Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full‐text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format.Results: We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full‐text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co‐design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI.Conclusions: Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes.Patient or Public Contribution: Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co‐authors of this manuscript.

Purpose: Studies focusing on patients with and survivors of cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic highlight unique psychological and behavioral challenges. These findings were obtained in surveys using self-report questionnaires with pre-specified response options that may not capture the broad range of experiences of individuals affected by cancer, including people with cancer and informal caregivers, in this unprecedented situation. Online forums produce a large amount of valuable first-hand user-generated content that can be used to better understand their day-to-day lives. This study, based on the analysis of narratives in cancer online forums, aims to describe and categorize the experiences of people affected by cancer during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: An inductive, descriptive, thematic approach was applied to publicly available cancer forums from Germany, the USA, the UK, and Ireland posted between mid-March and mid-April 2020. Results: An analysis of the content of 230 main posts revealed three major themes: (1) concerns related to the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care, the risks and fears of getting infected, logistic issues, and economic impact; (2) adaptation challenges faced at the individual and societal level; and (3) the need for advice including information about COVID-19 and the (self-)management of cancer symptoms and treatment. Conclusion: Our qualitative description of the experiences of people affected by cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak can help to improve communication, education, and the development of supportive care strategies. Furthermore, the themes and subthemes identified could potentially inform item development for future self-report questionnaires.

To review the state of oncology nursing science as it pertains to big data. The authors aim to define and characterize big data, describe key considerations for accessing and analyzing big data, provide examples of analyses of big data in oncology nursing science, and highlight ethical considerations related to the collection and analysis of big data. Peer-reviewed articles published by investigators specializing in oncology, nursing, and related disciplines. Big data is defined as data that are high in volume, velocity, and variety. To date, oncology nurse scientists have used big data to predict patient outcomes from clinician notes, identify distinct symptom phenotypes, and identify predictors of chemotherapy toxicity, among other applications. Although the emergence of big data and advances in computational methods provide new and exciting opportunities to advance oncology nursing science, several challenges are associated with accessing and using big data. Data security, research participant privacy, and the underrepresentation of minoritized individuals in big data are important concerns. With their unique focus on the interplay between the whole person, the environment, and health, nurses bring an indispensable perspective to the interpretation and application of big data research findings. Given the increasing ubiquity of passive data collection, all nurses should be taught the definition, characteristics, applications, and limitations of big data. Nurses who are trained in big data and advanced computational methods will be poised to contribute to guidelines and policies that preserve the rights of human research participants.

The field of oncology has been revolutionized by precision medicine, driven by advancements in molecular and genomic profiling. High-throughput genomic sequencing and non-invasive diagnostic methods have deepened our understanding of cancer biology, leading to personalized treatment approaches. Precision health expands on precision medicine, emphasizing holistic healthcare, integrating molecular profiling and genomics, physiology, behavioral, and social and environmental factors. Precision health encompasses traditional and emerging data, including electronic health records, patient-generated health data, and artificial intelligence-based health technologies. This article aims to explore the opportunities and challenges faced by advanced practice nurses (APNs) within the precision health paradigm. We searched for peer-reviewed and professional relevant studies and articles on advanced practice nursing, oncology, precision medicine and precision health, and symptom science. APNs' roles and competencies align with the core principles of precision health, allowing for personalized interventions based on comprehensive patient characteristics. We identified educational needs and policy gaps as limitations faced by APNs in fully embracing precision health. APNs, including nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists, are ideally positioned to advance precision health. Nevertheless, it is imperative to overcome a series of barriers to fully leverage APNs' potential in this context. APNs can significantly contribute to precision health through their competencies in predictive, preventive, and health promotion strategies, personalized and collaborative care plans, ethical considerations, and interdisciplinary collaboration. However, there is a need to foster education in genetics and genomics, encourage continuous professional development, and enhance understanding of artificial intelligence-related technologies and digital health. Furthermore, APNs' scope of practice needs to be reflected in policy making and legislation to enable effective contribution of APNs to precision health.

Immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may not be fully covered by existing measures like the PRO-CTCAE™. Selecting PRO-CTCAE™ items for monitoring symptomatic adverse events is hindered by the heterogeneity and complexity of IrAEs, and no standardised selection process exists. We aimed to reach expert consensus on the PRO-CTCAE™ symptom terms relevant for cancer patients receiving ICIs and to gather preliminary expert opinions about additional symptom terms reflecting ICI symptomatic toxicities. Additionally, we gathered expert consensus about a core set of priority symptom terms for prospective surveillance and monitoring. This Delphi study involved an international panel of experts (n = 6 physicians; n = 3 nurses, n = 1 psychiatrist and n = 1 patient advocates). Experts prioritised the relevance and importance of symptom terms to monitor in patients treated with ICIs. Experts reached a consensus on the relevance of all (n = 80) PRO-CTCAE™ Symptom Terms. Consensus on the importance of these symptom terms for prospective monitoring in patients receiving ICIs was reached for 81% (n = 65) of these terms. Additional symptoms terms (n = 56) were identified, with a consensus that 84% (47/56) of these additional symptom terms should also be considered when monitoring symptomatic IrAEs. This study identified a prioritised list of symptom terms for prospective surveillance for symptomatic IrAEs in patients receiving ICI treatment. Our results indicate the need to strengthen the validity of PRO measures used to monitor patients receiving ICIs. While these results provided some support for the content validity of the PRO CTCAE™ and resulted in a preliminary set of salient symptomatic adverse events related to the use of ICIs, broader international agreement and patient involvement are needed to further validate our initial findings.

Context: Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have shown significant benefits for overall survival across various cancer types. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed in clinical trials as a measure of efficacy. However, it remains unclear to what extent current PRO instruments capture symptoms specific to ICI toxicities. We conducted a systematic review to identify the use and content validity of PRO instruments in ICI clinical trials in oncology. Methods: Literature was retrieved from PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Medline and CINAHL databases. Articles presenting ICI clinical trials’ PRO results, clinical trial study protocols, and conference abstracts stating the use of PRO measures were assessed. We evaluated the validity of identified instruments by comparing their symptom-related content with the adverse events reported in each ICI clinical trial. Results: From database inception until January 2020, we identified 191 ICI clinical trials stating the use of PRO measures of which 26 published PRO results. The cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 and the generic EQ-5D questionnaires were the most widely used instruments, often in combination with disease-specific PROs. Instruments used to report PRO symptom-related toxicities covered 45% of the most frequently reported AEs, whereas 23% of AEs were partially covered and 29% were not covered at all. Of non-covered AEs, 59% referred to the dermatologic system. Partially covered AEs related to endocrine and specific types of pain. Conclusion: Despite the high frequency of symptom-related toxicities related to ICI, these events are only partially covered (or not addressed) by current PRO instruments, even when combined. Further research is needed to develop new strategies to tailor PRO instruments to specific ICI toxicities.