The Association between Cesarean Section Delivery and Child Behavior: Is It Mediated by Maternal Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Maternal Postpartum Depression?

Cesarean sections (C-sections) account for up to 21% of births worldwide. Studies have linked delivery via C-section with an increased risk of child behavior problems, such as internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Maternal postpartum depression (PPD) is also linked to child behavioral problems and may play a mediating role in the association between the mode of delivery and child behavior. Mixed findings between mode of delivery and PPD may be due to a failure to distinguish between C-section types, as unplanned/emergency C-sections are linked to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which has been linked to PPD. The objectives of this study were to determine whether, (1) compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery (SVD) and planned C-section, unplanned/emergency C-sections are associated with increased child behavior problems at two to three years of age and (2) maternal PTSD and PPD mediate the association between delivery type and child behavior problems. A secondary data analysis was conducted on 938 mother-child dyads enrolled in the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition (APrON) study. Conditional process modeling was employed. Child behavior was assessed using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) 1.5-5 years, and maternal PPD and PTSD were assessed using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ), respectively. No associations were found between delivery type and child behaviors; however, the indirect effect of emergency C-section on child behaviors was significant via the mediating pathway of maternal PTSD on PPD symptoms.

Symptom severity and trajectories among adolescent and young adult patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer experience significant symptom burden. We investigated symptom severity in adolescents and young adults (18- to 39-year-olds) during the year following a cancer diagnosis and made comparisons with older adult (those older than 40 years of age) patients with cancer. METHODS: All Albertan residents diagnosed with a first primary neoplasm at 18 years of age or older between April 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019, and who completed at least 1 electronic patient-reported outcome questionnaire were included. Symptom severity was assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised. Descriptive statistics, multivariable logistic modeling, and mixed logistic regression modeling were used to describe symptom severity, identify risk factors, and assess symptom trajectories, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 473 and 322 adolescents and young adults completed a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire at diagnosis and 1 year after diagnosis, respectively. Adolescent and young adult patients with cancer reported high levels of tiredness, poor well-being, and anxiety. Important risk factors included metastatic disease, female sex, treatment types received, and age at diagnosis. Symptom severity varied by clinical tumor group, with those diagnosed with sarcoma having the worst scores for all symptoms at diagnosis and patients with intrathoracic or endocrine tumors having the worst scores for all symptoms at 1 year after diagnosis. Statistically significant differences in symptom severity over the 1-year period were observed between adolescents and young adults and older adults-specifically, the odds of having moderate to severe symptoms were statistically significantly greater among adolescents and young adults with respect to pain, tiredness, nausea, depression, anxiety, and poor well-being (all P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of adolescents and young adults experience moderate to severe symptoms during the year following diagnosis. Modifying existing supportive services and developing interventions based on the needs of adolescent and young adult patients with cancer could aid symptom control.

Improvement in patient-reported pain among patients with metastatic cancer and its association with opioid prescribing.

PURPOSE: Opioids are a mainstay of cancer pain management; however, patients with metastatic cancer are often excluded from studies, leading to a lack of evidence on whether increased prescribing (dosage and/or duration) results in improved outcomes for this population. This study aimed to investigate whether increased opioid prescribing is associated with an improvement in patient-reported pain among patients with metastatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of all adult patients diagnosed with stage IV cancers, who completed at least two patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within 30 days of each other, was identified from administrative data. Opioid prescriptions were categorized by dosage level and number of prescription days. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the association between opioid prescribing and clinically important improvement in pain score (≥ 1 point change on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System). RESULTS: A total of 2169 patients were included, 770 (35.5%) of whom had active opioid prescription between PROs, with an average daily dosage of 86.1 mg of oral morphine equivalent. Active prescription was associated with improvement in pain (OR = 2.17, P < 0.001). However, among patients with active prescription, neither dosage nor number of prescription days was significantly associated with pain improvement. CONCLUSION: Opioid prescription is important for treating cancer-related pain; however, increased dosage or duration may not be leading to greater improvements in pain. Patients with metastatic cancer who are receiving increased opioid prescribing may have difficult-to-treat pain and may benefit from multidisciplinary pain management strategies to supplement opioid prescription and improve outcomes.

The Stigma Surrounding Opioid Use as a Barrier to Cancer-Pain Management: An Overview of Experiences with Fear, Shame, and Poorly Controlled Pain in the Context of Advanced Cancer.

