37 Background: Accessible Cancer Care to Enable Support for Cancer Survivors (ACCESS) is a multidisciplinary survivorship care model launched at the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS) in 2019. ACCESS employs routine distress and problem screening to triage cancer patients with varying care needs and complexities for tailored care. Here, we described the study design to evaluate ACCESS, and reported the baseline characteristics of our study cohort to characterize the profile of prospective target recipients of the new care model. Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial was initiated to assess the effectiveness of ACCESS on quality of life and symptom burden, with each cluster unit defined at the oncologist level. Clusters were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive ACCESS or usual care. Eligible patients were ≥21 years, newly diagnosed with breast or gynecological cancer, and receiving follow-up care in NCCS. Patients were followed up for one year and patient-reported outcomes were collected every three months using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Results: By May 2021, 91 patients and 89 patients in the usual care and ACCESS arm were recruited, respectively. Both groups (usual care vs. ACCESS) had comparable mean age (56.2±10.9 vs. 56.2±10.7, P = 0.998) and racial composition (P = 0.760). Employment status was similar in both arms (48.4% vs. 56.2% employed, P = 0.293) and most patients were covered by health insurance (89.8% vs. 88.1%, P = 0.920). At baseline, patients in both arms had comparable mean quality of life scores (65.1±19.8 vs. 66.9±17.6, P = 0.51) and reported high physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning levels (all mean scores > 70). No statistically significant differences in physical symptom and psychological distress levels were observed. Prevalent symptoms reported included fatigue (82.4% vs. 71.9%), pain (68.1% vs. 55.1%), and insomnia (57.1% vs. 55.1%). Almost half of the cohort reported financial difficulties (45.1% vs. 46.1%). Conclusions: Comparable baseline characteristics suggested the absence of systematic differences in care needs and demand among patients cared by different oncologists. Despite high functioning statuses at baseline, participants reported impaired quality of life with active physical and financial problems. These results support our hypothesis that routine screening would be valuable to identify such problems promptly for management via standardized care pathways. Results from this ongoing trial will determine the effectiveness of ACCESS on quality of life and functional recovery through treatment and survivorship. Clinical trial information: NCT04014309.
Evaluation of the Quality of Life of Gynecological Cancer Patients Submitted to Antineoplastic Chemotherapy
