Retrospective review of serotonergic medication tolerability in patients with neuroendocrine tumors with biochemically proven carcinoid syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patients with carcinoid tumors frequently could benefit from the pharmacologic treatment of depression and anxiety. However, many prescribers avoid serotonergic medications due to the theoretical risk of exacerbating carcinoid syndrome. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with carcinoid tumors and elevated serotonin levels (as measured by 24-hour urine 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid [5-HIAA]) at Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center who initiated treatment with serotonergic antidepressants after a carcinoid diagnosis from 2003 to 2016. Each medication regimen was categorized based on the presence of adverse interactions as defined by clinical worsening of symptoms of carcinoid syndrome in the absence of progressive disease that temporally correlated with a serotonergic medication trial. RESULTS: A total of 73 serotonergic regimens received by 52 patients were included in the primary analysis. Among these medication trials, 8.2% of the regimens (6 regimens) were categorized as being associated with a likely adverse interaction, 61.6% of the regimens (45 regimens) were categorized as having no adverse reaction, 9.6% of the regimens (7 regimens) were categorized as an unlikely adverse reaction, and 20.6% of the regimens (15 regimens) were categorized as unknown. It is interesting to note that none of the 73 trials resulted in a carcinoid crisis requiring emergency care or hospitalization. Only 3 patients discontinued serotonergic medications due to worsening carcinoid syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Serotonergic medications appear to be a safe option for the treatment of depressive and anxiety symptoms in the majority of patients with neuroendocrine tumors and carcinoid syndrome. In the current study, <10% of patients developed a combination of flushing, diarrhea, and bloating after the initiation of serotonergic medications. Clinicians can begin with low doses, monitor these symptoms, and reduce the dose or discontinue the medication if necessary. Cancer 2017;123:2735-42. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Impact of fertility preservation counseling and treatment on psychological outcomes among women with cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: For many female cancer survivors, the preservation of reproductive potential is central to quality of life (QOL), and concerns regarding infertility may affect treatment decisions. Despite the existence of several consensus guidelines supporting routine fertility preservation consultation, to the authors' knowledge little is known regarding psychological outcomes in female cancer patients who undergo fertility preservation counseling/consultation (FPC), with or without fertility preservation (FP). METHODS: This literature review examined the effect of FPC alone, or with FP, on psychological outcomes including satisfaction, decisional regret, and QOL. PubMed and PsychINFO were systematically searched for English-language publications from the earliest available publication date of each database through March 2015. Among 111 unique articles concerning oncofertility, 13 met inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed articles reporting primary data regarding satisfaction and psychological outcomes among women who underwent FPC alone or with FP. RESULTS: A majority of women receiving FPC reported that the possibility of FP was instrumental to improved coping. Receiving FPC reduced long-term regret and dissatisfaction concerning fertility, and was associated with improved physical QOL and trends toward improved psychological QOL. Women also desired prompt, standardized, and written information addressing perceived unmet needs specific to oncofertility. Offering FPC was perceived as critical regardless of age or parity. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of the authors' knowledge, little research to date has addressed the impact of FPC alone, or with FP, on QOL in women with cancer. Clinicians should recognize the existing evidence base supporting the psychological benefit of prompt FPC. Future research must be conducted to elucidate the long-term psychosocial effects of FP.

Patterns of psychiatric medication use among nationally representative long-term cancer survivors and controls.

BACKGROUND: Investigations of long-term cancer survivors (LTCS) indicate that this population is not appreciably different from cancer-naive peers with respect to several neuropsychiatric domains. The current study sought to determine whether differences in psychiatric medication use might help to explain the negative findings. METHODS: In a nationally representative sample, 5692 subjects were queried for cancer history, psychiatric diagnoses, and psychotropic medication use. The LTCS were defined as those individuals who were ≥5 years from diagnosis and whose cancer was in remission or cured. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were obtained from multivariable logistic regression models evaluating the relationship between cancer status and use of psychiatric medications. The interaction between case/control status and psychiatric diagnoses was also tested in a logistic regression model to predict psychotropic medication use. RESULTS: A total of 225 participants met the criteria for LTCS and 3953 met the criteria for cancer-naive controls (CNC). The LTCS were no more likely than CNC to carry a psychiatric diagnosis. Despite the LTCS reporting somewhat greater psychotropic medication use compared with the CNC (28.8% vs 22.3%), unadjusted and adjusted differences did not reach statistical significance, possibly due to sample size. The interaction between case/control status and carrying a psychiatric diagnosis was not found to be significantly associated with receiving a psychiatric medication. CONCLUSIONS: LTCS and CNC demonstrated comparable rates of psychiatric prescription medication use. The relationship between taking a psychiatric medication and carrying a psychiatric diagnosis was not found to be significantly different between the case and control groups. These findings contribute to an emerging hypothesis that in general LTCS are not a particularly psychiatrically vulnerable group.