Cancer-related pain affects a majority of patients with advanced cancer and is often undertreated. The treatment of this pain is largely reliant on the use of opioids, which are essential medicines for symptom management and the maintenance of quality of life (QoL) for patients with advanced cancer. While there are cancer-specific guidelines for the treatment of pain, widespread publication and policy changes in response to the opioid epidemic have drastically impacted perceptions of opioid use. This overview therefore aims to investigate how manifestations of opioid stigma impact pain management in cancer settings, with an emphasis on the experiences of patients with advanced cancer. Opioid use has been widely stigmatized in multiple domains, including public, healthcare, and patient populations. Physician hesitancy in prescribing and pharmacist vigilance in dispensing were identified as barriers to optimal pain management, and may contribute to stigma in the context of advanced cancer. Evidence in the literature suggests that opioid stigma may result in patient deviations from prescription instructions, which generally leads to pain undertreatment. Patients reflected on experiencing shame and fear surrounding their prescription opioid use and feeling uncomfortable communicating with their healthcare providers on these topics. Our findings indicate that future work is required to educate patients and providers in order to de-stigmatize opioid use. Through alleviating stigma, patients may be better able to make decisions regarding their pain management which lead to freedom from cancer-related pain and improved QoL.

Safe Prescribing Practices: Clinicians' Views on Prescribing Opioids to Patients With Early-Stage Cancer.

PURPOSE: Opioids are often necessary for patients experiencing high-intensity pain. However, side effects exist and some patients may misuse opioids. To better understand how opioids are prescribed to patients with early-stage cancer and how to enhance opioid safety, clinicians' views of opioid prescribing were explored. METHODS: This was a qualitative inquiry including any Alberta clinician prescribing opioids to patients with early-stage cancer. Semistructured interviews were conducted with nurse practitioners (NP), medical oncologists (MO), radiation oncologists (RO), surgeons (S), primary care physicians (PCP), and palliative care physicians (PC) between June 2021 and March 2022. Interpretive description was used to analyze the data using two coders (C.C. and T.W.). Debriefing sessions were used to resolve and discrepancies. RESULTS: Twenty-four clinicians were interviewed (NP [n = 5], MO [n = 4], RO [n = 4], S [n = 5], PCP [n = 3], and PC [n = 3]). The majority had been in practice at least 10 years. Prescribing practices were related to disciplinary perspective, goals of care, patient condition, and resource availability. Most clinicians did not see opioid misuse as a problem but were aware that specific patient risk factors are present and that long-term use can be problematic. Most clinicians undertake safe prescribing approaches tacitly (eg, screening for past opioid misuse and reviewing number of prescribers) and not all agreed they should be universally applied. Barriers (eg, procedural and time) and facilitators (eg, education) to safe prescribing approaches were identified. CONCLUSION: To enhance uptake and cross-disciplinary consistency of safe prescribing approaches, clinician education regarding opioid misuse and benefits of safe prescribing practices, and addressing procedural barriers are necessary.

The role of exercise for pain management in adults living with and beyond cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common side effect of cancer or cancer treatment that negatively impacts biopsychosocial wellbeing and quality of life. Exercise is a potential intervention to manage pain that is safe and has multiple benefits. The objective was to determine the role of exercise in cancer pain management. METHODS: We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise interventions in adults with any type or stage of cancer by searching Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase, APA PsycInfo, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus. We included experimental and quasi-experimental designs where pain was measured as an outcome. Data synthesis included narrative and tabular summary. A meta-analysis was performed on studies powered to detect the effect of exercise on pain. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE tool. RESULTS: Seventy-six studies were included. Studies were predominantly conducted in breast cancer and exercise usually included a combination of aerobic and strength training. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis demonstrating a significant effect for exercise in decreasing pain (estimated average standard mean difference (SMD) was g = - 0.73 (95% CI: - 1.16 to - 0.30)); however, the overall effect prediction interval was large. Overall risk of bias for most studies was rated as some concerns and the grading of evidence certainty was low. CONCLUSION: There are limitations in the evidence for exercise to manage cancer-related pain. Further research is needed to understand the role of exercise in a multimodal pain management strategy.

First-Year Implementation of the EXercise for Cancer to Enhance Living Well (EXCEL) Study: Building Networks to Support Rural and Remote Community Access to Exercise Oncology Resources.

Barriers to exercise-oncology programs remain for those living with and beyond cancer in rural and remote communities, including geographic isolation and access to programs. The EXercise for Cancer to Enhance Living Well (EXCEL) study was designed to support exercise-oncology implementation in rural and remote communities across Canada. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the first-year reach, adoption, and implementation of the EXCEL study. Reach outcomes included participant characteristics, study enrolment, and referral type (self vs. healthcare-provider [HCP] referral). Adoption outcomes included the number of clinical contacts, trained qualified exercise professionals (QEPs), and QEPs delivering EXCEL exercise classes. Implementation outcomes included retention, adherence, assessment completion rates, and adverse-event reporting. A total of 290 individuals living with cancer enrolled in EXCEL in year one, with an 81.4% retention to the study intervention. Most participants self-referred to EXCEL (75.8%). EXCEL's HCP network consisted of 163 clinical contacts, and the QEP network included 45 trained QEPs, 22 of whom delivered EXCEL classes. Adherence to the exercise intervention was 78.2%, and only one adverse event (mild) was reported. Fitness assessment and patient-reported outcome completion rates were above 85% pre- and post-intervention. EXCEL has developed HCP and QEP networks supporting exercise referral and online delivery, and the intervention is meeting feasibility markers. These implementation findings will inform the continued gathering of feedback across stakeholders to ensure that best evidence informs best practices.

Patient-Reported Symptom Burden and Supportive Care Needs of Patients With Stage II-III Colorectal Cancer During and After Adjuvant Systemic Treatment: A Real-World Evidence Study.

PURPOSE: Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) experience a range of physical and psychologic symptoms, and supportive care needs throughout the illness trajectory. We used patient-reported outcomes and administrative health data to describe symptom burden and supportive care needs during and after adjuvant treatment and determine factors associated with changes to symptom burden. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study of patients who were newly diagnosed with stage II-III CRC in Alberta, Canada, between January 1, 2016, and January 31, 2019. Adults age 18 years or older who completed a patient-reported outcomes survey (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) and supportive care needs (Canadian Problem Checklist) within 3 months after starting adjuvant treatment (during treatment) and > 7 months after starting treatment (after treatment) were included. Changes to symptom severity were stratified as stable, improved, or deteriorated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with these changes. RESULTS: We included 303 patients (median age 60 years, 62% male, 84.5% stage III, 51.2% rectal v colon). Prevalent symptoms included tiredness (80.5%), pain (50.8%), and poor well-being (50%) during treatment, and tiredness (71.3%), pain (44.2%), and poor well-being (62.1%) after treatment. The results were heterogeneous with respect to improvements, stability, or deterioration. Pain worsened for 25% of the cohort, tiredness for 28%, and depression, anxiety, and well-being for 21%, 22%, and 31%, respectively. Deterioration of some symptoms was associated with older age, stage II, comorbidities, rural setting, and higher income. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated symptom severity was generally low and most symptoms remained stable or improved after treatment. Particular groups of patients were at greater risk for more severe and/or more persistent symptoms. Ongoing assessments and interventions to address physical and psychologic symptoms, and supportive care needs in patients with CRC during and after treatment are needed.

Outcomes and Healthcare Utilization Among New Persistent Opioid Users and Nonopioid Users After Curative-intent Surgery for Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the health outcomes and resource use of cancer patients who were new persistent opioid users with those who were not, after undergoing curative intent surgery for cancer. BACKGROUND: Little is known about long-term health outcomes (overdose, mortality) and resource utilization of new persistent opioid users among cancer patients undergoing curative-intent surgery. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all adults with a diagnosis of solid cancers who underwent curative-intent surgery during the study period (2011-2015) in Alberta, Canada and were opioid-naïve before surgery, with a follow-up period until December 31, 2019. The key exposure, "new persistent opioid user," was defined as a patient who was opioid-naive before surgery and subsequently filled at least 1 opioid prescription between 60 and 180 days after surgery. The primary outcome was opioid overdose that occurred within 3 years of surgery. All-cause death, noncancer caused death, and department visit (yes vs. no), and hospitalization (yes vs. no) in the follow-up periods were also included as outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 19,219 patients underwent curative intent surgery with a median follow-up of 47 months, of whom 1530 (8.0%) were identified as postoperative new persistent opioid users. In total, 101 (0.5%) patients experienced opioid overdose within 3 years of surgery. Compared with nonopioid users, new persistent opioid users experienced a higher rate of opioid overdose (OR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.44-3.9) within 3 years of surgery. New persistent opioid use was also associated with a greater likelihood of being hospitalized (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.76-2.33) and visiting an emergency room (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.62-2.06) in the first year after surgery, and a higher overall (HR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.1-1.49) and noncancer caused mortality (HR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.12-1.58), when compared with nonopioid users. CONCLUSION: Postoperative new persistent opioid use among cancer patients undergoing curative-intent surgery is associated with subsequent opioid overdose, worse survival, and more health resource utilization.

Implementing an exercise oncology model to reach rural and remote individuals living with and beyond cancer: a hybrid effectiveness-implementation protocol for project EXCEL (EXercise for Cancer to Enhance Living Well).

INTRODUCTION: Individuals living with and beyond cancer from rural and remote areas lack accessibility to supportive cancer care resources compared with those in urban areas. Exercise is an evidence-based intervention that is a safe and effective supportive cancer care resource, improving physical fitness and function, well-being and quality of life. Thus, it is imperative that exercise oncology programs are accessible for all individuals living with cancer, regardless of geographical location. To improve accessibility to exercise oncology programs, we have designed the EXercise for Cancer to Enhance Living Well (EXCEL) study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: EXCEL is a hybrid effectiveness-implementation study. Exercise-based oncology knowledge from clinical exercise physiologists supports healthcare professionals and community-based qualified exercise professionals, facilitating exercise oncology education, referrals and programming. Recruitment began in September 2020 and will continue for 5 years with the goal to enroll ~1500 individuals from rural and remote areas. All tumour groups are eligible, and participants must be 18 years or older. Participants take part in a 12-week multimodal progressive exercise intervention currently being delivered online. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework is used to determine the impact of EXCEL at participant and institutional levels. Physical activity, functional fitness and patient-reported outcomes are assessed at baseline and 12-week time points of the EXCEL exercise intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta. Our team will disseminate EXCEL information through quarterly newsletters to stakeholders, including participants, qualified exercise professionals, healthcare professionals and community networks. Ongoing outreach includes community presentations (eg, support groups, fitness companies) that provide study updates and exercise resources. Our team will publish manuscripts and present at conferences on EXCEL's ongoing implementation efforts across the 5-year study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04478851.

Risk Stratification and Cancer Follow-Up: Towards More Personalized Post-Treatment Care in Canada.

After treatment, cancer survivors require ongoing, comprehensive care to improve quality of life, reduce disability, limit complications, and restore function. In Canada and internationally, follow-up care continues to be delivered most often by oncologists in institution-based settings. There is extensive evidence to demonstrate that this model of care does not work well for many survivors or our cancer systems. Randomized controlled trials have clearly demonstrated that alternate approaches to follow-up care are equivalent to oncologist-led follow-up in terms of patient outcomes, such as recurrence, survival, and quality of life in a number of common cancers. In this paper, we discuss the state of follow-up care for survivors of prevalent cancers and the need for more personalized models of follow-up. Indeed, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to post-treatment follow-up care, and more personalized approaches to follow-up that are based on individual risks and needs after cancer treatment are warranted. Canada lags behind when it comes to personalizing follow-up care for cancer survivors. There are many reasons for this, including difficulty in determining who is best served by different follow-up pathways, a paucity of evidence-informed self-management education and supports for most survivors, poorly developed IT solutions and systems, and uneven coordination of care. Using implementation science theories, approaches, and methods may help in addressing these challenges and delineating what might work best in particular settings and circumstances.

Associations among Caesarean Section Birth, Post-Traumatic Stress, and Postpartum Depression Symptoms.

Caesarean section (C-section) deliveries account for nearly 30% of births annually with emergency C-sections accounting for 7-9% of all births. Studies have linked C-sections to postpartum depression (PPD). PPD is linked to reduced quality of parent-child interaction, and adverse effects on maternal and child health. New mothers' perceptions of more negative childbirth experiences, such as unplanned/emergency C-sections, are linked to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which in turn is related to PPD. Our objectives were to determine: (1) the association between C-section type (unplanned/emergency vs. planned) and PPD symptoms, and (2) if postnatal PTSD symptoms mediate this association. Employing secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from 354 mother-child dyads between 2009 and 2013 from the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition (APrON) study, conditional process modeling was employed. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) and the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ) were administered at three months postpartum, to assess for postpartum depressive and post-traumatic stress symptoms. The direct effect of emergency C-section on PPD symptoms was non-significant in adjusted and non-adjusted models; however, the indirect effect of emergency C-section on PPD symptoms with PTSD symptoms as a mediator was significant after controlling for prenatal depression symptoms, social support, and SES (ß = 0.17 (SE = 0.11), 95% CI [0.03, 0.42]). This suggests that mothers who experienced an emergency or unplanned C-section had increased PTSD scores of nearly half a point (0.47) compared to mothers who underwent a planned C-section, even after adjustment. Overall, emergency C-section was indirectly associated with PPD symptoms, through PTSD symptoms. Findings suggest that PTSD symptoms may be a mechanism through which emergency C-sections are associated with the development of PPD symptoms.

