Virtual Library
Start Your Search
Beth Eaby-Sandy
Moderator of
-
+
MS 14 - QOL Evaluation in Practice from the Viewpoint of Physicians and Nurses (ID 536)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Symposium
- Track: Nursing/Palliative Care/Ethics
- Presentations: 5
- Moderators:Qing Zhou, Beth Eaby-Sandy
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 11:00 - 12:30, Room 315
-
+
MS 14.01 - Elements to Reach the Treatment Goal of Palliation (ID 7706)
11:00 - 11:15 | Presenting Author(s): Christian Klaus Manegold
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
Despite fast growing information of tumor molecular biology, the increase in the therapeutic portfolio, and a significant improvement in diagnostic radiology, treatment of advanced NSCLC in 2017 remains palliative with still no curative perspective for the vast majority of patients. Therefore, the main treatment goals include the change from an acute into a chronic disease, extending survival times as well as improving or just maintaining quality of life. In order to assure an optimal palliation the majority of patients with advanced NSCLC – considering the high age and concomitant comorbidities - frequently may require modifications of the treatment standard. Furthermore, it can also not be ignored that recently approved novel agents and innovative diagnostic technology represent a growing burden of financial toxicity leading to regional differences in the availability of modern therapy and in the access to molecular testing and modern imaging. Nonetheless, treatment algorithms for advanced NSCLC have over the last decade gradually gained in complexity by incorporating a number of diagnostic and therapeutic achievements allowing personalization, individualization, and precision of therapy. Not only patient factors such as performance status (PS), comorbidity, and patients’ treatment expectation must lead to treatment differentiation and modification but also disease characteristics such as tumor stage, tumor load, histological type (squamous vs non–squamous) and the molecular profile of the tumor (mutant vs wild type) influence the process in reaching the goal of optimal sustainable palliation. Other critical elements in realizing personalized therapy and precision medicine within the process of optimal palliation consist in a rational selection of anti-cancer agents (predictive factors, mode of action, toxicity profile) and their appropriate application (single agent, concomitant combinations, drug sequencing) as well as other novel therapeutic actions such as interventional radiology, modern radio therapy, and minimal surgery. Optimal therapeutic management for sustainable palliation should definitely be based on clinically reliable evidence presented by frequently updated treatment recommendations: Today’s treatment algorithm for advanced NSCLC is challenged by a number of newer agents, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, checkpoint inhibitors (Table 1),
Table 1 and the incorporation of new treatment strategies such as continuation or switch maintenance therapy (Figure 1).Figure 1 Figure 1 For advanced NSCLC (Figure 2) it is generally accepted that platinum based doubled chemotherapy remains the backbone for the majority of our patients with good PS and this combination therapy should be modified according to feasibility and tolerability, comorbidity, patients’ age over 70 years, PS. Figure 2 Figure 2 For wild type non-squamous NSCLC there is pemetrexed which has been shown to be favorable over older cytotoxic agents if combined with platinum based components. In addition, pemetrexed has also sufficiently demonstrated that if it is continued in case non-progression under four cycles of standard platinum based doublet chemotherapy not containing pemetrexed (switch maintenance) or containing pemetrexed (continuation maintenance) prolongs survival. Another agent, the small molecule and EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib also prolongs survival if used in the switch maintenance setting but its benefit depends on the quality of response to the chemotherapy and is restricted to patients which have experienced disease stabilization only. The VEGFR-targeting antibody, bevacizumab, if added to platinum based doublet therapy, specifically to carboplatin/paclitaxel significantly improves response rate, duration of response, progression free survival, as well as overall survival in eligible patients. Human immune checkpoint inhibitor-antibodies inhibiting the PD-1 receptor or PD-1 ligand have recently been integrated into the treatment algorithms of wild type NSCLC. Pembrolizumab is currently the only checkpoint inhibitor approved and recommended for first line therapy in patients with a PD-L1 expression level ≥ 50 % and with negative or unknown EGFR/ALC/ROS1 testing. In wild type squamous NSCLC the given treatment options are still limited and platinum based therapy (no pemetrexed, no bevacizumab) remains the