Improving management of comorbidity in patients with colorectal cancer using comprehensive medical assessment: a pilot study.


Journal

BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 Jan 2020
Historique:
received: 27 08 2019
accepted: 09 01 2020
entrez: 22 1 2020
pubmed: 22 1 2020
medline: 22 9 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Screening for and active management of comorbidity soon after cancer diagnosis shows promise in altering cancer treatment and outcomes for comorbid patients. Prior to a large multi-centre study, piloting of the intervention (comprehensive medical assessment) was undertaken to investigate the feasibility of the comorbidity screening tools and proposed outcome measures, and the feasibility, acceptability and potential effect of the intervention. In this pilot intervention study, 72 patients of all ages (36 observation/36 intervention) with newly diagnosed or recently relapsed colorectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled and underwent comorbidity screening and risk stratification. Intervention patients meeting pre-specified comorbidity criteria were referred for intervention, a comprehensive medical assessment carried out by geriatricians. Each intervention was individually tailored but included assessment and management of comorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health particularly depression, functional status and psychosocial issues. Recruitment and referral to intervention were tracked, verbal and written feedback were gathered from staff, and semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 13 patients to assess screening tool and intervention feasibility and acceptability. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Patients were followed for 6-12 months after recruitment to assess feasibility of proposed outcome measures (chemotherapy uptake and completion rates, grade 3-5 treatment toxicity, attendance at hospital emergency clinic, and unplanned hospitalisations) and descriptive data on outcomes collated. Of the 29 intervention patients eligible for the intervention, 21 received it with feedback indicating that the intervention was acceptable. Those in the intervention group were less likely to be on 3+ medications, to have been admitted to hospital in previous 12 months, or to have limitations in daily activities. Collection of data to measure proposed outcomes was feasible with 55% (6/11) of intervention patients completing chemotherapy as planned compared to none (of 14) of the control group. No differences were seen in other outcome measures. Overall the study was feasible with modification, but the intervention was difficult to integrate into clinical pathways. This study generated valuable results that will be used to guide modification of the study and its approaches prior to progressing to a larger-scale study. Retrospective, 26 August 2019, ACTRN12619001192178.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Screening for and active management of comorbidity soon after cancer diagnosis shows promise in altering cancer treatment and outcomes for comorbid patients. Prior to a large multi-centre study, piloting of the intervention (comprehensive medical assessment) was undertaken to investigate the feasibility of the comorbidity screening tools and proposed outcome measures, and the feasibility, acceptability and potential effect of the intervention.
METHODS METHODS
In this pilot intervention study, 72 patients of all ages (36 observation/36 intervention) with newly diagnosed or recently relapsed colorectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled and underwent comorbidity screening and risk stratification. Intervention patients meeting pre-specified comorbidity criteria were referred for intervention, a comprehensive medical assessment carried out by geriatricians. Each intervention was individually tailored but included assessment and management of comorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health particularly depression, functional status and psychosocial issues. Recruitment and referral to intervention were tracked, verbal and written feedback were gathered from staff, and semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 13 patients to assess screening tool and intervention feasibility and acceptability. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Patients were followed for 6-12 months after recruitment to assess feasibility of proposed outcome measures (chemotherapy uptake and completion rates, grade 3-5 treatment toxicity, attendance at hospital emergency clinic, and unplanned hospitalisations) and descriptive data on outcomes collated.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of the 29 intervention patients eligible for the intervention, 21 received it with feedback indicating that the intervention was acceptable. Those in the intervention group were less likely to be on 3+ medications, to have been admitted to hospital in previous 12 months, or to have limitations in daily activities. Collection of data to measure proposed outcomes was feasible with 55% (6/11) of intervention patients completing chemotherapy as planned compared to none (of 14) of the control group. No differences were seen in other outcome measures. Overall the study was feasible with modification, but the intervention was difficult to integrate into clinical pathways.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
This study generated valuable results that will be used to guide modification of the study and its approaches prior to progressing to a larger-scale study.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
Retrospective, 26 August 2019, ACTRN12619001192178.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31959129
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-6526-z
pii: 10.1186/s12885-020-6526-z
pmc: PMC6971855
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

50

Subventions

Organisme : Otago School of Medical Sciences
ID : None
Organisme : University of Otago Wellington Deans Grant
ID : None

Références

Ann Oncol. 2012 Aug;23(8):2166-72
pubmed: 22250183
BMJ Open. 2014 Feb 12;4(2):e003846
pubmed: 24523421
Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:325-50
pubmed: 18173388
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Mar 3;85(5):365-76
pubmed: 8433390
BMC Cancer. 2011 Apr 12;11:132
pubmed: 21486460
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2000 Sep;35(3):181-200
pubmed: 10960800
Cancer. 2007 Jun 15;109(12):2410-9
pubmed: 17510973
J Geriatr Oncol. 2013 Jul;4(3):271-81
pubmed: 24070464
BMC Cancer. 2014 Nov 07;14:821
pubmed: 25380581
Ann Oncol. 2005 Nov;16(11):1795-800
pubmed: 16093275
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005 Jun;60(6):798-803
pubmed: 15983186
Br J Cancer. 2013 Jul 9;109(1):265-71
pubmed: 23681188
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Aug 8;104(15):1133-63
pubmed: 22851269
N Z Med J. 2012 Jun 29;125(1357):76-87
pubmed: 22854362
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2016 Mar;12(1):e47-56
pubmed: 24354451
Lancet Oncol. 2012 Oct;13(10):e437-44
pubmed: 23026829
BMC Cancer. 2009 Apr 20;9:116
pubmed: 19379520
Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2013 Mar;9(1):47-52
pubmed: 22974267
Eur J Cancer. 2000 Mar;36(4):453-71
pubmed: 10717521
J Geriatr Oncol. 2018 Nov;9(6):683-686
pubmed: 29540293
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jan 1;29(1):106-17
pubmed: 21098314
Br J Cancer. 2015 Apr 28;112(9):1435-44
pubmed: 25871332
Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Nov 01;5(Suppl 1):3-29
pubmed: 24227920
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 14;9(4):e026383
pubmed: 30987988
BMC Cancer. 2008 Jan 29;8:31
pubmed: 18230177
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(23):iii-157
pubmed: 11785749
Med Care. 2014 Jun;52(6):482-9
pubmed: 24824535
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 20;32(24):2595-603
pubmed: 25071125
Ann Oncol. 2014 Feb;25(2):307-15
pubmed: 24256847
Eur J Cancer. 2014 May;50(7):1269-75
pubmed: 24503027
J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 10;25(14):1824-31
pubmed: 17488980
CA Cancer J Clin. 2016 Jul;66(4):337-50
pubmed: 26891458
Br J Cancer. 2008 Jun 17;98(12):1934-43
pubmed: 18506146
BMC Cancer. 2018 Oct 29;18(1):1050
pubmed: 30373562
J Adv Nurs. 2002 Dec;40(5):587-93
pubmed: 12437608
J Oncol Pract. 2017 Aug;13(8):523-529
pubmed: 28692331
J Am Board Fam Med. 2018 May-Jun;31(3):466-478
pubmed: 29743229
Cancer Treat Rev. 2018 Mar;64:30-39
pubmed: 29459248
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2004 Jul;13(3):254-62
pubmed: 15196229
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 May;67(5):586-95
pubmed: 24582212
BMJ. 2000 Jan 15;320(7228):178-81
pubmed: 10634744
BMC Cancer. 2018 Nov 12;18(1):1091
pubmed: 30419850
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000 Dec;48(12):1707-13
pubmed: 11129765
Eur Urol Focus. 2017 Oct;3(4-5):330-339
pubmed: 29331624

Auteurs

Virginia Signal (V)

Department of Public Health, University of Otago, PO Box 7343, South, Wellington, 6242, New Zealand. virginia.signal@otago.ac.nz.

Christopher Jackson (C)

Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin: Southern Blood and Cancer Service, Southern District Health Board, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Louise Signal (L)

Department of Public Health, University of Otago, PO Box 7343, South, Wellington, 6242, New Zealand.

Claire Hardie (C)

School of Medicine and Health Sciences at Palmerston North, University of Otago, Wellington: Cancer Screening Treatment and Support, MidCentral District Health Board, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Kirsten Holst (K)

Elder Health, MidCentral District Health Board, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Marie McLaughlin (M)

Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin: Older Persons Health, Southern District Health Board, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Courtney Steele (C)

Department of Public Health, University of Otago, PO Box 7343, South, Wellington, 6242, New Zealand.

Diana Sarfati (D)

Department of Public Health, University of Otago, PO Box 7343, South, Wellington, 6242, New Zealand.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH