A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures for patients with skin cancer, 2013

Development and Validation of the Oxford Skin Cancer Treatment Scale, a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Health-Related Quality of Life and Treatment Satisfaction After Skin Cancer Treatment

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are necessary to assess the value of skin cancer treatment and to better compare therapeutic options.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate the Oxford Skin Cancer Treatment (OxSCanTr) scale, evaluating health-related quality of life and satisfaction after skin cancer treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After qualitative patient interviews, international expert consultation, and item reduction, 2 separate patient samples were used to assess the factor structure of the scale. Exploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation was performed to establish a factor structure on Group A. Confirmatory factor analysis with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR), and comparative fit index (CFI) was conducted on Group B. Reliability as internal consistency was assessed using McDonald omega. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

A total of 480 subjects returned completed surveys (completion rate 96%). A 12-item scale was developed encompassing 4 domains: aesthetic satisfaction, treatment choice satisfaction, treatment experience, and future concerns regarding recurrence/spread. Confirmatory factor analysis showed excellent goodness-of-fit characteristics, with RMSEA = 0.048, SRMR = 0.051, and CFI = 0.962 using the 4-factor model. Reliability was very good (McDonald omega 0.81-0.82), as was convergent validity with the FACE-Q skin cancer module appraisal of scars subscale (r = 0.55). Discriminant validity with a single question regarding being conservative was similarly excellent (r = -0.02).

CONCLUSION

The OxSCanTr scale is a parsimonious, feasible, and valid PROM for the holistic assessment of the experience of patients who have undergone skin cancer treatment.

An organizational framework for patient-reported outcome instruments in dermatologic surgery: a systematic review and qualitative analysis

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) describe measures of a patient's experience throughout medical care as reported by the patient (Mercieca-Bebber et al. in Patient Relat Outcome Meas, 2018). Various PRO instruments exist. It is challenging to select appropriate instruments given the absence of an organizational framework which describes all measurable PROs in dermatologic surgery and represents which instruments measure which outcomes. Our objective was to systematically review all validated PRO instruments in dermatologic surgery and use qualitative analysis to develop an organizational framework representing PRO measures and instruments. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases were searched to retrieve validated PRO instruments in the dermatologic surgery population. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis was used to develop an organizational framework representing all PROs in dermatologic surgery. All instruments were sorted into this framework. The search identified 3195 articles; 35 validated instruments were extracted and qualitatively analyzed. The organizational framework sorted all instruments into 36 PRO measures aligned with the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (Gershon RC, Rothrock N, Hanrahan R, et al (2010) The use of PROMIS and assessment center to deliver patient-reported outcome measures in clinical research). Measures were grouped into four categories (expectations, satisfaction, quality of life, needs) describing how patients experience these outcomes and lenses through which researchers can evaluate them. In conclusion, we have proposed an organizational framework for use in choosing validated instruments to develop and answer PRO research questions.

Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Management in Immunotherapy Era: Achievements and New Challenges

Introduction of immunotherapy (IT) has radically changed the therapeutic scenario in patients affected by locally advanced and/or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) patients. If it is well consolidated the role of immunotherapy in the setting of a disease not amenable to curative surgery and/or radiation, how to integrate immune checkpoint inhibitors in the curative setting is still under evaluation. Surgery combined or not with adjuvant radiotherapy remains the mainstay of curative treatment in localized cSCC; however, promising data with neoadjuvant or perioperative immunotherapy could pave the way towards treatment de-escalation according to the response achieved. On the other side, data on adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab and cemiplimab after surgery and radiation are still awaited. Several questions related to the activity and the safety of immunotherapy in the real-world setting still remain without answer, and several points need to be better explored. In the current review we will explore the updated literature on the use of immunotherapy in cSCC, and we will show the current challenges in its use.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures for advanced skin cancer patients

Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used to study quality of life (QOL) in the skin cancer population. Advanced melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) may be associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and treatment side effects; however, it is unclear which PROM is valid and appropriate to use in these populations for both clinical and research purposes. We aimed to identify the PROMs that have been used to measure QOL in advanced skin cancer patients and determine which of these PROMs have been validated to assess QOL outcomes in this population. A PubMed and EMBASE search was conducted from its inception to March 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines with a comprehensive list of search terms under three main topics: (1) PROM; (2) advanced skin cancer; and (3) staging and interventions. We included articles utilizing a PROM measuring QOL and having a patient population with advanced skin cancer defined as melanoma stage > T1a or non-melanoma AJCC stage T3 or greater. Advanced skin cancer patients were also defined as those with metastasis or requiring adjuvant therapy (systemic chemotherapy, radiation, and immunotherapy). Studies were excluded according to the following criteria: mix of low-risk and advanced skin cancer patients in the study population without stratification into low-risk and advanced groups, stage T1a melanoma or mix of stages without stratification, low-risk NMSC, no PROM (i.e., study specific questionnaires), non-English publication, review article or protocol paper, conference abstract, or populations including non-skin cancers. A total of 1,998 articles were identified. 82 met our inclusion criteria resulting in 22 PROMs: five generic health-related (QWB-SA, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D, SF-36, and PRISM), six general cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-C36, LASA, IOC, Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, and FACT-G), nine disease-focused or specialized (EORTC QLQ-H&N35, EORTC QLQ-MEL38, EORTC QLQ-BR23, Facial Disability Index, FACT-H&N, FACT-BRM, FACT-B, FACT-M, and scqolit), and two general dermatology (Skindex-16 and DLQI) PROMs. All PROMs have been generally validated except for EORTC QLQ-MEL38. Only two PROMs have been validated in the advanced melanoma population: FACT-M and EORTC QLQ-C36. No PROMS have been validated in the advanced NMSC population. The PROMs that were validated in the advanced melanoma population do not include QOL issues unique to advanced skin tumors such as odor, bleeding, itching, wound care burden, and public embarrassment. Breast cancer and head and neck cancer instruments were adapted but not validated for use in the advanced skin cancer population due to the lack of an adequate instrument for this population. This study highlights the need for PROM instrument validation or creation specifically geared toward the advanced skin cancer population. Future studies should aim to develop and validate a PROM to assess QOL in this population.

Testing some psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Skin Cancer Index: A questionnaire for measuring quality of life in patients with non-melanoma skin cancer

OBJECTIVES

Non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC) include two main types: basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) instruments revealed little to no HRQoL impairment in NMSC patients. Instead, the use of specific skin disease HRQoL tools contradicted those observations. For example, the Skin Cancer Index (SCI) was suggested as a validated instrument for the evaluation of the impact of skin cancers on HRQoL, and has already been validated in several languages, but not in Italian. The aim of this study is to testing some psychometric properties of the Italian version of the SCI questionnaire in a large sample of NMSC patients.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional, single-center, observational study. Firstly, different factor models proposed in the literature were compared and the model with the best fit was identified. Secondly, the psychometric properties of the SCI, convergent validity and reliability, were evaluated.

RESULTS

The sample was composed of 371 NMSC patients. The factor analysis revealed that a revised version of the original model had the best fit [χ2(df = 85) = 354.53, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.09, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.03]. The SCI had satisfactory internal consistency for all subscales (Emotional subscale: ordinal alpha = 0.95; Social subscale: ordinal alpha = 0.94; Appearance subscale: ordinal alpha = 0.94). The convergent validity with Skindex-17 psychosocial subscale was adequate for all the SCI subscales (Emotional Subscale: rho = -0.50; Social Subscale: rho = -0.54; Appearance subscale: rho = -0.44; Total Skin Cancer Index: rho = -0.56; and p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The tested psychometric properties of the Italian version of the SCI may suggest that it is an appropriate tool to measure the HRQoL in NMSC patients, however, further studies are needed in order to confirm and tested other psychometric features of this tool.

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Evaluating Cancer Symptoms: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to evaluate the psychometric properties and the methodologic quality of studies describing smartphone-, tablet- or computer-based questionnaires for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) evaluating symptoms in oncology and hematology patients.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Cinahl, Cuiden, Lilacs, and PsycINFO. Criteria for inclusion were (i) primary studies evaluating scales for symptoms assessment, (ii) developed in adult population (>18 years) with an oncology or hematology malignancy diagnosis, (iii) validations tested via phone or computer, and (iv) describing at least one psychometric property. The exclusion criteria were (i) tools diagnosing any type of cancer and (ii) case series, surveys, and audits. The outcome variables were internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error, content validity, structural validity, hypothesis testing, cross-cultural validity, and responsiveness. For the evaluation of the quality of methodology, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used.

CONCLUSION

The present study gathered five tools in 12 articles to evaluate cancer symptoms through smartphone, tablet, or computer format. Although four were generic, one was specific for breast cancer. Although none of the tools had been fully validated, some of the items of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) were successfully tested for content, reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Our results can guide professionals choosing symptoms assessment instruments when performing telepractice, and they raise awareness of using with precaution scales not intended for remote use.

Measuring aesthetic results after facial skin cancer surgery by means of the FACE-Q

Background

Skin cancer is the most commonly occurring type of cancer. However, the influence of facial skin cancer surgery on patients’ perceived aesthetic appearance is poorly understood. The objective of this study was to provide an insight into how patients perceive the aesthetic outcome of facial skin cancer surgery by means of a specialised patient-reported outcome measure designed for the aesthetic evaluation of the face: the FACE-Q.

