Caring for dependent children impacts practical and emotional problems and need for support, but not perceived distress among cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: More than one in 10 cancer patients care for dependent children. It is unclear whether this status makes a difference in terms of the distress and associated problems they experience, or whether it is linked to differences in the need for or utilization of psychosocial support. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a cross-sectional German study in National Comprehensive Cancer Centers using self-report standardized questionnaires administered to inpatients. Patients living with dependent children (n = 161) were matched by age and sex with a subsample of 161 cancer patients not living with dependent children. The resulting sample was tested for between-group differences in Distress Thermometer (DT) scores and the corresponding DT Problem List. Additionally, between-group differences in measures of the need for and utilization of psychosocial support were examined. RESULTS: More than 50% of all patients suffered from clinically relevant distress. Patients living with dependent children reported significantly more practical (p < 0.001, η2 p = 0.04), family (p < 0.001, η2 p = 0.03), and emotional problems (p < 0.001, η2 p = 0.01). Although reporting a greater need for psychological support, parents with cancer were not found to more frequently utilize any type of psychosocial support. CONCLUSIONS: The specific problems and needs of parents with cancer who care for dependent children are currently not sufficiently addressed in the clinical care pathways. All families should be helped to establish open and honest communication as well as understand the available support systems and what they can provide. Tailored interventions should be implemented for highly distressed families.

[Impact of Oncological Treatment on Perceived Stigmatization - A Register-Based Study]. / Der Zusammenhang zwischen onkologischen Therapien und wahrgenommener Stigmatisierung bei Krebspatienten mit Brust-, Darm-, Lungen-und Prostatakrebs ­ Ergebnisse einer registerbasierten Studie.

BACKGROUND: Studies on stigmatization of cancer patients show a moderate or high relevance of perceived stigmatization. To date, there are no studies with explicit focus on stigma in relation to oncological therapy. We investigated the role of oncological therapy on perceived stigma in a large sample. METHODS: Quantitative data from 770 patients (47,4% women; 88%≥50 years) with breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer were analyzed as part of a registry-based bicentric study. Stigma was assessed with the German version of the SIS-D; the validated instrument includes four subscales in addition to a total score. Data were analyzed using the t-test and multiple regression with various sociodemographic and medical predictors. RESULTS: Of the 770 cancer patients, 367 (47,7%) received chemotherapy, possibly in combination with other therapy (surgery, radiotherapy). All stigma scales showed significant mean differences (effect sizes up to d=0,49) with higher scores for patients receiving chemotherapy. The multiple regression analyses of the respective SIS-scales demonstrate a significant influence of the variables age (ß≤- 0,266) and depressivity (ß≤0,627) on perceived stigma in all five models, and (in four models) a significant influence of the variable chemotherapy (ß≤0,140). Radiotherapy shows only a weak influence in all models and surgery has no relevance. The explained variance ranges from R2=27 to 46,5%. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The findings support the assumption of an association of oncological therapy, especially chemotherapy, on the perceived stigmatization of cancer patients. Relevant predictors are depression and younger (<50) age. These (vulnerable) groups should therefore receive special attention and psycho-oncological care in clinical practice. Further research on the course and mechanisms of therapy-related stigmatization is also necessary.

Distress in soft-tissue sarcoma and gastrointestinal stromal tumours patients-Results of a German multicentre observational study (PROSa).

OBJECTIVE: Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) and gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) are a group of rare malignant tumours with a high and heterogenous disease burden. As evidence is scarce, we analysed the prevalence of increased emotional distress and identified distress-associated factors in these patients. METHODS: The PROSa-study (Burden and medical care of sarcoma) was conducted between 2017 and 2020 in 39 study centres. Cross-sectional data from adult STS and GIST patients were analysed. Distress was measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4). The relation of socioeconomic and clinical factors with distress was explored in adjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among 897 patients, 17% reported elevated anxiety and 19% reported depression. Unemployed patients (odds ratio [OR] 6.6; 95% CI 2.9-15.0), and those with a disability pension (OR 3.1; 95% CI 1.9-5.0) were more likely to experience distress compared to employed patients. Also, patients with a disability pass had higher odds of increased distress than those without (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.2-2.7). Lowest distress was observed in patients 2 to <5 years and ≥5 years after diagnosis (comparison: <6 months) (OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.2-0.6) and (0.3; 95% CI 0.2-0.6). Patients with thoracic STS (vs. lower limbs) had twice the odds to experience distress (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.1-3.6). Distress was seen almost twice as often in patients with progressive disease (vs. complete remission) (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.8). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of elevated distress in STS and GIST patients is high. In unemployed patients, in those with a disability pension and in newly diagnosed patients a noticeable increase was observed. Clinicians should be aware of these factors and consider the social aspects of the disease.

