogenous and can improve patient quality of life. Further studies are necessary to determine the types of interventions with the greatest impact on patient care and outcomes.

Anxiety and depression in lung cancer: effect of psychological interventions - network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of depression and anxiety is high in patients with lung cancer, while multiple psychological interventions have revealed a positive impact on patients' negative emotions. However, it remains scarce which psychological intervention is the best choice for patients.This study was conducted to compare and rank the efficacy of psychological interventions on anxiety and depression in patients with lung cancer using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

The Chinese academic database (CNKI, Wan Fang and Vip) and English academic database (The Cochrane Library, PubMed, PsycINFO and Web of Science) were searched from their inception to March 2022. Randomised controlled studies of psychological interventions on depression and anxiety in patients with lung cancer were included. Study selection and evaluation were conducted independently by two researchers. Included studies were performed a network meta-analysis to compare and rank the psychological interventions for negative emotions of patients with lung cancer. The clustered ranking of psychotherapies in the network was based on surface under the cumulative probability ranking curve values.

RESULTS

23 studies (2221 participants) with 13 psychological interventions were retrieved. The random-effects model showed a significantly large effect size of supportive therapy for anxiety (mean difference, MD 14.38, 95% CI 2.42 to 26.21) and depression (MD 14.29, 95% CI 2.74 to 25.70). The supportive therapy, sandplay therapy and music therapy were top three rankings of interventions for anxiety, while supportive therapy, dignity therapy and sandplay therapy were the top three interventions for depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Supportive therapy would be a more appropriate option for alleviating negative emotions in patients with lung cancer. Other psychological intervention techniques may be used as alternatives, such as sandplay therapy and music therapy for anxiety, dignity therapy and sandplay therapy for depression.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022320188.

Psychological outcomes of the systematic interventions based on the stress-induced situation, affective, bodily, and cognitive reactions framework for patients with lung cancer: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Psychological distress is a multi-factorial unpleasant experience of a psychological, social, spiritual, and/or physical nature that may interfere with one's ability to cope effectively with cancer, physical symptoms and treatment. Psychological distress is common and affects the prognosis of cancer patients. Lung cancer accounted for 11.4 % of all new cancer cases and 18 % of all cancer mortality for 36 cancers in 185 countries. The prevalence of distress among Chinese lung cancer patients ranged from 10.1 % to 61.29 %. However, the existing intervention studies on the psychological distress in lung cancer patients are limited and intervention results may be different.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the psychological outcomes of a nurse-led systematic intervention program based on the stress-induced situation, affective, bodily, and cognitive reactions framework for patients with lung cancer undergoing operation at anxiety and depression.

DESIGN

A randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Thoracic surgery ward in a tertiary hospital in China.

PARTICIPANTS

Lung cancer patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

This is a 12-month longitudinal randomized controlled study in a tertiary hospital in China. A total of 240 lung cancer patients were randomly divided into either the control group or the intervention group. The nurse-led systematic intervention contents include psychological education, intervention measures based on the stress-induced situation, affective, bodily, and cognitive reactions framework, issuance of daily lifestyle cards, and regular follow-ups. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue Scale, and Satisfaction with Life Scale were used for the baseline assessment within 48 h upon admission. The same assessment was performed respectively at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the intervention started. The effects of the systematic interventions on depression, anxiety, fatigue, and life satisfaction were tested by a linear mixed effects model.

RESULTS

Overall time-by-group interaction effects were significantly different with regard to anxiety, depression, and fatigue after controlling for the covariates, while a significant time-by-group interaction effect was not found for life satisfaction. Changes for anxiety and depression scores at 6 and 12 months after initiation of the intervention were significantly greater in the intervention group compared with those in the control group (t = 3.046, p = 0.002, t = 3.190, p = 0.001; t = 3.735, p = 0.000, t = 2.979, p = 0.002), whereas scores for fatigue were significantly higher in the intervention group at 6 and 12 months (t = -3.096, p = 0.002, t = -2.784, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

The systematic intervention program based on the stress-induced situation, affective, bodily, and cognitive reactions framework may effectively relieve anxiety, depression, and fatigue in lung cancer patients undergoing surgery.

REGISTRATION

This study was registered on December 22, 2019 with the registration number ChiCTR1900028487, and the date of first recruitment was Jan 5, 2020.

Effectiveness of healthy lifestyle-based interventions in lung cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the effectiveness of healthy lifestyle-based interventions in lung cancer survivors.

METHODS

We performed a literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct (last search March 2022). Quality assessment and risk of bias were assessed using the Downs and Black scale and the Cochrane tool. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were performed. We included controlled trials testing the effect of healthy lifestyle-based interventions in lung cancer survivors versus a control intervention where lung cancer patients had no treatment, were receiving the usual care, or had not an active role in the intervention. The data were pooled and a meta-analysis was completed for quality of life, psychological distress, and cancer-related symptoms.

RESULTS

We selected 14 studies, which included 1519 patients with lung cancer. The treatment status of these patients was heterogeneous. Healthy lifestyle programs were applied isolated or in combination with usual care in most of the studies. The components of the healthy lifestyle programs were also heterogeneous. Results showed significant differences in favor of healthy lifestyle-based interventions in comparison to the control group for quality of life (p = 0.01), psychological distress (p = 0.05), and cancer-related symptoms (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicated a beneficial effect of healthy lifestyle-based interventions for improving quality of life, psychological distress, and cancer-related symptoms in lung cancer patients. However, this review could not show any conclusion about the better treatment moment to apply healthy lifestyle-based interventions.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021292152.

REVIEW REGISTRATION DATE

19/12/2021.

The Effects of Patient-Reported Outcome Screening on the Survival of People with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study examined the effects of the routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on the overall survival of adult patients with cancer. We included clinical trials and observational studies with a control group that compared PRO monitoring interventions in cancer clinical practice to usual care. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools were used. In total, six studies were included in the systematic review: two randomized trials, one population-based retrospectively matched cohort study, two pre−post with historical control studies and one non-randomized controlled trial. Half were multicenter, two were conducted in Europe, three were conducted in the USA and was conducted in Canada. Two studies considered any type of cancer, two were restricted to lung cancer and two were restricted to advanced forms of cancer. PRO screening was electronic in four of the six studies. The meta-analysis included all six studies (intervention = 130.094; control = 129.903). The pooled mortality outcome at 1 year was RR = 0.77 (95%CI 0.76−0.78) as determined by the common effect model and RR = 0.82 (95%CI 0.60−1.12; p = 0.16) as determined by the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was statistically significant (I2 = 73%; p < 0.01). The overall risk of bias was rated as moderate in five studies and serious in one study. This meta-analysis seemed to indicate the survival benefits of PRO screening. As routine PRO monitoring is often challenging, more robust evidence regarding the effects of PROs on mortality would support systematic applications.

Nurse-led educational interventions for anxiety management in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed toward evaluating the effectiveness of nurse-led educational interventions in anxiety management in cancer survivors.

METHODS

The electronic databases including Embase, PubMed, CINAHL Complete, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ERIC and manual search were subjected to a systematic search from 2000 to March 2021. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 1028 studies were identified through five electronic databases and manual search. Overall, 42 studies were included in this systematic review. In addition, 32 included studies also investigated the interventional effects in management of depression. Therefore, depression was set as the secondary outcome. The meta-analysis of 20 randomized controlled trials with 2936 participants showed that nurse-led educational interventions decreased cancer survivors' anxiety with a moderate effect size (ES: - 0.25; 95% CI, - 0.35 to - 0.15, p = 0.03). The meta-analysis of 15 studies with 1906 participants indicated that nurse-led educational interventions decreased cancer survivors' depression with a moderate effect size (ES: - 0.33; 95% CI, - 0.45 to - 0.21, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Evidence supports the effectiveness of nurse-led educational interventions for reducing anxiety and depression in cancer survivors. An individual approach, the combination of face-to-face interventions and materials, a duration of 6 months, and a maximum of 60 min for each session could be considered in the future when developing educational interventions to manage anxiety.

The effects of physical activity, fast-mimicking diet and psychological interventions on cancer survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Health professionals are often asked if non-pharmacological interventions prolong life. This review aims to evaluate the effects of physical activity, fast-mimicking diet (FMD) and psychological interventions on survival in all cancers.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Only RCTs of physical activity, FMD and psychological interventions (including counselling, cognitive and other psychotherapies) in cancer patients that reported survival outcomes were included.

DATA SOURCES

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020 were searched without language restrictions. The protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42019160944).

RESULTS

Thirty-one RCTs (9 on physical activity and 22 on psychological interventions) were included in the final analysis after evaluation of 60,207 records from our initial search. No eligible RCT on FMD was reported. RCTs on group psychological interventions (41.9 %) and in patients with breast cancer (38.7 %) were the most common. Most evaluated short-term interventions and in primary or adjuvant settings. Only one of 9 (11 %) RCTs on physical activity and 8 of 22 (36 %) RCTs on psychological interventions were associated with improved overall survival. Only group psychological interventions in breast cancer had adequate number of RCTs to allow a meta-analysis to be performed. It demonstrated a trend towards improved overall survival (HR -0.20, 95 %CI -0.49 to 0.10), particularly in RCTs that evaluated long-term (>6 months) therapies (HR -0.29, 95 %CI -0.59 to 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Longer term interventions starting early in the patients' care journey in primary and adjuvant settings have shown the most promise for improving survival. Better designed RCTs including survival outcomes are particularly needed in non-breast cancers.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Community- and Choice-Based Health State Utility Values for Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Using appropriate health state utility values (HSUVs) is critical for economic evaluation of new lung cancer interventions, such as low-dose computed tomography screening and immunotherapy. Therefore, we provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of community- and choice-based HSUVs for lung cancer.

METHODS

On 6 March 2017, we conducted a systematic search of the following databases: Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar, and the School of Health and Related Research Health Utility Database. The search was updated on 17 April 2019. Studies reporting mean or median lung cancer-specific HSUVs including a measure of variance were included and assessed for relevance and validity. Studies with high relevance (i.e. community- and choice-based) were further analysed. Mean HSUVs were pooled using random-effects models for all stages, stages I-II, and stages III-IV. For studies with a control group, we calculated the disutility due to lung cancer. A sensitivity analysis included only the methodologically most comparable studies (i.e. using the EQ-5D instrument and matching tariff). Subgroup analyses were conducted by time to death, histology, sex, age, treatment modality, treatment line, and progression status.

RESULTS

We identified and analysed 27 studies of high relevance. The pooled HSUV was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.75) for all stages, 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.86) for stages I-II, and 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.73) for stages III-IV (p = 0.02 vs. stage I-II). Heterogeneity was present in each pooled analysis (p < 0.01; I2 = 92-99%). Disutility due to lung cancer ranged from 0.11 (95% CI 0.05-0.17) to 0.27 (95% CI 0.18-0.36). In the sensitivity analysis with the methodologically most comparable studies, stage-specific HSUVs varied by country. Such studies were only identified for Canada, China, Spain, the UK, the USA, Denmark, Germany, and Thailand. In the subgroup analysis by time to death, HSUVs for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer ranged from 0.83 (95% CI 0.82-0.85) at ≥ 360 days from death to 0.56 (95% CI 0.46-0.66) at < 30 days from death. Among patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, HSUVs were lower for those receiving third- or fourth-line treatment and for those with progressed disease. Results of subgroup analyses by histology, sex, age, and treatment modality were ambiguous.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented evidence supports the use of stage- and country-specific HSUVs. However, such HSUVs are unavailable for most countries. Therefore, our pooled HSUVs may provide the best available stage-specific HSUVs for most countries. For metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, adjusting for the decreased HSUVs in the last year of life may be considered, as may further stratification of HSUVs by treatment line or progression status. If required, HSUVs for other health states may be identified using our comprehensive breakdown of study characteristics.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Lung cancer

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality and has a wide variation in treatment and outcomes in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must only be carried out in lung cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

Professional patient navigation in a hospital setting: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the effect of patient navigation on health-related quality of life, distress, self-care knowledge, self-efficacy, satisfaction, and healthcare usage.

METHODS

Patients newly diagnosed with ovarian, vulvar, endometrial, melanoma stage III/IV, lung, or renal cancer were randomly assigned to either care as usual or care as usual plus consultations with a patient navigator (i.e., specially trained oncology nurse who monitors, advises, and refers patients to supportive cancer care). Measures included the EORTC-QLQ-C30, distress thermometer, and study-specific questions inspired by the Symptom-Management Self-Efficacy Scale Breast Cancer, Patient Satisfaction with Cancer Care Scale, and the Medical Consumption Questionnaire. Measures were completed before randomization (baseline) and at 1 month, 3 months, and 5 months after baseline.

RESULTS

In the case of health-related quality of life, no significant difference was observed between the intervention (n = 42) and the control group (n = 47). Consumption of supportive cancer care was low for both the intervention and the control group but relatively lower for the intervention group. Also, participants who consulted the patient navigator seemed to have higher levels of self-efficacy and satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Although the intervention sorted no relevant effects on health-related quality of life, it did affect patients' experience of cancer care and self-efficacy. We recommend that patient navigators monitor and advise on unmet supportive care needs, but only in the case of high-risk patients. Furthermore, considering current and prior research, it is wise to study patient navigation using more sensitive outcome measures than health-related quality of life.

Prioritisation of treatment goals among older patients with non-curable cancer: the OPTion randomised controlled trial in Dutch primary care

BACKGROUND

Older patients with cancer often find it difficult to take part in shared decision making.

AIM

To assess the utility of the Outcome Prioritisation Tool (OPT), designed to aid discussion with a patient in regards to their treatment goals, to empower patients with cancer through structured conversations about generic treatment goals with GPs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A randomised controlled trial of 114 Dutch participants recruited between November 2015 and January 2019, aged ≥60 years with non-curable cancer who had to make a treatment decision with an oncologist. The intervention group used the OPT while the control group received care as usual.

METHOD

The primary outcome was patient empowerment using the score on the decision self-efficacy (DSE) scale. Secondary outcomes were symptoms measures of fatigue, anxiety, and depression. The experiences of participants were also explored.

RESULTS

No effect was found on patient empowerment between the OPT group (n = 48; DSE 86.8; standard deviation [SD] = 18.2) and the control group (n = 58; DSE 84.2; SD = 17.6; P = 0.47). In the OPT group, although statistically non-significant, fewer patients had low empowerment (18.8%, n = 9 versus 24.1%, n = 14; P = 0.50), but they did have statistically significant lower mean anxiety scores (6.0, SD = 4.6 versus 7.6, SD = 4.4; P<0.05) and less mild fatigue (58.8%, n = 30 versus 77.2%, n = 44; P = 0.05). Overall, 44.8% (n = 13) of patients indicated that the OPT-facilitated conversation helped them make a treatment decision, and 31.1% (n = 14) of the GPs reported that they gained new insights from the conversation.

CONCLUSION

An OPT-facilitated conversation about generic treatment goals between patients and their GPs is associated with less anxiety and fatigue, but did not show statistically significant improvements in patient empowerment. Adding the OPT to routine care might ensure more patient-tailored care.

Does a regular nurse-led distress screening and discussion improve quality of life of breast cancer patients treated with curative intent? A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We performed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate whether regular screening with the distress thermometer (DT) by a nurse improved global quality of life (QOL) of patients with breast cancer (BC) treated with curative intent.

METHODS

BC patients were randomized between regular screening for distress with a nurse-led DT intervention (NDTI) and usual care (UC). Both groups filled out questionnaires at baseline, after each received treatment modality and at follow-up visits up to 2 years. At these points, the intervention group received also the NDTI. The primary outcome was the global QOL of the EORTC QLQ C30 at 2 years after the end of treatment. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), generalized least squares, and interaction analyses.

RESULTS

Of 194 randomized patients, 153 filled out the questionnaires up to 2 years after treatment. There was no significant difference between NDTI and UC in global QOL 2 years after the end of treatment (mean diff. = -1∙273, P = .610; 95% CI [-6.195; 3.649]). Subgroup analysis of patients who received multimodality treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, n = 66) showed a significant between-group difference in global QOL over time (mean diff. = -10, P < .001; 95% CI [-14.835; -5.167]) together with other secondary outcome measures in favor of the NDTI.

CONCLUSION

NDTI did not lead to a significant improvement in global QOL 2 years after the end of treatment for patients with BC. However, the findings indicate that BC patients who received multimodality treatment may benefit from NDTI.

Educational Attainment and Quality of Life among Older Adults before a Lung Cancer Diagnosis

Background: Demographic and contextual factors are associated with quality of life (QoL) in older adults and prediagnosis QoL among older adults has important implications for supportive care in older cancer patients. Objective: To examine whether lower educational attainment is associated with poorer QoL among community dwelling older adults just before their diagnosis of lung cancer in a nationally representative sample. Design: This study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) dataset, which provides cancer registry data linked with survey data for Medicare Advantage enrollees. Subjects: Adults 65 years and older at time of diagnosis with first or only primary lung cancer and with at least one survey before their cancer diagnosis. Measurements: Level of education attained was categorized as less than high school (<HS) or at least a high school diploma (≥HS). QoL was calculated based on individual subscale scores from the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) until 2006 (Veteran's RAND 12-Item Survey [VR-12] after 2006). Demographic covariates as well as number of comorbidities were adjusted for in multivariable models. Results: Higher education was positively associated with prediagnosis mental and physical QoL. Other factors associated with lower QoL were Medicaid status and number of comorbidities. Conclusions: Particular attention should focus on identifying and addressing QoL needs among vulnerable older adults to bolster QoL to mitigate its potential impact on prognosis following a lung cancer diagnosis.

The distress thermometer as a prognostic tool for one-year survival among patients with lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

The use of patient-reported outcome measures is increasingly advocated to support high-quality cancer care. We therefore investigated the added value of the Distress Thermometer (DT) when combined with known predictors to assess one-year survival in patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

All patients had newly diagnosed or recurrent lung cancer, started systemic treatment, and participated in the intervention arm of a previously published randomised controlled trial. A Cox proportional hazards model was fitted based on five selected known predictors for survival. The DT-score was added to this model and contrasted to models including the EORTC-QLQ-C30 global QoL score (quality of life) or the HADS total score (symptoms of anxiety and depression). Model performance was evaluated through improvement in the -2 log likelihood, Harrell's C-statistic, and a risk classification.

RESULTS

In total, 110 patients were included in the analysis of whom 97 patients accurately completed the DT. Patients with a DT score ≥5 (N = 51) had a lower QoL, more symptoms of anxiety and depression, and a shorter median survival time (7.6 months vs 10.0 months; P = 0.02) than patients with a DT score <5 (N = 46). Addition of the DT resulted in a significant improvement in the accuracy of the model to predict one-year survival (P < 0.001) and the discriminatory value (C-statistic) marginally improved from 0.69 to 0.71. The proportion of patients correctly classified as high risk (≥85% risk of dying within one year) increased from 8% to 28%. Similar model performance was observed when combining the selected predictors with QoL and symptoms of anxiety or depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the DT allows clinicians to better identify patients with lung cancer at risk for poor outcomes, to further explore sources of distress, and subsequently personalize care accordingly.

Systematic screening and assessment of psychosocial well-being and care needs of people with cancer

BACKGROUND

Receiving a diagnosis of cancer and the subsequent related treatments can have a significant impact on an individual's physical and psychosocial well-being. To ensure that cancer care addresses all aspects of well-being, systematic screening for distress and supportive care needs is recommended. Appropriate screening could help support the integration of psychosocial approaches in daily routines in order to achieve holistic cancer care and ensure that the specific care needs of people with cancer are met and that the organisation of such care is optimised.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effectiveness and safety of screening of psychosocial well-being and care needs of people with cancer. To explore the intervention characteristics that contribute to the effectiveness of these screening interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched five electronic databases in January 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched five trial registers and screened the contents of relevant journals, citations, and references to find published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs) that studied the effect of screening interventions addressing the psychosocial well-being and care needs of people with cancer compared to usual care. These screening interventions could involve self-reporting of people with a patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or a semi-structured interview with a screening interventionist, and comprise a solitary screening intervention or screening with guided actions. We excluded studies that evaluated screening integrated as an element in more complex interventions (e.g. therapy, coaching, full care pathways, or care programmes).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed methodological quality for each included study using the Cochrane tool for RCTs and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for NRCTs. Due to the high level of heterogeneity in the included studies, only three were included in meta-analysis. Results of the remaining 23 studies were analysed narratively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies (18 RCTs and 8 NRCTs) with sample sizes of 41 to 1012 participants, involving a total of 7654 adults with cancer. Two studies included only men or women; all other studies included both sexes. For most studies people with breast, lung, head and neck, colorectal, prostate cancer, or several of these diagnoses were included; some studies included people with a broader range of cancer diagnosis. Ten studies focused on a solitary screening intervention, while the remaining 16 studies evaluated a screening intervention combined with guided actions. A broad range of intervention instruments was used, and were described by study authors as a screening of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), distress screening, needs assessment, or assessment of biopsychosocial symptoms or overall well-being. In 13 studies, the screening was a self-reported questionnaire, while in the remaining 13 studies an interventionist conducted the screening by interview or paper-pencil assessment. The interventional screenings in the studies were applied 1 to 12 times, without follow-up or from 4 weeks to 18 months after the first interventional screening. We assessed risk of bias as high for eight RCTs, low for five RCTs, and unclear for the five remaining RCTs. There were further concerns about the NRCTs (1 = critical risk study; 6 = serious risk studies; 1 = risk unclear).Due to considerable heterogeneity in several intervention and study characteristics, we have reported the results narratively for the majority of the evidence.In the narrative synthesis of all included studies, we found very low-certainty evidence for the effect of screening on HRQoL (20 studies). Of these studies, eight found beneficial effects of screening for several subdomains of HRQoL, and 10 found no effects of screening. One study found adverse effects, and the last study did not report quantitative results. We found very low-certainty evidence for the effect of screening on distress (16 studies). Of these studies, two found beneficial effects of screening, and 14 found no effects of screening. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence for the effect of screening on HRQoL to be very low. We found very low-certainty evidence for the effect of screening on care needs (seven studies). Of these studies, three found beneficial effects of screening for several subdomains of care needs, and two found no effects of screening. One study found adverse effects, and the last study did not report quantitative results. We judged the overall level of evidence for the effect of screening on HRQoL to be very low. None of the studies specifically evaluated or reported adverse effects of screening. However, three studies reported unfavourable effects of screening, including lower QoL, more unmet needs, and lower satisfaction.Three studies could be included in a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed no beneficial effect of the screening intervention on people with cancer HRQoL (mean difference (MD) 1.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.83 to 8.12, 2 RCTs, 6 months follow-up); distress (MD 0.0, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36, 1 RCT, 3 months follow-up); or care needs (MD 2.32, 95% CI -7.49 to 12.14, 2 RCTs, 3 months follow-up). However, these studies all evaluated one specific screening intervention (CONNECT) in people with colorectal cancer.In the studies where some effects could be identified, no recurring relationships were found between intervention characteristics and the effectiveness of screening interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low-certainty evidence that does not support the effectiveness of screening of psychosocial well-being and care needs in people with cancer. Studies were heterogeneous in population, intervention, and outcome assessment.The results of this review suggest a need for more uniformity in outcomes and reporting; for the use of intervention description guidelines; for further improvement of methodological certainty in studies and for combining subjective patient-reported outcomes with objective outcomes.

Evaluating a professional patient navigation intervention in a supportive care setting

PURPOSE

Unmet supportive care needs are common among cancer patients. This study evaluates a patient navigation intervention (i.e., specially trained oncology nurse who monitors, advises, and (if needed) refers patients to supportive cancer care) in terms of need, satisfaction, advice uptake, and consumption of supportive cancer care.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional design, the intervention was evaluated among healthcare professionals, patients who participated, and patients who did not participate in the intervention. All patients were newly diagnosed with breast cancer or melanoma. Data was collected through medical records and online surveys.

RESULTS

In total, 1091 patients were offered patient navigation. Most of these patients (755) were willing to consult the patient navigator (PN). Approximately 90% of patients who completed both the intervention and the questionnaire (N = 120, response rate 54%) perceived the PN as valuable, accessible, and reliable. Approximately 80% of respondents who needed advice regarding nutrition (n = 67), fatigue (n = 98), emotions (n = 106), and work (n = 79) were adequately informed by the PN. Of the 120 respondents, 59 used some form of supportive cancer care. Most of the responding healthcare professionals (N = 70, response rate 45%) perceived the intervention as a valuable addition to current cancer care (n = 51) and mentioned that the PN should be available to all patients (n = 54).

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention was perceived as valuable by both patients and healthcare professionals. The results may, however, been biased by the large number of patients who were omitted from participation due to logistical reasons.

Effects of Shared Decision Making on Distress and Health Care Utilization Among Patients With Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Lung cancer is associated with significant distress, poor quality of life, and a median prognosis of less than one year. Benefits of shared decision making (SDM) have been described for multiple diseases, either by the use of decisions aids or as part of supportive care interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to summarize the effects of interventions facilitating SDM on distress and health care utilization among patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in the CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO databases. Studies were eligible when conducted in a population of patients with lung cancer, evaluated the effects of an intervention that facilitated SDM, and measured distress and/or health care utilization as outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies, detailed in 13 publications, were included: nine randomized trials and three retrospective cohort studies. All studies reported on a supportive care intervention facilitating SDM as part of their intervention. Eight studies described effects on distress, and eight studies measured effects on health care utilization. No effect was found in studies measuring generic distress. Positive effects, in favor of the intervention groups, were observed in studies using anxiety-specific measures (n = 1) or depression-specific measures (n = 3). Evidence for reductions in health care utilization was found in five studies.

CONCLUSION

Although not supported by all studies, our findings suggest that facilitating SDM in the context of lung cancer may lead to improved emotional outcomes and less aggressive therapies. Future studies, explicitly studying the effects of SDM by using decision aids, are needed to better elucidate potential benefits.

Psychosocial challenges for patients with advanced lung cancer: interventions to improve well-being

As compared to other cancers, lung malignancies are associated with high symptom burden, poorer prognosis, and stigmatization. Such factors increase psychological distress and negatively impact quality of life. Research has documented the efficacy of psychosocial interventions to alleviate psychological distress and promote well-being among patients with cancer. This article summarizes the current literature on psychosocial interventions in lung cancer. Major types of psychosocial interventions in lung cancer include cognitive-behavioral therapies, psycho-education, mind-body, exercise, and supportive or palliative care strategies. Discussion relative to the purpose, sample, research design, outcomes, and quality of the studies is presented. Findings may be useful in clinical environments as a resource to help health providers better understand mental health treatment options and care for patients facing lung cancer. The need to direct future research toward the advancement of science and improve well-being and quality of life outcomes for patients with advanced lung cancer and their family members is discussed.

Feasibility of advanced practice nursing in lung cancer consultations during early treatment: A phase II study

PURPOSE

There are limited data on the effectiveness of Advanced Practice Nurses in Lung Cancer (APNLC). Previous studies have demonstrated barriers to investigation including low recruitment and high attrition rates in lung cancer population. The primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of APNLC consultations and the ability to collect patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during first-line treatment. The secondary aim was to describe changes in self-efficacy for managing lung cancer-related symptoms, symptom intensity/burden and unmet supportive care needs of APNLC patients during first-line treatment.

METHODS

An exact single-stage phase II design was applied. We recruited a consecutive sample of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients receiving systemic treatment in a Swiss oncology outpatient center. The intervention consisted of four systematic, alternating face-to-face/telephone consultations during first line-treatment. Feasibility of the study was defined by at least 55% of patients receiving all scheduled APNLC-led consultations and completing PROMs assessments at the three timepoints.

RESULTS

In total, 35/46 (76%) (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.87) of patients met the feasibility criteria receiving all scheduled APNLC consultations. Fifty-six percent (26/46) (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.71) completed the PROMs at the three timepoints. Self-efficacy for managing symptoms remained stable, intensity of predominant symptoms increased. Unmet information needs decreased significantly while psychological and sexuality related needs increased over time.

CONCLUSION

Results were promising for the feasibility of the APNLC consultation and the ability to collect PROMs. Further investigations are needed to increase the impact of the APNLC consultations on symptom intensity and sexual and psychological needs.