Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Cancer Survivorship
Published in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship 3/2020

Open Access 01-06-2020 | NSCLC

The value of immunotherapy for survivors of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: patient perspectives on quality of life

Authors: Rebekah Park, James W. Shaw, Alix Korn, Jacob McAuliffe

Published in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to examine what personally mattered to 24 patients who received immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as well as their families and friends, to understand how they evaluated their cancer treatments and the determinants of the quality of life (QoL) of long-term survivors.

Methods

Ethnographic research was conducted with 24 patients who had responded to IO (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, or durvalumab) for stage IV NSCLC, and their families and friends, evenly split among field sites in Denmark, the USA, and the UK. Data were collected using in-depth qualitative interviews, written exercises, and participant observation. Data analysis methods included interpretative phenomenological analysis, coding, and the development of grounded theory. Researchers spent 2 days with participants in their homes and accompanied them on health-related outings.

Results

Our findings reveal that long-term survivors on IO experienced their journey in two phases: one in which their cancer had taken over their lives mentally, physically, and spiritually, and another in which their cancer consumed only a part of their everyday lives. Patients who survived longer than their initial prognosis existed in a limbo state in which they were able to achieve some semblance of normalcy in spite of being identified as having a terminal condition. This limbo state impacted their life priorities, decision-making, experience of patient support, and health information-seeking behaviors, all of which shaped their definitions and experience of QoL.

