Top

Published in:

01-02-2021 | Prostate Cancer

Enhancing survivorship care planning for patients with localized prostate cancer using a couple-focused web-based, mHealth program: the results of a pilot feasibility study

Authors: Lixin Song, Peiran Guo, Xianming Tan, Ronald C. Chen, Matthew E. Nielsen, Sarah A. Birken, Bridget F. Koontz, Laurel L. Northouse, Deborah K. Mayer

Published in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the feasibility of an enhanced survivorship care plan (ESCP) that integrated the web-based program Patient Education Resources for Couples (PERC) into a standardized survivorship care plan (SCP) and estimated the outcomes of ESCPs versus SCPs.

Methods

In this randomized pilot trial, localized prostate cancer (PC) patients and partners (i.e., couple) were randomly assigned to ESCP that contained a link to PERC or to SCP that contained a link to general PC information on the National Cancer Institute website. Couples completed assessments measuring quality of life (QOL), appraisal of symptoms, and coping resources at baseline (T1) and 4–6 months later (T2). We examined feasibility (e.g., recruitment and retention) using descriptive statistics. Linear mixed models examined changes in couples’ outcomes over time and Poisson regression examined differences in patient healthcare utilization.

Results

Sixty-two couples completed T1 surveys (recruitment rate 41.6%) and were randomly assigned to receive ESCP (n = 31) or SCP (n = 31). Twenty-eight (ESCP) and 25 (SCP) couples completed T2 surveys (retention rates = 90.3% vs. 80.7%). ESCP participants (70%) reviewed webpages consistent with patients’ symptoms. ESCP patients reported greater program satisfaction (p = 0.02) and better urinary symptom scores (p < 0.01) than SCP patients.

Conclusions

Delivering ESCPs that embed a web-link to a couple-focused, tailored program is feasible and can potentially improve patient outcomes. The promising results need to be validated in a larger definitive trial using a diverse sample.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

SCPs, enhanced using a web-based intervention (e.g., PERC), may help PC cancer survivors better manage their urinary symptoms.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04350788

Available only for authorised users

American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2020. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2020.

Chen RC, Zhang Y, Chen MH, McMahon E, Loffredo M, McPherson CP, et al. Patient-reported quality of life during radiation treatment for localized prostate cancer: results from a prospective phase II trial. BJU Int. 2012;110(11):1690–5.CrossRef

Matthew AG, Alibhai SMH, Davidson T, Currie KL, Jiang H, Krahn M, et al. Health-related quality of life following radical prostatectomy: long-term outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2309–17.CrossRef

Prabhu V, et al. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term quality of life outcomes following radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Rev Urol. 2013;15(4):161–77.PubMedPubMedCentral

Crook JM, Gomez-Iturriaga A, Wallace K, Ma C, Fung S, Alibhai S, et al. Comparison of health-related quality of life 5 years after SPIRIT: Surgical Prostatectomy Versus Interstitial Radiation Intervention Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(4):362–8.CrossRef

Bernat J, et al. Domain-specific symptom burden and information needs in prostate cancer survivors: a case for tailored long-term survivorship care. J Urol. 2015;193:e309.

Northouse LL, Mood DW, Montie JE, Sandler HM, Forman JD, Hussain M, et al. Living with prostate cancer: patients’ and spouses’ psychosocial status and quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4171–7.CrossRef

Harden J, Sanda MG, Wei JT, Yarandi HN, Hembroff L, Hardy J, et al. Survivorship after prostate cancer treatment: spouses’ quality of life at 36 months. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2013;40(6):567–73.CrossRef

Galbraith ME, Fink R, Wilkins GG. Couples surviving prostate cancer: challenges in their lives and relationships. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2011;27(4):300–8.CrossRef

10.

Ervik B, Nordoy T, Asplund K. In the middle and on the sideline: the experience of spouses of men with prostate cancer. Cancer Nurs. 2013;36(3):E7–E14.CrossRef

11.

Hoekstra RA, Heins MJ, Korevaar JC. Health care needs of cancer survivors in general practice: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:94.CrossRef

12.

Bazzell, J.L., A. Spurlock, and M. McBride, Matching the Unmet Needs of Cancer Survivors to Resources Using a Shared Care Model. J Cancer Educ, 2015;30(2):312–8.

13.

Viswanathan, M., et al., Models of cancer survivorship care. 2014.

14.

Skolarus TA, Wolf AM, Erb NL, Brooks DD, Rivers BM, Underwood W 3rd, et al. American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(4):225–49.CrossRef

15.

Mayer DK, Nekhlyudov L, Snyder CF, Merrill JK, Wollins DS, Shulman LN. American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical expert statement on cancer survivorship care planning. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(6):345–51.CrossRef

16.

Alfano CM, Smith T, de Moor JS, Glasgow RE, Khoury MJ, Hawkins NA, et al. An action plan for translating cancer survivorship research into care. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(11):dju287.CrossRef

17.

American Society of Clinical Oncology. ASCO answers: cancer survivorship trusted information about life after treatment from the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Alexandria: American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2014.

18.

