Living with and beyond cancer: the role of Holistic Needs Assessment and care planning.

Due to earlier diagnosis and more effective treatment, increasing numbers of people can be expected to live with and beyond cancer. Yet for many, survival might be characterised by physical and psychological morbidity, decreased functional status and disability, which may increase as the length of time from the completion of treatment extends. However, careful integrated assessment and relevant and acceptable care planning can mitigate these effects; people can be helped and supported in self-management and ultimately enabled to live full and productive lives in a manner that is acceptable to them.

Supporting delivery of the recovery package for people living with and beyond cancer

Survivorship is an important issue in cancer care in the UK. More people are being diagnosed with the disease and many more are living for longer after diagnosis. The National Cancer Survivorship Initiative recommends that patients with cancer have a package of care designed to improve outcomes and support for those living with and beyond the disease. The recovery package consists of a holistic needs assessment, treatment summary, cancer care review and health and wellbeing event. Although these interventions are recommended as a way to improve care, many people do not have access to the combined package, or even some of its components. The Cancer Nursing Partnership (CNP), a collaboration of cancer nursing organisations and communities of influence, has been established to support nurses with delivery of the recovery package in practice. This article describes the package and its components, introduces the CNP and outlines the work it has carried out to date.

The effect of warfarin therapy on breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer survival: a population-based cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

PURPOSE: Pre-clinical studies suggest that oral anticoagulant agents, such as warfarin, may inhibit metastases and potentially prolong survival in cancer patients. However, few population-based studies have examined the association between warfarin use and cancer-specific mortality.

METHODS: Using prescribing, cause of death, and cancer registration data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, four population-based cohorts were constructed, comprising breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 1 January 1998, and the 31 December 2010. Comparing pre-diagnostic warfarin users to non-users, multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for cancer-specific mortality.

RESULTS: Overall, 16,525 breast, 12,902 colorectal, 12,296 lung, and 12,772 prostate cancers were included. Pre-diagnostic warfarin use ranged from 2.4 to 4.7 %. There was little evidence of any strong association between warfarin use pre-diagnosis and cancer-specific mortality in prostate (adjusted HR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.84-1.26), lung (adjusted HR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.96-1.16), breast (adjusted HR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.62-1.07), or colorectal (adjusted HR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.77-1.01) cancer patients. Dose-response analyses did not reveal consistent evidence of reductions in users of warfarin defined by the number of prescriptions used and daily defined doses.

CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence of associations between pre-diagnostic use of warfarin and cancer-specific mortality in lung, prostate, breast, or colorectal cancer patients.

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.

Patient-reported 'ever had' and 'current' long term physical symptoms following prostate cancer treatments

OBJECTIVE: To document prostate cancer patient reported 'ever experienced' and 'current' prevalence of disease specific physical symptoms stratified by primary treatment received.
PATIENTS: 3,348 prostate cancer survivors 2-15 years post diagnosis.
METHODS: Cross-sectional, postal survey of 6,559 survivors diagnosed 2-15 years ago with primary, invasive PCa (ICD10-C61) identified via national, population based cancer registries in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland. Questions included symptoms at diagnosis, primary treatments and physical symptoms (impotence/urinary incontinence/bowel problems/breast changes/loss of libido/hot flashes/fatigue) experienced 'ever' and at questionnaire completion ("current"). Symptom proportions were weighted by age, country and time since diagnosis. Bonferroni corrections were applied for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: Adjusted response rate 54%; 75% reported at least one 'current' physical symptom ('ever':90%), with 29% reporting at least three. Prevalence varied by treatment; overall 57% reported current impotence; this was highest following radical prostatectomy (RP)76% followed by external beam radiotherapy with concurrent hormone therapy (HT); 64%. Urinary incontinence (overall 'current' 16%) was highest following RP ('current'28%, 'ever'70%). While 42% of brachytherapy patients reported no 'current' symptoms; 43% reported 'current' impotence and 8% 'current' incontinence. 'Current' hot flashes (41%), breast changes (18%) and fatigue (28%) were reported more often by patients on HT.
CONCLUSION: Symptoms following prostate cancer are common, often multiple, persist long-term and vary by treatment. They represent a significant health burden. An estimated 1.6% of men over 45 is a prostate cancer survivor currently experiencing an adverse physical symptom. Recognition and treatment of physical symptoms should be prioritised in patient follow-up. This information should facilitate men and clinicians when deciding about treatment as differences in survival between radical treatments is minimal.

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.