Conclusions

The results of this study, which identify the specific challenges of living in limbo, where patients are able to reclaim a portion of their pre-cancer lives while continuing to wrestle with a terminal prognosis, may inform how cancer research can more effectively define and measure the QoL impacts of IO treatments. Also, they may identify approaches that the cancer community can use to support the needs of patients living in a limbo state. These experiences may not be adequately understood by the cancer community or captured by existing QoL measures, which were designed prior to the emergence of IO and without sufficient incorporation of contextual, patient-driven experience.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Increased awareness of the specific experiences that come with long-term survival on IO may direct how resources should be spent for cancer support for patients and their families. Expanding how QoL is evaluated based on patients’ lived experiences of IO can reflect a more accurate depiction of the treatment’s benefits and harms.
Literature
1.
Dela Cruz CS, Tanoue LT, Matthay RA. Lung cancer: epidemiology, etiology, and prevention. Clin Chest Med. 2011;32(4):605–44.CrossRef
2.
3.
de Castria TB, da Silva EM, Gois AF, Riera R. Cisplatin versus carboplatin with third-generation drugs for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;8:CD009256.
4.
Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, Spigel DR, Steins M, Ready NE, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1627–163.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, Crinò L, Eberhardt WEE, Poddubskaya E, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:123–35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, Felip E, Pérez-Garcia JL, Han JY, et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1540–50.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Fehrenbacher L, Spira A, Balinger M, Kowanetz M, Vansteenkiste J, Mazieres J, et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicenter, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1837–184.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Fehrenbacher L, von Pawel J, Park K, Rittmeyer A, Gandara DR, Ponce AS, et al. Updated efficacy analysis including secondary population results for OAK: a randomized phase III study of atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2018;13(8):1156–70.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Carbone DP, Reck M, Paz-Ares L, Creelan B, Horn L, Steins M, et al. First-line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(25):2415–26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Rizvi NA, Cho BC, Reinmuth N, Lee KH, Ahn M, Luft A, et al. Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab vs platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: MYSTIC. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(Suppl 10):x40–1.CrossRef
11.
Mok TSK, Wu YL, Kudaba I, Kowalski DM, Cho BC, Turna HZ, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393(10183):1819–30.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Reck M, Rodriguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, Csöszi T, Fülöp A, Gottfried M, et al. Updated analysis of KEYNOTE-024: pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(7):537–46.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Rassy E, Mezquita L, Remon J, Besse B. Non-small-cell lung cancer: what are the benefits and challenges of treating it with immune checkpoint inhibitors? Immunotherapy. 2019;11(13):1149–60.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Costa R, Carneiro BA, Agulnik M, Rademaker AW, Pai SG, Villaflor VM, et al. Toxicity profile of approved anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies in solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Oncotarget. 2017;8:8910–20.PubMedCrossRef
15.
16.
17.
Nadal E, Massuti B, Dómine M, García-Campelo R, Cobo M, Felip E. Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: insights from long-term survivors. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2019;68:341–52.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR, Wang XS, Chou C, Harle MT, Morrissey M, et al. Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients: the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Cancer. 2000;89:1634–46.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Cella D, Nowinski CJ. Measuring quality of life in chronic illness: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy measurement system. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;83(12 Suppl 2):S10–7.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:79.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. JNCI. 1993;85(5):365–76.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Fayers P, Bottomley AE. EORTC Quality of Life Group. Quality of life research within the EORTC—the EORTC QLQ-C30. EJC. 2002;38:125–33.CrossRef
23.
Smith AB, Cocks K, Parry D, Taylor M. Reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data in oncology trials: a comparison of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Qual Life Res. 2014;23(3):971–6.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Luckett T, King MT, Butow PN, Oguchi M, Rankin N, Price MA, et al. Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: issues, evidence and recommendations. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(10):2179–90.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Minasian LM, Dueck AC, et al. Development of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(9):1–11.CrossRef
26.
Kluetz PG, Chingos DT, Basch EM, Mitchell SA. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: measuring symptomatic adverse events with the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:67–73.PubMedCrossRef
27.
World Health Organization. WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. Division of mental health and substance abuse. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997.
28.
Armstrong D, Caldwell D. Origins of the concept of quality of life in health care: a rhetorical solution to a political problem. Soc Theory Health. 2004;2:361–71.CrossRef
29.
Polliack MR, Bialik O. The prevalence of long-term illness among the elderly in a general practice. S Afr Med J Suid-Afikaanse Tydskrif Vir Geneeskunde. 1975;49(53):2193–7.
30.
Bowling A. Measuring disease: a review of disease-specific quality of life measurement scales. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press; 2001.
31.