Methods

A total of 47 patients with non-melanoma skin cancer who were scheduled for Mohs’s micrographic surgery (MMS) or standard surgical excision (SE) were included. These patients filled out three different FACE-Q questionnaires: satisfaction with facial appearance, social function, and satisfaction with outcome. Follow-up was conducted after baseline at 1 month and 3 months post-surgery.

Results

No significant differences were detected between baseline and follow-up regarding social function and satisfaction with facial appearance. However, after 3 months, patients were significantly more satisfied with the result of surgery when compared with the 1-month post-surgery follow-up.

Conclusions

The perceived aesthetic appreciation of patients does not seem to be significantly influenced by facial skin cancer SE or MMS surgery in this 3-month follow-up study.

Level of evidence: Not ratable.

A cluster randomized controlled trial for the Evaluation of routinely Measured PATient reported outcomes in HemodialYsis care (EMPATHY): a study protocol

Background

Kidney failure requiring dialysis is associated with poor health outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture symptom burden, level of functioning and other outcomes from a patient perspective, and can support clinicians to monitor disease progression, address symptoms, and facilitate patient-centered care. While evidence suggests the use of PROMs in clinical practice can lead to improved patient experience in some settings, the impact on patients’ health outcomes and experiences is not fully understood, and their cost-effectiveness in clinical settings is unknown. This study aims to fill these gaps by evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routinely measuring PROMs on patient-reported experience, clinical outcomes, HRQL, and healthcare utilization.

Methods

The EMPATHY trial is a pragmatic multi-centre cluster randomized controlled trial that will implement and evaluate the use of disease-specific and generic PROMs in three kidney care programs in Canada. In-centre hemodialysis units will be randomized into four groups, whereby patients: 1) complete a disease-specific PROM; 2) complete a generic PROM; 3) complete both types of PROMs; 4) receive usual care and do not complete any PROMs. While clinical care pathways are available to all hemodialysis units in the study, for the three active intervention groups, the results of the PROMs will be linked to treatment aids for clinicians and patients. The primary outcome of this study is patient-provider communication, assessed by the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). Secondary outcomes include patient management and symptoms, use of healthcare services, and the costs of implementing this intervention will also be estimated. The present protocol fulfilled the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Intervention Trials (SPIRIT) checklist.

Discussion

While using PROMs in clinical practice is supported by theory and rationale, and may engage patients and enhance their role in decisions regarding their care and outcomes, the best approach of their use is still uncertain. It is important to rigorously evaluate such interventions and investments to ensure they provide value for patients and health systems.

Trial registration

Protocol version (1.0) and trial registration data are available on www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT03535922, registered May 24, 2018.

Use of the Skin Cancer Quality of Life Impact Tool (SCQOLIT) - a feasibility study in non-melanoma skin cancer

BACKGROUND

Incidence of non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) is increasing and can significantly impact on quality of life (QOL), yet there are few studies evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in NMSC populations. We undertook a prospective feasibility study to evaluate a skin cancer-specific PROM, the Skin Cancer Quality of Life Impact Tool (SCQOLIT), in patients with a new diagnosis of NMSC.

OBJECTIVES

(i) To establish acceptability of SCQOLIT in dermatology clinics, (ii) a descriptive analysis of SCQOLIT scores in NMSC.

METHODS

Patients with histologically confirmed NMSC completed SCQOLIT, EQ-5D and a transition item. Questionnaires were completed at baseline and 3 months for group 1 ('low-risk' NMSC) and group 2 ('high-risk' NMSC) with additional questionnaires at 6-9 months for group 2. Patients participated in structured interviews. Clinician experience was captured through staff evaluation forms and a focus group. Acceptability and psychometric properties of SCQOLIT were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 318 patients consented to participate. Mean SCQOLIT score at baseline was 5.33, with 2.6% of patients scoring ≥20. No ceiling effects were observed, whilst 13.9% scored 0. Validity was demonstrated against EQ-5D. Cronbach's alpha 0.84 demonstrated internal consistency. Thirteen patients were interviewed and thought SCQOLIT was comprehensive, captured impact on health-related QOL and helped express their needs to clinicians. Most clinicians found SCQOLIT 'very useful' or 'useful to some extent' in facilitating discussions.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility study demonstrates that SCQOLIT is acceptable to patients and staff in dermatology skin cancer clinics. The psychometric properties of SCQOLIT confirm its utility in NMSC populations.

Validation of the English Basal and Squamous Cell Carcinoma Quality of Life (BaSQoL) Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Keratinocyte carcinomas (KC) impact patient quality of life (QoL). There is a need for validated QoL instruments specific to KC. The Basal and Squamous Cell Carcinoma QoL (BaSQoL) questionnaire was developed to comprehensively measure issues of importance to patients with KC.

OBJECTIVE

To validate and characterize the BaSQoL questionnaire for QoL measurement after diagnosis and treatment of KC.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational study. Patients with basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) were asked to fill out BaSQoL, Skin Cancer Index (SCI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaires. Descriptive statistics and classical test theory were used to assess validity.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-seven subjects enrolled in this study: 122 with BCC and 65 with SCC. One hundred seventy-one subjects (91.4%) completed questionnaires at all 3 time points; 16 patients (8.6%) were lost to follow-up. Overall performance using classical test theory was good, with good internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.63-0.80). BaSQoL subscales were strongly correlated with subscales of the SCI, demonstrating convergent validity, and weakly correlated with HADS, showing divergent validity.

CONCLUSION

The English language version of BaSQoL has good face, content, and construct validity. This study validates BaSQoL for use in English-speaking patients with BCC and SCC.

Physician-Centered Outcomes for Skin Cancer Treatment: A Single-Day Modified Delphi Process to Assess the Importance of Themes in Skin Cancer Management

BACKGROUND

Success in skin cancer treatment is determined through outcome measurement. Patients and physicians may prioritize different outcomes of care, and identification of such may enhance patient-centered care.

OBJECTIVE

To identify gaps between patient and physician attitudes toward skin cancer outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-day, 21-patient, modified, in-person Delphi process to solicit and rate the importance of skin cancer-related outcomes was conducted. Twelve masked dermatologic surgeons rated patient-generated outcomes in a 2-round modified Delphi process. Each item was rated on a 1 to 9 scale (1, least important; 9, most important) using the Qualtrics web platform (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). Results of the physician ratings were compared with the patient ratings.

RESULTS

A list of 53 skin cancer treatment-related themes and outcomes was generated. Eight items were ranked by physicians as "very high" (>80% importance), 5 as "high" (>70% importance), 19 as intermediate, and 21 as low. The physician and patient panels' ratings were concordant for 56% of items, whereas 7 outcome items showed a 2-category discordance.

CONCLUSION

Physicians and patients were concordant regarding skin cancer treatment on multiple spheres. Areas of discordance include patient fear of unknown future risk, recurrence, or empowering patients to make treatment choices, and may be areas of continued improvement for delivery of patient-centered care.

Patient-Centered Outcomes for Skin Cancer Management: Utilization of a Patient Delphi Process to Identify Important Treatment Themes

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes are critical to research directed at maximizing patient benefit. The outcomes patients consider most relevant in the treatment of skin cancer have not been directly investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a ranked list of outcomes deemed most important by patients with skin cancer through a proctored Delphi process.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients with a history of skin cancer volunteered to participate in the patient summit. The patient members participated in a guided discussion to generate a long list of potentially relevant outcomes. The list was then condensed and ranked through 2 rounds of a proctored Delphi process.

RESULTS

Patients were diverse in their skin cancer histories and complexities, ages, and states of residence. Twelve themes were rated as highly important by 70% or more of participants. Most of these themes related to patient education and the collaborative nature of the physician-patient relationship. Fear of recurrence and cosmetic outcome were also highly rated. Limitations include a preponderance of older patients and patients from the midwest and northeast.

CONCLUSION

Patients with skin cancer overwhelmingly prioritize a shared decision-making process, in which they are actively engaged and value detailed education regarding their disease. This should inform future research directed at skin cancer treatment and current physician-patient interactions.

Quality of life measurement in skin cancer patients: literature review and position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (NMSC) present a review of the literature and position statement on health-related (HR) QoL assessment in skin cancer patients. A literature search was carried out to identify publications since 1980 that included information about the impact of SC on QoL. Generic, dermatology-specific, cancer-specific, SC-specific, facial SC-specific, NMSC-specific, basal cell carcinoma-specific and melanoma-specific QoL questionnaires have been used to assess HRQoL in SC patients. HRQoL was assessed in the context of creation and validation of the HRQoL instruments, clinical trials, comparison of QoL in SC and other cancers, other diseases or controls, HRQoL assessment after treatment, comorbidities, behaviour modification, predictors of QoL and survival, supportive care needs, coping strategies and fear of cancer recurrence. The most widely used instruments for HRQoL assessment in SC patients are the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), Short Form 36 Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The TFs recommend the use of the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30, especially in late stages of disease, and the melanoma-specific FACT-M and SC-specific SCI questionnaires. These instruments have been well validated and used in several studies. Other HRQoL instruments, also with good basic validation, are not currently recommended because the experience of their use is too limited. Dermatology-specific HRQoL instruments can be used to assess the impact of skin-related problems in SC. The TFs encourage further studies to validate HRQoL instruments for use in different stages of SC, in order to allow more detailed practical recommendations on HRQoL assessment in SC.

