Qualitative study of patients with metastatic prostate cancer to adherence of hormone therapy

Development and Content Validity of the Self-Care of Oral Anticancer Agents Index (SCOAAI)

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test the content validity of the Self-Care of Oral Anticancer Agents Index (SCOAAI).

DATA SOURCES

SCOAAI items were developed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. The Middle Range Theory of Self-Care of Chronic Illnesses informed item generation. A four-phase procedure was followed; Phase 1: items were created based on a previous systematic review and a qualitative study; Phase 2: the SCOAAI comprehensibility and comprehensiveness were established through qualitative interviews with clinical experts and with patients (Phase 3); and Phase 4: the SCOAAI was then administered through an online survey to a group of clinical experts for the Content Validity Index (CVI) calculation.

CONCLUSION

The first version of the SCOAAI included 27 items. Five clinical experts and 10 patients tested the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of instructions, items, and response options. Fifty-three experts (71.7% female, mean experience with patients on oral anticancer agents 5.8 years [standard deviation ± .2]; 66% nurses) participated in the online survey for content validity testing. The final version of the SCOAAI includes 32 items. Item CVI ranges between 0.79 and 1; the average Scale CVI is 0.95. Future studies will test the psychometric properties of the tool.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The SCOAAI showed excellent content validity, confirming its usefulness for assessing self-care behaviors for patients on oral anticancer agents. By implementing this instrument, nurses could define and implement targeted interventions for improving self-care and obtaining more positive outcomes (eg, better quality of life, reduced hospitalizations and emergency department visits).

Patient and General Population Preferences Regarding the Benefits and Harms of Treatment for Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Background

Patient preferences for treatment outcomes are important to guide decision-making in clinical practice, but little is known about the preferences of patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC).

Objective

To evaluate patient preferences regarding the attributed benefits and harms of systemic treatments for mHSPC and preference heterogeneity between individuals and specific subgroups.

Design setting and participants

We conducted an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) preference survey among 77 patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) and 311 men from the general population in Switzerland between November 2021 and August 2022.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

We evaluated preferences and preference heterogeneity related to survival benefits and treatment-related adverse effects using mixed multinomial logit models and estimated the maximum survival time participants were willing to trade to avert specific adverse effects. We further assessed characteristics associated with different preference patterns via subgroup and latent class analyses.

Results and limitations

Patients with mPC showed an overall stronger preference for survival benefits in comparison to men from the general population (p = 0.004), with substantial preference heterogeneity between individuals within the two samples (both p < 0.001). There was no evidence of differences in preferences for men aged 45-65 yr versus ≥65 yr, patients with mPC in different disease stages or with different adverse effect experiences, or general population participants with and without experiences with cancer. Latent class analyses suggested the presence of two groups strongly preferring either survival or the absence of adverse effects, with no specific characteristic clearly associated with belonging to either group. Potential biases due to participant selection, cognitive burden, and hypothetical choice scenarios may limit the study results.

Conclusions

Given the relevant heterogeneity in participant preferences regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for mHSPC, patient preferences should be explicitly discussed during decision-making in clinical practice and reflected in clinical practice guidelines and regulatory assessment regarding treatment for mHSPC.

Patient summary

We examined the preferences (values and perceptions) of patients and men from the general population regarding the benefits and harms of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer. There were large differences between men in how they balanced the expected survival benefits and potential adverse effects. While some men strongly valued survival, others more strongly valued the absence of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to discuss patient preferences in clinical practice.

Outcomes Following Abiraterone versus Enzalutamide for Prostate Cancer: A Scoping Review

Abiraterone acetate (AA) and enzalutamide (ENZ) are commonly used for metastatic prostate cancer. It is unclear how their outcomes and toxicities vary with patient-specific factors because clinical trials typically exclude patients with significant comorbidities. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap and facilitate informed treatment decision making. A registered protocol utilizing PRISMA scoping review methodology was utilized to identify real-world studies. Of 433 non-duplicated publications, 23 were selected by three independent reviewers. ENZ offered a faster and more frequent biochemical response (30-50% vs. 70-75%), slowed progression (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.50-0.88), and improved overall survival versus AA. ENZ was associated with more fatigue and neurological adverse effects. Conversely, AA increased risk of cardiovascular- (HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.09-3.05) and heart failure-related (HR 2.88; 95% CI 1.09-7.63) hospitalizations. Ultimately, AA was associated with increased length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.04-1.53). Accordingly, total costs were higher for AA, although pharmacy costs alone were higher for ENZ. Existing data suggest that AA and ENZ have important differences in outcomes including toxicities, response, disease progression, and survival. Additionally, adherence, healthcare utilization, and costs differ. Further investigation is warranted to inform treatment decisions which optimize patient outcomes.

