Cancer care for people with significant mental health difficulties (SMHD) - patient perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: People with significant mental health difficulties (SMHD) experience inequities in cancer care. This study aims to deepen understanding of cancer care for individuals with SMHD. METHOD: We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven individuals with SMHD regarding their experiences accessing and engaging with cancer care from August 2021 to February 2022. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis where both inductive and deductive coding was adopted through the lens of the socio-ecological model (SEM) as a theoretical framework. RESULTS: The main themes included intrapersonal, interpersonal and organizational barriers and facilitators to care with a specific focus on modifiable factors related to cancer care delivery. CONCLUSION: This study provides further evidence for promoting collaborative mental health and cancer care delivery to prevent inequalities in cancer care for patients with SMHD. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Adopting an interdisciplinary, team-based approach to cancer care and help with patient navigation across services are potential factors in improving cancer care for individuals with SMHD.

Challenges, rewards, and lessons learned from family and community caregivers of individuals with serious mental illness and cancer.

PURPOSE: The caregiving experience for individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) and cancer has not been explored in previous cancer caregiver research. This study assessed the challenges, rewards, and lessons learned from this unique population of caregivers. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 13 caregivers (9 family caregivers, 4 community caregivers) of patients recently diagnosed with head and neck, breast, lung, or gastrointestinal cancer and SMI who participated in a single-arm pilot of person-centered collaborative care. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches. Investigators developed a coding scheme based on the interview guide. Interviews were double-coded and themes were identified via an iterative consensus process consistent with a content analysis framework. Comparisons between community and family caregiver experiences were explored. RESULTS: Caregiving challenges included the impact of mental health symptoms on timely diagnosis, treatment, and coordination of care and lack of resources specific to SMI and cancer caregiving. Family caregivers valued increased closeness and meaningfulness in their relationships. Family and community caregivers found it rewarding to be part of a person-centered care model that was effective for the patient. Lessons learned included tending to their own needs too, and the importance of advocacy and a team approach to decrease mental health stigma and coordinate care. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the complex challenges and rewards experienced by family and community caregivers for individuals with cancer and SMI. Tailored approaches to support caregivers as individuals are needed. Additional research on community caregiver-patient dyads and non-spousal family caregiver-patient dyads are needed to inform intervention development.

Clinical Implications and Treatment Strategies for ESR1 Fusions in Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Case Series.

In hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (HR+ MBC), endocrine resistance is commonly due to genetic alterations of ESR1, the gene encoding estrogen receptor alpha (ERα). While ESR1 point mutations (ESR1-MUT) cause acquired resistance to aromatase inhibition (AI) through constitutive activation, far less is known about the molecular functions and clinical consequences of ESR1 fusions (ESR1-FUS). This case series discusses 4 patients with HR+ MBC with ESR1-FUS in the context of the existing ESR1-FUS literature. We consider therapeutic strategies and raise the hypothesis that CDK4/6 inhibition (CDK4/6i) may be effective against ESR1-FUS with functional ligand-binding domain swaps. These cases highlight the importance of screening for ESR1-FUS in patients with HR+ MBC while continuing investigation of precision treatments for these genomic rearrangements.

Patients With Serious Mental Illness Can Engage in Tobacco Treatment Trials and Tobacco Cessation Interventions During Cancer Treatment.

PURPOSE: More than half of individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) smoke, contributing to premature cancer mortality. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist with smoking cessation; however, supportive oncology trials frequently exclude patients with SMI. To fill this gap, we examined differences in engagement and tobacco cessation in a pragmatic clinical trial. METHODS: We recruited 303 participants from two National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, of which 10% had prior diagnoses of SMI (major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders). We compared self-reported smoking behaviors, patient attitudes and beliefs about cessation, and rates of trial completion, engagement, and smoking abstinence among recently diagnosed patients with cancer with and without SMI. Six months after trial completion, we completed qualitative interviews on barriers and facilitators to tobacco cessation in a random sample of participants with SMI. RESULTS: Trial participants with SMI had similar motivation to quit smoking as those without SMI. Additionally, participants with SMI had a similar ability to engage in a tobacco treatment trial (6.5 counseling sessions completed v 7.3 sessions) and benefit from tobacco treatment as those without SMI (32.3% v 27.8% 6-month quit rates). CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer and SMI were able to engage in and benefit from a tobacco cessation trial integrated into cancer care. A cancer diagnosis provides an opportunity to assist patients with SMI with smoking cessation referrals and treatment. Pragmatic supportive oncology trials that include a diverse population of adults with SMI are needed to inform care delivery and improve cancer outcomes for patients with SMI and cancer.

Study protocol for a randomized trial of bridge: Person-centered collaborative care for serious mental illness and cancer.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) experience inequities in cancer care that contribute to increased cancer mortality. Involving mental health at the time of cancer diagnosis may improve cancer care delivery for patients with SMI yet access to care remains challenging. Collaborative care is a promising approach to integrate mental health and cancer care that has not yet been studied in this marginalized population. METHODS/DESIGN: We describe a 24-week, two-arm, single-site randomized trial of person-centered collaborative care (Bridge) for patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression with psychiatric hospitalization) and their caregivers. 120 patients are randomized 1:1 to Bridge or Enhanced Usual Care (EUC) along with their caregivers. Researchers proactively identify individuals with SMI and a new breast, lung, gastrointestinal, or head and neck cancer that can be treated with curative intent. EUC includes informing oncologists about the patient's psychiatric diagnosis, notifying patients about available psychosocial services, and tracking patient and caregiver outcomes. Bridge includes a proactive assessment by psychiatry and social work, a person-centered, team approach including collaboration between mental health and oncology, and increased access to evidence-based psycho-oncology care. The primary outcome is cancer care disruptions evaluated by a blinded panel of oncologists. Secondary outcomes include patient and caregiver-reported outcomes and healthcare utilization. Barriers to Bridge implementation and dissemination are assessed using mixed methods. DISCUSSION: This trial will inform efforts to systematically identify individuals with SMI and cancer and generate the first experimental evidence for the impact of person-centered collaborative care on cancer care for this underserved population.

Developing a Virtual Equity Hub: Adapting the Tumor Board Model for Equity in Cancer Care.

We define cancer equity as all people having as the same opportunity for cancer prevention, treatment, and survivorship care. However, marginalized populations continue to experience avoidable and unjust disparities in cancer care, access to clinical trials, and cancer survival. Racial and ethnic minorities, and individuals with low socioeconomic status, Medicaid insurance, limited health literacy, disabilities, and mental health disorders are more likely to experience delays to cancer diagnosis and less likely to receive guideline-concordant cancer care. These disparities are impacted by the social determinants of health including structural discrimination, racism, poverty, and inequities in access to healthcare and clinical trials. There is an urgent need to develop and adapt evidence-based interventions in collaboration with community partners that have potential to address the social determinants of health and build capacity for cancer care for underserved populations. We established the Virtual Equity Hub by developing a collaborative network connecting a comprehensive cancer center, academic safety net hospital, and community health centers and affiliates. The Virtual Equity Hub utilizes a virtual tumor board, an evidence-based approach that increases access to multi-specialty cancer care and oncology subspecialty expertise. We adapted the tumor board model by engaging person-centered teams of multi-disciplinary specialists across health systems, addressing the social determinants of health, and applying community-based research principles with a focus on populations with poor cancer survival. The virtual tumor board included monthly videoconferences, case discussion, sharing of expertise, and a focus on addressing barriers to care and trial participation. Specifically, we piloted virtual tumor boards for breast oncology, neuro-oncology, and individuals with cancer and serious mental illness. The Virtual Equity Hub demonstrated promise at building capacity for clinicians to care for patients with complex needs and addressing barriers to care. Research is needed to measure the impact, reach, and sustainability of virtual equity models for patients with cancer.

The Strategies for Quantitative and Qualitative Remote Data Collection: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a rapid shift to web-based or blended design models for both ongoing and future clinical research activities. Research conducted virtually not only has the potential to increase the patient-centeredness of clinical research but may also further widen existing disparities in research participation among underrepresented individuals. In this viewpoint, we discuss practical strategies for quantitative and qualitative remote research data collection based on previous literature and our own ongoing clinical research to overcome challenges presented by the shift to remote data collection. We aim to contribute to and catalyze the dissemination of best practices related to remote data collection methodologies to address the opportunities presented by this shift and develop strategies for inclusive research.