recommended treatment standard. Nonetheless, just recently the EGFR-targeting monoclonal antibody necitumumab has shown to significantly improve survival if combined with the standard doublet regimen cisplatin/gemcitabine in comparison to cisplatin/gemcitabine only and therefore, has just recently approved. Maintenance therapy in squamous tumors with docetaxel or erlotinib (switch) or gemcitabine (continuation) may be justified in some patients even here the statistical evidence is weak. For about 10-30% of NSCLC (in Europe < 15%) non-squamous tumors expressing specific molecular features first-line treatment by genotype has been established. Tumors with sensitizing EGFR mutations have been exposed by gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib and have shown to prolong progression free survival over standard platinum based doublet standard therapy. In tumors bearing ALK-/ROS1-gene-rearrangements crizotinib and ceritinib have also shown to prolong progression free survival if compared to platinum based / pemetrexed doublet chemotherapy. Therefore, EGFR-TKI therapy (erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib) should be prescribed for patient with tumors bearing sensitizing EGFR-mutations and for patients with tumors bearing ALK-/ROS1-gene-rearrangements ALK-/ROS1-targeted therapy (crizotinib, ceritinib) should be prescribed. However, for these patients molecular testing is critical and should be used to select patients for EGFR/ALK/ROS1 targeted therapy. Patients with lung adenocarcinoma should not be excluded from testing on the basis of clinical characteristics (ethnicity, gender, smoking status). Last but not least, second-/subsequent-line therapy is another strong element contributing to sustainable palliation in patients with advanced NSCLC. For tumor without driver mutations agents available before 2014 include docetaxel, pemetrexed (for non-squamous cell tumors only) and erlotinib. In recent years the two antiangiogenic agents nintetanib and ramucirumab (both in combination with docetaxel) and three immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, azetolizumab) have been added to the armentarium to treat patients with advanced non-mutated NSCLC who have progressed on or after first-line therapy (Figure 2). In mutated NSCLC several therapeutic options for second-/subsequent line-therapies are recommended depending on the type of progression and the molecular profile of the tumor. Osimertinib has been just recently approved for EGFRm/790M expressing tumors. For ALK-positive tumors ceritinib, alectinib, and crizotinib can be prescribed. In general, selection of agents for second-/subsequent-line therapies is based on whether the drugs have been used earlier, or toxicity or patients view. References are available by the author.2nd-line Docetaxel, Pemetrexed, EGFR-TKI 1st-line Bevacizumab - non-squamous NSCLC | Ramucirumab / Doc - NSCLC | Bevacizumab/Erl. – EGFRm NSCLC | Nintedanib / Doc - non-squamous | Pemetrexed - non-squamous NSCLC | Nivolumab - NSCLC | Pemetrexed, Erlotinib - maintenance | Osimertinib - EGFRmT790M | Gefitinib, Erlotinib, Afatinib - EGFRm | Crizotinib, Ceritinib – ALK | Necitumumab - squamous NSCLC | Alectinib - ALK | Crizotinib - ALK/ROS | Pembrolizumab – PD-L1-low | Ceritinib – ALK | Atezolizumab - NSCLC | Alectinib -ALK | Pembrolizumab - PD-L1-high
Only 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, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
MS 14.02 - Dimensions of Quality of Life in Lung Cancer (ID 7707)
11:15 - 11:30 | Presenting Author(s): Marianne Davies
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
Lung cancer is the leading cause of death in the world. Approximately 85% of patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, associated with high morbidity and mortality. Lung cancer is associated with a higher burden of symptoms compared to other cancers. Patients may experience symptoms from disease such as cough, dyspnea, anorexia, malaise, pain and anxiety. Lung cancer patients often report symptom clusters (2 or more symptoms occurring simultaneously). Patients may also experience symptoms secondary to immediate and chronic side effects of treatment. Treatments for lung cancer include surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Patients may receive a combination of these therapies either concurrently or sequentially. Each therapy is associated with a unique adverse symptom profile. Collectively these symptoms negatively impact clinical outcomes. High symptom burden is associated with poorer clinical outcomes such as survival and health related quality of life (HRQOL). HRQOL is the evaluation of the patients own life situation from their perspective. HRQOL may also be referred to as patient reported outcomes (PROS) and the measurement referred to as patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). HRQOL is subjective and multidimensional. HRQOL measures include physical, psychological, cognitive, social