Completion of Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaires Among Older Adults with Advanced Cancer

TOward a comPrehensive supportive Care intervention for Older men with metastatic Prostate cancer (TOPCOP3): A pilot randomized controlled trial and process evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Current management of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) includes androgen receptor axis-targeted therapy (ARATs), which is associated with substantial toxicity in older adults. Geriatric assessment and management and remote symptom monitoring have been shown to reduce toxicity and improve quality of life in patients undergoing chemotherapy, but their efficacy in patients being treated with ARATs has not been explored. The purpose of this study is to examine whether these interventions, alone or in combination, can improve treatment tolerability and quality of life (QOL) for older adults with metastatic prostate cancer on ARATs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOPCOP3 is a multi-centre, factorial pilot clinical trial coupled with an embedded process evaluation. The study includes four treatment arms: geriatric assessment and management (GA + M); remote symptom monitoring (RSM); geriatric assessment and management plus remote symptom monitoring; and usual care and will be followed for six months. The aim is to recruit 168 patients between two cancer centres in Toronto, Canada. Eligible participants will be randomized equally via REDCap. Participants in all arms will complete a comprehensive baseline assessment upon enrollment following the Geriatric Core dataset, as well as follow-up assessments at 1.5, 3, 4.5, and 6 months. The co-primary outcomes will be grade 3-5 toxicity and QOL. Toxicities will be graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. QOL will be measured by patient self-reporting using the EuroQol 5 dimensions of health questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include fatigue, insomnia, and depression. Finally, four process evaluation outcomes will also be observed, namely feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability, along with implementation barriers and facilitators.

DISCUSSION

Data will be collected to observe the effects of GA + M and RSM on QOL and toxicities experienced by older adults receiving ARATs for metastatic prostate cancer. Data will also be collected to help the design and conduct of a definitive multicentre phase III randomized controlled trial. This study will extend supportive care interventions for older adults with cancer into new areas and inform the design of larger trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT05582772).

Hematological Malignancies in Older Patients: Focus on the Potential Role of a Geriatric Assessment Management

Geriatric assessment management is a multidimensional tool used to evaluate prognosis for clinical outcomes and targets for interventions in older adults with cancer receiving chemotherapy. In this review, we evaluated the possible application of geriatric assessment management (GAM) in hematological malignancies. In older patients with Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma, GAM might be helpful in both predicting planned hospital admissions and improving quality of life. In chronic myeloid leukemia, the Charlson Comorbidity Index demonstrates how comorbidities could affect treatment compliance and overall outcomes. In multiple myeloma, the application of different scores such as the International Myeloma Working Group Frailty Index and the Revised Myeloma Comorbidity Index can identify frail patients who need suitable interventions in treatment plan (reducing drug dose or changing treatment). Therefore, including GAM in the management plan of older patients with hematological malignancies may direct and optimize cancer care.

A Retrospective Age Analysis of the Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey: Differences in Satisfaction across Dimensions of Person-Centred Care and Unmet Needs among Older Adults Receiving Cancer Treatment

Over half of all new cancer cases in Alberta are diagnosed among people aged 65+ years, a group that encompasses vast variation. Patient-reported experience measures are routinely collected within Cancer Care Alberta; however, the specific consideration of the needs and concerns of older Albertans with cancer is lacking. In 2021, 2204 adults who had received treatment at a cancer centre in Alberta completed the Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS). In this study, we explored the age differences in satisfaction across six dimensions of person-centred care and in the proportions of unmet needs across eight types of issues, with specific attention to older adults. Using three age groups (18-39, 40-64, 65+), only the physical comfort dimension showed significantly lower satisfaction among those aged 65+ years. Using five age groups (18-39, 40-64, 65-74, 75-84, 85+), significantly lower levels of satisfaction were found related to 'physical comfort' for those aged 65-74 and 75-84, 'coordination and continuity of care' for those aged 75-84 and 85+, and 'information, communication, and education' for those aged 85+. Therefore, grouping together all older adults aged 65+ years obscured lower levels of satisfaction with some dimensions of person-centred care among those aged 75-84 and 85+ years. Unmet needs generally increased with age for all types of issues, with significant differences across age groups for emotional, financial, social/family, and sexual health issues. The lower levels of satisfaction and higher proportions of unmet needs call for tailored interventions to promote optimal care experiences and outcomes among older adults receiving cancer care in Alberta and their families.

Fixing the Leaky Pipe: How to Improve the Uptake of Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Prognostic and Predictive Models in Cancer Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

This discussion paper outlines challenges and proposes solutions for successfully implementing prediction models that incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer practice.

METHODS

We organized a full-day multidisciplinary meeting of people with expertise in cancer care delivery, PRO collection, PRO use in prediction modeling, computing, implementation, and decision science. The discussions presented here focused on identifying challenges to the development, implementation and use of prediction models incorporating PROs, and suggesting possible solutions.