Boekhout AH, et al. A survivorship care plan for breast cancer survivors: extended results of a randomized clinical trial. J Cancer Surviv. 2015;9(4):683–91.CrossRef

19.

Grunfeld E, Julian JA, Pond G, Maunsell E, Coyle D, Folkes A, et al. Evaluating survivorship care plans: results of a randomized, clinical trial of patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(36):4755–62.CrossRef

20.

Nicolaije KA, Ezendam NP, Vos MC, Pijnenborg JM, Boll D, Boss EA, et al. Impact of an automatically generated cancer survivorship care plan on patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: longitudinal outcomes of a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(31):3550–9.CrossRef

21.

Ezendam NP, et al. Survivorship care plans to inform the primary care physician: results from the ROGY care pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8(4):595–602.CrossRef

22.

Mayer DK, Birken SA, Check DK, Chen RC. Summing it up: an integrative review of studies of cancer survivorship care plans (2006-2013). Cancer. 2014;121(7):978–96.CrossRef

23.

Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1984.

24.

Lazarus RS. Stress and emotion: a new syntheis. Springer Publishing Company, Inc; 1999.

25.

Song L, Dunlap KL, Tan X, Chen RC, Nielsen ME, Rabenberg RL, et al. Enhancing survivorship care planning for patients with localized prostate cancer using a couple-focused mHealth symptom self-management program: protocol for a feasibility study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2018;7(2):e51.CrossRef

26.

National comprehensive Cancer Network, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN Guideline): prostate cancer. 2014. National Comprehensive Cancer Network: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed 10 June 2016.

27.

Song L, Rini C, Deal AM, Nielsen ME, Chang H, Kinneer P, et al. Improving couples’ quality of life through a web-based, couple-oriented prostate cancer education intervention. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2015;42:183–92.CrossRef

28.

Bastien JM. Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(4):e18–23.CrossRef

29.

Brooke J. SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan PW, et al., editors. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor and Francis; 1996.

30.

Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:570–9.CrossRef

31.

Northouse LL, Mood D, Kershaw T, Schafenacker A, Mellon S, Walker J, et al. Quality of life of women with recurrent breast cancer and their family members. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4050–64.CrossRef

32.

Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, Sandler HM, Sanda MG. Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 2000;56(6):899–905.CrossRef

33.

Mood D, et al. Assessing risk for distress in cancer patients and family caregivers. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2007;34(1):233.

34.

Lewis FM. Family home visitation study final report. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda; 1996.

35.

Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system. PROMISE Informational Support Instruments. 2015.

36.

Sheridan SL, Draeger LB, Pignone MP, Sloane PD, Samuel-Hodge C, Finkelstein EA, et al. Designing and implementing a comparative effectiveness study of two strategies for delivering high quality CHD prevention: methods and participant characteristics for the Heart to Health study. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;36(2):394–405.CrossRef

37.

Kraschnewski JL, Gold AD, Gizlice Z, Johnston LF, Garcia BA, Samuel-Hodge CD, et al. Development and evaluation of a brief questionnaire to assess dietary fat quality in low-income overweight women in the southern United States. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2013;45(4):355–61.CrossRef

38.

Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Cutt H, Pikora TJ, Bull FCL, Knuiman M, et al. Development of a reliable measure of walking within and outside the local neighborhood: RESIDE’s Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire. Prev Med. 2006;42(6):455–9.CrossRef

39.

Jones SA, Evenson KR, Johnston LF, Trost SG, Samuel-Hodge C, Jewell DA, et al. Psychometric properties of the modified RESIDE physical activity questionnaire among low-income overweight women. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18(1):37–42.CrossRef

40.

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.CrossRef

41.

Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson Comorbidity Index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(6):676–82.CrossRef

42.

Hill RE, Wakefield CE, Cohn RJ, Fardell JE, Brierley ME, Kothe E, et al. Survivorship care plans in cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of care plan outcomes. Oncologist. 2020;25(2):e351–72.CrossRef

43.

Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, Gilliland FD, Stephenson RA, Eley JW, et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA. 2000;283:354–60.CrossRef

Title: Enhancing survivorship care planning for patients with localized prostate cancer using a couple-focused web-based, mHealth program: the results of a pilot feasibility study
Authors: Lixin Song
Peiran Guo
Xianming Tan
Ronald C. Chen
Matthew E. Nielsen
Sarah A. Birken
Bridget F. Koontz
Laurel L. Northouse
Deborah K. Mayer
Publication date: 01-02-2021
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Care
Published in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 1932-2259
Electronic ISSN: 1932-2267
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-020-00914-7

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

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Determinants of adherence to physical cancer rehabilitation guidelines among cancer patients and cancer centers: a cross-sectional observational study

Mammography use in relation to comorbidities and functional limitations among older breast cancer survivors

Cost-utility of an eHealth application ‘Oncokompas’ that supports cancer survivors in self-management: results of a randomised controlled trial

Identifying the supportive care needs of men and women affected by chemotherapy-induced alopecia? A systematic review

Hispanic ethnicity as a moderator of the effects of aerobic and resistance exercise on physical fitness and quality-of-life in breast cancer survivors

Social and medical risk factors associated with supportive needs in the first year following localized prostate cancer treatment

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer