Screening for distress and needs: Findings from a multinational validation of the Adolescent and Young Adult Psycho-Oncology Screening Tool with newly diagnosed patients.

OBJECTIVE: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer commonly experience elevated psychological distress and need appropriate detection and management of the psychosocial impact of their illness and treatment. This paper describes the multinational validation of the Distress Thermometer (DT) for AYAs recently diagnosed with cancer and the relationship between distress and patient concerns on the AYA-Needs Assessment (AYA-NA). METHODS: AYA patients (N = 288; 15-29 years, Mage  = 21.5 years, SDage  = 3.8) from Australia (n = 111), Canada (n = 67), the UK (n = 85) and the USA (n = 25) completed the DT, AYA-NA, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) and demographic measures within 3 months of diagnosis. Using the HADS as a criterion, receiver operating characteristics analysis was used to determine the optimal cut-off score and meet the acceptable level of 0.70 for sensitivity and specificity. Correlations between the DT and HADS scores, prevalence of distress and AYA-NA scores were reported. RESULTS: The DT correlated strongly with the HADS-Total, providing construct validity evidence (r = 0.65, p < 0.001). A score of 5 resulted in the best clinical screening cut-off on the DT (sensitivity = 82%, specificity = 75%, Youden Index = 0.57). Forty-two percent of AYAs scored at or above 5. 'Loss of meaning or purpose' was the AYA-NA item most likely to differentiate distressed AYAs. CONCLUSIONS: The DT is a valid distress screening instrument for AYAs with cancer. The AYA-POST (DT and AYA-NA) provides clinicians with a critical tool to assess the psychosocial well-being of this group, allowing for the provision of personalised support and care responsive to individuals' specific needs and concerns.

Development of System Performance Indicators for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Care and Control in Canada.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an expert-group, consensus-based list of system performance indicators to be used for monitoring, evaluating, and benchmarking progress for cancer care and control in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in Canada. METHODS: A national multidisciplinary panel of AYA oncology experts was convened; they prepared a literature review and undertook a brainstorming exercise to create a comprehensive list of indicators based on a previously defined framework for AYA cancer care and control in Canada. A modified Delphi process was then undertaken to cull the list based on 3 quick screen criteria. Three rounds of ranking were required. The fourth stage employed a face-to-face meeting, and the final stage utilized a survey to rank the indicators on the basis of importance and feasibility. RESULTS: Nineteen participants contributed to the 5-stage process. From an initial list of 114 indicators, 14 were ultimately endorsed, representing 5 themes: active care, survivorship, psychosocial issues, palliative care, and research. The 5 highest ranked indicators were assessed as very to moderately feasible, with only a single indicator (clinical trial enrollment) in the top 5 assigned a least feasible ranking. CONCLUSION: The 14 indicators provide a starting point for the development of a standard set of metrics for AYA cancer care and control in Canada and have potential for international utility.

Factors Associated With Adolescent and Young Adult Females Attending a Fertility Consultation Within 30 Days of a Cancer Diagnosis in Ontario, Canada.

Purpose: To examine the factors associated with females attending a fertility consultation within 30 days of cancer diagnosis. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study, including females, 15 to 39 years of age, diagnosed with cancer in Ontario, Canada. Administrative data were used from the Institute of Clinical and Evaluative Sciences for the period 2006 to 2019. A backward selection multivariate logistic regression was performed, with a primary outcome of fertility consultation within 30 days of diagnosis. Results: A total of 20,556 females were included in the study, with 7% having attended a fertility visit within 30 days of diagnosis. Factors associated with being more likely to attend included: not currently having children (odds ratio [OR] = 4.3; confidence interval [95% CI 3.6-5.1]), later years of diagnosis (OR = 3.2; 95% CI [2.8-3.8]), having undergone chemotherapy (OR = 3.6; 95% CI [3.0-4.3]) or radiation therapy (OR = 1.9; 95% CI [1.6-2.2]), and less marginalization within dependency quintiles (OR 1.4; 95% CI [1.1-1.7]). Having a cancer with lower risk to fertility (OR = 0.3; 95% CI [0.2-0.3]), death within a year of diagnosis (OR = 0.4; 95% CI [0.3-0.6]), and residing in a northern region of Ontario (OR = 0.3; 95% CI [0.2-0.4]) were associated with being less likely to attend. For sociodemographic factors, lower levels of income (OR = 0.5; 95% CI [0.4-0.6]) and marginalization with residential instability (OR = 0.6; 95% CI [0.5-0.8]) were associated with being less likely to attend a fertility consultation. Conclusions: Rates for attendance of female fertility consultations after a cancer diagnosis remain low, with disparities by both clinical and demographic factors.

Development and Validation of an Indicator for Oncofertility Care in Ontario, Canada, for Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer.

Introduction: There is a lack of metrics to monitor and evaluate fertility care in adolescents and young adults with cancer. This study evaluated the indicator "proportion of cases attending a fertility consult visit ≤30 days from diagnosis of cancer" using the National Quality Forum (NQF) criteria. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using administrative data available through the Institute of Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Ontario, Canada. Cases were included if they were diagnosed with a cancer between January 2005 and December 2019, and aged 15-39 years. Fertility consultations were identified by Ontario Health Insurance Plan Claims Database (OHIP) diagnostic codes 628 and 606.Validity was assessed by examining expected differences in the proportion of fertility consults within clinical and demographic factors using chi-square tests. Reliability was assessed by comparing fertility consult visits identified using OHIP diagnostic codes with consults identified using visits to physicians in a registered specialty, using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results: The population was composed of 39,977 cases, with 6524 (16.3%) having attended a fertility consult. For diagnostic years 2016-2019, differences in the proportion of cases receiving their first fertility consult within 30 days of diagnosis were observed for sex, age, cancer type, hospital type, Local Health Integration Unit, and region (p < 0.001). There was no correlation between the time from diagnosis to fertility consult and time from diagnosis to the first visit to a fertility-related specialty (r = 0.11; p = 0.002). Conclusion: The indicator examined in this article adhered to the criteria described by the NQF, providing a possible metric for reporting on oncofertility care.

Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Use as Performance Metrics in Adolescent and Young Adult Psychosocial Cancer Care.

Purpose: To compare the Cancer Distress Scales for Adolescents and Young Adults (CDS-AYA)-Emotional and Impact scales-with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-revised (ESAS-r), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT) for use as a patient-reported outcome-performance measure (PRO-PM) for AYA cancer care. Methods: Data were collected as part of the field test study of CDS-AYA. Assessment criteria were based on a National Quality Forum report. Internal and test-retest (TRT) reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and intraclass correlation coefficients, respectively. A content sort of items in each scale was performed to determine AYA-specific content. Two predefined hypotheses for gender and treatment status were assessed using t-test. Results: Four hundred twenty-one participants were included in the analyses. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.79 to 0.94, with only the two scales of CDS-AYA achieving >0.90. TRT reliability for HADS was considered excellent (>0.90), with remaining scales having moderate to good reliability (>0.70). Only the Impact scale of CDS-AYA had items that addressed the specific concerns of AYAs (e.g., romantic relationships). In all scales, active therapy patients had higher levels of distress than patients not receiving treatment (p ≤ 0.05). Distress was greater for females than males for all scales, but nonsignificant for both the ESAS-r (p = 0.07) and the HADS depression subscale (p = 0.13). The proportion of AYAs screening positive for distress varied by instrument. Conclusion: The Impact scale of CDS-AYA met the most criteria for selection of a PROM for use in performance measurement for the AYA cancer population.