Return to work after cancer: Improved mental health in working cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of the study was to compare working and non-working patients over a period of 12 months regarding socio-demographic, cancer-specific and mental health parameters. METHODS: This study was conducted as part of a Germany-wide longitudinal survey among 1398 patients in 13 national Comprehensive Cancer Centers. The sample used for analysis consisted of n = 430 cancer patients younger than 65 years (age M = 52.4 years, SD = 8.1; 67.0% females). Socio-demographic, cancer-specific and mental health parameters (Depression: Patient Health Questionnaire, Anxiety: Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, Distress: Distress Thermometer) were assessed at baseline during hospitalization and at 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: 73.7% of all patients (n = 317) have returned to work after one year. While working and non-working patients did not differ in socio-demographic parameters, there were significant differences in the presence of metastases, tumor and treatment status. Mixed analysis of variances revealed significant interactions between working status and time for depression (p = 0.009), anxiety (p = 0.003) and distress (p = 0.007). Non-working patients reported higher levels of depression, anxiety and distress than working patients over time. A logistic regression showed significant associations between lower depression (p = 0.019), lower distress (p = 0.033) and the absence of a tumor (p = 0.015) with working status. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of cancer survivors returned to work. Non-working patients had higher levels of depression, anxiety and distress than working patients. After controlling for cancer-specific factors, mental health parameters were still independently associated with working status. Return to work can thus be associated with an improved mental health in cancer survivors. In order to establish causality, further research is necessary.

Predicting unplanned hospital readmission in palliative outpatients (PRePP) - study protocol of a longitudinal, prospective study to identify informal caregiver-related and structural predictors.

BACKGROUND: Although the majority of German patients in a palliative state prefer to die at home, the actual place of death is most often a hospital. Unplanned hospital readmissions (UHA) not only contradict most patients' preferences but also increase the probability of an aggressive end-of-life treatment. As limited knowledge is available which factors contribute to an UHA, the PRePP-project aims to explore predictors related to informal caregivers (IC) as well as medical and structural factors. METHODS: This prospective, observational, mono-centric study will assess structural and medical factors as well as ICs' psychological burden throughout seven study visits. Starting in April 2021 it will consecutively include 240 patients and their respective IC if available. Standardized measures concerning ICs' Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF), psychological distress (NCCN-Distress Thermometer), anxiety (GAD-7) and depressiveness (PHQ-9) will be assessed. If participants prefer, assessment via phone, browser-based or paper-based will be conducted. Medical records will provide routinely assessed information concerning patient-related characteristics such as gender, age, duration of hospital stay and medical condition. Nurse-reported data will give information on whether hospitalization and death occurred unexpectedly. Data will be progressed pseudonymized. Multivariable regression models will help to identify predictors of the primary endpoint "unplanned hospital admissions". DISCUSSION: The PRePP-project is an important prerequisite for a clinical risk assessment of UHAs. Nevertheless, it faces several methodological challenges: as it is a single center study, representativity of results is limited while social desirability might be increased as the study is partly conducted by the treatment team. Furthermore, we anticipated an underrepresentation of highly burdened participants as they might refrain from participation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered 19 October 2021 at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05082389). https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05082389.

[Why Me? - Causal Attributions and their Relation to Socio-Economic Status and Stigmatization in Breast, Colon, Prostate and Lung Cancer Patients]. / Warum gerade ich? ­ Subjektive Krankheitsursachen und Zusammenhänge zu sozialen Faktoren und wahrgenommener Stigmatisierung bei Brust-, Prostata-, Darm- und Lungenkrebspatienten.