Patient-reported outcome measures for facial skin cancer: a systematic review and evaluation of the quality of their measurement properties

BACKGROUND

Skin cancer is the commonest malignancy worldwide, often occurring on the face. Both the condition and treatment can lead to scarring and facial disfigurement, affecting a patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL), which can be measured using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review identifies PROMs for facial skin cancer and appraises their methodological quality and psychometric properties using up-to-date methods.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL were searched systematically in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, identifying all PROMs designed for or validated in facial skin cancer. Methodological quality and evidence of psychometric properties were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist and criteria proposed by Terwee and colleagues. A best-evidence synthesis and assessment of instrument focus on post-resection reconstruction was also performed.

RESULTS

We included 24 studies on 11 PROMs. Methodological quality and psychometric evidence was variable, with the Patient Outcome of Surgery - Head/Neck (POS-H/N), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), Skin Cancer Quality of Life Impact Tool (SCQOLIT) and Essers and colleagues demonstrating the greatest level of validation. None scored well in their relevance to post-skin cancer reconstruction of the face.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review critically appraises PROMs for facial skin cancer using internationally accepted criteria. The identified PROMs demonstrate a variation in the quality of validation performed, with a need to improve this across all PROMs in the field. Only through improving the quality of available PROMs and their focus on the post-treatment aesthetic and functional outcome will we be able to truly appreciate the concerns of our patients and improve the management of facial skin cancer.

Quality of life patient-reported outcomes for locally advanced cutaneous melanoma

Locally advanced cutaneous melanoma has marked quality-of-life implications; however, the patient experience of symptom management and subsequent impact on quality of life has not been well described. This study aims to address the impact on patients of advanced cutaneous melanoma through qualitative interviews. Adults with stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV (M1a) cutaneous melanoma were recruited from two cancer centers in the USA and one in Australia. Telephone interviews were conducted to assess how locoregionally advanced cutaneous melanoma impacted everyday life. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded for qualitative analysis. Twenty-two melanoma patients were interviewed, mean age 69.7 years (range: 52-83), 64% male. The study included stage IIIB (36%), stage IIIC (59%), and stage IV M1a (5%) patients. Emotional health/self-perception issues were the most commonly identified (41% of patient impact expressions), including worry, concern, embarrassment, self-consciousness, fear, and thoughts of death. Limitations of lifestyle and activities were also identified (28% of expressions) including leisure and social activities, physical functioning, general functioning, and personal care. Coping strategies such as modified clothing choices, increased use of pain and/or anti-inflammatory medications, and avoidance/protection from the sun represented 20% of all impact expressions. Ratings of the degree of difficulty patients experienced (using an 11-point numerical rating scale) ranged from 0.0 to 10.0 (mean 5.7, SD 2.9). Condition-related and treatment-related factors were well characterized in patients with locally advanced cutaneous melanoma. This provides a strong foundation for assessment of how cutaneous melanoma impacts quality of life.

Patient-reported health outcomes in patients with non-melanoma skin cancer and actinic keratosis: results from a large-scale observational study analysing effects of diagnoses and disease progression

BACKGROUND

Non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and actinic keratosis (AK) are very common among fair-skinned individuals. A disease continuum from AK to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) has been frequently postulated. AK and NMSC may influence quality of life (QL) of patients, and it can be suspected that disease progression entails a QL reduction. The purpose of this study was to document QL in patients with NMSC and AK using the health-outcome questionnaire EQ-5D-5L.

METHODS

The study was designed as a non-interventional, prospective, cross-sectional study. Patients with AK, SCC, basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or multiple diagnoses were enrolled in this study in 29 dermatological centres across Germany. Patients were asked to complete the EQ-5D-5L (compromising EQ Index and EQ VAS), and the dermatologists provided diagnosis, disease history and treatment data.

RESULTS

A total of 1184 patients were enrolled and diagnosed as follows: 73% AK, 49% BCC and 17% SCC. 66% had a single diagnosis, 28% two different diagnoses and 6% three different diagnoses. QL was strongly associated with patients' diagnosis. Patients with a single AK diagnosis had significantly higher mean EQ VAS (78) than patients with BCC (74), SCC (72), and BCC plus SCC (69), P < 0.050. When the effects of disease progression were calculated, patients with AK plus SCC reported significantly less mean EQ VAS (71) than patients with a single AK diagnosis (78), P < 0.011.

CONCLUSIONS

While rarely being imminently life-threatening, NMSC and AK have an impact on QL as quantified by the EQ-5D-5L. This impact is associated with diagnosis (AK vs. NMSC) and clinical progression (AK vs. AK plus SCC). Both lead to a clear decline in QL. This shows that disease progression is perceived and judged as detrimental by patients and that AK and NMSC should be diligently treated to preserve and restore QL.

Psychometric properties of the FACT-M questionnaire in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma

Background

No validated disease-specific questionnaires exist to capture health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Melanoma (FACT-M) is validated in patients with melanoma, which shares many similarities with MCC. This paper reports the psychometric properties of the FACT-M in the metastatic MCC population.