Feasibility and Acceptability of a Collaborative Lung Cancer Screening Educational Intervention Tailored for Individuals With Serious Mental Illness.

PURPOSE: Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) experience disparities in lung cancer mortality. Using a two-phase, mixed-methods approach, we developed a person-centered lung cancer screening (LCS) educational intervention (phase 1) for individuals with SMI (schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) and evaluated acceptability, feasibility, and changes in attitudes toward LCS (phase 2). METHODS: Phase 1: We conducted three focus groups with mental health, primary care, and radiology clinicians and utilized rapid qualitative analysis to adapt the LCS intervention (LCS walk-through video and smoking cessation handouts) tailored for individuals with SMI. Phase 2: We enrolled LCS-eligible patients with SMI (n = 15) and assessed the feasibility (>50% enrollment; >75% completion) and acceptability (>75% overall satisfaction) of an LCS educational intervention delivered by a radiologist and a mental health clinician at a community mental health clinic. We explored changes in participant attitudes about lung cancer, LCS, and smoking before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Phase 1: Focus groups with primary care (n = 5), radiologists (n = 9), and mental health clinicians (n = 6) recommended person-centered language and adapting a video demonstrating the process of LCS to address concerns specific to SMI, including paranoia and concrete thinking. Phase 2: Fifty percent (15 of 30) of eligible patients enrolled in the LCS intervention, 100% (15 of 15) completed the intervention, and 93% (14 of 15) were satisfied with the intervention. Participants reported a significantly greater worry about developing lung cancer postintervention, but there were no other significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists can partner with primary care and community mental health clinics to lead equity efforts in LCS among individuals with SMI.

Addressing distress management challenges: Recommendations from the consensus panel of the American Psychosocial Oncology Society and the Association of Oncology Social Work.

Distress management (DM) (screening and response) is an essential component of cancer care across the treatment trajectory. Effective DM has many benefits, including improving patients' quality of life; reducing distress, anxiety, and depression; contributing to medical cost offsets; and reducing emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Unfortunately, many distressed patients do not receive needed services. There are several multilevel barriers that represent key challenges to DM and affect its implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as an organizational structure to outline the barriers and facilitators to implementation of DM, including: 1) individual characteristics (individual patient characteristics with a focus on groups who may face unique barriers to distress screening and linkage to services), 2) intervention (unique aspects of DM intervention, including specific challenges in screening and psychosocial intervention, with recommendations for resolving these challenges), 3) processes for implementation of DM (modality and timing of screening, the challenge of triage for urgent needs, and incorporation of patient-reported outcomes and quality measures), 4) organization-inner setting (the context of the clinic, hospital, or health care system); and 5) organization-outer setting (including reimbursement strategies and health-care policy). Specific recommendations for evidence-based strategies and interventions for each of the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research are also included to address barriers and challenges.

