'Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES)' is a registry for the study of the physical and psychosocial impact of cancer and its treatment from a dynamic, growing population-based cohort of both short and long-term cancer survivors. PROFILES contains a large web-based component and are linked directly to clinical data from the population-based Eindhoven cancer registry. This paper describes the rationale and design of PROFILES. The primary aims of studies that use the PROFILES registry are: (1) psychosocial risk and outcome assessment to identify patients at high risk for poor physical and mental health outcomes, (2) to analyse mediating mechanisms to better understand the biological and behavioural factors associated with cancer treatment outcomes, and (3) to evaluate physical and psychosocial care needs of cancer survivors. PROFILES is a tool that enables data collection management; from inviting patients to participation in studies, to collecting patient-reported outcomes data via web-based or mailed questionnaires and linking these data with clinical data. The availability of a control cohort of approximately 2000 persons from the general population who complete the same basic questionnaire annually will provide the opportunity to estimate the unique impact of cancer, beyond that of normal ageing and comorbidities. Raw data from the PROFILES registry will be available for non-commercial scientific research, subject to study question, privacy and confidentiality restrictions, and registration (www.profilesregistry.nl).

Purpose The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between employment and financial toxicity by examining the prevalence of, and factors associated with, financial toxicity among cancer survivors. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of a sub-sample from the Dutch Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis and logistic regression were used. Results A total of 2931 participants with diverse cancer types were included in the analysis with a mean age of 55 years (range 18 to 65). Nearly half (49%) of participants were employed at the time of the survey, and 22% reported financial toxicity. Those who were not employed were at greater risk of financial toxicity (27% vs 16%, p < 0.001), and this did not vary according to time since diagnosis. The odds of reporting financial toxicity were greater for participants who were male, younger, unmarried, with low education, low socioeconomic status, or without paid employment. Those with basal cell carcinoma had lower risk of financial toxicity, while those with haematological or colorectal cancer had highest risk of financial toxicity. Conclusions This research confirms that unemployment is significantly associated with financial toxicity and that those with limited financial resources are most at risk. Implications for cancer survivors Increased awareness of financial toxicity and its associated factors among clinicians may result in improved screening and appropriate referrals for support services. The implementation of effective multidisciplinary return to work interventions, as part of standard cancer survivorship care, may reduce financial toxicity among cancer survivors.

IMPORTANCE As the resolution of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis is unforeseeable, and/or a second wave of infections may arrive in the fall of 2020, it is important to evaluate patients' perspectives to learn from this. OBJECTIVE To assess how Dutch patients with cancer perceive cancer treatment and follow-up care (including experiences with telephone and video consultations [TC/VC]) and patients' well-being in comparison with a norm population during the COVID-19 crisis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional study of patients participating in the Dutch Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry and a norm population who completed a questionnaire from April to May 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Logistic regression analysis assessed factors associated with changes in cancer care (treatment or follow-up appointment postponed/canceled or changed to TC/VC). Differences in quality of life, anxiety/depression, and loneliness between patients and age-matched and sex-matched norm participants were evaluated with regression models. RESULTS The online questionnaire was completed by 4094 patients (48.6% response), of whom most were male (2493 [60.9%]) and had a mean (SD) age of 63.0 (11.1) years. Of these respondents, 886 (21.7%) patients received treatment; 2725 (55.6%) received follow-up care. Treatment or follow-up appointments were canceled for 390 (10.8%) patients, whereas 160 of 886 (18.1%) in treatment and 234 of 2725 (8.6%) in follow-up had it replaced by a TC/VC. Systemic therapy, active surveillance, or surgery were associated with cancellation of treatment or follow-up appointment. Younger age, female sex, comorbidities, metastasized cancer, being worried about getting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and receiving supportive care were associated with replacement of a consultation with a TC/VC. Patients and norm participants reported that the COVID-19 crisis made them contact their general practitioner (852 of 4068 [20.9%] and 218 of 979 [22.3%]) or medical specialist/nurse (585 of 4068 [14.4%] and 144 of 979 [14.7%]) less quickly when they had physical complaints or concerns. Most patients who had a TC/VC preferred a face-to-face consultation, but 151 of 394 (38.3%) were willing to use a TC/VC again. Patients with cancer were more worried about getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with the 977 norm participants (917 of 4094 [22.4%] vs 175 of 977 [17.9%]). Quality of life, anxiety, and depression were comparable, but norm participants more often reported loneliness (114 of 977 [11.7%] vs 287 of 4094 [7.0%]) than patients with cancer (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with cancer in the Netherlands, 1 in 3 reported changes in cancer care in the first weeks of the COVID-19 crisis. Long-term outcomes need to be monitored. The crisis may affect the mental well-being of the general population relatively more than that of patients with cancer.

