Long-term health-related quality of life of prostate cancer survivors varies by primary treatment. Results from the PiCTure (Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience) study

PURPOSE: Men are living longer with prostate cancer. In a two-country study, we investigated the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of prostate cancer survivors up to 18 years post-diagnosis.

METHODS: Postal questionnaires were administered in 2012 to 6559 prostate cancer (ICD10 C61) survivors 2-18 years post-diagnosis, identified through population-based cancer registries in Ireland. HRQoL was measured using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25. HRQoL, functional and symptom scores were compared by primary treatment(s) using multiple linear regression.

RESULTS: Fifty-four percent responded (n = 3348). After controlling for socio-demographic and clinical factors, global HRQoL varied significantly by primary treatment (p < 0.001); compared to radical prostatectomy (RP), survivors who received androgen deprivation therapy alone (ADT; p < 0.001) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) without concurrent ADT (p = 0.001) had significantly lower global HRQoL. The global HRQoL of men who received brachytherapy (p = 0.157), EBRT with concurrent ADT (p = 0.940) or active surveillance/watchful waiting (p = 0.388) was not significantly different from men treated with RP. There were statistically and clinically significant differences in general (fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhoea, financial difficulties) and disease-specific symptoms (sexual, urinary, bowel, ADT) by primary treatment. Fatigue and insomnia scores were high for survivors in all treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer survivors' long-term HRQoL varied with primary treatment.

IMPLICATIONS OF CANCER SURVIVORS: Population-based information regarding statistically and clinically significant treatment effects on long-term global HRQoL, symptom burden and functionality should be provided during treatment decision-making. Screening for symptoms and utilising interventions during long-term follow-up may improve survivors' HRQoL.

Self-reported psychosocial needs and health-related quality of life of colorectal cancer survivors

Purpose of the research
To investigate the prevalence and nature of unmet needs among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors and the relationship between needs and quality of life (QoL).

Methods and sample
Using the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry (NICR) as a sampling frame and working in collaboration with primary care physicians or GPs, the Cancer Survivors Unmet Needs (CaSUN) questionnaire and the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors Scale (QLACS) were posted to a randomly selected sample of 600 CRC survivors.

Key results
Approximately 69% (413/600) met eligibility criteria for participating in the study; and 30% (124/413) responded to the survey. A comparative analysis of NICR data between respondents and non-respondents did not indicate any systematic bias except that respondents appeared to be younger (65 years vs. 67 years). Approximately 60% of respondents reported having no unmet needs, with 40% reporting one or more unmet health and social care needs such as fear of recurrence, information needs, difficulty obtaining travel insurance and car parking problems. QoL was significantly lower for CRC survivors who reported an unmet need. Highest scores (poorer QoL) were reported for fatigue, welfare benefits and distress recurrence.

Conclusions
Overall, the majority of CRC survivors who had care needs appeared to have needs that were mainly psychosocial in nature and these unmet needs were related to poorer QoL.

Effect of preventive primary care outreach on health related quality of life among older adults at risk of functional decline: Randomised controlled trial

Objective: To evaluate the impact of a provider initiated primary care outreach intervention compared with usual care among older adults at risk of functional decline. Design: Randomised controlled trial. Setting: Patients enrolled with 35 family physicians in five primary care networks in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Participants Patients: were eligible if they were 75 years of age or older and were not receiving home care services. Of 3166 potentially eligible patients, 2662 (84%) completed the validated postal questionnaire used to determine risk of functional decline. Of 1724 patients who met the risk criteria, 769 (45%) agreed to participate and 719 were randomised. Intervention: The 12 month intervention, provided by experienced home care nurses in 2004-6, consisted of a comprehensive initial assessment using the resident assessment instrument for home care; collaborative care planning with patients, their families, and family physicians; health promotion; and referral to community health and social support services. Main outcome measures: Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), use and costs of health and social services, functional status, self rated health, and mortality. Results: The mean difference in QALYs between intervention and control patients during the study period was not statistically significant (0.017, 95% confidence interval -0.022 to 0.056; P=0.388). The mean difference in overall cost of prescription drugs and services between the intervention and control groups was not statistically significant, (-$C165 (£107; €118; $162), 95% confidence interval -$C16 545 to $C16 214; P=0.984). Changes over 12 months in functional status and self rated health were not significantly different between the intervention and control groups. Ten patients died in each group. Conclusions: The results of this study do not support adoption of this preventive primary care intervention for this target population of high risk older adults. Trial registration: Clinical trials NCT00134836.

Measuring the health-related quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease.

Objectives—To inform researchers and clinicians about the most appropriate generic and disease specific measures of health related quality of life for use among people with ischaemic heart disease. Methods—MEDLINE and BIDS were searched for research papers which contained a report of at least one of the three most common generic instruments or at least one of the five disease specific instruments used with ischaemic heart disease patients. Evidence for the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of these instruments was critically appraised. Results—Of the three generic measures—the Nottingham health profile, sickness impact profile, and short form 36 (SF-36)—the SF-36 appears to offer the most reliable, valid, and sensitive assessment of quality of life. However, a few of the SF-36 subscales lack a sufficient degree of sensitivity to detect change in a patient’s clinical condition. According to the best available evidence, the quality of life after myocardial infarction questionnaire should be preferred to the Seattle angina questionnaire, the quality of life index cardiac version, the angina pectoris quality of life questionnaire, and the summary index. Overall, research on disease specific measures is sparse compared to the number of studies which have investigated generic measures. Conclusions—An assessment of the quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease should comprise a disease specific measure in addition to a generic measure. The SF-36 and the quality of life after myocardial infarction questionnaire (version 2) are the most appropriate currently available generic and disease specific measures of health related quality of life, respectively. Further research into the measurement of health related quality of life of people with ischaemic heart disease is required in order to address the problems (such as lack of sensitivity to detect change) identified by the review.

Selecting a measure of health-related quality of life.

Quality of life is becoming recognized increasingly as an important outcome measure which needs to be considered by social workers. However, there does not appear to be a clear consensus about the definition of quality of life. In addition, social workers are likely to experience difficulties choosing and applying an appropriate instrument with which to measure quality of life because of the many available instruments purporting to assess quality of life. This paper discusses the definition of health-related quality of life and explains the main measurement properties of an instrument that must be appraised when considering whether or not an instrument is appropriate. The paper will assist social workers to make an informed choice about measures of health-related quality of life.

Generic, disease-specific and individualised approaches to measuring health-related quality of life among people with heart disease - a comparative analysis.

Increasing emphasis is being placed on the evaluation of health-related quality of life. However, there is no consensus on the definition of this concept and as a result there are a plethora of existing measurement instruments. Head-to-head comparisons of the psychometric properties of existing instruments are necessary to facilitate evidence-based decisions about which instrument should be chosen for routine use. Therefore, an individualised instrument (the modified Patient Generated Index), a generic instrument (the Short Form 36) and a disease-specific instrument (the Quality of Life after Myocardial Infarction questionnaire) were administered to patients with ischaemic heart disease (n=117) and the evidence for the validity, reliability and sensitivity of each instrument was examined and compared. The modified Patient Generated Index compared favourably with the other instruments but none of the instruments examined provided sound evidence for sensitivity to change. Therefore, any recommendation for the use of the individualised approach in the routine collection of health-related quality of life data in clinical practice must be conditional upon the submission of further evidence to support the sensitivity of such instruments.