NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Distress Management, Version 2.2023.

These NCCN Guidelines for Distress Management discuss the identification and treatment of psychosocial problems in patients with cancer. All patients experience some level of distress associated with a cancer diagnosis and the effects of the disease and its treatment regardless of the stage of disease. Clinically significant levels of distress occur in a subset of patients, and identification and treatment of distress are of utmost importance. The NCCN Distress Management Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe updates to the NCCN Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List, and to the treatment algorithms for patients with trauma- and stressor-related disorders.

Distress Management, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Distress is defined in the NCCN Guidelines for Distress Management as a multifactorial, unpleasant experience of a psychologic (ie, cognitive, behavioral, emotional), social, spiritual, and/or physical nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms, and its treatment. Early evaluation and screening for distress leads to early and timely management of psychologic distress, which in turn improves medical management. The panel for the Distress Management Guidelines recently added a new principles section including guidance on implementation of standards of psychosocial care for patients with cancer.

Distress management.

The integration of psychosocial care into the routine care of all patients with cancer is increasingly being recognized as the new standard of care. These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Distress Management discuss the identification and treatment of psychosocial problems in patients with cancer. They are intended to assist oncology teams identify patients who require referral to psychosocial resources and to give oncology teams guidance on interventions for patients with mild distress to ensure that all patients with distress are recognized and treated.

Screening for psychosocial distress: a national survey of oncologists.

Little is known about the dissemination and uptake of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for psychosocial distress in oncology practice. This study surveyed oncologists about their awareness of NCCN guidelines on psychosocial distress and their methods of screening patients for distress. In all, 1,000 oncologists practicing in the United States who were members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire. Predictors of routine screening for distress were identified using logistic regression. Overall, 46% (448/965) of the oncologists responded. Almost two thirds (63.4%) practiced in the community, 27.2% practiced in cancer centers, and 6.9% practiced in hospitals. Less than one-third (32.3%) reported being at least somewhat familiar with NCCN guidelines. Two-thirds (65.0%; 95% confidence interval, 60.6-69.4) reported screening patients for distress routinely, but only 14.3% used a screening instrument. Independent predictors for screening patients for distress included availability of mental health services, knowledge of NCCN guidelines, experience, lack of time, uncertainty about identifying distress, and female gender of the practitioner. NCCN guidelines for psychosocial distress do not appear to be widely disseminated. Whereas the majority of oncologists reported routinely screening patients for distress, only a small percentage followed the guidelines by using a screening instrument. Future efforts should focus on the dissemination and validation of the NCCN guidelines.

The impact of a physician awareness group and the first year of training on hematology-oncology fellows.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of a Balint-like physician awareness group on hematology-oncology fellows' attitudes and measure changes in attitudes during the first fellowship year. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a modified crossover design in which one half of a fellowship class at a time was exposed to the group intervention over a 2-year period (2000 to 2002). Two 14-fellow classes were followed for 1 year each and were given three "attitudes" questionnaires, at the beginning, middle, and end of the academic year. RESULTS: Forty Balint group sessions were held during the 2-year study period; 82 questionnaires of the 84 administered (98%) were recovered. Instrument content and criterion validity were demonstrated, as was topic domain reliability. Overall, mean attitude scores increased following the group intervention, from 3.6 (95% CI, 3.5 to 3.7) to 3.7 (95% CI, 3.6 to 3.8; P =.09). Within domains, scores increased in a "fellow's views of him/herself as a physician," from 3.8 (95% CI, 3.6 to 3.9) to 4.1 (95% CI, 3.9 to 4.2; P =.008) and "comfort dealing with emotional patient/clinical situations," from 3.5 (95% CI, 3.3 to 3.7) to 3.7 (95% CI, 3.6 to 3.9; P =.11). Changes in responses to individual questions included: an increase in fellows' comfort with the technical aspects of being an oncologist (P <.03); an increase in fellows' comfort with discussing the stress of home at work (P <.023); and an increase among fellows in feeling pressed for time to discuss psychosocial issues with patients (P =.035). CONCLUSION: A physician awareness group was feasible and enhanced fellows' development as physicians. Further research is needed to determine how to incorporate such groups into oncology fellowships.

Barriers to the treatment of depression in cancer patients.