BACKGROUND: Causal attributions can result in self-incrimination and psychosocial burden. Therefore, the present study assessed assumptions about subjective causes of cancer and examines their relationships with social factors and perceived stigmatization. METHODS: In a bicentric study, 858 patients with breast, colon, prostate or lung cancer were given standardized questionnaires. Of these, n=815 were included in the analyses. Causal attributions were assessed using a set of 17 items including main causes of cancer. Stigmatization was assessed with the Social Impact Scale (SIS-D). The data are evaluated uni-and multivariable. RESULTS: The mean age is 60 years, 54% are male. The majority of the patients (95%) state multiple causes of their disease. Environment is considered to be the most important influencing factor (M=3.0) by all cancer sites. The lowest influence is attributed to guilt/god's punishment (M=1.1). Causal attributions which are due to the lifestyle factors showed no higher correlations with stigmatizing attitudes than external attributions (r=0.07-0.38). Psychosocial factors (Beta=- 0.051 bis -0.086), smoking (Beta=- 0.087) and guilt/god's punishment (Beta=- 0.023) have been stated lowest in patients with high income. The lower the education of the patient the higher rated is the influence of contagion (Beta=- 0.019). CONCLUSION: Actual cancer risks are only partially taken into account as disease causes (e. g. nutrition), while others are underestimated (e. g. alcohol). Future cancer education interventions should focus on low-educated patients.

Impact of social support on psychosocial symptoms and quality of life in cancer patients: results of a multilevel model approach from a longitudinal multicenter study.

Background: This prospective multicenter study aimed to investigate the courses of positive support (PS) and detrimental interaction (DI), two different aspects of social support, and the relation between social support and psychosocial distress and/or health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in a large sample of patients with different cancers. Methods: For this observational study, we enrolled adult patients with cancer from 13 comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) in Germany. We included a total of 1087 patients in our analysis. We assessed the outcomes via standardized self-report questionnaires at three measurement points: at admission for acute care (T1), 6 (T2) and 12 months (T3) thereafter. Our outcome variables included PS and DI, depression and anxiety symptoms, distress, mental quality of life (MQoL) and physical QoL (PQoL). Data were analyzed using three-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and group-based trajectory modeling. Results: During the first year after the cancer diagnosis, both PS and DI decreased in our sample. Baseline depression symptom severity was a significant predictor of PS and DI. Further analyses revealed significant associations between PS, DI and the course of depression and anxiety symptoms, and MQoL. PS buffered the negative effects of DI with regards to these variables. Low DI was associated with better PQoL, whereas PS was not. In general, the impact of social support on psychosocial outcomes was weak to moderate. Conclusions: Our findings provide evidence for the influence of PS and DI on psychosocial symptoms and HRQOL, and emphasize the importance of psycho-oncological interventions that strengthen PS and prevent or reduce DI for patients with cancer and their relatives.

Body image mediates the effect of cancer-related stigmatization on depression: A new target for intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Because cancer-related stigmatization is prevalent but difficult to change, research on its impact on psychological burden and respective intervening variables is needed. Therefore, we investigated the effect of stigmatization on depressive symptomatology and whether body image mediates this relationship. METHODS: This bicentric study assessed patients of 4 major tumor entities. We measured stigmatization (SIS-D), depressive symptomatology (PHQ-9), and body image (FKB-20). Applying multiple mediator analyses, we calculated the total effect of stigmatization on depressive symptomatology and the indirect effects exerted via the 2 body image scales rejecting body evaluation and vital body dynamics. RESULTS: Among the 858 cancer patients recruited (breast: n = 297; prostate: n = 268; colorectal: n = 168; lung: n = 125), stigmatization showed total effects on depressive symptomatology across all stigma dimensions (all ptotal sample  < .001). Except for lung cancer patients, this result was replicated for each cancer group. Body image as a whole was shown to mediate the effect across all samples (γtotal sample  = .04, 95%-CI: 0.03-0.06). Among the total sample and prostate cancer patients, the mediating effect of rejecting body evaluation was significantly larger than the effect of vital body dynamics (dtotal sample  = .02, 95%-CI: 0.01-0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived stigmatization is an important and generalizable risk factor for depressive symptomatology among cancer patients. Apart from interventions addressing stigmatization, improving body image could additionally help to reduce the psychological burden in stigmatized patients.

