Nurse-Led Individualized Follow-Up Versus Regular Physician-Led Visits After Early Breast Cancer (MyHealth): A Phase III Randomized, Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Follow-up after breast cancer with regular visits has failed to detect recurrences, be cost-effective, and address patient needs. METHODS: MyHealth is a phase III randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02949167). Patients, who recently completed primary treatment for stage I-II breast cancer, were randomly assigned in variable block sizes and stratified by age and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status to intervention or control follow-up. The nurse-led intervention comprised three to five individual self-management sessions, regular reporting of symptoms, and navigation to health care services. The control follow-up comprised regular outpatient visits with the physician. The primary outcome was breast cancer-specific quality of life (QoL) measured by the Trial Outcome Index-Physical/Functional/Breast summary score of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast 2 years after random assignment. Secondary outcomes were fear of recurrence, anxiety, depression, and health care utilization. Analyses were intention-to-treat and P values were two-sided with 95% confidence level set at 0.005 because of multiple comparisons. RESULTS: Among 1,101 eligible patients, 875 were invited and 503 were randomly assigned to control (n = 252) or intervention (n = 251) follow-up. At 2 years, patients in the intervention group reported a significantly and clinically relevant higher QoL (mean, 75.69 [standard deviation [SD], 12.27]) than patients in the control group (71.26 [SD, 14.08]), with a mean difference of 5.05 (95% CI, 3.30 to 6.79; P < .001). The intervention group reported significantly less fear of recurrence, anxiety, and depression; they had fewer physician consultations but more nurse contacts and an unchanged diagnostic imaging pattern. The effect on all outcomes was stable through a 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The MyHealth study suggested a new strategy for follow-up after early breast cancer as it provided significant improvements in QoL.

Social inequality in cancer survivorship: Educational differences in health-related quality of life among 27,857 cancer survivors in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: With a growing population of cancer survivors in Denmark, the evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has become increasingly important. We describe variations in HRQoL between educational groups in a national population of cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study among breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancer survivors diagnosed in 2010-2019 in Denmark. We used the EORTC QLQ-C30 to assess HRQoL including physical, role, emotional, cognitive, social functioning, and symptoms (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties). Information on educational level and clinical data were extracted from national registers and clinical databases. Levels of impaired functioning and severe symptoms were identified using newly established thresholds for clinical importance. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine associations between education and HRQoL. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: In total, 27,857 (42%) participated in the study. Up to 72% and 75% of cancer survivors with short education (≤9 years) reported impaired functioning and severe symptoms, respectively. Cancer survivors with short compared to long education (>12 years) were more likely to report impaired functioning and severe symptoms, with for example significantly higher odds ratios (ORs) for impaired physical function (breast OR = 2.41, 99% CI = 2.01-2.89; prostate OR = 1.81, 99% CI = 1.48-2.21; lung OR = 2.97, 99% CI = 1.95-4.57; and colon cancer OR = 1.69, 99% CI = 1.28-2.24). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors with short education are at greater risk of impaired HRQoL than survivors with long education 2-12 years after diagnosis. This underscores the need for systematic screening and symptom management in cancer aftercare, in order to reach all cancer survivors, also cancer survivors with short education.

The association between education and fear of recurrence among breast cancer patients in follow-up - and the mediating effect of self-efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Major restructuring of surveillance after breast cancer treatment with less follow-up consultations may result in insecurity and fear of recurrence (FCR) among the less resourceful breast cancer patients. We investigate the association between breast cancer patients' education and FCR and if self-efficacy mediates the associations between education and FCR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire survey was conducted from 2017 to 2019, among 1773 breast cancer patients shortly after having their follow-up switched from regular outpatient visits with an oncologist to either nurse-led or patient-initiated follow-up, with a subsequent questionnaire after 12 months. Data on disease and treatment characteristics were extracted from medical records and the Danish Breast Cancer Group Database. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between education and FCR. Separate analyses were conducted for patients ≤ and >5 years since diagnosis and all models were adjusted for age and cohabitation status. To explore potential mediation by self-efficacy, we conducted regression analyses on education and FCR further adjusting for self-efficacy. RESULTS: The participation rate was 57%, and after the exclusion of patients due to missing data, 917 were included in analyses. Patients with long education had significantly less FCR compared to patients with short education (OR (95% CI) 0.71 (0.51;0,99)). When separated by time since diagnosis, there was no association among patients >5 years since diagnosis while the OR was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.30;0.85) for patients ≤5 years since diagnosis. Further adjusting for self-efficacy among patients <5 years since diagnosis resulted in an OR of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.33;0.95) among patients with long compared to short education. CONCLUSION: Up to 5 years after diagnosis, breast cancer patients with long education are less likely to experience FCR than patients with short education. Self-efficacy mediated only a very small part of this association, indicating that other factors play a role in socioeconomic differences in FCR among breast cancer patients.