Statin Use and Survival from Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background: Preclinical evidence from lung cancer cell lines and animal models suggest that statins could have anticancer properties. We investigated whether statin users had reduced risk of cancer-specific mortality in a population based cohort of lung cancer patients.
Methods: Newly diagnosed lung cancer patients, from 1998 to 2009, were identified from English cancer registry data and linked to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, providing prescription records, and to Office of National Statistics mortality data up to 2012. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for cancer-specific mortality and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by statin use before and after diagnosis and to adjust these HRs for potential confounders.
Results: In 3,638 lung cancer patients, there was some evidence that statin use after diagnosis was associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality (adjusted HR=0.89, 95% CI 0.78, 1.02; P=0.09). Associations were more marked after 12 prescriptions (adjusted HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.67, 0.98; P=0.03) and when lipophilic statins were investigated (adjusted HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.70, 0.94; P=0.01) but were attenuated in some sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, in 11,051 lung cancer patients, statin use before diagnosis was associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality (adjusted HR=0.88, 95% CI, 0.83, 0.93; P<0.001).
Conclusions: There was some evidence that lung cancer patients who used statins, and particularly simvastatin, had reduced rates of cancer-specific mortality.
 Impact: These findings should first be confirmed in observational studies, but provide some support for conducting randomized controlled trials of simvastatin as adjuvant cancer therapy in lung cancer patients.

“A quiet still voice that just touches”: music’s relevance for adults living with life-threatening cancer diagnoses.

Purpose
Music has historically aided health and loss-adaptation, however, cancer patients’ experience of music for self-care is not well understood. This study examines adult cancer patients’ views about music’s role before and after diagnosis.
Methods
Constructivist approach, with grounded theory informed design using convenience, snowball and theoretical sampling. Patients from Australian metropolitan cancer and hospice settings completed demographic questionnaires and participated in semi-structured interviews. Qualitative inter-rater reliability was applied.
Results
Fifty-two patients reported comparable time spent experiencing music pre-post diagnosis. Music may remain incidental; however, many patients adapt music usage to ameliorate cancer’s aversive effects. Patients often draw from their musical lives and explore unfamiliar music to: remain connected with pre-illness identities; strengthen capacity for enduring treatment, ongoing survival (even when knowing “you’re going to die”), or facing death; reframe upended worlds; and live enriched lives. Patients can ascribe human or physical properties to music when describing its transformative effects. Familiar lyrics maybe reinterpreted, and patients’ intensified emotional reactions to music can reflect their threatened mortality. Sometimes music becomes inaccessible, elusive, and/or intensifies distress and is avoided. Families’, friends’ and professionals’ recognition of patients’ altered musical lives and music-based suggestions can extend patients’ use of music for self-care.
Conclusion
Health professionals can support patients by inquiring about their music behaviours and recognising that altered music usage may signify vulnerability. Although commonly recommended, hospital concerts and music broadcasts need sensitive delivery. Patients’ preferred music should be available in diagnostic, treatment and palliative settings because it can promote endurance and life enrichment.

Validation of the completeness and accuracy of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry

Background: It has been suggested that inaccuracies in cancer registries are distorting UK survival statistics. This study compared the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry (NICR) database of living patients, with independent data held by Northern Ireland's General Practitioners (GPs) to compare and validate the recorded diagnoses and dates held by the registry. 

Methods: All 387 GP practice managers were invited to participate. 100 practices (25.84%) responded. Comparisons were made for 17,102 patients, equivalent to 29.08% of the living patients (58,798) extracted from the NICR between 1993 and 2010. 

Results: There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the responding and nonresponding GP patient profiles for age, marital status or deprivation score. However, the responding GPs included more female patients (p = 0.02). NICR data accuracy was high, 0.08% of GP cancer patients (n = 15) were not included in registry records and 0.02% (n = 2) had a diagnosis date which varied more than 2 weeks from GP records (3 weeks and 5 months). The NICR had recorded two different tumour types and three different tumour statuses (benign vs. malignant) to the GPs. 

Conclusion: This comparison demonstrates a high level of accuracy within the NICR and that the survival statistics based on this data can be relied upon.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus

These guidelines provide a practical and evidence-based resource for the management of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related early neoplasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was followed to provide a methodological strategy for the guideline development. A systematic review of the literature was performed for English language articles published up until December 2012 in order to address controversial issues in Barrett's oesophagus including definition, screening and diagnosis, surveillance, pathological grading for dysplasia, management of dysplasia, and early cancer including training requirements. The rigour and quality of the studies was evaluated using the SIGN checklist system. Recommendations on each topic were scored by each author using a five-tier system (A+, strong agreement, to D+, strongly disagree). Statements that failed to reach substantial agreement among authors, defined as >80% agreement (A or A+), were revisited and modified until substantial agreement (>80%) was reached. In formulating these guidelines, we took into consideration benefits and risks for the population and national health system, as well as patient perspectives. For the first time, we have suggested stratification of patients according to their estimated cancer risk based on clinical and histopathological criteria. In order to improve communication between clinicians, we recommend the use of minimum datasets for reporting endoscopic and pathological findings. We advocate endoscopic therapy for high-grade dysplasia and early cancer, which should be performed in high-volume centres. We hope that these guidelines will standardise and improve management for patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia.

Colorectal cancer risk following adenoma removal: a large prospective population-based cohort study

Background: Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated significant reductions in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality associated with polypectomy. However, little is known about whether polypectomy is effective at reducing CRC risk in routine clinical practice. The aim of this investigation was to quantify CRC risk following polypectomy in a large prospective population-based cohort study.