Top 10 research priorities for early-stage colorectal cancer: a Canadian patient-oriented priority-setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer, one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers, is now being detected earlier and treatments are improving, which means that patients are living longer. Partnering with Canadian clinicians, patients and researchers, we aimed to determine research priorities for those living with early-stage colorectal cancer in Canada. METHODS: We followed the well-established priority-setting partnership outlined by the James Lind Alliance to identify and prioritize unanswered questions about early-stage (i.e., stages I-III) colorectal cancer. The study was conducted from September 2018 to September 2020. We surveyed patients, caregivers and clinicians from across Canada between June 2019 and December 2019. We categorized the responses using thematic analysis to generate a list of unique questions. We conducted an interim prioritization survey from April 2020 to July 2020, with patients, caregivers and clinicians, to determine a shorter list of questions, which was then reviewed at a final meeting (involving patients, caregivers and clinicians) in September 2020. At that meeting, we used a consensus-based process to determine the top 10 priorities. RESULTS: For the initial survey, 370 responses were submitted by 185 individuals; of the 98 individuals who provided demographic information, 44 (45%) were patients, 16 (16%) were caregivers, 7 (7%) were members of an advocacy group, 26 (27%) were health care professionals and 5 (5%) were categorized as "other." The responses were refined to create a list of 66 unique unanswered questions. Twenty-five respondents answered the interim prioritization survey: 13 patients (52%), 2 caregivers (8%), 3 advocacy group members (12%) and 7 health care professionals (28%). This led to a list of the top 30 questions. The final consensus meeting involved 20 individuals (10 patients [50%], 3 caregivers [15%] and 7 health care professionals [35%]), who agreed to the top 10 research priorities. The priorities covered a range of topics, including screening, treatment, recurrence, management of adverse effects and decision-making. INTERPRETATION: We determined the top research priorities for early-stage colorectal cancer using a collaborative partnership of stake-holders from across Canada. The priorities covered a broad range of topics that could be addressed by future research, including improved screening practices, the role of personalized medicine, the management of adverse effects of treatment, decision-making and prevention of recurrence.

Associations Between Physician Prescribing Behavior and Persistent Postoperative Opioid Use Among Cancer Patients Undergoing Curative-intent Surgery: A Population-based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the association between prescribers' opioid prescribing history and persistent postoperative opioid use in cancer patients undergoing curative-intent surgery. BACKGROUND: Study has shown that patients may be over-prescribed analgesics after surgery. However, whether and how the prescriber's opioid prescribing behavior impacts persistent opioid use is unclear. METHODS: All adults with a diagnosis of solid cancers who underwent surgery during the study period (2009-2015) in Alberta, Canada and were opioid-naïve were included. The key exposure was the historical opioid-prescribing pattern of a patient's most responsible prescriber. The primary outcome was "new persistent postoperative opioid user," was defined as a patient who was opioid-naïve before surgery and subsequently filled at least 1 opioid prescription between 60 and 180 days after surgery. RESULTS: We identified 24,500 patients. Of these, 2106 (8.6%) patients became a new persistent opioid user after surgery. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with most responsible prescribers that historically prescribed higher daily doses of opioids (≥50 vs <50 mg oral morphine equivalent) had an increased risk of new persistent opioid use after surgery (odds ratio = 2.41, P < 0.0001). In addition to the provider's prescribing pattern, other factors including younger age, comorbidities, presurgical opioid use, chemotherapy, type of tumor/surgical procedure were also found to be independently associated with new persistent postoperative opioid use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that prescriber with a history of prescribing a higher opioid dose is an important predictor of persistent postoperative opioid use among cancer patients undergoing curative-intent surgery.

