Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in prostate cancer treatment trials

Salvage Reirradiation for Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Results From a Prospective Study With 7.2 Years of Follow-Up

PURPOSE

There are no well-established re-treatment options for local recurrence after primary curative radiation therapy for prostate cancer (PCa), as prospective studies with long-term follow-up are lacking. Here, we present results from a prospective study on focal salvage reirradiation with external-beam radiation therapy with a median follow-up of 7.2 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2013 to 2017, 38 patients with biopsy-proven locally recurrent PCa >2 years after previous treatment and absence of grade 2-3 toxicity from the first course of radiation were included. The treatment was 35 Gy in five fractions to the MRI-based target volume and 6 months of androgen-deprivation therapy starting 3 months before radiation. The Phoenix criteria defined biochemical recurrence-free survival (bRFS), and toxicity was scored according to Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria.

RESULTS

Median age was 70 years, and median time from primary radiation to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence was 83 months. The actuarial 2-year and 5-year bRFS were 81% (95% CI, 69 to 94) and 58% (95% CI, 49 to 74), respectively. The actuarial 5-year local recurrence-free survival was 93% (95% CI, 82 to 100), metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI, 69 to 95), and overall survival was 87% (95% CI, 76 to 98). Two patients (5%) had durable grade 3 genitourinary toxicity, one combined with GI grade 3 toxicity. A PSA doubling time ≤6 months at salvage, a Gleason score >7, and a PSA nadir ≥0.1 ng/mL predicted a worse outcome.

CONCLUSION

Reirradiation with EBRT for locally recurrent PCa after primary curative radiation therapy is clinically feasible and demonstrated a favorable outcome with acceptable toxicity in this prospective study with long-term follow-up.

Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Experience Measures After Active Surveillance Versus Radiation Therapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Prospective Comparative Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Current management options for localized prostate cancer (PCa) include radical prostatectomy (RP), radiotherapy (RT), and active surveillance (AS). Despite comparable oncological outcomes, there is still lack of evidence on their comparative effectiveness in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). We conducted a systematic review of studies comparing PROMs and PREMs after all recommended management options for localized PCa (RP, RT, AS).

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases in accordance with recommendations from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. All prospective clinical trials reporting PROMs and/or PREMs for comparisons of RP versus RT versus AS were included. A narrative synthesis was used to summarize the review findings. No quantitative synthesis was performed because of the heterogeneity and limitations of the studies available.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Our findings reveal that RP mostly affects urinary continence and sexual function, with better results for voiding symptoms in comparison to other treatments. RT was associated with greater impairment of bowel function and voiding symptoms. None of the treatments had a significant impact on mental or physical quality of life. Only a few studies reported PREMs, with a high rate of decision regret for all modalities (up to 23%).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

All recommended treatments for localized PCa have an impact on PROMs and PREMs, but for different domains and with differing severity. We found significant heterogeneity in PROM collection, so standardization in real-world practice and clinical trials is warranted. Only a few studies have reported PREMs, highlighting an unmet need that should be explored in future studies.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed differences in patient reports of their outcomes and experiences after surgical prostate removal, radiotherapy, or active surveillance for prostate cancer. We found differences in the effects on urinary, bowel, and sexual functions among the treatments, but no difference for mental or physical quality of life. Our results can help doctors and prostate cancer patients in shared decision-making.

A qualitative analysis of algorithm-based decision support usability testing for symptom management across the trajectory of cancer care: one size does not fit all

BACKGROUND

Adults with cancer experience symptoms that change across the disease trajectory. Due to the distress and cost associated with uncontrolled symptoms, improving symptom management is an important component of quality cancer care. Clinical decision support (CDS) is a promising strategy to integrate clinical practice guideline (CPG)-based symptom management recommendations at the point of care.

METHODS

The objectives of this project were to develop and evaluate the usability of two symptom management algorithms (constipation and fatigue) across the trajectory of cancer care in patients with active disease treated in comprehensive or community cancer care settings to surveillance of cancer survivors in primary care practices. A modified ADAPTE process was used to develop algorithms based on national CPGs. Usability testing involved semi-structured interviews with clinicians from varied care settings, including comprehensive and community cancer centers, and primary care. The transcripts were analyzed with MAXQDA using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis method. A cross tabs analysis was also performed to assess the prevalence of themes and subthemes by cancer care setting.

RESULTS

A total of 17 clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) were interviewed for usability testing. Three main themes emerged: (1) Algorithms as useful, (2) Symptom management differences, and (3) Different target end-users. The cross-tabs analysis demonstrated differences among care trajectories and settings that originated in the Symptom management differences theme. The sub-themes of "Differences between diseases" and "Differences between care trajectories" originated from participants working in a comprehensive cancer center, which tends to be disease-specific locations for patients on active treatment. Meanwhile, participants from primary care identified the sub-theme of "Differences in settings," indicating that symptom management strategies are care setting specific.

CONCLUSIONS

While CDS can help promote evidence-based symptom management, systems providing care recommendations need to be specifically developed to fit patient characteristics and clinical context. Findings suggest that one set of algorithms will not be applicable throughout the entire cancer trajectory. Unique CDS for symptom management will be needed for patients who are cancer survivors being followed in primary care settings.

Reliability and validity of PRO-CTCAE® daily reporting with a 24-hour recall period

PURPOSE

The standard recall period for the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) is the past 7 days, but there are contexts where a 24-hour recall may be desirable. The purpose of this analysis was to investigate the reliability and validity of a subset of PRO-CTCAE items captured using a 24-hour recall.

METHODS

27 PRO-CTCAE items representing 14 symptomatic adverse events (AEs) were collected using both a 24-hour recall (24 h) and the standard 7 day recall (7d) in a sample of patients receiving active cancer treatment (n = 113). Using data captured with a PRO-CTCAE-24h on days 6 and 7, and 20 and 21, we computed intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC); an ICC ≥ 0.70 was interpreted as demonstrating high test-retest reliability. Correlations between PRO-CTCAE-24h items on day 7 and conceptually relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains were examined. In responsiveness analysis, patients were deemed changed if they had a one-point or greater change in the corresponding PRO-CTCAE-7d item (from week 0 to week 1).

RESULTS

PRO-CTCAE-24h captured on two consecutive days demonstrated that 21 of 27 items (78%) had ICCs ≥ 0.70 (day 6/7 median ICC 0.76), (day 20/21 median ICC 0.84). Median correlation between attributes within a common AE was 0.75, and the median correlation between conceptually relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains and PRO-CTCAE-24 h items captured on day 7 was 0.44. In the analysis of responsiveness to change, the median standardized response mean (SRM) for patients with improvement was - 0.52 and that for patients with worsening was 0.71.

CONCLUSION

A 24-hour recall period for PRO-CTCAE items has acceptable measurement properties and can inform day-to-day variations in symptomatic AEs when daily PRO-CTCAE administration is implemented in a clinical trial.

Anterior Sphincter-sparing Suturing of the Vesicourethral Anastomosis During Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Background

Continence is an important functional outcome after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP), and modifications of the surgical technique may improve outcomes.

Objective

To illustrate a novel RARP technique and to describe the observed continence outcomes.

Design setting and participants

A retrospective study of men treated with RARP between 2017 and 2021 was conducted.

Surgical procedure

During RARP, periprostatic structures are preserved, the intraprostatic urethra is partially spared, and the anterior anastomosis stitches involve the plexus structures but not the anterior urethra.

Measurements

A descriptive analysis of the pathological, functional, and short-term oncological outcomes was performed.

Results and limitations

Of 640 men, 448 (70%) with at least 1 yr of follow-up and a median age of 66 yr were included. The median operative time was 270 min and the prostatic volume 52 ml. The transurethral catheter was removed after a median of 3 d, and leakage of urine in the first 24 h after catheter removal was observed in 66/448 patients (15%). Positive surgical margins were reported in 104/448 (23%). Prostate-specific antigen persistence after prostatectomy was observed in 26/448 (6%). During a median follow-up of 2 yr (interquartile range 1-3 yr), the biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy was observed in 19/448 patients (4%). One year after prostatectomy, 406/448 patients (91%) were continent and required no pad at all, while 42/448 (9%) required at least one pad per day.

Conclusions

Not stitching the anterior urethra is a novel technical modification and may improve continence outcomes.

Patient summary

We describe a novel way to stitch the bladder neck to the urethra after removal of the prostate using a surgical robotic system. Our technique appeared safe, with promising urinary continence results.

Selecting a PRO-CTCAE-based subset for patient-reported symptom monitoring in prostate cancer patients: a modified Delphi procedure

BACKGROUND

Clinician-based reporting of adverse events leads to underreporting and underestimation of the impact of adverse events on prostate cancer patients. Therefore, interest has grown in capturing adverse events directly from patients using the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). We aimed to develop a standardized PRO-CTCAE subset tailored to adverse event monitoring in prostate cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a mixed-method approach based on the 'phase I guideline for developing questionnaire modules' by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life group, including a literature review, and interviews with patients (n = 30) and health care providers (HCPs, n = 16). A modified Delphi procedure was carried out to reach consensus on the final subset selected from the complete PRO-CTCAE item library.

RESULTS

Fourteen multidisciplinary HCPs and 12 patients participated in the Delphi rounds. Ninety percent agreed on the final subset, consisting of: 'ability to achieve and maintain erection', 'decreased libido', 'inability to reach orgasm', 'urinary frequency', 'urinary urgency', 'urinary incontinence', 'painful urination', 'fecal incontinence', 'fatigue', 'hot flashes', 'feeling discouraged', 'sadness', and 'concentration'. From 16 articles identified in the literature review, the following adverse events for which no PRO-CTCAE items are available, were included to the recommendation section: 'nocturia', 'blood and/or mucus in stool', 'hemorrhoids', 'hematuria', 'cystitis', 'neuropathy', and 'proctitis'.

CONCLUSIONS

The obtained PRO-CTCAE-subset can be used for multidisciplinary adverse event monitoring in prostate cancer care. The described method may guide development of future PRO-CTCAE subsets.

Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (ProtecT study)

Objective

To investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision‐making.

Patients and Methods

Men aged 50–69 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate‐specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external‐beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen‐deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low‐dose‐rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6 years were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores.

Results

Treatment‐received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6 years. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6 years and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6 years. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6 years, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1 pad/day, persisting for 20% at 6 years, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (P < 0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6 years and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (P < 0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL.

Conclusion

Treatment decision‐making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6‐year functional and QoL outcomes.

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures into health care for men with localized prostate cancer

Measuring treatment-related quality of life (QOL) has become an increasingly requisite component of delivering high-quality care for patients with prostate cancer. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have, therefore, become an important tool for understanding the adverse effects of radical prostate cancer treatment and have been widely integrated into clinical practice. By providing real-time symptom monitoring and improved clinical feedback to patients and providers, PRO assessment has led to meaningful gains in prostate cancer care delivery and quality improvement worldwide. By providing an avenue for benchmarking, collaboration and population health monitoring, PROMs have delivered substantial improvements beyond providing individual symptom feedback. However, multilevel barriers exist that need to be addressed before the routine implementation of PROMs is achieved. Improvements in collection, interpretation, standardization and reporting will be crucial for the continued implementation of PROM instruments in prostate cancer pathways.

Management of prostate cancer in older patients

The incidence of prostate cancer among older men has increased in many countries, including Asian countries. However, older patients are ineligible for inclusion in large randomized trials, and the existing guidelines for the management of patients with prostate cancer do not provide specific treatment recommendations for older men. Therefore, generation of evidence for older patients with prostate cancer is a key imperative. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology has produced and updated several guidelines for management of prostate cancer in older men since 2010. Regarding localized prostate cancer, both surgery and radiotherapy are considered as feasible treatment options for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer even in older men, whereas watchful waiting and active surveillance are useful options for a proportion of these patients. With regard to advanced disease, androgen-receptor axis targets and taxane chemotherapy are standard treatment modalities, although dose modification and prevention of adverse events need to be considered. Management strategy for older patients with prostate cancer should take cognizance of not only the chronological age but also psychological and physical condition, socio-economic status and patient preferences. Geriatric assessment and patient-reported health-related quality of life are important tools for assessing health status of older patients with prostate cancer; however, there is a paucity of evidence of the impact of these tools on the clinical outcomes. Personalized management according to the patient's health status and tumour characteristics as well as socio-economic condition may be necessary for treatment of older patients with prostate cancer.

Symptom burden profiles in men with advanced prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy

To identify symptom burden profiles among men with advanced prostate cancer undergoing androgen-deprivation therapy and examine their association with baseline sociodemographic and medical characteristics and psychosocial outcomes over time. Latent profile analysis was employed to identify distinct groups based on the Expanded Prostate Index Composite and the McGill Pain Questionnaire at baseline. Psychosocial outcomes were assessed at baseline, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Three profiles emerged: "high symptom burden," "high sexual bother," and "low symptom burden." Men with "high symptom burden" were younger and exhibited higher baseline levels of depression, stress, cancer-specific distress, and anxiety than men in the other two groups. However, men with "high symptom burden" also demonstrated improvement in these psychosocial outcomes over time. Men with advanced prostate cancer who experience multiple co-occurring symptoms demonstrate worse psychosocial adjustment. Patients with substantial symptom burden, and specifically young men, may benefit from prompt referral to supportive care services.

Salvage Reirradiation Options for Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Reirradiation using brachytherapy (BT) and external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) are salvage strategies with locally radiorecurrent prostate cancer. This systematic review describes the oncologic and toxicity outcomes for salvage BT and EBRT [including Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT)].

METHODS

An International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registered (#211875) study was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched from inception to December 2020. For BT, both low dose rate (LDR) and high dose rate (HDR) BT techniques were included. Two authors independently assessed study quality using the 18-item Modified Delphi technique.

RESULTS

A total of 39 eligible studies comprising 1967 patients were included (28 BT and 11 SBRT). In 35 studies (90%), the design was single centre and/or retrospective and no randomised prospective studies were found. Twelve BT studies used LDR only, 11 HDR only, 4 LDR or HDR and 1 pulsed-dose rate only. All EBRT studies used SBRT exclusively, four with Cyberknife alone and 7 using both Cyberknife and conventional linear accelerator treatments. Median (range) modified Delphi quality score was 15 (6-18). Median (range) follow-up was 47.5 months (13-108) (BT) and 25.4 months (21-44) (SBRT). For the LDR-BT studies, the median (range) 2-year and 5-year bRFS rates were 71% (48-89.5) and 52.5% (20-79). For the HDR-BT studies, the median (range) 2-year and 5-year bRFS rates were 74% (63-89) and 51% (45-65). For the SBRT studies, the median (range) 2-year bRFS for the SBRT group was 54.9% (40-80). Mean (range) acute and late grade≥3 GU toxicity rates for LDR-BT/HDR-BT/SBRT were 7.4%(0-14)/2%(0-14)/2.7%(0-8.7) and 13.6%(0-30)/7.9%(0-21.3%)/2.7%(0-8%). Mean (range) acute and late grade≥3 GI toxicity rates for LDR-BT/HDR-BT/SBRT were 6.5%(0-19)/0%/0.5%(0-4%) and 6.4%(0-20)/0.1%(0-0.9)/0.2%(0-1.5). One third of studies included Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage reirradiation of radiorecurrent prostate cancer using HDR-BT or SBRT provides similar biochemical control and acceptable late toxicity. Salvage LDR-BT is associated with higher late GU/GI toxicity. Challenges exist in comparing BT and SBRT from inconsistencies in reporting with missing data, and prospective randomised trials are needed.

