Acupuncture for Chronic Radiation-Induced Xerostomia in Head and Neck Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with head and neck cancer who undergo radiotherapy can develop chronic radiation-induced xerostomia. Prior acupuncture studies were single center and rated as having high risk of bias, making it difficult to know the benefits of acupuncture for treating radiation-induced xerostomia. Objective: To compare true acupuncture (TA), sham acupuncture (SA), and standard oral hygiene (SOH) for treating radiation-induced xerostomia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, blinded, 3-arm, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between July 29, 2013, and June 9, 2021. Data analysis was performed from March 9, 2022, through May 17, 2023. Patients reporting grade 2 or 3 radiation-induced xerostomia 12 months or more postradiotherapy for head and neck cancer were recruited from community-based cancer centers across the US that were part of the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program Research Base. Participants had received bilateral radiotherapy with no history of xerostomia. Interventions: Participants received SOH and were randomized to TA, SA, or SOH only. Participants in the TA and SA cohorts were treated 2 times per week for 4 weeks. Those experiencing a minor response received another 4 weeks of treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient-reported outcomes for xerostomia (Xerostomia Questionnaire, primary outcome) and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General) were collected at baseline, 4 (primary time point), 8, 12, and 26 weeks. All analyses were intention to treat. Results: A total of 258 patients (201 men [77.9%]; mean [SD] age, 65.0 [9.16] years), participated from 33 sites across 13 states. Overall, 86 patients were assigned to each study arm. Mean (SD) years from diagnosis was 4.21 (3.74) years, 67.1% (n = 173) had stage IV disease. At week 4, Xerostomia Questionnaire scores revealed significant between-group differences, with lower Xerostomia Questionnaire scores with TA vs SOH (TA: 50.6; SOH: 57.3; difference, -6.67; 95% CI, -11.08 to -2.27; P = .003), and differences between TA and SA (TA: 50.6; SA: 55.0; difference, -4.41; 95% CI, -8.62 to -0.19; P = .04) yet did not reach statistical significance after adjustment for multiple comparisons. There was no significant difference between SA and SOH. Group differences in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scores revealed statistically significant group differences at week 4, with higher scores with TA vs SOH (TA: 101.6; SOH: 97.7; difference, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.43-6.38; P = .002) and at week 12, with higher scores with TA vs SA (TA: 102.1; SA: 98.4; difference, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.10-6.18; P = .005) and TA vs SOH (TA: 102.1; SOH: 97.4; difference, 4.61; 95% CI, 1.99-7.23; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this trial suggest that TA was more effective in treating chronic radiation-induced xerostomia 1 or more years after the end of radiotherapy than SA or SOH. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02589938.

Impact of COVID-19-related experiences on health-related quality of life in cancer survivors in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Little evidence exists on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survivors, limiting recommendations to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in this population. We describe survivors' pandemic experiences and examine associations between COVID-19-related exposures, psychosocial experiences, and HRQoL. METHODS: Between May 2020-April 2021, survivors completed cross-sectional questionnaires capturing COVID-19-related exposures (e.g., exposure to virus, job loss); psychosocial experiences (i.e., COVID-19-related anxiety/depression, disruptions to health care and daily activities/social interactions, satisfaction with providers' response to COVID, financial hardship, perceived benefits of the pandemic, social support, and perceived stress management ability); and HRQoL. RESULTS: Data were collected from N = 11,325 survivors in the United States. Participants were mostly female (58%), White (89%) and non-Hispanic (88%), and age 63 on average. Breast cancer was the most common diagnosis (23%). Eight percent of participants reported being exposed to COVID-19; 1% tested positive. About 6% of participants lost their jobs, while 24% lost household income. Nearly 30% avoided attending in-person oncology appointments because of the pandemic. Poorer HRQoL was associated with demographic (younger age; female; non-Hispanic White), clinical (Medicare; stage IV disease; hematologic/digestive/respiratory system cancer), and psychosocial factors (low perceived benefits and stress management ability; more disruption to health care and daily activities/social interactions; financial hardship). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-related stressors were associated with various psychosocial experiences in cancer survivors, and these psychosocial experiences were associated with HRQoL above and beyond demographic and clinical factors.

Development and initial psychometric evaluation of a COVID-related psychosocial experiences questionnaire for cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors are at elevated risk of psychological problems related to COVID-19, yet no published measure adequately assesses their psychosocial experiences during the pandemic. PURPOSE: Describe the development and factor structure of a comprehensive, self-report measure (COVID-19 Practical and Psychosocial Experiences questionnaire [COVID-PPE]) assessing the pandemic's impact on US cancer survivors. METHODS: The sample (n = 10,584) was divided into three groups to assess COVID-PPE factor structure by conducting: (1) initial calibration/exploratory analysis of the factor structure of 37 items (n = 5070), (2) confirmatory factor analysis of the best-fitting model (36 items after item removal; n = 5140), and (3) post-hoc confirmatory analysis with an additional six items not collected in the first two groups (42 items; n = 374). RESULTS: The final COVID-PPE was divided into two sets of subscales, conceptualized as Risk Factors and Protective Factors. The five Risk Factors subscales were labeled Anxiety Symptoms, Depression Symptoms, Health Care Disruptions, Disruptions to Daily Activities and Social Interactions, and Financial Hardship. The four Protective Factors subscales were labeled Perceived Benefits, Provider Satisfaction, Perceived Stress Management Skills, and Social Support. Internal consistency was acceptable for seven subscales (αs = 0.726-0.895; ωs = 0.802-0.895) but poor or questionable for the remaining two subscales (αs = 0.599-0.681; ωs = 0.586-0.692). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first published self-report measure comprehensively capturing psychosocial impact-both positive and negative-of the pandemic on cancer survivors. Future work should evaluate predictive utility of COVID-PPE subscales, particularly as the pandemic evolves, which may inform recommendations for cancer survivors and facilitate identification of survivors most in need of intervention.