Picture Quiz: Know your anatomy.

A 25 year old man was brought into the emergency
department by ambulance. He was involved in a road
traffic incident and had an obvious site of blood loss from
a fracture of an upper limb. On his arrival at the
emergency department, you are told that the ambulance
paramedic was unable to gain intravenous access and
are asked by the person in charge of resuscitation to try
to gain access. You are unable to find any peripheral
veins because he is hypovolemic. You attempt to put in a
central line via the femoral vein (fig 1).

A population-based study of adverse physical effects following prostate cancer treatments: Results from the PiCTure (Prostate cancer treatment – your experience) study

Background:

Men and clinicians need reliable population based information when making decisions about investigation and treatment of prostate cancer. In the absence of clearly preferred treatments, differences in outcomes become more important.

Aim:

To investigate rates of adverse physical effects among prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis by treatment, and estimate population burden.

Methods:

A cross sectional, postal survey to 6,559 survivors (all ages) diagnosed with primary, invasive prostate cancer (ICD10-C61), identified in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland via cancer registries. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, treatments received and adverse physical effects (impotence, urinary incontinence, bowel problems, breast changes, libido loss, hot flashes, fatigue) experienced ‘ever’ and ‘current’ i.e. at questionnaire completion. Physical effect levels were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis for all prostate cancer survivors. Bonferroni corrections were applied to account for multiple comparisons.

Results:

Adjusted response rate 54%, (n=3,348). 75% reported at least one current physical effect (90% ever), with 29% reporting at least three. These varied by treatment. Current impotence was reported by 76% post-prostatectomy, 64% post-external beam radiotherapy with hormone therapy, with average for all survivors of 57%. Urinary incontinence (overall current level: 16%) was highest post-prostatectomy (current 28%, ever 70%). 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no current adverse physical effects; however 43% reported current impotence and 8% current incontinence. Current hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more commonly by patients on hormone therapy.

Conclusions:

This study provides evidence that adverse physical effects following prostate cancer represent a significant public health burden; an estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor with a current adverse physical effect. This information should facilitate investigation and treatment decision-making and follow-up care of patients.

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.

‘A picture of who we are as a family’: conceptualizing post-adoption contact as practices of family display

Social work has a central role in negotiating and supporting birth family contact following adoption from care. This paper argues that family display (Finch) offers a useful conceptual resource for understanding relationships in the adoptive kinship network as they are enacted through contact. It reports on an interpretative phenomenological analysis of adoptive parents' accounts of open adoption from care that revealed direct and indirect contact to be contexts in which they and birth relatives performed family display practices: communicating the meaning of their respective relationships with the adopted child and seeking recognition that this was a legitimate family relationship. The analysis explores how family display was performed, and the impact of validating or invalidating responses. It aims to illuminate these social and interpretive processes involved in adoptive kinship in order to inform social work support for contact. The findings suggest that successful contact may be promoted by helping adoptive and birth relatives validate the legitimacy of the other's kin connection with the child, and through arrangements that facilitate family-like interactions.

Establishing a population-based patient-reported outcomes study (PROMs) using national cancer registries across two jurisdictions: The Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience (PiCTure) study

Objective: To establish an international patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) study among prostate cancer survivors, up to 18 years postdiagnosis, in two countries with different healthcare systems and ethical frameworks. Design: A cross-sectional, postal survey of prostate cancer survivors sampled and recruited via two population-based cancer registries. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) evaluated patients for eligibility to participate. Questionnaires contained validated instruments to assess health-related quality of life and psychological well-being, including QLQ-C30, QLQPR-25, EQ-5D-5L, 21-question Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Decisional Regret Scale. Setting: Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland (NI). Primary outcome measures: Registration completeness, predictors of eligibility and response, data missingness, unweighted and weighted PROMs. Results: Prostate cancer registration was 80% (95% CI 75% to 84%) and 91% (95% CI 89% to 93%) complete 2 years postdiagnosis in NI and RoI, respectively. Of 12 322 survivors sampled from registries, 53% (n=6559) were classified as eligible following HCP screening. In the multivariate analysis, significant predictors of eligibility were: being ≤59 years of age at diagnosis (p<0.001), short-term survivor (<5 years postdiagnosis; p<0.001) and from RoI (p<0.001). 3348 completed the questionnaire, yielding a 54% adjusted response rate. 13% of men or their families called the study freephone with queries for assistance with questionnaire completion or to talk about their experience. Significant predictors of response in multivariate analysis were: being ≤59 years at diagnosis (p<0.001) and from RoI (p=0.016). Mean number of missing questions in validated instruments ranged from 0.12 (SD 0.71; EQ-5D-5L) to 3.72 (SD 6.30; QLQ-PR25). Weighted and unweighted mean EQ-5D-5L, QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25 scores were similar, as were the weighted and unweighted prevalences of depression, anxiety and distress. Conclusions: It was feasible to perform PROMs studies across jurisdictions, using cancer registries as sampling frames; we amassed one of the largest, international, population-based data set of prostate cancer survivors. We highlight improvements which could inform future PROMs studies, including utilising general practitioners to assess eligibility and providing a freephone service.

Mode of prostate cancer detection is associated with the psychological wellbeing of survivors: results from the PiCTure study

Purpose: Many men with prostate cancer are asymptomatic, diagnosed following prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing. We investigate whether mode of detection, i.e. ‘PSA detected’ or ‘clinically detected’, was associated with psychological wellbeing among prostate cancer survivors. Methods: A cross-sectional postal questionnaire was administered in 2012 to 6559 prostate cancer (ICD10 C61) survivors up to 18 years post-diagnosis, identified through population-based cancer registries in Ireland. Psychological wellbeing was assessed using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21. Logistic regression was used to investigate associations between mode of detection and depression, anxiety and stress, adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical confounders. Results: The response rate was 54 % (3348/6262). Fifty-nine percent of survivors were diagnosed with asymptomatic PSA-tested disease. Prevalence of depression (13.8 vs 20.7 %; p < 0.001), anxiety (13.6 vs 20.9 %; p < 0.001) and stress (8.7 vs 13.8 %; p < 0.001) were significantly lower among survivors diagnosed with PSA-detected, than clinically detected disease. After adjusting for clinical and socio-demographic factors, survivors with clinically detected disease had significantly higher risk of depression (odds ratio (OR) = 1.46 95 % CI 1.18, 1.80; p = 0.001), anxiety (OR = 1.36 95 % CI 1.09, 1.68; p = 0.006) and stress (OR = 1.43 95 % CI 1.11, 1.85; p = 0.006) than survivors with PSA-detected disease. Conclusions: These findings contribute to the ongoing debate on benefits and risks of PSA testing and may be considered by policy makers formulating population-based prostate cancer screening policies. The relatively high prevalence of negative psychological states among survivors means that a ‘risk-adapted approach’ should be implemented to screen survivors most at risk of psychological morbidity for psychological health, and mode of detection could be considered as a risk stratum.