What Matters in Cancer Survivorship Research? A Suite of Stakeholder-Relevant Outcomes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Urquhart R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8395501 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:This brief report introduces the Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship domain in the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), which includes 15 validated measurement protocols for cancer survivorship research that were recommended for inclusion in this publicly available resource. Developed with input from the scientific community, the domain provides researchers with well-established measurement protocols for evaluating physical and psychological effects, financial toxicity, and patient experiences with cancer care. The PhenX Toolkit, funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute since 2007, is an online resource that provides high-quality standard measurement protocols for a wide range of research areas (eg, smoking cessation, harm reduction and biomarkers, and social determinants of health). Use of the PhenX Cancer Survivorship Outcomes and Survivorship domain can simplify the selection of measurement protocols, data sharing, and comparisons across studies investigating the cancer survivorship experience.
| S-EPMC10086624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adverse outcomes after childhood cancer have been assessed in a range of settings, but most existing studies are historical and ascertain outcomes only after 5-year survival. Here, we describe the Alberta Childhood Cancer Survivorship Research Program and its foundational retrospective, population-based cohort of Albertan residents diagnosed with a first primary neoplasm between the ages of 0 and 17 years from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2018. The cohort was established in collaboration with the Alberta Cancer Registry and Cancer in Young People in Canada program and has been linked to existing administrative health databases and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. The cohort comprised 2580 survivors of childhood cancer, 1379 (53.4%) of whom were 5-year survivors. Approximately 48% of the cohort was female, 47% of the cohort was diagnosed between 0 and 4 years of age, and the most frequent diagnoses were leukemias (25.4%), central nervous system tumors (24.0%), and lymphomas (14.9%). Detailed treatment information was available for 1741 survivors (67.5%), with manual abstraction ongoing for those with missing data. By the study exit date, the median time since diagnosis was 5.5 years overall and 10.4 years for 5-year survivors. During the follow-up time, 82 subsequent primary cancers were diagnosed, 20,355 inpatient and 555,425 ambulatory/outpatient events occurred, 606,773 claims were reported, and 437 survivors died. The results from this research program seek to inform and improve clinical care and reduce cancer-related sequelae via tertiary prevention strategies.
| S-EPMC10417797 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Testicular cancer represents the most curable solid tumor, with a 10-year survival rate of more than 95%. Given the young average age at diagnosis, it is estimated that effective treatment approaches, in particular, platinum-based chemotherapy, have resulted in an average gain of several decades of life. This success, however, is offset by the emergence of considerable long-term morbidity, including second malignant neoplasms, cardiovascular disease, neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, pulmonary toxicity, hypogonadism, decreased fertility, and psychosocial problems. Data on underlying genetic or molecular factors that might identify those patients at highest risk for late sequelae are sparse. Genome-wide association studies and other translational molecular approaches now provide opportunities to identify testicular cancer survivors at greatest risk for therapy-related complications to develop evidence-based long-term follow-up guidelines and interventional strategies. We review research priorities identified during an international workshop devoted to testicular cancer survivors. Recommendations include 1) institution of lifelong follow-up of testicular cancer survivors within a large cohort setting to ascertain risks of emerging toxicities and the evolution of known late sequelae, 2) development of comprehensive risk prediction models that include treatment factors and genetic modifiers of late sequelae, 3) elucidation of the effect(s) of decades-long exposure to low serum levels of platinum, 4) assessment of the overall burden of medical and psychosocial morbidity, and 5) the eventual formulation of evidence-based long-term follow-up guidelines and interventions. Just as testicular cancer once served as the paradigm of a curable malignancy, comprehensive follow-up studies of testicular cancer survivors can pioneer new methodologies in survivorship research for all adult-onset cancer.
| S-EPMC2914759 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction/objectivesThe engagement of patients and other stakeholders is a critical element in the design of patient-centered outcomes research studies. However, methodology for scalable engagement in research management particularly activities such as operationalization of principles and setting of priorities is not well-developed. The objective of this study is to describe a novel approach for scalable stakeholder engagement in research aligned with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) engagement principles, which was evaluated in a national clinical data research network.Materials and methodsPatient, patient advocate, clinician, and researcher stakeholders were recruited from clinical sites, as well as social media sites related to the 3 conditions of focus, heart failure, obesity, and Kawasaki disease. The engagement strategy was designed, implemented, and mapped to the PCORI engagement principles. Evaluation included internal assessment and quantitative measures of online engagement.ResultsWe operationalized the PCORI principles with 12 stakeholder engagement strategies and convened stakeholder advisory boards and online research prioritization panels to determine research priorities in a rigorous, deliberative process. A total of 46 advisors (20 patients) and 339 panelists (159 patients) actively participated. There were not significant differences between patients and clinicians in level of online engagement. Nonetheless, while patients reported a slightly greater challenge with following online discussion, they overall had a more favorable opinion about use of the online format.Discussion/conclusionAn efficient way to engage large numbers of representative stakeholders in research is a necessary first step to assure the public of trustworthy use of data networks for health research. This paper describes a comprehensive approach to engagement in patient-centered outcomes research management that informs ongoing development of rigorous methodologies in this area.
| S-EPMC6143220 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare outcomes assessed in extant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to outcomes that stakeholders expect from survivorship care plans (SCPs). To facilitate the transition from active treatment to follow-up care for the 15.5 million US cancer survivors, many organizations require SCP use. However, results of several RCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have been null, possibly because they have evaluated outcomes on which SCPs should be expected to have limited influence. Stakeholders (e.g., survivors, oncologists) may expect outcomes that differ from RCTs' outcomes.MethodsWe identified RCTs' outcomes using a PubMed literature review. We identified outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs using semistructured interviews with stakeholders in three healthcare systems in the USA and Canada. Finally, we mapped RCTs' outcomes onto stakeholder-identified outcomes.ResultsRCT outcomes did not fully address outcomes that stakeholders expected from SCPs, and RCTs assessed outcomes that stakeholders did not expect from SCPs. RCTs often assessed outcomes only from survivors' perspectives.ConclusionsRCTs of SCPs' effectiveness have not assessed outcomes that stakeholders expect. To better understand SCPs' effectiveness, future RCTs should assess outcomes of SCP use that are relevant from the perspective of multiple stakeholders.Implications for cancer survivorsSCPs' effectiveness may be optimized when used with an eye toward outcomes that stakeholders expect from SCPs. For survivors, this means using SCPs as a map to guide them with respect to what kind of follow-up care they should seek, when they should seek it, and from whom they should seek it.
| S-EPMC6054562 | biostudies-literature
Project description:My father was diagnosed with stomach cancer recently. Luckily, it was still at an early stage, and endoscopic surgery successfully took care of it. My father was fortunate; since people with stomach cancer do not show clear symptoms in the early stages, the disease is often not diagnosed until it becomes advanced. In his case, the diagnosis started from a suggestion by his doctor to check whether he had a gastric infection with Helicobacter pylori, a bacterial species found in the digestive tract. In Japan, where he lives, a majority of gastric cancer patients (more than 99%) have been infected with H. pylori [1], and the causative role of this bacterial species in promoting gastric cancer is very well established. Now, scientific understanding connecting gastric cancer to H. pylori is saving the lives of many people, including my father. Thinking about this recent personal experience, I wonder if the connection between bacteria and cancer might have been considered a crazy idea decades ago. Research makes it possible to connect seemingly unrelated matters. My laboratory works on seemingly unrelated research topics, such as fungal infections and autoimmunity. However, my question is the same whatever the topic: How do leukocytes elicit and regulate inflammation when they detect infections or endogenous signals? In fact, host receptors detecting pathogens can induce autoimmunity, and autoimmunity alters host sensitivity to pathogens due to the imbalance in the immune system. We are beginning to gain some insight into this question, as revealed by some of our recent studies. For example, the NLR family, pyrin domain containing 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome, which is known to sense a wide variety of pathogens, can also change the course of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), an animal model of multiple sclerosis (MS). In particular, our study suggested that disease treatment approaches need to be changed based on the activation status of the NLRP3 inflammasome [2]. Another recent study from our laboratory demonstrated that a protein, termed osteopontin (OPN), skews the balance of population sizes between myeloid cells (i.e., innate immunity) and lymphoid cells (i.e., adaptive immunity) during infections and other biological insults [3]. An intracellular isoform of OPN (iOPN) negatively regulates emergency myelopoiesis. Thus, OPN attenuates host resistance by limiting neutrophil supply at the early stage of systemic Candida infection. In contrast, a secreted OPN (sOPN) isoform positively regulates the expansion of T lymphocytes and ends up triggering autoimmune colitis. I am an immunologist but obtained my PhD in mycology. Nevertheless, it took some time for me to appreciate that research enables us to connect the dots placed far apart. This is a truly exciting time to connect seemingly unrelated biological phenomena, because scientists are exponentially increasing our understanding of nature. This is particularly true in innate immunity, which is not only the central alarming system in host-microbe interactions but also relates to almost any human disease we can imagine. However, we are facing a dark age for science and research, in which certain interests wrongfully discredit some research fields. There are things that can be achieved only by research. I am always ready to tell anyone, "Yes, research matters!".
| S-EPMC5552019 | biostudies-other
Project description:Survivors of childhood cancer carry a substantial burden of morbidity and are at increased risk for premature death. Furthermore, clear associations exist between specific therapeutic exposures and the risk for a variety of long-term complications. The entire landscape of health issues encountered for decades after successful completion of treatment is currently being explored in various collaborative research settings. These settings include large population-based or multi-institutional cohorts and single-institution studies. The ascertainment of outcomes has depended on self-reporting, linkage to registries, or clinical assessments. Survivorship research in the cooperative group setting, such as the Children's Oncology Group, has leveraged the clinical trials infrastructure to explore the molecular underpinnings of treatment-related adverse events, and to understand specific complications in the setting of randomized risk-reduction strategies. This review highlights the salient findings from these large collaborative initiatives, emphasizing the need for life-long follow-up of survivors of childhood cancer, and describing the development of several guidelines and efforts toward harmonization. Finally, the review reinforces the need to identify populations at highest risk, facilitating the development of risk prediction models that would allow for targeted interventions across the entire trajectory of survivorship.
| S-EPMC4567704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prevalence of survivors of breast cancer has been steadily increasing in the last 20 years. Currently, more than 90% of women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are expected to be alive at 5 years from diagnosis thanks to early detection and breakthrough innovations in multimodal treatment strategies. Alongside this advancement in clinical outcomes, survivors of breast cancer might experience several specific challenges and present with unique needs. Survivorship trajectories after diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer can be significantly impacted by long-lasting and severe treatment-related side effects, including physical problems, psychological distress, fertility issues in young women, and impaired social and work reintegration, which add up to patients' individual risk of cancer recurrence and second primary malignancies. Alongside cancer-specific sequelae, survivors still present with general health needs, including management of chronic preexisting or ensuing conditions. Survivorship care should implement high-quality, evidence-based strategies to promptly screen, identify, and address survivors' needs in a comprehensive way and minimize the impact of severe treatment sequelae, preexisting comorbidities, unhealthy lifestyles, and risk of recurrence on quality of life. This narrative review focuses on core areas of survivorship care and discuss the state of the art and future research perspectives in key domains including selected long-term side effects, surveillance for recurrences and second cancers, well-being promotion, and specific survivors' needs.
| S-EPMC10260743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted a review of the peer-reviewed literature since 2003 to catalogue reported methods of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research and patient-centered outcomes research.We worked with stakeholders before, during and after the review was conducted to: define the primary and key research questions; conduct the literature search; screen titles, abstracts and articles; abstract data from the articles; and analyze the data. The literature search yielded 2,062 abstracts. The review was conducted on 70 articles that reported on stakeholder engagement in individual research projects or programs.Reports of stakeholder engagement are highly variable in content and quality. We found frequent engagement with patients, modestly frequent engagement with clinicians, and infrequent engagement with stakeholders in other key decision-making groups across the healthcare system. Stakeholder engagement was more common in earlier (prioritization) than in later (implementation and dissemination) stages of research. The roles and activities of stakeholders were highly variable across research and program reports.To improve on the quality and content of reporting, we developed a 7-Item Stakeholder Engagement Reporting Questionnaire. We recommend three directions for future research: 1) descriptive research on stakeholder-engagement in research; 2) evaluative research on the impact of stakeholder engagement on the relevance, transparency and adoption of research; and 3) development and validation of tools that can be used to support stakeholder engagement in future work.
| S-EPMC4242886 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundGathering information directly from cancer survivors has advanced our understanding of the cancer survivorship experience. However, it is unknown whether surveys can distinguish important subgroups of cancer survivors. This study aimed to describe the current landscape of survey questions used to identify and describe cancer survivors in national cross-sectional studies.MethodsUsing publicly available databases, the authors identified national cross-sectional surveys used in the United States within the past 15 years that included a question on self-reported history of cancer. After abstracting questions and response items used to identify cancer survivors, they conducted a descriptive analysis.ResultsThe authors identified 14 national cross-sectional surveys, with half administered to the general population and the other half administered to cancer survivors. The most common question used to identify cancer survivors was "Have you ever been told by a doctor or other health professional that you had cancer?" Most surveys had questions asking participants to identify a single cancer type (n = 11), multiple prior cancer diagnoses or types (n = 11), and the time from diagnosis (n = 12). Treatment questions varied from active treatment status to specific treatments received. Questions addressing cancer stage (n = 2), subtypes (n = 1), metastatic status (n = 3), and recurrence (n = 4) were less frequently included.ConclusionsThere is no standard method for assessing self-reported cancer history, and this limits the ability to distinguish among potentially important subgroups of survivors. Future cross-sectional surveys that capture nuanced data elements, such as cancer types, stages/subtypes, metastatic/recurrent status, and treatments received, can help to fill important gaps in cancer survivorship research and clinical care.
| S-EPMC8738118 | biostudies-literature