Development and initial psychometric evaluation of a COVID-related psychosocial experiences questionnaire for cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are at elevated risk of psychological problems related to COVID-19, yet no published measure adequately assesses their psychosocial experiences during the pandemic. PURPOSE: Describe the development and factor structure of a comprehensive, self-report measure (COVID-19 Practical and Psychosocial Experiences questionnaire [COVID-PPE]) assessing the pandemic's impact on US cancer survivors. METHODS: The sample (n = 10,584) was divided into three groups to assess COVID-PPE factor structure by conducting: (1) initial calibration/exploratory analysis of the factor structure of 37 items (n = 5070), (2) confirmatory factor analysis of the best-fitting model (36 items after item removal; n = 5140), and (3) post-hoc confirmatory analysis with an additional six items not collected in the first two groups (42 items; n = 374). RESULTS: The final COVID-PPE was divided into two sets of subscales, conceptualized as Risk Factors and Protective Factors. The five Risk Factors subscales were labeled Anxiety Symptoms, Depression Symptoms, Health Care Disruptions, Disruptions to Daily Activities and Social Interactions, and Financial Hardship. The four Protective Factors subscales were labeled Perceived Benefits, Provider Satisfaction, Perceived Stress Management Skills, and Social Support. Internal consistency was acceptable for seven subscales (αs = 0.726-0.895; ωs = 0.802-0.895) but poor or questionable for the remaining two subscales (αs = 0.599-0.681; ωs = 0.586-0.692). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first published self-report measure comprehensively capturing psychosocial impact-both positive and negative-of the pandemic on cancer survivors. Future work should evaluate predictive utility of COVID-PPE subscales, particularly as the pandemic evolves, which may inform recommendations for cancer survivors and facilitate identification of survivors most in need of intervention.

Minimally Invasive Cordotomy for Refractory Cancer Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of patients with cancer continue to suffer from pain despite aggressive supportive care. The present study aimed to determine whether cordotomy can improve cancer pain refractory to interdisciplinary palliative care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, we recruited patients with refractory unilateral somatic pain, defined as a pain intensity (PI) ≥4, after more than three palliative care evaluations. Patients were randomized to percutaneous computed tomography-guided cordotomy or continued interdisciplinary palliative care. The primary outcome was 33% improvement in PI at 1 week after cordotomy or study enrollment as measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were enrolled (nine female, median age 58 years). Six of seven patients (85.7%) randomized to cordotomy experienced >33% reduction in PI (median preprocedure PI = 7, range 6-10; 1 week after cordotomy median PI = 1, range 0-6; p = .022). Zero of nine patients randomized to palliative care achieved a 33% reduction in PI. Seven patients (77.8%) randomized to palliative care elected to undergo cordotomy after 1 week. All of these patients experienced >33% reduction in PI (median preprocedure PI = 8, range 4-10; 1 week after cordotomy median PI = 0, range 0-1; p = .022). No patients were withdrawn from the study because of adverse effects of the intervention. CONCLUSION: These data support the use of cordotomy for pain refractory to optimal palliative care. The findings of this study justify a large-scale randomized controlled trial of percutaneous cordotomy. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This prospective clinical trial was designed to determine the improvement in pain intensity in patients randomized to either undergo cordotomy or comprehensive palliative care for medically refractory cancer pain. This study shows that cordotomy is effective in reducing pain for medically refractory cancer pain, and these results can be used to design a large-scale comparative randomized controlled trial that could provide the evidence needed to include cordotomy as a treatment modality in the guidelines for cancer pain management.

Financial Distress and Its Associations With Physical and Emotional Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Advanced Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited data on the effects of financial distress (FD) on overall suffering and quality of life (QOL) of patients with advanced cancer (AdCa). In this cross-sectional study, we examined the frequency of FD and its correlates in AdCa. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We interviewed 149 patients, 77 at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC) and 72 at a general public hospital (GPH). AdCa completed a self-rated FD (subjective experience of distress attributed to financial problems) numeric rating scale (0 = best, 10 = worst) and validated questionnaires assessing symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]), psychosocial distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), and QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G]). RESULTS: The patients' median age was 60 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 58.6-61.5 years); 74 (50%) were female; 48 of 77 at CCC (62%) versus 13 of 72 at GPH (18%) were white; 21 of 77 (27%) versus 32 of 72 (38%) at CCC and GPH, respectively, were black; and 7 of 77 (9%) versus 27 of 72 (38%) at CCC and GPH, respectively, were Hispanic (p < .0001). FD was present in 65 of 75 at CCC (86%; 95% CI: 76%-93%) versus 65 of 72 at GPH (90%; 95% CI: 81%-96%; p = .45). The median intensity of FD at CCC and GPH was 4 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-7) versus 8 (IQR: 3-10), respectively (p = .0003). FD was reported as more severe than physical distress, distress about physical functioning, social/family distress, and emotional distress by 45 (30%), 46 (31%), 64 (43%), and 55 (37%) AdCa, respectively (all significantly worse for patients at GPH) (p < .05). AdCa reported that FD was affecting their general well-being (0 = not at all, 10 = very much) with a median score of 5 (IQR: 1-8). FD correlated (Spearman correlation) with FACT-G (r = -0.23, p = .0057); HADS-anxiety (r = .27, p = .0014), ESAS-anxiety (r = .2, p = .0151), and ESAS-depression (r = .18, p = .0336). CONCLUSION: FD was very frequent in both groups, but median intensity was double among GPH patients. More than 30% of AdCa rated FD to be more severe than physical, family, and emotional distress. More research is needed to better characterize FD and its correlates in AdCa and possible interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Financial distress is an important and common factor contributing to the suffering of advanced cancer patients and their caregivers. It should be suspected in patients with persistent, refractory symptom expression. Early identification, measurement, and documentation will allow clinical teams to develop interventions to improve financial distress and its impact on quality of life of advanced cancer patients.

Impact of COVID-19-related experiences on health-related quality of life in cancer survivors in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Little evidence exists on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivors, limiting recommendations to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in this population. We describe survivors' pandemic experiences and examine associations between COVID-19-related exposures, psychosocial experiences, and HRQoL. METHODS: Between May 2020-April 2021, survivors completed cross-sectional questionnaires capturing COVID-19-related exposures (e.g., exposure to virus, job loss); psychosocial experiences (i.e., COVID-19-related anxiety/depression, disruptions to health care and daily activities/social interactions, satisfaction with providers' response to COVID, financial hardship, perceived benefits of the pandemic, social support, and perceived stress management ability); and HRQoL. RESULTS: Data were collected from N = 11,325 survivors in the United States. Participants were mostly female (58%), White (89%) and non-Hispanic (88%), and age 63 on average. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis (23%). Eight percent of participants reported being exposed to COVID-19; 1% tested positive. About 6% of participants lost their jobs, while 24% lost household income. Nearly 30% avoided attending in-person oncology appointments because of the pandemic. Poorer HRQoL was associated with demographic (younger age; female; non-Hispanic White), clinical (Medicare; stage IV disease; hematologic/digestive/respiratory system cancer), and psychosocial factors (low perceived benefits and stress management ability; more disruption to health care and daily activities/social interactions; financial hardship). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-related stressors were associated with various psychosocial experiences in cancer survivors, and these psychosocial experiences were associated with HRQoL above and beyond demographic and clinical factors.

Acupuncture for Chronic Radiation-Induced Xerostomia in Head and Neck Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with head and neck cancer who undergo radiotherapy can develop chronic radiation-induced xerostomia. Prior acupuncture studies were single center and rated as having high risk of bias, making it difficult to know the benefits of acupuncture for treating radiation-induced xerostomia. Objective: To compare true acupuncture (TA), sham acupuncture (SA), and standard oral hygiene (SOH) for treating radiation-induced xerostomia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, blinded, 3-arm, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between July 29, 2013, and June 9, 2021. Data analysis was performed from March 9, 2022, through May 17, 2023. Patients reporting grade 2 or 3 radiation-induced xerostomia 12 months or more postradiotherapy for head and neck cancer were recruited from community-based cancer centers across the US that were part of the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program Research Base. Participants had received bilateral radiotherapy with no history of xerostomia. Interventions: Participants received SOH and were randomized to TA, SA, or SOH only. Participants in the TA and SA cohorts were treated 2 times per week for 4 weeks. Those experiencing a minor response received another 4 weeks of treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient-reported outcomes for xerostomia (Xerostomia Questionnaire, primary outcome) and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General) were collected at baseline, 4 (primary time point), 8, 12, and 26 weeks. All analyses were intention to treat. Results: A total of 258 patients (201 men [77.9%]; mean [SD] age, 65.0 [9.16] years), participated from 33 sites across 13 states. Overall, 86 patients were assigned to each study arm. Mean (SD) years from diagnosis was 4.21 (3.74) years, 67.1% (n = 173) had stage IV disease. At week 4, Xerostomia Questionnaire scores revealed significant between-group differences, with lower Xerostomia Questionnaire scores with TA vs SOH (TA: 50.6; SOH: 57.3; difference, -6.67; 95% CI, -11.08 to -2.27; P = .003), and differences between TA and SA (TA: 50.6; SA: 55.0; difference, -4.41; 95% CI, -8.62 to -0.19; P = .04) yet did not reach statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons. There was no significant difference between SA and SOH. Group differences in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scores revealed statistically significant group differences at week 4, with higher scores with TA vs SOH (TA: 101.6; SOH: 97.7; difference, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.43-6.38; P = .002) and at week 12, with higher scores with TA vs SA (TA: 102.1; SA: 98.4; difference, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.10-6.18; P = .005) and TA vs SOH (TA: 102.1; SOH: 97.4; difference, 4.61; 95% CI, 1.99-7.23; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial suggest that TA was more effective in treating chronic radiation-induced xerostomia 1 or more years after the end of radiotherapy than SA or SOH. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02589938.

Sleep disturbance in patients with cancer: a feasibility study of multimodal therapy.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine feasibility and effect sizes of bright light therapy (BLT), melatonin (MLT), methylphenidate (MP) and eight combinations (BLT+MLT+MP, BLT+MLT, BLT+MP, BLT alone, MLT+MP, MLT alone, MP alone, placebo for BLT, MLT and MP) defined as multimodal therapy (MMT), to improve sleep quality (SQ) (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)) from baseline to day 15. We also examined the effects of MMT on insomnia, fatigue, depression, quality of life and actigraphy. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer with poor SQ (PSQI ≥5) were eligible. Using a double-blind randomised factorial study design, patients were randomised into 1 of the 8 arms for 2 weeks. Feasibility and effect sizes were assessed. RESULTS: 81% (54/67) of randomised patients completed the study. There were no differences in the demographics and SQ between groups. The adherence rates for BLT, MLT and MP were 93%, 100% and 100%, respectively. BLT+MLT+placebo of MP; BLT+placebo of MLT+placebo of MP; BLT+MLT+MP showed an effect size (Cohen's d) for change in PSQI scores of 0.64, 0.57 and 0.63, respectively. PSQI change using linear regression showed BLT (n=29) has effect size of 0.46, p=0.017; MLT (n=26), 0.24, p=0.20; MP (n=26), 0.06, p=0.46. No significant differences were observed in scores for insomnia, fatigue, depression, quality of life and actigraphy. There were no differences in adverse events by groups(p=0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The use of MMT to treat SQ disturbance was feasible. BLT+MLT showed the most promising effect size in improvement in SQ, and additional larger studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01628029.

Human Biofield Therapy Modulates Tumor Microenvironment and Cancer Stemness in Mouse Lung Carcinoma.

Studies have demonstrated that purported biofield therapy emitted from humans can inhibit the proliferation of cancer cells and suppress tumor growth in various cancers. We explored the effects of biofield therapy on tumor growth in the Lewis lung carcinoma and expanded mechanistic outcomes. We found biofield therapy did not inhibit tumor growth. However, the experimental (Ex) condition exposed tumors had a significantly higher percentage of necrosis (24.4 ± 6.8%) compared with that of the Control condition (6.5 ± 2.7%; P < .02) and cleaved caspase-3 positive cells were almost 2.3-fold higher (P < .05). Similarly, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes profiling showed that CD8+/CD45+ immune cell population was significantly increased by 2.7-fold in Ex condition (P < .01) whereas the number of intratumoral FoxP3+/CD4+ (T-reg cells) was 30.4% lower than that of the Control group (P = .01), leading to a significant 3.1-fold increase in the ratio of CD8+/T-reg cells (P < .01). Additionally, there was a 51% lower level of strongly stained CD68+ cells (P < .01), 57.9% lower level of F4/80high/CD206+ (M2 macrophages; P < .02) and a significant 1.8-fold increase of the ratio of M1/M2 macrophages (P < .02). Furthermore, Ex exposure resulted in a 15% reduction of stem cell marker CD44 and a significant 33% reduction of SOX2 compared with that of the Controls (P < .02). The Ex group also engaged in almost 50% less movement throughout the session than the Controls. These findings suggest that exposure to purported biofields from a human is capable of enhancing cancer cell death, in part mediated through modification of the tumor microenvironment and stemness of tumor cells in mouse Lewis lung carcinoma model. Future research should focus on defining the optimal treatment duration, replication with different biofield therapists, and exploring the mechanisms of action.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Advanced Cancer Patients Who Received Palliative Care at a Public Hospital Compared with Those at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer experience severe physical, psychosocial, and spiritual distress requiring palliative care (PC). There are limited literature regarding characteristics and outcomes of patients evaluated by PC services at public hospitals (PHs). Objective, Design, Setting/Subjects, and Measurements: To compare the outcomes of advanced cancer patients undergoing PC at a PH and those at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC). We reviewed 359 consecutive advanced cancer patients (PH, 180; CCC, 179) undergoing PC. Symptoms and outcomes at consultation and first follow-up visit were assessed. Summary statistics were used to describe patient characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: The PH and CCC patients differed significantly according to race: 23% white, 39% black, and 36% Hispanic patients at the PH versus 66% white, 17% black, and 11% Hispanic patients at the CCC (p < 0.0001). Ninety-six (53%) patients at PH and 178 (99%) at the CCC had health insurance (p < 0.0001). Symptoms at consultation at PH and CCC were pain (85% and 91%, respectively; p = 0.0639), fatigue (81% and 94%, respectively; p = 0.0003), depression (51% and 69%, respectively; p = 0.0013), anxiety (47% and 75%, respectively; p < 0.0001), and well-being (63% and 93%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Multiple interventions provided: opioids, reviews for polypharmacy, constipation management, and interdisciplinary counseling. Median time from outpatient consultation to follow-up was 29 days(range, 1-119 days) at the PH and 21 days (range, 1-275 days) at the CCC (p = 0.0006). Median overall survival time from outpatient consultation was 473 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 205-699 days) at PH and 245 days (95% CI, 152-491 days) at CCC (p = 0.3408). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced cancer patients at both institutions frequently had multiple distressing physical and emotional symptoms, although the frequency was higher at CCC. The median overall survival duration was higher at the PH. More research is needed.