Survival outcomes for cancer types with the highest death rates for adolescents and young adults, 1975-2016.

BACKGROUND: Five-year relative survival for adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer diagnosed at the ages of 15 to 39 years is 85%. Survival rates vary considerably according to the cancer type. The purpose of this study was to analyze long-term survival trends for cancer types with the highest mortality among AYAs to determine where the greatest burden is and to identify areas for future research. METHODS: Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry and the National Center for Health Statistics, the authors examined the incidence, mortality, and survival for the 9 cancer types with the highest mortality rates in this age group from 1975 to 2016. JPSurv, new survival trend software, was used in the analysis. RESULTS: Results suggested significant improvements in 5-year relative survival for brain and other nervous system tumors, colon and rectum cancer, lung and bronchus cancer, acute myeloid leukemia, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (all P values < .05). Limited or no improvement in survival was found for female breast cancer, cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, and bone and joint sarcomas. CONCLUSIONS: Five-year relative survival for multiple cancer types in AYAs has improved, but some common cancer types in this group still show limited survival improvements (eg, ovarian cancer). Survival improvements in colorectal cancer have been overshadowed by its rising incidence, which suggests a substantial disease burden. Future research should focus on female breast, bone, ovarian, and cervical cancers, which have seen minimal or no improvements in survival. LAY SUMMARY: Survival trends for adolescents and young adults with cancer are presented from a 40-year period. Although survival progress is noted for brain cancer, lung cancer, acute myeloid leukemia, and colon and rectum cancer, the incidence of colon and rectum cancer remains high. Minimal progress is evident for female breast, bone, ovarian, and cervical cancers, which are in need of renewed focus.

Examination of individual and multiple comorbid conditions and health-related quality of life in older cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Older cancer survivors (≥ 65 years at diagnosis) are at high-risk for multimorbidity (2 + comorbid conditions). However, few studies have utilized a generalizable sample of older cancer survivors to understand how individual comorbid conditions, as opposed to total comorbidity burden, are associated with health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We examined associations between HRQOL outcomes (pain, fatigue, physical function), individual comorbidities (cardiovascular disease [CVD], lung disease, diabetes, arthritis) and total comorbidity (cancer-only, cancer + 1 condition, cancer + 2 or more conditions). METHODS: Utilizing a population-based sample of 2019 older cancer survivors, we tested associations between comorbid conditions and the HRQOL outcomes using generalized linear models. HRQOL domains were assessed using Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures. Comorbidity was assessed via self-report. RESULTS: Cancer survivors with lung disease reported significantly worse physical functioning (ß = - 4.96, p < 0.001), survivors with arthritis reported significantly higher pain (ß = 4.37, p < 0.001), and survivors with CVD reported significantly higher fatigue (ß = 3.45, p < 0.001) compared to survivors without each condition. Having cancer + 1 condition was not as strongly associated with all outcomes as when individual conditions were tested (e.g. pain: ß = 3.09, p < 0.001). Having 2+ comorbidities had a stronger association with all outcomes (e.g. physical function: ß = - 7.51, p < 0.001) than examining conditions individually. CONCLUSIONS: Knowing the specific comorbid condition profile of an older cancer survivor provides insight into specific HRQOL outcomes that may be impaired in cancer survivorship, but understanding total comorbidity burden, regardless of the specific conditions, sheds light on survivors at-risk for multiple impairments in HRQOL. This information, taken together, can inform risk-stratified survivorship care.