Methods: Patients with incident colorectal polyps between 2000 and 2005 in Northern Ireland (NI) were identified via electronic pathology reports received to the NI Cancer Registry (NICR). Patients were matched to the NICR to detect CRC and deaths up to 31st December 2010. CRC standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated and Cox proportional hazards modelling applied to determine CRC risk.

Results: During 44,724 person-years of follow-up, 193 CRC cases were diagnosed amongst 6,972 adenoma patients, representing an annual progression rate of 0.43%. CRC risk was significantly elevated in patients who had an adenoma removed (SIR 2.85; 95% CI: 2.61 to 3.25) compared with the general population. Male sex, older age, rectal site and villous architecture were associated with an increased CRC risk in adenoma patients. Further analysis suggested that not having a full colonoscopy performed at, or following, incident polypectomy contributed to the excess CRC risk.

Conclusions: CRC risk was elevated in individuals following polypectomy for adenoma, outside of screening programmes.

Impact: This finding emphasises the need for full colonoscopy and adenoma clearance, and appropriate surveillance, after endoscopic diagnosis of adenoma.

Gleason Upgrading with Time in a Large Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohort

PURPOSE: We report the percentage of patients on active surveillance who had disease pathologically upgraded and factors that predict for upgrading on surveillance biopsies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in our active surveillance database with at least 1 repeat prostate biopsy were included. Histological upgrading was defined as any increase in primary or secondary Gleason grade on repeat biopsy. Multivariate analysis was used to determine baseline and dynamic factors associated with Gleason upgrading. This information was used to develop a nomogram to predict for upgrading or treatment in patients electing for active surveillance.

RESULTS: Of 862 patients in our cohort 592 had 2 or more biopsies. Median followup was 6.4 years. Of the patients 20% were intermediate risk, 0.3% were high risk and all others were low risk. During active surveillance 31.3% of cases were upgraded. On multivariate analysis clinical stage T2, higher prostate specific antigen and higher percentage of cores involved with disease at the time of diagnosis predicted for upgrading. A total of 27 cases (15% of those upgraded) were Gleason 8 or higher at upgrading, and 62% of all 114 upgraded cases went on to have active treatment. The nomogram incorporated clinical stage, age, prostate specific antigen, core positivity and Gleason score. The concordance index was 0.61.

CONCLUSIONS: In this large re-biopsy cohort with medium-term followup, most cases have not been pathologically upgraded to date. A model predicting for upgrading or radical treatment was developed which could be useful in counseling patients considering active surveillance for prostate cancer.

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.

The Impact of Colleague Peer Review on the Radiotherapy Treatment Planning Process in the Radical Treatment of Lung Cancer

AIMS: Modern radiotherapy uses techniques to reliably identify tumour and reduce target volume margins. However, this can potentially lead to an increased risk of geographic miss. One source of error is the accuracy of target volume delineation (TVD). Colleague peer review (CPR) of all curative-intent lung cancer plans has been mandatory in our institution since May 2013. At least two clinical oncologists review plans, checking treatment paradigm, TVD, prescription dose tumour and critical organ tolerances. We report the impact of CPR in our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiotherapy treatment plans of all patients receiving radical radiotherapy were presented at weekly CPR meetings after their target volumes were reviewed and signed off by the treating consultant. All cases and any resultant change to TVD (including organs at risk) or treatment intent were recorded in our prospective CPR database. The impact of CPR over a 13 month period from May 2013 to June 2014 is reported.

RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-two patients (63% non-small cell lung carcinoma, 17% small cell lung carcinoma and 20% 'clinical diagnosis') were analysed. On average, 3.2 cases were discussed per meeting (range 1-8). CPR resulted in a change in treatment paradigm in 3% (one patient proceeded to induction chemotherapy, two patients had high-dose palliative radiotherapy). Twenty-one (17%) had a change in TVD and one (1%) patient had a change in dose prescription. In total, 6% of patients had plan adjustment after review of dose volume histogram.

CONCLUSION: The introduction of CPR in our centre has resulted in a change in a component of the treatment plan for 27% of patients receiving curative-intent lung radiotherapy. We recommend CPR as a mandatory quality assurance step in the planning process of all radical lung plans.

The emerging roles of DNA methylation in the clinical management of prostate cancer

Aberrant DNA methylation is one of the hallmarks of carcinogenesis and has been recognized in cancer cells for more than 20 years. The role of DNA methylation in malignant transformation of the prostate has been intensely studied, from its contribution to the early stages of tumour development to the advanced stages of androgen independence. The most significant advances have involved the discovery of numerous targets such as GSTP1, Ras-association domain family 1A (RASSF1A) and retinoic acid receptor beta2 (RARbeta2) that become inactivated through promoter hypermethylation during the course of disease initiation and progression. This has provided the basis for translational research into methylation biomarkers for early detection and prognosis of prostate cancer. Investigations into the causes of these methylation events have yielded little definitive data. Aberrant hypomethylation and how it impacts upon prostate cancer has been less well studied. Herein we discuss the major developments in the fields of prostate cancer and DNA methylation, and how this epigenetic modification can be harnessed to address some of the key issues impeding the successful clinical management of prostate cancer.