Exploring the factors influencing adherence to oral anticancer drugs in patients with digestive cancer: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to explore the beliefs, perceptions and representations of patients in order to identify the determinants of oral anticancer drugs adherence and to take action in current practice to improve patient support in digestive oncology.

METHODS

We constructed a semi-directed interview guide which aimed to explore the patient's relationship with medication, their health history, their experiences at the time of the announcement of treatment, their confidence, their fears, their motivations to adhere to their treatment and the constraints linked to their treatment. The data were analysed and discussed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients agreed to participate in the study. The median age was 60 years. Ten patients had colorectal cancer, 3 patients had hepatocellular carcinoma, 3 patients had gastrointestinal stromal tumour and 1 patient had neuroendocrine pancreatic tumour. We identified five categories of factors influencing adherence: demographic and socioeconomic, disease-related, treatment-related, care system-related, and patient representation and pathways' factors. A majority of patients emphasised the importance of family support in the adherence process and the convenience of per os treatment compared to other intravenous treatments. However, several negative determinants emerged such as the toxicity of the treatment, fears of forgetting to take the medication, difficulties with the galenic formulation and negative beliefs of the family.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the need to address the different dimensions of the patient in order to understand his or her behaviour with regard to adherence and to identify the levers for improvement.

A Systematic Review of Patients' Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Advances in systemic agents have increased overall survival for men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer. Additional cytoreductive prostate treatments and metastasis-directed therapies are under evaluation. These confer toxicity but may offer incremental survival benefits. Thus, an understanding of patients' values and treatment preferences is important for counselling, decision-making, and guideline development.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of patients' values, preferences, and expectations regarding treatment of metastatic prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for qualitative and preference elucidation studies reporting on patients' preferences for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) or GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020201420.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 1491 participants from 15 studies met the prespecified eligibility for inclusion. The study designs included were discrete choice experiments (n = 5), mixed methods (n = 3), and qualitative methods (n = 7). Disease states reported per study were: metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in nine studies (60.0%), metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer in two studies (13.3%), and a mixed cohort in four studies (26.6%). In quantitative preference elicitation studies, patients consistently valued treatment effectiveness and delay in time to symptoms as the two top-ranked treatment attributes (low or very low certainty). Patients were willing to trade off treatment-related toxicity for potential oncological benefits (low certainty). In qualitative studies, thematic analysis revealed cancer progression and/or survival, pain, and fatigue as key components in treatment decisions (low or very low certainty). Patients continue to value oncological benefits in making decisions on treatments under qualitative assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited understanding of how patients make treatment and trade-off decisions following a diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer. For appropriate investment in emerging cytoreductive local tumour and metastasis-directed therapies, we should seek to better understand how this cohort weighs the oncological benefits against the risks.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We looked at how men with advanced (metastatic) prostate cancer make treatment decisions. We found that little is known about patients' preferences for current and proposed new treatments. Further studies are required to understand how patients make decisions to help guide the integration of new treatments into the standard of care.

Medication adherence among patients with advanced prostate cancer using oral therapies

Aims: In light of the extended overall survival and improved quality of life provided by advanced prostate cancer (PC) oral therapies, this study aimed to describe treatment adherence to advanced PC oral therapies and evaluate associated patient characteristics and subsequent healthcare resource utilization (HRU). Patients & methods: Patients with advanced PC initiating apalutamide, enzalutamide or abiraterone acetate were identified from administrative data (October 1, 2014-September 30, 2019). Adherence and persistence at six months postinitiation were used to evaluate patient factors and HRU. Results: Aged ≥75 years, Black race, chemotherapy use and higher pharmacy paid amounts were associated with poor adherence/persistence, which translated to higher HRU. Conclusions: Strategies to increase adherence and persistence may improve patient outcomes and associated HRU.