Measuring Quality of Life Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents the most common solid organ malignancy in men. Fortunately, at the time of diagnosis, the majority of cases are staged as localized or regional disease, conferring excellent 5- and 10-year cure rates. There are several first line treatment options including surgical approaches such as robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and radiation therapy (RT) available to patients with localized disease that offer similar PCa oncologic outcomes but are associated with potentially significant side effects which may impact health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domains. Recently, clinicians and investigators have sought to better understand these changes in HRQOL metrics with the utilization of patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Given that RARP represents the most common surgical treatment for PCa in the United States, there has been a particular interest in assessing these outcomes derived by patient perspectives to more fully appreciate treatment-related impact on quality of life following RARP.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review sought to explore the instruments available to measure quality of life after RARP, a review of the PRO data after RARP, and future directions for assessing and improving quality of life outcomes following this surgery.

CLINICAL USE

There are several treatment options for men diagnosed with local and regional prostate cancer with similar oncologic outcomes but differing patterns of side effects affecting post-treatment quality of life. Understanding data reported directly by patients following RARP about their side effects and quality of life gives providers additional information for appropriate preoperative counseling for patients choosing between treatment options for their prostate cancer.

Radical Prostatectomy: Sequelae in the Course of Time

Objective: Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a frequent treatment for men suffering from localized prostate cancer (PCa). Whilst offering a high chance for cure, it does not come without a significant impact on health-related quality of life. Herein we review the common adverse effects RP may have over the course of time. Methods: A collaborative narrative review was performed with the identification of the principal studies on the topic. The search was executed by a relevant term search on PubMed from 2010 to February 2021. Results: Rates of major complications in patients undergoing RP are generally low. The main adverse effects are erectile dysfunction varying from 11 to 87% and urinary incontinence varying from 0 to 87% with a peak in functional decline shortly after surgery, and dependent on definitions. Different less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. The highest rate of recovery is seen within the first year after RP, but even long-term improvements are possible. Nevertheless, for some men these adverse effects are long lasting and different, less frequent side effects also need to be taken into account. Despite many technical advances over the last two decades no surgical approach can be clearly favored when looking at long-term outcome, as surgical volume and experience as well as individual patient characteristics are still the most influential variables. Conclusions: The frequency of erectile function and urinary continence side effects after RP, and the trajectory of recovery, need to be taken into account when counseling patients about their treatment options for prostate cancer.

Five-year outcomes from a prospective comparative effectiveness study evaluating external-beam radiotherapy with or without low-dose-rate brachytherapy boost for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

To inform patients who are in the process of selecting prostate cancer treatment, the authors compared disease-specific function after external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) alone versus EBRT plus a low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR).

METHODS

For this prospective study, men who had localized prostate cancer in 2011 and 2012 were enrolled. Assessments at baseline, 0.5, 1, 3, and 5 years included the patient-reported Expanded Prostate Index Composite, the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey, and treatment-related regret. Regression models were adjusted for baseline function and for patient and treatment characteristics. The minimum clinically important difference in scores on the Expanded Prostate Index Composite 26-item instrument was from 5 to 7 for urinary irritation and from 4 to 6 for bowel function.

RESULTS

Six-hundred ninety-five men met inclusion criteria and received either EBRT (n = 583) or EBRT-LDR (n = 112). Patients in the EBRT-LDR group were younger (median age, 66 years [interquartile range [IQR], 60-71 years] vs 69 years [IQR, 64-74 years]; P < .001), were less likely to receive pelvic radiotherapy (10% vs 18%; P = .040), and had higher baseline 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey physical function scores (median score, 95 [IQR, 86-100] vs 90 [IQR, 70-100]; P < .001). Over a 3-year period, compared with EBRT, EBRT-LDR was associated with worse urinary irritative scores (adjusted mean difference at 3 years, -5.4; 95% CI, -9.3, -1.6) and bowel function scores (-4.1; 95% CI, -7.6, -0.5). The differences were no longer clinically meaningful at 5 years (difference in urinary irritative scores: -4.5; 95% CI, -8.4, -0.5; difference in bowel function scores: -2.1; 95% CI, -5.7, -1.4). However, men who received EBRT-LDR were more likely to report moderate or big problems with urinary function bother (adjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.2) and frequent urination (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2-5.6) through 5 years. There were no differences in survival or treatment-related regret between treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with EBRT alone, EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically meaningful worse urinary irritative and bowel function over 3 years after treatment and more urinary bother at 5 years.

LAY SUMMARY

In men with prostate cancer who received external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) with or without a brachytherapy boost (EBRT-LDR), EBRT-LDR was associated with clinically worse urinary irritation and bowel function through 3 years but resolved after 5 years. Men who received EBRT-LDR continued to report moderate-to-big problems with urinary function bother and frequent urination through 5 years. There was no difference in treatment-related regret or survival between patients who received EBRT and those who received EBRT-LDR. These intermediate-term estimates of function may facilitate counseling for men who are selecting treatment.

Technology-Based Psychosocial Intervention to Improve Quality of Life and Reduce Symptom Burden in Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Men with advanced prostate cancer (APC) face multiple challenges including poor prognosis, poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and elevated symptom burden. This study sought to establish the efficacy of a tablet-delivered, group-based psychosocial intervention for improving HRQOL and reducing symptom burden in men with APC. We hypothesized that men randomized to cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) would report improved HRQOL and reduced symptom burden relative to men randomized to an active control health promotion (HP) condition. Condition effects on intervention targets and moderators of these effects were explored.

METHODS

Men with APC (N = 192) were randomized (1:1) to 10-week tablet-delivered CBSM or HP, and followed for 1 year. Multilevel modeling was used to evaluate condition effects over time.

RESULTS

Changes in HRQOL and symptom burden did not differ between groups. Men in both groups improved across several intervention targets; men in the CBSM condition reported greater increases in self-reported ability to relax, and both conditions showed improvements in cancer-related anxiety, cancer-related distress, and feelings of cohesiveness with other patients over time. Moderating factors included baseline interpersonal disruption, fatigue, and sexual functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Tablet-delivered CBSM and HP were well received by men with APC. The hypothesized effects of CBSM on HRQOL and symptom burden were not supported, though improvements in intervention targets were observed across conditions. Participants reported high-baseline HRQOL relative to cancer and general population norms, possibly limiting intervention effects. The identified moderating factors should be considered in the development and implementation of interventions targeting HRQOL and symptom burden.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03149185.

Core outcome sets in cancer and their approaches to identifying and selecting patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Issues arising from a lack of outcome standardisation in health research may be addressed by the use of core outcome sets (COS), which represent agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum in studies of a health condition. This review investigated the scope, outcomes, and development methods of consensus-based COS for cancer, and their approaches and criteria for selecting instruments to assess core patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

Studies that used a consensus-driven approach to develop a COS containing PROs, for use in research with cancer populations, were sought via MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most COS (82%) were specific to a cancer type (prostate, esophageal, head and neck, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, lung, or colorectal) and not specific to an intervention or treatment (76%). Conducting a systematic review was the most common approach to identifying outcomes (88%) and administering a Delphi survey was the most common approach to prioritising outcomes (71%). The included COS contained 90 PROs, of which the most common were physical function, sexual (dys) function, pain, fatigue, and emotional function. Most studies (59%) did not address how to assess the core PROs included in a set, while 7 studies (41%) recommended specific instruments. Their approaches to instrument appraisal and selection varied.

CONCLUSION

Efforts to standardise outcome assessment via the development of COS may be undermined by a lack of recommendations on how to measure core PROs. To optimise COS usefulness and adoption, valid and reliable instruments for the assessment of core PROs should be recommended with the aid of resources designed to facilitate this process.

Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years.

DESIGN

A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up.

SETTING

Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy.

TRIAL PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy).

LIMITATIONS

A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Development of a core outcome set for myelodysplastic syndromes - a Delphi study from the EUMDS Registry Group

Treatment options for myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) vary widely, depending on the natural disease course and patient‐related factors. Comparison of treatment effectiveness is challenging as different endpoints have been included in clinical trials and outcome reporting. Our goal was to develop the first MDS core outcome set (MDS‐COS) defining a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in future clinical studies. We performed a comprehensive systematic literature review among MDS studies to extract patient‐ and/or clinically relevant outcomes. Clinical experts from the European LeukemiaNet MDS (EUMDS) identified 26 potential MDS core outcomes and participated in a three‐round Delphi survey. After the first survey (56 experts), 15 outcomes met the inclusion criteria and one additional outcome was included. The second round (38 experts) resulted in six included outcomes. In the third round, a final check on plausibility and practicality of the six included outcomes and their definitions was performed. The final MDS‐COS includes: health‐related quality of life, treatment‐related mortality, overall survival, performance status, safety, and haematological improvement. This newly developed MDS‐COS represents the first minimum set of outcomes aiming to enhance comparability across future MDS studies and facilitate a better understanding of treatment effectiveness.

Radical prostatectomy versus brachytherapy for clinically localized prostate cancer on oncological and functional outcomes: a meta-analysis

Background

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a form of malignancy that harms the health status of elderly men worldwide. It is unclear which of radical prostatectomy (RP) or brachytherapy (BT) is the more effective treatment for PCa. This study presents the first highly comprehensive and up-to-date comparative analysis of the overall outcomes of RP versus BT.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search for studies published on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library on the outcomes of RP versus BT in clinically localized PCa. The cumulative analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.3 software, and the Chi-square test was employed to test the statistical heterogeneity. The summary odds ratio (OR) and standard mean difference (SMD) was estimated using random effects models at 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

In total, 2 randomized, 2 prospective, and 21 retrospective comparative studies were included. No significant differences in biochemical recurrence rate (BCR) (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.68) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) (OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 0.86, 3.04) between RP and BT were noted. With erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence, BT was more protective than RP in both short-term post-operative reports (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.15, 3.70 and OR: 4.62; 95% CI: 2.33, 9.16) and long-term patient outcome reports (SMD: -5.62; 95% CI: -13.81, 2.57 and SMD: -11.52; 95% CI: -18.32, -4.72).

Conclusions

BT and RP for PCa therapy pose comparable risks of PCSM and BCR, while BT is associated with a lower incidence of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. This study tentatively confirms that BT is an alternative to RP for patients seeking a curative treatment with minimal risks of urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction.

Utilizing Digital Health to Collect Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Prostate Cancer: Single-Arm Pilot Trial

Background

Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) requires an individual’s perspective on their symptoms, functional status, and quality of life. Digital health enables remote electronic PRO (ePRO) assessments as a clinical decision support tool to facilitate meaningful provider interactions and personalized treatment.

Objective

This study explored the feasibility and acceptability of collecting ePROs using validated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires for prostate cancer.

Methods

Using Apple ResearchKit software, the Strength Through Insight app was created with content from validated HRQoL tools 26-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) or EPIC for Clinical Practice and 8-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Advanced Prostate Symptom Index. In a single-arm pilot study with patients receiving prostate cancer treatment at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital and affiliates, participants were recruited, and instructed to download Strength Through Insight and complete ePROs once a week over 12 weeks. A mixed methods approach, including qualitative pre- and poststudy interviews, was used to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of Strength Through Insight for the collection and care management of cancer treatment.

Results

Thirty patients consented to the study; 1 patient failed to complete any of the questionnaires and was left out of the analysis of the intervention. Moreover, 86% (25/29) reached satisfactory questionnaire completion (defined as completion of 60% of weekly questions over 12 weeks). The lower bound of the exact one-sided 95% CI was 71%, exceeding the 70% feasibility threshold. Most participants self-identified with having a high digital literacy level (defined as the ability to use, understand, evaluate, and analyze information from multiple formats from a variety of digital sources), and only a few participants identified with having a low digital literacy level (defined as only having the ability to gather information on the Web). Interviews were thematically analyzed to reveal the following: (1) value of emotional support and wellness in cancer treatment, (2) rise of social patient advocacy in online patient communities and networks, (3) patient concerns over privacy, and (4) desire for personalized engagement tools.

Conclusions

Strength Through Insight was demonstrated as a feasible and acceptable method of data collection for ePROs. A high compliance rate confirmed the app as a reliable tool for patients with localized and advanced prostate cancer. Nearly all participants reported that using the smartphone app is easier than or equivalent to the traditional paper-and-pen approach, providing evidence of acceptability and support for the use of remote PRO monitoring. This study expands on current research involving the value of digital health, as a social and behavioral science, augmented with technology, can begin to contribute to population health management, as it shapes psychographic segmentation by demographic, socioeconomic, health condition, or behavioral factors to group patients by their distinct personalities and motivations, which influence their choices.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NC03197948; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NC03197948

Performance Measures Based on How Adults With Cancer Feel and Function: Stakeholder Recommendations and Feasibility Testing in Six Cancer Centers

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess how patients feel and function have potential for evaluating quality of care. Stakeholder recommendations for PRO-based performance measures (PMs) were elicited, and feasibility testing was conducted at six cancer centers.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with 124 stakeholders to determine priority symptoms and risk adjustment variables for PRO-PMs and perceived acceptability. Stakeholders included patients and advocates, caregivers, clinicians, administrators, and thought leaders. Feasibility testing was conducted in six cancer centers. Patients completed PROMs at home 5-15 days into a chemotherapy cycle. Feasibility was operationalized as ≥ 75% completed PROMs and ≥ 75% patient acceptability.

RESULTS

Stakeholder priority PRO-PMs for systemic therapy were GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting), depression/anxiety, pain, insomnia, fatigue, dyspnea, physical function, and neuropathy. Recommended risk adjusters included demographics, insurance type, cancer type, comorbidities, emetic risk, and difficulty paying bills. In feasibility testing, 653 patients enrolled (approximately 110 per site), and 607 (93%) completed PROMs, which indicated high feasibility for home collection. The majority of patients (470 of 607; 77%) completed PROMs without a reminder call, and 137 (23%) of 607 completed them after a reminder call. Most patients (72%) completed PROMs through web, 17% paper, or 2% interactive voice response (automated call that verbally asked patient questions). For acceptability, > 95% of patients found PROM items to be easy to understand and complete.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders agree that PMs that are based on how patients feel and function would be an important addition to quality measurement. This study also shows that PRO-PMs can be feasibly captured at home during systemic therapy and are acceptable to patients. PRO-PMs may add value to the portfolio of PMs as oncology transitions from fee-for-service payment models to performance-based care that emphasizes outcome measures.

A scoping review of core outcome sets and their 'mapping' onto real-world data using prostate cancer as a case study

Background

A Core Outcomes Set (COS) is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical studies related to a specific condition. Using prostate cancer as a case study, we identified, summarized, and critically appraised published COS development studies and assessed the degree of overlap between them and selected real-world data (RWD) sources.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database to identify all COS studies developed for prostate cancer. Several characteristics (i.e., study type, methods for consensus, type of participants, outcomes included in COS and corresponding measurement instruments, timing, and sources) were extracted from the studies; outcomes were classified according to a predefined 38-item taxonomy. The study methodology was assessed based on the recent COS-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) recommendations. A ‘mapping’ exercise was conducted between the COS identified and RWD routinely collected in selected European countries.

Results

Eleven COS development studies published between 1995 and 2017 were retrieved, of which 8 were classified as ‘COS for clinical trials and clinical research’, 2 as ‘COS for practice’ and 1 as ‘COS patient reported outcomes’. Recommended outcomes were mainly categorized into ‘mortality and survival’ (17%), ‘outcomes related to neoplasm’ (18%), and ‘renal and urinary outcomes’ (13%) with no relevant differences among COS study types. The studies generally fulfilled the criteria for the COS-STAD ‘scope specification’ domain but not the ‘stakeholders involved’ and ‘consensus process’ domains. About 72% overlap existed between COS and linked administrative data sources, with important gaps. Linking with patient registries improved coverage (85%), but was sometimes limited to smaller follow-up patient groups.

Conclusions

This scoping review identified few COS development studies in prostate cancer, some quite dated and with a growing level of methodological quality over time. This study revealed promising overlap between COS and RWD sources, though with important limitations; linking established, national patient registries to administrative data provide the best means to additionally capture patient-reported and some clinical outcomes over time. Thus, increasing the combination of different data sources and the interoperability of systems to follow larger patient groups in RWD is required.

Integration of Patient Reported Outcomes in Drug Development in Genitourinary Cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly utilized in cancer drug development, and are of particular importance in genitourinary cancers due to symptom burden, multiple treatment options with similar efficacy, and often prolonged duration of disease. Here we review current data and perspectives related to use of PROs in drug development for genitourinary cancers, including insights on the regulatory process for drug approval.

RECENT FINDINGS

The FDA is committed to incorporating PRO data into the regulatory process for development and approval of new cancer drugs, but challenges exist due to lack of standardization of PRO instrument choice and analytic approach, missing data, and difficulty isolating treatment effect from disease-related effects. We review guidance for standardization of PRO methodology that is nonetheless tailored to disease state and anticipated effects of treatment. PRO and efficacy data should be simultaneously analyzed and reported for best clinical practice. Multiple disease-specific PRO instruments exist for genitourinary cancers. While clinicians, researchers, and regulatory bodies alike recognize the importance of PROs in cancer drug development, challenges remain regarding implementation of best practices.

Long-Term Cancer Survivors' Everyday Embodiment

Long-term survivors of cancer (LTS) face daunting challenges to their physical, emotional, and cognitive well-being in the years following completion of cancer treatment. Most LTS face a new reality shaped by chronic "late effects" of treatments, or illnesses and conditions caused by chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, medications, and other treatments. Copious biomedical research explores the health challenges of patients undergoing cancer treatment, yet relatively little investigates the lived experience of LTS from a health communication perspective. Using Managing Meaning of Embodied Experience Theory (Field-Springer & Striley, 2018) as a critical embodiment lens, this study describes LTS' embodiment of health and illness. Critical qualitative analyses produced three themes: Bodies-in-relation, bodies entangled with biomedical actants, and dynamic embodiment. We discuss implications for health communication research and theorizing and for healthcare practice.

Development of a Core Set of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Population-Based Cancer Survivorship Research: Protocol for an Australian Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Core outcome sets seek to improve the consistency and quality of research by providing agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum for a population and setting. The problems arising from a lack of outcome standardization in population-based cancer survivorship research indicate the need for agreement on a core set of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to enhance data quality, consistency, and comparability.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify a core set of PROs, representing the most important issues impacting on cancer survivors' long-term health, functioning and quality of life, to inform population-based research on cancer survivorship.

METHODS

In Phase I, a list of all potentially important outcomes will be generated through focus group discussions with cancer survivors and a review of measures for assessing quality of life in cancer survivorship. The consolidated list will be advanced to Phase II, where a stakeholder consensus process will be conducted with national experts in cancer survivorship to refine and prioritize the outcomes into a core outcome set. The process will consist of a two-round Delphi survey and a consensus meeting. Cancer survivors, oncology health care professionals, and potential end users of the core outcome set with expertise in cancer survivorship research or policy will be invited to participate. In Phase III, recommended measures for assessment of the core outcome set will be selected with advice from experts on the assessment, analysis, and interpretation of PROs.

RESULTS

As of April 2019, data collection for Phase I is complete and data analysis is underway. These data will inform the list of outcomes to be advanced into Phase II. Recruitment for Phase II will commence in June 2019, and it is anticipated that it will take 6 months to complete the three-step consensus process and identify a provisional core outcome set. The study results are expected to be published in early 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert consensus-driven recommendations on outcome measurement will facilitate the inclusion of survivorship outcomes considered important by cancer survivors and health professionals in future research. Adoption of the core outcome set will enable comparison and synthesis of evidence across studies and enhance the quality of PRO data collected in cancer survivorship research, particularly when applied to address macro-level questions.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/14544.

Patient-reported sexual quality of life after different types of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy: Analysis of a population-based prospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Although patients with prostate cancer face many treatment options, to the authors' knowledge the comparative effects of different surgical and radiotherapy (RT) options on sexual function are unclear.

METHODS

In the current study, a population-based cohort of 835 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer from 2011 through 2013 was recruited throughout North Carolina in collaboration with the Rapid Case Ascertainment system of the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. All men were enrolled prior to treatment and followed prospectively using the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices (PCSI) instrument. This analysis compares the sexual dysfunction scores of the PCSI among patients who received external-beam RT (EBRT), EBRT with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), brachytherapy, nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP), and non-nerve-sparing RP. Propensity scores were used to balance patient characteristics across groups, and multiple imputation was used for missing data.

RESULTS

EBRT and brachytherapy resulted in similar PCSI scores through 24 months. Compared with those receiving EBRT, patients treated with EBRT with ADT and RP with or without nerve sparing were found to have worse PCSI scores at all posttreatment time points. Preservation of useful sexual function at 24 months was associated with treatment type, baseline score, and age. Predicted preservation rates were 14.1% to 70.7% for EBRT, 8.4% to 52.3% for EBRT with ADT, 4.7% to 45.3% for nerve-sparing RP, and 4.8% to 34.5% for non-nerve-sparing RP.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the current study indicate that RT alone results in the best preservation of sexual function, and brachytherapy provides similar outcomes. RT with ADT and nerve-sparing RP yielded similar outcomes, whereas patients treated with non-nerve-sparing RP experienced the worst sexual function. These results help patients to make decisions among the specific types of surgery and RT they face based on each individual's diagnosis.

Patient-reported Urinary, Bowel, and Sexual Function After Hypofractionated Intensity-modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: Results From a Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES

Hypofractionated prostate radiotherapy may increase biologically effective dose delivered while shortening treatment duration, but information on patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual function after dose-escalated hypofractionated radiotherapy is limited. We report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from a randomized trial comparing hypofractionated and conventional prostate radiotherapy.

METHODS

Men with localized prostate cancer were enrolled in a trial that randomized men to either conventionally fractionated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (CIMRT, 75.6 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions) or to dose-escalated hypofractionated IMRT (HIMRT, 72 Gy in 2.4 Gy fractions). Questionnaires assessing urinary, bowel, and sexual function were completed pretreatment and at 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after treatment.

RESULTS

Of 203 eligible patients, 185 were evaluable for PROs. A total of 173 completed the pretreatment questionnaire (82 CIMRT, 91 HIMRT) and 102 completed the 2-year questionnaire (46 CIMRT, 56 HIMRT). Patients who completed PROs were similar to those who did not complete PROs (all P>0.05). Patient characteristics, clinical characteristics, and baseline symptoms were well balanced between the treatment arms (all P>0.05). There was no difference in patient-reported bowel (urgency, control, frequency, or blood per rectum), urinary (dysuria, hematuria, nocturia, leakage), or sexual symptoms (erections firm enough for intercourse) between treatment arms at 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after treatment (all P>0.01). Concordance between physician-assessed toxicity and PROs varied across urinary and bowel domains.

DISCUSSION

We did not detect an increase in patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual symptom burden after dose-escalated intensity-modulated prostate radiation therapy using a moderate hypofractionation regimen (72 Gy in 2.4 Gy fractions) compared with conventionally fractionated radiation.

Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) Online: Validation of an Internet-Based Instrument for Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life After Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To test the validity of an Internet-based version of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) versus the phone-based version. Most men will survive for years after treatment for localized prostate cancer (PCa) and may experience lasting treatment-related toxicities affecting health-related quality of life. The EPIC-26 is a validated instrument that measures health-related quality of life across 5 PCa-specific domains. Previously, EPIC-26 was administered via phone in a large multicenter clinical trial.

METHODS

We developed an Internet-based version of EPIC-26. We recruited subjects from two prospective longitudinal study cohorts of PCa patients undergoing local therapy: PROST-QA, and PROSTQA-RP2. Subjects were randomized to either an "Internet-first" or "phone-first" group. Subjects were offered the alternate questionnaire modality 2 weeks after completing the initial modality.

RESULTS

181 subjects were offered enrollment; 133 agreed to participate. 65 subjects were randomized to the "Internet- first" group and 68 subjects to the "phone-first" group. Of these, 37 and 26 subjects respectively completed both questionnaire versions (response rate: 44.4%). Test-retest analysis showed significant intraclass correlations in all 5 domains of EPIC-26: urinary incontinence (r = 0.96), urinary irritation (r = 0.85), bowel function (r = 0.61), sexual function (r = 0.94), and hormonal function (r = 0.89). There was no effect of order of questionnaire administration.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates excellent correlation of responses between Internet-based and phone-based EPIC-26 administration. All domains demonstrated test-retest reliability between modalities, without ordering effect. This validates the use of internet-based EPIC-26 in international registries as part of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement effort, and may facilitate its use in clinical practice and quality improvement.

Patient-reported Outcomes Following Treatment of Localised Prostate Cancer and Their Association with Regret About Treatment Choices

BACKGROUND

Well-documented reports of patients' experiences with different treatments are important for helping localised prostate cancer (LPC) patients choose among the available treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To document differences in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy (BT), and active surveillance (AS), and to evaluate how these PROs and other factors are associated with treatment decision regret.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A prospective, observational, multicentre study of men diagnosed with LPC (stage cT1-2) during 2014-2016.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Patients completed validated PRO measures (Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 [QLQ-C30], Quality of Life Questionnaire prostate cancer-specific module [QLQ-PR25], Decision Regret Scale, and the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer) before treatment and at 3, 6, and 12mo after treatment. Mixed-effect models were used to describe different PRO patterns.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The analytic cohort included 434 men (AS=32%; RP=45%; EBRT=12%; BT=10%). Follow-up response rates were above 90%. At 1-yr follow-up, (1) men who had received RP reported significantly (p<0.01) more urinary incontinence, sexual dysfunction, hormonal/masculinity-related symptoms, and less emotional distress; (2) those having received EBRT reported more sexual dysfunction, hormonal/masculinity-related symptoms, and physical distress; and (3) those having received BT reported more urinary obstruction and irritation symptoms, compared with patients under AS. Irrespective of the treatment modality, 23% of the patients reported clinically relevant treatment regret (99% confidence interval, 17-28%). Multivariate correlates of decision regret were hormonal/masculinity-related symptoms, educational level, and positive surgical margins.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-treatment physical and psychosocial functioning was significantly associated with specific treatment modalities and pretreatment functioning. Regret was relatively frequently reported by patients who experienced unwanted physical, psychosocial, and oncological outcomes. Greater efforts should be made to understand whether carefully educating patients about the possible consequences and effectiveness of treatments may help limit the feeling of treatment regret.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In men with localised prostate cancer, regret about the treatment choice was more common among those who experienced more treatment-related symptoms during the year after treatment.

Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Methods for item selection in industry-sponsored oncology clinical trials

As new cancer treatment regimens demonstrate increased potential to improve patients' survival, more focus is directed toward the quality of that extension of life and to obtaining additional information from patients regarding their experience with treatment. The utility of capturing patient-reported treatment-related symptoms to complement traditional clinician-rated symptomatic adverse event reporting is well-documented. The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library aimed at capturing patient-reported symptoms to inform the patient perspective on a treatment's tolerability. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in clinical trials. A practical guideline is needed to inform a priori selection of specific Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events items for use in any given industry-sponsored oncology clinical trial. Standardizing this selection process will foster systematic and consistent data collection as part of drug development and enhance our knowledge on how to use patient-relevant information as part of a treatment's risk/benefit assessment. This article presents methods and consensus recommendations for selecting specific Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events items to include in early-phase and late-phase oncology clinical trials.

Patient-reported outcomes for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving docetaxel and Atrasentan versus docetaxel and placebo in a randomized phase III clinical trial (SWOG S0421)

Background

SWOG S0421 was a large randomized trial comparing docetaxel/prednisone plus placebo (DPP) to docetaxel/prednisone plus atrasentan over 12 cycles for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The current report presents the PRO results for this trial, an important secondary endpoint.

Methods

The trial specified two primary PRO endpoints. Palliation of worst pain was based on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), where a 2 point difference is defined as clinically meaningful. Improvement of functional status was based on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Prostate Cancer Trial Outcome Index (FACT-P TOI); a 5-point difference has been defined as clinically meaningful. We compared rates by arm using chi-square tests. Longitudinal analyses using linear mixed models addressed changes by arm over time.

Results

Four-hundred eighty-nine patients on each arm were evaluable for PRO endpoint data. There were no differences by arm in clinically meaningful pain palliation (41.7% for DPP vs. 44.0% for DPA, p = .70) or functional status (24.2% for DPP vs. 28.7% for DPA, p = .13). Longitudinal comparisons indicated no differences over time by arm for BPI Worst Pain scores (0.13 points, p = .23). Patients on the DPA arm had improved functional status of 1.78 points on average, a statistically significant (p = .02) but not clinically meaningful difference.

Conclusions

The SWOG S0421 PRO data showed little evidence of clinically meaningful differences by arm in either pain palliation or functional status.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-018-0054-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Key design and analysis principles for quality of life and patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials

Advances in early detection and therapy have increased the number of prostate cancer survivors, leading to a greater emphasis on examining patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs augment clinical outcomes, providing a more comprehensive assessment of the patient experience, including symptoms and quality of life, that may impact the overall evaluation of new therapies. The successful incorporation of PROs into clinical trials requires adherence to key design and analysis principles. We present these principles and argue that adherence to these principles is vital to ensure valid interpretation of clinical trial findings, identify meaningful differences among investigational strategies, and better translate clinical trial results to diverse stakeholders.

Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage Radiation Therapy Following Radical Prostatectomy for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is now the most common definitive treatment for high-risk prostate cancer. Unfortunately, many men will have residual microscopic disease after surgery alone. Despite level 1 evidence supporting the use of adjuvant radiation therapy (ART), <10% of men with adverse pathology (positive margins or T3 disease) receive ART in the USA. Early salvage radiation therapy (eSRT) at the time of biochemical recurrence has been proposed as an alternative strategy despite the lack of published randomized trials to support this approach. Multiple randomized trials are ongoing or recently completed to compare ART to eSRT, but given the long natural history of prostate cancer, long-term oncologic outcomes from these trials will not be reported for several years. In this review, we discuss the shifting trends in the diagnosis of high-risk prostate cancer given a decline in PSA screening, use of RP for high-risk disease, and compare and contrast the retrospective and randomized evidence regarding ART and SRT.

Recognizing Symptom Burden in Advanced Prostate Cancer: A Global Patient and Caregiver Survey

BACKGROUND

Bone metastases in men with prostate cancer are often initially asymptomatic, resulting in delayed identification, diagnosis, and appropriate treatment. To assess how patients with advanced prostate cancer (aPC) communicate symptoms to health care providers, an international patient survey was conducted.

METHODS

An online and phone survey was conducted by Harris Poll in 11 countries (Brazil, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States) from February 12 to October 27, 2015, in men with aPC (ie, those who reported as having PC beyond the prostate [metastatic]) and their caregivers. Cell weighting was used to ensure equal weight of data across countries. Percentages are based on weighted n values.

RESULTS

A total of 927 men with aPC (weighted n = 664) and 400 caregivers completed the survey. Most commonly reported symptoms were fatigue (73%), urinary symptoms (63%), sexual function symptoms (62%), and bone pain (52%). Of 568 patients with bone metastases (weighted n = 421), most (73%) noticed pain before receiving a diagnosis of metastatic PC. Most patients with aPC (56%) were uncertain if their pain was cancer related, 55% felt they had to live with daily pain, 45% sometimes ignored pain, and 39% had difficulty talking about pain. Patients who had a caregiver were more likely than those without to discuss pain at every visit (45% vs. 32%, P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Disease symptoms in aPC are often underrecognized. Tools encouraging effective communication among patients, caregivers, and health care providers on early symptom reporting may lead to enhanced symptom and disease management.

Comparison of patient-reported acute urinary and sexual toxicity scores in a 6- versus 2-fraction course of high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy monotherapy

INTRODUCTION

To identify differences in acute urinary and sexual toxicity between a 6-fraction and 2-fraction high-dose-rate brachytherapy monotherapy regimen and correlate dosimetric constraints to short-term toxicity.

METHODS

A single institution retrospective study of 116 men with prostate cancer treated with HDR monotherapy from 2010 to 2015 was conducted. Eighty-one men had 7.25 Gy × 6-fractions and 35 men had 13.5 Gy × 2-fractions. Patients had two CT-planned implants spaced 1-2 weeks apart. Patient baseline characteristics, International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS) and Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) scores were collected pre-treatment and 3, 6 and 12 months post-implantation. Mixed effect modelling was undertaken to compare baseline, 1-6 month and 7-12 month scores between groups. Poisson regression analysis was performed to correlate dosimetric constraints with acute toxicity.

RESULTS

There was no difference between baseline and post-implantation IPSS scores between 6-fraction and 2-fraction groups. SHIM scores for men treated with 6-fractions had a steeper decline at 1-6 months, but resolved at 7-12 months. Pre-treatment alpha-blocker use correlated with worse short-term acute urinary toxicity. Worsened SHIM score correlated with increasing age, diabetes mellitus and androgen-deprivation therapy. In a dosimetric analysis of outcomes, prostate V150 dose and bladder wall (D01.cc, D1cc, D2cc) dose correlated with increased IPSS score.

CONCLUSION

No increased acute genitourinary or sexual dysfunction has been observed in men when transitioning from 6-fraction to 2-fraction HDR monotherapy. A dosimetric correlation was found between the V150 and bladder wall doses for acute urinary toxicity. Future research should continue to standardize and validate dose constraints for prostate HDR monotherapy patients.

Erectile function after stereotactic body radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the functional erection rate after prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and to develop a comprehensive prognostic model of outcomes after treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between 2008 and 2013, 373 consecutive men with localized prostate cancer were treated with SBRT at a single academic institution as part of a prospective clinical trial or prospective registry. Prospective longitudinal patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data was collected using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 instrument. Functional erections were strictly defined as 'firm enough for intercourse' according to EPIC-26. Detailed comorbidity data were also collected. Logistic regression models were used to predict 24- and 60-month functional erection rates. Observed erection rates after SBRT were compared with those after other radiation therapies (external beam radiation therapy [EBRT] and brachytherapy) using prospectively validated models.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 56 (37-73) months and the response rate at 2 years was 84%. For those with functional erections at baseline, 57% and 45% retained function at 24 and 60 months, respectively. On multivariable analysis for 24-month erectile function, significant variables included higher baseline sexual HRQoL (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.55 per 10 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-1.74; P < 0.001) and older age (aOR 0.66 per 10 years, 95% CI 0.43-1.00; P = 0.05). At 60 months, baseline HRQoL and age remained associated with erectile function, along with body mass index (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26-0.78; P < 0.001). The 24- and 60-month models had excellent discrimination (c-index 0.81 and 0.84, respectively). Erection rates after SBRT were not statistically different from model-predicted rates after EBRT or brachytherapy for the whole cohort and the cohort with baseline erectile function.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermediate- to long-term post-SBRT erectile function results are promising and not significantly different from other radiotherapy techniques. Clinicians can use our prognostic model to counsel patients regarding expected erectile function after SBRT.

Quality of Life Outcomes after Primary Treatment for Clinically Localised Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Current evidence-based management for clinically localised prostate cancer includes active surveillance, surgery, external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy. The impact of these treatment modalities on quality of life (QoL) is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review comparative studies investigating disease-specific QoL outcomes as assessed by validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures with at least 1 yr of follow-up after primary treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies. Studies were critically appraised for the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Of 11486 articles identified, 18 studies were eligible for inclusion, including three randomised controlled trials (RCTs; follow-up range: 60-72 mo) and 15 nonrandomised comparative studies (follow-up range: 12-180 mo) recruiting a total of 13604 patients. Two RCTs recruited small cohorts and only one was judged to have a low risk of bias. The quality of evidence from observational studies was low to moderate. For a follow-up of up to 6 yr, active surveillance was found to have the lowest impact on cancer-specific QoL, surgery had a negative impact on urinary and sexual function when compared with active surveillance and EBRT, and EBRT had a negative impact on bowel function when compared with active surveillance and surgery. Data from one small RCT reported that brachytherapy has a negative impact on urinary function 1 yr post-treatment, but no significant urinary toxicity was reported at 5 yr.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first systematic review comparing the impact of different primary treatments on cancer-specific QoL for men with clinically localised prostate cancer, using validated cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures only. There is robust evidence that choice of primary treatment for localised prostate cancer has distinct impacts on patients' QoL. This should be discussed in detail with patients during pretreatment counselling.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our review of the current evidence suggests that for a period of up to 6 yr after treatment, men with localised prostate cancer who were managed with active surveillance reported high levels of quality of life (QoL). Men treated with surgery reported mainly urinary and sexual problems, while those treated with external beam radiotherapy reported mainly bowel problems. Men eligible for brachytherapy reported urinary problems up to a year after therapy, but then their QoL returned gradually to as it was before treatment.

Caution with Use of the EPIC-50 Urinary Bother Scale: How Voiding Dysfunction Modifies its Performance

PURPOSE

We evaluated agreement between patient reported urinary function and bother, and sexual function and bother in patients treated with radical prostatectomy to help inform possible nonfunctional, modifiable mechanisms for patient bother.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were recruited from 2011 to 2014 at Washington University, and Brigham and Women's Hospital. Urinary and sexual outcomes were assessed by EPIC-50 (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-50) before, 5 weeks and 12 months after radical prostatectomy. Spearman rank correlation coefficients and agreement/disagreement categories were used to describe the relation between function and bother.

RESULTS

Despite moderate to good agreement between function and bother (urinary r = 0.51-0.69 and sexual r = 0.65-0.80) discordant groups were observed. In the urinary domain these groups were men disproportionately bothered by function at baseline (16.9%) and 12 months after radical prostatectomy (6.1%) and men less bothered by function 5 weeks (26.8%) and 12 months (9.9%) after radical prostatectomy. Discordant groups in the sexual domain were men less bothered by function at baseline (20.8%), and 5 weeks (21.1%) and 12 months (15.7%) after radical prostatectomy. Splitting the urinary bother scale into 2 subscales, including one for incontinence related bother to complement the urinary function scale which measures only incontinence, and one for voiding dysfunction related bother yielded considerably better agreement (urinary function and incontinence related bother r = 0.78-0.83). Factors contributing to the group less bothered by sexual function were unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

When using EPIC-50, investigators should consider splitting the urinary bother scale by the relation to incontinence to prevent distortions of function-bother and comparisons before vs after radical prostatectomy by coexisting voiding dysfunction.

Impact of locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer on the quality of life

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the health-related quality of life of patients with prostate cancer in advanced phases to obtain additional information on the patients' health. The growing interest in understanding the patient's perspective and the scarcity of prospective studies of this population motivated this research study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We present an observational study performed on 131 urology consultations, with a sample of 601 patients with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer, assessed during 2 visits: baseline and at 12 months. We collected demographic, clinical, quality-of-life (PROSQoLI and EuroQoL-5D-5L questionnaires) and anxiety/depression (HADS questionnaire) endpoints.

RESULTS

The mean age (SD) was 73.8 (8.2) years, and 87.2% of the participants were retired or pensioners. Some 58.7% of the patients presented locally advanced prostate cancer. Urinary symptoms were the most common, decreasing significantly after one year (P<.05). Urinary problems and fatigue were the most affected measures, and pain/discomfort was the dimension present in most patients (65.3%). According to the linear regression model, asthenia and pain were 2 of the factors most closely related to a poorer quality of life. The presence of anxiety/depression was low. Finally, the health condition as assessed by the clinician was more positive than when assessed by the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study broadens the scarce information on the quality of life of the population with advanced prostate cancer, information of use for the clinical management of these patients.

The evolution of brachytherapy for prostate cancer

Brachytherapy (BT), using low-dose-rate (LDR) permanent seed implantation or high-dose-rate (HDR) temporary source implantation, is an acceptable treatment option for select patients with prostate cancer of any risk group. The benefits of HDR-BT over LDR-BT include the ability to use the same source for other cancers, lower operator dependence, and - typically - fewer acute irritative symptoms. By contrast, the benefits of LDR-BT include more favourable scheduling logistics, lower initial capital equipment costs, no need for a shielded room, completion in a single implant, and more robust data from clinical trials. Prospective reports comparing HDR-BT and LDR-BT to each other or to other treatment options (such as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) or surgery) suggest similar outcomes. The 5-year freedom from biochemical failure rates for patients with low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk disease are >85%, 69-97%, and 63-80%, respectively. Brachytherapy with EBRT (versus brachytherapy alone) is an appropriate approach in select patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk disease. The 10-year rates of overall survival, distant metastasis, and cancer-specific mortality are >85%, <10%, and <5%, respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities associated with HDR-BT and LDR-BT are rare, at <4% in most series, and quality of life is improved in patients who receive brachytherapy compared with those who undergo surgery.

Association Between Choice of Radical Prostatectomy, External Beam Radiotherapy, Brachytherapy, or Active Surveillance and Patient-Reported Quality of Life Among Men With Localized Prostate Cancer

Importance

Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer have to decide among treatment strategies that may differ in their likelihood of adverse effects.

Objective

To compare quality of life (QOL) after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, and brachytherapy vs active surveillance.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Population-based prospective cohort of 1141 men (57% participation among eligible men) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were enrolled from January 2011 through June 2013 in collaboration with the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry. Median time from diagnosis to enrollment was 5 weeks, and all men were enrolled with written informed consent prior to treatment. Final follow-up date for current analysis was September 9, 2015.

Exposures

Treatment with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, or active surveillance.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Quality of life using the validated instrument Prostate Cancer Symptom Indices was assessed at baseline (pretreatment) and 3, 12, and 24 months after treatment. The instrument contains 4 domains-sexual dysfunction, urinary obstruction and irritation, urinary incontinence, and bowel problems-each scored from 0 (no dysfunction) to 100 (maximum dysfunction). Propensity-weighted mean domain scores were compared between each treatment group vs active surveillance at each time point.

Results

Of 1141 enrolled men, 314 pursued active surveillance (27.5%), 469 radical prostatectomy (41.1%), 249 external beam radiotherapy (21.8%), and 109 brachytherapy (9.6%). After propensity weighting, median age was 66 to 67 years across groups, and 77% to 80% of participants were white. Across groups, propensity-weighted mean baseline scores were 41.8 to 46.4 for sexual dysfunction, 20.8 to 22.8 for urinary obstruction and irritation, 9.7 to 10.5 for urinary incontinence, and 5.7 to 6.1 for bowel problems. Compared with active surveillance, mean sexual dysfunction scores worsened by 3 months for patients who received radical prostatectomy (36.2 [95% CI, 30.4-42.0]), external beam radiotherapy (13.9 [95% CI, 6.7-21.2]), and brachytherapy (17.1 [95% CI, 7.8-26.6]). Compared with active surveillance at 3 months, worsened urinary incontinence was associated with radical prostatectomy (33.6 [95% CI, 27.8-39.2]); acute worsening of urinary obstruction and irritation with external beam radiotherapy (11.7 [95% CI, 8.7-14.8]) and brachytherapy (20.5 [95% CI, 15.1-25.9]); and worsened bowel symptoms with external beam radiotherapy (4.9 [95% CI, 2.4-7.4]). By 24 months, mean scores between treatment groups vs active surveillance were not significantly different in most domains.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort of men with localized prostate cancer, each treatment strategy was associated with distinct patterns of adverse effects over 2 years. These findings can be used to promote treatment decisions that incorporate individual preferences.

Patient-reported outcomes in cancer survivorship

BACKGROUND

There are currently 33 million cancer survivors worldwide. With improvements in early cancer detection and treatments, patients are living longer - and it is well-recognized that many survivors develop short- and long-term physical, psychosocial and spiritual effects as a result of their diagnoses and treatments. There is increasing awareness of the importance of using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to accurately assess these effects in cancer survivors. Validated patient-reported outcome instruments: Traditionally, physicians have assessed the acute and late side effects of cancer treatments with standardized scales such as the CTCAE. However, multiple studies have demonstrated that PROs more accurately capture patient symptoms than physician assessment. In this article we describe frequently used, validated, general and cancer-specific PRO instruments that assess symptoms. We describe additional PRO instruments that assess unmet needs, interpersonal relationship issues, and psychosocial and financial problems. Published studies using these instruments have identified issues commonly faced by cancer survivors worldwide. Discussion and summary: While PROs are increasingly used in research, further efforts are needed to integrate PRO assessment into routine clinical care, so that timely and accurate assessments can translate into better management of issues - ultimately improving the lives of cancer survivors.