Living with paradox: A qualitative study of colorectal cancer patients' experiences in managing their health after cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Managing one's health after colorectal cancer may present specific challenges given long-term impacts to biopsychosocial functioning. Understanding experiences of managing one's health post-treatment is important to informing patient-centred supportive care. METHODS: A qualitative study with 19 patients who had completed treatment for colorectal cancer to explore the experience of managing one's health. Following Thorne's Interpretive Description, we conducted interviews using either focus groups or individual interviews. Transcribed data were analysed following Thorne's approach. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were also collected. RESULTS: The metaphor of living with paradox was the main theme characterising the experiences of managing one's health in the post-treatment period. Participants described the ambiguity of health, their need to accept the new normal, losing control and taking back control, experiencing positive and negative life changes, and the need to continually reframe their perspectives to focus on the positives. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that providing patient-centred care to colorectal cancer survivors post-treatment involves recognising their changing and sometimes conflicting experiences. Their ability to manage their health may fluctuate and their supportive care needs may not fit with a particular trajectory. Cancer care systems should strive for flexibility in the structure and timing of support available.

Patient-Reported Symptom Burden Near the End of Life in Patients With Gynaecologic Cancers.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited data on patient-reported outcomes near the end of life in patients with gynaecologic cancers. This study aimed to assess the symptom burden in the last 6 months of life in a real-world cohort. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with metastatic gynaecologic malignancies from 2016 to 2019 who completed the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESASr) questionnaire within 6 months of death in a large Canadian province were identified. Patient-reported symptom scores were categorized as none to mild (0-3) and moderate to severe (4-10). Individual symptoms were subsequently grouped into physical, psychological, and total subscores. The severity of symptoms was further analyzed for any associations with age, time to death, and primary tumour site (ovarian vs. uterocervical and vulvovaginal). RESULTS: We identified 107 patients with gynaecologic malignancies including 59 ovarian, 29 uterocervical, and 19 vulvovaginal cancers. The median ages at diagnosis and questionnaire completion were 64 and 65 years, respectively. The median time from completing the ESASr questionnaire to death was 65 days. Overall, physical and psychological symptoms were moderate to severe in 57.9% and 40.2% of patients, respectively. Among the individual symptoms, tiredness was the most commonly reported moderate to severe symptom (74.9%), while shortness of breath was least commonly reported (31.6%). While physical (P < 0.001) and total symptom (P = 0.009) subscores were more likely to be moderate to severe in intensity as death approached, the psychological subscore (P = 0.744) had no relationship with time to death. Longer time to death was predictive of lower physical (P = 0.002) and total symptom (P = 0.002) subscores, while a primary uterocervical cancer site was associated with a lower psychological symptom subscore (P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: In the real-world setting, unique symptom trajectories can emerge for patients with gynaecologic cancer near the end of life. Knowledge of these specific symptom patterns can help inform the development and delivery of targeted palliative interventions to improve quality of life for these patients.

Associations between baseline symptom burden as assessed by patient-reported outcomes and overall survival of patients with metastatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Serial symptom assessments using patient-reported outcomes may be challenging to implement in routine clinical practices. We aimed to determine if a single measurement of symptom burden at the time of metastatic diagnosis is associated with survival. METHODS: We examined baseline patient-reported outcomes (within 90 days of diagnosis) of patients newly diagnosed with metastatic breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer using the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESASr) questionnaire. The ESASr was categorized into physical, psychological, and total symptom domains whereby scores were classified as none to mild (0-3) or moderate to severe (4-10). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate the effect of baseline symptom scores on overall survival. RESULTS: We identified 1316 patients eligible for analysis. There were 181, 601, 240, and 294 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer, respectively. Approximately one-quarter of all patients reported moderate to severe physical, psychological, and total symptom subscores. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, older age (P < 0.001), male sex (P = 0.002), primary lung cancer (P < 0.001), and smoking in the previous month (P = 0.007) were predictive of inferior overall survival as were baseline moderate to severe physical (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.90; P = 0.002) and total symptom subscores (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.81; P = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: A single assessment of baseline symptom burden using the ESASr in patients with metastatic cancer has significant prognostic value. This may represent a feasible first step towards routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in real-world settings where serial symptom measurements can be challenging to implement.

