Start Your Search
MINI 28 - Psychological Impact of Lung Cancer and its Treatment (ID 150)
- Event: WCLC 2015
- Type: Mini Oral
- Track: Palliative and Supportive Care
- Presentations: 1
MINI28.01 - The Impact of Physical Activity on Fatigue and Quality of Life in Lung Cancer Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) (ID 3173)
16:45 - 18:15 | Author(s): J. Vardy
Physical activity (PA) has been shown to improve fatigue and quality of life (QOL) in a range of cancer populations. Little research has been done in the advanced lung cancer setting. This RCT evaluated a 2-month PA intervention in patients with unresectable lung cancer.
Participants were stratified (disease stage, performance status [PS] 0-1 vs 2, centre) and randomized (1:1) to usual care (UC) (general nutrition and PA education materials) or UC plus 2-month program of supervised weekly PA and behaviour change sessions and home-based PA. Assessments were completed at baseline, 2, 4 and 6 months. The primary endpoint was fatigue (FACT-F subscale) at 2-months. Secondary endpoints included: QOL, functional abilities, physical fitness, activity (accelerometers), mood, dyspnea, survival and blood results. Intention-to-treat analysis using linear mixed models was done.
111 patients were randomized: male 55%, median age 62 (35-80); 95% NSCLC, 5% SCLC; 95% Stage IV. At baseline 77% were on active treatment. Baseline characteristics, including PA levels, comorbidities and Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) were well balanced between groups. Attrition was 22, 36 and 50% at 2, 4 and 6 months respectively; no difference between groups. Adherence to intervention sessions: behavioral 77%, PA 69%. There were no significant differences in fatigue, QOL, symptoms, mood, distress, sleep, dyspnea, activities of daily living, GPS between the groups at 2, 4 or 6 months. Patients over report PA levels compared to accelerometer data. Using accelerometer data, PA only increased in the PA group from 0 – 2 months, but the difference in PA between groups was not significant. Median survival (months): PA 13.7 vs UC 12.6 (p= 0.76): 38 participants remain alive.
PA n=55 UC n=56 p-value FACT-F Fatigue: 0 2 4 6 38.4 37.5 39.6 36.6 36.3 36.3 35.4 34.5 0.61 0.10 0.44 EORTC Global QOL 0 2 4 6 63.8 63.2 64.2 60.8 58.9 64.3 60.2 54.2 0.81 0.45 0.26 Performance Status 0 2 4 6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.30 0.16 0.01
Adherence to the 8-week intervention was good but did not increase PA levels compared to education materials alone. No difference was seen in fatigue, QOL, symptom control or functional status.
Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.
P2.08 - Poster Session/ Thymoma, Mesothelioma and Other Thoracic Malignancies (ID 225)
- Event: WCLC 2015
- Type: Poster
- Track: Thymoma, Mesothelioma and Other Thoracic Malignancies
- Presentations: 1
- Coordinates: 9/08/2015, 09:30 - 17:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B+C)
P2.08-004 - Healthcare Professional Perceptions of Chemotherapy in Treatment of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (MPM) (ID 3240)
09:30 - 17:00 | Author(s): J. Vardy
Background: An evidence-based chemotherapy utilisation model for MPM suggests rates of use should be around 65%. Actual Australian rates are about 54%. Aim: To examine healthcare professional perceptions of chemotherapy use and barriers to it in MPM patients.
Methods: Healthcare professionals caring for people with MPM were invited via email from professional groups, to complete a purpose designed online survey. Data were collected from January-July 2014. Descriptive data are presented.
Results: Surveys were completed by 102 doctors (Respiratory Physicians=53, Medical Oncologists (MO)=35, Other=15) and 19 nurses. Doctors mean age 47 (31-75) years, 74% male, 49% worked only in public system, 57% did not have lung cancer nurse specialist, and saw mean of 7 new patients with MPM annually. Nurses mean age 45 (29-68) years, all female, 53% worked only in public system, and saw mean of 12 (1-40) new patients with MPM annually. 74% of doctors and 53% of nurses believed >11% of MPM patients potentially eligible for chemotherapy do not receive it. Clinician barriers most commonly endorsed include: clinician nihilism 70%, 37%; non-referral to MO 47%, 63%; lack of cancer services 43%, 53%; no MDT review 40%, 32% for doctor, nurse respectively. 74% of nurses also indicated delayed diagnosis and 58% lack of clinician knowledge about treatment.
Conclusions: Healthcare professionals’ estimates of potentially eligible patients with MPM who do not receive chemotherapy are consistent with or higher than evidence-based estimates. Barriers to chemotherapy access endorsed suggest strategies to increase knowledge of evidence-based treatment and address clinical nihilism are required.