Search

Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) is recommended after hormone receptor-positive breast cancer to reduce risk of recurrence, but adherence is sub-optimal in many women. Behavioral interventions have been ineffective in improving adherence rates to AET. This qualitative descriptive study investigates factors that support women in AET use and suggestions for interventions to improve AET use and management. Interviews with women who persisted with AET (n = 23), women who discontinued AET (n = 15), and healthcare providers (HCPs, oncologists, oncology residents, and pharmacists, n = 9) were conducted, transcribed, and described using thematic analysis. Data collection stopped once saturation occurred (i.e., no new codes or themes emerged during interviews). Two researchers created codes and developed themes in an iterative process, a third researcher verified the representativeness of final themes. This study was approved by the Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta (ID: HREBA.CC-17-0513). Women who persisted described being prepared for side effects and having self-management strategies, strong rationale for AET use, supportive HCPs, and available resources as relevant factors. Women who discontinued described feeling overwhelmed by side effects, information needs, drawbacks of AET, helpful/unhelpful experiences with HCPs, and contextual factors as relevant to their discontinuation. HCPs described health system-related and patient-related barriers, side effect management, and patient-provider interactions as relevant to supporting AET use. The considerable overlap in themes among the three groups suggests broad recognition of salient factors relevant to AET use and that associated strategies to improve use may be acceptable to patients and providers alike. Factors supporting AET use could include the following: education (which may be necessary but insufficient), developing a strong personal rationale for use, being prepared for side effects, having side effect management strategies, reciprocal communication between patients and HCPs, and accessible resources.

Background Although mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have demonstrated efficacy for alleviating psychological distress in cancer survivors, little is known about the extent to which participants adhere to assigned home practice. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize and appraise the literature on rates and correlates of adherence to mindfulness home practice among cancer survivors. Methods Four databases (PubMed, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) were searched for studies published before October 15, 2020. Articles were included if they evaluated the benefits of an MBI program for adults with cancer. Results Twenty-one studies (N=1811 participants) meeting the inclusion criteria were identified (randomized controlled trials (n=13), non-randomized controlled designs (n=2), single-group studies (n=6)). The pooled adherence rate for participants’ home practice was 60% of the assigned amount, which equated to 27 min per day during the intervention period. There was some evidence for a relationship between home practice of mindfulness techniques and improvements in mood, stress, anxiety, depression, and fear of cancer recurrence (correlation coefficients ranged from 0.33 to 0.67). Factors including marital status, mood disturbance at baseline, intervention modality, and personality traits were evaluated in relation to adherence to home practice, but the current literature was inadequate to evaluate whether a relationship exists. Conclusion Adherence to mindfulness home practice among cancer survivors is suboptimal, and most of the correlates of adherence studied to date are non-modifiable. More research is warranted to scrutinize the role of home practice in mindfulness-based interventions, including assessment of modifiable factors influencing adherence to improve benefits for this population., Video abstract Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use: https://youtu.be/jvlJF9505jU

Introduction: An important gap between randomized efficacy research and real-world implementation of complementary therapies is the role of patient preferences in influencing engagement and outcome. Several studies have highlighted the benefits of patient preference on health outcomes, but few have investigated the factors associated with preference for interventions, which may be critical to assure the success of program implementation. The current study sought to explore the factors associated with patient preference in an ongoing randomized preference-based trial of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) versus Tai Chi/qigong (TCQ) (the Mindfulness and Tai Chi/qigong in Cancer Health [MATCH] study). Materials and Methods: A multi-method study design was used. A subsample of participants were purposely selected from the ongoing MATCH study to have representation from both intervention arms and from both men and women across different age groups. Open-ended, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted to explore the factors influencing initial patient preference. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by using inductive thematic analysis. The treatment acceptability and preference measure was administered to determine patients' ratings of acceptability and credibility of both preferred and nonpreferred interventions. Results: A total of 13 participants were interviewed prior to program attendance, with 8 (62%) preferring TCQ and 5 (38%) choosing MBCR. Major themes related to patients' preference for intervention included: (1) expectations about the preferred intervention; (2) knowledge of the intervention; (3) past experiences with the intervention; and (4) self-efficacy. Participants' mean treatment acceptability scores were higher for their preferred program than their nonpreferred program. Conclusion: Understanding the factors that influence cancer survivors' preference for mind-body interventions can augment health care providers' knowledge of the barriers and facilitators for successful implementation of interventions in clinical settings, as well as help patients make informed treatment decisions and improve satisfaction and outcomes. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03641222.