Psychosocial distress and utilization of professional psychological care in cancer patients: An observational study in National Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess cancer patients' use of psychological care and its correlates in a large sample of cancer patients in Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) in Germany. METHODS: In a multicenter study in Germany, cancer patients with various diagnoses were evaluated for self-reported use of psychological support. We measured psychological distress, depression and anxiety, quality of life, and social support with standardized questionnaires and analyzed its association with the utilization of psychological care using multivariable logistic regression. This paper focuses on a cross-sectional analysis of the data assessed during inpatient care. RESULTS: Three thousand fifty-four (50%) of hospitalized patients were asked for participation, and n = 1632 (53.6%) participated. We were able to analyze n = 1,398 (45.9%) patients. Three hundred ninety-seven (28.4%) of the sample utilized psychological support. Users of psychological care were significantly younger than nonusers (odds ratio [OR]: 0.967, P < 0.001) and were more often female (OR: 1.878, P < 0.001), whereas educational level was not associated with the use of psychological care. In the multivariable analysis, effects on the use of psychological care were observed for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) anxiety (OR: 1.106, P = 0.001) and both subscales of the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) quality of life measure (mental, OR: 0.97, P = 0.002; physical, OR: 0.97, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Psychological distress and anxiety are higher, and quality of life is lower in users of psychological care in comparison with nonusers during inpatient cancer treatment. Although psychooncological services should be provided to all patients who need them, special efforts should be made to reach populations that report low utilization.

Cancer patients' control preferences in decision making and associations with patient-reported outcomes: a prospective study in an outpatient cancer center.

PURPOSE: "Shared decision making" has been proposed as a prerequisite of patient-centered care. However, little is known on factors, which may influence cancer patients' decision control preferences (DCP) in routine care. This study investigated possible determinants of the patients' DCP with respect to patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting at a comprehensive cancer center between May 2014 and October 2014 were offered a self-administered electronic questionnaire including standardized PRO measures and patients' DCP. Results were linked with patient characteristics from the hospital information system and analyzed using cross-sectional methods. RESULTS: Out of 126 patients participating, 102 (81%; 65% male; mean age 62 years) completed the DCP-item. Overall, 49% (n = 50) preferred shared treatment decision responsibility, 29% (n = 30) preferred to leave the control to his/her physician, whereas 22% (n = 22) preferred to be in control of his/her treatment decision. Higher age (p = 0.035) and elevated distress levels (p = 0.038) were significantly associated with an increased willingness to leave the decision control to the physician. Further sociodemographic and PRO measures were not associated with patients' DCP. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that DCP assessment in routine cancer care is possible and provides important information to the treating oncologist. Information on DCP combined with PRO may contribute to more individualized decision making in cancer care.

[Stigmatization in Employed Patients with Breast, Intestinal, Prostate and Lung Cancer]. / Stigmatisierung von erwerbstätigen Patienten mit Brust-, Darm-, Prostata- und Lungenkrebs.

Background The stigma of cancer patients can lead to far-reaching consequences, both for the individual and for the society. Quantitative studies on the stigmatization of cancer patients are scarce. The present study assessed the stigma of cancer patients in relation to their status of employment, and analyzes sociodemographic, disease and occupational predictors. Methods In a bicentric study, 858 patients with breast, bowel, lung or prostate cancer were included. Of these, n=305 were employed and entered into the analyses (age average 55 years, 43% female, 47% breast cancer). As a comparison group, a matched sample of non-employed persons (n=213) is used from our data set. In addition to questions on work and health aspects, stigmatization was measured using the SIS-D (Social Impact Scale). The data are evaluated uni- and multivariable. Results Employed persons with prostate or breast cancer are less stigmatized (p<0.01) than non-employed persons, with effects between d=0.35-0.97. The strongest influence on perceived stigma is the lack of support from the employer, further predictors are poor health, low mental workability and diagnosis of breast cancer (R2 of the final model=0.35). Conclusion The employment of cancer patients is associated with lesser perceived stigmatization. Occupational stigmatization depends above all on the work environment or the employer's supportive attitude.

