Assessing the needs of informal caregivers to cancer survivors: a review of the instruments

Objective: Cancer may impact negatively on an informal caregiver's health long after treatment has ended. This review identifies the self-report measures currently in use to measure caregivers need for support and determines their scientific soundness and clinical utility.

Method: A systematic electronic database search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychINFO, BNI ProQuest was conducted. The psychometric properties and clinical utility of needs assessment tools for caregivers of cancer survivors (excluding advanced disease) were extracted and summarised.

Results: Seven cancer survivor caregiver needs assessment tools were identified. Data on instrument development was well reported, although variability was noted in their structure and content. The majority demonstrated some degree of reliability and validity; only two were evaluated for test–retest reliability (CaSPUN and SPUNS) with only the SPUNS showing a high degree of reliability over time. The Health Care Needs Survey (HCNS), Needs Assessment of Family Caregivers-Cancer (NAFC-C) and Cancer Caregiving Tasks Consequences and Needs Questionnaire (CaTCoN) have been validated at various stages of the cancer continuum. Minimal data was available on responsiveness.

Conclusion: All assessment tools identified require further psychometric analysis. For research purposes, the use of the SPUNS (with its acceptable test–retest reliability) appears most appropriate; although its length may be of concern for clinical use; therefore, the shorter SCNS-P&C is likely to be more suitable for use clinically. At present, the NAFC-C demonstrates a great potential in both the research and clinical environments; however, it requires further psychometric testing before it can be fully recommended. Further analysis is necessary on ideal response formats and the meaning of a total needs score.

A methodological review of the Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36) and its derivatives among breast cancer survivors

Purpose: A systematic review of the validity, reliability and sensitivity of the Short Form (SF) health survey measures among breast cancer survivors.
Methods: We searched a number of databases for peer-reviewed papers. The methodological quality of the papers was assessed using the COnsenus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN).
Results: The review identified seven papers that assessed the psychometric properties of the SF-36 (n = 5), partial SF-36 (n = 1) and SF-12 (n = 1) among breast cancer survivors. Internal consistency scores for the SF measures ranged from acceptable to good across a range of language and ethnic sub-groups. The SF-36 demonstrated good convergent validity with respective subscales of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment—General scale and two lymphedema-specific measures. Divergent validity between the SF-36 and Lymph-ICF was modest. The SF-36 demonstrated good factor structure in the total breast cancer survivor study samples. However, the factor structure appeared to differ between specific language and ethnic sub-groups. The SF-36 discriminated between survivors who reported or did not report symptoms on the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial Symptom Checklist and SF-36 physical sub-scales, but not mental sub-scales, discriminated between survivors with or without lymphedema. Methodological quality scores varied between and within papers.
Conclusion: Short Form measures appear to provide a reliable and valid indication of general health status among breast cancer survivors though the limited data suggests that particular caution is required when interpreting scores provided by non-English language groups. Further research is required to test the sensitivity or responsiveness of the measure.

Cancer survivors with self-reported late effects: their health status, care needs and service utilisation

OBJECTIVE: Cancer survivors (CSs) are at risk of developing late effects (LEs) associated with the disease and its treatment. This paper compares the health status, care needs and use of health services by CSs with LEs and CSs without LEs.

METHODS: Cancer survivors (n = 613) were identified via the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and invited to participate in a postal survey that was administered by their general practitioner. The survey assessed self-reported LEs, health status, health service use and unmet care needs. A total of 289 (47%) CSs responded to the survey, and 93% of respondents completed a LEs scale.

RESULTS: Forty-one per cent (111/269) of CSs reported LEs. Survivors without LEs and survivors with LEs were comparable in terms of age and gender. The LEs group reported a significantly greater number of co-morbidities, lower physical health and mental health scores, greater overall health service use and more unmet needs. Unadjusted logistic regression analysis found that cancer site, time since diagnosis and treatment were significantly associated with reporting of LEs. CSs who received combination therapies compared with CSs who received single treatments were over two and a half times more likely to report LEs (OR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.32-5.25) after controlling for all other variables.

CONCLUSIONS: The CS population with LEs comprises a particularly vulnerable group of survivors who have multiple health care problems and needs and who require tailored care plans that take account of LEs and their impact on health-related quality of life.

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.

Multidimensional rehabilitation programmes for adult cancer survivors

Background: Multidimensional rehabilitation programmes (MDRPs) have developed in response to the growing number of people living with and surviving cancer. MDRPs comprise a physical component and a psychosocial component. Studies of the effectiveness of these programmes have not been reviewed and synthesised.

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of studies examining the effectiveness of MDRPs in terms of maintaining or improving the physical and psychosocial well-being of adult cancer survivors.

Search methods: We conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsychINFO up to February 2012.

Selection criteria: Selection criteria focused on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of multidimensional interventions for adult cancer survivors. Interventions had to include a physical component and a psychosocial component and to have been carried out on two or more occasions following completion of primary cancer treatment. Outcomes had to be assessed using validated measures of physical health and psychosocial well-being. Non-English language papers were included.

Data collection and analysis: Pairs of review authors independently selected trials, rated their methodological quality and extracted relevant data. Although meta-analyses of primary and secondary endpoints were planned there was a high level of study heterogeneity and only one common outcome measure (SF-36) could be statistically synthesised. In addition, we conducted a narrative analysis of interventions, particularly in terms of inspecting and identifying intervention components, grouping or categorising interventions and examining potential common links and outcomes.

Main results: Twelve RCTs (comprising 1669 participants) met the eligibility criteria. We judged five studies to have a moderate risk of bias and assessed the remaining seven as having a high risk of bias. It was possible to include SF-36 physical health component scores from five studies in a meta-analysis. Participating in a MDRP was associated with an increase in SF-36 physical health component scores (mean difference (MD) 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 4.31, P = 0.04). The findings from the narrative analysis suggested that MDRPs with a single domain or outcome focus appeared to be more successful than programmes with multiple aims. In addition, programmes that comprised participants with different types of cancer compared to cancer site-specific programmes were more likely to show positive improvements in physical outcomes. The most effective mode of service delivery appeared to be face-to-face contact supplemented with at least one follow-up telephone call. There was no evidence to indicate that MDRPs which lasted longer than six months improved outcomes beyond the level attained at six months. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that services were more effective if they were delivered by a particular type of health professional.

Authors' conclusions: There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of brief, focused MDRPs for cancer survivors. Rigorous and methodologically sound clinical trials that include an economic analysis are required.

Is communication guidance mistaken? Qualitative study of parent-oncologist communication in childhood cancer

background: Guidance encourages oncologists to engage patients and relatives in discussing the emotions that accompany cancer diagnosis and treatment. We investigated the perspectives of parents of children with leukaemia on the role of paediatric oncologists in such discussion. methods: Qualitative study comprising 33 audio-recorded parent–oncologist consultations and semi-structured interviews with 67 parents during the year following diagnosis. results: Consultations soon after the diagnosis were largely devoid of overt discussion of parental emotion. Interviewed parents did not describe a need for such discussion. They spoke of being comforted by oncologists’ clinical focus, by the biomedical information they provided and by their calmness and constancy. When we explicitly asked parents 1 year later about the oncologists’ role in emotional support, they overwhelmingly told us that they did not want to discuss their feelings with oncologists. They wanted to preserve the oncologists’ focus on their child’s clinical care, deprecated anything that diverted from this and spoke of the value of boundaries in the parent–oncologist relationship. conclusion: Parents were usually comforted by oncologists, but this was not achieved in the way suggested by communication guidance. Communication guidance would benefit from an enhanced understanding of how emotional support is experienced by those who rely on it.

Risk of metabolic syndrome in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors

The aim of this study was to assess the risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in postmenopausal breast cancer survivors as compared with postmenopausal women without breast cancer. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 104 postmenopausal breast cancer survivors were compared with 208 postmenopausal women (controls) attending a university hospital. Eligibility criteria included the following: amenorrhea longer than 12 months and aged 45 years or older, treated for breast cancer, and metastasis-free for at least 5 years. The control group consisted of women with amenorrhea longer than 12 months and aged 45 years or older and without breast cancer, matched by age and menopause status (in a proportion of 1:2 as sample calculation). Clinical and anthropometric data were collected. Biochemical parameters, including total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, and C-reactive protein, were measured. Women showing three or more diagnostic criteria were diagnosed as having MetS: waist circumference of 88 cm or larger, blood pressure of 130/85 mm Hg or higher, triglycerides level of 150 mg/dL or higher, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level lower than 50 mg/dL, and glucose level of 100 mg/dL or higher. For statistical analysis, Student's t test, χ2 test, and logistic regression (odds ratio [OR]) were used. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of breast cancer survivors was 60.6 (8.6) years, with a mean (SD) follow-up of 9.4 (4.4) years. A higher percentage of breast cancer survivors (46.2%) were obese as compared with controls (32.7%; P < 0.05), and a smaller percentage showed optimal values for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, glucose, and C-reactive protein versus controls (P < 0.05). MetS was diagnosed in 50% of breast cancer survivors and in 37.5% of control group women (P < 0.05). Among the MetS diagnostic criteria, the most prevalent was abdominal obesity (waist circumference >88 cm), affecting 62.5% and 67.8% of the participants, respectively. In the control group, breast cancer survivors had a higher risk for MetS (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04-2.68), dysglycemia (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.09-3.03), and hypertension (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.02-2.89). CONCLUSIONS: Postmenopausal breast cancer survivors present a higher risk of developing MetS as compared with women without breast cancer. © 2012 by The North American Menopause Society.