All times are listed in CEST (Central European Summer Time)
- Virpi Sulosaari (Turku, Finland)
Capecitabine & hand-foot syndrome: Results of a retrospective study in patients treated for metastatic breast cancer from 2008 to 2018
- Hedi Chabanol (Paris, France)
Biomarkers usage for prediction of symptom clusters in patients with colorectal cancer following chemotherapy
- Elen Fytrou (Haidari, Greece)
Managing neuropathy in the oncology setting
- Judy Phillips (Asheville, United States of America)
CN48 - A qualitative study of patient and clinician experiences of providing care, information and support for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy
- Mary A. Tanay (London, United Kingdom)
Abstract
Background
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), characterised by subjective sensory and motor symptoms felt on hands and feet, is one of the less known side-effects of chemotherapy. For many patients, their awareness of CIPN begins with information provided by clinicians during pre-chemotherapy consultations. However, there is limited understanding of how patients develop their understanding and perception of CIPN or of the experiences of clinicians providing CIPN information. This study explored patient’s and clinician’s experience of care provision, information and support for CIPN.
Methods
Data collection was conducted between July-November 2019 in a London hospital using multiple qualitative methods. Non-participant observations of pre-chemotherapy consultations between clinicians and people with breast or colorectal cancer (n= 9) were conducted. We also undertook semi-structured interviews with people who had breast or colorectal cancer (n=11) and clinicians (n=9). Data were analysed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis.
Results
Three major themes emerged. First, CIPN is a hidden chemotherapy side-effect not only because of its subjective nature but due to patient perspectives (
Conclusions
Our findings provide insights into patients’ and clinicians’ CIPN experiences. Issues such as patients’ lack of familiarity with CIPN, limited knowledge and understanding about CIPN among clinicians and fragmentation between CIPN assessment, management and support were highlighted. Our findings can inform future CIPN interventions that may better address patients’ support needs and enhance overall patient experience.
Legal entity responsible for the study
King's College London.
Funding
National Institute for Health Research.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
CN49 - A rapid review of patient reported outcomes for patients with renal cell cancer or hepatocellular cancer on treatment with targeted therapies
- Celia Díez de los Ríos de la Serna (Barcelona, Spain)
Abstract
Background
Targeted therapies are an efficacious treatment option for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Targeted therapies often have low-grade toxicities that may not require intervention but may be persistent and difficult to live with, thus affecting patients’ quality of life and adherence to treatment. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are key indicators of health status and functioning, coming directly from the patient. Comprehensive monitoring of PROs enables implementation of person-centred care. Currently, what PROs patients with RCC or HCC consider of utmost importance remains unknown.
Methods
As part of the EONS PROMs project, a rapid literature review was carried out to identify PROs commonly assessed/reported in clinical studies of patients with advanced RCC/HCC on targeted therapies. A systematic search strategy was developed in line with PRISMA statement guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL & PsycInfo for relevant peer-reviewed publications in the period from 2000-2021. Pre-specified selection criteria were applied to all retrieved records. Findings were integrated into a narrative synthesis.
Results
From a total of 1377 records, 81 studies met our selection criteria and were retained. Most research was on advanced RCC (n=64, 79%). 46 studies (57%) were drug trials. No qualitative research on PROs was found. Twenty-six studies (32%) employed PROs as their primary endpoint. PROs mainly featured as secondary endpoints, particularly where treatment efficacy (survival) was the focus of the study. Across studies, assessed PROs were similar for both RCC and HCC, and concerned three main areas: health-related quality of life, symptoms (cancer-related and treatment-related), and functioning. Whether selection of these PROs was patient-driven was not reported.
Conclusions
A wide range of assessed PROs were reported, however which PROs matter the most to patients with advanced RCC/HCC must be further clarified. Deficits in PROs often cause patients to seek out help. Targeting, monitoring, and responding to the ‘right’ PROs can enhance provision of person-centred care in advanced RCC/HCC and augment the clinical efficacy of targeted therapies.
Legal entity responsible for the study
European Oncology Nursing Society.
Funding
Ipsen and Eisai.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Q&A and live discussion
- Virpi Sulosaari (Turku, Finland)