Electronic real-time assessment of patient-reported outcomes in routine care-first findings and experiences from the implementation in a comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE: Cancer patients suffer from a variety of physical and mental complaints. Since physician assessment of symptoms seems insufficient to reveal the complete range of patients' ailments, patient-reported outcomes (PRO) have become of key importance in modern cancer treatment. The implementation and first results of a systematic electronic real-time assessment of PRO in routine care is described. METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting for the first time to a German comprehensive cancer center were asked to fill in an adaptive self-administered electronic questionnaire consisting of standardized PRO measures. After completion, patient-reported data was linked to the patients' medical files for discussion in the first consultation with the treating physician. Interviews with staff were conducted to identify barriers in implementation. RESULTS: Out of 160 cancer patients, 126 (79 %; mean age 63 years, 67 % males) agreed to participate. The number of recruited patients increased over time. Of participating patients, 67 % provided complete information on all PRO-related scales. On average, 31 min (range 3-140) were required to fill in the questionnaire. Of participating patients, 53.0 % comprised need for psychooncological support and 62 % revealed moderate to severe psychosocial distress. The mean score for global quality of life according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was 55.2 (SD ±25.6). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive oncological treatment needs to consider disease symptoms, quality of life, preferences, and comorbidities of individual patients in a structured, standardized, and transparent way. Our findings indicate that an adaptive, self-administered electronic assessment tool for cancer patients to report a broad set of PRO can be feasibly implemented and is well accepted by patients in a realistic setting.

Control beliefs as mediators between education and quality of life in patients with breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer: a large register based study.

OBJECTIVE: Control beliefs have been found to influence adaption to a cancer diagnosis. This study explored interrelationships among education, control beliefs, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancer and tested weather control beliefs act as mediators. METHODS: Six hundred and five patients with breast (n = 205), prostate (n = 205), colorectal (n = 124), and lung (n = 71) cancer from two German cancer registries answered standardized questionnaires. Response rate was 54%. HRQoL was assessed with the EORTC QLQ-C30 core questionnaire and control beliefs (internal, external, and fatalistic) were evaluated using the IPC-questionnaire. Education was measured on a scale ranging from 1 to 8. Data were analyzed using multiple mediation models. RESULTS: There was a positive correlation between education and HRQoL. Internal beliefs were positive and external beliefs were negative correlated with HRQoL. Internal control beliefs mediated the relationship between education and global health-related quality of life (.299, CI .122, .531), physical functioning (.272, CI .110, .486), emotional functioning (.325, CI .120, .578), and pain (-.288, CI - .558, - .094). External and fatalistic control beliefs did not act as mediators. CONCLUSION: Patients with low education feel they have less control over their cancer disease and consequently a poorer health-related quality of life.

12-Month Trajectories of Health-Related Quality of Life Following Hospitalization in German Cancer Centers-A Secondary Data Analysis.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offer a diverse array of potential applications within medical research and clinical practice. In comparative research, they can serve as tools for delineating the trajectories of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) across various cancer types. We undertook a secondary data analysis of a cohort of 1498 hospitalized cancer patients from 13 German cancer centers. We assessed the Physical and Mental Component Scores (PCS and MCS) of the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey at baseline (t0), 6 (t1), and 12 months (t2), using multivariable generalized linear regression models. At baseline, the mean PCS and MCS values for all cancer patients were 37.1 and 44.3 points, respectively. We observed a significant improvement in PCS at t2 and in MCS at t1. The most substantial and significant improvements were noted among patients with gynecological cancers. We found a number of significant differences between cancer types at baseline, t1, and t2, with skin cancer patients performing best across all time points and lung cancer patients performing the worst. MCS trajectories showed less pronounced changes and differences between cancer types. Comparative analyses of HRQoL scores across different cancer types may serve as a valuable tool for enhancing health literacy, both among the general public and among cancer patients themselves.

Patients' perspectives on palliative chemotherapy of colorectal and non--colorectal cancer: a prospective study in a chemotherapy- experienced population.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of patients' views on the benefit and burden obtained from palliative chemotherapy would facilitate shared decision making. We evaluated palliative cancer patients' reported outcomes (PROs) for toxicity and investigated the survival threshold for which they would repeat chemotherapy (CTx). METHODS: Patients who had received a minimum of three months of palliative CTx for advanced colorectal (CRC) or non-colorectal (non-CRC: upper gastrointestinal, lung and head-and-neck) cancer were assessed by questionnaire. Patients were questioned about PROs for toxicity, subjective burden from side effects, and were asked for the survival threshold necessary for them to repeat CTx. Expected survival (sum of indicated survival threshold and median survival time with best supportive care) was compared to the patients' actual survival. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-four patients (CRC: 58; non-CRC: 76) were surveyed. The most frequent PRO- grade 3/4 toxicities were acne (12.8%), fatigue (9.0%), and diarrhea (8.5%). The symptom causing the highest subjective burden was fatigue and was worse than expected in 29.9% of the patients. The median survival threshold for which patients would repeat CTx was significantly longer in CRC than in non-CRC patients (p=0.01). Median expected survival was significantly longer than actual median survival (CRC: 44.0 months [22.0-65.9] compared with 30.0 months of actual survival [20.9-39.1]; non-CRC: 22.0 months [15.3-28.6] compared with 19.0 months of actual survival [15.1-22.9], p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Fatigue deserves more attention when toxicity of treatment and symptoms of disease are explained to patients. Patients' survival expectations from palliative chemotherapy are higher than previously described, exceed the median survival time known from phase III trials, and are significantly longer than their actual survival.