Symptom burden in patients with common cancers near end-of-life and its associations with clinical characteristics: a real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Patients dying with cancer can experience various physical and psychological symptoms. We aimed to determine the type and severity of symptoms within the last 6 months of life in a large real-world cohort of patients with cancer. METHODS: We examined prospectively collected patient-reported outcomes of patients with lung, colorectal, breast, prostate or pancreatic cancer using the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESASr) questionnaire from a large province in Canada from 2016 to 2017. The ESASr was categorized into physical and psychological symptom subscores and total symptom score, and each was classified as none to mild (0-3) or moderate to severe (4-10) based on intensity. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between clinical characteristics and symptom scores. RESULTS: We identified 1159 patients eligible for analysis, of whom 52.2% were men and median age was 68 years. There were 613, 192, 149, 111 and 94 patients with lung, colorectal, breast, prostate and pancreatic cancer, respectively. While approximately half of patients reported moderate to severe physical symptom subscores and total symptom scores, only one-third reported moderate to severe psychological subscores. On multivariable logistic regression analyses, women were more likely to report moderate to severe physical (odds ratio [OR], 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.12; P = 0.016), psychological (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.14-2.26; P = 0.006) and total symptom scores (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.28-2.51; P = 0.001). Patients with lung cancer were also more likely to report moderate to severe physical and psychological subscores (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.28-2.96; P = 0.002 and OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.81; P = 0.013) and total symptom scores (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.20-2.81; P = 0.005). Finally, those closer to death were more likely to report moderate to severe physical symptom subscores (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.33-3.23; P = 0.001) and total symptom scores (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.46-3.60; P < 0.001), but not psychological symptom scores (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.84-2.14; P = 0.210). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant symptom burden in patients with cancer near the end-of-life. Further, physical symptoms appear to be more intense than psychological symptoms. Symptom-directed care is still needed to improve the quality of end-of-life.

Patient-reported symptom burden and supportive care needs at cancer diagnosis: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used to assess patients' symptoms and supportive care needs. While PROs are increasingly employed in clinical practice, research utilizing these data remains limited. Our goal was to evaluate PROs from a provincial cancer program. METHODS: A retrospective, population-based cohort study using administrative health data of patients in Alberta, Canada, diagnosed with cancer between January 1, 2016, and October 23, 2017. Adults who completed PROs (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, ESAS) and supportive care needs inventory (Canadian Problem Checklist)) within ± 60 days of diagnosis were included. Patients were stratified by tumor types (breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, hematological, or other). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize symptom burden and supportive care needs. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with higher symptom severity. RESULTS: We included 1310 patients (mean age 64 years; 51% female), the majority of whom had breast (19%), lung (25%), or other cancers (26%). For the cohort, severity of symptoms based on ESAS was low, but prevalence of specific symptoms was high including tiredness (84%), anxiety (60%), pain (60%), and low well-being (80%). Seventy percent of the cohort reported at least one supportive care need. The highest-ranking problems were fears and worries and needing information about illness/treatment. There were differences across tumor types with respect to symptoms and supportive care needs. Comorbidity and having a high number of supportive care needs were associated with higher symptom severity. DISCUSSION: Our results underscore the need to develop and implement tumor-specific supportive care interventions.

Patient-level factors associated with chronic opioid use in cancer: a population-based cohort study.

PURPOSE: Concerns around chronic opioid use (COU), misuse, and harms have led to increased scrutiny of opioid prescribing in oncology. There is lack of research examining patient-level factors associated with COU. Our aim was to examine patient-level factors associated with COU in newly diagnosed cancer patients. METHODS: Population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative health data of patients in Alberta, Canada, diagnosed between February 2016 and October 2017. Adult cancer patients who completed a symptom survey within ± 60 days of diagnosis were included. Patients were divided into two groups: COU (defined as continuous opioid prescriptions for at least 90 days post-diagnosis) and non-chronic opioid use (NCOU). Logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with COU. RESULTS: We included 694 patients (mean age 65 years; 51% female). Most had breast (20%), colorectal (13%), and lung (33%) cancers. Of the 14% with COU, 79% were opioid naïve at diagnosis. Those in the COU group were more often diagnosed with advanced cancer (66% versus 40%), had lung cancer (47%), and were opioid tolerant (> 90 days of continuous opioids within one-year pre-diagnosis). A total of 64% of COU versus 27% of NCOU had moderate to severe pain at diagnosis (p < 0.001). Irrespective of treatment type or stage, those with moderate to severe pain, were opioid tolerant at diagnosis, or had multiple prescribers were at greater risk for COU. CONCLUSIONS: Specific patient groups were at increased risk of COU and should be the focus of adaptive prescribing approaches to ensure that opioid use is appropriate.