Do cancer curvivors and metavivors have distinct needs for stress management intervention? Retrospective analysis of a mind-body survivorship program.

PURPOSE: Cancer "curvivors" (completed initial curative intent treatment with surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and/or other novel therapies) and "metavivors" (living with metastatic or chronic, incurable cancer) experience unique stressors, but it remains unknown whether these differences impact benefits from mind-body interventions. This study explored differences between curvivors and metavivors in distress (depression, anxiety, worry) and resiliency changes over the course of an 8-week group program, based in mind-body stress reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and positive psychology. METHODS: From 2017-2021, 192 cancer survivors (83% curvivors; 17% metavivors) completed optional online surveys of resiliency (CES) and distress (PHQ-8, GAD-7, PSWQ-3) pre- and post- participation in an established clinical program. Mixed effect regression models explored curvivor-metavivor differences at baseline and in pre-post change. RESULTS: Compared to curvivors, metavivors began the program with significantly more resilient health behaviors (B = 0.99, 95% CI[0.12, 1.86], p = .03) and less depression (B = -2.42, 95%CI[-4.73, -0.12], p = .04), with no other significant differences. Curvivors experienced significantly greater reductions in depression (curvivor-metavivor difference in strength of change = 2.12, 95% CI [0.39, 3.83], p = .02) over the course of the program, with no other significant differences. Neither virtual delivery modality nor proportion of sessions attended significantly moderated strength of resiliency or distress change. CONCLUSION: Metavivors entering this mind-body program had relatively higher well-being than did curvivors, and both groups experienced statistically comparable change in all domains other than depression. Resiliency programming may thus benefit a variety of cancer survivors, including those living with incurable cancer.

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 hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial testing virtual tobacco treatment in oncology practices [Smokefree Support Study 2.0].

BACKGROUND: Persistent smoking among patients diagnosed with cancer is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, yet an evidence-based tobacco use intervention has not been well-integrated into cancer care in community oncology settings. This paper describes the protocol of a nation-wide clinical trial conducted by the ECOG-ACRIN National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Base to assess the effectiveness of a virtual tobacco treatment intervention and the process of implementing tobacco treatment in NCORP community oncology settings. METHODS/DESIGN: This two-arm, multisite (n: 49 NCORP sites) hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial compares the effectiveness of a Virtual Intervention Treatment (VIT) versus an Enhanced Usual Control (EUC) among English and Spanish speaking patients recently diagnosed with cancer, reporting current smoking and receiving care at a participating NCORP Community or Minority/Underserved Site. The VIT includes up to 11 virtual counseling sessions with a tobacco treatment specialist and up to 12 weeks of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The EUC arm receives a referral to the NCI Quitline. The primary study outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence smoking abstinence. Moderators of treatment effect will be assessed. The study evaluates implementation processes from participating NCORP site staff via survey, administrative, and focus group data, including reach, acceptability, appropriateness, fidelity, feasibility, adoption, cost and sustainability outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will generate findings about the effectiveness of an evidence-based virtual tobacco treatment intervention targeting patients diagnosed with cancer and illuminate barriers and facilitators that influence implementing tobacco treatment into community oncology settings nationally. In the era of COVID-19, virtual care solutions are vital for maximizing access and utilization of tobacco treatment delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03808818) on January 18th, 2019; Last update posted: May 21st, 2020.

Testing psychosocial mediators of a mind-body resiliency intervention for cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Group-based mind-body interventions such as the Stress Management and Resiliency Training-Relaxation Response Resiliency Program (SMART-3RP) hold promise for enhancing resiliency among cancer survivors. Mechanisms underlying improvements in psychological outcomes are theoretically established but remain unexamined empirically. METHODS: Adult cancer survivors (n = 105) participating in the SMART-3RP completed surveys of resiliency and five hypothesized mediators: coping (ability to relax physical tension and assertive social support-seeking), mindfulness, positive affect, and worry. Pre-post intervention changes were assessed using repeated-measures t-tests. Bivariate correlations between change scores and a more conservative within-person parallel mediation model tested covariance between resiliency and mediators. RESULTS: Participants experienced moderate to large improvements in all patient-reported outcomes (ds = 1.01-0.46). Increased resiliency was significantly associated with increases in mindfulness, positive affect, and assertive social support-seeking (rs = 0.36-0.50); smaller associations with increased relaxation and decreased worry were not significant. Mindfulness and positive affect explained the largest proportion of variance in resiliency increase in the full multivariate model. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors completing the SMART-3RP had increased resiliency, which was associated with improvements in mindfulness, positive affect, and the ability to assertively seek social support. Enhancing mindfulness and positive affect were critical components for enhancing resiliency. Implications for resiliency interventions with cancer survivors are discussed.