Predictors of cancer patients' utilization of psychooncological support: Examining patient´s attitude and physician´s recommendation.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer suffer from a wide range of psychological distress. Nevertheless, in the literature low utilization rates of psychooncological services are reported. Various factors may influence the utilization of professional support during inpatient care. Up to now it is unclear to what extent patients' attitude towards psychooncological support and physicians' recommendation for psychooncological care may influence the utilization. METHODS: In a multicenter longitudinal observational study in Comprehensive Cancer Centers Germany, 1398 patients with mixed cancer diagnoses were assessed at baseline during their hospital stay with respect to psychooncological distress and the need for and use of psychooncological services. RESULTS: Psychooncological support was used by almost 28.4% of patients up to this time. A positive attitude towards psychooncological support was reported by 41.6%. A recommendation of psychooncological support by a physician was received by 16.2%. These patients reported a significant higher level of distress compared to patients who did not received a recommendation. Multivariable logistic regression detected that the utilization rate was 3.79 times higher among patients with positive attitude towards psychooncological support (OR, 3.79; 95% CI 2.51-5.73, p < 0.001). Utilization was 4.21 times more likely among patients who received a physician´s recommendation (OR, 4.21; 95% CI 2.98-5.95, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of the study provide evidence of the relevance of giving more attention to psychooncological distress and attitudes towards psychooncological care. To reduce reservations, patients need low-threshold information about the psychooncological services offered.

Study protocol: the OptiScreen-Study: optimized psycho-oncological care-from screening to intervention.

PURPOSE: Adequate, needs-oriented psycho-oncological care contributes to reducing psychological distress in cancer patients and their relatives and improving quality of life. Regarding the precise determination of objective and subjective needs, there are often discrepancies in practice between the screening instrument completed by patients, the clinical impression of the treatment team, and the judgment of the psycho-oncology team. METHODS: The present multicenter study "OptiScreen", involving three German Comprehensive Cancer Centers (Hannover, Leipzig, Dresden), aims to professionalize psychosocial screening to enable targeted and needs-based allocation to psycho-oncological support. Optimization and professionalization of the screening process will be achieved by training of oncological nursing staff to improve the targeted identification of distressed patients and provide them with needs-based psycho-oncological care. The non-randomized pre-post study will include inpatients with gastrointestinal cancers from the visceral oncology centers at the three sites. First, the comparison group (CG) will be assessed of N = 300. After completion of nursing training, the intervention group (IG) with N = 600 patients will be evaluated by validated questionnaires. RESULTS: The aim is to reduce barriers on both the patient and treatment side by promoting interdisciplinary dialogue and linking the screening with a personal consultation offer provided by the nurses, which should help to increase utilization and reduce patients' fears, shame and information deficits. CONCLUSION: It is not sufficient to establish a well-validated screening procedure, it also has to be feasible and useful in clinical practice. "OptiScreen" aims to improve the psycho-oncological care situation. In parallel, the study enables the professionalization of psycho-oncological care with the involvement of important professional groups (e.g. nursing) and thus aims to develop a "best practice model".

Health related Quality of Life over time in German sarcoma patients. An analysis of associated factors - results of the PROSa study.

