A Qualitative Study of Knowledge of Metabolic Syndrome, Attitudes about Lifestyle Modifications, and Preferences for Lifestyle Interventions among Patients with Cancer and Metabolic Syndrome.

Background: Nearly 60% of patients with cancer have metabolic syndrome, which increases the risk of mortality, but there is no clear guidance for oncology providers about its management. Here, we report on the qualitative component of a larger mixed methods study that aimed to understand cancer patients' knowledge, attitudes, and preferences regarding metabolic syndrome. Methods: Adult cancer patients with metabolic syndrome were recruited during 2022-2023 in the MD Anderson General Internal Medicine clinic and participated in semistructured interviews focused on metabolic syndrome and lifestyle interventions. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants' demographic information was collected. Interviews were analyzed using hybrid thematic analysis and constant comparison involving deductive and inductive coding. Researcher triangulation and debriefing were used to ensure rigor. Results: There were 19 participants, 12 female and 12 White. Eighteen had solid tumors, including gynecologic (n = 5), genitourinary (n = 4), colorectal (n = 3), and breast (n = 2). Analysis yielded 5 major themes: 1) patients' understanding of metabolic syndrome; 2) attitudes about and approaches to managing metabolic syndrome; 3) capacity and limitations regarding managing metabolic syndrome; 4) patient-led care; and 5) tailored intervention plans. Participants had limited knowledge of metabolic syndrome and its cancer-related consequences; most desired additional education. Many participants reported that their cancer or diabetes diagnosis motivated them to prioritize lifestyle Modifications. Participants expressed strong interest in personalized care plans focused on healthy lifestyle rather than simply weight loss. As part of their tailored intervention plans, participants desired clear communication with their medical team, coordination of care among team members, and collaboration with providers about treatment decisions. Conclusion: Cancer patients with metabolic syndrome want collaborative, patient-centered care. Shared decision-making based on respect for patients' distinctive needs and preferences is an essential component of the development of such collaborative care. Tailored interventions, practical implementation strategies, and personalized care plans are needed for cancer patients with metabolic syndrome. The study findings contribute to filling the gap in knowledge regarding clear guidance for oncology providers on managing metabolic syndrome and will inform the development of future lifestyle interventions for patients diagnosed with metabolic syndrome.

A randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of social networking on chronic disease management in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Social networking has been shown to improve health outcomes in certain patient populations. While patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increasingly use social networking to communicate with peers, the effects of these interactions are largely unknown. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, we compared RA patients who participated in a social networking group moderated by peer leaders and who had access to a static website offering RA materials with a control group, who only had access to the website. The primary outcomes were patients' RA knowledge, self-efficacy and empowerment. Secondary outcomes included participation in desired health behaviors, and satisfaction with peer support, among others. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 3 and 6 months. Participants who never signed in were excluded from the primary analysis. RESULTS: 105 participants were randomized to each group. Mean age was 52 (±12.4) and 92.4% were females. Knowledge scores improved in both groups, but only in the control group the differences observed at 3 and 6 months were significant (p≤0.02). Self-efficacy scores also improved in both groups, but only the differences observed at 6 months in the Facebook group were significant (p=0.02). When comparing groups, at 3 months the knowledge improvements observed in the control group were greater compared with those observed in the Facebook group (mean difference 0.4 versus 0.1; respectively, p=0.03). No other differences were observed in secondary outcomes between the 2 groups, except in peer support satisfaction. The Facebook® group reported greater peer support satisfaction in 3 out 5 subscales compared with the control group (p≤0.04). CONCLUSION: Peer support satisfaction was higher in participants using an online social network, but this was not translated into greater disease knowledge or empowerment.

Strategies to identify hepatitis C virus infection in patients receiving anticancer therapy: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Optimal hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening strategies for cancer patients have not been established. We compared the performance of selective HCV screening strategies. METHODS: We surveyed patients presenting for first systemic anticancer therapy during 2013-2014 for HCV risk factors. We estimated the prevalence of positivity for HCV antibody (anti-HCV) and examined factors associated with anti-HCV status using Fisher's exact test or Student's t test. Sensitivity was calculated for screening patients born during 1945-1965, patients with ≥ 1 other risk factor, or both cohorts ("combined screening"). RESULTS: We enrolled 2122 participants. Median age was 59 years (range, 18-91); 1138 participants were women. Race/ethnicity distribution was white non-Hispanic, 76% (n = 1616); Hispanic, 11% (n = 233); black non-Hispanic, 8% (n = 160); Asian, 4% (n = 78); and other, 2% (n = 35). Primary cancer distribution was non-liver solid tumor, 78% (n = 1664); hematologic cancer, 20% (n = 422); and liver cancer, 1% (n = 28). Prevalence of anti-HCV was 1.93% (95% CI, 1.39%-2.61%). Over 28% of patients with detectable HCV RNA were unaware of infection. Factors significantly associated with anti-HCV positivity included less than a bachelor's degree, birth in 1945-1965, chronic liver disease, injection drug use, and blood transfusion or organ transplant before 1992. A total of 1315 participants (62%), including 39 of 41 with anti-HCV, reported ≥ 1 risk factor. Sensitivity was 80% (95% CI, 65-91%) for birth-cohort-based, 68% (95% CI, 52-82%) for other-risk-factor-based, and 95% (95% 83-99%) for combined screening. CONCLUSION: Combined screening still missed 5% of patients with anti-HCV. These findings favor universal HCV screening to identify all HCV-infected cancer patients.

Passive transfer of anti-HBc after intravenous immunoglobulin administration in patients with cancer: a retrospective chart review.

BACKGROUND: Patients previously infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV; indicated by positivity for anti-HBc) can experience HBV reactivation during cancer chemotherapy. Intravenous immunoglobulin infusion, which is frequently used in supportive care, might facilitate passive transfer of anti-HBc. We aimed to estimate the probability of passive transfer of anti-HBc after intravenous immunoglobulin infusion in patients with cancer. METHODS: We reviewed institutional databases to identify adult patients who received outpatient chemotherapy between Jan 1, 2004, and Dec 31, 2011, at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Eligible patients had received intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, had tested negative for both anti-HBc and HBsAg before infusion, and had been tested for anti-HBc after infusion. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who became positive for anti-HBc after intravenous immunoglobulin infusion. FINDINGS: 950 of 18 874 patients who underwent chemotherapy within the study time frame received intravenous immunoglobulin, of whom 870 had been tested for anti-HBc before infusion. 199 patients who were negative for anti-HBc before receiving intravenous immunoglobulin were retested after infusion, of whom 29 (15% [95% CI 10-20]) became positive for anti-HBc. The probability of anti-HBc conversion at 1 week after intravenous immunoglobulin infusion was 34% (95% CI 22-48) and at 12 weeks was 4% (2-7). INTERPRETATION: Conversion of patients from anti-HBc negativity to anti-HBc positivity was common after intravenous immunoglobulin administration. However, the probability of a positive test decreased with time since infusion. Positive anti-HBc tests done shortly after intravenous immunoglobulin infusion should be interpreted with caution because they might indicate passive transfer instead of true infection. FUNDING: None.

Models to Predict Hepatitis B Virus Infection Among Patients With Cancer Undergoing Systemic Anticancer Therapy: A Prospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Most patients with cancer are not screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection before undergoing anticancer therapy, and optimal screening strategies are unknown. We sought to develop selective HBV screening strategies for patients who require systemic anticancer therapy. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included adults age ≥ 18 years with solid or hematologic malignancies who received systemic anticancer therapy at a comprehensive cancer center during 2013 and 2014. Patients underwent hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis B core antibody, and hepatitis B surface antibody testing, and completed a 19-question modified Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) HBV survey. Multivariable models that predict chronic or past HBV infection were developed and validated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: A total of 2,124 patients (mean age, 58 ± 13 years) completed the risk survey and HBV testing. Of these, 54% were women; 77% were non-Hispanic white, 11% Hispanic, 8% black, and 4% Asian; and 20% had a hematologic malignancy and 80% a solid tumor. Almost 12% were born outside the United States. The prevalence was 0.3% for chronic HBV infection and 6% for past HBV infection. Significant predictors of positive hepatitis B surface antigen or hepatitis B core antibody tests were as follows: men who had sex with men, black or Asian race, birthplace outside the United States, parent's birthplace outside the United States, household exposure to HBV, age ≥ 50 years, and history of injection drug use. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the model on the basis of these seven predictors was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.82). The modified CDC survey and brief tools with fewer than seven questions yielded similar false-negative rates (0% and 0% to 0.7%, respectively). CONCLUSION: An internally validated risk tool performed as well as the modified CDC survey; however, more than 90% of patients who completed the tool would still require HBV testing. Universal HBV testing is more efficient than risk-based screening.