RESULTS

Specific challenges and solutions were identified across three broad areas. (1) Understanding decision making and implementation: necessitating multidisciplinary collaboration in the early stages and throughout; early stakeholder engagement to define the decision problem and ensure acceptability of PROs in prediction; understanding patient/clinician interpretation of PRO predictions and uncertainty to optimize prediction impact; striving for model integration into existing electronic health records; and early regulatory alignment. (2) Recognizing the limitations to PRO collection and their impact on prediction: incorporating validated, clinically important PROs to maximize model generalizability and clinical engagement; and minimizing missing PRO data (resulting from both structural digital exclusion and time-varying factors) to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities. (3) Statistical and modeling challenges: incorporating statistical methods to address missing data; ensuring predictive modeling recognizes complex causal relationships; and considering temporal and geographic recalibration so that model predictions reflect the relevant population.

CONCLUSION

Developing and implementing PRO-based prediction models in cancer care requires extensive multidisciplinary working from the earliest stages, recognition of implementation challenges because of PRO collection and model presentation, and robust statistical methods to manage missing data, causality, and calibration. Prediction models incorporating PROs should be viewed as complex interventions, with their development and impact assessment carried out to reflect this.

Care needs of older patients with advanced cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarized current research evidence examining care needs of older patients with advanced cancer in dealing with disease, treatment, and treatment-related side effects. It also identified gaps and directions for future research and practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Older patients with advanced cancer need support from health professionals, family, friends, and other social network members in the management of physical symptoms and functioning, psychosocial and spiritual care, information provision, and practical resolution of daily problems. As older patients are affected by aging-related factors, they usually have unique patterns of care needs compared with younger patients.

SUMMARY

Currently, insufficient research evidence hinders a comprehensive understanding of care needs of older patients with advanced cancer, as well as potential influencing factors. Future efforts are needed to develop more sophisticated assessment methods and interventions to better understand and address care needs of older patients with advanced cancer.

Effects of a Geriatric Assessment Intervention on Patient-Reported Symptomatic Toxicity in Older Adults With Advanced Cancer

PURPOSE

Providing a geriatric assessment (GA) summary with management recommendations to oncologists reduces clinician-rated toxicity in older patients with advanced cancer receiving treatment. This secondary analysis of a national cluster randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02054741) aims to assess the effects of a GA intervention on symptomatic toxicity measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

METHODS

From 2014 to 2019, the study enrolled patients age ≥ 70 years, with advanced solid tumors or lymphoma and ≥ 1 GA domain impairment, who were initiating a regimen with high prevalence of toxicity. Patients completed PRO-CTCAEs, including the severity of 24 symptoms (11 classified as core symptoms) at enrollment, 4-6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Symptoms were scored as grade ≥ 2 (at least moderate) and grade ≥ 3 (severe/very severe). Symptomatic toxicity was determined by an increase in severity during treatment. A generalized estimating equation model was used to assess the effects of the GA intervention on symptomatic toxicity.

RESULTS

Mean age was 77 years (range, 70-96 years), 43% were female, and 88% were White, 59% had GI or lung cancers, and 27% received prior chemotherapy. In 706 patients who provided PRO-CTCAEs at baseline, 86.1% reported at least one moderate symptom and 49.7% reported severe/very severe symptoms at regimen initiation. In 623 patients with follow-up PRO-CTCAE data, compared with usual care, fewer patients in the GA intervention arm reported grade ≥ 2 symptomatic toxicity (overall: 88.9% v 94.8%, P = .035; core symptoms: 83.4% v 91.7%, P = .001). The results for grade ≥ 3 toxicity were comparable but not significant (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

In the presence of a high baseline symptom burden, a GA intervention for older patients with advanced cancer reduces patient-reported symptomatic toxicity.

Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people

BACKGROUND

Communication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and involves many people (patients, family members, carers, health professionals). How best to communicate with people in the period approaching death is not known, but is an important question for quality of care at EoL worldwide. This review fills a gap in the evidence on interpersonal communication (between people and health professionals) in the last year of life, focusing on interventions to improve interpersonal communication and patient, family member and carer outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to improve verbal interpersonal communication about EoL care between health practitioners and people affected by EoL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors of included studies and experts and searched reference lists to identify relevant papers. We searched grey literature sources, conference proceedings, and clinical trials registries in September 2019. Database searches were re-run in June 2021 and potentially relevant studies listed as awaiting classification or ongoing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review assessed the effects of interventions, evaluated in randomised and quasi-randomised trials, intended to enhance interpersonal communication about EoL care between patients expected to die within 12 months, their family members and carers, and health practitioners involved in their care. Patients of any age from birth, in any setting or care context (e.g. acute catastrophic injury, chronic illness), and all health professionals involved in their care were eligible. All communication interventions were eligible, as long as they included interpersonal interaction(s) between patients and family members or carers and health professionals. Interventions could be simple or complex, with one or more communication aims (e.g. to inform, skill, engage, support). Effects were sought on outcomes for patients, family and carers, health professionals and health systems, including adverse (unintended) effects. To ensure this review's focus was maintained on interpersonal communication in the last 12 months of life,  we excluded studies that addressed specific decisions, shared or otherwise, and the tools involved in such decision-making. We also excluded studies focused on advance care planning (ACP) reporting ACP uptake or completion as the primary outcome. Finally, we excluded studies of communication skills training for health professionals unless patient outcomes were reported as primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standard Cochrane methods were used, including dual review author study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included. All assessed intervention effects compared with usual care. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low. All outcomes were downgraded for indirectness based on the review's purpose, and many were downgraded for imprecision and/or inconsistency. Certainty was not commonly downgraded for methodological limitations. A summary of the review's findings is as follows. Knowledge and understanding (four studies, low-certainty evidence; one study without usable data): interventions to improve communication (e.g. question prompt list, with or without patient and physician training) may have little or no effect on knowledge of illness and prognosis, or information needs and preferences, although studies were small and measures used varied across trials.  Evaluation of the communication (six studies measuring several constructs (communication quality, patient-centredness, involvement preferences, doctor-patient relationship, satisfaction with consultation), most low-certainty evidence): across constructs there may be minimal or no effects of interventions to improve EoL communication, and there is uncertainty about effects of interventions such as a patient-specific feedback sheet on quality of communication.  Discussions of EoL or EoL care (six studies measuring selected outcomes, low- or very low-certainty evidence): a family conference intervention may increase duration of EoL discussions in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, while use of a structured serious illness conversation guide may lead to earlier discussions of EoL and EoL care (each assessed by one study). We are uncertain about effects on occurrence of discussions and question asking in consultations, and there may be little or no effect on content of communication in consultations.  Adverse outcomes or unintended effects (limited evidence): there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are adverse outcomes associated with communication interventions  (e.g. question prompt list, family conference, structured discussions) for EoL and EoL care. Patient and/or carer anxiety was reported by three studies, but judged as confounded. No other unintended consequences, or worsening of desired outcomes, were reported. Patient/carer quality of life (four studies, low-certainty evidence; two without useable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on quality of life.  Health practitioner outcomes (three studies, low-certainty evidence; two without usable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on health practitioner outcomes (satisfaction with communication during consultation; one study); effects on other outcomes (knowledge, preparedness to communicate) are unknown. Health systems impacts: communication interventions (e.g. structured EoL conversations) may have little or no effect on carer or clinician ratings of quality of EoL care (satisfaction with care, symptom management, comfort assessment, quality of care) (three studies, low-certainty evidence), or on patients' self-rated care and illness, or numbers of care goals met (one study, low-certainty evidence). Communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list alone or with nurse-led communication skills training) may slightly increase mean consultation length (two studies), but other health service impacts (e.g. hospital admissions) are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review are inconclusive for practice. Future research might contribute meaningfully by seeking to fill gaps for populations not yet studied in trials; and to develop responsive outcome measures with which to better assess the effects of communication on the range of people involved in EoL communication episodes. Mixed methods and/or qualitative research may contribute usefully to better understand the complex interplay between different parties involved in communication, and to inform development of more effective interventions and appropriate outcome measures. Co-design of such interventions and outcomes, involving the full range of people affected by EoL communication and care, should be a key underpinning principle for future research in this area.

Strategies to Mitigate Chemotherapy and Radiation Toxicities That Affect Eating

Background: Cancer and its therapy is commonly associated with a variety of side effects that impact eating behaviors that reduce nutritional intake. This review will outline potential causes of chemotherapy and radiation damage as well as approaches for the amelioration of the side effects of cancer during therapy. Methods: Information for clinicians, patients, and their caregivers about toxicity mitigation including nausea reduction, damage to epithelial structures such as skin and mucosa, organ toxicity, and education is reviewed. Results: How to anticipate, reduce, and prevent some toxicities encountered during chemotherapy and radiation is detailed with the goal to improve eating behaviors. Strategies for health care professionals, caregivers, and patients to consider include (a) the reduction in nausea and vomiting, (b) decreasing damage to the mucosa, (c) avoiding a catabolic state and muscle wasting (sarcopenia), and (d) developing therapeutic alliances with patients, caregivers, and oncologists. Conclusions: Although the reduction of side effects involves anticipatory guidance and proactive team effort (e.g., forward observation, electronic interactions, patient reported outcomes), toxicity reduction can be satisfying for not only the patient, but everyone involved in cancer care.