The biographical disruption that occurs in adolescents and young adults following a cancer diagnosis can affect various important psychosocial domains including relationships with family and friends, sexual development, vocational and educational trajectories, and physical and emotional wellbeing. While there is evidence of the physical impact of cancer during this period, less is known about the impact on emotional wellbeing and especially on the barriers for young people accessing help and support. We aimed to obtain a more in-depth understanding of young people’s experiences of their diagnosis, treatment, psychological impact, and range of resources they could or wanted to access for their mental health. We conducted an in-depth qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 43 young people who had developed cancer aged 16 to 39 years and were either within 6 months of diagnosis or 3–5 years after treatment had ended. Framework analysis identified three themes: the emotional impact of cancer (expressed through anxiety, anger, and fear of recurrence); personal barriers to support through avoidance; and support to improve mental health through mental health services or adolescent and young adult treatment teams. We showed the barriers young people have to access care, particularly participant avoidance of support. Interrupting this process to better support young people and provide them with flexible, adaptable, consistent, long-term psychological support has the potential to improve their quality of life and wellbeing.

Background/aims: New classes of cancer drugs bring a range of unknown and undesirable adverse events. Adverse event monitoring is essential in phase I trials to assess toxicity and safety. In phase II, the focus is also on efficacy but robust data on adverse events continue to inform the safety and the adverse event profile. Standard, clinician-led monitoring has been shown to underestimate patients’ symptoms. Hence, patient-reported adverse event monitoring has been argued to complement and improve the information on adverse events in early phase clinical trials. With advances in information technology, real-time patient self-reported adverse events in trials are feasible. This study explored the experiences and procedures for reporting adverse events in early phase trials among patients, clinical staff, and trial staff, and their views on using an electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event system in this setting. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with patients, purposively sampled across ages, gender, and different phases of trials, and with clinical and trial-related staff involved in early phase trials (e.g. consultants, research nurses, hospital-based trial assistants/data managers, trial unit management staff). Interviews explored patient experiences and views on current adverse event reporting processes and electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting. Framework analysis techniques were used to analyse the data. Results: Interviewees were from two hospital trusts with early phase portfolios in England and a trial unit, and included sixteen patients, five consultants, four research nurses, five hospital-based trial staff, and two trial unit staff. Interviews identified three key themes (patient experiences, data flow, and views on electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting). Stakeholders emphasised the intensity of trials for patients and the importance of extensive information provision within the uncertainty of early phase trial drugs. Regular face-to-face appointments for patients supplemented by telephone contact aimed to capture any adverse events. Delayed or under-reporting of mild- or low-severity symptoms was evident among patients. Hospital-based staff highlighted the challenges of current data collection including intense timescales, monitoring by trial sponsors, and high workload. Positive views on electronic patient-reported outcome adverse events highlighted that this could provide a more comprehensive and accurate view on the side effects of new drugs. Clinical staff emphasised patient safety and the need for clear responsibilities for monitoring. The need for careful decision-making about data flow and symptom attribution was highlighted; with trial unit staff emphasising the need for clinician review. Conclusion: Technology advances mean it is timely to explore the benefits and challenges of electronic patient-reported outcome adverse event reporting. This is a complex area warranting further consideration within the trial community. We have developed an online patient self-reporting tool and a small pilot with early phase trial patients is underway.

Data from research on amnesia and epilepsy are equivocal with regards to the dissociation, shown in animal models, between rapid and slow long-term memory consolidation. Cancer treatments have lasting disruptive effects on memory and on brain structures associated with memory, but their acute effects on synaptic consolidation are unknown. We investigated the hypothesis that cancer treatment selectively impairs slow synaptic consolidation. Cancer patients and their matched controls were administered a novel list-learning task modelled on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test. Learning, forgetting, and retrieval were tested before, and one day after patients’ first chemotherapy treatment. Due to difficulties recruiting cancer patients at that sensitive time, we were only able to study 10 patients and their matched controls. Patients exhibited treatment-dependent accelerated forgetting over 24 hours compared to their own pre-treatment performance and to the performance of control participants, in agreement with our hypothesis. The number of intrusions increased after treatment, suggesting retrieval deficits. Future research with larger samples should adapt our methods to distinguish between consolidation and retrieval causes for treatment-dependent accelerated forgetting. The presence of significant accelerated forgetting in our small sample is indicative of a potentially large acute effect of chemotherapy treatment on forgetting, with potentially clinically relevant implications.

