Preoperative Risk Factors for Lymphedema in Inflammatory Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic lymphatic bypass or LYMPHA (LYmphatic Microsurgical Preventive Healing Approach) is increasingly offered to prevent lymphedema following breast cancer treatment, which develops in up to 47% of patients. Previous studies focused on intraoperative and postoperative lymphedema risk factors, which are often unknown preoperatively when the decision to perform LYMPHA is made. This study aims to identify preoperative lymphedema risk factors in the high-risk inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) population. METHODS: Retrospective review of our institution's IBC program database was conducted. The primary outcome was self-reported lymphedema development. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify preoperative lymphedema risk factors, while controlling for number of lymph nodes removed during axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), number of positive lymph nodes, residual disease on pathology, and need for adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of 356 patients with IBC, 134 (mean age: 51 years, range: 22-89 years) had complete data. All 134 patients underwent surgery and radiation. Forty-seven percent of all 356 patients (167/356) developed lymphedema. Obesity (body mass index > 30) (odds ratio [OR]: 2.7, confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-6.4, p = 0.02) and non-white race (OR: 4.5, CI: 1.2-23, p = 0.04) were preoperative lymphedema risk factors. CONCLUSION: Patients with IBC are high risk for developing lymphedema due to the need for ALND, radiation, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study also identified non-white race and obesity as risk factors. Larger prospective studies should evaluate potential racial disparities in lymphedema development. Due to the high prevalence of lymphedema, LYMPHA should be considered for all patients with IBC.

Goal-Focused Emotion-Regulation Therapy (GET) for young adult survivors of testicular cancer: a pilot randomized controlled trial of a biobehavioral intervention protocol.

BACKGROUND: Testicular cancer diagnosis and treatment, especially given its threat to sexuality and reproductive health, can be distressing in the formative period of young adulthood and the majority of young survivors experience impairing, distressing, and modifiable adverse outcomes that can persist long after medical treatment. These include psychological distress, impairment in pursuit of life goals, persistent physical side effects, elevated risk of secondary malignancies and chronic illness, and biobehavioral burden (e.g., enhanced inflammation, dysregulated diurnal stress hormones). However, few targeted interventions exist to assist young survivors in renegotiating life goals and regulating cancer-related emotions, and none focus on reducing the burden of morbidity via biobehavioral mechanisms. This paper describes the methodology of a randomized controlled biobehavioral trial designed to investigate the feasibility and preliminary impact of a novel intervention, Goal-focused Emotion-Regulation Therapy (GET), aimed at improving distress symptoms, emotion regulation, goal navigation skills, and stress-sensitive biomarkers in young adult testicular cancer patients. METHODS: Participants will be randomized to receive six sessions of GET or Individual Supportive Therapy (ISP) delivered over 8 weeks. In addition to indicators of intervention feasibility, we will measure primary (depressive and anxiety symptoms) and secondary (emotion regulation and goal navigation skills, career confusion) psychological outcomes prior to (T0), immediately after (T1), and 12 weeks after (T2) intervention. Additionally, identified biomarkers will be measured at baseline and at T2. DISCUSSION: GET may have the potential to improve self-regulation across biobehavioral domains, improve overall cancer adjustment, and address the need for targeted supportive care interventions for young adult cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04150848. Registered on 28 October 2019.

Adult self-image and well-being after testicular cancer: The role of agency and meaning.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer during young adulthood can limit the extent to which one adopts an adult self-image. However, the relationship of adult self-image to cancer-related adjustment remains unexplored. The current study examines relationships of adult self-image and social/emotional well-being and job-related problems in young testicular cancer survivors. Factors thought to facilitate future-oriented goals (i.e. agency and meaning) are examined as intermediary processes. DESIGN: Testicular cancer survivors (N = 171) between the ages of 18 and 29 completed questionnaire measures of adult self-image, agency, sense of meaning and indicators of adjustment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Social and emotional well-being were measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. Job problems were assessed using the EORTC's testicular cancer supplement (EORTC QLQ-TC26). RESULTS: Path model results revealed direct associations of survivors' adult self-image with social (ß = .20, p < .05), but not emotional well-being (ß = .14, p < .01). Both agency and meaning mediated the relationship of adult self-image and well-being indicators. Finally, the relationship between adult self-image and job problems was only significant for those who were employed or in school (ß = -.19, p < .05). OUTCOMES: Assessment of adult self-image might be useful in identifying risk for poor adjustment. Interventions that target agency and meaning might facilitate developmental goals.

Exploring differences in adverse symptom event grading thresholds between clinicians and patients in the clinical trial setting.

PURPOSE: Symptomatic adverse event (AE) monitoring is essential in cancer clinical trials to assess patient safety, as well as inform decisions related to treatment and continued trial participation. As prior research has demonstrated that conventional concordance metrics (e.g., intraclass correlation) may not capture nuanced aspects of the association between clinician and patient-graded AEs, we aimed to characterize differences in AE grading thresholds between doctors (MDs), registered nurses (RNs), and patients using the Bayesian Graded Item Response Model (GRM). METHODS: From the medical charts of 393 patients aged 26-91 (M = 62.39; 43% male) receiving chemotherapy, we retrospectively extracted MD, RN and patient AE ratings. Patients reported using previously developed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) patient-language adaptations called STAR (Symptom Tracking and Reporting). A GRM was fitted to calculate the latent grading thresholds between MDs, RNs and patients. RESULTS: Clinicians have overall higher average grading thresholds than patients when assessing diarrhea, dyspnea, nausea and vomiting. However, RNs have lower grading thresholds than patients and MDs when assessing constipation. The GRM shows higher variability in patients' AE grading thresholds than those obtained from clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides evidence to support the notion that patients report some AEs that clinicians might not consider noteworthy until they are more severe. The availability of GRM methodology could serve to enhance clinical understanding of the patient symptomatic experience and facilitate discussion where AE grading discrepancies exist. Future work should focus on capturing explicit AE grading decision criteria from MDs, RNs, and patients.

The association between clinician-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO): a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently, there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate, and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had a large variation across the majority of studies (n = 21). CONCLUSIONS: The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs.