The Ottawa clinical fear of recurrence instruments: A screener, self-report, and clinical interview.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) was recently defined by a group of experts during a Delphi study. Five criteria were agreed upon, namely: (a) high levels of preoccupation, (b) high levels of worry, (c) that are persistent, (d) hypervigilance and hypersensitivity to physical sensations that e) may result in functional impairment. No existing instruments comprehensively capture all these criteria for clinical FCR. METHODS: To remedy this gap, a set of three patient-reported outcome instruments including a one-item screener, self-report questionnaire, and semi-structured clinical interview, named the Ottawa Clinical Fear of Recurrence instruments, were developed. To do so, the research team first conducted a literature review of potential items. Additional FCR experts discussed the content of the screener and interview. The self-report's items were assessed for content validity by the same expert panel using Likert ratings and the Content Validity Index to narrow down the number of items. The three instruments were piloted with a group of cancer survivors to assess face validity following the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer recommendations. RESULTS: The literature review and content validity assessment led to a final draft pre-pilot of 23 potential items for the self-report questionnaire. The instruments were piloted. Pilot study participants suggested changing wording and response options (particularly for the self-report) for greater clarity. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the feedback received, minor modifications were made, mostly for the self-report. In general, content and face validity for the three instruments were good for both experts and cancer survivors.

Which Head and Neck Cancer Patients Are Most at Risk of High Levels of Fear of Cancer Recurrence.

Background: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is recognized as a common concern for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). The aim of this study is to describe in greater detail the demographic and clinical characteristics of HCN patients who indicate a high level of FCR in their review consultation. Methods: A pragmatic cluster-controlled trial was conducted between January 2017 and December 2018 at two UK HNC centers (Leeds and Liverpool) to test the efficacy of a prompt tool called the Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI). Patients completed the PCI and the UW-QOLv4 which included a single 5 category rating of FCR. Secondary statistical analyses focused on variables associated with high FCR. Results: Two hundred and eighty-eight trial patients were recruited in this trial. At a median of 194 days after diagnosis and 103 days after the end of treatment 8% stated (n = 24) "I get a lot of fears of recurrence and these can really preoccupy my thoughts" and 3% (n = 8) "I am fearful all the time that my cancer might return, and I struggle with this." Thus, 11% (n = 32) responded in the worst two categories, 95% Confidence interval 7.7-15.3% for high FCR. Stepwise logistic regression resulted in female gender (p < 0.001), age (p = 0.007), and receiving financial benefits (p = 0.01) as independent predictors. Conclusions: Around one in ten HNC patients attending routine outpatient follow-up consultations report high FCR, however for female patients under the age of 55 the rate was one in three. This group requires specialist attention and could be the focus of a multicenter intervention trial.

Improving quality of life through the routine use of the patient concerns inventory for head and neck cancer patients: main results of a cluster preference randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The patient concerns inventory (PCI) is a prompt list allowing head and neck cancer (HNC) patients to discuss issues that otherwise might be overlooked. This trial evaluated the effectiveness of using the PCI at routine outpatient clinics for one year after treatment on health-related QOL (HRQOL). METHODS: A pragmatic cluster preference randomised control trial with 15 consultants, 8 'using' and 7 'not using' the PCI intervention. Patients treated with curative intent (all sites, disease stages, treatments) were eligible. RESULTS: Consultants saw a median (inter-quartile range) 16 (13-26) patients, with 140 PCI and 148 control patients. Of the pre-specified outcomes, the 12-month results for the mean University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QOLv4) social-emotional subscale score suggested a small clinical effect of intervention of 4.6 units (95% CI 0.2, 9.0), p = 0.04 after full adjustment for pre-stated case-mix. Results for UW-QOLv4 overall quality of life being less than good at 12 months (primary outcome) also favoured the PCI with a risk ratio of 0.83 (95% CI 0.66, 1.06) and absolute risk 4.8% (- 2.9%, 12.9%) but without achieving statistical significance. Other non-a-priori analyses, including all 12 UWQOL domains and at consultant level also suggested better HRQOL with PCI. Consultation times were unaffected and the number of items selected decreased over time. CONCLUSION: This novel trial supports the integration of the PCI approach into routine consultations as a simple low-cost means of benefiting HNC patients. It adds to a growing body of evidence supporting the use of patient prompt lists more generally.

Risk-based, 6-monthly and 24-monthly dental check-ups for adults: the INTERVAL three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, patients are encouraged to attend dental recall appointments at regular 6-month intervals, irrespective of their risk of developing dental disease. Stakeholders lack evidence of the relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different recall strategies and the optimal recall interval for maintenance of oral health. OBJECTIVES: To test effectiveness and assess the cost-benefit of different dental recall intervals over a 4-year period. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded clinical outcome assessment at 4 years and a within-trial cost-benefit analysis. NHS and participant perspective costs were combined with benefits estimated from a general population discrete choice experiment. A two-stratum trial design was used, with participants randomised to the 24-month interval if the recruiting dentist considered them clinically suitable. Participants ineligible for 24-month recall were randomised to a risk-based or 6-month recall interval. SETTING: UK primary care dental practices. PARTICIPANTS: Adult, dentate, NHS patients who had visited their dentist in the previous 2 years. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to attend for a dental check-up at one of three dental recall intervals: 6-month, risk-based or 24-month recall. MAIN OUTCOMES: Clinical - gingival bleeding on probing; patient - oral health-related quality of life; economic - three analysis frameworks: (1) incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, (2) incremental net (societal) benefit and (3) incremental net (dental health) benefit. RESULTS: A total of 2372 participants were recruited from 51 dental practices; 648 participants were eligible for the 24-month recall stratum and 1724 participants were ineligible. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the mean percentage of sites with gingival bleeding between intervention arms in any comparison. For the eligible for 24-month recall stratum: the 24-month (n = 138) versus 6-month group (n = 135) had an adjusted mean difference of -0.91 (95% confidence interval -5.02 to 3.20); the risk-based (n = 143) versus 6-month group had an adjusted mean difference of -0.98 (95% confidence interval -5.05 to 3.09); the 24-month versus risk-based group had an adjusted mean difference of 0.07 (95% confidence interval -3.99 to 4.12). For the overall sample, the risk-based (n = 749) versus 6-month (n = 737) adjusted mean difference was 0.78 (95% confidence interval -1.17 to 2.72). There was no evidence of a difference in oral health-related quality of life between intervention arms in any comparison. For the economic evaluation, under framework 1 (cost per quality-adjusted life-year) the results were highly uncertain, and it was not possible to identify the optimal recall strategy. Under framework 2 (net societal benefit), 6-month recalls were the most efficient strategy with a probability of positive net benefit ranging from 78% to 100% across the eligible and combined strata, with findings driven by the high value placed on more frequent recall services in the discrete choice experiment. Under framework 3 (net dental health benefit), 24-month recalls were the most likely strategy to deliver positive net (dental health) benefit among those eligible for 24-month recall, with a probability of positive net benefit ranging from 65% to 99%. For the combined group, the optimal strategy was less clear. Risk-based recalls were more likely to be the most efficient recall strategy in scenarios where the costing perspective was widened to include participant-incurred costs, and in the Scottish subgroup. LIMITATIONS: Information regarding factors considered by dentists to inform the risk-based interval and the interaction with patients to determine risk and agree the interval were not collected. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 4-year period, we found no evidence of a difference in oral health for participants allocated to a 6-month or a risk-based recall interval, nor between a 24-month, 6-month or risk-based recall interval for participants eligible for a 24-month recall. However, people greatly value and are willing to pay for frequent dental check-ups; therefore, the most efficient recall strategy depends on the scope of the cost and benefit valuation that decision-makers wish to consider. FUTURE WORK: Assessment of the impact of risk assessment tools in informing risk-based interval decision-making and techniques for communicating a variable recall interval to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95933794. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme [project numbers 06/35/05 (Phase I) and 06/35/99 (Phase II)] and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 60. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Traditionally, dentists have encouraged both patients at low risk and patients at high risk of developing dental disease to attend their dental practices for regular 6-month 'check-ups'. There is, however, little evidence available for either patients or dentists to use when deciding on the best dental recall interval (i.e. time between dental check-ups) for maintaining oral health. In this study, we wanted to find out, for adult patients who regularly attend the dentist, what interval of time between dental check-ups maintains optimum oral health and represents value for money. A total of 2372 adults who regularly attended 51 different dental practices across Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales were involved. Patients aged 18 years or over who received all or part of their care as NHS patients were randomly allocated to groups to receive a check-up either every 6 months, at an individualised recall interval based on their own risk of oral disease (risk-based recall), or every 24 months (if considered at low risk by their dentist). The recruited adults completed questionnaires at their first trial appointment and then every year of the 4-year study. Their attendance at recall appointments was recorded and they received a clinical assessment taken by study staff at the end of their involvement at year 4. After 4 years, there was no evidence of a difference in the oral health of patients allocated to a 6-month or variable risk-based recall interval. For patients considered by their dentists to be suitable for a 24-month recall interval, there was no difference between those in the 24-month, 6-month or risk-based recall intervals. However, people greatly value and are willing to pay for frequent dental check-ups. The recall strategy that offers the best value for money to patients and the NHS, therefore, depends on what people and decision-makers wish to value within a health-care system.

Improving quality of life through the routine use of the patient concerns inventory for head and neck cancer patients: baseline results in a cluster preference randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The main aim of this paper is to present baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and HRQOL in the two groups of the Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) trial. The baseline PCI data will also be described. METHODS: This is a pragmatic cluster preference randomised control trial with 15 consultant clusters from two sites either 'using' (n = 8) or 'not using' (n = 7) the PCI at a clinic for all of their trial patients. The PCI is a 56-item prompt list that helps patients raise concerns that otherwise might be missed. Eligibility was head and neck cancer patients treated with curative intent (all sites, stage of disease, treatments). RESULTS: From 511 patients first identified as eligible when screening for the multi-disciplinary tumour board meetings, 288 attended a first routine outpatient baseline study clinic after completion of their treatment, median (IQR) of 103 (71-162) days. At baseline, the two trial groups were similar in demographic and clinical characteristics as well as in HRQOL measures apart from differences in tumour location, tumour staging and mode of treatment. These exceptions were cluster (consultant) related to Maxillofacial and ENT consultants seeing different types of cases. Consultation times were similar, with PCI group times taking about 1 min longer on average (95% CL for the difference between means was from - 0.7 to + 2.2 min). CONCLUSION: Using the PCI in routine post-treatment head and neck cancer clinics do not elongate consultations. Recruitment has finished but 12-month follow-up is still ongoing.

A controlled pilot trial of a nurse-led intervention (Mini-AFTERc) to manage fear of cancer recurrence in patients affected by breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is common in people affected by breast cancer. FCR is associated with increased health service and medication use, anxiety, depression and reduced quality of life. Existing interventions for FCR are time and resource intensive, making implementation in a National Health Service (NHS) setting challenging. To effectively manage FCR in current clinical practice, less intensive FCR interventions are required. Mini-AFTERc is a structured 30-min counselling intervention delivered over the telephone and is designed to normalise moderate FCR levels by targeting unhelpful behaviours and misconceptions about cancer recurrence.This multi-centre non-randomised controlled pilot trial will investigate the feasibility of delivering the Mini-AFTERc intervention, its acceptability and usefulness, in relation to specialist breast cancer nurses (SBCNs) and patients. This protocol describes the rationale, methods and analysis plan for this pilot trial of the Mini-AFTERc intervention in everyday practice. METHODS: This study will run in four breast cancer centres in NHS Scotland, two intervention and two control centres. SBCNs at intervention centres will be trained to deliver the Mini-AFTERc intervention. Female patients who have completed primary breast cancer treatment in the previous 6 months will be screened for moderate FCR (FCR4 score: 10­14). Participants at intervention centres will receive the Mini-AFTERc intervention within 2 weeks of recruitment. SBCNs will audio record the intervention telephone discussions with participants. Fidelity of intervention implementation will be assessed from audio recordings. All participants will complete three separate follow-up questionnaires assessing changes in FCR, anxiety, depression and quality of life over 3 months. Normalisation process theory (NPT) will form the framework for semi-structured interviews with 20% of patients and all SBCNs. Interviews will explore participants' experience of the study, acceptability and usefulness of the intervention and factors influencing implementation within clinical practice. The ADePT process will be adopted to systematically problem solve and refine the trial design. DISCUSSION: Findings will provide evidence for the potential effectiveness, fidelity, acceptability and practicality of the Mini-AFTERc intervention, and will inform the design and development of a large randomised controlled trial (RCT). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT0376382. Registered 4th December 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03763825.

Improving quality of life through the routine use of the patient concerns inventory for head and neck cancer patients: a cluster preference randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The consequences of treatment for Head and Neck cancer (HNC) patients has profound detrimental impacts such as impaired QOL, emotional distress, delayed recovery and frequent use of healthcare. The aim of this trial is to determine if the routine use of the Patients Concerns Inventory (PCI) package in review clinics during the first year following treatment can improve overall quality of life, reduce the social-emotional impact of cancer and reduce levels of distress. Furthermore, we aim to describe the economic costs and benefits of using the PCI. METHODS: This will be a cluster preference randomised control trial with consultants either 'using' or 'not using' the PCI package at clinic. It will involve two centres Leeds and Liverpool. 416 eligible patients from at least 10 consultant clusters are required to show a clinically meaningful difference in the primary outcome. The primary outcome is the percentage of participants with less than good overall quality of life at the final one-year clinic as measured by the University of Washington QOL questionnaire version 4 (UWQOLv4). Secondary outcomes at one-year are the mean social-emotional subscale (UWQOLv4) score, Distress Thermometer (DT) score ≥ 4, and key health economic measures (QALY-EQ-5D-5 L; CSRI). DISCUSSION: This trial will provide knowledge on the effectiveness of a consultation intervention package based around the PCI used at routine follow-up clinics following treatment of head and neck cancer with curative intent. If this intervention is (cost) effective for patients, the next step will be to promote wider use of this approach as standard care in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 32,382. Clinical Trials Identifier, NCT03086629 . PROTOCOL: Version 3.0, 1st July 2017.

Maternal and paternal contribution to intergenerational psychosocial transmission of paan chewing.

OBJECTIVES: Paan chewing is a recognized risk factor for oral cancer in the Asian population. However, there is currently little evidence about the intergenerational psychosocial transmission of paan chewing in South Indian families. We investigated the association between parental and participant's paan chewing in a South Indian population. METHODS: A subset of data was drawn from a hospital-based case-control study on oral cancer, the HeNCe Life study, conducted at Government Dental and Medical Colleges of Kozhikode, South India. Analyses were based on 371 noncancer control participants having diseases unrelated to known risk factors for oral cancer. Demographics, behavioral habits (e.g., paan chewing, smoking), and indicators of socioeconomic position (SEP) of both participants and their parents were collected with the use of a questionnaire-based interview and a life grid technique. Unconditional logistic regression assessed odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the associations between parental and participant's paan chewing, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Over half of the participants were males (55.2%), and the mean age of participants was 59 (SD = 12) years. After adjusting for age, religion, parents' SEP, parents' education, smoking and alcohol consumption, and perceived parenting behavior, we observed that maternal paan chewing and paternal paan chewing were significantly associated with the participant's paan chewing ([OR = 2.40, 95% CI = 1.11-5.21] and [OR = 3.05, 95% CI = 1.48-6.27], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Intergenerational psychosocial transmission of the habit of paan chewing could occur through shared sociocultural or environmental factors.