Methods

Data were collected as part of a single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial involving patients with metastatic MCC who had failed at least one previous line of chemotherapy. FACT-M and EQ-5D were administered at baseline, Week 7, Week 13, and Week 25. An optional interview was administered at the same time points. MCC-specific FACT-M scores were derived following a combined quantitative and qualitative approach. Reliability and construct validity of original and additional MCC-specific FACT-M scores were assessed at baseline. Capacity to detect change in tumor size was assessed from baseline to Week 7. Minimally important differences (MIDs) were computed using distribution and anchor-based methods.

Results

Baseline assessments were available in 70 patients (mean age: 70 years; 74.3% male); 19 patients were interviewed at baseline. Additional MCC-specific scores were as follows: Physical Function score (six items), Psychological Impact score (six items), and MCC summary score (12 items). FACT-M original and additional MCC-specific scores both demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties: high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.81–0.96), good convergent validity (correlations above 0.4 observed for 88% of items of the Melanoma surgery scale, 75% of items of the Melanoma scale, and 100% of items of the other FACT-M domains). Some evidence of floor/ceiling effects and poor discriminant ability was found. Higher scores (better HRQoL) on all FACT-M domains were observed in patients with better functioning (assessed by ECOG performance score), supporting clinical validity. Despite the small sample for responsiveness analysis (n = 37), the majority of FACT-M scores showed sensitivity to changes in tumor size at Week 7 with small to moderate effect sizes. MIDs were consistent with previously reported values in the literature for FACT-M domains.

Conclusions

FACT-M is suitable to capture HRQoL in patients with metastatic MCC, thus making it a potential candidate for assessing HRQoL in MCC trials.

Trial registration

This study is a post-hoc analysis conducted on data collected in Part A of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial. This trial was registered on 2 June 2014 with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02155647.

UK-based prospective cohort study to anglicise and validate the FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module in patients with facial skin cancer undergoing surgical reconstruction: the PROMISCR (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure in Skin Cancer Reconstruction) study

INTRODUCTION

Skin cancer is the most common malignancy worldwide, often occurring on the face, where the cosmetic outcome of treatment is paramount. A number of skin cancer-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) exist, however none adequately consider the difference in type of reconstruction from a patient's point of view. It is the aim of this study to 'anglicise' (to UK English) a recently developed US PROM for facial skin cancer (the FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module) and to validate this UK version of the PROM. The validation will also involve an assessment of the items for relevance to facial reconstruction patients. This will either validate this new measure for the use in clinical care and research of various facial reconstructive options, or provide evidence that a more specific PROM is required.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective validation study of the FACE-Q Skin Cancer Module in a UK facial skin cancer population with a specific focus on the difference between types of reconstruction. The face and content validity of the FACE-Q questionnaire will initially be assessed by a review process involving patients, skin cancer specialists and methodologists. An assessment of whether questions are relevant and any missing questions will be made. Initial validation will then be carried out by recruiting a cohort of 100 study participants with skin cancer of the face pre-operatively. All eligible patients will be invited to complete the questionnaire preoperatively and postoperatively. Psychometric analysis will be performed to test validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. Subgroup analysis will be performed on patients undergoing different forms of reconstruction postexcision of their skin cancer.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the West Midlands, Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee (Ref 16/WM/0445). All personal data collected will be anonymised and patient-specific data will only be reported in terms of group demographics. Identifiable data collected will include the patient name and date of birth. Other collected personal data will include their diagnosis, treatment performed, method of reconstruction and complications. A unique identifier will be applied to each patient so that pretreatment and post-treatment questionnaire results can be compared. All data acquisition and storage will be in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Following completion of the study, all records will be stored in the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University (AMBU) Health Board archive facility. Only qualified personnel working on the project will have access to the data.The outputs from this work will be published as widely as possible in peer-review journals and it is our aim to make this open access.

Patient-reported outcomes in topical field treatment of actinic keratosis in Swedish and Danish patients

Topical treatments in dermatology can be long, complex and lead to nonadherence and nonpersistence to prescribed treatment. Clinical efficacy observed in randomized clinical trials (RCT) may therefore be reduced in real-world clinical practice. The objective of this study was to analyze patient-reported treatment adherence, treatment satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with topical treatments of actinic keratosis (AK) in routine clinical practice in Denmark and Sweden. Adult patients prescribed field-directed topical AK treatments with diclofenac gel, imiquimod or ingenol mebutate per routine clinical practice were eligible for the observational RAPID-ACT study. Data were collected through physician and patient questionnaires that included validated instruments to measure treatment satisfaction (TSQM-9), treatment adherence (MMAS) and HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L, EQ-VAS, AKQoL). In total, 446 patients from Denmark and Sweden were included. Ingenol mebutate patients reported a higher satisfaction with treatment effectiveness compared to patients treated with diclofenac (p = .006) while no other differences in treatment satisfaction could be determined. Treatment adherence was generally high, but higher for ingenol mebutate compared to both diclofenac (p < .001) and imiquimod (p = .007), possibly due to shorter treatment duration. No differences in improved HRQoL were found. More research is needed about the link between treatment adherence and real-world effectiveness.