and life roles. Quality of life may be negatively influenced by risk factors such as co-morbid medical conditions, poor nutritional status, emotional distress, sleep disturbances, poor pulmonary function, poor financial resources, poor social support and past family history. Poor nutritional status, including malnutrition, sarcopenia and cachexia, is associated with poor quality of life, poor response to treatment and decreased survival. Emotional distress, anxiety and depression, is linked to lower HRQOL, increased symptom burden and poorer prognosis. Previous experience with family cancer and perceived risk of cancer, specifically among women, is associated with poorer reported HRQOL. Caregivers of patients with poorer HRQOL have a greater caregiver burden. This in turn negatively impacts the patients HRQOL further. Maximizing quality of life is an essential component of lung cancer management. Pre-diagnosis HRQOL and HRQOL at diagnosis are a strong prognostic factor for survival in lung cancer. HRQOL measurements are useful to evaluate treatment efficacy. HRQOL is an important clinical outcome measure to consider as newer treatments and improved therapeutics are providing the opportunity for long term survival for some patients. It is especially important in cases when therapy is unlikely to be curative, as patients often report that HRQOL is more important than short term survival benefits. Several instruments have been developed to assess HRQOL (Table 1). Some of the tools are generic, some specific to cancer and others that specifically focus on lung cancer. Most of the instruments are questionnaires. Several tools developed demonstrate correlation with performance status, symptoms and survival. Studies suggest that disease specific instruments may enhance outcome measures and be more useful in predicting outcomes. The tools specific to lung cancer include: The Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires (EORTIC-QLQ), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) and the Short Form Health Survey (SF). The City of Hope Quality of Life Family Care Giver Tool (COH-QOL-FCG) focusses specifically on the quality of life impacted by the family care giver. Table 1
There are some inherent limitations of the instruments. The scales have been developed by health care providers who may have different biases on what defines HRQOL. Therefore, there are likely metrics that are missing from the measures obtained. Accurate and consistent data collection may be influenced by fluctuations in the patients’ health status and symptom burden, making it difficult for them to complete questionnaires. If instruments are completed by a caregiver or healthcare provider, performance status may be used as a proxy for overall HRQOL. While performance status is correlated with HRQOL, it does not include all parameters. Operational barriers may be time demands on the health care provider, space limitations or technology breakdown when using online access. Other barriers may be the influences of language, culture, religion, age and educational level. Health care providers should continue to explore other strategies for capturing HRQOL data. The overall goal of health care providers is to improve the lives of patients. Better HRQOL is associated with better performance status, less frequent symptoms, lower anxiety, and improved response to treatment. Therefore, health care providers should continue to develop strategies that enhance HRQOL. HRQOL assessment provides an opportunity to assess for symptoms and potentially modifiable risk factors that negatively impact HRQOL and long term outcomes. This provides the bases for designing interventions that enhance HRQOL. Ongoing efforts include: refining surgical procedures, radiation techniques, selection of systemic therapeutics (chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy) and combinations, with on maintaining efficacy with improved HRQOL outcomes. Focused interventions on modifiable factors may include: aggressive symptom management, structured supportive and palliative care, structured distress screening, resilience building, nutritional support, physical therapy and activity, family caregiver support. Consideration of HRQOL is an integral responsibility of all members of the healthcare team. References Borges, E.L., Franceschini, J., Costa, L.H.D., Gernandes, A.L.G., Jamnik, S. & Santoro, I.L. (2017). Family caregiver burden: the burden of caring for lung cancer patients according to stage and patient quality of life. J. Bras Pneumol. 43 (1): 18-23. Bye, A., Sjøblom, B., Wentzel-Larsen, T., Grønberg, B.H., Baracos, V.E……Jordhøy, M. (2017). Muscle mass and association to quality fo life in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle. May 10. doi: 10.1002/jcsm.12206. [Epub ahead of print] Chabowksi, M, Polanski, J, Mazur, G, Janczak, D. & Rosinczuk, J. (2017). Sociodemographic and clinical determinants of quality of life of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Advs Exp Medicine, Biology-Neuroscience & Respiration. Jun 2. doi: 10.1007/5584_2017_36. [Epub ahead of print] Delibegovic, A., Sinanovic, O., Galic, G., Sabic, A. & Sabic, D. (2016). The influence of palliative care on quality of life in patients with lung cancer. Mater Sociomed. 28 (6): 420-423. Eser, S., Göksel, T., Erbaycu, A.E., Baydur, H., Başank, B….Eser, E. (2016). Comparison of generic and lung cancer-specific quality of life instruments for predictive ability of survival in patients with advanced lung cancer. Springer Plus.5: 1833. Lou, V.W.Q., Chen, E.J., Jian, H., Zhou, Z., Zhu, J, Li, G. & He, Y. (2017). Respiratory symptoms, sleep, and quality of life in lung cancer. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. 53 (2): 250-256. Morrison, E.J., Novotny, P.J., Sloan, J.A, Yang, P., Patten, C.A., Ruddy, K.J. & Clark, M.M. (2017). Emotional problems, quality of life, and symptom burden in patients with lung cancer. Clinical Lung Cancer. Mar 2. pii: S1525-7304(17)30051-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2017.02.008. [Epub ahead of print] Pinheiro, L.C., Zagar, T.M. 7 Reeve, B.B. (2017). The prognostic value of pre-diagnosis health related quality of life on survival: a prospective cohort study of older Americans with lung cancer. Qual Life Res. 26: 1703-1712. Polanski, J, Jankowska-Polanska, B., Rosinczuk, J., Chabowski, M & Szymanska-Chabowska A. (2016). Quality of life of patients with lung cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 9:1023-8.Tool Questions Context Areas The Lung Cancer Symptoms Scale (LCSS) 15 Patient and observer (healthcare professional) forms. Measures physical and functional dimensions EORTC-QLQ C30 30 Cancer symptoms, physical symptoms, 5 functional areas (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, social), overall financial impact. EORTC-QLQ-LC 13 13 Developed as supplement to the QLQ-C30 above. 13 items assess lung cancer symptoms, treatment related side effects (chemotherapy specific) and pain Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) 37 Combination of the FACT-generic 27 questions on general QOL (physical, social and family, emotional, functional well-being and relationship with physician), and 10 items on lung cancer specific symptoms. Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) 36 General health (physical function, role physical function, bodily pain, general health perception, vitality, social functioning, role emotional, mental health) with 2 summary scales measuring physical and mental component scales. City of Hope Quality of Life Family Care Giver Tool (COH-QOL-FCG) 37 Measures physical, psychological, social and spiritual
Only 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, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
MS 14.03 - Estimating Prognosis - How Accurate Can We Be? (ID 7708)
11:30 - 11:45 | Presenting Author(s): Kunihiko Kobayashi
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
In the lung cancer field, several studies have described the relationship between prognosis and quality of life (QoL), with most reports (Table 1), concluding a QoL evaluation of patients with advanced lung cancer before the start of chemotherapy could predict a patient’s prognosis. Such reports described common features: a poor prognosis for investigated patients whose disease was at an advanced stage and/or who were elderly, and the use of cytotoxic agents or irradiation, with poor efficacy. Molecular targeted drugs for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusion gene have recently been used in clinical practice. Such agents have led to dramatic improvements in patients with driver mutations. Indeed, we witnessed a “Lazarus response” during the NEJ001 study [1], which investigated the efficacy of an EGFR–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), gefitinib, for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring EGFR mutations with a poor performance status (PS): The PS improvement rate was 79% (p<0.00005); in particular, 68% of 22 patients improved from ≥PS 3 at baseline to ≥PS 1. And median survival time of the EGFR-mutated patients was 17.8 months, while that of the patients without EGFR mutations was 3.5 months. Unfortunately, following the introduction of “precision medicine” for lung cancer, few reports have described the relationship between prognosis and QoL. Herein, we describe NSCLC patients with an EGFR mutation treated with gefitinib or chemotherapy as first-line treatment in a randomized phase III study, termed NEJ002 [2]. The patients’ QoL was assessed prior to treatment and, thereafter, weekly by the Care Notebook [3]. The relationship between prognosis and QoL data, employed before and 4 weeks after the initiation of treatment, was analyzed by univariate and multivariate Cox regression. QoL data from 148 patients (72 in the gefitinib arm and 76 in the chemotherapy arm) were analyzed. Multivariate Cox regression showed