Objective: Chemotherapy-induced cognitive impairments are reported by many cancer survivors. Research to date has not provided a clear description of their nature, extent, mechanisms, and duration. To investigate the impairments and factors that could influence their identification and severity, the present meta-analysis brings together research on this topic in adult cancer patients. Method: Our random-model meta-analysis includes 44 studies investigating the cognitive performance of adults treated with chemotherapy for non-central nervous system malignancies, primarily breast and testicular cancer. We conducted several subgroup analyses to identify the level of cognitive impairments in longitudinal and cross-sectional studies. We also pursued several multilevel model regressions to investigate the impact of methodological (study quality) and clinical moderators (diagnosis, age, time since treatment) on the observed effect sizes. Results: Cognitive impairments were found in cross-sectional studies in immediate free recall, delayed memory, verbal memory, delayed recognition memory, selective attention, and attention capacity. Surprisingly, prior to chemotherapy, patients performed better than matched controls. In longitudinal studies, patients’ performance increased from baseline to follow-up, an effect that was stronger in patients than controls. None of the chosen moderators influenced the magnitude of estimated summary effect sizes. Conclusions: The likelihood to identify impairments rests on the type of design employed, as memory and attention impairments are only detected in cross-sectional studies. We discuss the lack of significant impact of moderators on the effect sizes despite the heterogeneity of results, while providing recommendations toward decreasing the heterogeneity in future studies.
IntroductionMedically unexplained symptoms (MUS) are common in primary-care and secondary-care settings. Persistent symptoms of MUS are associated with a variety of poor outcomes including increased disability, poor quality of life and high healthcare costs. The aim of this systematic review is to review the relevant literature to determine the prevalence of MUS in patients who are high users of healthcare and/or who accrue high healthcare costs.Methods and analysisThis review will include studies with cases that are either high users of general healthcare or are patients who accrue high healthcare costs, aged ≥18 years and where a recognised measure of MUS, either a standardised clinical interview or questionnaire, was employed. The following citation databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, PROSPERO and the Cochrane library will be systematically searched from inception to 30 June 2018. The Cochrane library was included because of the significant proportion of non-observational studies currently published in the database. The prevalence of MUS and associated disorders along with the costs or use of healthcare associated with the presence of MUS will be estimated with 95% CI. If possible, study results will be pooled into a meta-analysis. However, if heterogeneity is high, data analysis will be presented descriptively.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review since only data from existing studies will be used. Results of this review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and at national and international conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018100388
Background/aims New classes of cancer drugs bring a range of unknown and undesirable adverse events. Adverse event monitoring is essential in phase I trials to assess toxicity and safety. In phase II, the focus is also on efficacy but robust data on adverse events continue to inform the safety and the adverse event profile. Standard, clinician-led monitoring has been shown to underestimate patients’ symptoms. Hence, patient-reported adverse event monitoring has been argued to complement and improve the information on adverse events in early phase clinical trials. With advances in information technology, real-time patient self-reported adverse events in trials are feasible. This study explored the experiences and procedures for reporting adverse events in early phase trials among patients, clinical staff, and trial staff, and their views on using an electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event system in this setting. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients, purposively sampled across ages, gender, and different phases of trials, and with clinical and trial-related staff involved in early phase trials (e.g. consultants, research nurses, hospital-based trial assistants/data managers, trial unit management staff). Interviews explored patient experiences and views on current adverse event reporting processes and electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting. Framework analysis techniques were used to analyse the data. Results Interviewees were from two hospital trusts with early phase portfolios in England and a trial unit, and included sixteen patients, five consultants, four research nurses, five hospital-based trial staff, and two trial unit staff. Interviews identified three key themes (patient experiences, data flow, and views on electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting). Stakeholders emphasised the intensity of trials for patients and the importance of extensive information provision within the uncertainty of early phase trial drugs. Regular face-to-face appointments for patients supplemented by telephone contact aimed to capture any adverse events. Delayed or under-reporting of mild- or low-severity symptoms was evident among patients. Hospital-based staff highlighted the challenges of current data collection including intense timescales, monitoring by trial sponsors, and high workload. Positive views on electronic patient-reported outcome adverse events highlighted that this could provide a more comprehensive and accurate view on the side effects of new drugs. Clinical staff emphasised patient safety and the need for clear responsibilities for monitoring. The need for careful decision-making about data flow and symptom attribution was highlighted; with trial unit staff emphasising the need for clinician review. Conclusion Technology advances mean it is timely to explore the benefits and challenges of electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting. This is a complex area warranting further consideration within the trial community. We have developed an online patient self-reporting tool and a small pilot with early phase trial patients is underway.
Background: Increasing numbers of ovarian cancer patients are living longer and requiring regular follow-up to detect disease recurrence. New models of follow-up care are needed to meet the growing number and needs of this patient group. The potential for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to capture key symptoms and online technology to facilitate long-term follow-up has been suggested. Objectives: Prior to a pilot study exploring the potential for electronic patient-reported symptom monitoring, the content of an online intervention was developed via Delphi methodology. Design and setting: A Delphi process was conducted aiming to obtain consensus amongst the clinicians and patients from 4 hospitals on the key aspects to monitor during follow-up after ovarian cancer treatment, and how to monitor them in an online intervention. A two round Delphi was conducted. Consensus was defined as at least 70% agreement. Results: Out of 43 participants, 30 (18 patients, 12 healthcare professionals) completed round 1 and 19 (11 patients, 8 healthcare professionals) completed round 2. Consensus was reached on the key symptoms to monitor, and the importance of monitoring both duration and frequency of symptoms. Opportunity for review of psychological wellbeing and holistic needs were considered important by both groups. The frequency of online questionnaire completion, timeframe for patients to reflect on (e.g. during the past X weeks), and the choice of PROMs items to monitor symptoms did not reach the consensus threshold. Conclusion: It is crucial that any intervention and the selection of PROMs is fully described to ensure transparency about the development and decisions taken. In this work, a set of key symptoms and areas to monitor were agreed, which has informed the design of an online intervention and a subsequent pilot study is now underway. The proposed model of remote follow-up using electronic PROMs could be adapted and explored in other cancer sites.
IntroductionIn all healthcare settings, a small proportion of patients account for a large level of healthcare use and associated high healthcare costs. Depression and anxiety are common co-morbidities in patients who are high users of care. The aims of this systematic review are to: (1) estimate the prevalence of anxiety/depression in adults who are high users of general physical healthcare services and/or who accrue high healthcare costs (2) estimate the magnitude of healthcare use associated with the presence of anxiety/depression.Methods and analysisThis review will include any studies where patients are high users of primary, secondary or emergency healthcare services and/or accrue high healthcare costs. This is the first systematic review to focus on patients who are over the age of 18, whose degree of anxiety/depression has been evaluated with a standardised questionnaire or by a clinical interview generating a diagnosis according to international diagnostic criteria. The review will include eligible studies indexed in Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Library from inception to 1 April 2019. We will estimate the prevalence of anxiety/depression in these populations and the magnitude of use associated with anxiety/depression across various general physical healthcare settings. We will provide a narrative description of findings and factors that may influence them. A meta-analysis may be pursued if the degree of heterogeneity across studies is acceptable.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will use data from existing studies, hence no ethical approvals are required. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and at relevant academic meetings.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO CRD42018102628.
The aim of cancer follow-up is to detect relapses early, to monitor and manage early and late treatment toxicities, and to offer holistic post-treatment support (Heathcote et al., 2018). As more people live beyond cancer, the demand for follow-up monitoring increases (Maddams, Utley, & Møller, 2012; Stark et al., 2015). The problem is that cancer services will be unable to cater for the projected 4
Background: Patient's satisfaction has been regarded as a subjective reflection of the quality of care received by patients during their hospital stay. However, which factors may influence patient satisfaction in different healthcare settings needs to be determined. Methods: Cross-sectional investigation of satisfaction at the time of discharge in 52 consecutive patients admitted in a UK Referral Centre for Thoracic Surgery for either elective (41 patients) or acute (11 patients) procedures. We evaluated patients' satisfaction with the inpatient service through the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer IN-PATSAT32 standardised questionnaire.Major cardiopulmonary complications were defined according to the definition of the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. We focused on the General Patient Satisfaction Scale of the questionnaire to explore its relationship with several demographic and clinical factors. Relationships were tested using univariate regression analyses. Results: General inpatient satisfaction was lower in patients with complications rather than those without (P=0.006) and in males rather than females (P=0.04). Living area, sex, and complications explained 22% of the variation in general inpatient satisfaction (P=0.006). Conclusions: Regardless of the diagnosis, post-operative complications were associated with a lower patient satisfaction following thoracic surgery in our group of patients. This was particularly so for males and patients from rural areas. Research should focus on different clinical groups in our speciality to determine the specific strategies warranted to improve their quality of care and hence increase their satisfaction with inpatient services.
Data from research on amnesia and epilepsy are equivocal with regards to the dissociation, shown in animal models, between rapid and slow long-term memory consolidation. Cancer treatments have lasting disruptive effects on memory and on brain structures associated with memory, but their acute effects on synaptic consolidation are unknown. We investigated the hypothesis that cancer treatment selectively impairs slow synaptic consolidation. Cancer patients and their matched controls were administered a novel list-learning task modelled on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test. Learning, forgetting, and retrieval were tested before, and one day after patients' first chemotherapy treatment. Due to difficulties recruiting cancer patients at that sensitive time, we were only able to study 10 patients and their matched controls. Patients exhibited treatment-dependent accelerated forgetting over 24 hours compared to their own pre-treatment performance and to the performance of control participants, in agreement with our hypothesis. The number of intrusions increased after treatment, suggesting retrieval deficits. Future research with larger samples should adapt our methods to distinguish between consolidation and retrieval causes for treatment-dependent accelerated forgetting. The presence of significant accelerated forgetting in our small sample is indicative of a potentially large acute effect of chemotherapy treatment on forgetting, with potentially clinically relevant implications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.