A programme of research to set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the prevention and treatment of skin disease

Background

Skin diseases are very common and can have a large impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. This programme addressed four diseases: (1) eczema, (2) vitiligo, (3) squamous cell skin cancer (SCC) and (4) pyoderma gangrenosum (PG).

Objective

To set priorities and reduce uncertainties for the treatment and prevention of skin disease in our four chosen diseases.

Design

Mixed methods including eight systematic reviews, three prioritisation exercises, two pilot randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three feasibility studies, two core outcome initiatives, four funding proposals for national RCTs and one completed national RCT.

Setting

Secondary care, primary care and the general population.

Participants

Patients (and their caregivers) with eczema, vitiligo, SCC and PG, plus health-care professionals with an interest in skin disease.

Interventions

Our three intervention studies included (1) barrier enhancement using emollients from birth to prevent eczema (pilot RCT); (2) handheld narrowband ultraviolet light B therapy for treating vitiligo (pilot RCT); and (3) oral ciclosporin (Neoral®, Novartis Pharmaceuticals) compared with oral prednisolone for managing PG (pragmatic national RCT).

Results

Systematic reviews included two overarching systematic reviews of RCTs of treatments for eczema and vitiligo, an umbrella review of systematic reviews of interventions for the prevention of eczema, two reviews of treatments for SCC (one included RCTs and the second included observational studies), and three reviews of outcome measures and outcome reporting. Three prioritisation partnership exercises identified 26 priority areas for future research in eczema, vitiligo and SCC. Two international consensus initiatives identified four core domains for future eczema trials and seven core domains for vitiligo trials. Two pilot RCTs and three feasibility studies critically informed development of four trial proposals for external funding, three of which are now funded and one is pending consideration by funders. Our pragmatic RCT tested the two commonly used systemic treatments for PG (prednisolone vs. ciclosporin) and found no difference in their clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. Both drugs showed limited benefit. Only half of the participants’ ulcers had healed by 6 months. For those with healed ulcers, recurrence was common (30%). Different side effect profiles were noted for each drug, which can inform clinical decisions on an individual patient basis. Three researchers were trained to PhD level and a dermatology patient panel was established to ensure patient involvement in all aspects of the programme.

Conclusions

Findings from this programme of work have already informed clinical guidelines and patient information resources. Feasibility studies have ensured that large national pragmatic trials will now be conducted on important areas of treatment uncertainty that address the needs of patients and the NHS. There is scope for considerable improvement in terms of trial design, conduct and reporting for RCTs of skin disease, which can be improved through wider collaboration, registration of trial protocols and complete reporting and international consensus over core outcome sets. Three national trials have now been funded as a result of this work. Two international initiatives to establish how best to measure the core outcome domains for eczema and vitiligo are ongoing.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention (BEEP) (ISRCTN84854178 and NCT01142999), Study of Treatments fOr Pyoderma GAngrenosum Patients (STOP GAP) (ISRCTN35898459) and Hand Held NB-UVB for Early or Focal Vitiligo at Home (HI-Light Pilot Trial) (NCT01478945).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 4, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Measuring medicine-related experiences from the patient perspective: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing drive to measure and so improve patients' experiences and outcomes of health care. This also applies to medicines, given their ubiquity as health care interventions. Patients' experiences of using medicines vary, and instruments which measure these are seen as an essential component to improve care. We aimed to identify generic measures of patients' experiences of using prescription medicines and to examine their properties and suitability for use in research or practice.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, CINHAL Plus, PROQOLID®, and Google Scholar. We identified, critically appraised, and summarized generic questionnaires assessing one or more aspects of the medicine use experience among adult patients using prescription medicines for chronic conditions, and the process of questionnaire development, degree of patient involvement, and/or validation processes.

RESULTS

Fifteen questionnaires were included. Of these, nine measures were multidimensional, covering various aspects of medicine use. Six instruments covered only a single domain, assessing a specific facet of using medicines. Domains covered were the following: effectiveness; convenience, practicalities, and/or managing medicines; information, knowledge, and/or understanding; side effects; relationships and/or communication with health professionals; impact on daily living and/or social life; general satisfaction; attitudes; beliefs, concerns, and/or perceptions; medical follow-up and/or adherence-related issues; treatment- and/or medicine-related burden, perceived control, or autonomy; self-confidence about medicine use; availability and accessibility; and medicine-related quality of life. None of the identified questionnaires covered all domains. Instruments varied in the extent of patient involvement in both their development and validation.