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Effect of instrumental support on distress among family caregivers: Findings from a nationally representative study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A priority focus on palliative and supportive care is helping the 43.5 million caregivers who care for individuals with serious illness. Lacking support may lead to caregiver distress and poorer care delivery to patients with serious illness. We examined the potential of instrumental support (assistance with material and task performance) to mitigate distress among caregivers. METHOD: We analyzed data from the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS V2, 2018). Informal/family caregivers were identified in HINTS V2 if they indicated they were caring for or making healthcare decisions for another adult with a health problem. We used the PROMIS® instrumental support four-item short-form T-scores and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) for distress. We examined multivariable linear regression models for associations between distress and instrumental support, adjusted for sampling weights, socio-demographics, and caregiving variables (care recipient health condition(s), years caregiving (≥2), relationship to care recipient, and caregiver burden). We examined interactions between burden and instrumental support on caregiver distress level. RESULTS: Our analyses included 311 caregivers (64.8% female, 64.9% non-Hispanic White). The unweighted mean instrumental support T-score was 50.4 (SD = 10.6, range = 29.3-63.3); weighted mean was 51.2 (SE = 1.00). Lower instrumental support (p < 0.01), younger caregiver age (p < 0.04), higher caregiving duration (p = 0.008), and caregiver unemployment (p = 0.006) were significantly associated with higher caregiver distress. Mean instrumental support scores by distress levels were 52.3 (within normal limits), 49.4 (mild), 48.9 (moderate), and 39.7 (severe). The association between instrumental support and distress did not differ by caregiver burden level. CONCLUSIONS: Poor instrumental support is associated with high distress among caregivers, suggesting the need for palliative and supportive care interventions to help caregivers leverage instrumental support.

Care delivery, patient experiences, and health outcomes among sexual and gender minority patients with cancer and survivors: A scoping review.

Sexual and gender minorities (SGMs) face a disproportionate burden of cancer, yet little is known about the experiences and specific needs of these underserved populations in cancer care delivery. The authors conducted a scoping review to characterize the literature on cancer care delivery, health outcomes, and health care experiences for patients with cancer and survivors identifying as SGM. In total, 1176 peer-reviewed citations were identified after a systematic search of the PubMed/Medline, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Sciences databases without restriction on publication date. The details captured included study aims, design, population, cancer site, and main findings. Thirty-seven studies published from 1998 to 2017 met the study criteria. Most studies were conducted in the post-treatment survivorship phase of the continuum (n = 30), and breast cancer was the most common cancer site (n = 20). There were only 2 intervention studies. The studies reviewed were classified under the following areas of focus: 1) disclosure of sexual orientation and gender identity, 2) quality of care, 3) psychosocial impact of/ adjustment to cancer, 4) social support, 5) sexual functioning, and 6) health risks/health behavior. Very little research reported an assessment of gender minority status or included a focus on gender minorities (n = 7). This review revealed substantial research gaps given a lack of population-based data and small sample sizes, likely related to the absence of systematic collection of sexual orientation and gender identity information in the cancer care context. Deficient research in this area likely perpetuates health disparities. Further research is needed to identify and remove the barriers to delivering high-quality care to SGM individuals with cancer.

Care experiences among dually enrolled older adults with cancer: SEER-CAHPS, 2005-2013.

PURPOSE: Given the associations between poverty and poorer outcomes among older adults with cancer, we sought to understand the effects of dual enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid-as a marker of poverty-on self-reported care experiences among seniors diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study using cancer registry, Medicare claims, and care experience survey data (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER]-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems [CAHPS®]) for a national sample of fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees aged 65 or older. We included people with one incident primary, malignant cancer diagnosed between 2005 and 2011, surveyed within 2 years after diagnosis (n = 9,800; 995 dual enrollees). Medicare CAHPS measures included 5 global ratings and 3 composite scores. RESULTS: After adjustment for potential confounders, people with cancer histories who were dually enrolled were significantly more likely to report better experiences than non-duals on 2 measures (Medicare/their health plan: adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.87; prescription drug plan [PDP]: aOR: 0.54, 95% CI 0.40-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Dual enrollees with cancer reported better experiences than Medicare-only enrollees in terms of their health plan (Medicare FFS or Medicare Advantage) and their PDP. Better ratings among dually enrolled beneficiaries suggest possible divergence between health outcomes and care experiences, warranting additional investigation.

