No abstract

Background The prognosis of patients with brain tumors is widely varying. Psychooncologic need and depression are high among these patients and their family caregivers. However, the need for counselling and need for referral to psychooncology care is often underestimated. Methods We performed a single-institution cross-sectional study to evaluate psychooncologic need, depression and information need in both patients and their family caregivers. The Hornheider Screening Instrument (HSI) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) were used to evaluate psychooncologic need and depression, and a study-specific questionnaire was developed to evaluate information need. Multivariable analyses were performed to detect correlations. Results A total of 444 patients and their family caregivers were approached to participate, with a survey completion rate of 35.4%. More than half of the patients and family caregivers were in need for referral to psychooncology care and 31.9% of patients suffered from clinically relevant depression. In multivariable analysis, psychooncologic need were positively associated with mild (odds ratio, OR, 7.077; 95% confidence interval, CI, 2.263–22.137; p = 0.001) or moderate to severe (OR 149.27, 95% CI 26.690–737.20; p <  0.001) depression. Patient information need was associated with depression (OR 3.007, 95% CI 1.175–7.695; p = 0.022). Conclusions Unmet counselling need in brain tumor patients and their family caregivers associate to high psychooncologic need and depression. Adequate information may decrease the need for referral to psychooncology care and treatment of depression in these patients. Future studies should further explore these relations to promote development of supportive structures.

Purpose The effectiveness of a pathway with quality of life (QoL) diagnosis and therapy has been already demonstrated in an earlier randomized trial (RCT) in patients with breast cancer. We refined the pathway by developing and evaluating an electronic tool for QoL assessment in routine inpatient and outpatient care. Methods In a single-arm study, patients with breast cancer with surgical treatment in two German hospitals were enrolled. QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23) was measured with an electronic tool after surgery and during aftercare in outpatient medical practices (3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months) so that results (QoL-profile) were available immediately. Feedback by patients and physicians was analyzed to evaluate feasibility and impact on patient-physician communication. Results Between May 2016 and July 2018, 56 patients were enrolled. Physicians evaluated the QoL pathway as feasible. Patients whose physician regularly discussed QoL-profiles with them reported significantly more often that their specific needs were cared for (p < .001) and that their physician had found the right treatment strategy for these needs (p < .001) compared with patients whose doctor never/rarely discussed QoL-profiles. The latter significantly more often had no benefit from QoL assessments (p < .001). Conclusion The QoL pathway with electronic QoL assessments is feasible for inpatient and outpatient care. QoL results should be discussed directly with the patient. Clinical trial information NCT04334096, date of registration 06.04.2020

Background As a consequence of effective treatment procedures, the number of long-term survivors of colorectal cancer is ever increasing. Adopting the method of a previous study on breast cancer patients, the goal of the present research was to investigate colorectal cancer patients’ recollections of their illness and treatment experiences up to seven years after they have been enrolled in a randomised controlled clinical trial on the direct improvement of quality of life (RCT DIQOL). Methods Colorectal cancer survivors in Bavaria, Germany were mailed a questionnaire on average 78·3 months after the start of their therapy and enrolment into RCT DIQOL. The questionnaire enquired about their worst experience during the colorectal cancer episode, positive aspects of the illness, and any advice they would give to newly diagnosed patients. Patient responses were categorised by two independent raters and cross-checked by a third independent rater. Frequencies of these categories were then quantitatively analysed using descriptive statistics. Results Of 146 remaining survivors initially enrolled in RCT DIQOL, 96 (66%) returned the questionnaire. The majority (33%) of statements regarding the worst experience was referring to “psychological distress”, followed by “indigestion and discomfort during defecation” (17%), and “cancer diagnosis” (16%). Among survivors with history of a stoma, the majority (36%) regarded “stoma” as their worst experience. With 45%, “change in life priorities” has been the most frequent positive category before “support by physicians/ nurses” (25%). 43% of the survivors deemed “fighting spirit” as most important advice to overcome the disease. Conclusion Even after many years, colorectal cancer survivors clearly remember experiences from the time of their illness. Echoing the results of the previous breast cancer survivors’ study, “psychological distress”, “change in life priorities” and “fighting spirit” emerged as prominent concepts. In addition, some aspects like the impact of a stoma are of specific importance for colorectal cancer survivors. These findings can be used to inform programmes to improve patient- and quality of life centred aftercare of tumour patients. Clinical trial information NCT04930016, date of registration 18.06.2021.

Introduction Due to frequent treatment side effects and weight loss, colorectal cancer patients require oncologic care and nutritional counseling both during and after hospitalization. The current study evaluated differences in discharge and side effects management and nutritional behavior between colorectal cancer patients of a control group without systematic counseling and of an intervention group with access to structured in- and outpatient oncology nurse and nutritional counseling. Methods The presented explorative, quantitative, single-center, interventional pilot study is a health services research project with a quasi-experimental design. Using a self-designed standardized questionnaire, data were collected from the control group (n = 75) before and from the intervention group (n = 114) after the introduction of in- and outpatient oncology nurse and structured systematic nutritional counseling. The in- and outpatient counseling services were developed and evaluated in the form of a structured nurse-led counseling concept. Results Intervention group patients profited significantly from inpatient oncology nurse counseling in seven different areas of discharge management. No differences were observed concerning patient-reported general and gastrointestinal side effects except for xerostomia and dysphagia, but of the patients participating in both in- and outpatient oncology nurse counseling, 90.0% were better able to cope with general side effects of treatment. Patients with in- and outpatient structured systematic nutritional counseling more frequently received nutritional information (p = 0.001), were better at gauging food intolerances (p = 0.023), and followed the dietician's advice in cases of gastrointestinal side effects significantly more often (p = 0.003) than control patients. Counselor-reported outcomes concerning gastrointestinal side effects showed improvement in most of the patients taking part in systematic in- and outpatient nutritional counseling, except for weight loss in 4 patients. Conclusion In- and outpatient counseling in discharge and side effects management and nutrition improve the outcomes of colorectal cancer patients. Outpatient counseling should be further developed and evaluated in future studies.

No abstract