A systematic review on patient-reported outcomes in cancer survivors of randomised clinical trials: direction for future research

The effectiveness of case management for cancer patients: an umbrella review

Background

Case management (CM) is widely utilized to improve health outcomes of cancer patients, enhance their experience of health care, and reduce the cost of care. While numbers of systematic reviews are available on the effectiveness of CM for cancer patients, they often arrive at discordant conclusions that may confuse or mislead the future case management development for cancer patients and relevant policy making. We aimed to summarize the existing systematic reviews on the effectiveness of CM in health-related outcomes and health care utilization outcomes for cancer patient care, and highlight the consistent and contradictory findings.

Methods

An umbrella review was conducted followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Umbrella Review methodology. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus for reviews published up to July 8th, 2022. Quality of each review was appraised with the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. A narrative synthesis was performed, the corrected covered area was calculated as a measure of overlap for the primary studies in each review. The results were reported followed the Preferred reporting items for overviews of systematic reviews checklist.

Results

Eight systematic reviews were included. Average quality of the reviews was high. Overall, primary studies had a slight overlap across the eight reviews (corrected covered area = 4.5%). No universal tools were used to measure the effect of CM on each outcome. Summarized results revealed that CM were more likely to improve symptom management, cognitive function, hospital (re)admission, treatment received compliance, and provision of timely treatment for cancer patients. Overall equivocal effect was reported on cancer patients’ quality of life, self-efficacy, survivor status, and satisfaction. Rare significant effect was reported on cost and length of stay.

Conclusions

CM showed mixed effects in cancer patient care. Future research should use standard guidelines to clearly describe details of CM intervention and its implementation. More primary studies are needed using high-quality well-powered designs to provide solid evidence on the effectiveness of CM. Case managers should consider applying validated and reliable tools to evaluate effect of CM in multifaced outcomes of cancer patient care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08610-1.

Understanding the Type of Support Offered Within the Caregiver, Family, and Spiritual/Religious Contexts of Cancer Patients

CONTEXT/OBJECTIVES

We sought to characterize patterns of social support types (i.e., emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental) within the caregiver/spouse, family, and spiritual/religious contexts for patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

Focus groups were conducted with mixed groups of patients with cancer and caregiver/family members at a Midwestern comprehensive cancer center. Participants completed brief demographic questionnaires. Focus groups were moderated using semistructured interviews. The 90-minute discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed, and uploaded into NVivo for analysis using a deductive approach based on four social support types and the constant comparative method.

RESULTS

Four focus groups were conducted (n = 25). The average age was 58.4 years (SD = 15.1, range 26.0-76.0). Patient participants reported different malignancy types, including breast, gynecologic, skin, oral, and Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Participants acknowledged changes within their social network across the cancer journey. Overall, the caregiver/spouse fulfilled all types of social support. Spirituality/religion was often discussed as a form of appraisal social support. Fellow survivors were sources of informational support. Across groups, nondirective/emotional support was most frequently mentioned.

CONCLUSION

Cancer is a unique experience, and understanding the importance of social support, including types of social support needed from different contexts to best meet the needs of the patient, may promote optimal, patient-centered care across the cancer trajectory.

Exploring the perception of survivors on the bidirectional impact between cancer and their social contexts: A mixed-methods approach

Objective

The purpose of the current study was to use a mixed-methods approach to assess the perspective of cancer survivors on the bidirectional impact between cancer and their social contexts.

Method

A fixed concurrent triangulation mixed-methods survey design was used with open- and closed-ended questions that were predetermined and administered to participants. Quantitative items included demographic questions and the Life Impact Checklist. Qualitative questions were designed to explore the bidirectional impact between the patient and specific contexts including spirituality/faith, the spousal/partner relationship, and the family. A cross-sectional descriptive approach was used to evaluate the quantitative items and the constant comparative method guided the analysis of open-ended questions.

Result

Among 116 participants (mean age 58.4 years), the majority were female (66.7%) with breast cancer (27.9%). Nearly one-half the respondents endorsed a positive impact of cancer on their spirituality/faith, but qualitative results suggested less of a bidirectional impact. The importance of the spouse/partner during the cancer experience was emphasized, including the subthemes of instrumental and emotional support; however, there was often a negative impact of cancer on the spouse/partner relationship, including sexual functioning. Survivors indicated family members provided instrumental and emotional support, but not as regularly or directly as a spouse/partner.

Significance of results

Social contexts are important among cancer survivors, with many cancer survivors relying more on their spouse/partner than other family members for support. The cancer experience is stressful not only for survivors, but also for individuals in their social contexts and relationships.

A review of systematic reviews on the effects of patient-reported outcome monitoring with clinical feedback systems on health-related quality of life-implications for a novel technology in obesity treatment

Patient-reported outcome monitoring with clinical feedback systems (PRO/CFS) has been employed in many disease states to measure and improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Exploring the role of PRO/CFS in treatment for obesity may prove valuable. Systematic reviews were summarized to determine the effectiveness of PRO/CFS on HRQOL in any disease area. Primary studies evaluating the effect of PRO/CFS on HRQOL in treatment for obesity were also considered for inclusion. Systematic searches were performed in The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, Epistemonikos, HTA, DARE, CINAHL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, BMJ Clinical Evidence, PDQ-Evidence and PubPsych. Two reviewers independently screened references until final inclusion and critically appraised included reviews using PRISMA checklist. Five systematic reviews and no primary studies met inclusion criteria. Although results were inconsistent, effectiveness of PRO/CFS on HRQOL was demonstrated in some diseases/treatments (e.g. psychiatric treatment; symptom burden in cancer treatment). No trials using PRO/CFS in treatment for obesity were identified. In some trials, PRO/CFS was not fully integrated into consultations, thereby PRO/CFS was not extensively studied. General effectiveness of PRO/CFS on HRQOL is inconclusive due to heterogeneous and statistically insignificant findings, and lack of stringency in conceptualization and execution of PRO/CFS. There are no data relevant to treatment for obesity. Future studies should use rigorous methodology to examine the effectiveness of PRO/CFS in treatment for obesity.

[Effects of Psychoeducational Intervention for Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis]

PURPOSE

This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis designed to investigate effects of psychoeducational intervention for cancer survivors.

METHODS

Ten databases were searched. Two reviewers independently performed the selection of the studies, data extraction and assessment. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. To estimate the effect size, meta-analysis of the studies was performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and RevMan programs.

RESULTS

Of 18,781 publications identified, 35 met inclusion criteria, and 25 studies were used to estimate effect size of psychoeducational intervention. Effect sizes (standardized mean difference [SMD]) were heterogeneous and random effects models were used in the analyses. Psychoeducational intervention was effective for quality of life (n=2,410, ES=0.23; 95% CI: 0.09~0.37), coping and self-efficacy (n=179, ES=0.68; 95% CI: 0.26~1.11), anxiety (n=1,786, ES=-0.26; 95% CI: -0.37~-0.15), depression (n=1,910, ES=-0.28; 95% CI: -0.37~-0.18), and psychological distress (n=2,242, ES=-0.31; 95% CI: -0.46~-0.17). Subgroup analysis showed that counseling was the most effective intervention for quality of life, and behavioral therapy was an effective intervention for all positive and negative outcomes. Publication bias was not detected except for psychological distress.

CONCLUSION

Psychoeducational intervention appears to be effective in improving quality of life and coping and self-efficacy, and it is effective in reducing psychological symptoms in cancer survivors. Behavioral therapy, especially, is commonly effective in improving psychosocial outcomes. However, low-quality evidence, variability in the designs of existing studies, and publication bias suggest that additional high-quality trials should be conducted in the future.

Ongoing unmet needs in treating estrogen receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

Estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is the most common MBC subtype and currently remains incurable, with a median overall survival of 24.8 months (95% confidence interval, 21.3-30.3). Common sites of metastases are bone, viscera, and brain, causing significant symptoms that negatively affect patient functioning, quality of life (QoL), and work productivity. Guidelines state that endocrine therapy (ET) is preferable to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with ER+ MBC, regardless of limited visceral metastases, unless rapid tumor response is required or ET resistance is suspected. Although response rates up to 40% have been reported for first-line MBC treatment, the majority of initial responders eventually develop ET resistance. Notwithstanding the steep decline in efficacy between first and later lines of ET, some patients may receive chemotherapy earlier than necessary. Although new treatments have been approved for patients with ER+/HER2- advanced or MBC in the past decade, neither survival nor QoL appear to have improved significantly. Thus, there remain significant unmet needs for this patient population, including improved survival, maintaining or improving patient QoL, and emphasizing the importance of treatment selection to assist healthcare practitioners managing patient care. In this review, we identify current challenges and unmet needs in this patient population, review cutting-edge treatments, and provide clinically relevant suggestions for treatment selection that can optimize outcomes and patients' health-related QoL.

Psycho-oncology assessment in Chinese populations: a systematic review of quality of life and psychosocial measures

This systematic review describes psychosocial and quality of life (QOL) measures used in psycho-oncology research with cancer patients and caregivers in China. Medline and PsycINFO databases were searched (1980-2014). Studies reviewed met the following criteria: English language; peer-reviewed; sampled Chinese cancer patients/caregivers; developed, validated or assessed psychometric properties of psychosocial or QOL outcome measures; and reported validation data. The review examined characteristics of measures and participants, translation and cultural adaptation processes and psychometric properties of the measures. Ninety five studies met review criteria. Common characteristics of studies reviewed were they: assessed primarily QOL measures, sampled patients with breast, colorectal, or head and neck cancer, and validated existing measures (>80%) originating in North America or Europe. Few studies reported difficulties translating measures. Regarding psychometric properties of the measures >50% of studies reported subscale reliabilities <α = 0.70, <50% reported test-retest reliability, and <30% reported divergent validity. Few reported sensitivity, specificity or responsiveness. Improved accuracy and transparency of reporting for translation, cultural adaptation and psychometric testing of psychosocial measures is needed. Developing support structures for translating and validating psychosocial measures would enable this and ensure Chinese psycho-oncology clinical practice and research keeps pace with international focus on patient reported outcome measures and data management.