Our expert answers 3 Questions
I am thinking about how we measure "success" in cancer interventions. Survival is obvious. But after that? "Quality of life" is vague and isn't often helpful. "Progression free survival" is also fraught. I feel that those are dancing around the issue of function - did the treatment allow someone to function better, for longer, compared to someone who did not receive the treatment? If not - are we sure we are accurately measuring quality of life? Or did we temporarily stop progression but cause a lot of unfavorable toxicities? Emphasizing function in cancer care has the potential to shift our paradigm and be more patient centered.
I am interested in exploring the value of the rehabilitation professional in oncology care. Patients being treated for cancer are inundated with financially toxic treatments and appointments - so why do so many patients still seek this out? There is obviously a value for some patients - but it has been underexplored. Understanding this can open up a suite of supportive care options for patients.
Our population is aging. Cancer prevalence is rising. Treatments allow people to live longer - and in some cases be cured. But the effects of chronic cancer and its treatments leads to higher rates of disability, more medical expense, and lower employment - all of which is complicated by social determinants of health. If we emphasize maintaining independent function, and reintegration into social roles during and after cancer treatment, we have an opportunity to stymie some of the costs, disability-adjusted life years, and unemployment associated with the disease.