Major depressive disorder is a relapsing syndrome with grave morbidity and mortality. Much like asthma, it has a genetic predisposition and environmental triggers. Specific antidepressant medications alone, tested in randomized, placebo-controlled studies, show that this is a treatable condition with 65%-70% clinical response. Treatment guidelines written for psychiatric patients and patients in primary care clarify the role of medications and psychotherapy. Physicians are compelled to treat syndromes that are serious and treatable, but barriers to diagnosis and treatment of major depressive disorder in cancer patients include two major barriers to quality medical care generally: uncertainty and cost. Given uncertainty about diagnosis and treatment, cancer physicians with limited time avoid questions about emotions. Cases of depression are often missed. Mental health specialists often work in systems that are separated from oncologists by location, organization, and insurance. Most successful interventions to improve treatment of depressive disorders require multiple strategies: clinical education, enhanced role of nurses, and integrated oncology and specialist care. Recent strategies in oncology settings are reviewed. Research concepts to improve outcomes in treatment of depression include staging of depressive disorder in cancer to reveal prognosis, evaluation of depression outcomes in the context of one tumor type, new organizational models in the acute cancer setting, use of the cancer protocol, and assessment of access to care of depression in cancer survivors. Major depressive disorder in cancer is staged by positive past history, comorbid anxiety disorder or substance abuse, use of specific cancer medications that destabilize mood, and active cancer or no evidence of disease.

Clinical Dimensions of Fatigue.

Because the symptom of fatigue is often vague, clinical evaluation requires the consideration of distinct features such as timing, precipitants, presence of libido, sleep quality, exercise capacity, and sedation. Fatigue has dimensions of affect and tolerability. In chronic illness, it is helpful to consider mood, physical conditioning, course of predictable treatment consequences, postural hypotension, and the well-being of caretakers. The differential diagnosis of acute and chronic fatigue is considered. Chronic fatigue of unknown etiology is placed in historical context, and an approach to the complexities of providing continuing evaluation and care is discussed.

Preventing Delirium at the End of Life: Lessons From Recent Research.

Preservation of the ability to think clearly, in comfort, is a goal of end-of-life care. Recent research on delirium at the end of life suggests clinical strategies for prevention of cognitive impairment. Clinicians should consider early warnings of mild delirium such as impairment in attention and short-term memory by following the patient's ability to remember 3 words or to attend to digit span before the patient is disoriented. If cognitive impairment is noted, clinicians should pay attention to reversible causes. This article reviews clinical concerns about opiates, benzodiazepines, steroids, hepatic encephalopathy, timely use of neuroleptic medications, and caretaking strategies at home.

Management of psychosocial distress by oncologists.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the nature of psychosocial care delivered by oncologists. The goal of this study was to survey oncologists about their management of psychosocial distress, referencing the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. METHODS: A random sample of 1,000 oncologists were sent an e-mail requesting their participation in an online survey; nonrespondents were sent the survey through postal mail. Regression analyses were conducted to identify independent predictors of care. RESULTS: Forty-six percent (448 of 965) of oncologists responded. Practice locations included: community (63%), cancer center (25%), and hospital (7%). Respondents estimated that over one-third of their patients (mean+/-SD=38%+/-22%) experience psychosocial distress warranting intervention, although only 225 of 447 (50%) indicated having mental health services affiliated with their practice. Nearly half (212 of 447, 47%) reported only initiating a referral for psychosocial services, and 214 of 447 (48%) reported both making a referral and starting psychiatric medications, mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and benzodiazepines. CONCLUSIONS: Most oncologists delivered some level of psychosocial care, although only half had affiliated mental health services.

Evidenced-based report on the occurrence of fatigue in long-term cancer survivors.

Although some cancer survivors report persistent fatigue years after treatment, little is known about the prevalence of the symptom in this population as compared with the general population. This article examines current evidence for the occurrence of fatigue in long-term cancer survivors by reviewing published population-based studies that incorporated controls from the general population. Using the search criteria "fatigue AND cancer survivors" in PubMed, the authors identified 16 articles (based on 15 cross-sectional datasets) comparing fatigue severities in survivors of adult cancers with those in the general population. When data allowed, Hedges' g effect size calculations were generated. A total of 8096 cancer survivors were examined across datasets. Cancer survivor sample sizes ranged from 15 to 1933 per dataset. Most datasets focused on either breast cancer (7) or Hodgkin's disease survivors (6). Four studies did not clearly exclude patients undergoing active treatment. Nine articles (based on 8 datasets) showed statistically significant (P < .05) differences among groups; 4 articles showed negative results; and 3 showed both positive and negative results depending on fatigue dimension measured. Among the studies that reported scores for the fatigue subscale of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire for Quality of Life (most studies), mean fatigue levels in cancer survivors ranged from 28.7 to 36.5 out of an overall score of 100, and mean fatigue levels in matched general population controls ranged from 20 to 30 out of 100. No associations between instruments and results were apparent. Although the small numbers of studies prevented comparisons among cancer subtypes, equal positive and negative studies were seen in breast cancer survivors and, notably, no negative studies were seen involving Hodgkin's disease survivors. Most effect sizes calculated were small. Fatigue was a burden to both cancer survivors and members of the general population. While evidence for greater fatigue severity in cancer survivors was mixed, most studies reported greater fatigue in cancer survivors as compared with controls. The magnitude of this effect was generally small. Inferences from the data were limited by variability in both the definition of survivor and the fatigue assessments used, as well as by the cross-sectional design of the studies. Prospective longitudinal studies are needed to determine causal relationships between excessive fatigue and surviving cancer.