Understanding care and outcomes in adolescents and young adult with Cancer: A review of the AYA HOPE study.

Historically, adolescents and young adults (AYA) diagnosed with cancer have been an understudied population, and their unique care experiences, needs, and outcomes were not well understood. Thus, 10 years ago, the National Cancer Institute supported the fielding of the Adolescent and Young Adult Health Outcomes and Patient Experiences (AYA HOPE) study to address this gap. We recruited individuals diagnosed at ages 15 to 39 with germ cell, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and sarcoma from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries into the first multicenter population-based study of medical care, physical, and mental health outcomes for AYAs with cancer in the United States. This review of the 17 published manuscripts showed low awareness of clinical trials and substantial impact of cancer on financial burden, education and work, relationships and family planning, and physical and mental health. It highlights the feasibility of a longitudinal population-based study and key lessons learned for research on AYAs with cancer in and beyond the United States.

Establishing clinically-relevant terms and severity thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures of physical function, cognitive function, and sleep disturbance in people with cancer using standard setting.

PURPOSE: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) physical function, cognitive function, and sleep disturbance measures are increasingly used in cancer care. However, there is limited guidance for interpreting the clinical meaning of scores. This study aimed to apply bookmarking, a standard setting methodology, to identify PROMIS score thresholds in the context of cancer care. METHODS: Using item parameters, we constructed vignettes of five items covering the range of possible scores. Focus groups were held with cancer care providers and people with cancer. Terminology for categorizing levels of severity was explored. Participants rank ordered vignettes by severity and then placed bookmarks between vignettes representing different levels of severity. Group discussion was held until consensus on bookmark placement was reached. RESULTS: Clinicians selected "within normal limits," "mild," "moderate," and "severe" to describe levels of severity. Both patients and clinicians were able to apply these labels, but there was not unanimous support for any set of descriptors. Clinicians and patients agreed on all severity thresholds for sleep disturbance. For cognitive and physical function, clinicians and patients agreed on the threshold between "within normal limits" and "mild." However, patients required greater dysfunction than clinicians before applying "moderate" and "severe" labels. CONCLUSIONS: Bookmarking can be applied to develop provisional score interpretation for PROMIS measures. Patients and clinicians were frequently consistent in their bookmark placement. When there was variance, patients required more dysfunction before assigning more severity. Additional research with other cancer samples is needed to evaluate the replicability and generalizability of our findings.

Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including "missing data,""health-related quality of life," and "patient-reported outcome." Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. CONCLUSION: The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

Responsiveness of 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in a large, community-based cancer study cohort.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was a National Institutes of Health-funded initiative to develop measures of symptoms and function. Responsiveness is the degree to which a measure can detect underlying changes over time. The objective of the current study was to document the responsiveness of 8 PROMIS measures in a large, population-based cancer cohort. METHODS: The Measuring Your Health study recruited 2968 patients who were diagnosed with 1 of 7 cancers between 2010 and 2012 through 4 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. Participants completed a baseline survey (6-13 months after diagnosis) and a 6-month follow-up survey. Changes in 8 PROMIS scores were compared with global ratings of transition, changes in performance status, and clinical events. RESULTS: Measures were responsive to 6-month declines and improvements in performance status with small to large effect sizes (ES) (Cohen d = 0.34-0.71; P < .01). Mean changes and effect sizes were larger for participants who reported declines compared with those who reported improvements. Small-to-medium ES were observed in patients who reported being "a little" worse (d = 0.31-0.56), and medium-to-large ES were observed in those who reported being "a lot" worse (d = 0.53-0.72). Hospitalized participants reported significant score increases, resulting in worsening of pain (d = 0.51), fatigue (d = 0.35), and depression (d = 0.57; all P < .01). Cancer recurrence and progression were associated with smaller increases in pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance (d = 0.22-0.27). CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that all 8 PROMIS measures were sensitive to patient-perceived worsening and improvement and to major clinical events. These findings will be able to inform the design and interpretation of future research studies and clinical initiatives administering PROMIS measures. Cancer 2017;123:327-335. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Cancer negatively impacts on sexual function in adolescents and young adults: The AYA HOPE study.

