Patients benefit from a standardized patient education program provided by specially trained oncology nurses. They tend to handle side effects and critical situations better.

Background: Cancer therapy requires the cooperation of physicians from different disciplines. At the core of the collaboration are ‘tumor boards' (also known as ‘multidisciplinary team meetings' and ‘tumor conferences'). However, there is limited health care research that addresses the multiple facets of such meetings. Material and Methods: Data were analyzed from 3 routinely conducted surveys comprising information from (i) office-based hematologists and oncologists, (ii) their patients, and (iii) quality indicators. Results: Most office-based oncologists stated that they participate in tumor boards taking place in hospitals. Although tumor boards are viewed as time intensive and lack financial compensation, they are considered as beneficial for patient care. Less than half of patients knew that their cases were discussed at a tumor board; those who knew rated the collaboration between their treating doctors as more positive, but also experienced slightly higher distress levels. The quality indicators showed that tumor board meetings were documented in three-quarters of the patient charts, but only half included the tumor board's recommendation. Conclusions: Participation in tumor boards is perceived as beneficial by oncologists and not just considered as a fulfillment of societies' recommendations or guidelines. The higher distress levels in patients who knew that their case was discussed at a tumor board may have occurred because more difficult cases are discussed at tumor boards and since the oncologists spend more time explaining the therapy process in complex cases, including the tumor board results.

In an outpatient setting, some challenges of cancer treatment include continuous patient–physician communication, lack of adherence, potential side effects and their impact on quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes. These challenges in the support of disease management can be overcome by the introduction of eHealth applications. Though the market of eHealth applications is fast growing, many applications lack evidence regarding their effectiveness, safety and utility. Only few prospective randomized trials have been conducted, so far. Results of these studies univocally show a gain in health-related quality of life, in the examined eHealth applications. It remains unclear if procedural and cost efficacy are affected by eHealth applications. The upcoming PreCycle study will be the largest randomized eHealth study in oncology.

The PazoQoL prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study was designed to continuously assess global health related quality of life (HRQoL) during treatment with pazopanib or physician-preferred chemotherapy over a 9-week period. The questionnaires were completed by the patients at home with great reliability during this time period. Continuous electronic patient reported outcome (ePRO) enabled early detection of the onset of deterioration and timely initiation of countermeasures. The Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ) showed high interindividual variability and decline over a 9-week period, whereas the Time Trade-off (TTO) proved to be an efficient method for assessing individual benefit from cancer therapy. In our cohort, the TTO clearly demonstrated that the prolongation of life and the side effect profile of continued therapy were not as satisfactory as expected by patients when starting a new therapy. Although the study had to be stopped early due to the pandemic, our findings could translate into clinical practice without much effort and outside of a trial.

No abstract