CONCLUSION

There is a scarcity of psychometrically sound, comprehensive, and generic measures of experiences of using prescription medicines among adult patients living with chronic illnesses. There is a need for further development and/or validation of existing instruments suitable for use in this population.

Health related quality of life in patients with actinic keratosis--an observational study of patients treated in dermatology specialist care in Denmark

Background

Actinic keratosis (AK) is a common skin condition that may progress to non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC). The disease may influence Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL), but studies of HRQoL in patients with AK are limited.

The purpose of the study was to analyze HRQoL in patients with different severity levels of AK treated in dermatology specialist care using generic and disease-specific HRQoL instruments and to analyze their relationship.

Methods

AK patients who visited dermatological clinics in Denmark were included in an observational, cross-sectional, study in a multi-center setting. Dermatologists assessed AK severity and patients completed: Actinic Keratosis Quality of Life Questionnaire (AKQoL), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and EQ-5D-5 L including EQ-VAS. Differences between categorical subgroups were tested with Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The relationship between instruments was analyzed with the Spearman correlation test.

Results

A total of 312 patients were included in the analyses. Patients reported impairment in the disease specific HRQoL instrument AKQoL (mean AKQoL 6.7, DLQI 2, EQ-5D-5 L 0.88, and EQ-VAS 79). HRQoL was least affected in patients with mild actinic disease, whereas patients with severe actinic damage suffered from further impaired HRQoL (mean AKQoL 10.1 and DLQI 4.6). Correlations between DLQI and AKQoL were moderate, whereas the correlations between DLQI and EQ-5D-5 L and between AKQoL and EQ-5D-5 L were weak.

Conclusions

Patients with severe actinic damage showed more impairment in HRQoL than those with mild disease. Correlations between instruments suggest that they are complementary as they measure different aspects of HRQoL and are used for different purposes.

Importance of physical appearance in patients with skin cancer

BACKGROUND

Physical appearance influences nearly every aspect of human life-impacting how people are judged and subsequently treated by others.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the literature that addresses the psychosocial impact of facial scarring, with a particular emphasis on scarring after skin cancer treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive PubMed search was conducted to find articles related to scarring and appearance in the contexts of cutaneous oncology and surgical reconstruction. References from retrieved articles were also considered for review.

RESULTS

Scars, especially on the head and neck, change physical appearance and can negatively impact psychosocial functioning. Medical professionals may underestimate the importance of physical appearance for patients with skin cancer. Validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools may prove better than objective scar ratings to identify patients who may experience psychosocial impairment from scarring.

CONCLUSION

Scarring after skin cancer surgery can profoundly affect psychosocial functioning. Perioperative use of validated PRO tools can help to identify patients with scar concerns. Heightened awareness of patients' psychosocial status will allow practitioners to offer appropriate counseling or support.

Interventions for non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the skin: systematic review and pooled analysis of observational studies

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of treatments for non-metastatic invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the skin using evidence from observational studies, given the paucity of evidence from randomised controlled trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review of observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, to December 2012.

REVIEW METHODS

Observational studies of interventions for primary, non-metastatic, invasive, SCC of the skin that reported recurrence during follow-up, quality of life, initial response to treatment, adverse events, cosmetic appearance, or death from disease. Studies were excluded if data for primary cutaneous SCC was not separable from other data. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed where appropriate using a random effects model to estimate the pooled proportion of an event with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

118 publications were included, covering seven treatment modalities. Pooled estimates of recurrence of SCCs were lowest after cryotherapy (0.8% (95% confidence interval 0.1% to 2%)) and curettage and electrodesiccation (1.7% (0.5% to 3.4%)), but most treated SCCs were small, low risk lesions. After Mohs micrographic surgery, the pooled estimate of local recurrence during variable follow-up periods from 10 studies was 3.0% (2.2% to 3.9%), which was non-significantly lower than the pooled average local recurrence of 5.4% (2.5% to 9.1%) after standard surgical excision (12 studies), and 6.4% (3.0% to 11.0%) after external radiotherapy (7 studies). After an apparently successful initial response of SCCs to photodynamic therapy, pooled average recurrence of 26.4% (12.3% to 43.7%; 8 studies) was significantly higher than other treatments. Evidence was limited for laser treatment (1 study) and for topical and systemic treatments (mostly single case reports or small non-comparative series with limited follow-up).

CONCLUSIONS

Many observational studies have looked at different treatment modalities for SCC, but the evidence base for the effectiveness of these interventions is poor. Comparison of outcomes after different treatments should be interpreted cautiously owing to biases inherent in the types of study included, and lack of direct comparisons to enable the estimation of relative treatment effect. Further evidence is needed to develop a prognostic model and stratify individuals at high risk of developing SCC, to improve the evidence base for this common cancer and to optimise clinical management.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration number CRD42011001450.