Enhancing Survivorship Care Planning for Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Using a Couple-Focused mHealth Symptom Self-Management Program: Protocol for a Feasibility Study

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Interventions for Palliative Cancer Care: A Systematic and Mapping Review

PURPOSE

Capitalizing on the promise of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), electronic implementations of PROs (ePROs) are expected to play an important role in the development of novel digital health interventions targeting palliative cancer care. We performed a systematic and mapping review of the scientific literature on the current ePRO-based approaches used for palliative cancer care.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines, the conducted review answered the research questions: "What are the current ePRO-based approaches for palliative cancer care; what is their contribution/value in the domain of palliative cancer care; and what are the potential gaps, challenges, and opportunities for further research?" After a screening step, the corpus of included articles indexed in PubMed or the Web of Science underwent full text review, which mapped the articles across 15 predefined axes.

RESULTS

The corpus of 24 mapped studies includes 9 study protocols, 7 technical tools/solutions, 7 pilot/feasibility/acceptability studies, and 1 evaluation study. The review of the corpus revealed (1) an archetype of ePRO-enabled interventions for palliative cancer care, which most commonly use ePROs as study end point assessment instruments rather than integral intervention components; (2) the fact that the literature has not fully embraced the modern definitions that expand the scope of palliative care; (3) the striking shortage of promising ubiquitous computing devices (eg, smart activity trackers); and (4) emerging evidence about the benefits of narrowing down the target cancer population, especially when combined with modern patient-centered intervention design methodologies.

CONCLUSION

Although research on exploiting ePROs for the development of digital palliative cancer care interventions is considerably active and demonstrates several successful cases, there is considerable room for improvement along the directions of the aforementioned findings.

Exploring Interactive Survivorship Care Plans to Support Breast Cancer Survivors: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among American women, accounting for 23% of all cancer survivors nationally. Yet, the availability of adequate resources and tools for supporting breast cancer survivors has not kept up with the rapid advancement in treatment options, resulting in unmet supportive care needs, particularly among low-income and minority populations. This study explores an alternative means of delivering breast cancer survivorship care plans (SCPs), with the aim of improving survivor morbidity, patient knowledge, and self-management of treatment-related symptoms, as well as addressing inconsistencies in follow-up care visits.

Objective

The overall goal of this study is to improve the uptake of SCP recommendations via an educational intervention for breast cancer survivors, to improve treatment-related morbidity, patient knowledge, self-management, and adherence to follow-up visits. The specific aims of the study are to (1) evaluate the feasibility of the online SCP, and (2) assess the impact of the online SCP on survivorship outcomes.

Methods

We will enroll 50 breast cancer survivors who have completed initial breast cancer treatment into a 2-armed, randomized, waitlist-controlled pilot trial, and collect data at baseline and 6 months. For the first aim, we will use mixed methods, including surveys and personal interviews among the intervention group, to determine the feasibility of providing an online, interactive SCP (called ACESO) based on the survivors’ online user experience and their short-term adoption. For the secondary aim, we will compare the 2 groups to assess the primary outcomes of survivor knowledge, self-efficacy for self-management, perceived peer support, and adherence to SCP-recommended posttreatment follow-up visits to oncology and primary care; and the secondary outcomes of treatment-related morbidity (body weight, fatigue, depression, anxiety, sexual function, distress, and sleep quality). We assess these outcomes by using measurements from validated instruments with robust psychometric properties.

Results

We have developed and refined the online breast cancer survivorship plan, ACESO, with consultation from breast cancer oncologists, nurses, and survivors. Approval for the study protocol has been obtained from the Institutional Review Board. An advisory board has also been established to provide oversight and recommendations on the conduct of the study. The study will be completed over a period of 2 years.

Conclusions

The results of this pilot study will inform the feasibility and design of a larger-scale pragmatic trial to evaluate the impact of an online breast cancer SCP on treatment-related morbidity and self-efficacy for self-management.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/23414

Virtual care models for cancer survivorship

Virtual care models for cancer survivorship are needed to support patients living with the chronic effects of cancer treatment, while increasing health system capacity. Characteristics that may be critical to their success have not been adequately studied. This scoping review summarizes previous efforts to virtualize survivorship care to inform future innovations in the field. Four databases were searched for articles published before January 2020, and 24 articles that met selection criteria were included in this analysis. Rationale for pursuing virtual models of care shared two common objectives: (1) the need for sustainable survivorship care, and (2) the opportunity to improve survivorship outcomes. Breast cancer (N = 10) and prostate cancer (N = 4) were the most targeted cancers for virtual survivorship care. The implemented technologies included web platforms (N = 15), telephone calls (N = 12), and smartphone or tablet applications (N = 5). A variety of healthcare professionals were effectively involved in the provision of virtual care. Future virtual care models may benefit from integrating with existing health systems and services, repurposing common technologies, involving allied health professionals, and engaging patients and caregivers from diverse communities in the design of virtual services.

Enhancing survivorship care planning for patients with localized prostate cancer using a couple-focused web-based, mHealth program: the results of a pilot feasibility study

PURPOSE

To examine the feasibility of an enhanced survivorship care plan (ESCP) that integrated the web-based program Patient Education Resources for Couples (PERC) into a standardized survivorship care plan (SCP) and estimated the outcomes of ESCPs versus SCPs.

METHODS

In this randomized pilot trial, localized prostate cancer (PC) patients and partners (i.e., couple) were randomly assigned to ESCP that contained a link to PERC or to SCP that contained a link to general PC information on the National Cancer Institute website. Couples completed assessments measuring quality of life (QOL), appraisal of symptoms, and coping resources at baseline (T1) and 4-6 months later (T2). We examined feasibility (e.g., recruitment and retention) using descriptive statistics. Linear mixed models examined changes in couples' outcomes over time and Poisson regression examined differences in patient healthcare utilization.

RESULTS

Sixty-two couples completed T1 surveys (recruitment rate 41.6%) and were randomly assigned to receive ESCP (n = 31) or SCP (n = 31). Twenty-eight (ESCP) and 25 (SCP) couples completed T2 surveys (retention rates = 90.3% vs. 80.7%). ESCP participants (70%) reviewed webpages consistent with patients' symptoms. ESCP patients reported greater program satisfaction (p = 0.02) and better urinary symptom scores (p < 0.01) than SCP patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivering ESCPs that embed a web-link to a couple-focused, tailored program is feasible and can potentially improve patient outcomes. The promising results need to be validated in a larger definitive trial using a diverse sample.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

SCPs, enhanced using a web-based intervention (e.g., PERC), may help PC cancer survivors better manage their urinary symptoms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04350788.

Co-morbidities in a Retrospective Cohort of Prostate Cancer Patients

Objective

To characterize rates of co-morbidity among prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy and to examine the association between co-morbidity status and race, clinical factors, and health behaviors for cancer control.

Design/Study Participants

Retrospective cohort study among prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy.

Setting

Academic medical center located in the southeastern region of the United States.

Main Outcome Measure

Patients with at least one of five co-morbid conditions considered were categorized as having a co-morbidity, and those without any were categorized as not having a co-morbid condition. Co-morbid conditions considered were hypertension, diabetes, heart problems, stroke, and high cholesterol, which had been recorded in the electronic medical record as part of their past medical history.

Results

Fifty-one percent of participants had a co-morbidity, with hypertension being the most common. The average number of co-morbidities among study participants was .87. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, being diagnosed with prostate cancer within the past four years was associated with an increased likelihood of having a co-morbidity (OR=4.71, 95% CI=2.69, 8.25, P=.0001) compared with diagnosis five or more years ago. Age was also associated with an increased likelihood of having a co-morbidity (OR=1.30, 95% CI=1.005, 1.68, P=.05). In this study cohort, race, stage at diagnosis, and PSA level were not statistically associated with co-morbidity status.