Objective This study aimed to explore experiences of follow-up after treatment and views on an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) pathway among ovarian cancer patients and clinicians. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with clinicians and patients previously treated for ovarian cancer. Interviews explored experiences of the current follow-up pathway, patients' needs and views on an ePRO pathway enabling patients to report symptoms online rather than attend clinic-based appointments. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. Results Sixteen patients and 10 clinicians participated from four hospitals in England. Four key themes were identified: transition into follow-up, key features of effective follow-up, issues in follow-up and views of ePRO. Both patients and clinicians saw benefits of an ePRO pathway alongside continued access to specialist support and discussed various practicalities (e.g., frequency, introduction and communication). Technology concerns and feelings of abandonment were highlighted as barriers. The proposed impact on clinical and individual patient outcomes was discussed. Conclusion Patient and clinician views on follow-up and an ePRO pathway informed key recommendations on the development/introduction of ePRO follow-up. Technology use in healthcare will continue to grow and may offer solutions to facilitate responsive and tailored care. Further research should explore the safety, experiences and acceptability of ePRO follow-up.

Objective Replying to germ cell tumour patients' needs, we implemented “Shared Community Follow‐up”—a collaborative initiative, enabling remote delivery of specialist cancer care across large geographical areas. Blood, radiological investigations and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are completed remotely and integrated within the electronic patient records for specialist review without patients requiring appointments. We describe the service evaluation estimating the feasibility, safety and acceptability of this initiative versus traditional Standard Follow‐up. Methods This cross‐sectional evaluation estimated feasibility (uptake, adherence) and safety (via missed appointments, timeliness, cancellations) using routinely collected service process data. An acceptability questionnaire, evaluating patient satisfaction, was administered to 91 patients. Results The new service is feasible. Across 2 years (2014–2016), uptake increased 54% (N = 123 to N = 270) and only 4.8% (N = 13) of patients were non‐adherent. Fewer missed/cancelled investigations (N = 39, 5.9% vs. N = 566, 85.5%), timelier investigations (seven vs. 14 timely investigations) and equal relapse detection suggest its safety. PROMs replaced 3 appointments/patient. Patients were as satisfied with both services (3.4/4 vs. 3.6/4). Conclusion New follow‐up services, with investigations completed remotely and shared between community providers and cancer centres, offer an alternative to traditional appointments with advantages for patients and the National Health Service.

Objective: The aim of this study is to perform a preliminary test of a practical, evidence-based model to enable discussions around quality of life–related concerns during cancer follow-up appointments. Design: Cross-sectional study measuring quality of life, illness perceptions, emotional distress, fatigue, and subjective cognitive complaints. Setting: Cancer outpatient follow-up clinics in four National Health Services in the United Kingdom. Participants: Working-age post-treatment cancer patients, treated with curative intent. Interventions: Not applicable. Main measures: European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer – Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core 30, Illness Perceptions Questionnaire – Revised, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Chalder Fatigue Scale, and Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. Results: Fifty-seven cancer patients, with a mean age of 36 years and on average 2.75 years post treatment, returned the completed questionnaires. Anxiety partially mediated the association between subjective cognitive complaints and illness identity (60%) and timeline (25%). Cognitive complaints mediated the relationships between quality of life and anxiety (45%), depression (30%), and fatigue (62%). Depression mediated the relationships between quality of life and illness identity (48%) and timeline (40%). Conclusion: Our study provides a preliminary test of an evidence-based model to help elicit quality of life–related concerns during cancer follow-up appointments. Illness perceptions are associated with quality of life through the mediation of other cancer-relevant factors. Discussing the type, origin, and expected duration of symptoms may elicit other concerns, such as emotional distress, fatigue, or cognitive complaints, which explained a significant amount of the relationship between illness perceptions and quality of life.