Background An increasing number of gastrointestinal cancer (GI) patients suffer from side effects of cancer treatment that can affect their mood states and quality of life. Despite its demonstrated effectiveness in female cancer patients, Supportive Expressive Group Therapy (SEGT) has not been tested in male cancer patients. The current study sought to examine the longitudinal effects of a professionally-led, men-only SEGT on mood states, coping, and quality of life (QoL) in male GI cancer patients. Methods A sample of male GI cancer patients (n = 31), at different stages of cancer treatment, was recruited from an ongoing, men-only biweekly GI cancer SEGT. Data were collected at baseline (before or near the beginning of group attendance) and at three months and six months follow-up. All study outcomes were patient-reported and included socio-demographic data as well as validated questionnaires: Profile of Mood States (POMS) for mood states, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) for QoL, and Ways of Coping-Cancer Version (WOC) for coping. Linear mixed models were used to examine the change in outcomes over time. Effect sizes were estimated using Cohen’s d. Results The Anxiety (p = .04; d = 0.70), Depression (p = .03; d = 0.93) and Anger (p = .04; d = 1.28) subscales of the POMS decreased between baseline and six months. Participants also reported improvements in coping through Distancing (distancing oneself from negative thoughts, being more accepting of the situation, and looking for positives) of the WOC (p = .04; d = 0.4) between baseline and six months. There was no change in any of the FACT subscales (QoL) over time. Conclusions This is the first study to investigate the effects of a SEGT intervention in male cancer patients. Participation in the intervention was associated with improved mood states and coping in male GI cancer patients; however, there was no change in measures of QoL.

Purpose Lower-extremity lymphedema (LEL) is a lifelong consequence of cancer therapy and can lead to serious physical and psychosocial complications for many cancer survivors. However, clinical knowledge and treatment of LEL remain minimal. The purpose of this study was to integrate perspectives of lymphedema patients and healthcare providers (HCPs) on LEL to develop a novel model for quality lymphedema care. Methods A mixed-methods approach was implemented. Standardized questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were used to assess psychosocial well-being and experiences of LEL patients. Interviews were also used to evaluate the clinical experiences of HCPs working within tumour groups associated with cancer-related LEL. Thematic analysis was used to analyse qualitative data. Results Twenty-two patients and eleven HCPs participated in this study. Patient QOL, generalized anxiety and depressive symptom scores revealed a complex interplay between psychosocial well-being and supportive LEL care after cancer. Three themes emerged from interviews with patients (n = 19) and HCPs (n = 11): level of lymphedema knowledge, effectiveness of rehabilitation oncology services and barriers to care. Implications for Cancer Survivors We developed a novel model for quality lymphedema care that emphasizes the importance of continued physical and psychosocial support for LEL patients, while illustrating the importance of HCPs in facilitating a smooth transition for patients to LEL care after cancer treatment.

Purpose Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients often suffer high rates of distress and social isolation, partially due to symptoms that are embarrassing or difficult to discuss with family or friends. Group support therapies mitigate illness-related stigma and standardization; however, men, in particular, are more averse to joining. Through an ongoing men-only GI cancer support group, this study sought to understand who joined the groups, what facilitated group uptake, and explore men's reasons for enrolling in the group. Methods A mixed-methods study design and analysis were used. A qualitative design utilizing open-ended, semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis were used; Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) directed the inquiry towards facets of group uptake. Standardized measures were also used to assess distress, coping, and quality of life (QoL) and compared with normative values for cancer and general population. Data from qualitative and quantitative findings were triangulated. Results Participants included 35 male GI cancer patients, aged 28-72, at varying stages of illness and treatment. Themes related to group uptake and enrollment were endorsement; composition; and attitudes, and reasons for joining were learning new coping techniques and affiliations with similar others. Men's QoL and psychological distress scores were on par with cancer patient norms. The scores obtained from quantitative scales corroborated with our qualitative findings. Conclusions Despite psychosocial, demographic, and clinical variations, participants were keen on joining a male-only Supportive-Expressive Therapy (SET) group to address their emotional, informational, and supportive care needs and express their solidarity for other patients. Implications for cancer survivors Findings bear clinical relevance for designing GI male-centered group formats that endorse men's needs and facilitate their accessibility to group support interventions.

Background With advances in cancer diagnosis and treatment, women with early-stage breast cancer (ESBC) are living longer, increasing the number of patients receiving post-treatment follow-up care. Best-practice survivorship models recommend transitioning ESBC patients from oncology-provider (OP) care to community-based care. While developing materials for a future randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the feasibility of a nurse-led Telephone Survivorship Clinic (TSC) for a smooth transition of ESBC survivors to follow-up care, we explored patients’ and OPs’ reactions to several of our proposed methods. Methods We used a qualitative study design with thematic analysis and a two-pronged approach. We interviewed OPs, seeking feedback on ways to recruit their ESBC patients for the trial, and ESBC patients, seeking input on a questionnaire package assessing outcomes and processes in the trial. Results OPs identified facilitators and barriers and offered suggestions for study design and recruitment process improvement. Facilitators included the novelty and utility of the study and simplicity of methods; barriers included lack of coordination between treating and discharging clinicians, time constraints, language barriers, motivation, and using a paper-based referral letter. OPs suggested using a combination of electronic and paper referral letters and supporting clinicians to help with recruitment. Patient advisors reported satisfaction with the content and length of the assessment package. However, they questioned the relevance of some questions (childhood trauma) while adding questions about trust in physicians and proximity to primary-care providers. Conclusions OPs and patient advisors rated our methods for the proposed trial highly for their simplicity and relevance then suggested changes. These findings document processes that could be effective for cancer-patient recruitment in survivorship clinical trials.

Background: An increasing number of gastrointestinal cancer (GI) patients suffer from the side effects of cancer treatment that can affect their psychosocial health outcomes such as mood states and quality of life. Despite its demonstrated usefulness in female cancer patients, the Supportive Expressive Group Therapy (SEGT) has not been tested in male cancer patients. The current study sought to examine the longitudinal effects of a professionally-led, men-only supportive-expressive group therapy (SEGT) on mood states, coping, and quality of life (QoL) in male GI cancer patients. Methods: Male GI cancer patients (n=31), at different stages of cancer treatment, were recruited from an ongoing men-only biweekly GI cancer SEGT. Data were collected at baseline (before or near the beginning of group attendance) and at three months and six months follow-up. All outcomes were patient-reported and included demographic data as well as the validated questionnaires: Profile of Mood States (POMS) for mood states, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) for QoL, and Ways of Coping-cancer version (WOC) for coping. Linear mixed models were used to examine the change in the outcomes over time. Effect sizes were estimated using Cohen’s d. Results: The Anxiety (p=.04; d=0.70), Depression (p=.03; d=0.93) and Anger (p=.04; d=1.28) subscales of the POMS decreased between baseline and six months. Participants also reported improvements in coping through Distancing (distancing oneself from negative thoughts, being more accepting of the situation, and looking for positives) of the WOC (p=.04; d=0.4) between baseline and six months. There was no change in any of the FACT subscales (QoL) over time. Conclusions: This is the first study to investigate the effects of a SEGT intervention in male cancer patients. SEGT resulted in improved mood states and coping in male GI cancer patients; however, there was no change in measures of QoL. Given the direct effects of SEGT on anxiety, depression and anger, as well as a strong association between anger and depression in men as reported in past studies, SEGT could be impactful in improving psychosocial health outcomes in male GI cancer patients.

To summarize and evaluate evidence available on the effects of yoga on cancer-associated cognitive decline (CACD). A systematic review was conducted using four databases of articles published before January 1, 2020. Ten articles met the inclusion criteria (six randomized controlled trials, two single-arm studies, one non-randomized controlled trial, and one case series study). Studies were predominantly conducted with breast cancer patients using low-intensity hatha yoga programs. Of the 10 articles, five reported some positive effects on CACD, but significant biases were possible due to design shortcomings. Cohen’s d effect sizes ranged from |0.03| to |0.74|. The evidence to date is insufficient to suggest that yoga is beneficial for attenuating CACD. More rigorous trials controlling for non-specific factors are warranted. The field would also benefit from examining self-delivered modes of yoga for treating CACD in various cancer populations to enhance practice sustainability and generalizability.

Objective To examine the factors associated with loss to follow-up (LTFU) in an ongoing preference-based randomized waitlist controlled trial of mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) and Taichi/Qigong (TCQ) for cancer survivors (the MATCH Study). Hierarchical logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with LTFU. Predictors included adherence to treatment, preference vs. randomized, type of intervention (MBCR vs. TCQ) and program timing (immediate {IM} vs. waitlist control {WLC} group). Results Data indicated that randomization to the WLC group and, once in the intervention, low adherence were the main predictors of LTFU. Participants in the WLC group were 4 times more likely to be LTFU post-randomization [OR 3.96, 95% CI 2.08–7.56, p

Background. A service delivery model using group acupuncture (AP) may be more cost-effective than individual AP in general, but there is little evidence to assess whether group AP is a comparable treatment in terms of efficacy to standard individual AP. The study aimed to compare the group to individual delivery of 6-week AP among cancer patients with pain. Methods. The study design was a randomized noninferiority trial of the individual (gold standard treatment) vs. group AP for cancer pain. The primary outcome was pain interference and severity, measured through the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes included measures of mood, sleep, fatigue, and social support. Changes in outcomes from pre- to postintervention were examined using linear mixed effects modeling and noninferiority was inferred using a noninferiority margin, a difference of change between the two arms and 95% CIs. Pain interference was tested with a noninferiority margin of 1 on the BPI, while pain severity and secondary outcomes were compared using conventional statistical methods. Results. The trial included 74 participants randomly allocated to group (35) or individual (39) AP. The noninferiority hypothesis was supported for pain interference [Ө − 1, Δ 1.03, 95% CI: 0.15–2.20] and severity [Ө − 0.81, Δ 0.52, 95% CI:.33–1.38] as well as for mood [Ө − 7.52, Δ 9.86, 95% CI: 0.85–18.86], sleep [Ө − 1.65, Δ 2.60, 95% CI: 0.33–4.88], fatigue [Ө 8.54, Δ − 15.57, 95% CI: 25.60–5.54], and social support [Ө.26, Δ − 0.15, 95% CI: − 0.42–0.13], meaning that group AP was not inferior to individual AP treatment. Both arms evidenced statistically significant improvements across all symptoms before and after the intervention. Effect sizes for the group vs. individual AP on outcomes of pain, sleep, mood, and social support ranged from small to very large and were consistently larger in the group condition. The total average cost-per-person for group AP ($221.25) was almost half that of individual AP ($420). Conclusions. This is the first study to examine the noninferiority of group AP with the gold standard individual AP. Group AP was noninferior to individual AP for treating cancer pain and was superior in many health outcomes. Group AP is more cost-effective for alleviating cancer pain and should be considered for implementation trials.

The aim of this study was to highlight features of pragmatic real-world integrative oncology research by applying the PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS-2) criteria to an ongoing integrative oncology clinical trial. The ongoing trial is a preference-based randomized comparative effectiveness trial of mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) versus t'ai chi/qigong (TCQ) for cancer survivors (the Mindfulness and T'ai Chi for Cancer Health [MATCH] study). The primary outcome of the MATCH study is distress, and secondary outcomes are quality of life, sleep disturbance, and physical functioning. The clinical trial is being undertaken at tertiary care cancer centers across two sites in Canada: Calgary (AB) and Toronto (ON), with a sample of 600 cancer survivors who have finished all cancer treatments and are distressed.The MATCH trial was scored on the explanatory-pragmatic continuum for each of the nine domains of the PRECIS-2 criteria on a scale of 1-5, and was rated as more explanatory than pragmatic, despite initial design efforts being more pragmatic. Areas that were least pragmatic were methods of recruitment, follow-up, and intervention delivery. The more pragmatic areas were setting, outcomes, and data analysis.More efforts toward conducting pragmatic trials are needed in the field of integrative oncology, as cancer-care institutions and policy makers are looking for sustainable interventions within already established treatment models. The PRECIS-2 criteria can help researchers meet these goals in the planning stages of trial development.

The purpose of the study is to examine the course of anxiety, depression and unmet needs in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and multiple myeloma (MM) survivors in the first 2 years post diagnosis. DLBCL and MM survivors, recruited through the Victorian Cancer Registry, completed two interviews approximately 7 and 15 months post diagnosis. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34) were completed at both interviews. Primary outcomes were prevalence of anxiety, depression and unmet needs (any or moderate–high). Generalized estimating equation examined whether course of anxiety, depression and unmet needs differed between the two cancers. Overall, 236 DLBCL and 178 MM survivors completed both telephone interviews. Course of anxiety differed (p

Objective To examine the influence of anxiety, depression and unmet supportive care needs on future quality of life (QoL) in multiple myeloma (MM) and diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. Methods MM and DLBCL patients recruited through the population-based Victorian Cancer Registry. Data was collected through two telephone interviews: T1) on average 7 months post diagnosis, T2) average 8 months later. QoL was examined at T2 using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G) scale. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale measured anxiety and depression and the Supportive Care Needs Survey measured unmet needs at T1. Multivariate linear regression examined associations between QoL subscales (physical, emotional, social, and functional wellbeing and overall QoL) and T1 anxiety, depression and unmet needs. Results Except physical wellbeing, all other QoL subscales and overall QoL were significantly associated with T1 anxiety. All QoL subscales and overall QoL were significantly associated with T1 depression. Only patient-care needs were associated with physical and social wellbeing and overall QoL. Conclusion Anxiety, depression and patient-care unmet needs during treatment are associated with diminished physical and emotional well-being in the following months. Psychological distress and unmet supportive care needs experienced during treatment should be addressed to maximise future QoL. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

This paper aims to examine the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between patient-reported unmet needs and anxiety and depression for survivors of diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and multiple myeloma (MM). In a longitudinal study design, self-reported data were collected through telephone interviews at two time points approximately 7 (T1) and 15 (T2) months post-diagnosis. The sample was recruited through the population-based Victorian Cancer Registry. At T1 and T2, the study outcomes, anxiety and depression, were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and unmet needs were measured using the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34). Questions related to social/family problems, relationship problems and financial problems were also asked. A three-step multivariable hierarchical logistic regression analysis examined the relative role of T1 anxiety and depression, T1 and T2 unmet needs and other psychosocial factors with T2 anxiety and depression. Both cross-sectional and longitudinal associations were observed between unmet needs and psychological distress. T2 anxiety was associated with T1 anxiety (OR 4.75, 95% CI 1.86–11.09), T2 psychological needs (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.34–2.11) and with T1 social problems (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.03–5.05) in multivariate analysis. T2 depression was associated with both T1 (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.06–1.57) and T2 psychological needs (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.06–1.70), T2 physical needs (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.27–2.81) and T1 depression (OR 4.52, 95% CI 1.88–10.86). Unmet needs that manifest following diagnosis and treatment may persist into early survivorship and contribute to psychological distress. Addressing these needs during treatment may diminish the risk of current and future anxiety and depression.

This study aims to examine the unmet needs and psychological distress (anxiety and depression) in family caregivers of renal cell carcinoma survivors. A cross-sectional study design was used. Unmet needs were assessed with the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Partners and Caregivers (SCNS-P&C) questionnaire, and psychological distress was measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in a telephone survey of 196 caregivers of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) survivors. Chi-square tests examined bivariate relationships, and multivariate logistic regression examined the associations between anxiety and depression and of unmet needs with caregivers’ experience of patients’ care, time spent caregiving, caregivers’ demographic characteristics and patients’ disease stage. Sixty-four percent of caregivers had at least one low, moderate or high unmet need, with 53 % reporting at least three needs and 29 % reporting 10 or more unmet needs (median 2, range 0–38). Elevated anxiety (HADS-A > 8) and depression (HADS-D > 8) were found in 29 and 11 % of the sample, respectively. Psychological and emotional needs were associated with advanced cancer stage (stages 3 and 4) (OR 3.07, 95 % CI 1.35–6.76) and with experience of care during surgery (OR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.78–0.99). Healthcare service needs were associated with time spent caregiving, with caregivers spending >1 h/day in the past week having three times higher odds (OR 3.44, 95 % CI 1.52–7.72) than those not spending any time. Odds of experiencing information needs were lower in caregivers who were in a relationship (OR 0.20, 95 % CI 0.04–0.83). Elevated anxiety (OR 1.59, 95 % CI 1.09–2.33) and depression (OR 2.02, 95 % CI 1.08–3.79) were associated with unmet information needs. Depression was also associated with experiences of care during treatment (OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.49–0.96). RCC caregivers’ unmet information needs are associated with elevated anxiety and depression. Improved experiences of cancer care are associated with lower odds of unmet needs and elevated depression in RCC caregivers.