Are education and cohabitation associated with health-related quality of life and self-management during breast cancer follow-up? A longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Oncologist-led follow-up after breast cancer (BC) is increasingly replaced with less intensive follow-up based on higher self-management, which may overburden the less resourceful patients. We examined whether socioeconomic factors measured recently after the implementation of a new follow-up program for BC patients were associated with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and self-management 12 months later. METHODOLOGY: Between January and August 2017, we invited 1773 patients in Region Zealand, Denmark, to participate in baseline and 12 months follow-up questionnaires. The patients had surgery for low- and intermediate risk BC 1-10 years prior to the survey, and they had recently been allocated to the new follow-up program of either patient-initiated follow-up, or in-person or telephone follow-up with a nurse, based on patients' preferences. We examined associations between socioeconomic factors (education and cohabitation) at baseline and two outcomes: HRQoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23) and self-management factors (health care provider, confidence in follow-up, contact at symptoms of concern, and self-efficacy) at 12 months follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to time since diagnosis (≤ 5 > 5 years). Furthermore, we investigated whether treatment and self-management factors modified the associations. RESULTS: A total of 987 patients were included in the analyses. We found no statistically significant associations between socioeconomic factors and HRQoL, except in patients ≤ 5 years from diagnosis. For self-management patients with short education were more likely to report that they had not experience relevant symptoms of concern compared to those with medium/long education (OR 1.75 95% CI: 1.04; 2.95). We found no clear patterns indicating that treatment or self-management factors modified the associations between socioeconomics' and HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Overall socioeconomic factors did not influence HRQoL and self-management factors except for experiencing and reporting relevant symptoms of concern. Socioeconomic factors may, however, influence HRQoL in patients within five years of diagnosis.

Impact of previous depression on the risk of suicide among prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of suicide risk among prostate cancer patients are conflicting. We compared the risk of suicide in prostate cancer patients to cancer-free men including adjustment for clinical stage, socioeconomic position, somatic comorbidity, and previous depression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 37,527 men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Denmark during 1998-2011 was identified in the Danish Prostate Cancer Registry (DaPCaR) and compared with 357,384 cancer-free men matched by age at the time of diagnosis. The primary outcome was death from suicide. Data were analyzed using cumulative incidence functions and multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: Among prostate cancer patients, 3813 had a previous depression, defined as filed antidepressant prescription within three years before diagnosis. In the study period, 108 prostate cancer patients were registered with suicide as the cause of death, hereof 26 with previous depression. There was no difference in the cumulative incidence of suicide between prostate cancer patients and cancer-free men. There was no effect modification of previous depression on the risk of suicide (p = .12). The hazard ratio (HR) for suicide varied with time since diagnosis. A sensitivity analysis showed that the risk of suicide was highest within the first year of diagnosis where prostate cancer patients had a 1.70-fold increased hazard compared with cancer-free men (95% CI, 1.11-2.59). Men with prostate cancer and previous depression had a three-fold increased hazard for suicide compared with prostate cancer patients without a history of depression (HR 2.84, 95% CI, 1.82-4.45). CONCLUSION: The absolute risk of suicide is low following a prostate cancer diagnosis. Time since diagnosis and a history of depression was associated with the highest risk of suicide. Healthcare professionals should be aware of an increased risk of suicide among men with previous depression, especially in the immediate aftermath of the diagnosis.

