Symptoms and their implications on quality of life and psychological distress in sarcoma patients.

The aim of this study was to investigate symptoms, their variation over time and their relationship with quality of life (QoL)/psychological distress in sarcoma patients, as few data regarding QoL and psychological distress in this set of patients are currently available. A total of 188 sarcoma patients from an Italian referral center were involved. Symptoms and financial difficulties were evaluated with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire from the first treatment and over the follow-up period, up to 6 years. The authors found that patients with sarcoma experience several symptoms, especially fatigue and pain, which may dramatically worsen QoL and psychological distress. In conclusion, patients with sarcoma often experience fatigue, pain and financial difficulties, which negatively impacts QoL and psychological distress. To ameliorate overall QoL, proper control of symptoms is necessary.

Quality of life and emotional distress in sarcoma patients diagnosed during COVID-19 pandemic: a supplementary analysis from the SarCorD study.

Background: The COVID-19 outbreak had a negative psychological impact on cancer patients. In this study, we analyzed emotional distress and quality of life in patients diagnosed with sarcoma during the first year of the pandemic compared to the previous year. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled patients with soft tissue, bone sarcoma, and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases diagnosed during the pandemic (COVID group) or the year before (control group) at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. Patients who had undergone a psychological assessment with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Distress Thermometer at diagnosis were included in the final analysis. We analyzed whether there is a difference in the various domains of quality of life between the two groups and whether there are changes over time in each group. Results: We enrolled 114 patients (72 control group; 42 COVID group), affected by soft tissue (64%), bone sarcoma (29%), and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases (7%). We did not observe significant differences in the health-related quality of life domains in the control and COVID groups, except for the financial domain (p = 0.039), with 9.7% vs. 23.8% of patients with a score > 0 in the control and COVID groups, respectively. We observed emotional distress at diagnosis in 48.6% of patients in the control group vs. 69.0% in the COVID group (p = 0.034). In the control group, we observed an improvement in physical function (p = 0.043) and in QoL (p = 0.022), while in the COVID group, we observed a deterioration in role function (p = 0.044) during follow-up. In the COVID group, 22.2% of patients were concerned about COVID-19, 61.1% by tumor, 91.1% stated that the pandemic worsened their subjective perception of cancer, and 19.4% perceived that their quality of care had worsened. Conclusion: We observed a higher level of distress among patients diagnosed during the pandemic compared to the year before, probably due to the increased concern for both infection and cancer, the worsened perception of health status, and the perception of a poorer quality of health care.

Narrative Medicine: A Digital Diary in the Management of Patients with Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcoma-A Multidisciplinary Pilot Study.

Although patient narratives have been increasingly introduced in various fields of medicine, a standard method in clinical practice is still lacking. The objectives of this pilot study were to evaluate the feasibility and usefulness of a digital narrative diary integrated into the care pathway of patients with bone sarcoma and limb soft tissue sarcoma both from the patients' and the healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspectives. A digital platform, DNMLAB, was designed to obtain guided narratives from patients during their pathway of care in compliance with confidentiality and data protection laws. The diary was used for patients, often young, facing a rare and impactful disease that is difficult to manage and with few opportunities to share experiences. The multidisciplinary team shared the narratives and integrated them into the patient's treatment pathway. Narrative prompts were adequate for the care pathway. Patients correctly considered the diary as a shared area to think about their condition, and HCPs considered it "a shared area growing at each meeting with the patient". The main advantages reported by patients were increased awareness, the opportunity to express their opinion on cures and important personal needs and the perception of better taking charge (score ≥ 4.6). The main advantages of HCP were improved communication, therapeutic alliance, and deeper knowledge of patients. This study confirmed the authors' previous experiences, showing that a digital narrative process is feasible and useful for oncology clinical practice according to patients and HCPs.

Narrative Medicine: A Digital Diary in the Management of Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcoma Patients. Preliminary Results of a Multidisciplinary Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the implementation of narrative medicine in clinical practice exist; however, in Italy, no standard methodology is currently available for the management of oncological patients. Since 2017, at the "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, studies using "digital narrative diaries" (DNMLAB platform) have been carried out; this article focuses on a pilot, uncontrolled, real-life study aiming to evaluate the utility of DNM integrated with the care pathway of patients with bone and limb soft tissue sarcomas. METHODS: Adult patients completed the diary during treatment or follow-up by writing their narrative guided by a set of narrative prompts. The endpoints were: (a) patients' opinions about therapeutic alliance, awareness, and coping ability; (b) healthcare professionals' (HCPs') opinions about communication, therapeutic alliance, and information collection. Open- and closed-ended questions (Likert score: 1-5) were used to assess the items. RESULTS: At the interim analysis of data from seven patients and five HCPs, DNM was shown to improve: (a) the expression of patients' point of view, the perception of effective taking charge, disease awareness, and self-empowerment (score: 4.8/5); (b) patients' communication, relationships, and illness knowledge (score: 4.6-4.8/5). CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results supported the need to integrate patients' narratives with clinical data and encourage further research.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on diagnosis and treatment of patients with soft tissue and bone sarcomas or aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases: A single-center retrospective study (SarCorD study).

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid reorganization of healthcare activities, leading to reduced access to clinics, interruption of screenings, and treatment schedule modifications in several cancer types. Few data are available on sarcomas. We analyzed COVID-19-related diagnostic delay in a sarcoma referral center in Italy. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled in this study patients with histological diagnosis of soft tissue or bone sarcoma and aggressive benign musculoskeletal diseases obtained during the first year of the pandemic (Covid group) or the year before (Control group) and followed at the Regina Elena National Cancer Institute in Rome. The primary endpoint was the time from the first symptom to histological diagnosis. Results: We evaluated 372 patients, 185 of whom were eligible for primary endpoint analysis (92 patients in the Control group and 93 patients in the Covid group). The patients were affected by soft tissue sarcoma in most cases (63.0% and 66.7% in Covid and Control groups, respectively). We observed a diagnostic delay in the Covid group with a median time from the first symptom to the definitive histological diagnosis of 103.00 days (95% CI 92.77-113.23) vs. 90.00 days (95% CI 69.49-110.51) in the Control group (p = 0.024), but not a delay in treatment beginning (151 days, 95% CI 132.9-169.1 vs. 144 days, 95% CI 120.3-167.7, respectively, p = 0.208). No differences in stage at diagnosis were observed (12% vs. 16.5% of patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis in the Covid and Control groups, respectively, p = 0.380). Progression-free survival (p = 0.897) and overall survival (p = 0.725) were comparable in the subgroup of patients affected by soft tissue sarcoma. Conclusions: A delay in sarcoma diagnosis but not in starting treatment has been observed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, no difference in stage at diagnosis or in terms of survival has been observed.