Medical Oncologists' Beliefs, Practices, and Knowledge Regarding Marijuana Used Therapeutically: A Nationally Representative Survey Study.

Background Although almost every state medical marijuana (MM) law identifies cancer as a qualifying condition, little research supports MM's use in oncology. We hypothesized that the discrepancy between these laws and the scientific evidence base poses clinical challenges for oncologists. Oncologists' beliefs, knowledge, and practices regarding MM were examined in this study. Methods In November 2016, we mailed a survey on MM to a nationally-representative, random sample of 400 medical oncologists. Main outcome measures included whether oncologists reported discussing MM with patients, recommended MM clinically in the past year, or felt sufficiently informed to make such recommendations. The survey also queried oncologists' views on MM's comparative effectiveness for several conditions (including its use as an adjunct to standard pain management strategies) and its risks compared with prescription opioids. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed using standard statistical techniques. Results The overall response rate was 63%. Whereas only 30% of oncologists felt sufficiently informed to make recommendations regarding MM, 80% conducted discussions about MM with patients, and 46% recommended MM clinically. Sixty-seven percent viewed it as a helpful adjunct to standard pain management strategies, and 65% thought MM is equally or more effective than standard treatments for anorexia and cachexia. Conclusion Our findings identify a concerning discrepancy between oncologists' self-reported knowledge base and their beliefs and practices regarding MM. Although 70% of oncologists do not feel equipped to make clinical recommendations regarding MM, the vast majority conduct discussions with patients about MM and nearly one-half do, in fact, recommend it clinically. A majority believes MM is useful for certain indications. These findings are clinically important and suggest critical gaps in research, medical education, and policy regarding MM.

The effect of EEG biofeedback on reducing postcancer cognitive impairment.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES: Postcancer cognitive impairment (PCCI) is observed in a substantial number of breast cancer survivors, persisting for as long as 20 years in some subgroups. Although compensatory strategies are frequently suggested, no restorative interventions have yet been identified. This study examined the feasibility of EEG biofeedback ("neurofeedback") and its potential effectiveness in reducing PCCI as well as the fatigue, sleep disturbance, and psychological symptoms that frequently accompany PCCI. STUDY DESIGN: This was a 6-month prospective study with a waitlist control period followed by an active intervention. Participants were female breast cancer survivors (n = 23), 6 to 60 months postchemotherapy, with self-reported cognitive impairment. METHODS: Four self-report outcome measures (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function [FACT-Cog], Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-Fatigue], Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI], and Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI]-18) were administered 3 times during a 10-week waitlist control period, 3 times during a 10-week (20-session) neurofeedback training regimen, and once at 4 weeks postneurofeedback. RESULTS: All 23 participants completed the study, demonstrating the feasibility of EEG biofeedback in this population. Initially, the sample demonstrated significant dysfunction on all measures compared with general population norms. Repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed strongly significant improvements (P < .001) on all 4 cognitive measures (perceived cognitive impairment, comments from others, perceived cognitive abilities, and impact on quality of life [QOL]), the fatigue scale, and the 4 psychological scales (somatization, depression, anxiety and global severity index) as well as on 3 of 8 sleep scales (quality, daytime dysfunction, and global). Two of the other sleep scales (latency and disturbance) were significant at P < .01, and 1 (use of medication) at P < .05; 2 were not significant. Improvements were generally linear across the course of training, and were maintained at the follow-up testing. At the follow-up testing, the sample no longer differed significantly from normative populations on 3 of the 4 FACT-Cog measures (impairment, impact on QOL, and comments), FACIT-Fatigue, PSQI sleep quality and habitual efficiency, or any of the BSI-18 measures of psychological disturbance. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this limited study suggest that EEG biofeedback has potential for reducing the negative cognitive and emotional sequelae of cancer treatment as well as improving fatigue and sleep patterns.

Possibly impossible patients: management of difficult behavior in oncology outpatients.

Angry, threatening, or otherwise disruptive behavior by patients can interfere with necessary oncologic treatment, sometimes to the point of rendering continued care impossible. We offer oncology clinicians guidance in dealing with difficult outpatients by discussing the differential diagnosis and multidisciplinary management of treatment-disrupting behavior in the ambulatory oncology setting.We review the existing literature on dealing with difficult patients and present clinical experience at a comprehensive cancer center where a formalized, institutional process for responding to disruptive outpatients has been developed.A structured, multidisciplinary approach to deal with difficult behavior in oncology outpatients can improve care and staff morale. Staff using this approach can identify causes of treatment-disrupting behavior, develop and implement appropriate behavior plans, facilitate communication, address mental health issues, and ensure that decisions to terminate a relationship with a patient are ethical, clinically justified, and supported by due process.In the future, clinical recommendations and institutional guidelines for dealing with difficult patients should be evaluated with more structured, quantitative research.