BackgroundImproving questionnaire response rates is an everlasting issue for research. Today, the Internet can easily be used to collect data quickly. However, collecting data on the Internet can lead to biased samples because not everyone is able to access or use the Internet. The older population, for example, is much less likely to use the Internet. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-Term Evaluation of Survivorship (PROFILES) registry offers a platform to collect Web-based and paper questionnaires and to try different measures to improve response rates.ObjectiveIn this study, our aim was to study the influence of two methods of invitation on the response rate. Our second aim was to examine the preference of questionnaire mode of administration (paper or Web-based) for the older patient in particular.MethodsTo test these two invitational methods, 3406 colorectal cancer patients between ages 18 and 85 years received an invitation containing an access code for the Web-based questionnaire. They could also request a paper questionnaire with an included reply card (paper-optional group). In contrast, 179 randomly selected colorectal cancer patients received a paper questionnaire with the invitation (paper-included group). They could also choose to fill out the Web-based questionnaire with the included access code.ResultsResponse rates did not differ between the paper-optional and the paper-included groups (73.14%, 2491/3406 and 74.9%, 134/179, P=.57). In the paper-optional group, online response was significantly higher when compared to the paper-included group (41.23%, 1027/2491 vs 12.7%, 17/134, P<.001). The majority of online respondents responded after the first invitation (95.33%, 979/1027), which was significantly higher than the paper respondents (52.19%, 764/1464, P<.001). Respondents aged 70 years and older chose to fill out a paper questionnaire more often (71.0%, 677/954). In the oldest age group (≥80 years), 18.2% (61/336) of the respondents filled out a Web-based questionnaire.ConclusionsThe lack of difference in response rates between invitation modes implies that researchers can leave out a paper questionnaire at invitation without lowering response rates. It may be preferable not to include a paper questionnaire because more respondents then will fill out a Web-based questionnaire, which will lead to faster available data. However, due to respondent preference, it is not likely that paper questionnaires can be left out completely in the near future.

PurposeAttrition and subsequent missing data pose a challenge in longitudinal research in oncology. This study examined factors associated with attrition in the PROFILES registry, and its impact on observed health-related quality of life (HRQOL) estimates.MethodsSociodemographic, clinical, and HRQOL data were collected annually from a cohort of 2625 colorectal cancer survivors between 2010 and 2015. Participant characteristics according to time of dropout were compared using analysis of variance and chi-square tests. Predictors of attrition were examined in logistic regression analysis. Multilevel linear mixed models were constructed to investigate associations between attrition and HRQOL over time.ResultsParticipants who dropped out were more likely to be female (OR = 1.23, CI = 1.02–1.47), older (OR = 1.20, CI = 1.09–1.33), less educated (OR = 1.64, CI = 1.30–2.11), and to have depressive symptoms (OR = 1.84, CI = 1.39–2.44) than full responders, and less likely to have high socioeconomic status (OR = 0.74, CI = 0.61–0.94). Participants who dropped out earlier reported significantly worse HRQOL, functioning, and psychosocial symptoms, which declined at a steeper rate over time, than full responders.ConclusionsCancer survivors’ HRQOL may be overestimated in longitudinal research due to attrition of the most unwell participants.Implications for Cancer SurvivorsCancer survivors with the poorest health are at risk of dropping out of PROFILES and possibly withdrawing from other activities. Optimizing participation in PROFILES—a potential mechanism for providing information and access to support—is an avenue for keeping this group engaged.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11764-019-00793-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Although HRQoL remains relatively stable over time, HRQoL data needs to be interpreted with care as many confounding factors can have an impact on HRQOL. Our data (which is freely available) can aid in the interpretation of QLQ-C30 scores and can help increase our understanding of the influence of age, sex, time and morbid conditions on HRQoL among cancer patients.

PurposeThe ‘Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship’ (PROFILES) registry collects patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from short- and long-term cancer survivors in the Netherlands, in a population-based setting. The aim of this analysis is to assess the generalizability of observational PRO research among cancer survivors by comparing socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, and survival of participants and non-participants in cancer survivors invited for questionnaire research through the PROFILES registry.MethodsBetween 2008 and 2015, cancer survivors with different cancer diagnoses (N = 14,011) were invited to participate in PROFILES registry studies, of whom 69% (N = 9684) participated. Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics and survival data, collected through the Netherlands Cancer Registry, were associated with participation versus non-participation in multivariable logistic regression analyses and cox proportional hazard regression models, respectively.ResultsParticipants had a significantly better survival compared to non-participants (HR = 1.47, P < .01). Participation was associated with male gender, being 60–70 years old, high socio-economic status, receiving any treatment, receiving radiotherapy, having no comorbidities, and a cancer diagnosis 2–3 years before invitation. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates that the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) might be up to 1.3 points lower (scale 0–100) using hot deck imputation compared to non-imputed participant data.ConclusionsCancer survivors not participating in observational PROs research significantly differ from participants, with respect to socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, and survival. Their HRQoL scores may be systematically lower compared to participants. Therefore, even in PRO studies with relatively high participation rates, observed outcomes may represent the healthier patient with better outcomes.

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.