Sarma EA, Kawachi I, Poole EM, Tworoger SS, Giovannucci EL, Fuchs CS, et al. Social integration and survival after diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Cancer. 2018;124(4):833–40.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Burns CM, Craft PS, Roder DM. Does emotional support influence survival? Findings from a longitudinal study of patients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2005;13:295–302.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Butow PN, Coates AS, Dunn SM. Psychosocial predictors of survival in metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2256–63.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Cassileth BR, Walsh WP, Lusk EJ. Psychosocial correlates of cancer survival: a subsequent report 3 to 8 years after cancer diagnosis. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6:1753–9.PubMedCrossRef
35.
36.
37.
Chambers, et al. A systematic review of the impact of stigma and nihilism on lung cancer outcomes. BMC Cancer. 2012;2:184.CrossRef
38.
van Brakel WH. Measuring health-related stigma – a literature review. Psychol Health Med. 2006;11(3):307–34.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Chapple A, Ziebland S, McPherson A. Stigma, shame, and blame experienced by patients with lung cancer: qualitative study. BMJ. 2004:1–5.
40.
Conlon A, Gilbert D, Jones B, Aldredge P. Stacked stigma: oncology social worker’s perceptions of the lung cancer experience. J Pyschosoc Oncol. 2010;28(1):98–115.CrossRef
41.
Wassenaar TR, Eickhoff JC, Jarzemsky DR, Smith SS, Larson ML, Schiller JH. Differences in primary care clinicians’ approach to nonsmall cell lung cancer patients compared with breast cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2(8):722–8.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Hamaan HA, Ostroff JS, Marks EG, Gerber DE, Schiller JH, Craddock Lee SJ. Stigma among patients with lung cancer: a patient-reported measurement model. Psycho-Oncology. 2013;23:81–92.CrossRef
43.
Cataldo JK, Jahan TM, Pongquan VL. Lung cancer stigma, depression, and quality of life among ever and never smokers. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2012;16(3):264–9.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Beebe J. Basic concepts and techniques of rapid appraisal. Hum Organ. 1995;54(1):42–51.CrossRef
45.
Beebe J. Rapid assessment process: an introduction. AltaMira: Walnut Creek; 2001.
46.
Handwerker WP. Quick ethnography. AltaMira: Lanham; 2001.
47.
Harris KJ, Jerome NW, Fawcett SB. Rapid assessment procedures: a review and critique. Hum Organ. 1997;56(3):375–8.CrossRef
48.
Taplin DH, Scheld S, Low SM. Rapid ethnographic assessment in urban parks: a case study of Independence National Historical Park. Human Org. 2002;61(1):80–93.CrossRef
49.
50.
Mattingly C, Garro LC. Narrative and the cultural construction of illness and healing. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2000.
51.
Van der Geest S, Rienks A. The art of medical anthropology readings. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis Publishers; 1998.
52.
Engelke M. How to think like an anthropologist. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2018.CrossRef
53.
Kvale S. InterViews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996.
54.
Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage; 1998.
55.
Turner V. The forest of symbols: aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 1967.
56.
Geertz C. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books; 1973.
57.
Schneider D. American kinship: a cultural account. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1968.
58.
Ryle G. Concept of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1949.
59.
Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretive phenomenological analysis: theory, method, and research. London: Sage Publications; 2009.
60.
Glaser BG. The grounded theory perspective III: theoretical coding. Mill Valley: Sociology Press; 2005.
61.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine; 1967.
62.
Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2018.
63.
Cavers D, Habets L, Cunningham-Burley S, Watson E, Banks E, Campbell C. Living with and beyond cancer with comorbid illness: a qualitative systematic review and evidence synthesis. J Cancer Surviv. 2019;13(1):148–59.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
64.
Vos MS, Putter H, van Houwelingen HC, de Haes HC. Denial and social and emotional outcomes in lung cancer patients: the protective effect of denial. Lung Cancer. 2011;72(1):119–24.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Vos MS. Putter H, van Houwelingen, de Haes HC. Denial and physical outcomes in lung cancer patients, a longitudinal study. Lung Cancer. 2010;67(2):237–43.PubMedCrossRef
66.
67.
Ernest J, Mehnert A, Dietz A, Hornemann B, Esser P. Perceived stigmatization and its impact on quality of life - results from a larger register-based study including breast, colon, prostate and lung cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):741.CrossRef
68.
69.
Query M, Taylor R. Linkages between goal attainment and quality of life for individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome. Occup Ther Health Care. 2006;19(4):3–22.PubMedCrossRef
70.
71.
Metadata
Title
The value of immunotherapy for survivors of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer: patient perspectives on quality of life
Authors
Rebekah Park
James W. Shaw
Alix Korn
Jacob McAuliffe
Publication date
01-06-2020
Publisher
Springer US
Keywords
NSCLC
NSCLC
Published in
Journal of Cancer Survivorship / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 1932-2259
Electronic ISSN: 1932-2267
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-020-00853-3

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Journal of Cancer Survivorship 3/2020 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Developing the structure of Japan’s cancer survivorship guidelines using an expert panel and modified Delphi method

Review

Men’s experiences of surviving testicular cancer: an integrated literature review

OriginalPaper

Clinical trajectories, healthcare resource use, and costs of long-term hematopoietic stem cell transplantation survivors: a latent class analysis

Reviews

Use of consumer wearable devices to promote physical activity among breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors: a review of health intervention studies

OriginalPaper

The Women’s Circle of Health Follow-Up Study: a population-based longitudinal study of Black breast cancer survivors in New Jersey

OriginalPaper

Risk factors for cancer-related distress in colorectal cancer survivors: one year post surgery
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits