Are family physician visits and continuity of care associated with acute care use at end-of-life? A population-based cohort study of homecare cancer patients

Background: Previous end-of-life cancer research has shown an association between increased family physician continuity of care and reduced use of acute care services; however, it did not focus on a homecare population or control for homecare nursing.

Aim: Among end-of-life homecare cancer patients, to investigate the association of family physician continuity with location of death and hospital and emergency department visits in the last 2 weeks of life while controlling for nursing hours.

Design: Retrospective population-based cohort study.

Setting/participants: Cancer patients with ≥1 family physician visit in 2006 from Ontario, Canada. Family physician continuity of care was assessed using two measures: Modified Usual Provider of Care score and visits/week. Its association with location of death and hospital and emergency department visits in the last 2 weeks of life was examined using logistic regression.

Results: Of 9467 patients identified, the Modified Usual Provider of Care score demonstrated a dose-response relationship with increasing continuity associated with decreased odds of hospital death and visiting the hospital and emergency department in the last 2 weeks of life. More family physician visits/week were associated with lower odds of an emergency department visit in the last 2 weeks of life and hospital death, except for patients with greater than 4 visits/week, where they had increased odds of hospitalizations and hospital deaths.

Conclusions: These results demonstrate an association between increased family physician continuity of care and decreased odds of several acute care outcomes in late life, controlling for homecare nursing and other covariates.©The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.

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.

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 ETS family member GABPα modulates androgen receptor signalling and mediates an aggressive phenotype in prostate cancer

In prostate cancer (PC), the androgen receptor (AR) is a key transcription factor at all disease stages, including the advanced stage of castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). In the present study, we show that GABPα, an ETS factor that is up-regulated in PC, is an AR-interacting transcription factor. Expression of GABPα enables PC cell lines to acquire some of the molecular and cellular characteristics of CRPC tissues as well as more aggressive growth phenotypes. GABPα has a transcriptional role that dissects the overlapping cistromes of the two most common ETS gene fusions in PC: overlapping significantly with ETV1 but not with ERG target genes. GABPα bound predominantly to gene promoters, regulated the expression of one-third of AR target genes and modulated sensitivity to AR antagonists in hormone responsive and castrate resistant PC models. This study supports a critical role for GABPα in CRPC and reveals potential targets for therapeutic intervention.

Experience of Managing Head and Neck Cancer Patients Amongst Specialty Trainees in Restorative Dentistry

Background: Upon completion of Specialty Training in Restorative Dentistry, trainees (StRs) should
be proficient in maxillofacial prosthodontics to meet the restorative needs of head and neck cancer patients (HANC), and in preparation for the Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE).1,2
Objective: The aim of this study is to collate and compare data relating to the training of Restorative Dentistry Rs in the management of HANC patients across different geographical locations within the British Isles. Methods: Current trainees were invited to complete an online questionnaire by the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group (SRRDG). Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience in assessing and planning treatment for HANC patients, attending theatre and manufacturing surgical obturators, and in providing implants for appropriate cases. Respondents were also asked to appraise clinical and didactic teaching within their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing oncology- based questions in a future ISFE. Results: Responses were obtained from 21 StRs (n=21) training in all five countries within the British Isles. Most respondents were based in England (76%). A third were in their 5th year of training. Less than half reported that they were confident
of independently assessing (48%) or treatment planning (38%) HANC patients. More than half of StRs (52%) indicated that they were not confident of attending theatres alone and manufacturing a surgical obturator. One third (33%) rated their experience of treating oncology patients with implants as poor or very poor, including three in their 5th year of training. Less than one third rated didactic teaching in maxillofacial prosthodontics at their unit as good or excellent. Only 4 respondents indicated that they were confident of answering an ISFE oncology question on management of healthcare delivery. Six StRs expressed concerns over a lack of case-based exposure.
Conclusion: Experience and training in maxillofacial prosthodontics is inconsistent for StRs across the British Isles with many lacking in clinical exposure.

Health care professionals’ experience, understanding and perception of need of advanced cancer patients with cachexia and their families: The benefits of a dedicated clinic.

Background: Cachexia has been defined as an on-going loss of skeletal muscle mass that cannot be fully reversed by conventional nutritional support. It can be found in up to 80% of patients with advanced cancer and has profound psycho-social consequences for patients and their families. There is a paucity of studies examining the role and experience of healthcare professionals in relation to cachexia and existing studies suggest that professional staff have limited understanding and do not intervene effectively.
Aim: To identify barriers and facilitators to good practice in cachexia care in order to inform future developments in service provision.
Design: An exploratory qualitative study was conducted employing semi-structured interviews with a range of healthcare professionals recruited purposefully from an Australian hospital. Interviews were conducted in private rooms within the hospital.
Setting/participants: A range of healthcare professionals responsible for cancer care were recruited from a large Australian teaching hospital.
Results: Interviews were conducted with 8 healthcare professionals responsible for delivering cancer care. Four themes were identified: formal and informal education, knowledge and understanding, truth telling in cachexia and palliative care, and, a multi-disciplinary approach. Findings show how improved knowledge and understanding across a staff body can lead to improved staff confidence and a willingness to address cancer cachexia and its consequences with patients and their families.
Conclusion: Comparison with previous studies illustrates the importance of improving knowledge and understanding about cachexia and how this can contribute to staff having the skills and experience necessary to address cachexia and provide an improved care experience for patients and carers.

Specialty Registrars’ Experience of Managing Head and Neck Cancer Patients

Objective The aim of this study was to collate and compare data on the training of Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry (StRs) in the management of head and neck cancer (HANC) patients across different training units within the UK and Ireland. Methods Current trainees were invited to complete an online questionnaire by the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group (SRRDG). Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience of assessing and planning treatment for HANC patients, attending theatre alone and manufacturing surgical obturators, and providing implants for appropriate cases. Respondents were also asked to appraise clinical and didactic teaching at their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing a future Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE)-station assessing knowledge of head and neck cancer. Results Responses were obtained from 21 StRs (n=21) training within all five countries of the British Isles. Most respondents were based in England (76%), with one StR in each of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. A third (33%) were in their 5th year of training. Almost half of the StRs indicated that they were confident of independently assessing (48%) new patients with HANC, with fewer numbers reporting confidence in treatment planning (38%). The majority (52%) of respondents indicated that they were not confident of attending theatre alone and manufacturing a surgical obturator. A third (33%) rated their experience of treating HANC patients with implants as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’, including three StRs in their 5th year of training. Less than one third (<33%) rated didactic teaching in maxillofacial prosthodontics at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, and only 7 StRs indicated that they were confident of passing an ISFE-station focused on HANC. Conclusion Experience and training regarding patients with head and neck cancer is inconsistent for StRs across the UK and Ireland with a number of trainees reporting a lack of clinical exposure.