Talking About Breast Cancer: Which Symptoms and Treatment Side Effects are Important to Patients with Advanced Disease?

Mapping the experiences of people with advanced cancer across multiple cancer types-a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Through the introduction of tumor agnostic therapies, people with metastatic cancer and their treating physicians are facing new treatment choices that have differing side effect and efficacy profiles from conventional chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

The present study undertakes a scoping review of research into the experiences of people with advanced or metastatic cancer across various solid tumor types with the goal of developing a tumor-agnostic conceptual model.

DESIGN

Automated queries on three internet search engines were performed to identify qualitative interview studies that focused on people with metastatic cancer. No limits were imposed for dates nor location of studies.

RESULTS

Of the 173 hits generated from the searches, 25 peer-reviewed papers were selected for the review with dates that ranged from 2007 to 2022. All papers originated from the USA, Europe, Australia, or Japan. Three major themes emerged that formed the basis for the tumor-agnostic conceptual model: symptoms, loss of autonomy, and adaptation/coping.

CONCLUSIONS

The explication of the interplay between the physical and emotional symptoms experienced by those with advanced and metastatic cancer using a multi-tumor approach provides the potential to make generalizations about the needs of this population. An opportunity exists to potentially address these needs through matching patient needs and preferences with the characteristics of novel therapeutics.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

In the era of tumor agnostic therapies, the elicitation of patient preferences across the spectrum of anatomical origins has the potential to enhance shared decision making in the setting of metastatic disease.

Patient experiences with patient-reported outcome measures in metastatic breast cancer trials: qualitative interviews

Background

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are critical for assessing treatment benefit of anticancer treatments. Although PRO measures have been developed with the intention of capturing patient-centric concepts, a gap exists in understanding the patient experience with these tools. We characterized the experience of patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) with PRO measures in an oncology clinical trial setting to determine the importance, relevance, barriers, and facilitators for PRO completion.

Methods

The multicenter, qualitative design included semistructured interviews with 18 women with mBC who completed PRO measures in a clinical trial setting within 1 year of screening. Interviews began with concept elicitation to understand symptom characterization, decision to participate in a clinical trial, pre-trial expectations, and thoughts on study-related questionnaires. Cognitive debriefing was conducted to determine if items in a commonly used PRO instrument were relevant to the patient experience. Qualitative data were analyzed using a constant comparative approach.

Results

Participants described the need for detailed explanation of PRO measures at study start, including information about how the PRO data will likely be used to support drug development. Respondents who felt connected to clinical trial research were more likely to feel as if the measures adequately captured their experiences. Items that were deemed irrelevant or out of date to the patient experience may cause a respondent to feel marginalized and adds to the overall burden of PRO measure completion. Mode of PRO measure administration (electronic/paper) was important to some, but placement of the instrument completion within a study visit appeared to influence respondent willingness to fully engage with the measures. A lack of any type of feedback loop to allow respondents to learn from the captured PRO data was noted as important but missing from the patient experience.

Conclusions

PRO measures need to include content that is relevant to the patient experience over the course of the clinical trial period to be considered meaningful to respondents, and administration techniques also impact engagement. Robust communication strategies that socialize the intent, use, and results of PRO data may enrich the patient experience and support greater adherence to PRO completion in future studies.

Effects of high-intensity training on the quality of life of cancer patients and survivors: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Cancer and associated medical treatments affect patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) by decreasing functional dimensions of physical, social, cognitive, and emotional well-being, while increasing short and late-term symptoms. Exercise, however, is demonstrated to be a useful therapy to improve cancer patients' and survivors' HRQoL, yet the effectiveness of high-intensity training (HIT) exercise is uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyse the effects of HIT on HRQoL dimensions in cancer patients and survivors as well as evaluate the optimal prescription of HIT. The search followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA) and examined Web of Science and PubMed (Medline) databases. Data were analysed utilizing Review Manager Software. Twenty-two articles were included in the systematic review and 17 in the meta-analysis. Results showed HIT improved global quality of life, physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, pain, dyspnea, and insomnia, compared to an inactive control group, yet no differences were found between HIT and low to moderate-intensity exercise interventions. Particular improvements in HRQoL were observed during cancer treatment and with a training duration of more than eight weeks, a frequency of 2 days/week, and a volume of at least 120 min/week, including 15 min or more of HIT. Our findings whilst encouraging, highlight the infancy of the extant evidence base for the role of HIT in the HRQoL of cancer patients and survivors.