that only a fatigue score on the Care Notebook assessed 4 weeks after the start of gefitinib could predict a patient’s prognosis. Other QoL scores, including those before starting not only gefitinib but also chemotherapy, did not affect survival. Estimating Prognosis - How Accurate Can We Be as the QoL Researcher? We hypothesize answers fall into two patterns: In the case of employing agents with a poor efficacy, such as cytotoxic agents, the QoL score before treatment should be evaluated as done previously. However, when treating with a very effective agent, the QoL score under treatment should be employed because any improvement in prognosis and QoL is strongly dependent on the efficacy of the agent. The next theme is “Estimating Prognosis of the Patient - How Accurate Can We Be as the Attending Physician? Unfortunately, we do not have rigid evidence for employing QoL assessments. Measuring QoL can have clinical benefits as well as research benefits. These include fostering patient–provider communication, helping clinicians and patients to identify problems and set priorities, and to assess therapy, palliative care, and rehabilitation. However, in my experience of validating the Japanese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 [4], the answering rate for PS 0–2 patients was over 99% (225/228), but the corresponding rates for PS 3 and PS 4 patients were 81% (38/47) and 13% (9/69), respectively. Furthermore, multiple regression analyses showed that Symptom scale (coefficient: 0.188, p=0.001) and Emotional functioning (coefficient: 0.156, p=0.004) significantly related to Global QoL functioning in patients with PS 0-2; however, Symptom scale alone (coefficient: 0.220, p=0.042) significantly correlated to it in those with PS 3-4. Thus, when the patient concentrates on his/her symptoms and/or fails to respond a QoL questionnaire due to poor PS, a known adverse prognostic factor in advanced cancers, the attending doctor could recognize the patient’s short survival. Two studies have succeeded in showing the prolongation of patients’ survival under palliative care. Jennifer et al. [5] randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed metastatic NSCLC to receive either early palliative care integrated with standard oncologic care or standard oncologic care alone. The FACT-L scale, including the lung cancer subscale (LCS) and Trial Outcome Index (TOI), measured at 12 weeks revealed that patients assigned to early palliative care had a better QoL than did patients assigned to standard care (p = 0.03). In addition, median survival was longer among patients receiving early palliative care (11.6 months vs. 8.9 months, p = 0.02). Basch et al. highlightened the importance of monitoring symptoms at ASCO 2017 [6]. Patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors, including lung cancer, were randomly assigned to self-report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers (“PRO intervention”), or to usual care. Median overall survival in the PRO intervention arm was 5 months longer than the control arm (31.2 vs. 26.0 months, HR, 0.832, p = 0.03). These two studies indicate that symptomatic QoL monitoring is critical for clinical practice and for predicting prognosis. Table 1 Studies on relationship between baseline QoL score and survival in advanced NSCLC patients
[1] Inoue A, et al. First-line gefitinib for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor mutations without indication for chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(9):1394-400. [2] Maemondo M, et al. Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(25):2380-8. [3] Kobayashi K, et al. Validation of the care notebook for measuring physical, mental and life well-being of patients with cancer. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(4):1035-43. [4] Kobayashi, K, et al. A cross-validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) for Japanese with lung cancer Eur J Cancer 1998;34:810-815. [5] Temel JS, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):733-42. [6] Basch EM, et al. Overall survival results of a randomized trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. (Abstract LBA2) presented in ASCO2017.Reference Therapy type Number of patients Questionnaire Prognostic, baseline scale/item Herndon et al. Cancer 1999, 85:333-340. Cisplatin/vinblastine 206 EORTC QLQ-C30 Pain Langendijk et al. Radiother Oncol 2000,55:19-25. External irradiation (>/=60 Gy) 198 EORTC QLQ-C30 Global QOL Moinpour et al. Qual Life Res 2002,11:115-26. Cisplatin+vinorelbine or Carboplatin+paclitaxel. 222 FACT-L Total FACT-L score Eton et al. J Clin Oncol 2003, 21:1536-1543. Cisplatin+etoposide or Cisplatin+paclitaxel 573 FACT-L + TOI Physical well-being and TOI Maione et al. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:6865-6872. Vinorelbine+gemcitabine, Vinorelbine alone, or Gemcitabine alone 566 EORTC QOL-C30 Global QOL Sundstrøm S, et al, J Thorac Oncol. 2006;1(8):816-24. Palliative radiotherapy 301 EORTC QOL-C30 Appetite loss Efficace et al. Ann Oncol 2006, 17:1698-1704. Paclitaxel+cisplatin Gemcitabine+cisplatin Paclitaxel+gemcitabine 391 EORTC QLQ-C30 + QLQ-LC13 Pain, and dysphagia
Only 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, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
MS 14.04 - Whole Person Care (ID 7709)
11:45 - 12:00 | Presenting Author(s): Caitlin Broderick
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only 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, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
MS 14.05 - Quality of Life in Women with Lung Cancer and Effect of Inner Strength in Mood and QOL (ID 7710)
12:00 - 12:15 | Presenting Author(s): Eunjung Ryu
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
The incidence rate of lung cancer has declined in males and increased in females in Korea (Jung et al., 2017). In the United States, lung cancer incidence rates began declining in the mid-1980s in men and in the mid-2000s in women because of reductions in smoking prevalence that began decades earlier. Contemporary differences in lung cancer incidence patterns between men and women reflect historical differences in tobacco use (Siegel, Miller, & Jemal, 2016). Women took up smoking in large numbers decades later than men, first initiated smoking at older ages, and were slower to quit, including recent upturns in smoking prevalence in some birth cohorts (Giovino, 2002; Jemal, Ma, Rosenberg, Siegel, & Anderson, 2012). In the United States, the 3 most commonly diagnosed cancers are breast, lung and bronchus, and colorectum, representing one-half of all cases for women (Siegel et al., 2016). The purpose of this study is to analyze the correlation among mood state, distress, symptom experience, inner strength, and quality of life(QoL) in female patients with lung cancer. Also, this study includes descriptive research regarding the influence factors on QoL in them. A total of 206 research subjects who diagnosed with primary lung cancer at a cancer hospital in Gyeonggi, Korea were examined from 1 July 2016 to 31 October 2016. Several instruments were used for research methods: K-POMS-B for mood state, NCCN Distress Thermometer for distress, NCC for understanding aspect of distress, MDASI-LC for symptom experience, ISQ for inner strength, and FACT-G for QoL. Data of this study was analyzed by using SPSS Ver. 23.0 for Windows. The general and diseased characteristics of patients were analyzed through descriptive statistics, frequency, percentage, average, and standard deviation. Independent t-test and One-way ANOVA were used to examine differences according to their characteristics. Bonferroni correction, Pearson correlation coefficient, and hierarchical multiple regression for impact factors of QoL were also used. For reliability, Cronbach’s α was calculated. The results of this study are as fellows; 1. The mean score of the mood disorder was 20.74, symptom experience was 2.88, symptom degree was 2.76, disturbance of daily life was 3.01. The mean score of the inner strength was 97.98. Among sub-categories, the mean score of the searching for meaning on disease was 18.53, fellowship was 27.0, self-determination was 25.2, activity and rest was 27.1. The total mean score of QoL was 66.69, physical stability was 19.13, social stability was 18.04, emotional stability was 16.19, function status was 13.32. The highest result was in physical stability, whereas function status gained the lowest result. The mean score of distress was 4.19, sleep disorder was 3.2, insomnia affecting daily life was 2.45, anxiety symptom was 2.79, anxiety symptom affecting daily life was 2.25, depression was 1.92, depression affecting daily life was 1.68. In categories asking the needs of medical care, it was measured that insomnia was 38.5%, anxiety was 41,7%, depression was 19.9%. 2. The factors affecting in QoL were occupation, expectation of treatment outcome, activity ability, inner strength, symptom experience (the severity of symptom, the severity of disturbance of daily life), and mood state. 3. Higher scores in symptom experience, distress, and mood disorder categories have lower quality of life than those with higher scores of inner strength. 4. As a result of hierarchical analysis, these suggested that occupation status, expectation of treatment outcome (life extension), activity ability, inner strength, and symptom experience (the severity of symptom, the severity of disturbance of daily life) can be beneficial variables of QoL. The model was explained 70.7% of the total variance of quality of life. Cancer as a chronic illness places new demands on patients and families to manage their own care, and it challenges old paradigms that oncology's work is done after treatment. Therefore, to improve the quality of life in women survivors with lung cancer, we need to apply nursing interventions strengthening inner strength, activity ability, performance status, and symptom control.
Only 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, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
Author of
-
+
MS 10 - Evidence Based Care: Interpreting the Research and Enhancing Practice (ID 532)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Mini Symposium
- Track: Nursing/Palliative Care/Ethics
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:Caitlin Broderick, Pippa Labuc
- Coordinates: 10/16/2017, 15:45 - 17:30, F205 + F206 (Annex Hall)
-
+
MS 10.05 - Immunotherapy: The Latest (ID 7693)
17:05 - 17:25 | Presenting Author(s): Beth Eaby-Sandy
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract:
Immunotherapy: The Latest Immunotherapy agents are now a prominent drug class in the management of NSCLC. It is important for oncology nurses to understand the drugs that are approved as well as the management of the toxicities. There are currently 3 drugs approved for use in several scenarios for NSCLC, listed in table1.
Table 1. Immunotherapy drugs still under investigation for NSCLC include durvalumab, another PD-L1 inhibitor. Also, anti-CTLA 4 drugs such as ipilumumab and tremelimumab are being studied in combination with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors. Finally, early stage studies are beginning to look at the utility of CAR-T cell therapy in NSCLC. Follow up data from the Checkmate studies in NSCLC as well as the Keynote trials will give more up to date survival statistics for nivolumab and pembrolizumab, respectively. Toxicity management for these immunotherapy drugs has been at time challenging. The toxicities are very different from traditional chemotherapy used in NSCLC. When caught early, these toxicities can be managed and many times, treatment can be continued. However, if severe or identified late, toxicities from immunotherapy can be life-threatening. Immune-mediated toxicities reported in trials of NSCLC such as pneumonitis, colitis, endocrinopathies, nephritis, hepatitis are some of the toxicities that can become life-threatening if not managed properly. Other than the endocrinopathies, most of these toxicities must be managed with high dose corticosteroids and tapered slowly under close supervision. More common adverse events of the immunotherapies such as fatigue, rash, nausea, diarrhea, arthralgia can be expected and managed without using corticosteroids, instead, using more standard supportive care medications.DRUG INDICATION TYPE IMMUNOTHERAPY Atezolizumab 2[nd] line NSCLC PD-L1 inhibitor Nivolumab 2[nd] line NSCLC PD-1 inhibitor Pembrolizumab 1[st] line NSCLC -single agent in PD-L1 > 50% -in combination with pemetrexed and carboplatin regardless of PD-L1 expression 2[nd] line NSCLC in patients with PD-L1 > 1% PD-1 inhibitor
Only 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, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
WS 03 - ITONF Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma Workshop (Ticketed Session) (ID 751)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Workshop
- Track: Mesothelioma
- Presentations: 1
- Invitation / Session Details: Click here to view PDF
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/15/2017, 12:15 - 17:55, Room 313
-
+
WS 03.14 - Targeted Therapies: Case Studies and Experience from Different Regions Q&A (ID 10892)
15:50 - 16:15 | Presenting Author(s): Beth Eaby-Sandy
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only 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, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