OBJECTIVE: This cohort study examined the impact of cancer on sexual function and intimate relationships in adolescents and young adults (AYAs). We also explored factors predicting an increased likelihood that cancer had negatively affected these outcomes. METHODS: Participants (n = 465, ages 15-39) in the Adolescent and Young Adult Health Outcomes and Patient Experience (AYA HOPE) study completed two surveys approximately 1 and 2 years post-cancer diagnosis. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine factors negatively affected by perceptions of sexual function at 2 years post-diagnosis. RESULTS: Forty-nine percent of AYAs reported negative effects on sexual function at 1 year post-cancer diagnosis and 70% of those persisted in their negative perceptions 2 years after diagnosis. Those reporting a negative impact at 2 years were more likely to be 25 years or older (OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.44-4.42), currently not raising children (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06-3.08), experiencing fatigue (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.975-0.998) and more likely to report that their diagnosis has had a negative effect on physical appearance (OR, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.97-4.81). Clinical factors and mental health were not significant predictors of negative effects on sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Many AYAs diagnosed with cancer experience a persistent negative impact on sexual life up to 2 years following diagnosis. The findings underscore the need to develop routine protocols to assess sexual function in AYAs with cancer and to provide comprehensive management in the clinical setting. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The challenge of measuring intra-individual change in fatigue during cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: To evaluate how well three different patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure individual change. METHODS: Two hundred and fourteen patients (from two sites) initiating first or new chemotherapy for any stage of breast or gastrointestinal cancer participated. The 13-item FACIT Fatigue scale, a 7-item PROMIS® Fatigue Short Form (PROMIS 7a), and the PROMIS® Fatigue computer adaptive test (CAT) were administered monthly online for 6 months. Reliability of measured change was defined, under a population mixed effects model, as the ratio of estimated systematic variance in rate of change to the estimated total variance of measured individual differences in rate of change. Precision of individual measured change, the standard error of measurement of change, was given by the square root of the rate-of-change sampling variance. Linear and quadratic models were examined up to 3 and up to 6 months. RESULTS: A linear model for measured change showed the following by 6 and 3 months, respectively: PROMIS CAT (0.363 and 0.342); PROMIS SF (0.408 and 0.533); FACIT (0.459 and 0.473). Quadratic models offered no noteworthy improvement over linear models. Both reliability and precision results demonstrate the need to improve the measurement of intra-individual change. CONCLUSIONS: These results illustrate the challenge of reliably measuring individual change in fatigue with a level of confidence required for intervention. Optimizing clinically useful measurement of intra-individual differences over time continues to pose a challenge for PROs.

Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards.

Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes generate important data in cancer randomised trials to assist in assessing the risks and benefits of cancer therapies and fostering patient-centred cancer care. However, the various ways these measures are analysed and interpreted make it difficult to compare results across trials, and hinders the application of research findings to inform publications, product labelling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. To address these problems, the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data (SISAQOL) initiative has been established. This consortium, directed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), was convened to provide recommendations on how to standardise the analysis of HRQOL and other patient-reported outcomes data in cancer randomised trials. This Personal View discusses the reasons why this project was initiated, the rationale for the planned work, and the expected benefits to cancer research, patient and provider decision making, care delivery, and policy making.

Next steps for adolescent and young adult oncology workshop: An update on progress and recommendations for the future.

Each year, 70,000 adolescents and young adults (AYAs) between ages 15 and 39 years in the United States are diagnosed with cancer. In 2006, a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Progress Review Group (PRG) examined the state of science associated with cancer among AYAs. To assess the impact of the PRG and examine the current state of AYA oncology research, the NCI, with support from the LIVESTRONG Foundation, sponsored a workshop entitled "Next Steps in Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology" on September 16 and 17, 2013, in Bethesda, Maryland. This report summarizes the findings from the workshop, opportunities to leverage existing data, and suggestions for future research priorities. Multidisciplinary teams that include basic scientists, epidemiologists, trialists, biostatisticians, clinicians, behavioral scientists, and health services researchers will be essential for future advances for AYAs with cancer.

Use of complementary and alternative medicine and breast cancer survival in the Health, Eating, Activity, and Lifestyle Study.

PURPOSE: Use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is common among breast cancer patients, but less is known about whether CAM influences breast cancer survival. METHODS: Health Eating, Activity, and Lifestyle (HEAL) Study participants (n = 707) were diagnosed with stage I-IIIA breast cancer. Participants completed a 30-month post-diagnosis interview including questions on CAM use (natural products such as dietary and botanical supplements, alternative health practices, and alternative medical systems), weight, physical activity, and comorbidities. Outcomes were breast cancer-specific and total mortality, which were ascertained from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registries in Western Washington, Los Angeles County, and New Mexico. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fit to data to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) for mortality. Models were adjusted for potential confounding by sociodemographic, health, and cancer-related factors. RESULTS: Among 707 participants, 70 breast cancer-specific deaths and 149 total deaths were reported. 60.2 % of participants reported CAM use post-diagnosis. The most common CAM were natural products (51 %) including plant-based estrogenic supplements (42 %). Manipulative and body-based practices and alternative medical systems were used by 27 and 13 % of participants, respectively. No associations were observed between CAM use and breast cancer-specific (HR 1.04, 95 % CI 0.61-1.76) or total mortality (HR 0.91, 95 % CI 0.63-1.29). CONCLUSION: Complementary and alternative medicine use was not associated with breast cancer-specific mortality or total mortality. Randomized controlled trials may be needed to definitively test whether there is harm or benefit from the types of CAM assessed in HEAL in relation to mortality outcomes in breast cancer survivors.

Health-related quality of life in older adult survivors of selected cancers: data from the SEER-MHOS linkage.

BACKGROUND: Research on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among older adult cancer survivors is mostly confined to breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer, which account for 63% of all prevalent cancers. Much less is known about HRQOL in the context of less common cancer sites. METHODS: HRQOL was examined with the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, version 1, and the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey in patients with selected cancers (kidney cancer, bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, upper gastrointestinal cancer, cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx, uterine cancer, cervical cancer, thyroid cancer, melanoma, chronic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma) and in individuals without cancer on the basis of data linked from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry system and the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. Scale scores, Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores, and a utility metric (Short Form 6D/Veterans RAND 6D), adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and other chronic conditions, were calculated. A 3-point difference in the scale scores and a 2-point difference in the PCS and MCS scores were considered to be minimally important differences. RESULTS: Data from 16,095 cancer survivors and 1,224,549 individuals without a history of cancer were included. The results indicated noteworthy deficits in physical health status. Mental health was comparable, although scores for the Role-Emotional and Social Functioning scales were worse for patients with most types of cancer versus those without cancer. Survivors of multiple myeloma and pancreatic malignancies reported the lowest scores, with their PCS/MCS scores less than those of individuals without cancer by 3 or more points. CONCLUSIONS: HRQOL surveillance efforts revealed poor health outcomes among many older adults and specifically among survivors of multiple myeloma and pancreatic cancer.