How patients being treated for non-small cell lung cancer value treatment benefit despite side effects

PURPOSE

To describe symptoms and side effects experienced by patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), assess how patients allocate sensations (i.e. symptoms or side effects) to either the disease or its treatment, and evaluate how patients balance side effects with treatment benefits.

METHODS

Qualitative sub-studies were conducted as part of two clinical trials in patients treated for advanced NSCLC (AURA [NCT01802632]; ARCTIC [NCT02352948]).

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 23 patients and 19 patients in the AURA and ARCTIC sub-studies, respectively. The most commonly experienced symptoms/side effects were respiratory (81% of patients), digestive (76%), pain and discomfort (76%), energy-related (71%), and sensory (62%). Patients identified a sensation as a treatment side effect if they had not experienced it before, if there was a temporal link between the sensation and receipt of treatment, and/or if their doctors consistently told or asked them about it in relation to side effects. Themes that emerged when patients talked about their cancer treatment and its side effects related to the serious nature of their advanced disease and their treatment expectations. Patients focused on treatment benefits, wanting a better quality of life, being hopeful, not really having a choice, and not thinking about side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

In these two qualitative sub-studies, patients with advanced NSCLC valued the benefits of their treatment regardless of side effects that they experienced. Patients weighed their options against the seriousness of their disease and expressed their willingness to tolerate their side effects in return for receiving continued treatment benefits.

The Role of Cognitive Appraisal in Quality of Life Over Time in Patients With Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To better understand how personal factors, contextual factors, and cognitive appraisals predict quality of life.

SAMPLE & SETTING

81 patients with a new diagnosis of cancer were recruited from two oncologists' offices in the midwestern United States.

METHODS & VARIABLES

A longitudinal design was used to collect data at three time points.

RESULTS

Individuals identified a variety of primary appraisals at the same time and more consistently identified their cancer as a challenge rather than a harm/loss or a threat. The greatest variation in appraisals and quality of life occurred about six months after diagnosis. Hierarchical regression analyses demonstrated that age and primary and secondary appraisals explained a significant amount of variance in quality of life at all three time points.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Interventions to improve quality of life for individuals newly diagnosed with cancer are needed and may be more helpful if they target cognitive appraisals. Nurses should assess what matters to the individual; it is important to evaluate how each person appraises a cancer diagnosis so providers can support coping and adjustment from diagnosis through individual treatment trajectories.

What symptoms are important to patients? Developing a symptom burden measure for women with breast cancer

PURPOSE

The American Cancer Society predicted that 266,120 women would be diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018. Women experience significant symptom burden in response to tumor and treatment-related adverse effects, particularly in advanced disease. Use of valid and reliable patient-reported outcomes (PRO) symptom measures may assist clinicians in systematically monitoring and managing symptoms. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) is a brief PRO measure of cancer symptom burden; specific symptoms can be added to the core symptoms to produce disease- and treatment-specific modules. The purpose of this study was to describe the patient symptom experience, define the content domain, and generate items for a breast cancer-specific MDASI module for measuring symptom burden in women with breast cancer.

METHODS

Women with breast cancer were qualitatively interviewed about their experiences of disease and treatment. Descriptive exploratory analysis identified symptoms and symptom interference to define the symptom burden of breast cancer. An expert panel rated the relevance of the identified symptoms to patients with breast cancer.

RESULTS

A conceptual model of breast cancer symptom burden was developed from interviews with 36 women (mean age of 57.9 years, 86.1% had stages I-III, and 52.8% were on chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy) across the breast cancer disease and treatment trajectory. Thirty-six symptoms and 6 interference categories were identified. Symptoms specific to treatment modalities and breast cancer met the criteria for inclusion in the provisional instrument for psychometric testing.

CONCLUSIONS

We generated an instrument with content validity for measuring symptom burden specific to women with breast cancer.