Socioeconomic inequality in cancer in the Nordic countries. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite structural and cultural similarities across the Nordic countries, differences in cancer survival remain. With a focus on similarities and differences between the Nordic countries, we investigated the association between socioeconomic position (SEP) and stage at diagnosis, anticancer treatment and cancer survival to describe patterns, explore underlying mechanisms and identify knowledge gaps in the Nordic countries. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of population based observational studies. A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE and Medline up till May 2021 was performed, and titles, abstracts and full texts were screened for eligibility by two investigators independently. We extracted estimates of the association between SEP defined as education or income and cancer stage at diagnosis, received anticancer treatment or survival for adult patients with cancer in the Nordic countries. Further, we extracted information on study characteristics, confounding variables, cancer type and results in the available measurements with corresponding confidence intervals (CI) and/or p-values. Results were synthesized in forest plots. RESULTS: From the systematic literature search, we retrieved 3629 studies, which were screened for eligibility, and could include 98 studies for data extraction. Results showed a clear pattern across the Nordic countries of socioeconomic inequality in terms of advanced stage at diagnosis, less favorable treatment and lower cause-specific and overall survival among people with lower SEP, regardless of whether SEP was measured as education or income. CONCLUSION: Despite gaps in the literature, the consistency in results across cancer types, countries and cancer outcomes shows a clear pattern of systematic socioeconomic inequality in cancer stage, treatment and survival in the Nordic countries. Stage and anticancer treatment explain some, but not all of the observed inequality in overall and cause-specific survival. The need for further studies describing this association may therefore be limited, warranting next step research into interventions to reduce inequality in cancer outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: Prospero protocol no: CRD42020166296.

Association between Health-Related Quality of Life and Completion of First-Line Treatment among Lung Cancer Patients.

Experts recommend assessing lung cancer patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in the diagnostic evaluation. We investigated the association between HRQOL and completion of first-line treatment among lung cancer patients in a prospective cohort study. Clinical information on lung cancer patients was obtained from medical records, and information on quality of life and lung cancer-related symptoms was obtained through questionnaires at time of diagnosis. We used directed acyclic graphs to identify potential confounders and mediators between HRQOL and completion of first-line treatment. The association between functioning levels and symptoms and completion of first-line oncological treatment was estimated as odds ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, in logistic regression models. In all, 137 patients (52% men, mean age: 69 years) participated, out of 216 invited. Patients who reported reduced functioning had significantly increased ORs for not completing first-line treatment: poor physical function (OR 4.44), role function (OR 6.09), emotional function (OR 5.86), and social function (OR 3.13). Patients with fatigue (OR 7.55), pain (OR 6.07), appetite loss (OR 4.66), and financial difficulties (OR 17.23) had significantly increased ORs for not completing the first-line treatment. Reduced functioning and presence of symptoms were associated with not completing first-line treatment. An assessment of HRQOL could potentially aid the diagnostic evaluation and treatment planning for lung cancer patients.

The development and initial validation of the Breast Cancer Recurrence instrument (BreastCaRe)-a patient-reported outcome measure for detecting symptoms of recurrence after breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outomes (PRO) may facilitate prompt treatment. We describe the development and psychometric properties of the first instrument to monitor for symptoms of breast cancer (BC) recurrence. METHODS: This study is nested in the MyHealth randomized trial of nurse-led follow-up based on electronically-collected PROs. We constructed items assessing symptoms of potential recurrence through expert interviews with six BC specialists in Denmark. Semi-structured cognitive interviews were carried out with a patient panel to assess acceptability and comprehensibility. Items were subsequently tested in a population of 1170 women 1-10 years after completing BC treatment. We carried out multiple-groups confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis to test dimensionality, local dependence (LD) and differential item functioning (DIF) according to sociodemographic and treatment-related factors. Clinical data was obtained from the Danish Breast Cancer Group registry. RESULTS: Twenty-two items were generated for the Breast Cancer Recurrence instrument (BreastCaRe). Cognitive testing resulted in clearer items. Seven subscales based on general, bone, liver, lung, brain, locoregional and contralateral recurrence symptoms were proposed. Both CFA and Rasch models confirmed the factor structure. No DIF was identified. Five item pairs showed LD but all items were retained to avoid loss of clinical information. Rasch models taking LD into account were used to generate a standardized scoring table for each subscale. CONCLUSIONS: The BreastCaRe has good content and structural validity, patient acceptability and measurement invariance. We are preparing to examine the predictive validity of this new instrument.

Is the health literacy of informal caregivers associated with the psychological outcomes of breast cancer survivors?

PURPOSE: To investigate whether health literacy (HL) among informal caregivers of breast cancer (BC) survivors is associated with patient psychological outcomes. METHODS: We used data (n = 340 pairs) from baseline questionnaires administered in the MyHealth trial investigating nurse-led BC follow-up. All BC survivors and their invited caregivers were included immediately after completion of primary treatment. We performed multivariate regression analyses to examine the association between caregiver HL (nine dimensions as measured by the Health Literacy Questionnaire) as exposure and patient depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life (HQoL) as outcomes. We further examined whether any association differed according to type of caregiver, patient HL, and patient activation (skill in managing one's health). RESULTS: Three dimensions, "ability to engage with providers" (ß = - 0.2), "navigating the system" (ß = - 0.2), and "understand health information" (ß = - 0.2), were significantly associated with lower patient depression (p < 0.05), while four dimensions, "having sufficient information" (ß = 0.3), "navigating the system" (ß = 0.2), "find health information" (ß = 0.2), and "understand health information" (ß = 0.2), were significantly associated with better patient HQoL (p < 0.05). No significant associations were found for anxiety. Patient HL and activation did not significantly modify the associations, while certain associations for depression were stronger in patients with non-partner caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: The HL of informal caregivers may play an important role in optimizing psychological outcomes in cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Involving informal caregivers, who can provide support related to health information and services, may be beneficial for the psychological well-being of cancer survivors.

Patterns in detection of recurrence among patients treated for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: The Danish follow-up program for breast cancer (BC) patients has recently been changed. Today most patients are offered open access to an outpatient clinic, whereas the scheduled visits are phased out. This strategy has been studied in regards to psychological and health-related quality of life outcomes, but not in regards to detection of recurrence and survival. The aim of this study was to quantify the recurrences detected at scheduled outpatient visits in Denmark before the implementation of revised follow-up guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 310 patients with recurrent BC. Information was retrieved on tumor characteristics, type of visit when recurrence was detected, recurrence localization, symptoms reported, and duration of symptoms from the Danish Breast Cancer Group database and medical records. RESULTS: The recurrences were locoregional (26%), locoregional and distant (15%), or distant (59%). Among patients still in outpatient follow-up (n = 199), recurrence was detected at a patient-requested extra outpatient visit (15%), by the general practitioner or other specialist (47%), at a scheduled outpatient visit (21%), or on a scheduled mammogram (11%). Among patients with recurrences detected at scheduled outpatient visits, the majority (88%) reported symptoms related to the recurrence. Most frequent symptoms were pain (37%), dyspnoea (15%), and fatigue (12%). CONCLUSIONS: One-fifth of BC recurrences among patients attending outpatient follow-up were detected at scheduled outpatient visits. Very few of these were asymptomatic. Whether there will be a delay in detection of the symptomatic recurrences when the number of visits is reduced is unknown.

Cancer patients, physicians, and nurses differ in their attitudes toward the decisional role in do-not-resuscitate decision-making.

PURPOSE: Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decision-making in severely ill patients presents many difficult medical, ethical, and legal challenges. The primary aim of this study was to explore cancer patients' and health care professionals' attitudes regarding DNR decision-making authority and timing of the decision. METHODS: This study was a questionnaire survey among Danish cancer patients and their attending physicians and nurses in an oncology outpatient setting. Potential differences between patients', physicians', and nurses' answers to the questionnaire were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Responses from 904 patients, 59 physicians, and 160 nurses were analyzed. The majority in all three groups agreed that DNR decisions should be made in collaboration between physician and patient. However, one-third of the patients answered that the patient alone should make the decision regarding DNR, which contrasts with the physicians' and nurses' attitudes, 0% and 6% pointing to the patient as sole decision-maker, respectively. In case of disagreement between patient and physician, a majority of both patients (66%) and physicians (86%) suggested themselves as the ultimate decision-maker. Additionally, 43% of patients but only 19% of physicians preferred the DNR discussion being brought up early in the course of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: With regard to the decisional role of patient vs. physician and the timing of the DNR discussion, we found a substantial discrepancy between the attitudes of cancer patients and physicians. This discrepancy calls for a greater awareness and discussion of this sensitive topic among both health care professionals and the public.

Follow-up strategies following completion of primary cancer treatment in adult cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Most cancer survivors receive follow-up care after completion of treatment with the primary aim of detecting recurrence. Traditional follow-up consisting of fixed visits to a cancer specialist for examinations and tests are expensive and may be burdensome for the patient. Follow-up strategies involving non-specialist care providers, different intensity of procedures, or addition of survivorship care packages have been developed and tested, however their effectiveness remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare the effect of different follow-up strategies in adult cancer survivors, following completion of primary cancer treatment, on the primary outcomes of overall survival and time to detection of recurrence. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, anxiety (including fear of recurrence), depression and cost. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries on 11 December 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised trials comparing different follow-up strategies for adult cancer survivors following completion of curatively-intended primary cancer treatment, which included at least one of the outcomes listed above. We compared the effectiveness of: 1) non-specialist-led follow-up (i.e. general practitioner (GP)-led, nurse-led, patient-initiated or shared care) versus specialist-led follow-up; 2) less intensive versus more intensive follow-up (based on clinical visits, examinations and diagnostic procedures) and 3) follow-up integrating additional care components relevant for detection of recurrence (e.g. patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans) versus usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological guidelines by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. For each comparison, we present synthesised findings for overall survival and time to detection of recurrence as hazard ratios (HR) and for health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When meta-analysis was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. For survival and recurrence, we used meta-regression analysis where possible to investigate whether the effects varied with regards to cancer site, publication year and study quality. MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 trials involving 20,832 participants across 12 cancer sites and 15 countries, mainly in Europe, North America and Australia. All the studies were carried out in either a hospital or general practice setting. Seventeen studies compared non-specialist-led follow-up with specialist-led follow-up, 24 studies compared intensity of follow-up and 12 studies compared patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans with usual care. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most of the studies, with a higher risk of bias in the smaller trials. Non-specialist-led follow-up compared with specialist-led follow-up It is uncertain how this strategy affects overall survival (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.15; 2 studies; 603 participants), time to detection of recurrence (4 studies, 1691 participants) or cost (8 studies, 1756 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Non-specialist- versus specialist-led follow up may make little or no difference to health-related quality of life at 12 months (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.83 to 3.95; 4 studies; 605 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably makes little or no difference to anxiety at 12 months (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.67; 5 studies; 1266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are more certain that it has little or no effect on depression at 12 months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.42; 5 studies; 1266 participants; high-certainty evidence). Less intensive follow-up compared with more intensive follow-up Less intensive versus more intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.14; 13 studies; 10,726 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time to detection of recurrence (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 12 studies; 11,276 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-regression analysis showed little or no difference in the intervention effects by cancer site, publication year or study quality. It is uncertain whether this strategy has an effect on health-related quality of life (3 studies, 2742 participants), anxiety (1 study, 180 participants) or cost (6 studies, 1412 participants) because the certainty of evidence is very low. None of the studies reported on depression. Follow-up strategies integrating additional patient symptom education or monitoring, or survivorship care plans compared with usual care: None of the studies reported on overall survival or time to detection of recurrence. It is uncertain whether this strategy makes a difference to health-related quality of life (12 studies, 2846 participants), anxiety (1 study, 470 participants), depression (8 studies, 2351 participants) or cost (1 studies, 408 participants), as the certainty of evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of the different follow-up strategies varies substantially. Less intensive follow-up may make little or no difference to overall survival but probably delays detection of recurrence. However, as we did not analyse the two outcomes together, we cannot make direct conclusions about the effect of interventions on survival after detection of recurrence. The effects of non-specialist-led follow-up on survival and detection of recurrence, and how intensity of follow-up affects health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, are uncertain. There was little evidence for the effects of follow-up integrating additional patient symptom education/monitoring and survivorship care plans.

Whose perspective is it anyway? Dilemmas of patient involvement in the development of a randomized clinical trial - a qualitative study.

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly becoming a requirement in the effort to improve the relevance and quality of healthcare research. We examined how involving patients with lower education levels affected PPI in the development of the MyHealth randomized clinical trial of breast cancer follow-up from the perspectives of the patients and professionals. Material and methods: Eight women who had completed breast cancer treatment, four with fewer than 10 years of education, were recruited as members of a patient panel advising researchers in the development of the trial. We carried out individual and focus group interviews with panel members and recruiting nurses between April and September 2016. Researcher observations and changes made based on panel feedback were also documented. Patients were asked to evaluate the process according to a PPI theoretical framework with four dimensions: (i) ways of involvement, (ii) research vs. patient concerns, (iii) strength of the patient's voice, and (iv) degree of change. A combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis was conducted whereby emerging themes were organized using the above framework. Results: All patient contributors reported high satisfaction with being involved and PPI improved trial materials and recruitment strategy. However, contradictory perspectives between lay and expert approaches to research led to dilemmas not related to educational background. Patients were often more concerned with unmet needs after cancer than with research, and the scientific hierarchy made it difficult for researchers to include the patient perspective if it challenged research requirements. Nurses also faced ethical dilemmas when recruiting patients as PPI contributors. Conclusions: Our findings challenged the assumption that PPI automatically leads to a broad range of patient perspectives that can directly improve research relevance and quality. This highlights the need for more research and better guidance on the use of PPI in research.

MyHealth: specialist nurse-led follow-up in breast cancer. A randomized controlled trial - development and feasibility.

Background: Traditionally, women treated for breast cancer (BC) have been followed up through regular oncologist-led visits in outpatient clinics, focusing on detection of recurrences, new primary BC, symptom management, and psychological support. However, this follow-up routine is expensive and its effectiveness has been questioned. Consequently, alternative follow-up programs have been tested. The Guided Self-Determination method (GSD), which facilitates partnership between health-care provider and patient, has been shown to improve self-management in patients with chronic conditions, including cancer. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is another increasingly used tool to improve patient-provider communication, symptom monitoring and control. In combination, GSD and PRO may have the potential to meet the objectives of BC follow-up. To test this, we developed the MyHealth study, a randomized controlled trial comparing a nurse-led follow-up program based on GSD, collection of PRO, and patient navigation with routine oncologist-led follow-up. Here we describe how we developed the intervention and are currently testing the feasibility of the MyHealth protocol in terms of recruitment, adherence to the intervention, collection of PRO, and patient navigation. Material and methods: We have invited the first 25 consecutively enrolled patients to test the MyHealth intervention. This consists of (1) 3-5 initial GSD appointments with a nurse, (2) collection of PRO, and (3) symptom management and patient navigation. The randomized trial was launched in January 2017 and is still recruiting. Results of the feasibility study: Of 32 patients invited, 25 accepted participation. At 18-month follow-up, two patients have withdrawn, 143 PRO questionnaires have been completed (mean 5.7/patient) resulting in 59 nurse contacts (mean 2.4 per patient) and 14 project physician contacts (mean 0.6 per patient). Conclusion: A high recruitment rate and response rate to PRO indicate that follow-up led by specialist nurses, based on collection of PRO is feasible and acceptable for patients treated for early stage BC.

Old age and poor prognosis increase the likelihood of disagreement between cancer patients and their oncologists on the indication for resuscitation attempt.

BACKGROUND: The do-not-resuscitate decision is a common ethical problem. However, the concordance between patients' preferences and physicians' assessments of the indication for cardiopulmonary resuscitation attempt (CPR) has only been modestly investigated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of different patient characteristics on the following outcomes: (1) patients' wishes for or against CPR, (2) assessments made by physicians of the indication for CPR, and (3) the probability of discordance between patients' wishes and physicians' assessments. METHODS: In this survey, 1,128 of 1,408 cancer patients received a questionnaire concerning their wish for CPR. In total, 904 patients responded. A total of 61 treating physicians assessed the medical indication for resuscitation. Different predefined patient characteristics were analyzed using both univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Ninety percent of responding patients wished to receive CPR. The physicians found indications supporting CPR in 89 % of patients. Age ≥70 years, increasing line of treatment, poor prognosis, living alone, and poor self-rated physical and mental health enhanced both patients' wishes and physicians' assessments to withhold CPR. However, only age ≥70 years, poor prognosis, and poor self-rated physical health significantly predicted rejection of CPR in multivariate analyses. The likelihood of discordance between patients and physicians was significantly higher when the patient was ≥70 years and when the expected 5-year survival was <25 %. CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with the imminence of dying influenced both patients and physicians to refrain from CPR, and perhaps more surprisingly, the probability of discordance between patients and physicians increased.

Decision to resuscitate or not in patients with chronic diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decisions are frequently made without informing the patients. We attempt to determine whether patients and physicians wish to discuss the DNR decision, who they think, should be the final decision maker and whether they agree on the indication for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in case of cardiac arrest. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We carried out a questionnaire survey among 112 haemodialysis patients and 17 physicians at department of nephrology, Herlev Hospital. The patients were interviewed orally, the physicians responded to written questionnaires. RESULTS: The majority of patients (86%) and physicians (88%) answered, that patients ought to be involved in the DNR decision. However they both wanted to be the final decision maker. Most patients (69%) desired CPR in case of cardiac arrest. Physicians would attempt to resuscitate 88% of the patients. In 30% of the cases, the patient and the physician disagreed on whether or not to attempt resuscitation. CONCLUSION: Both patients and physicians think they ought to make the final DNR decision. In practice, patients are often not involved. Since the patient and the physician disagree regarding the indication for CPR in one third of the cases, we must assume that many patients are resuscitated against their wishes. National guidelines are required. FUNDING: not relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.