Expression III: patients' expectations and preferences regarding physician-patient relationship and clinical management-results of the international NOGGO/ENGOT-ov4-GCIG study in 1830 ovarian cancer patients from European countries

Patient involvement in research within the Gynecological Cancer InterGroup: A call to action for a systematic approach: Results from a survey

Background and Aims

Involving patients in research, not only as trial subjects, is not a newly established practice. Over the last two decades, patient roles have gradually expanded to become active research contributors, creating a more patient-centered research landscape. Our survey has explored the scope of patient involvement within the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG), an International Gynecologic Cancer Research Consortium, and identified challenges in developing a systematic, meaningful and sustainable level of patient involvement.

Methods

In late 2019, the GCIG Harmonisation Operations Committee conducted an online survey across 26 national and/or international research cooperative groups, aiming to identify current patient involvement practices implemented by each group. Twelve questions were asked. The results have been generated to support a systematic strategic planning process to increase patient involvement into clinical research projects.

Results

More than half of the 26 participating groups have either already involved (15, [58%]) or are planning (6, [23%]) to involve patients in their research activities. Gaining patient support in raising public awareness around clinical trials appears to be one of the most desired benefits (21, [81%]). Ten respondents managed to integrate patient involvement into their standard practice. When involving patients in research the groups mostly consider that patients bring added value to the study (19, [73%]), although only eight groups (40%) have a well-organized process in doing so.

Conclusion

Even though patient involvement is considered a significant added value to clinical research, its application within GCIG groups is not considered on a regular basis and is predominantly limited to operational aspects of research activities. The lack of resources and expertize, as well as the missing well-organized and structured process of some groups, combined with their ability to ensure process sustainability, are among the main factors affecting implementation and adoption of patient involvement within GCIG research activities.

Symptom burden and quality of life with chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer: the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup-Symptom Benefit Study

Objective

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG)-Symptom Benefit Study was designed to evaluate the effects of chemotherapy on symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in women having chemotherapy for platinum resistant/refractory recurrent ovarian cancer (PRR-ROC) and potentially platinum sensitive with ≥3 lines of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC ≥3).

Methods

Participants completed the Measure of Ovarian Cancer Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ-C30 questionnaires at baseline and every 3–4 weeks until progression. Participants were classified symptomatic if they rated ≥4 of 10 in at least one-third of symptoms in the MOST index. Improvement in MOST was defined as two consecutive scores of ≤3 in at least half of the symptomatic items at baseline. Improvement in HRQL was defined as two consecutive scores ≥10 points above baseline in the QLQ-C30 summary score scale (range 0–100).

Results

Of 948 participants enrolled, 910 (96%) completed baseline questionnaires: 546 with PRR-ROC and 364 with PPS-ROC ≥3. The proportions of participants symptomatic at baseline as per MOST indexes were: abdominal 54%, psychological 53%, and disease- or treatment-related 35%. Improvement was reported in MOST indexes: abdominal 40%, psychological 35%, and disease- or treatment-related 38%. Median time to improvement in abdominal symptoms occurred earlier for PRR-ROC than for PPS-ROC ≥3 (4 vs 6 weeks, p=0.044); median duration of improvement was also similar (9.0 vs 11.7 weeks, p=0.65). Progression-free survival was longer among those with improvement in abdominal symptoms than in those without (median 7.2 vs 2.5 months, p<0.0001). Improvements in HRQL were reported by 77/448 (17%) with PRR-ROC and 61/301 (20%) with PPS-ROC ≥3 (p=0.29), and 102/481 (21%) of those with abdominal symptoms at baseline.

Conclusion

Over 50% of participants reported abdominal and psychological symptoms at baseline. Of those, 40% reported an improvement within 2 months of starting chemotherapy. Approximately one in six participants reported an improvement in HRQL. Symptom monitoring and supportive care is important as chemotherapy palliated less than half of symptomatic participants.

Patient Preferences for Discussing Life Expectancy: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Discussing life expectancy helps inform decisions related to preventive medication, screening, and personal care planning. Our aim was to systematically review the literature on patient preferences for discussing life expectancy and to identify predictors for these preferences.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and gray literature from inception until 17 February 2021. Two authors screened titles/abstracts and full texts, and extracted data and one author assessed quality. The outcome of interest was the proportion of patients willing to discuss life expectancy. We reported descriptive statistics, performed a narrative synthesis, and explored sub-groups of patients according to patient characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 41 studies with an accumulated population of 27,570 participants were included, comprising quantitative survey/questionnaire studies (n=27) and qualitative interview studies (n=14). Willingness to discuss life expectancy ranged from 19 to 100% (median 61%, interquartile range (IQR) 50-73) across studies, with the majority (77%) reporting more than half of subjects willing to discuss. There was considerable heterogeneity in willingness to discuss life expectancy, even between studies from patients with similar ages, diseases, and cultural profiles. The highest variability in willingness to discuss was found among patients with cancer (range 19-100%, median 61%, IQR 51-81) and patients aged 50-64 years (range 19-97%, median 61%, IQR 45-87). This made it impossible to determine predictors for willingness to discuss life expectancy.