Adherence to treatment with oral antineoplastic therapy in outpatients

BACKGROUND

Multiple factors have defined the success of treatment with oral antineoplastic, especially adherence to the therapeutic regimen. The aim of this study was to describe the profile of individuals in treatment with oral antineoplastic according to the sociodemographic and clinical epidemiology factors as well as to estimate the association with those to Non-adherence to the treatment with oral antineoplastic.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was performed in the chemotherapy outpatient's department from December 2015 to March 2016 at a teaching hospital. The outcome Non-adherence was evaluated according to Morisky Green test. The variables which have reached statistical significance in the bivariate analysis were tested in the multivariate model to evaluate if they remained associated to "Non-adherence" according to the Poisson logistic regression and corrected by robust variance.

RESULTS

In total, 233 patients were analyzed and 60.9% were found in Non-adherence to the treatment with oral antineoplastic according Morisky Green test (MMAS8), in which forgetfulness were often and had driven to non-adherence outcome. Multivariate analysis found three final predictors for Non-adherence which were own income, carer, unease and had needed urgency services in the last year.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals several factors associated with nonadherence. Those outcomes show that the patient's journey during antineoplastic treatment must be discussed and addressed in a broad way together with measures in public health policies.

Psychosocial determinants of adherence with oral anticancer treatment: 'we don't need no education'

INTRODUCTION

Given the potentially fatal consequences of inadequate adherence with oral anticancer treatment in persons with cancer, understanding the determinants of adherence is vital. This paper aims at identifying psychosocial determinants of adherence to oral anticancer treatment.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on psychosocial determinants of adherence with oral anticancer treatment, based on published literature in English, from 2015 to present. Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Emcare, and PsychINFO, with 'cancer', 'medication adherence', 'psychology', and 'oral anticancer treatment' as search terms. The obtained 608 papers were screened by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

In the 25 studies identified, illness perceptions, medication beliefs, health beliefs, and depression were found to be the major psychosocial determinants of adherence to oral anticancer treatment; sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were found to be of no major importance. The quality of the identified studies as assessed by two independent reviewers was found to be acceptable overall. The majority of papers were from North America and focused on patients with breast cancer; sample size varied from 13 to 1371; adherence was assessed with questionnaires derived from various theoretical models, pill counts and electronic pharmacy records; illness perceptions reflecting adaptive coping, and medication beliefs reflecting high necessity and low concerns were found to be associated with adherence.

CONCLUSION

Psychosocial concepts are major determinants of adherence with oral anticancer treatment. 'Beliefs about medicines' and 'illness perceptions' in particular determine adherence with this treatment. Studies aiming at impacting adherence would benefit from interventions with a solid basis in behavioral theory in order to help health care providers explore and address illness perceptions and medication beliefs. Pre-consultation screening of adherence behavior may be a helpful supportive approach to improve adherence. Blaming the victim ('patients should be educated about the importance of adherence') is better replaced by encouraging health professionals to identify and address maladaptive psychosocial determinants of adherence.

Mobile Health in Adherence to Oral Anticancer Drugs: A Scoping Review

In oncology, adherence to oral antineoplastic medication is a key element of treatment, on which the success of any therapeutic intervention depends. Given their widespread use in clinical practice, it is important to identify tools that can facilitate the monitoring and self-management of the patient at home, to avoid the consequences of employing ineffective treatment. One of the tools available today to take action on this phenomenon is mobile health technology. The aim of this review is to describe published studies relating to the use of mobile health to promote adherence to oral antineoplastic medication. This scoping review was conducted using the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, adapted according to Levac et al. Of 1320 articles identified, only seven met the eligibility criteria and therefore were included in the review. All seven articles involved the use of digital means to measure adherence to treatment, patient satisfaction, acceptability and feasibility of the digital means used, and presence of symptoms, but not the effectiveness of the digital instrument used. In conclusion, the use of digital means to assist adherence of cancer patients to oral antineoplastic medication is widely recognized, but its effectiveness in clinical practice is poorly supported by the nature of the published studies.