Conclusion

Better chronic disease management is needed among prostate cancer survivors through more effective survivorship care planning and interventions that promote health behaviors.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

Supporting self-management in palliative care throughout the cancer care trajectory

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite increased survivorship and the subsequent need for chronic management of cancer, the association of self-management and palliative care is still emerging within cancer care. Routine and timely use of self-management strategies in the palliative setting can help reduce self-management burden and maximize quality of life. In this review, we consider the complementary relationship of self-management and palliative care and how they support living with cancer as a chronic illness.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies provide evidence of support among patients, family caregivers and healthcare professionals for integration of self-management interventions into palliative cancer care. As a guiding framework, components of the revised Self and Family Management Framework correspond to the provision of palliative care across the care trajectory, including the phases of curative care, palliative care, end-of-life care and bereavement. Additional work among self-management partners facing cancer and other life-limiting illnesses, that is patients, family caregivers and healthcare professionals, would be useful in developing interventions that incorporate self-management and palliative care to improve health outcomes.

SUMMARY

There is an increasing acceptance of the complementarity of self-management and palliative care in cancer care. Their integration can support patients with cancer and their family caregivers across the care trajectory.

What Patients and Partners Want in Interventions That Support Sexual Recovery After Prostate Cancer Treatment: An Exploratory Convergent Mixed Methods Study

Introduction

Men treated for prostate cancer suffer from treatment-related sexual side effects that adversely affect their relationships and quality of life.

Aim

To investigate what prostate cancer survivors and their partners want from a sexual recovery intervention, and whether they consider an online tool acceptable for use in promoting sexual recovery.

Methods

This mixed-methods study included focus groups and interviews with both heterosexual and gay cancer survivors, as well as their partners. Focus groups and interviews probed experiences with treatment, side effects, and support received/needed for sexual recovery. Participants responded to proposed web-based intervention content. Interviews were analyzed with thematic content analysis. Their sexual function was assessed with validated measures.

Main Outcome Measures

Acceptability of online tools for promoting sexual recovery was evaluated.

Results

Participants included 14 patients and 10 partners (2 male). Patient and partner median age was 62 and 62.5 years, respectively. Treatment ranged from surgery alone to combined radiation and hormonal therapy. Qualitative data analysis yielded 5 main intervention needs: (i) pretreatment discussion of sexual side effects, rehabilitation, emotional impact and realistic expectations, (ii) improved sexual communication within couples, (iii) strategies for promoting sexual intimacy beyond penetrative intercourse, (iv) attentiveness to partners' needs, and (v) access to peer support. Gay men specifically expressed the need for improved provider understanding of their sexuality and experiences. Most considered a web-based approach to be acceptable.

Conclusion

Patients and partners value both pretreatment preparation for sexual recovery and support for sexual recovery for both after treatment. A web-based approach may help mitigate barriers to access to these support services.

Mehta A, Pollack CE, Gillespie T., et. al. What Patients and Partners Want in Interventions That Support Sexual Recovery After Prostate Cancer Treatment: An Exploratory Convergent Mixed Methods Study. Sex Med 2019;7:184–191.

Telemedicine and prostate cancer survivorship: a narrative review

Prostate cancer survivors have unique needs that encompass diagnosis and treatment-related side effects. The provision of services for prostate cancer survivors is often limited by resources, time constraints in traditional clinic visits, payment, and patient and provider comfort with discussion of sensitive topics including sexual and urinary health, both of which are largely impacted by treatment. Telemedicine, the remote delivery of health care services using telephone, mobile, web, and video platforms, allows for potential cost savings, in addition to ease and comfort as patients can engage in telemedicine-based resources in the comfort of their homes. Furthermore, survivors prefer to seek information online making telemedicine approaches for prostate cancer survivorship care an ideal combination. A majority of the telemedicine-based interventions used the web, followed by telephone, mobile, and video platforms. In limited studies, telemedicine delivery of survivorship care has equal efficacy to traditional care delivery. In addition, although older patients did not use the Internet regularly, they were willing to adapt to Internet usage if it had the potential to increase their quality of life. Telemedicine delivery of prostate cancer survivorship care is acceptable, feasible, cost-effective, and potentially preferred by prostate cancer survivors. Additionally, it emphasizes knowledge, self-management and self-monitoring serving to increase self-efficacy. This specialized care allows for greater access and reaches a wider catchment area compared to traditional clinic visits. This is especially important as the number of prostate cancer survivors increases and healthcare systems incorporate alternatives to traditional in-person care.