Living with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a nested qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a dose-limiting side-effect for patients undergoing a variety of chemotherapy regimens. These effects can have a detrimental impact on patients' quality of life and ability to perform everyday tasks.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the experience of living with CIPN prior to and while participating in a randomised study of acupuncture versus a control wait group.

DESIGN

The study was nested within a randomised trial (n=120) with participants randomised to acupuncture or to control (wait list for acupuncture).

METHOD

Participants (n=23) volunteered to be interviewed either by telephone (n=20) or face to face (n=3). The audiotapes produced were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach.

RESULTS

Four themes developed; these included daily life with CIPN, signs and symptoms, interacting with others and management of CIPN. Patients reported compromised dexterity and ability to safely carry out activities. They were often reliant on help and sought out information from others living with the condition. There were also concerns about the lack of effectiveness and the side-effects of medication prescribed.

CONCLUSION

Participants were self-selecting volunteers across different cancer groups, but the information gathered could influence future study designs and increase understanding of the impact of CIPN on patients' lives.

Methodological approaches to measuring the incidence of unplanned emergency department presentations by cancer patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy: a systematic review

Background

The need to mitigate the volume of unplanned emergency department (ED) presentations is a priority for health systems globally. Current evidence on the incidence and risk factors associated with unplanned ED presentations is unclear because of substantial heterogeneity in methods reporting on this issue. The aim of this review was to examine the methodological approaches to measure the incidence of unplanned ED presentations by patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy in order to determine the strength of evidence and to inform future research.

Methods

An electronic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane was undertaken. Papers published in English language between 2000 and 2019, and papers that included patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy as the denominator during the study period were included. Studies were eligible if they were analytical observational studies. Data relating to the methods used to measure the incidence of ED presentations by patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy were extracted and assessed for methodological rigor. Findings are reported in accordance with the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) guideline.

Results

Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria: 20 cohort studies, and one cross-sectional study. Overall risk of bias was moderate. There was substantial methodological and clinical heterogeneity in the papers included. Methodological rigor varied based on the description of methods such as the period of observation, loss to follow-up, reason for ED presentation and statistical methods to control for time varying events and potential confounders.

Conclusions

There is considerable diversity in the population and methods used in studies that measure the incidence of unplanned ED presentations by patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy. Recommendations to support the development of robust evidence include enrolling participants at diagnosis or initiation of treatment, providing adequate description of regular care to support patients who experience toxicities, reporting reasons for and characteristics of participants who are lost to follow-up throughout the study period, clearly defining the outcome including the observation and follow-up period, and reporting crude numbers of ED presentations and the number of at-risk days to account for variation in the length of treatment protocols.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01555-3.

Safety of systemic anti-cancer treatment in oncology patients with non-severe COVID-19: a cohort study

Background

The viral pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disrupted cancer patient management around the world. Most reported data relate to incidence, risk factors, and outcome of severe COVID-19. The safety of systemic anti-cancer therapy in oncology patients with non-severe COVID-19 is an important matter in daily practice.

Methods

ONCOSARS-1 was a single-center, academic observational study. Adult patients with solid tumors treated in the oncology day unit with systemic anti-cancer therapy during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium were prospectively included. All patients (n = 363) underwent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological testing after the first peak of the pandemic in Belgium. Additionally, 141 of these patients also had a SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test during the pandemic. The main objective was to retrospectively determine the safety of systemic cancer treatment, measured by the rate of adverse events according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative patients.

Results

Twenty-two (6%) of the 363 eligible patients were positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR and/or serology. Of these, three required transient oxygen supplementation, but none required admission to the intensive care unit. Hematotoxicity was the only adverse event more frequently observed in SARS-CoV-2 -positive patients than in SARS-CoV-2-negative patients: 73% vs 35% (P < 0.001). This association remained significant (odds ratio (OR) 4.1, P = 0.009) even after adjusting for performance status and type of systemic treatment. Hematological adverse events led to more treatment delays for the SARS-CoV-2-positive group: 55% vs 20% (P < 0.001). Median duration of treatment interruption was similar between the two groups: 14 and 11 days, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, infections unrelated to COVID-19, and bleeding events occurred at a low rate in the SARS-CoV-2-positive patients.

Conclusion

Systemic anti-cancer therapy appeared safe in ambulatory oncology patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were, however, more treatment delays in the SARS-CoV-2-positive population, mainly due to a higher rate of hematological adverse events.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08349-8.

The oral education clinic: A pharmacist- and nurse-led clinic to support patients starting oral systemic anti-cancer treatments

With the increased number of oral systemic anti-cancer treatments available, patients need to be managed safely and effectively in line with national guidance. In response to guidance in 2011, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust implemented an 'Oral Education Clinic'. This nurse- and pharmacist-led clinic facilitates the delivery of patient education, highlighting key safety aspects of drug administration and management, and ensures follow-up is arranged as per protocol. Patients have found this service to be effective and it has had a positive impact on the running of outpatient units, the volume of triage calls, emergency admissions and workload associated with consenting patients to an oral systemic anti-cancer treatments.