Different aspects of self-reported quality of life in 450 german melanoma survivors

Disability, psychological distress and quality of life in relation to cancer diagnosis and cancer type: population-based Australian study of 22,505 cancer survivors and 244,000 people without cancer

BACKGROUND

Improved survival means that cancer is increasingly becoming a chronic disease. Understanding and improving functional outcomes are critical to optimising survivorship. We quantified physical and mental health-related outcomes in people with versus without cancer, according to cancer type.

METHODS

Questionnaire data from an Australian population-based cohort study (45 and Up Study (n = 267,153)) were linked to cancer registration data to ascertain cancer diagnoses up to enrolment. Modified Poisson regression estimated age- and sex-adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) for adverse person-centred outcomes-severe physical functional limitations (disability), moderate/high psychological distress and fair/poor quality of life (QoL)-in participants with versus without cancer, for 13 cancer types.

RESULTS

Compared to participants without cancer (n = 244,000), cancer survivors (n = 22,505) had greater disability (20.6% versus 12.6%, respectively, PR = 1.28, 95%CI = (1.25-1.32)), psychological (22.2% versus 23.5%, 1.05 (1.02-1.08)) and poor/fair QoL (15.2% versus 10.2%; 1.28 (1.24-1.32)). The outcomes varied by cancer type, being worse for multiple myeloma (PRs versus participants without cancer for disability 3.10, 2.56-3.77; distress 1.53, 1.20-1.96; poor/fair QoL 2.40, 1.87-3.07), lung cancer (disability 2.81, 2.50-3.15; distress 1.67, 1.46-1.92; poor/fair QoL 2.53, 2.21-2.91) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (disability 1.56, 1.37-1.78; distress 1.20, 1.05-1.36; poor/fair QoL 1.66, 1.44-1.92) and closer to those in people without cancer for breast cancer (disability 1.23, 1.16-1.32; distress 0.95, 0.90-1.01; poor/fair QoL 1.15, 1.05-1.25), prostate cancer (disability 1.11, 1.04-1.19; distress 1.09, 1.02-1.15; poor/fair QoL 1.15, 1.08-1.23) and melanoma (disability 1.02, 0.94-1.10; distress 0.96, 0.89-1.03; poor/fair QoL 0.92, 0.83-1.01). Outcomes were worse with recent diagnosis and treatment and advanced stage. Physical disability in cancer survivors was greater in all population subgroups examined and was a major contributor to adverse distress and QoL outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical disability, distress and reduced QoL are common after cancer and vary according to cancer type suggesting priority areas for research, and care and support.

Long-Term Survival, Quality of Life, and Psychosocial Outcomes in Advanced Melanoma Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become a standard of care option for the treatment of patients with advanced melanoma. Since the approval of the first immune checkpoint (CTLA-4) inhibitor ipilimumab in 2011 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) blocking monoclonal antibodies pembrolizumab and nivolumab thereafter, an increasing proportion of patients with unresectable advanced melanoma achieved long-term overall survival. Little is known about the psychosocial wellbeing, neurocognitive function, and quality of life (QOL) of these survivors. Knowledge about the long term side-effects of these novel treatments is scarce as long-term survivorship is a novel issue in the field of immunotherapy. The purpose of this review is to summarize our current knowledge regarding the survival and safety results of pivotal clinical trials in the field of advanced melanoma and to highlight potential long-term consequences that are likely to impact psychosocial wellbeing, neurocognitive functioning, and QOL. The issues raised substantiate the need for clinical investigation of these issues with the aim of optimizing comprehensive health care for advanced melanoma survivors.

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 outcomes in patients with resected, high-risk melanoma with BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K mutations treated with adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib (COMBI-AD): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In the phase 3 COMBI-AD study, patients with resected, stage III melanoma with BRAF^V600E or BRAF^V600K mutations received adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib or placebo. The primary analysis showed that dabrafenib plus trametinib significantly improved relapse-free survival at 3 years. These results led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of dabrafenib plus trametinib as adjuvant treatment for patients with resected stage III melanoma with BRAF^V600E or BRAF^V600K mutations. Here, we report the patient-reported outcomes from COMBI-AD.

METHODS

COMBI-AD was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study done at 169 sites in 25 countries. Study participants were aged 18 years or older and had complete resection of stage IIIA (lymph node metastases >1 mm), IIIB, or IIIC cutaneous melanoma as per American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria, with BRAF^V600E or BRAF^V600K mutations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system, stratified by mutation type and disease stage, to receive oral dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus oral trametinib (2 mg once daily) or matching placebos for 12 months. Patients, physicians, and the investigators who analysed the data were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival, reported elsewhere. Health-related quality of life, reported here, was a prespecified exploratory endpoint, and was assessed with the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 3-Levels (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire in the intention-to-treat population. We used a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis to assess differences in health-related quality of life between groups. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01682083. The trial is ongoing, but is no longer recruiting participants.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 31, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 870 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n=438) or matching placebos (n=432). Data were collected until the data cutoff for analyses of the primary endpoint (June 30, 2017). The median follow-up was 34 months (IQR 28-39) in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group and 33 months (20·5-39) in the placebo group. During the 12-month treatment phase, there were no significant or clinically meaningful changes from baseline between groups in EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) or utility scores. During treatment, there were no clinically meaningful differences in VAS scores or utility scores in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group between patients who did and did not experience the most common adverse events. During long-term follow-up (range 15-48 months), VAS and utility scores were similar between groups and did not differ from baseline scores. At recurrence, there were significant decreases in VAS scores in both the dabrafenib plus trametinib group (mean change -6·02, SD 20·57; p=0·0032) and the placebo group (-6·84, 20·86; p<0·0001); the mean change in utility score also differed significantly at recurrence for both groups (dabrafenib plus trametinib -0·0626, 0·1911, p<0·0001; placebo -0·0748, 0·2182, p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

These findings show that dabrafenib plus trametinib did not affect patient-reported outcome scores during or after adjuvant treatment, and suggest that preventing or delaying relapse with adjuvant therapy could be beneficial in this setting.

FUNDING

Novartis.

[Signs of social inequality in information seeking and evaluation of information among young women with breast cancer - results of a cohort study]

OBJECTIVE

The extent to which cancer patients are well-informed can have manifold effects. The aim of this study was to explore both the sources of information that young breast cancer patients with children use and how they evaluate the information obtained.

METHODS

Participants were recruited within a rehabilitation program for young mothers with non-metastatic breast cancer (the Groemitz project "gemeinsam gesund werden"). Data on information seeking, the level of information, socio-demographic data and clinical characteristics were collected using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

The patients (n=827) used several additional sources of information - most frequently the internet (69.5%; n=767). The majority felt well informed about their disease and found the information provided easy to understand. A social gradient was observed in relation to media use, information evaluation and obtaining a second opinion.

CONCLUSION

To young breast cancer patients, the internet is crucial for obtaining further information. The indication of a social gradient underlines the importance of addressing the information needs of patients with a lower socioeconomic status.

Predictors of quality of life in melanoma patients 4 years after diagnosis: Results of a nationwide cohort study in Germany

In this multicenter, cross-sectional study, 561 melanoma patients completed a questionnaire battery 4 years after primary diagnosis. The proportion of melanoma patients with clinically relevant anxiety (p < .001) or depression (p = .001) symptoms was significantly greater compared to the general population. Lower QoL was predicted by higher depression (ß = -.329, p < .001) and anxiety (ß = -.257, p < .001), older age (ß = -.147, p = .002), and body mass index (ß = -.093, p = .036). Clinical parameters including tumor stage and comorbidity index did not enter the model. Overall, the model explained 32.2% of total variance (F = 43.66, p < .001, corrected R² = .322). The proportion of patients with clinically relevant anxiety symptoms requires attention. Anxiety and depression symptoms contribute to impaired QoL, calling for appropriate screening.

Recruiting former melanoma patients via hospitals in comparison to office-based dermatologists in a register-based cohort study that required indirect contact

Background

There are detailed reviews about different recruitment strategies, but not with regard to differences between recruitment of hospital-based versus office-based physicians. Within this study, the two different recruitment schemes are compared. Advantages and disadvantages of different ways of recruitment in registry-based studies are discussed.

Methods

In a cross-sectional cancer-registry-based study, long-term melanoma patients were contacted by dermatologists rather than directly by the registry on the basis of the legal situation. Logistic regression models and generalized estimating equations were used to assess effects of various patient and physician characteristics on participation and data quality. Especially differences between hospital-based versus office-based dermatologists are evaluated.

Results

Seventy two out of 112 contacted dermatologists took part in the study (64.3%). The cooperation proportion was 52.2% (689 participants/1320 contacted patients). Participants and non-participants differed regarding age and sex, but not regarding other social demographic factors and cancer stage.

We did not observe a difference in patient participation between hospital-based versus office-based dermatologists (OR 1.08 [CI 0.84–1.39]; p = 0.57). However, medical data provided by the cancer registry were better for participants registered and recruited by hospitals.

Conclusions

In cohort studies with epidemiological cancer registries, recruitment via physicians has potential disadvantages and is more complex. If this indirect way of contact is mandatory, we recommend recruitment procedures including hospital-based rather than office-based physicians. However, physician characteristics were not associated with outcome.

Psychosocial Care Needs of Melanoma Survivors: Are They Being Met?

Patients who have survived malignant melanoma for more than five years may lack the opportunity to talk about their burden. As a consequence their psychosocial care needs remain undetected and available supportive interventions may not be utilised. Therefore, the psychosocial burden of this patient group needs to be assessed using specific screening instruments. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychosocial burden of long-term melanoma survivors, their psychosocial care needs and the determinants of these needs. We wanted to find out if the use of professional support corresponds to the care needs defined by experts. Using the cancer registry of Rhineland-Palatinate, melanoma patients diagnosed at least 5 years before the survey were contacted by physicians. N = 689 former patients completed the Hornheide Questionnaire (short form HQ-S) to identify psychosocial support need (scale cut off ≥ 16 or item-based cut-off score) and the potential psychosocial determinants of these needs. Additionally, they were asked about their utilisation of the professional support system. More than one third (36%) of them was in need for professional psychosocial support. The highest burden scores concerned worry about tumour progression. Younger age (< 50), higher general fatigue, higher symptom burden, lower general health, negative social interactions and unfulfilled information needs were significant predictors of the need for psychosocial intervention. Related to the percentage of survivors identified as 'in need', the professional support system was underused. Further studies should investigate whether using the HQ-S to routinely identify burdened melanoma patients could lead to better fulfilment of their intervention needs, ultimately enhancing health-related quality of life.