Mindful gratitude journaling: psychological distress, quality of life and suffering in advanced cancer: a randomised controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Numerous studies have shown that gratitude can reduce stress and improve quality of life. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to examine the effect of mindful gratitude journaling on suffering, psychological distress and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, blinded, randomised controlled trial at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. Ninety-two adult patients with advanced cancer, and an overall suffering score ≥4/10 based on the Suffering Pictogram were recruited and randomly assigned to either a mindful gratitude journaling group (N=49) or a routine journaling group (N=43). RESULTS: After 1 week, there were significant reductions in the overall suffering score from the baseline in both the intervention group (mean difference in overall suffering score=-2.0, 95% CI=-2.7 to -1.4, t=-6.125, p=0.000) and the control group (mean difference in overall suffering score=-1.6, 95% CI=-2.3 to -0.8, t=-4.106, p=0.037). There were also significant improvements in the total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score (mean difference=-3.4, 95% CI=-5.3 to -1.5, t=-3.525, p=0.000) and the total Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being score (mean difference=7.3, 95% CI=1.5 to 13.1, t=2.460, p=0.014) in the intervention group after 7 days, but not in the control group. CONCLUSION: The results provide evidence that 7 days of mindful gratitude journaling could positively affect the state of suffering, psychological distress and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN1261800172191) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Cancer-related costs, the resulting financial impact and coping strategies among cancer survivors living in a setting with a pluralistic health system: a qualitative study.

Background: Evidence on the financial experiences of cancer survivors living in settings with pluralistic health systems remains limited. We explored the out-of-pocket costs, the resulting financial impact and the coping strategies adopted by cancer survivors in Malaysia, a middle-income country with a government-led tax-funded public health sector, and a predominantly for-profit private health sector. Methods: Data were derived from 20 focus group discussions that were conducted in five public and private Malaysian hospitals, which included 102 adults with breast, cervical, colorectal or prostate cancers. The discussions were segregated by type of healthcare setting and gender. Thematic analysis was performed. Results: Five major themes related to cancer costs emerged: 1) cancer therapies and imaging services, 2) supportive care, 3) complementary therapies, 4) non-medical costs and 5) loss of household income. Narratives on out-of-pocket medical costs varied not only by type of healthcare setting, clinical factors and socioeconomic backgrounds, but also by private health insurance ownership. Non-health costs (e.g. transportation, food) and loss of income were nonetheless recurring themes. Coping mechanisms that were raised included changing of cancer treatment decisions, continuing work despite ill health and seeking financial assistance from third parties. Unmet needs in coping with financial distress were especially glaring among the women. Conclusion: The long-term costs of cancer (medications, cancer surveillance, supportive care, complementary medicine) should not be overlooked even in settings where there is access to highly subsidised cancer care. In such settings, patients may also have unmet needs related to non-health costs of cancer and loss of income.

Early Detection for Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on the early detection of colorectal cancer in four tiers to clinicians, patients, and caregivers. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings. RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more. CONCLUSION: In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).

Strain-specific probiotic (microbial cell preparation) and omega-3 fatty acid in modulating quality of life and inflammatory markers in colorectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: Colorectal cancer patients on chemotherapy usually have elevated levels of inflammatory markers and experience numerous side effects from chemotherapy thereby leading to poor quality of life. Omega-3 fatty acid and microbial cell preparation (MCP) have been known to provide significant benefits in patients on chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of supplementation of omega-3 fatty acid and MCP in quality of life, chemotherapy side effects and inflammatory markers in colorectal cancer patients on chemotherapy. METHODS: A double-blind randomized study was carried out with 140 colorectal cancer patients on chemotherapy. Subjects were separated into two groups to receive either placebo or MCP [30 billion colony-forming unit (CFUs) per sachet] at a dose of two sachets daily for 4 weeks, and omega-3 fatty acid at a dose of 2 g daily for 8 weeks. Outcomes measured were quality of life, side effects of chemotherapy and levels of inflammatory markers such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and C-reactive protein. RESULTS: The supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid improved the overall quality of life and alleviated certain side effects of chemotherapy. The supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid also managed to reduce the level of IL-6 (P = 0.002). There was a significant rise in the placebo group's serum TNF-α (P = 0.048) and IL-6 (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The combined supplementation with MCP and omega-3 fatty acid may improve quality of life, reduce certain inflammatory biomarkers and relieve certain side effects of chemotherapy in colorectal patients on chemotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of aspirin adjuvant therapy in early stage colorectal cancer in older patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recent observational studies showed that post-operative aspirin use reduces cancer relapse and death in the earliest stages of colorectal cancer. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aspirin as an adjuvant therapy in Stage I and II colorectal cancer patients aged 65 years and older. METHODS: Two five-state Markov models were constructed separately for Stage I and II colorectal cancer using TreeAge Pro 2014. Two hypothetical cohorts of 10,000 individuals at a starting age of 65 years and with colorectal cancer in remission were put through the models separately. Cost-effectiveness of aspirin was evaluated against no treatment (Stage I and II) and capecitabine (Stage II) over a 20-year period from the United States societal perspective. Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses and multivariable Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses (PSA) were performed. RESULTS: In the base case analyses, aspirin was cheaper and more effective compared to other comparators in both stages. Sensitivity analyses showed that no treatment and capecitabine (Stage II only) can be cost-effective alternatives if the utility of taking aspirin is below 0.909, aspirin's annual fatal adverse event probability exceeds 0.57%, aspirin's relative risk of disease progression is 0.997 or more, or when capecitabine's relative risk of disease progression is less than 0.228. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses (PSA) further showed that aspirin could be cost-effective 50% to 80% of the time when the willingness-to-pay threshold was varied from USD 20,000 to USD 100,000. CONCLUSION: Even with a modest treatment benefit, aspirin is likely to be cost-effective in Stage I and II colorectal cancer, thus suggesting a potential unique role in secondary prevention in this group of patients.