DISCUSSION

Most patients are willing to discuss life expectancy; however, a substantial proportion is not. Heterogeneity and variability in preferences make it challenging to identify clear predictors of willingness to discuss. Variability in preferences may to some extent be influenced by age, disease, and cultural differences. These findings highlight the individual and complex nature in which patients approach this topic and stress the importance of clinicians considering eliciting patient's individual preferences when initiating discussions about life expectancy.

Influence of migrant background on patient preference and expectations in breast and gynecological malignancies (NOGGO-expression V study): results of a prospective multicentre study in 606 patients in Germany

Background

An effective cross-cultural doctor-patient communication is vital for health literacy and patient compliance. Building a good relationship with medical staff is also relevant for the treatment decision-making process for cancer patients. Studies about the role of a specific migrant background regarding patient preferences and expectations are lacking. We therefore conducted a multicentre prospective survey to explore the needs and preferences of patients with a migrant background (PMB) suffering from gynecological malignancies and breast cancer to evaluate the quality of doctor-patient communication and cancer management compared to non-migrants (NM).

Methods

This multicentre survey recruited patients with primary or recurrence of breast, ovarian, peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. The patients either filled out a paper form, participated via an online survey, or were interviewed by trained staff. A 58-item questionnaire was primarily developed in German and then translated into three different languages to reach non-German-speaking patients.

Results

A total of 606 patients were included in the study: 54.1% (328) were interviewed directly, 9.1% (55) participated via an online survey, and 36.8% (223) used the paper print version. More than one quarter, 27.4% (166) of the participants, had a migrant background. The majority of migrants and NM were highly satisfied with the communication with their doctors.

First-generation migrants (FGM) and patients with breast cancer were less often informed about participation in clinical trials (p < 0.05) and 24.5% of them suggested the help of an interpreter to improve the medical consultation. Second and third-generation migrants (SGM and TGM) experienced more fatigue and nausea than expected.

Conclusions

Our results allow the hypothesis that training medical staff in intercultural competence and using disease-related patient information in different languages can improve best supportive care management and quality of life in cancer patients with migrant status.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08731-6.

Impact of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on short-term mortality in patients with recurrent ovarian, fallopian or peritoneal carcinoma (the NOGGO-AGO QoL Prognosis-Score-Study): results of a meta-analysis in 2209 patients

Objective

Recurrent ovarian cancer is an incurable disease with variable but poor prognosis. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a patient-reported outcome measure generally applied to measure effects of therapies. Our aim was the development and validation of a risk score for the prediction of short-term mortality using the combination of sociodemographic and clinical factors and HRQoL.

Methods

For exploratory and validation analysis, the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO) and Working Group Gynecological Oncology (AGO) study databases were screened for trials. Only trials which obtained defined HRQoL measurements were included in the final analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors and their weighting for the risk score. Modulation with cubic regression analyses revealed median survival and short-term mortality defined as 1-year mortality for each value.

Results

For exploration, 974 patients from three clinical studies of the NOGGO and for validation, 1235 patients from several clinical studies of the AGO were eligible. The risk score included platinum-free interval, performance status, age, global QoL and nausea/vomiting. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed a good predictive value with an area under the curve of 0.81 for model 1 in the exploration and 0.74 in the validation. Short-term mortality in model 1 was 8.2%, 23.5% and 58.4% in the exploration sample, and 19.7%, 38.1% and 63.4% in the validation sample for patients under low, medium and high risk, respectively.

Conclusions

This risk score discriminates well between recurrent ovarian cancer patients under low, medium and high risk of short-term mortality. It may help to identify a risk group under high risk for short-term mortality that can be used for randomization in clinical trials and may support decision making for palliative chemotherapy.

•

This newly developed NOGGO-AGO QoL prognosis score clearly discriminates recurrent ovarian cancer (rOC) patients under low, medium and high risk for short-term survival (<1 year).

•

The risk score included platinum-free interval, performance status, age, global QoL and nausea/vomiting.

•

NOGGO-AGO QoL score can be used for stratification or randomization in clinical trials and for identification of a group under high risk for short-term mortality.

•

It may also help the decision making for chemotherapy and provide more precise information of further life expectation for rOC patients.

Undergoing active treatment for gynecologic cancer during COVID-19: A qualitative study of the impact on healthcare and social support

•

COVID-19 challenges mechanisms of gynecologic cancer care delivery.

•

COVID-19 complicates social support for cancer patients undergoing active treatment.

•

Patient narratives of COVID-19 may offer targeted solutions to improve care delivery.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses unique challenges for oncology patients and clinicians. While guidelines for oncology care delivery during the pandemic have been established, there is a paucity of data examining patient experiences of cancer care during the COVID pandemic. This qualitative study captured the perspectives of women undergoing active treatment for gynecologic malignancy at an academic medical center. Hour-long semi-structured interviews were conducted via video-conference and transcribed verbatim. Focused coding was conducted to identify all data related to COVID-19. These data were then categorized into themes that emerged inductively. Seven women (N = 7) were interviewed. Several themes arose under two main categories: 1) Impact of COVID-19 on cancer care delivery and interactions and 2) Intersection of cancer and COVID-19 outside of the healthcare setting. Under category 1, themes included: going to treatment alone; variable access to care and information. Under category 2, themes included: unavailability of cancer-specific social support; mask wearing; COVID-19 & life outlook; adapting coping strategies. Participants’ perceptions of having cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic varied and were not always negative. Healthcare systems can draw on our findings to inform interventions to ensure optimal patient care. Additionally, given our finding that noncompliance with mask wearing and physical distancing can be uniquely distressing to cancer patients, healthcare systems should prioritize clear messaging around COVID-19 precautions and ensure compliance of staff and patrons. Due to the rapidly changing nature of the pandemic, outcomes for these patients should be monitored and care guidelines should incorporate first-hand patient narratives.

Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to rucaparib (600 mg twice per day) or placebo. QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function × the 3-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score function. Q-TWiST analyses were performed defining TOX as the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia. Q-TWiST was calculated as μTOX × TOX + TWiST, with μTOX calculated using EQ-5D-3L data.

RESULTS

The visit cutoff was Apr 15, 2017. Mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (375 randomly assigned to rucaparib v 189 randomly assigned to placebo; difference, 6.28 months [95% CI, 4.85 to 7.47 months]); BRCA-mutant cohort (130 rucaparib v 66 placebo; 9.37 months [95% CI, 6.65 to 11.85 months]); homologous recombination deficient (HRD) cohort (236 rucaparib v 118 placebo; 7.93 months [95% CI, 5.93 to 9.53 months]); and BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) low patient subgroup (107 rucaparib v 54 placebo; 2.71 months [95% CI, 0.31 to 4.44 months]). With TOX defined using grade ≥ 3 TEAEs, the difference in mean Q-TWiST (rucaparib v placebo) was 6.88 months (95% CI, 5.71 to 8.23 months), 9.73 months (95% CI, 7.10 to 11.94 months), 8.11 months (95% CI, 6.36 to 9.49 months), and 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.66 to 5.40 months) in the ITT population, BRCA-mutant cohort, HRD cohort, and BRCA wild-type/LOH low patient subgroup, respectively. Q-TWiST with TOX defined using select grade ≥ 2 TEAEs also consistently favored rucaparib.

CONCLUSION

The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm the benefit of rucaparib versus placebo in all predefined cohorts.

Results of the interprofessional and interdisciplinary Berlin round table on patient-reported outcomes, quality of life, and treatment expectations of patients with gynecological cancer under maintenance treatment

BACKGROUND

Patients' reported outcomes and their perspectives around their therapeutic management is a field of continuously increasing relevance in gynecological oncology. We report the results of the Berlin dialog on seven patient-reported parameters and outcomes concerning chemotherapy and maintenance treatment in patients with gynecological cancer.

METHODS

Key opinion leaders in gynecological oncology from different European counties and representatives of leading patients' advocate groups in Berlin held a consensus meeting in Berlin on April 6, 2019. Seven topics of interest were identified in advance around quality of life, iatrogenic toxicity, treatment decision-making processes, sexuality, participation in clinical trials, second opinion, and long-term survivors with the the following standard operating procedure for processing and discussion: (1) agreement on its relevance; (2) literature review, and (3) discussion and consensus statements.

RESULTS

All main topics reached a consensus approval. The defined statements emphasized the importance of patients' role in incorporating and establishing quality of life as an outcome parameter in clinical trials. Furthermore, discussants raised the importance of identifying new tools for reflecting patient-reported iatrogenic toxicity as well as emphasizing patients' rights in providing personal information, access to second opinion in the decision-making process, and their participation in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

The results of this round table meeting could help redefine perspectives on the discussed topics and the importance for therapeutic management as well as for trial designs.

Recurrent Treatment in Ovarian Cancer Patients: What Are the Best Regimens and the Order They Should Be Given?

OPINION STATEMENT

The choice of the right treatment regimen for recurrent ovarian cancer (rOC) remains a case-by-case decision. It is based on multiple factors that involve patient characteristics and biological factors at the same time. The prioritization of factors is still subject to changes with a trend towards a more personalized medicine. Therefore, participation and engagement in clinical studies constitutes a substantial need for the future development of the treatment algorithm of rOC.

Expectations and preferences of patients with primary and relapsed ovarian cancer to maintenance therapy: A NOGGO/ENGOT-ov22 and GCIG survey (Expression IV)

BACKGROUND

Maintenance therapy induces remission and prolongs disease free interval in primary and recurrent ovarian disease. For the treatment decision making process, aspects of quality of life and patients' preferences are crucial, despite the fact that scientific data are lacking. Therefore, we conducted this European-wide study in patients with ovarian cancer.

METHODS

A 25 item questionnaire was provided to ovarian cancer patients via the internet or as a paper version in 10 European countries (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Turkey, and Spain). Data recorded were demographics, tumor stage, therapy after firstline and recurrent disease, preferences for administration, and expectations concerning maintenance therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 1954 patients participated from September 2013 to March 2016; 42% had recurrent disease. Most patients (98%) with primary epithelial ovarian cancer underwent surgery followed by chemotherapy (91%). Almost one-third of participants (29%) were receiving maintenance therapy whereas 45% had only heard of it. For 70% of patients with primary epithelial ovarian cancer, they heard about maintenance therapy from their doctor, 10% heard about maintenance therapy from other patients, and 8% from the internet. The main source of information about maintenance therapy in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer relapse was from the treating physician (72%), from other patients (8%), and from the internet (7%). For patients undergoing maintenance therapy, the four most disturbing adverse effects were polyneuropathy (37%), nausea (36%), hair loss (34%), and vomiting (34%). The main objective of maintenance treatment, as perceived by patients, was to increase the chances of cure (73%), improvement in quality of life (47%), and delay in tumor growth (37%). Many patients were willing to undergo maintenance therapy until tumor progression (38%) and 39% would prefer oral administration. No significant differences were detected in the cross country subanalysis regarding expectations of maintenance therapy and patients with primary or relapsed ovarian cancer.

CONCLUSION

Patients with ovarian cancer were willing to accept maintenance therapy of prolonged duration and preferred oral administration. There is still a gap between the efficacy of maintenance therapy and patient expectations. Patients need more information on the adverse effects and treatment goals of maintenance therapy to avoid misunderstandings.

Management of Adverse Events During Rucaparib Treatment for Relapsed Ovarian Cancer: A Review of Published Studies and Practical Guidance

The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib is approved as monotherapy in the treatment and maintenance settings for women with relapsed ovarian cancer in the European Union and the United States. We review the safety profile of rucaparib in both settings and provide recommendations for the clinical management of the main adverse events (AEs) that may occur during rucaparib treatment. We searched PubMed and congress proceedings for safety data on oral rucaparib monotherapy (600 mg twice daily) from clinical trials involving patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. AE management guidance was developed from clinical trial protocols, rucaparib prescribing information, oncology association guidelines, and author experience. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) included gastrointestinal symptoms, asthenia/fatigue, dysgeusia, anemia/decreased hemoglobin, and increased alanine/aspartate aminotransferase. Across clinical trials, 61.8% of patients had one or more grade 3 or higher TEAEs. Clinicians should employ close follow-up for TEAEs, particularly early in treatment, and educate patients about expected TEAEs and methods for their monitoring and management (e.g., antiemetics for nausea/vomiting, transfusions for hematologic TEAEs, or dose interruptions/reductions for moderate/severe TEAEs). Overall, 16.2% of patients discontinued rucaparib due to TEAEs. Management of AEs that may occur during rucaparib treatment is crucial for patients to obtain optimal clinical benefit by remaining on therapy and to avoid their detrimental impact on quality of life.