Introduction: Sarcomas are rare cancers and very heterogeneous in their location, histological subtype, and treatment. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) of sarcoma patients has rarely been investigated in longitudinal studies. Methods: Here, we assessed adult sarcoma patients and survivors between September 2017 and February 2020, and followed-up for one year in 39 study centers in Germany. Follow-up time points were 6 (t1) and 12 months (t2) after inclusion. We used a standardized, validated questionnaire (the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Instrument (EORTC QLQ-C30) and explored predictors of HRQoL in two populations (all patients (Analysis 1), patients in ongoing complete remission (Analysis 2)) using generalized linear mixed models. Results: In total we included up to 1111 patients at baseline (915 at t1, and 847 at t2), thereof 387 participants were in complete remission at baseline (334 at t1, and 200 at t2). When analyzing all patients, HRQoL differed with regard to tumor locations: patients with sarcoma in lower extremities reported lower HRQoL values than patients with sarcomas in the upper extremities. Treatment which included radiotherapy and/or systemic therapy was associated with lower HRQoL. For patients in complete remission, smoking was associated with worse HRQoL-outcomes. In both analyses, bone sarcomas were associated with the worst HRQoL values. Being female, in the age group 55-<65 years, having lower socioeconomic status, and comorbidities were all associated with a lower HRQoL, in both analyses. Discussion: HRQoL increased partially over time since treatment and with sporting activities. HRQoL improved with time since treatment, although not in all domains, and was associated with lifestyle and socioeconomic factors. Bone sarcomas were the most affected subgroup. Methods to preserve and improve HRQoL should be developed for sarcoma patients.

Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Cervical Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG, DKG and DKH (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 032/033OL, May 2021) - Part 2 with Recommendations on Psycho-oncology, Rehabilitation, Follow-up, Recurrence, Palliative Therapy and Healthcare Facilities.

Aim This is an update of the interdisciplinary S3-guideline on the Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Cervical Cancer (AWMF Registry No. 032/033OL), published in March 2021. The work on the updated guideline was funded by German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe) as part of the German Guideline Program in Oncology. The guideline was coordinated by the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics ( Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe , DGGG) and the Working Group on Gynecological Oncology ( Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie , AGO) of the German Cancer Society ( Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft , DKG). Method The process used to update the 2014 S3-guideline was based on an appraisal of the available evidence using the criteria of evidence-based medicine, adaptations of existing evidence-based national and international guidelines or - if evidence was lacking - on the consensus of the specialists involved in compiling the update. After an initial review of the current literature was carried out according to a prescribed algorithm, several areas were identified which, in contrast to the predecessor version from September 2014, required new recommendations or statements which would take account of more recently published literature and the recent appraisal of new evidence. Recommendations The short version of this guideline consists of recommendations and statements on palliative therapy and follow-up of patients with cervical cancer. The most important aspects included in this updated guideline are the new FIGO classification published in 2018, the radical open surgery approach used to treat cervical cancer up to FIGO stage IB1, and the use of the sentinel lymph node technique for tumors ≤ 2 cm. Other changes include the use of PET-CT, new options in radiotherapy (e.g., intensity-modulated radiotherapy, image-guided adaptive brachytherapy), and drug therapies to treat recurrence or metastasis.

Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Cervical Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG, DKG and DKH (S3-Level, AWMF Registry No. 032/033OL, May 2021) - Part 1 with Recommendations on Epidemiology, Screening, Diagnostics and Therapy.

Aim This update of the interdisciplinary S3 guideline on the Diagnosis, Therapy and Follow-up of Cervical Cancer (AWMF Registry No. 032/033OL) was published in March 2021. This updated guideline was funded by German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe) as part of the German Guideline Program in Oncology. The guideline was coordinated by the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics ( Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe , DGGG) and the Working Group on Gynecological Oncology ( Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynäkologische Onkologie , AGO) of the German Cancer Society ( Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft , DKG). Method The process of updating the S3 guideline dating from 2014 was based on an appraisal of the available evidence using the criteria of evidence-based medicine, adaptations of existing evidence-based national and international guidelines or - if evidence was lacking - on a consensus of the specialists involved in compiling the update. After an initial review of the current literature was carried out according to a prescribed algorithm, several areas were identified which, in contrast to the predecessor version from September 2014, required new recommendations or statements which took account of more recently published literature and the appraisal of the new evidence. Recommendations The short version of this guideline consists of recommendations and statements on the epidemiology, screening, diagnostic workup and therapy of patients with cervical cancer. The most important new aspects included in this updated guideline include the newly published FIGO classification of 2018, the radical open surgery approach for cervical cancers up to FIGO stage IB1, and use of the sentinel lymph node technique for tumors ≤ 2 cm. Other changes include the use of PET-CT, new options in radiotherapy (e.g., intensity-modulated radiotherapy, image-guided adaptive brachytherapy), and drug therapies to treat recurrence or metastasis.