[Interventions to improve quality of life in oncological patients]. / Lebensqualitätsinterventionen in der Onkologie.

The assessment of quality of life is a central aspect in the current debate in support groups, certified cancer centres, benefit assessment, and also in palliative care. Accordingly, quality of life has become an essential part of clinical trials for more than two decades. But most of the time results are presented in a descriptive manner without any concrete therapeutic consequences for the improvement of quality of life. Likewise, there are no uniform recommendations for considering quality of life data in the decision-making process. Therefore, a guide with recommendations for the assessment of quality of life in trials has been developed. Its implementation is illustrated by a complex intervention for a targeted diagnosis and therapy of quality of life in patients with breast cancer or colorectal cancer. The basis is a standardised quality of life assessment and the presentation of results in an intelligible fashion as well as the close collaboration of all healthcare providers to create regional network structures for the targeted support of patients in both the inpatient and outpatient sector.

Breast cancer survivors` recollection of their quality of life: Identifying determinants of recall bias in a longitudinal population-based trial.

BACKGROUND: The recollections of survivors of breast cancer are an important source of information about the disease for their family, friends, and newly diagnosed patients. So far, little is known about these memories. This study investigated how accurately survivors of breast cancer remember their past quality of life (QoL) during the disease and if this memory is modified by women`s present QoL and negative affect. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The longitudinal population-based study included 133 survivors of breast cancer (response rate 80%). Participants were asked for their present QoL and to recall their baseline QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23) that had been assessed about seven years ago before discharge from hospital. The dependent variable was recall bias in ten QoL dimensions. Present QoL and negative affect (PANAS) were investigated as predictor variables. RESULTS: Overall, baseline QoL was retrospectively underrated on seven out of ten scales whereas no significant overestimation was found. In multiple linear regression analyses, controlling for confounders, a stronger underrating of QoL was significantly predicted by a lower present QoL on nine out of ten scales and by higher negative affect on six scales. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of breast cancer tend to underestimate their past QoL during the disease when asked about seven years later. Lower present QoL and higher negative affect contribute to this recall bias. This needs to be considered when interpreting retrospectively reported QoL data. Results are discussed in relation to theory of change or stability and mood congruency theory.

Direct improvement of quality of life in colorectal cancer patients using a tailored pathway with quality of life diagnosis and therapy (DIQOL): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medical treatment in patient-centred care in oncology is broadly managed and regulated in terms of guideline development, cancer centres, and quality assurance by cancer registries. In contrast to this quality management cycle (PDCA), there are no equal standards for patient-reported outcomes like quality of life (QoL). Therefore, the Tumour Centre Regensburg e.V., a population-based regional cancer registry covering a population of more than 2.2 million people in the Upper Palatinate and Lower Bavaria, Germany, designed and implemented a QoL pathway. In a complex intervention with QoL diagnosis and therapy (multidimensional therapeutic network), effectiveness for patients with breast cancer has been demonstrated. To provide local tailored QoL diagnosis and therapy to other cancer patients as well, external validity needs to be extended by adapting the QoL pathway to another tumour entity. METHODS/DESIGN: The QoL pathway will be tested for colorectal cancer patients in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Two hundred twenty primary colorectal cancer patients, surgically treated in one of four hospitals, will be included. QoL is measured in all patients 0, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after surgery (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29). In the intervention group, QoL scores are transformed into a QoL profile. This is sent to the coordinating practitioner (general practitioner, internist, or oncologist) with an expert report including treatment recommendations for QoL deficits. The control group receives routine follow-up care attending the guideline recommendations for colorectal cancer without profile or expert report. At the primary endpoint (12 months), the rates of patients with diseased QoL in both groups are compared. DISCUSSION: This randomised trial is the first complex intervention investigating the effectiveness of an intervention with QoL diagnosis and tailored QoL therapy in colorectal cancer patients. The results will show if this QoL pathway improves the patients' QoL during follow-up care of their disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02321813 (registered December 2014).

Breast cancer survivors' recollection of their illness and therapy seven years after enrolment into a randomised controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the subjective experience of breast cancer survivors after primary treatment. However, these experiences are important because they shape their communication about their illness in everyday life, usage and acceptance of healthcare, and expectations of new generations of patients. The present study investigated this topic by combining qualitative and quantitative methods. METHODS: Breast cancer survivors in Bavaria, Germany were mailed a questionnaire up to seven years after enrolment into a randomised controlled clinical trial and start of their therapy. This enquired about their worst experiences during the breast cancer episode, positive aspects of the illness and any advice they would give to newly diagnosed patients. A category system for themes was systematically created and answers were categorised by two independent raters. Frequencies of key categories were then quantitatively analysed using descriptive statistics. In addition, local treating physicians gave their opinion on the response categories chosen by their patients. RESULTS: 133 (80%) of 166 eligible patients who survived up to seven years returned the questionnaire. The most prominent worst experience reported by survivors was psychological distress (i.e. anxiety, uncertainty; prevalence 38%) followed by chemotherapy (25%), and cancer diagnosis (18%). Positive aspects of the illness were reported by 48% with the most frequent including change in life priorities (50%) and social support (22%). The most frequent advice survivors gave was fighting spirit (i.e. think positive, never give up; prevalence 42%). Overall, physicians' estimates of the frequency of these responses corresponded well with survivors' answers. CONCLUSIONS: Although physicians' understanding of breast cancer patients was good, psychological distress and chemotherapy-related side effects were remembered as particularly burdensome by a substantial part of survivors. On the one hand, patients' quality of life needs to be assessed repeatedly during medical follow-up to identify such specific complaints also including specific recommendations to the physician for targeted psychosocial and medical support. On the other hand the advices and positive aspects of the disease, reported by the survivors, can be used to promote positive ways of coping with the illness.