Search

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in adults younger than 50 years is steadily increasing in the USA, and treatment for CRC can impact future fertility. However, fertility decision-making in female patients with CRC can be complex, with fertility preservation (FP) counseling occurring inconsistently., Purpose: The goal of this scoping review was to assess the literature regarding the frequency and quality of fertility preservation (FP) discussions taking place among oncology clinicians and their reproductive-age female patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in order to identify existing gaps in care and inform future research, interventions, or potential changes in practice., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the Ovid Medline, PsycInfo, and Scopus databases in order to identify studies pertaining to FP counseling in reproductive-age female patients with CRC. We used Covidence to screen studies for relevance and to extract data. Findings of interest included rate of fertility and/or FP discussions, patient characteristics associated with fertility discussions, initiators of discussions, rate of referrals to fertility specialists, patient utilization of FP services, and unmet fertility needs. We performed both quantitative and qualitative data synthesis., Results: We identified five studies that met our inclusion criteria, all published between 2007 and 2022. Frequency of fertility counseling discussions was low across studies, with a range of 15 to 52.5% of female patients with CRC receiving counseling. Patient characteristics which may be associated with likelihood of fertility discussion included age, parity, number of children, cancer location and stage, treatment type, and quality of life. The literature suggested that fertility discussions were initiated by clinicians about two-thirds of the time, and medical oncologists were the clinicians most likely to initiate. Studies did capture unmet fertility-related patient needs; participants who did not receive counseling often expressed desire for these discussions and regret that they did not occur., Conclusion: Despite increasing incidence of CRC in patients at younger ages, this scoping review found a dearth of research conducted on young female CRC patients' experiences with fertility counseling and referrals. Notably, the existing research reveals that relatively few of these patients are receiving appropriate counseling. Additional research is needed to clarify current FP counseling practices, patient and clinician perceptions about FP, and ways to improve the quantity and quality of FP counseling in this patient population., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Importance: Symptom monitoring interventions are increasingly becoming the standard of care in oncology, but studies assessing these interventions in the hospital setting are lacking., Objective: To evaluate the effect of a symptom monitoring intervention on symptom burden and health care use among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonblinded randomized clinical trial conducted from February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, assessed 321 hospitalized adult patients with advanced cancer and admitted to the inpatient oncology services of an academic hospital. Data obtained through November 13, 2020, were included in analyses, and all analyses assessed the intent-to-treat population., Interventions: Patients in both the intervention and usual care groups reported their symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) daily via tablet computers. Patients assigned to the intervention had their symptom reports displayed during daily oncology rounds, with alerts for moderate, severe, or worsening symptoms. Patients assigned to usual care did not have their symptom reports displayed to their clinical teams., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of days with improved symptoms, and the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and readmission rates. Linear regression was used to evaluate differences in hospital length of stay. Competing-risk regression (with death treated as a competing event) was used to compare differences in time to first unplanned readmission within 30 days., Results: From February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, 390 patients (76.2% enrollment rate) were randomized. Study analyses to assess change in symptom burden included 321 of 390 patients (82.3%) who had 2 or more days of symptom reports completed (usual care, 161 of 193; intervention, 160 of 197). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 63.6 (12.8) years and were mostly male (180; 56.1%), self-reported as White (291; 90.7%), and married (230; 71.7%). The most common cancer type was gastrointestinal (118 patients; 36.8%), followed by lung (60 patients; 18.7%), genitourinary (39 patients; 12.1%), and breast (29 patients; 9.0%). No significant differences were detected between the intervention and usual care for the proportion of days with improved ESAS-physical (unstandardized coefficient [B] = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.05; P = .56), ESAS-total (B = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.02; P = .17), PHQ-4-depression (B = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.04; P = .55), and PHQ-4-anxiety (B = -0.04; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.03; P = .29) symptoms. Intervention patients also did not differ significantly from patients receiving usual care for the secondary end points of hospital length of stay (7.59 vs 7.47 days; B = 0.13; 95% CI, -1.04 to 1.29; P = .83) and 30-day readmission rates (26.5% vs 33.8%; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.09; P = .12)., Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, the assessed symptom monitoring intervention did not have a significant effect on patients' symptom burden or health care use. These findings do not support the routine integration of this type of symptom monitoring intervention for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03396510.

Background: Patient-reported medical status and treatment goal are measures of prognostic understanding with demonstrated relationships to important clinical and patient-reported outcomes in the general cancer population. Among older adults, relationships between these measures and other patient-reported (quality of life [QOL], symptoms, functional impairment) and clinical (hospitalization risk, survival) outcomes remains unclear., Methods: We enrolled patients ≥70 with advanced gastrointestinal cancers, collecting patient-reported medical status (terminally ill vs not), treatment goal (curative vs non-curative), QOL (EORTC-Elderly Cancer Patients), symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]), and functional impairment (activities of daily living [ADLs]). We also obtained information about hospitalizations and survival. To explore relationships between patient-reported medical status, treatment goal, QOL, symptoms, functional impairment, hospitalizations, and survival, we used regression models adjusted for age, sex, and education., Results: Of 103 patients, 49.5% reported terminally ill status and 64.0% a non-curative treatment goal. Terminally ill status was associated with worse QOL (EORTC illness burden: 53.59 vs 35.26, p = 0.001), higher symptom burden (ESAS: 28.15 vs 16.79, p = 0.002), more functional impairment (ADLs: 3.63 vs 5.24, p = 0.006), greater hospitalization risk (HR = 2.41, p = 0.020), and worse survival (HR = 1.93, p = 0.010). We did not find associations between patient-reported treatment goal and these outcomes., Conclusions: In older adults with advanced cancer, report of terminally ill status was associated with other important patient-reported and clinical outcomes, suggesting disease severity may inform illness perceptions. We did not find similar associations for patient-reported treatment goal, indicating that questions related to medical status and treatment goal measure different constructs and more nuanced measures are needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None of the authors have financial conflict of interest to report., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Oncologists often struggle with managing the unique care needs of older adults with cancer. This study sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a transdisciplinary intervention targeting the geriatric-specific (physical function and comorbidity) and palliative care (symptoms and prognostic understanding) needs of older adults with advanced cancer., Methods: Patients aged ≥65 years with incurable gastrointestinal or lung cancer were randomly assigned to a transdisciplinary intervention or usual care. Those in the intervention arm received 2 visits with a geriatrician, who addressed patients' palliative care needs and conducted a geriatric assessment. We predefined the intervention as feasible if >70% of eligible patients enrolled in the study and >75% of eligible patients completed study visits and surveys. At baseline and week 12, we assessed patients' quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and communication confidence. We calculated mean change scores in outcomes and estimated intervention effect sizes (ES; Cohen's d) for changes from baseline to week 12, with 0.2 indicating a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect., Results: From February 2017 through June 2018, we randomized 62 patients (55.9% enrollment rate [most common reason for refusal was feeling too ill]; median age, 72.3 years; cancer types: 56.5% gastrointestinal, 43.5% lung). Among intervention patients, 82.1% attended the first visit and 79.6% attended both. Overall, 89.7% completed all study surveys. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had less QoL decrement (-0.77 vs -3.84; ES = 0.21), reduced number of moderate/severe symptoms (-0.69 vs +1.04; ES = 0.58), and improved communication confidence (+1.06 vs -0.80; ES = 0.38)., Conclusions: In this pilot trial, enrollment exceeded 55%, and >75% of enrollees completed all study visits and surveys. The transdisciplinary intervention targeting older patients' unique care needs showed encouraging ES estimates for enhancing patients' QoL, symptom burden, and communication confidence.

Background: Oncologists often struggle with managing the complex issues unique to older adults with cancer, and research is needed to identify patients at risk for poor outcomes., Methods: This study enrolled patients aged ≥70 years within 8 weeks of a diagnosis of incurable gastrointestinal cancer. Patient-reported surveys were used to assess vulnerability (Vulnerable Elders Survey [scores ≥3 indicate a positive screen for vulnerability]), quality of life (QoL; EORTC Quality of Life of Cancer Patients questionnaire [higher scores indicate better QoL]), and symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS; higher scores indicate greater symptom burden] and Geriatric Depression Scale [higher scores indicate greater depression symptoms]). Unplanned hospital visits within 90 days of enrollment and overall survival were evaluated. We used regression models to examine associations among vulnerability, QoL, symptom burden, hospitalizations, and overall survival., Results: Of 132 patients approached, 102 (77.3%) were enrolled (mean [M] ± SD age, 77.25 ± 5.75 years). Nearly half (45.1%) screened positive for vulnerability, and these patients were older (M, 79.45 vs 75.44 years; P=.001) and had more comorbid conditions (M, 2.13 vs 1.34; P=.017) compared with nonvulnerable patients. Vulnerable patients reported worse QoL across all domains (global QoL: M, 53.26 vs 66.82; P=.041; physical QoL: M, 58.95 vs 88.24; P<.001; role QoL: M, 53.99 vs 82.12; P=.001; emotional QoL: M, 73.19 vs 85.76; P=.007; cognitive QoL: M, 79.35 vs 92.73; P=.011; social QoL: M, 59.42 vs 82.42; P<.001), higher symptom burden (ESAS total: M, 31.05 vs 15.00; P<.001), and worse depression score (M, 4.74 vs 2.25; P<.001). Vulnerable patients had a higher risk of unplanned hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.08-5.27; P=.032) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.14-4.48; P=.020)., Conclusions: Older adults with cancer who screen positive as vulnerable experience a higher symptom burden, greater healthcare use, and worse survival. Screening tools to identify vulnerable patients should be integrated into practice to guide clinical care.