Dataset Information

Resilience in advanced cancer caregiving. A systematic review and meta-synthesis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Close relatives provide much of the care to people with cancer. As resilience can shield family caregivers from mental health problems, there has been a burgeoning interest in resilience-promoting interventions. However, the evidence necessary for the development of these interventions is scant and unsynthesized.

Aim

To create an overall picture of evidence on resilience in cancer caregiving by a theory-driven meta-synthesis.

Design

In this systematically constructed review a thematic synthesis approach has been applied. The original findings were coded and structured deductively according to the theoretical framework. Consequently, the codes were organized inductively into themes and subthemes.

Data sources

Through September 2019, five electronic databases were searched for qualitative studies on resilience in cancer caregiving. The search was extended by a supplementary hand search. Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria.

Results

The elements of resilience, as described in the pre-defined theoretical framework of Bonanno, are reflected in the lived experiences of family caregivers. The resilience process starts with the diagnosis of advanced cancer and may result in mental wellbeing, benefit finding, and personal growth. The process is influenced by context elements such as individual history, sociocultural background, caregiver characteristics, and the behavior of the supportive network. A repertoire of coping strategies that caregivers use throughout the caregiving process moderates the resilience process.

Conclusion

This review and theoretical synthesis reveal key elements of resilience in the process of cancer caregiving, including influencing factors and outcomes. Implications and avenues for further research are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Opsomer S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8796166 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study aims to comprehensively summarize the currently available evidences on the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus erlotinib for treating advanced pancreatic cancer.Methodology/principal findingsPubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and abstracts of recent major conferences were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. Studies that were conducted in advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with gemcitabine plus erlotinib (with or without comparison with gemcitabine alone) and reporting objective response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, time-to-progression, overall survival, 1-year survival rate and/or adverse events were included. Data on objective response rate, disease control rate, 1-year survival rate and adverse events rate, respectively, were combined mainly by using Meta-Analyst software with a random-effects model. Data on progression-free survival, time-to-progression and overall survival were summarized descriptively. Sixteen studies containing 1,308 advanced pancreatic cancer patients treated with gemcitabine plus erlotinib were included. The reported median progression-free survival (or time-to-progression), median overall survival, 1-year survival rates, objective response rates and disease control rates were 2-9.6 months, 5-12.5 months, 20%-51%, 0%-28.6% and 25.0%-83.3%, respectively. The weighted 1-year survival rate, objective response rate and disease control rate based on studies reporting robust results were 27.9%, 9.1% and 57.0%, respectively. According to the studies with relevant data, the incidences of total and severe adverse events were 96.3% and 62.9%, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were leucopenia, rash, diarrhea, vomitting, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anaemia, stomatitis, drug-induced liver injury, fatigue and fever. Compared with gemcitabine alone, the progression-free survival and overall survival with gemcitabine plus erlotinib were significantly longer, but there were also more deaths and interstitial lung disease-like syndrome related to this treatment.Conclusions/significanceGemcitabine plus erlotinib represent a new option for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer, with mild but clinically meaningful additive efficacy compared with gemcitabine alone. Its safety profile is generally acceptable, although careful management is needed for some specific adverse events.

Project description:BackgroundAdvanced pancreatic cancer confers poor prognosis and treatment advancement has been slow. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits for combination therapy compared to gemcitabine alone. However, the comparative benefits and harms of available combination chemotherapy treatments are not clear. We therefore conducted a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.MethodsMEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical trials and abstracts from major scientific meetings were searched for RCTs published from 2002 to 2013. Key outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and safety including grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and sensory neuropathy. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted to calculate survival and safety outcomes using gemcitabine (GEM) as the reference comparator. Effect estimates and 95% credible intervals were calculated for each comparison. Mean ranks and the probability of being best were obtained for each treatment analyzed in the network meta-analysis.ResultsThe search identified 23 studies involving 19 different treatment regimens and 9,989 patients. FOLFIRINOX, GEM/cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU (PEFG), GEM/NAB-paclitaxel (NAB-P), GEM/erlotinib+/-bevacizumab, GEM/capecitabine, and GEM/oxaliplatin were associated with statistically significant improvements in OS and PFS relative to gemcitabine alone and several other treatments. They were amongst the top ranked for survival outcomes amongst other treatments included. No significant differences were found for other combination chemotherapy treatments. Effect estimates from indirect comparisons matched closely to estimates derived from pairwise comparisons. Overall, combination therapies had greater risk for evaluated grade 3-4 toxicities over gemcitabine alone.ConclusionsIn the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we performed a mixed-treatment analysis to achieve high-quality information on the effectiveness and safety of each treatment. This study suggests that some combination therapies may offer greater benefits in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer than others. To more fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of different combination chemotherapy regimens, rigorously conducted comparative studies, or network meta-analysis of patient-level data are required.