Semantic item-level metrics relate to future memory decline beyond existing cognitive tests in older adults without dementia.

In normal aging, the cognitive domain of semantic memory remains preserved, while the domain of episodic memory declines to some extent. In Alzheimer's disease dementia, both semantic and episodic memory become impaired early in the disease process. Given the need to develop sensitive and accessible cognitive markers for early detection of dementia, we investigated among older adults without dementia whether item-level metrics of semantic fluency related to episodic memory decline above and beyond existing neuropsychological measures and total fluency score. Participants were drawn from the community-based Washington Heights-Inwood Columbia Aging Project cohort (N = 583 English speakers, Mage = 76.3 ± 6.8) followed up to five visits across up to 11 years. We examined the association of semantic fluency metrics with subsequent declines in memory performance using latent growth curve models covaried for age and recruitment wave. Results showed that item-level metrics (e.g., lexical frequency, age of acquisition, and semantic neighborhood density) were associated with a decline in episodic memory-even when covarying for other cognitive tests-while the standard total score was not. Moderation analyses showed that the relationship of semantic fluency metrics with memory decline did not differ across race, sex/gender, or education. In conclusion, item-level data hold a wealth of information with potential to reveal subtle semantic memory impairment, which tracks with episodic memory impairment, among older adults without dementia beyond existing neuropsychological measures. Implementation of psycholinguistic metrics may point to cognitive tools that have better prognostic value or are more sensitive to cognitive change in the context of clinical trials or observational studies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Supportive Oncology Care at Home Intervention for Patients With Pancreatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention among patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with pancreatic cancer from a parent trial of neoadjuvant fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX). The intervention entailed (1) remote monitoring of patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; (2) a hospital-at-home care model; and (3) structured communication with the oncology team. We defined the intervention as feasible if ≥ 60% of patients enrolled in the study and ≥ 60% completed the daily assessments within the first 2-weeks of enrollment. We determined rates of treatment delays, urgent clinic visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations among those who did (n = 20) and did not (n = 24) receive Supportive Oncology Care at Home from the parent trial. RESULTS: From January 2019 to September 2020, we enrolled 80.8% (21/26) of potentially eligible patients. One patient became ineligible following consent because of moving out of state, resulting in 20 participants (median age = 67 years). In the first 2 weeks of enrollment, 65.0% of participants completed all daily assessments. Overall, patients reported 96.1% of daily symptoms, 96.1% of daily vital signs, and 92.5% of weekly body weights. Patients receiving the intervention had lower rates of treatment delays (55.0% v 75.0%), urgent clinic visits (10.0% v 25.0%), and emergency department visits/hospitalizations (45.0% v 62.5%) compared with those not receiving the intervention from the same parent trial. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention. Future work will investigate the efficacy of this intervention for decreasing health care use and improving patient outcomes.

Supportive oncology care at home interventions: protocols for clinical trials to shift the paradigm of care for patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer often endure substantial symptoms and treatment toxicities leading to high healthcare utilization, including hospitalizations and emergency department visits, throughout the continuum of their illness. Innovative oncology care models are needed to improve patient outcomes and reduce their healthcare utilization. Using a novel hospital at home care platform, we developed a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to address the needs of patients with cancer. METHODS: We are conducting three trials to delineate the role of Supportive Oncology Care at Home for patients with cancer. The Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention includes: (1) a hospital at home care model for symptom assessment and management; (2) remote monitoring of daily patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; and (3) structured communication with the oncology team. Our first study is a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of Supportive Oncology Care at Home versus standard oncology care for improving healthcare utilization, cancer treatment interruptions, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer receiving definitive treatment of their cancer. Participants include adult patients with gastrointestinal and head and neck cancer, as well as lymphoma, receiving definitive treatment (e.g., treatment with curative intent). The second study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Eligible participants include adult patients with incurable cancer who are admitted with an unplanned hospitalization. The third study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to enhance the end-of-life care for patients with advanced hematologic malignancies. Eligible participants include adult patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancy receiving palliative therapy or supportive care alone. DISCUSSION: These studies are approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and are being conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological trials. This work has the potential to transform the paradigm of care for patients with cancer by providing them with the necessary support at home to improve their health outcomes and care delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT04544046, NCT04637035, NCT04690205.

Associations of patient-reported care satisfaction with symptom burden and healthcare use in hospitalized patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with cancer often experience a high symptom burden, which may impact care satisfaction and healthcare utilization. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with cancer and unplanned hospitalizations from September 2014 to April 2017. Upon admission, we assessed patients' care satisfaction (FAMCARE items: satisfaction with care coordination and speed with which symptoms are treated) and physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) and psychological (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]) symptoms. We used regression models to identify factors associated with care satisfaction and associations of satisfaction with symptom burden and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Among 1,576 participants, most reported being "satisfied"/ "very satisfied" with care coordination (90%) and speed with which symptoms are treated (89%). Older age (coordination: B < 0.01, P = 0.02, speed: B = 0.01, P < 0.01) and admission to a dedicated oncology service (B = 0.20, P < 0.01 for each) were associated with higher satisfaction. Higher satisfaction with care coordination was associated with lower ESAS-physical (B = - 1.28, P < 0.01), ESAS-total (B = - 2.73, P < 0.01), PHQ4-depression (B = - 0.14, P = 0.02), and PHQ4-anxiety (B = - 0.16, P < 0.01) symptoms. Higher satisfaction with speed with which symptoms are treated was associated with lower ESAS-physical (B = - 1.32, P < 0.01), ESAS-total (B = - 2.46, P < 0.01), PHQ4-depression (B = - 0.14, P = 0.01), and PHQ4-anxiety (B = - 0.17, P < 0.01) symptoms. Satisfaction with care coordination (B = - 0.48, P = 0.04) and speed with which symptoms are treated (B = - 0.44, P = 0.04) correlated with shorter LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients with cancer report high care satisfaction, which correlates with older age and admission to a dedicated oncology service. Significant associations among higher care satisfaction, lower symptom burden, and shorter hospital LOS highlight the importance of improving symptom management and care coordination in this population.

Effect of a Symptom Monitoring Intervention for Patients Hospitalized With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Symptom monitoring interventions are increasingly becoming the standard of care in oncology, but studies assessing these interventions in the hospital setting are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a symptom monitoring intervention on symptom burden and health care use among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This nonblinded randomized clinical trial conducted from February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, assessed 321 hospitalized adult patients with advanced cancer and admitted to the inpatient oncology services of an academic hospital. Data obtained through November 13, 2020, were included in analyses, and all analyses assessed the intent-to-treat population. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in both the intervention and usual care groups reported their symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) daily via tablet computers. Patients assigned to the intervention had their symptom reports displayed during daily oncology rounds, with alerts for moderate, severe, or worsening symptoms. Patients assigned to usual care did not have their symptom reports displayed to their clinical teams. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of days with improved symptoms, and the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and readmission rates. Linear regression was used to evaluate differences in hospital length of stay. Competing-risk regression (with death treated as a competing event) was used to compare differences in time to first unplanned readmission within 30 days. RESULTS: From February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, 390 patients (76.2% enrollment rate) were randomized. Study analyses to assess change in symptom burden included 321 of 390 patients (82.3%) who had 2 or more days of symptom reports completed (usual care, 161 of 193; intervention, 160 of 197). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 63.6 (12.8) years and were mostly male (180; 56.1%), self-reported as White (291; 90.7%), and married (230; 71.7%). The most common cancer type was gastrointestinal (118 patients; 36.8%), followed by lung (60 patients; 18.7%), genitourinary (39 patients; 12.1%), and breast (29 patients; 9.0%). No significant differences were detected between the intervention and usual care for the proportion of days with improved ESAS-physical (unstandardized coefficient [B] = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.05; P = .56), ESAS-total (B = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.02; P = .17), PHQ-4-depression (B = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.04; P = .55), and PHQ-4-anxiety (B = -0.04; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.03; P = .29) symptoms. Intervention patients also did not differ significantly from patients receiving usual care for the secondary end points of hospital length of stay (7.59 vs 7.47 days; B = 0.13; 95% CI, -1.04 to 1.29; P = .83) and 30-day readmission rates (26.5% vs 33.8%; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.09; P = .12). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This randomized clinical trial found that for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, the assessed symptom monitoring intervention did not have a significant effect on patients' symptom burden or health care use. These findings do not support the routine integration of this type of symptom monitoring intervention for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03396510.

Effects of a perioperative geriatric intervention for older adults with Cancer: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with gastrointestinal cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, hospital readmissions, and complications. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention (PERI-OP) in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery. METHODS: From 9/2016-4/2019, we randomly assigned patients age ≥ 65 with gastrointestinal cancer planning to undergo surgical resection to receive PERI-OP or usual care. Patients assigned to PERI-OP met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and postoperatively as an inpatient consultant. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included postoperative ICU use, 90-day hospital readmission rates, and complication rates. We conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. RESULTS: ITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care = 68/78, intervention = 69/82). PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received the preoperative and postoperative intervention components. ITT analyses demonstrated no significant differences between intervention and usual care in postoperative hospital LOS (7.23 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.374), ICU use (23.2% vs 32.4%, P = 0.257), 90-day hospital readmission rates (21.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.690), or complication rates (17.4% vs 20.6%, P = 0.668). In PP analyses, intervention patients had shorter postoperative hospital LOS (5.90 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.024), but differences in ICU use (13.3% vs 32.4%, P = 0.081), 90-day hospital readmission rates (16.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.439), and complication rates (6.7% vs 20.6%, P = 0.137) remained non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, PERI-OP did not have a significant impact on postoperative hospital LOS, ICU use, hospital readmissions, or complications. However, the subgroup who received PERI-OP as planned experienced encouraging results. Future studies of PERI-OP should include efforts, such as telehealth, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned.

Communicating the Information Needed for Treatment Decision Making Among Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Preoperative Therapy.

PURPOSE: Preoperative therapy for pancreatic cancer represents a new treatment option with the potential to improve outcomes for patients, yet with complex risks. By not discussing the potential risks and benefits of new treatment options, clinicians may hinder patients from making informed decisions. METHODS: From 2017 to 2019, we conducted a mixed-methods study. First, we elicited clinicians' (n = 13 medical, radiation, and surgery clinicians), patients' (n = 18), and caregivers' (n = 14) perceptions of information needed for decision making regarding preoperative therapy and generated a list of key elements. Next, we audio-recorded patients' (n = 20) initial multidisciplinary oncology visits and used qualitative content analyses to describe how clinicians discussed this information and surveyed patients to ask if they heard each key element. RESULTS: We identified 13 key elements of information patients need when making decisions regarding preoperative therapy, including treatment complications, alternatives, logistics, and potential outcomes. Patients reported hearing infrequently about complications (eg, hospitalizations [n = 3 of 20]) and alternatives (n = 8 of 20) but frequently recalled logistics and potential outcomes (eg, likelihood of surgery [n = 19 of 20]). Clinicians infrequently discussed complications (eg, hospitalizations [n = 7 of 20]), but frequently discussed alternatives, logistics, and potential outcomes (eg, likelihood of surgery [n = 20 of 20]). No overarching differences in clinician discussion content emerged to explain why patients did or did not hear about each key element. CONCLUSION: We identified key elements of information patients with pancreatic cancer need when considering preoperative therapy. Patients infrequently heard about treatment complications and alternatives, while frequently hearing about logistics and potential outcomes, underscoring areas for improvement in educating patients about new treatment options in oncology.