Abstract 3541
Background
Cancer follow-up care continues to evolve to incorporate complex programs of supportive care to address long-term disease consequences. However, care may be prescriptive and fragmented, contributing to uncertainty among cancer survivors. As major stakeholders in follow-up care for cancer survivors, nurses are ideally positioned to ensure supportive care is person-centred and responsive to patients’ needs. We recently conducted a study to summarize the evidence related to cancer survivors’ preferences for supportive care and examine the ways in which these preferences are embedded in current guidelines and policies informing cancer survivorship care. This presentation discusses specific implications of these findings for oncology nursing.
Methods
Phase 1 of the study comprises an integrative review of the empirical literature regarding cancer survivors’ preferences for supportive care, with literature sourced from bibilographic databases and analysed according to principles of thematic analysis. In Phase 2, clinical practice guidelines and policy documents guiding supportive care in cancer survivorship are evaluated using content analysis methods to ascertain alignment with the findings of Phase 1. Finally, we conduct a critical analysis of the results through the lens of oncology nursing practice.
Results
Findings of the integrative review and content analysis of practice and policy guidelines highlight issues related to where and when supportive care is accessed and the types and features of supportive care services. Given that these gaps intersect with nursing practice, they serve as potential targets of knowledge translation activities. Impacts on survivors’ experiences are illustrated with exemplars derived from recent qualitative studies conducted in Canadian and Irish contexts.
Conclusions
As novel programs are developed to meet the needs of the growing population of cancer survivors, a consideration of survivors’ preferences is essential. We offer specific ways in which nursing practice and scholarship can be leveraged to ensure the translation of this knowledge into care, making visible the survivors’ voice in this process.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
2507 - KEYLYNK-010: Phase 3 Study of Pembrolizumab (pembro) Plus Olaparib (OLA) vs Enzalutamide (ENZA) or Abiraterone (ABI) in ENZA- or ABI-Pretreated Patients (pts) With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) Who Had Progression on Chemotherapy (CTx)
Presenter: Evan Yu
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2944 - PROSTRATEGY: A Spanish Genitourinary Oncology Group (SOGUG) multi-arm multistage (MAMS) phase III trial of immunotherapy strategies in high-volume metastasic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
Presenter: Jose Arranz Arija
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3535 - A phase 1 study of AMG 160, a half-life extended bispecific T cell engager (HLE BiTE) immuno-oncology therapy targeting PSMA, in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)
Presenter: Ben Tran
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4951 - ProBio: An outcome-adaptive, multi-arm, open-label, multiple assignment randomised controlled biomarker-driven trial in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (EudraCT: 2018-002350-78, NCT03903835)
Presenter: Johan Lindberg
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2892 - A phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone versus abiraterone acetate and prednisone in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (NCT03748641)
Presenter: Kim Chi
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2427 - The Extended/Phase II Study of Safety And Tolerability Of Proxalutamide (GT0918) In Subjects With Metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) Who Failed Either Abiraterone (Abi) Or Enzalutamide (Enza)
Presenter: Nicholas Vogelzang
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3224 - Addition of an oral docetaxel treatment (ModraDoc006/r) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with high risk N+M0 prostate cancer
Presenter: Marit Vermunt
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3312 - A phase II randomized, open-label study comparing salvage radiotherapy in combination with 6 months of androgen-deprivation therapy with LHRH agonist or antagonist versus anti-androgen therapy with apalutamide in patients with biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy.
Presenter: Piet Dirix
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2829 - Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and Updated Follow-Up From KEYNOTE-057: Phase 2 Study of Pembrolizumab (pembro) for Patients (pts) With High-Risk (HR) Non–Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC) Unresponsive to Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)
Presenter: Ronald de Wit
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2673 - Clinical activity of vofatamab (V), an FGFR3 selective antibody in combination with pembrolizumab (P) in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), updated interim analysis of FIERCE-22
Presenter: Arlene Siefker-Radtke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract