CONTEXT: Two million people across the U.K. are living with cancer, often experienced as a long-term condition. They may have unmet needs after active treatment. Rehabilitation aims to address these needs, maximize psychological and physical function, and enable minimum dependency regardless of life expectancy. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test, in a randomized controlled trial, the clinical and cost effectiveness of a rehabilitation intervention for patients with advanced, recurrent cancer. METHODS: We conducted a two-arm, wait-list control, randomized trial of a complex rehabilitation intervention delivered by a hospice-based multidisciplinary team vs. usual care for active, progressive, recurrent hematological and breast malignancies, with a follow-up at three months. The primary outcome was the psychological subscale of the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS). Secondary outcomes were other domains of the SCNS, psychological status, continuity of care, quality of life, and resource use. RESULTS:Forty-one participants were enrolled and 36 completed the trial. The primary outcome was significantly lower in the intervention arm (adjusted difference -16.8, 95% CI -28.34 to -5.3; P = 0.006). The SCNS physical and patient care subscales (-14.2, 95% CI -26.2 to -2.2; P = 0.02 and -7.4, 95% CI -13.7 to -1.1; P = 0.02, respectively) and self-reported health state (12.8, 95% CI 3.2 to 22.4; P = 0.01) also differed significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £19,390 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSION: This intervention significantly reduced the unmet needs of cancer survivors and it is likely that it is cost-effective. Despite small numbers, the main effect size was robust. We recommend implementation alongside evaluation in wider clinical settings and patient populations.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Two million people across the U.K. are living with cancer, often experienced as a long-term condition. They may have unmet needs after active treatment. Rehabilitation aims to address these needs, maximize psychological and physical function, and enable minimum dependency regardless of life expectancy. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to test, in a randomized controlled trial, the clinical and cost effectiveness of a rehabilitation intervention for patients with advanced, recurrent cancer. METHODS: We conducted a two-arm, wait-list control, randomized trial of a complex rehabilitation intervention delivered by a hospice-based multidisciplinary team vs. usual care for active, progressive, recurrent hematological and breast malignancies, with a follow-up at three months. The primary outcome was the psychological subscale of the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS). Secondary outcomes were other domains of the SCNS, psychological status, continuity of care, quality of life, and resource use. RESULTS: Forty-one participants were enrolled and 36 completed the trial. The primary outcome was significantly lower in the intervention arm (adjusted difference -16.8, 95% CI -28.34 to -5.3; P = 0.006). The SCNS physical and patient care subscales (-14.2, 95% CI -26.2 to -2.2; P = 0.02 and -7.4, 95% CI -13.7 to -1.1; P = 0.02, respectively) and self-reported health state (12.8, 95% CI 3.2 to 22.4; P = 0.01) also differed significantly. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £19,390 per quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSION: This intervention significantly reduced the unmet needs of cancer survivors and it is likely that it is cost-effective. Despite small numbers, the main effect size was robust. We recommend implementation alongside evaluation in wider clinical settings and patient populations.
Authors: Julie K Silver; Vishwa S Raj; Jack B Fu; Eric M Wisotzky; Sean Robinson Smith; Rebecca A Kirch Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Hanna van Waart; Johanna M van Dongen; Wim H van Harten; Martijn M Stuiver; Rosalie Huijsmans; Jeannette A J H Hellendoorn-van Vreeswijk; Gabe S Sonke; Neil K Aaronson Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2017-10-30
Authors: Adam E Singer; Joy R Goebel; Yan S Kim; Sydney M Dy; Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; Megan Clifford; Elizabeth Dzeng; Claire E O'Hanlon; Aneesa Motala; Anne M Walling; Jaime Goldberg; Daniella Meeker; Claudia Ochotorena; Roberta Shanman; Mike Cui; Karl A Lorenz Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Wiebke Jensen; Laura Bialy; Gesche Ketels; Freerk T Baumann; Carsten Bokemeyer; Karin Oechsle Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: B Gagnon; J Murphy; M Eades; J Lemoignan; M Jelowicki; S Carney; S Amdouni; P Di Dio; M Chasen; N Macdonald Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Wiebke Jensen; Freerk T Baumann; Alexander Stein; Wilhelm Bloch; Carsten Bokemeyer; Maike de Wit; Karin Oechsle Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Helena Talbot Rice; Lorna Malcolm; Kate Norman; Alison Jones; Katherine Lee; Gail Preston; David McKenzie; Matthew Maddocks Journal: Prog Palliat Care Date: 2014-12
Authors: Michael King; Henry Llewellyn; Baptiste Leurent; Faye Owen; Gerard Leavey; Adrian Tookman; Louise Jones Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 3.894