BackgroundIn recent years, the question of how patients’ participating in online communities affects various patient reported outcomes (PROs) has been investigated in several ways.ObjectivesThis study aimed to systematically review all relevant literature identified using key search terms, with regard to, first, changes in PROs for cancer patients who participate in online communities and, second, the characteristics of patients who report such effects.MethodsA computerized search of the literature via PubMed (MEDLINE), PsycINFO (5 and 4 stars), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ScienceDirect was performed. Last search was conducted in June 2017. Studies with the following terms were included: (cancer patient) and (support group or health communities) and (online or Internet). A total of 21 studies were included and independently assessed by 2 investigators using an 11-item quality checklist.ResultsThe methodological quality of the selected studies varied: 12 were of high quality, eight were of adequate quality, and only one was of low quality. Most of the respondents were women (about 80%), most with breast cancer; their mean age was 50 years. The patients who were active in online support groups were mostly younger and more highly educated than the nonusers. The investigated PROs included general well-being (ie, mood and health), anxiety, depression, quality of life, posttraumatic growth, and cancer-related concerns. Only marginal effects—that is, PRO improvements—were found; in most cases they were insignificant, and in some cases they were contradictory.ConclusionsThe main shortcoming of this kind of study is the lack of methodological instruments for reliable measurements. Furthermore, some patients who participate in online communities or interact with peers via Internet do not expect to measure changes in their PROs. If cancer survivors want to meet other survivors and share information or get support, online communities can be a trustworthy and reliable platform to facilitate opportunities or possibilities to make this happen.

BACKGROUND: Given the major changes in internet use for health communication, the objective of the current study was to compare the internet use and wishes of cancer survivors

No abstract

Purpose This study aims to (1) examine the prevalence of painful versus non-painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) among long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors, (2) identify sociodemographic, clinical, and psychological factors associated with painful and non-painful CIPN, and (3) examine the associations of painful CIPN with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in comparison with non-painful CIPN, i.e., numbness/tingling. Methods All CRC survivors diagnosed between 2000 and 2009 as registered by the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry (Eindhoven region) were eligible for participation. Chemotherapy-treated survivors (n = 477) completed questions on CIPN (EORTC QLQ-CIPN20) and HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30). Results Painful CIPN was reported by 9% (n = 45) of survivors and non-painful CIPN was reported by 22% (n = 103). Time since diagnosis was related to painful CIPN, and time since diagnosis, a higher disease stage, osteoarthritis, and more anxiety symptoms were related to non-painful CIPN. Finally, survivors with painful CIPN reported a worse global quality of life and worse physical, role, cognitive, and social functioning compared to survivors with non-painful CIPN and those without any sensory CIPN. No differences were found between survivors with non-painful CIPN and those without sensory CIPN. Conclusions It seems that painful CIPN must be distinguished from non-painful CIPN, as only painful CIPN was related to a worse HRQoL. Future research is needed to examine whether painful CIPN must be distinguished from non-painful CIPN regarding predictors, mechanisms, and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with sarcoma are hypothesized to experience a prolonged route to a cancer diagnosis. This route, the total interval, can be divided into a patient interval (the time from the appearance of symptoms to physician consultation) and diagnostic interval (time from the first consultation to diagnosis). In the current study, the authors investigated these intervals among survivors of sarcoma and identified factors associated with prolonged intervals. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among adult patients with sarcoma 2 to 10 years after diagnosis. Patients completed a questionnaire regarding their total interval, which was linked to clinical data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Descriptive statistics were used to describe intervals. Based on Dutch clinical guidelines, a diagnostic interval ≥1 month was considered to be prolonged and an interval ≥3 months was considered as very long. Multivariable regression analyses investigated associations between patient and tumor characteristics and interval length. RESULTS: A total of 1099 participants were included (response rate, 58%); approximately 60% reported a patient interval ≥1 month and 36% reported a patient interval ≥3 months. Risk factors for a very long patient interval were sarcoma of the skin or pelvis, liposarcoma, or rhabdomyosarcoma. Stage III disease was associated with a shorter patient interval. The diagnostic interval length was ≥1 month in 55% of patients and ≥3 months in 28% of patients. Risk factors for a very long diagnostic interval were female sex, age <70 years, or having a synovial sarcoma or chordoma. CONCLUSIONS: The patient and diagnostic interval lengths were prolonged in a substantial percentage of this sarcoma survivorship population. Factors found to be associated with the length of the patient interval or the diagnostic interval differed. Creating awareness among (especially young) patients to consult a physician and awareness among physicians to consider a sarcoma diagnosis will contribute to optimization of the total interval.

BackgroundProviding feedback to patients on their patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help patients in monitoring their functioning and symptoms and may help empower them.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate whether patients with lymphoma wished to receive PRO feedback, including the option to compare their scores with those of their peers, and how this feedback was evaluated.MethodsWe invited 64 patients participating in a lymphoma cohort who were eligible for a follow-up questionnaire and gave them the option to receive PRO feedback. Patients completed questions about health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptoms. PRO feedback was provided via bar charts.ResultsOf the 64 invited patients, 45 participated (response rate 70%) and 36 of those (80%) wished to receive PRO feedback. The vast majority (34/36, 94%) compared their scores with those of a lymphoma reference cohort, and 64% (23/36) compared their score with those of a normative population without cancer. All patients wished to receive feedback on their HRQoL, and 29 (81%) to 33 (92%) wanted feedback on their functioning, fatigue, neuropathy, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Of the 36 participants wishing to receive PRO feedback, 35 (97%) viewed it as being useful, with reassurance and knowledge about their own functioning in relation to what is “normal” being the most frequently mentioned reasons.ConclusionsA high number of patients with lymphoma wished to receive PRO feedback. Patients reported the comparison of their scores versus a lymphoma reference cohort as most valuable. Further research should investigate whether PRO feedback could increase empowerment and possibly improve HRQoL.

Background: Sarcoma patients often experience a long time to diagnosis, known as the total interval. This interval can be divided into the patient (time from symptoms to doctor consultation) and diagnostic intervals (time from first consultation to diagnosis). In other cancers, a long total interval has been associated with worse outcomes, but its effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has never been investigated among sarcoma patients. This study investigates the association between (1) the actual time to diagnosis and HRQoL; (2) the perceived impact of the diagnostic interval length and HRQoL; (3) the actual length and perceived impact of the length and the HRQoL of sarcoma survivors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed among sarcoma patients aged ≥18, diagnosed 2–10 years ago in the Netherlands. The participants completed a questionnaire on HRQoL, the time to diagnosis, the perceived impact of the diagnostic interval on HRQoL, and coping. Results: 1099 participants were included (response rate, 58%). The mean time since diagnosis was 67.4 months. More than half reported a patient (60%) or diagnostic interval (55%) ≥1 month. A third (31%) perceived a negative impact of the diagnostic interval length on HRQoL. Patient or diagnostic interval length was not associated with HRQoL. By contrast, participants perceiving a negative impact (32%) had lower HRQoL scores than those perceiving a positive (11%) or no impact (58%) (p = 0.000). This association remained significant in a multivariable model, in which maladaptive coping strategies and tumour characteristics were also found to be associated with HRQoL. Participants perceiving a negative impact of the length of the diagnostic interval related this to high psychological distress levels, more physical disabilities, and worse prognosis. Conclusion: The perceived impact of the diagnostic interval length was associated with the HRQoL of sarcoma survivors, whereas the actual length was not associated with HRQoL. Maladaptive coping strategies were independently associated with HRQoL. This offers opportunities for early intervention to improve HRQoL.

Purpose Cancer‐related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most prevalent symptoms experienced by cancer survivors. However, researchers are only beginning to elucidate the risk factors, underlying mechanism(s), and its association with other outcomes. Research on the association between CRF and mortality is limited. Methods The study sample comprised 2059 short‐term (<5 years postdiagnosis) cancer survivors from four PROFILES registry studies. Survivors diagnosed with stage I‐III colorectal cancer (CRC) or stage I‐III endometrial cancer (EC), with no evidence of disease, were identified and followed‐up by the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Fatigue was assessed with the Fatigue Assessment Scale. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for demographic, clinical, and lifestyle characteristics were performed to assess the association of CRF with all‐cause mortality. Date of censoring was February 1, 2017. Results Prevalence of CRF varied between 35.8% (male CRC) and 43.6% (female CRC). After a median follow‐up period of 9.0 years, a total of 408 survivors (20%) had died. CRF was associated with increased all‐cause mortality in male CRC survivors (HRadj = 1.75, 95% CI [1.31‐2.33]). This association remained statistically significant after excluding survivors experiencing anhedonia. For female CRC (HRadj = 1.32, 95% CI [0.90‐1.97]) and EC (HRadj = 1.27, 95% CI [0.84‐1.90]) survivors, there was no significant association with all‐cause mortality for the fatigued group in multivariable analyses. Conclusion Our study found that CRF is significantly associated with all‐cause mortality in male CRC survivors, irrespective of potential confounders. This result suggests that clinicians should increase their attention towards the recognition and treatment of CRF.