Examining provider perceptions and practices for comprehensive geriatric assessment among cancer survivors: a qualitative study with an implementation science focus.

Introduction: Cancer rates increase with age, and older cancer survivors have unique medical care needs, making assessment of health status and identification of appropriate supportive resources key to delivery of optimal cancer care. Comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) help determine an older person's functional capabilities as cancer care providers plan treatment and follow-up care. Despite its proven utility, research on implementation of CGA is lacking. Methods: Guided by a qualitative description approach and through interviews with primary care providers and oncologists, our goal was to better understand barriers and facilitators of CGA use and identify training and support needs for implementation. Participants were identified through Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network partner listservs and a national cancer and aging organization. Potential interviewees, contacted via email, were provided with a description of the study purpose. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. The interview guide explored providers' knowledge and use of CGAs. For codebook development, three representative transcripts were independently reviewed and coded by four team members. The interpretive process involved reflecting, transcribing, coding, and searching for and identifying themes. Results: Providers shared that, while it would be ideal to administer CGAs with all new patients, they were not always able to do this. Instead, they used brief screening tools or portions of CGAs, or both. There was variability in how CGA domains were assessed; however, all considered CGAs useful and they communicated with patients about their benefits. Identified facilitators of implementation included having clinic champions, an interdisciplinary care team to assist with implementation and referrals for intervention, and institutional resources and buy-in. Barriers noted included limited staff capacity and competing demands on time, provider inexperience, and misaligned institutional priorities. Discussion: Findings can guide solutions for improving the broader and more systematic use of CGAs in the care of older cancer patients. Uptake of processes like CGA to better identify those at risk of poor outcomes and intervening early to modify treatments are critical to maximize the health of the growing population of older cancer survivors living through and beyond their disease.

Integrative Oncology Care of Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression in Adults With Cancer: Society for Integrative Oncology-ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based recommendations to health care providers on integrative approaches to managing anxiety and depression symptoms in adults living with cancer. METHODS: The Society for Integrative Oncology and ASCO convened an expert panel of integrative oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative oncology, social sciences, mind-body medicine, nursing, methodology, and patient advocacy representatives. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2023. Outcomes of interest included anxiety or depression symptoms as measured by validated psychometric tools, and adverse events. Expert panel members used this evidence and informal consensus with the Guidelines into Decision Support methodology to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 110 relevant studies (30 systematic reviews and 80 randomized controlled trials) to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations were made for mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), yoga, relaxation, music therapy, reflexology, and aromatherapy (using inhalation) for treating symptoms of anxiety during active treatment; and MBIs, yoga, acupuncture, tai chi and/or qigong, and reflexology for treating anxiety symptoms after cancer treatment. For depression symptoms, MBIs, yoga, music therapy, relaxation, and reflexology were recommended during treatment, and MBIs, yoga, and tai chi and/or qigong were recommended post-treatment. DISCUSSION: Issues of patient-health care provider communication, health disparities, comorbid medical conditions, cost implications, guideline implementation, provider training and credentialing, and quality assurance of natural health products are discussed. While several approaches such as MBIs and yoga appear effective, limitations of the evidence base including assessment of risk of bias, nonstandardization of therapies, lack of diversity in study samples, and lack of active control conditions as well as future research directions are discussed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Management of Anxiety and Depression in Adult Survivors of Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer survivors. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel convened to update the guideline. A systematic review of evidence published from 2013-2021 was conducted. RESULTS: The evidence base consisted of 17 systematic reviews ± meta analyses (nine for psychosocial interventions, four for physical exercise, three for mindfulness-based stress reduction [MBSR], and one for pharmacologic interventions), and an additional 44 randomized controlled trials. Psychological, educational, and psychosocial interventions led to improvements in depression and anxiety. Evidence for pharmacologic management of depression and anxiety in cancer survivors was inconsistent. The lack of inclusion of survivors from minoritized groups was noted and identified as an important consideration to provide high-quality care for ethnic minority populations. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended to use a stepped-care model, that is, provide the most effective and least resource-intensive intervention based on symptom severity. All oncology patients should be offered education regarding depression and anxiety. For patients with moderate symptoms of depression, clinicians should offer cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), behavioral activation (BA), MBSR, structured physical activity, or empirically supported psychosocial interventions. For patients with moderate symptoms of anxiety, clinicians should offer CBT, BA, structured physical activity, acceptance and commitment therapy, or psychosocial interventions. For patients with severe symptoms of depression or anxiety, clinicians should offer cognitive therapy, BA, CBT, MBSR, or interpersonal therapy. Treating clinicians may offer a pharmacologic regimen for depression or anxiety for patients who do not have access to first-line treatment, prefer pharmacotherapy, have previously responded well to pharmacotherapy, or have not improved following first-line psychological or behavioral management.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer caregiver burden and potential sociocultural mediators.

PURPOSE: Black and Hispanic cancer patients experience many worse care quality and health outcomes than non-Hispanic White patients, yet less is known about disparities in caregiving responsibilities and burden among cancer caregivers. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional data from Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance consortium, a large multi-regional, population-based study of colorectal and lung cancer patients and their caregivers. Bivariate and multivariable regression models assessed differences by racial and ethnic groups in caregiving responsibilities and social/emotional, financial, and health burdens. Structural equation models estimated whether sociocultural resources (social support, caregiving preparedness, caregiver-patient communication) mediated racial and ethnic differences in caregiver burden. RESULTS: Compared with non-Hispanic White caregivers (N = 1,169), Black (N = 220) and Hispanic (N = 84) caregivers spent more time caregiving (18 vs. 26 vs. 26 h/week; P < 0.001), completed more tasks (6.8 vs. 7.6 vs. 8.7; P < 0.05), and reported greater financial burden (P = 0.02). Yet, compared to non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanic caregivers reported similar social/emotional and health burdens, while Black caregivers reported lower levels (P < 0.01). In adjusted models, disparities in financial burden disappeared, and Hispanic caregivers had less health burden than non-Hispanic White caregivers (P = 0.01). Social support and/or caregiving preparedness partially mediated the Black-White gap for all three types of burdens. CONCLUSIONS: Black and Hispanic cancer caregivers perform more caregiving and report greater financial burden than non-Hispanic White caregivers, but experience lower or equivalent social/emotional and health burdens. Racial differences in caregivers' social support and caregiving preparedness levels partially explain Black-White burden differences. Research and policy should address Black and Hispanic caregivers' increased financial burden.

Comparing adult-child and spousal caregiver burden and potential contributors.

BACKGROUND: Adult-children caring for a parent with cancer comprise a significant segment of caregivers. Yet less is known about adult-child caregivers, their burden, or caregivers' and patients' gender's impact, which may differ from the well-studied spousal caregiver. This knowledge gap may hinder efforts to ameliorate adult-children's caregiver burden. METHODS: We analyzed caregiver surveys from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium, a multi-regional population-based study of patients with colorectal or lung cancer. Using t tests and multivariate regression models, we assessed whether adult-child and spousal caregivers' caregiving responsibilities and social/emotional and financial burdens differed and used structural equation models (SEMs) to examine mediating factors. RESULTS: Compared with spouses/partners (N = 1007), adult-children (N = 227) spent less time caregiving (14 vs 23 hours/week; P < .001), but experienced higher social/ emotional burden (P < .01). In models adjusted for objective caregiving burden measures and demographics, adult-children's social/emotional (P < .05) and financial burdens (P < .01) were greater than spouses'. Poor communication quality was associated with greater social/emotional burden for both groups (P < .05). SEMs indicated that gender concordance between caregivers and patients (eg, daughters caring for mothers) and caregiver employment increased the difference between adult-child and spouses' social/emotional burden, whereas caregiver-patient relationship quality reduced it. CONCLUSIONS: Adult-children spend less time caregiving than spouses/partners, but have higher social/emotional and financial caregiving burdens, partially due to adult-children's employment, caregiver-patients' gender concordance, and relationship quality. Gender concordance's contribution to greater social/emotional burden adds important context to prior findings, indicating female caregivers experience the most burden. Interventions that improve caregiver-patient communication may reduce both adult-child and spousal caregiver burden.