Effect of Sustained Smoking Cessation Counseling and Provision of Medication vs Shorter-term Counseling and Medication Advice on Smoking Abstinence in Patients Recently Diagnosed With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Persistent smoking may cause adverse outcomes among patients with cancer. Many cancer centers have not fully implemented evidence-based tobacco treatment into routine care. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of sustained telephone counseling and medication (intensive treatment) compared with shorter-term telephone counseling and medication advice (standard treatment) to assist patients recently diagnosed with cancer to quit smoking. Design, Setting, and Participants: This unblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital/Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Adults who had smoked 1 cigarette or more within 30 days, spoke English or Spanish, and had recently diagnosed breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecological, head and neck, lung, lymphoma, or melanoma cancers were eligible. Enrollment occurred between November 2013 and July 2017; assessments were completed by the end of February 2018. Interventions: Participants randomized to the intensive treatment (n = 153) and the standard treatment (n = 150) received 4 weekly telephone counseling sessions and medication advice. The intensive treatment group also received 4 biweekly and 3 monthly telephone counseling sessions and choice of Food and Drug Administration-approved cessation medication (nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, or varenicline). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were treatment utilization rates. Results: Among 303 patients who were randomized (mean age, 58.3 years; 170 women [56.1%]), 221 (78.1%) completed the trial. Six-month biochemically confirmed quit rates were 34.5% (n = 51 in the intensive treatment group) vs 21.5% (n = 29 in the standard treatment group) (difference, 13.0% [95% CI, 3.0%-23.3%]; odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.13-3.27]; P < .02). The median number of counseling sessions completed was 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) in the intensive treatment group. A total of 97 intensive treatment participants (77.0%) vs 68 standard treatment participants (59.1%) reported cessation medication use (difference, 17.9% [95% CI, 6.3%-29.5%]; odds ratio, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.32-4.04]; P = .003). The most common adverse events in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively, were nausea (n = 13 and n = 6), rash (n = 4 and n = 1), hiccups (n = 4 and n = 1), mouth irritation (n = 4 and n = 0), difficulty sleeping (n = 3 and n = 2), and vivid dreams (n = 3 and n = 2). Conclusions and Relevance: Among smokers recently diagnosed with cancer in 2 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, sustained counseling and provision of free cessation medication compared with 4-week counseling and medication advice resulted in higher 6-month biochemically confirmed quit rates. However, the generalizability of the study findings is uncertain and requires further research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01871506.

Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility, Risk Perceptions, and Clinician Delivery of Tobacco Cessation Among Patients With Schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Individuals with schizophrenia experience increased lung cancer mortality and decreased access to cancer screening and tobacco cessation treatment. To promote screening among individuals with schizophrenia, it is necessary to investigate the proportion who meet screening criteria and examine smoking behaviors, cancer risk perception, and receipt of tobacco cessation interventions from psychiatry and primary care. METHODS: The authors performed a cross-sectional survey and medical record review with 112 adults with schizophrenia treated with clozapine in a community mental health clinic (CMHC). RESULTS: Among older participants (ages 55-77 years) with schizophrenia, 34% met the criteria for lung screening on the basis of smoking history (heavy current or former smokers), and more than half believed they had a low risk of developing lung cancer. Of all participants, 88% had visited their primary care provider (PCP) in the past year; PCPs represented 35 different practices. Only one in three current smokers reported that their PCP or psychiatrist assisted them in obtaining medications for tobacco cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Given smoking history, many older adults with schizophrenia have potential to benefit from lung screening, yet most older participants underestimated their lung cancer risk. Although participants regularly accessed care, PCP and psychiatric visits may be missed opportunities to engage patients with schizophrenia in tobacco cessation and decrease preventable premature mortality. Embedding interventions in a CMHC, a centralized access point of care delivery for patients with schizophrenia, may have unique potential to increase uptake of cancer screening and tobacco cessation interventions.

Improving Lung Cancer Screening Access for Individuals With Serious Mental Illness.

Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States across all races and ethnicities, but it does not affect everyone equally. Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI), including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, experience two to four times greater lung cancer mortality in part due to high rates of smoking, delays in cancer diagnosis, and inequities in cancer treatment. Additionally, adults with SMI experience patient, clinician, and health care system-level barriers to accessing cancer screening, such as cognitive deficits that impact understanding of cancer risk, higher rates of poverty and social isolation, patient-provider communication challenges, decreased access to tobacco cessation, and the fragmentation of primary care and mental health care. Despite the proven benefits and mandated coverage by public and private payers, lung cancer screening participation rates remain low among eligible patients, below 4% a year. Given disparities in other cancer screening modalities, these rates are likely to be even lower among individuals with SMI. This article provides a brief overview of current challenges in lung cancer screening and describes a pilot collaboration between radiology and psychiatry that has potential to improve access to lung cancer screening for individuals with serious mental illness.

Bridge: Person-Centered Collaborative Care for Patients with Serious Mental Illness and Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) experience increased cancer mortality due to inequities in cancer treatment. Psychiatric care at cancer diagnosis may improve care delivery, yet models for integrating psychiatry and cancer care are lacking. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a person-centered collaborative care trial for SMI and cancer. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: We developed the Bridge intervention for patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severe major depression) and cancer. Bridge includes proactive identification of SMI, person-centered care from a psychiatrist and case manager, and collaboration with oncology. We conducted a 12-week, single-group trial in patients with SMI and a new breast, gastrointestinal, lung, or head/neck cancer. We assessed the feasibility of patient identification, enrollment and study completion; evaluated acceptability and perceived benefit with exit interviews with patients, caregivers, and oncology clinicians; and examined change in psychiatric symptoms with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). RESULTS: From November 2015 to April 2016, 30/33 eligible patients (90.9%) enrolled, and 25/29 (86.2%) completed assessments at all timepoints, meeting feasibility criteria. Of 24 patients, 23 (95.8%) found meeting with the psychiatrist helpful; 16/19 caregivers (84.2%) shared that Bridge addressed key caregiving challenges. Oncology clinicians evaluated Bridge as "very" or "most" useful for 94.3% of patients. Exit interviews with all participant groups suggested that Bridge fostered patient-clinician trust, increased access to psychiatric treatment, and enabled patients to initiate and complete cancer treatment. Psychiatric symptoms on the BPRS improved from baseline to 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Bridge is a feasible and acceptable care delivery model for patients with SMI, their caregivers, and oncology clinicians. Randomized trials are warranted to assess the efficacy of improving cancer outcomes in this underserved population. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Serious mental illness affects 13 million U.S. adults who experience increased cancer mortality. To improve outcomes, new models of integrated oncology and mental health care are urgently needed. This study found that it was feasible to identify, enroll, and retain patients with serious mental illness and a new cancer in a trial of integrated mental health and cancer care (Bridge). Patients, caregivers, and oncologists reported that Bridge facilitated the initiation and completion of cancer care. Randomized trials are warranted to investigate the impact on cancer outcomes. Trial procedures may inform consent, engagement, and trial retention for patients with mental illness.

Use of Antidepressant Medications Moderates the Relationship Between Depressive Symptoms and Hospital Length of Stay in Patients with Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with cancer, depressive symptoms are associated with worse clinical outcomes, including greater health care utilization. As use of antidepressant medications can improve depressive symptoms, we sought to examine relationships among depressive symptoms, antidepressant medications, and hospital length of stay (LOS) in patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 2014 to May 2016, we prospectively enrolled patients with advanced cancer who had an unplanned hospitalization. We performed chart review to obtain information regarding documented depressive symptoms in the 3 months prior to admission and use of antidepressant medications at the time of admission. We compared differences in hospital LOS by presence or absence of depressive symptoms and used adjusted linear regression to examine if antidepressant medications moderated these outcomes. RESULTS: Of 1,036 patients, 126 (12.2%) had depressive symptoms documented prior to admission, and 288 (27.8%) were taking antidepressant medications at the time of admission. Patients with depressive symptoms experienced longer hospital LOS (7.25 vs. 6.13 days; p = .036). Use of antidepressant medications moderated this relationship; among patients not on antidepressant medications, depressive symptoms were associated with longer hospital LOS (7.88 vs. 6.11 days; p = .025), but among those on antidepressant medications, depressive symptoms were not associated with hospital LOS (6.57 vs. 6.17 days; p = .578). CONCLUSION: Documented depressive symptoms prior to hospital admission were associated with longer hospital LOS. This effect was restricted to patients not on antidepressant medications. Future studies are needed to investigate if use of antidepressant medications decreases LOS for patients hospitalized with advanced cancer and the mechanisms by which this may occur. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study investigated the prevalence of documented depressive symptoms in patients with advanced cancer in the 3 months prior to an unplanned hospitalization and the prevalence of use of antidepressant medications at time of hospital admission. The relationship of these variables with hospital length of stay was also examined, and it was found that documented depressive symptoms were associated with prolonged hospital length of stay. Interestingly, antidepressant medications moderated the relationship between depressive symptoms and hospital length of stay. These findings support the need to recognize and address depressive symptoms among patients with advanced cancer, with potential implications for optimizing health care utilization.