Patient-reported outcomes of cancer survivors in England 1-5 years after diagnosis: a cross-sectional survey

Adam W Glaser, Lorna K Fraser, Jessica Corner, Richard Feltbower, Eva J A Morris, Greg Hartwell, Mike Richards, Richard Wagland, Adam W Glaser, Lorna K Fraser, Jessica Corner, Richard Feltbower, Eva J A Morris, Greg Hartwell, Mike Richards, Richard Wagland

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the feasibility of collecting population-based patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in assessing quality of life (QoL) to inform the development of a national PROMs programme for cancer and to begin to describe outcomes in a UK cohort of survivors.

Design: Cross-sectional postal survey of cancer survivors using a population-based sampling approach.

Setting: English National Health Service.

Participants: 4992 breast, colorectal, prostate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) survivors 1-5 years from diagnosis.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Implementation issues, response rates, cancer-specific morbidities utilising items including the EQ5D, tumour-specific subscales of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and Social Difficulties Inventory.

Results: 3300 (66%) survivors returned completed questionnaires. The majority aged 85+ years did not respond and the response rates were lower for those from more deprived area. Response rates did not differ by gender, time since diagnosis or cancer type. The presence of one or more long-term conditions was associated with significantly lower QoL scores. Individuals from most deprived areas reported lower QoL scores and poorer outcomes on other measures, as did those self-reporting recurrent disease or uncertainty about disease status. QoL scores were comparable at all time points for all cancers except NHL. QoL scores were lower than those from the general population in Health Survey for England (2008) and General Practice Patient Survey (2012). 47% of patients reported fear of recurrence, while 20% reported moderate or severe difficulties with mobility or usual activities. Bowel and urinary problems were common among colorectal and prostate patients. Poor bowel and bladder control were significantly associated with lower QoL.

Conclusions: This method of assessing QoL of cancer survivors is feasible and acceptable to most survivors. Routine collection of national population-based PROMs will enable the identification of, and the support for, the specific needs of survivors while allowing for comparison of outcome by service provider.

References

    1. Maddams J, Brewster D, Gavin A, et al. Cancer prevalence in the United Kingdom: estimates for 2008. Br J Cancer 2009;101:541–7
    1. Elliott J, Fallows A, Staetsky L, et al. The health and well-being of cancer survivors in the UK: findings from a population-based survey. Br J Cancer 2011;105:S11–20
    1. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CE. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:278–300
    1. Richards M, Corner J, Maher J. The National Cancer Survivorship Initiative: new and emerging evidence on the ongoing needs of cancer survivors. Br J Cancer 2011;105:S1–4
    1. Garcia SF, Cella D, Clauser SB, et al. Standardizing patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer clinical trials: a patient-reported outcomes measurement information system initiative. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5106–12
    1. Bode RK, Hahn EA, DeVellis R, et al. Measuring participation: the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system experience. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:S60–5
    1. van de Poll-Franse LV, Horevoorts N, van Eenbergen M, et al. The patient reported outcomes following initial treatment and long term evaluation of survivorship registry: scope, rationale and design of an infrastructure for the study of physical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivorship cohorts. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:2188–94
    1. Den Oudsten BL, Traa MJ, Thong MSY, et al. Higher prevalence of sexual dysfunction in colon and rectal cancer survivors compared with the normative population: a population-based study. Eur J Cancer 2012;48:3161–70
    1. Hoffman RM, Hunt WC, Gilliland FD, et al. Patient satisfaction with treatment decisions for clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. Cancer 2003;97:1653–62
    1. Potosky AL, Davis WW, Hoffman RM, et al. Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1358–67
    1. Ayanian JZ, Zaslavsky AM, Arora NK, et al. Patients’ experiences with care for lung cancer and colorectal cancer: findings from the cancer care outcomes research and surveillance consortium. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4154–61
    1. Department of Health. National Cancer Patient Experience Survey Programme – 2010 National Survey Report, 2010. London, 2010. (accessed 4 Apr 2013)
    1. Davies N, Gibbons E, Mackintosh A, et al. A Structured Review of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMS) for Breast Cancer, Report to the Department of Health. Oxford, 2009. (accessed 4 Apr 2013)
    1. Morris C, Gibbons E, Fitzpatrick R. A Structured Review of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) for Prostate Cancer, Report to the Department of Health. Oxford, 2009. (accessed 4 Apr 2013).
    1. Hadi M, Gibbons E, Fitzpatrick R. A Structured Review of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) for Colorectal Cancer, Report to the Department of Health. Oxford, 2010. (accessed 4 Apr 2013)
    1. Department of Health Start Active, Stay Active: A report on physical activity from the four home countries’ Chief Medical Officers London, 2011
    1. The EuroQol Group EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36
    1. Wright EP, Kiely M, Johnston C, et al. Development and evaluation of an instrument to assess social difficulties in routine oncology practice. Qual Life Res 2005;14:373–86
    1. Wright P, Smith A, Brown S, et al. Measuring social difficulties: clinical meaning and utility of the social difficulties inventory (SDI). Psycho-Oncology 2006;15:S436–7
    1. Wright P, Smith AB, Keding A, et al. The social difficulties inventory (SDI): development of subscales and scoring guidance for staff. Psycho-Oncology 2011;20:36–43
    1. Sheldon H, Sizmur S. An evaluation of the National Cancer Survivorship Initiative test community projects: Picker Institute Europe, 2010. Oxford, 2010. (accessed 4 Apr 2013)
    1. Girgis A, Lambert S, Lecathelinais C. The supportive care needs survey for partners and caregivers of cancer survivors: development and psychometric evaluation. Psycho-Oncology 2011;20:387–93
    1. Ashley L, Jones H, Thomas J, et al. Integrating cancer survivors’ experiences into UK cancer registries: design and development of the ePOCS system (electronic patient-reported outcomes from cancer survivors). Br J Cancer 2011;105:S74–81
    1. Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:79.
    1. Department for Communities and Local Government. English Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010: Crown copyright. London, 2011. (accessed 4 Apr 2013)
    1. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng Y-S, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15
    1. Judd CM, McCLelland GH, Ryan CS. Data analysis: a model comparison approach. 2nd edn New York: Routledge, 2008
    1. National Research Ethics Service Differentiating audit, service evaluation and research version 1.1. 2006. (accessed 22 Jan 2013).
    1. Ganz PA, Land SR, Antonio C, et al. Cancer survivorship research: the challenge of recruiting adult long term cancer survivors from a cooperative clinical trials group. J Cancer Survivorship-Res Pract 2009;3:137–47
    1. Moller H, Richards S, Hanchett N, et al. Completeness of case ascertainment and survival time error in English cancer registries: impact on 1-year survival estimates. Br J Cancer 2011;105:170–76
    1. King MT, Viney R, Smith DP, et al. Survival gains needed to offset persistent adverse treatment effects in localised prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2012;106:638–45
    1. Markland AD, Goode PS, Redden DT, et al. Prevalence of urinary incontinence in men: results from the national health and nutrition examination survey. J Urol 2010;184:1022–7
    1. Craig R, Mindell J, Hirani V, eds. Health survey for England 2008. London: National Centre of Social Research, 2009. (Series HS no. 18).
    1. Department of Health The GP patient survey, 2012. (accessed 22 Jan 2013).
    1. Eakin EG, Youlden DR, Baade PD, et al. Health status of long-term cancer survivors: results from an Australian population-based sample. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:1969–76
    1. Kenfield SA, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci E, et al. Physical activity and survival after prostate cancer diagnosis in the health professionals follow-up study. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:726–32
    1. Barbiere JM, Greenberg DC, Wright KA, et al. The association of diagnosis in the private or NHS sector on prostate cancer stage and treatment. J Public Health 2012;34:108–14
    1. Department of Health. NHS Outcomes Framework 2012-13, 2011. (accessed 4 Apr 2013).

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi