Patients' Perceptions of Physician-Patient Discussions and Adverse Events with Cancer Therapy

Patient-Reported Outcomes During and After Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in the PROSPECT Trial (Alliance N1048)

PURPOSE

The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America is neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation with fluorouracil (5FUCRT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is an alternative that may spare patients the morbidity of radiation. Understanding the relative patient experiences with these options is necessary to inform treatment decisions.

METHODS

PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX versus 5FUCRT, which enrolled adults with rectal cancer clinically staged as T2N+, cT3N-, or cT3N+ who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. Neoadjuvant FOLFOX was given in six cycles over 12 weeks, followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant 5FUCRT was delivered in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks, followed by surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested but not mandated in both groups. Enrolled patients were asked to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, during neoadjuvant treatment, and at 12 months after surgery. PROs included 14 symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Additional PRO instruments measured bowel, bladder, sexual function, and health-related quality of life (HRQL).

RESULTS

From June 2012 to December 2018, 1,194 patients were randomly assigned, 1,128 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT). During neoadjuvant treatment, patients reported significantly lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function with FOLFOX while anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting were lower with 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). At 12 months after surgery, patients randomly assigned to FOLFOX reported significantly lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy and better sexual function versus 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). Neither bladder function nor HRQL differed between groups at any time point.

CONCLUSION

For patients with locally advanced rectal cancer choosing between neoadjuvant FOLFOX and 5FUCRT, the distinctive PRO profiles inform treatment selection and shared decision making.

Patient Burden and Real-World Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Myelosuppression: Results from an Online Survey of Patients with Solid Tumors

Introduction

Chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression (CIM) is one of the most common dose-limiting complications of cancer treatment, and is associated with a range of debilitating symptoms that can significantly impact patients’ quality of life. The purpose of this study was to understand patients’ perspectives on how the side effects of CIM are managed in routine clinical practice.

Methods

An online survey was conducted of participants with breast, lung, or colorectal cancer who had received chemotherapy treatment within the past 12 months, and had experienced at least one episode of myelosuppression in the past year. The survey was administered with predominantly close-ended questions, and lay definitions of key terms were provided to aid response selection.

Results

Of 301 participants who completed the online survey, 153 (51%) had breast cancer, 100 (33%) had lung cancer, and 48 (16%) had colorectal cancer. Anemia, neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia were reported by 61%, 59%, 37%, and 34% of participants, respectively. Most participants (79%) reported having received treatment for CIM, and 64% of participants recalled chemotherapy dose modifications as a result of CIM. Although most participants believed their oncologist was aware of the side effects of CIM, and treated them quickly, 30% of participants felt their oncologists did not understand how uncomfortable they were due to the side effects of CIM. Overall, 88% of participants considered CIM to have a moderate or major impact on their lives.

Conclusion

The data highlight that despite the various methods used to address CIM, and the patient-focused approach of oncologists, the real-world impact of CIM on patients is substantial. Improving communication between patients and health care providers may help improve patients’ understanding of CIM, and foster shared decision-making in terms of treatment. Additional insights from patients should be obtained to further elucidate the totality of life burden associated with CIM.

This study looked at people with cancer who received chemotherapy and developed a condition where their bone marrow activity was reduced, called myelosuppression. This meant they had fewer red blood cells that carry oxygen around the body, white blood cells that help fight infections, and platelets that help the blood to clot. The researchers wanted to understand how chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression affects peoples’ lives and their cancer treatment, and people’s experiences of treatment for myelosuppression. Overall, 301 people in the USA with breast, lung, or large bowel (colorectal) cancer completed an online survey. They had all received chemotherapy in the last year, and had myelosuppression at least once during their treatment. The survey showed that around 8 in 10 people (79%) had to be treated for myelosuppression, and around 7 in 10 people (73%) felt they received treatment for myelosuppression quickly. Chemotherapy was delayed, reduced, or stopped because of myelosuppression in around 6 in 10 people (64%). Around 3 in 10 people (30%) felt their oncologist did not understand the discomfort that myelosuppression caused them, and around 9 in 10 people (88%) felt that myelosuppression made their quality of life worse. The researchers concluded that because myelosuppression impacts peoples’ lives and their ability to keep receiving chemotherapy to treat their cancer, effective prevention and treatment for this condition are important. Better communication between people and their health care teams could help them to understand how people experience myelosuppression and make plans for treatment together.

Patients' quality of life during active cancer treatment: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patients' quality of life has become a major objective of care in oncology. At the same time, it has become the object of increasing interest by researchers, working with both quantitative and qualitative methods. Progress in oncology has enabled more patients to survive longer, so that cancer is increasingly often a chronic disease that requires long-term treatment that can have negative effects on patients' quality of daily life. Nonetheless, no qualitative study has explored what patients report affects their quality of daily life during the treatment period. This study is intended to fill this gap.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter qualitative study based on 30 semi-structured interviews. Participants, purposively selected until data saturation, had diverse types of cancer and had started treatment at least 6 months before interview. Data were examined by thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Our analysis found two themes: (1) what negatively affected for patient's quality of daily life during the treatment period, a question to which patients responded by talking only about the side effects of treatment; and (2) what positively affected their quality of daily life during the treatment period with three sub-themes: (i) The interest in having -investing in - a support object that can be defined as an object, a relationship or an activity particularly invested by the patients which makes them feel good and makes the cancer and its treatment bearable, (ii)The subjective perception of the efficacy of the antitumor treatment and (iii) the positive effects of relationships, with friends and family, and also with their physician.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients must be involved in their care if they are to be able to bear their course of treatment and find ways to endure the difficult experience of cancer care. The support object represents an important therapeutic lever that can be used by their oncologists. They should be interested in their support objects, in order to support the patients in this investment and to help them to maintain it throughout the health care pathway. Furthermore, showing interest in this topic, important to the patient, could improve the physician-patient relation without using up very much of the physician's time.

