Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to examine what personally mattered to 24 patients who received immuno-oncology (IO) therapy for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as well as their families and friends, to understand how they evaluated their cancer treatments and the determinants of the quality of life (QoL) of long-term survivors.MethodsEthnographic research was conducted with 24 patients who had responded to IO (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, or durvalumab) for stage IV NSCLC, and their families and friends, evenly split among field sites in Denmark, the USA, and the UK. Data were collected using in-depth qualitative interviews, written exercises, and participant observation. Data analysis methods included interpretative phenomenological analysis, coding, and the development of grounded theory. Researchers spent 2 days with participants in their homes and accompanied them on health-related outings.ResultsOur findings reveal that long-term survivors on IO experienced their journey in two phases: one in which their cancer had taken over their lives mentally, physically, and spiritually, and another in which their cancer consumed only a part of their everyday lives. Patients who survived longer than their initial prognosis existed in a limbo state in which they were able to achieve some semblance of normalcy in spite of being identified as having a terminal condition. This limbo state impacted their life priorities, decision-making, experience of patient support, and health information-seeking behaviors, all of which shaped their definitions and experience of QoL.ConclusionsThe results of this study, which identify the specific challenges of living in limbo, where patients are able to reclaim a portion of their pre-cancer lives while continuing to wrestle with a terminal prognosis, may inform how cancer research can more effectively define and measure the QoL impacts of IO treatments. Also, they may identify approaches that the cancer community can use to support the needs of patients living in a limbo state. These experiences may not be adequately understood by the cancer community or captured by existing QoL measures, which were designed prior to the emergence of IO and without sufficient incorporation of contextual, patient-driven experience.Implications for Cancer SurvivorsIncreased awareness of the specific experiences that come with long-term survival on IO may direct how resources should be spent for cancer support for patients and their families. Expanding how QoL is evaluated based on patients’ lived experiences of IO can reflect a more accurate depiction of the treatment’s benefits and harms.

Highlights

  • Lung cancer represents the leading cause of cancerrelated mortality worldwide with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for roughly 85% of all lung cancer diagnoses [1]

  • Advanced NSCLC was treated with systemic chemotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy representing the standard of care

  • Participants were recruited through patient networks and cancer institutions and included consenting adult patients treated with IO for stage IV NSCLC in Denmark, the UK, and the USA

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Lung cancer represents the leading cause of cancerrelated mortality worldwide with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for roughly 85% of all lung cancer diagnoses [1]. Stage at diagnosis is a key determinant of prognosis, and approximately 57% of patients present with stage IV disease [2]. Advanced NSCLC was treated with systemic chemotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy representing the standard of care. Platinum-containing regimens are associated with significant toxicities, including nausea,. The emergence of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies has resulted in a paradigm shift in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. When administered as monotherapy for treating advanced NSCLC, IO has been associated with response rates of approximately 20% in previously treated patients [4,5,6,7,8] and more than 25% in those who are treatment naive [9,10,11,12]. IO has been shown to have a comparatively benign safety profile, though the management of immune-related adverse events, which are frequently grades 1–2 but can affect multiple organ systems, is a prevalent concern [13, 14]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call