ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) during the diagnostic and treatment trajectory of high-grade extremity soft-tissue sarcoma (eSTS) has rarely been investigated for adults (18-65 y) and the elderly (aged ≥65 y), despite a potential variation in challenges from diverse levels of physical, social, or work-related activities. This study assesses HRQoL from time of diagnosis to one year thereafter among adults and the elderly with eSTS. METHODS: HRQoL of participants from the VALUE-PERSARC trial (n = 97) was assessed at diagnosis and 3, 6 and 12 months thereafter, utilizing the PROMIS Global Health (GH), PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and EQ-5D-5L. RESULTS: Over time, similar patterns were observed in all HRQoL measures, i.e., lower HRQoL scores than the Dutch population at baseline (PROMIS-PF:46.8, PROMIS GH-Mental:47.3, GH-Physical:46.2, EQ-5D-5L:0.76, EQ-VAS:72.6), a decrease at 3 months, followed by an upward trend to reach similar scores as the general population at 12 months (PROMIS-PF:49.9, PROMIS GH-Physical:50.1, EQ-5D-5L:0.84, EQ-VAS:81.5), except for the PROMIS GH-Mental (47.5), where scores remained lower than the general population mean (T = 50). Except for the PROMIS-PF, no age-related differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: On average, eSTS patients recover well physically from surgery, yet the mental component demonstrates no progression, irrespective of age. These results underscore the importance of comprehensive care addressing both physical and mental health.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Current treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients' preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients' knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients' knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity STS patients. METHODS: The VALUE-PERSARC study is a parallel cluster randomised control trial that aims to include at least 120 primarily diagnosed high-grade extremity STS patients in 6 Dutch hospitals. Eligible patients (≥18 years) are those without a treatment plan and treated with curative intent. Patients with sarcoma subtypes or treatment options not mentioned in PERSARC are unable to participate. Hospitals will be randomised between usual care (control) or care with the use of PERSARC (intervention). In the intervention condition, PERSARC will be used by STS professionals in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in patient consultations, where the oncological/orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnosis and discusses benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options. The primary outcomes are patients' knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) 1 week after the treatment decision has been made. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, 1 week and 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment decision. Data will be analysed following an intention-to-treat approach using a linear mixed model and taking into account clustering of patients within hospitals. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Ethical Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (METC-LDD) approved this protocol (NL76563.058.21). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-review journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL9160, NCT05741944.
Subject(s)
Sarcoma , Humans , Male , Female , Sarcoma/diagnosis , Sarcoma/therapy , Linear Models , Risk Assessment , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Follow-up (FU) in soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) patients is designed for early detection of disease recurrence. Current guidelines are not evidenced-based and not tailored to patient or tumor characteristics, so they remain debated, particularly given concerns about cost, radiation frequency, and over-testing. This study assesses the extent to which STS patients received guideline-concordant FU and to characterize which type of patients received more or fewer visits than advised. METHODS: All STS patients surgically treated at the Leiden University Medical Center between 2000-2020 were included. For each patient, along with individual characteristics, all radiological examinations from FU start up to 5 years were included and compared to guidelines. Recurrence was defined as local/regional recurrence or metastasis. RESULTS: A total of 394 patients was included, of whom 250 patients had a high-grade tumor (63.5%). Only 24% of patients received the advised three FU visits in the first year. More FU visits were observed in younger patients and those diagnosed with a high-grade tumor. Among patients with a recurrence, 10% received fewer visits than advised, while 28% of patients without a recurrence received more visits than advised. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of STS patients received guideline-concordant FU visits, suggesting that clinicians seem to incorporate recurrence risk in decisions on FU frequency.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Bone and soft-tissue tumor patients experience long-lasting physical and psychological challenges. It is unknown to what extent Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is already affected during the diagnostic process. This study assesses the HRQoL of bone and soft-tissue tumor patients around time of diagnosis and explores which patient or tumor characteristics are associated with a reduced HRQoL. METHODS: All patients with a suspected benign/malignant bone tumor (BT), benign soft-tissue tumor (STT), or malignant soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) visiting the Leiden University Medical Center between 2016 and 2020 were invited to complete the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29-item profile questionnaire. Mean scores of all included patients and per diagnosis group were compared to mean scores of the general population using one-sample t-tests. RESULTS: Overall, patients (n = 637) reported statistically significantly worse HRQoL-scores on anxiety (51.3 ± 9.6), pain (55.3 ± 10.1), physical functioning (46.0 ± 9.7), and social functioning (48.1 ± 10.8) with the difference in pain and physical functioning being clinically relevant (based on a 3-point difference on t-metric). HRQoL-scores differed between diagnosis subgroups, i.e., patients with malignant tumors had higher anxiety levels and experienced more pain, where patients with bone tumors had worse physical functioning. CONCLUSION: The HRQoL of patients with suspected bone and soft-tissue tumors is already affected during the diagnostic process.