The timeliness of patients reporting the side effects of chemotherapy

PURPOSE

To explore the actions cancer patients reported they would take in response to a range of common side effects of chemotherapy and whether these were considered appropriate based on current guidelines and evidence; and to explore the sociodemographic and cancer-related variables associated with patients selecting the appropriate action (immediate medical attention or reporting) for two potentially life-threatening side effects: fever, and unusual bleeding and bruising.

METHODS

Four hundred thirty-six medical oncology and haematology patients receiving chemotherapy completed two surveys to provide demographic, disease and treatment characteristics, and details on how they would respond if they experienced a range of specified side effects of chemotherapy (for example, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, and skin rash or nail changes). The proportion of patients reporting the appropriate action for each side effect was calculated. Multiple logistic regressions examined the patient demographic and cancer characteristics associated with selecting the appropriate action (seeking immediate medical attention) for two potentially life-threatening side effects of chemotherapy: high fever of 38 °C or more, and unusual bleeding or bruising.

RESULTS

Two thirds of patients indicated that they would seek immediate medical attention for high fever (67%), but only 41% would seek immediate attention for bleeding or bruising. Cancer type and time since diagnosis were significantly associated with patients indicating that they would seek immediate medical attention for high fever; while time since diagnosis was the only variable significantly associated with patients reporting that they would seek immediate medical attention for unusual bleeding or bruising. For chronic side effects, like skin rash or nail changes, and tingling or numbness, which usually do not require urgent reporting, only between 12 and 16% would report them immediately. A significant proportion of patients reported that they would "do nothing" about fatigue or tiredness (24%). By comparison, less than 10% patients reported that they would do nothing for the other side effects investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

Tools need to be created so that patients better understand the side effects after being treated with chemotherapy and what action they should take.

Hospital-based health care use correlates with incidence of adverse events among elderly Medicare patients treated in adjuvant chemotherapy trials (Alliance 70802)

OBJECTIVE

Medicare claims can be useful in chemotherapy-related comparative effectiveness research (CER) estimating survival, but methods for estimating patients' treatment morbidity are currently lacking. We sought to determine if patients' health care use in the claims is a marker of treatment morbidity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For 249 elderly Medicare patients with breast or colon cancer who were treated in two adjuvant clinical trials, we merged patients' National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTC AEs) trial data with their contemporaneous Medicare claims. We estimated associations of patients' grade ≥3 CTC AE counts and their use of two types of hospital-based health care in claims (i.e., emergency room (ER) visits and hospitalizations).

RESULTS

ER visits and hospitalizations were significantly positively associated with grade ≥3 CTC AE counts incurred by patients during the study. Eight percent of patients without any grade ≥3 CTC AEs had one or more hospitalizations during the observation period compared to 43% of patients with three or more grade ≥3 CTC AEs (p<0.01). Those who were hospitalized at least once had more than three times the rate of grade ≥3 CTC AEs (IRR 3.70, 95% CI: 2.53-5.40) compared to those who were not. With each hospitalization, the daily incidence rate of any grade ≥3 CTC AE more than doubled (IRR 2.10, 95% CI: 1.54-2.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Because hospitalization is strongly associated with clinically significant toxicity it may be a useful outcome for Medicare claim-based CER comparing treatment morbidity for elderly patients receiving different adjuvant chemotherapy regimens.

A comparison of preferences of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma between the patient group and health care professional group in South Korea

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the preferences of health care professional groups and patient groups with respect to efficacy, adverse events, and administration method for targeted agents of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

METHODS

A total of 485 respondents including cancer patients and health care professionals (medical oncologists, nurses, and pharmacists) were surveyed by using a discrete choice experiment in South Korea. Through a literature review and expert consultation, six attributes--progression-free survival, four adverse events (bone marrow suppression, hand-foot skin reaction, gastrointestinal perforation, and bleeding), and administration--were selected. This study employed the conditional logit regression model.

RESULTS

The six attributes are statistically significant for the patient group and health care professional group. The two groups, however, present differences in progression-free survival, hand-foot skin reaction, gastrointestinal perforation, and administration. The relative importance of adverse events is greater for the patient group, while that of efficacy and administration is greater for the health professional group. For doctors, the relative importance of efficacy is as high as 31%, compared with 7% for the patient group. If progression-free survival is prolonged by 1 month, the acceptable level of bone marrow suppression is 1.3% for the patient group and 9.6% for doctors and that of hand-foot skin reaction is 1.0% and 11.8%, respectively, for the patient group and doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates substantial differences in the preference for a targeted drug between the patient group and the health care professional group. Doctors prefer effective and orally administered drugs while patients show more reluctant attitudes about adverse events than do health care professionals.