Cancer survivors' disclosure of complementary health approaches to physicians: the role of patient-centered communication.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors' disclosure of complementary health approaches (CHAs) to their follow-up care physicians is necessary to ensure the safe and optimal use of such approaches. Rates of disclosure of CHAs are variable and may be facilitated by patient-centered communication. METHODS: This cross-sectional study conducted in 2003-2004 examined a population-based sample of leukemia, colorectal, and bladder cancer survivors (n=623) who were 2 to 5 years after their diagnosis. A subset of participants who reported using CHAs (n=196) was analyzed with multivariate logistic regression to examine the association between patients' perceptions of their physician's patient-centered communication (ie, information exchange, affective behavior, knowledge of patients as persons) and patients' disclosure of CHA use to their physician with adjustments for physician, patient, and patient-physician relationship factors. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of the full sample used CHAs, and 47.6% of CHA users disclosed their use to their physicians. Disclosure was significantly associated with patient-centered communication even with adjustments for hypothesized covariates (odds ratio [OR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.71). Perceived physician knowledge of the patient as a person (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48) and information exchange (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.60) were the aspects of patient-centered communication that contributed to this association. The main reason for nondisclosure assessed in the survey was that survivors did not think that it was important to discuss CHAs (67.0%). A majority of physicians encouraged continued use of CHAs when they were disclosed (64.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Results support the idea that improving the overall patient centeredness of cancer follow-up care and improving the disclosure of CHA use are potentially synergistic clinical goals.

Fertility preservation knowledge, counseling, and actions among adolescent and young adult patients with cancer: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The fertility of adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer can be threatened by treatments, but to the authors' knowledge little is known regarding the extent to which providers discuss this with patients or recommend fertility preservation, or the patient and physician characteristics associated with these interactions. METHODS: Questionnaires from 459 AYA patients with cancer who were diagnosed between 2007 and 2008 and recruited through 7 US population-based cancer registries were analyzed using sex-specific multivariable models. The authors assessed characteristics associated with not discussing therapy effects on fertility or fertility preservation options, and not making fertility preservation arrangements. RESULTS: Males without a medical oncologist were more likely not to be told that therapy might affect fertility than those with a medical oncologist (male odds ratio [OR], 2.28; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.03-5.00). Individuals without insurance (male OR, 2.91 [95% CI, 1.41-5.91] and female OR, 5.46 [95% CI, 1.59-18.72]); those raising children aged <18 years; and, among males only, those who received treatment posing no or a low fertility risk (OR, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.60-7.16) were more likely not to discuss fertility preservation with providers. Finally, among males, those without a college degree (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.00-3.97), lacking private insurance (OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.16-7.63), and raising children aged <18 years (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 1.63-7.65) were more likely to not make fertility preservation arrangements; too few females had made fertility preservation arrangements for similar analyses to be performed. CONCLUSIONS: Discussion and action surrounding fertility preservation for AYA patients with cancer are associated with medical factors, patient socioeconomic data, and child-rearing status. These results highlight the need for insurance coverage for fertility preservation and increased awareness of fertility preservation options.

US trends in survival disparities among adolescents and young adults with non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Improvement in US survival rates among adolescents and young adults (AYAs, ages 15 through 39 years inclusive) diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) has been documented over the last two decades. We examined national trends in survival disparities for AYAs with NHL by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES, county-level poverty) to further understand NHL and to begin monitoring health outcome disparities for this disease. METHODS: Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data were used to calculate 5-year relative survival rates of AYAs diagnosed with NHL from 1992 to 2007 and followed through 2011. Absolute and relative disparities were computed using HD*Calc. Whether a significant linear trend was present was evaluated using Joinpoint. Analyses were replicated after excluding individuals with known HIV infection. RESULTS: The study sample included 9,573 total and 7,121 non-HIV cases of NHL. Five-year survival rates improved for all groups over time. Significant decreases were found in absolute disparities for race/ethnicity (non-HIV), in relative disparities for SES (total) and race/ethnicity (total and non-HIV) (all p < 0.05). Survival rates of non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics remained below than those of non-Hispanic Whites throughout the time period. CONCLUSION: Absolute and relative disparities in 5-year survival narrowed for AYAs with NHL over the time period. To continue to promote this trend, future research should investigate factors, particularly diagnostic delays and barriers to care, which continue to contribute to SES and racial/ethnic differences in survival. These factors may be particularly relevant to identify given the recent Affordable Care Act, which is designed to increase access to medical services, particularly for young adults.