Evidence Gaps in Cancer Survivorship Care: A Report From the 2019 National Cancer Institute Cancer Survivorship Workshop.

Today, there are more than 16.9 million cancer survivors in the United States; this number is projected to grow to 22.2 million by 2030. Although much progress has been made in describing cancer survivors' needs and in improving survivorship care since the seminal 2006 Institute of Medicine report "From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition," there is a need to identify evidence gaps and research priorities pertaining to cancer survivorship. Thus, in April 2019, the National Cancer Institute convened grant-funded extramural cancer survivorship researchers, representatives of professional organizations, cancer survivors, and advocates for a 1-day in-person meeting. At this meeting, and in a subsequent webinar aimed at soliciting input from the wider survivorship community, evidence gaps and ideas for next steps in the following 6 areas, identified from the 2006 Institute of Medicine report, were discussed: surveillance for recurrence and new cancers, management of long-term and late physical effects, management of long-term and late psychosocial effects, health promotion, care coordination, and financial hardship. Identified evidence gaps and next steps across the areas included the need to understand and address disparities among cancer survivors, to conduct longitudinal studies as well as longer-term (>5 years postdiagnosis) follow-up studies, to leverage existing data, and to incorporate implementation science strategies to translate findings into practice. Designing studies to address these broad evidence gaps, as well as those identified in each area, will expand our understanding of cancer survivors' diverse needs, ultimately leading to the development and delivery of more comprehensive evidence-based quality care.

Provider Discussion about Lifestyle by Cancer History: A Nationally Representative Survey.

BACKGROUND: Providers are uniquely positioned to encourage health-promoting behaviors, particularly among cancer survivors where patients develop trust in providers. METHODS: We utilized the National Health Interview Survey to identify adults who reported a visit to a provider in the prior year (44,385 individuals with no cancer history and 4,792 cancer survivors), and reported prevalence of provider discussions on weight loss, physical activity, diet, and smoking. We used generalized linear mixed models to examine predicted prevalence of provider lifestyle discussions by cancer history overall, and among those who do not meet body mass index (BMI), activity, or smoking guidelines. RESULTS: Among those with a BMI of 25-<60 kg/m2, 9.2% of those with a cancer history and 11.6% of those without a cancer history reported being told to participate in a weight loss program (P < 0.001). Overall, 31.7% of cancer survivors and 35.3% of those with no cancer history were told to increase their physical activity (P < 0.001). Only 27.6% of cancer survivors and 32.2% of those with no cancer history reported having a general discussion of diet (P < 0.001). Among smokers, 67.3% of cancer survivors and 69.9% of those with no cancer history reported counseling on smoking (P = 0.309). CONCLUSIONS: Fewer cancer survivors, who are at increased risk for health complications, are reporting provider discussions about critical lifestyle issues than those with no cancer history. IMPACT: Our nationally representative results suggest that providers are missing an opportunity for influencing patient lifestyle factors, which could lead to mitigation of late and long-term effects of treatment.

Prevalence of Healthy Behaviors among Cancer Survivors in the United States: How Far Have We Come?

BACKGROUND: The 16.9 million cancer survivors in the United States are at increased risk for comorbidities and recurrence. However, this risk may be attenuated by a healthy lifestyle. This study describes health behaviors by cancer history to inform behavior change priorities. METHODS: We analyzed 2013-2017 data from the National Health Interview Survey. There were 164,692 adults, of whom 12,648 reported a cancer history. We calculated prevalence of smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption, body mass index (BMI), and sleep duration by cancer history, age, and cancer site. We conducted logistic regression to determine odds of meeting lifestyle recommendations by cancer history. RESULTS: Overall, those with a cancer history were less likely to report current smoking (14.1% vs. 16.8%) and moderate/heavy drinking (18.8% vs. 21.9%) than those without a cancer history. However, a lower percentage of cancer survivors met physical activity guidelines (14.2% vs. 21.1%) or reported a healthy BMI (31.6% vs. 34.7%) compared with those without a cancer history. Cancer survivors were more likely to report excessive sleep (6.8% vs. 3.6%). In adjusted logistic regression, survivors were more likely to meet recommendations on smoking, physical activity, and BMI but were less likely to meet alcohol recommendations; meeting sleep recommendations did not differ by cancer history. CONCLUSIONS: While cancer survivors had lower prevalence of smoking and moderate/heavy drinking, they also had lower prevalence of physical activity and healthy BMI, and reported longer sleep duration. Regression analyses suggested survivors only showed poorer behaviors for alcohol. IMPACT: Targeted health promotion interventions among cancer survivors are needed.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019.

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase in the United States because of the growth and aging of the population as well as advances in early detection and treatment. To assist the public health community in better serving these individuals, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate every 3 years to estimate cancer prevalence in the United States using incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries; vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics; and population projections from the US Census Bureau. Current treatment patterns based on information in the National Cancer Data Base are presented for the most prevalent cancer types. Cancer-related and treatment-related short-term, long-term, and late health effects are also briefly described. More than 16.9 million Americans (8.1 million males and 8.8 million females) with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2019; this number is projected to reach more than 22.1 million by January 1, 2030 based on the growth and aging of the population alone. The 3 most prevalent cancers in 2019 are prostate (3,650,030), colon and rectum (776,120), and melanoma of the skin (684,470) among males, and breast (3,861,520), uterine corpus (807,860), and colon and rectum (768,650) among females. More than one-half (56%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and almost two-thirds (64%) are aged 65 years or older. People with a history of cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs that require proactive assessment and management by follow-up care providers. Although there are growing numbers of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based resources are needed to optimize care.

Dyadic associations between perceived social support and cancer patient and caregiver health: An actor-partner interdependence modeling approach.

OBJECTIVE: Social support may have a positive impact on health outcomes for patients and caregivers, but the extent to which social support and health outcomes are interrelated for both is unknown. We examine the dyadic interrelationships between social support and health among cancer patients and their caregivers. METHODS: Lung and colorectal cancer (CRC) patient and caregiver dyadic data were obtained from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. Patients and caregivers self-reported sociodemographic, social support, and caregiving characteristics at 5 (n = 218 lung; n = 222 CRC) or 12 months post-diagnosis (n = 198 lung; n = 290 CRC). Structural equation modeling was used to examine actor-partner interdependence models (APIM) of lung and CRC dyads at 5 and 12 months post-diagnosis. RESULTS: At 5 months post-diagnosis, no interdependence between patient and caregiver social support was detected for CRC or lung dyads (all P > 0.05). At 12 months post diagnosis, no interdependence was detected for CRC dyads (all P > 0.70); lung dyads showed complete interdependence, indicating patient social support is associated with better caregiver self-reported health (ß = 0.15, P < 0.001), and caregiver social support is associated with better patient self-reported health (ß = 0.18, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Social support has a positive impact on patient and caregiver perceived health across the cancer trajectory, and these effects may differ by cancer site and time. Future research and translational efforts are needed to identify effective ways to bolster both patient and caregiver social support and to determine critical moments for intervention.

The National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting for Prevention and Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy.

Although recent scientific advances have improved our understanding of basic biological mechanisms underlying chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), few interventions are available to prevent or treat CIPN. Although some biological targets from preclinical studies show promise in nonhuman animal models, few targets have been translated to successful clinical trials. To address this problem, the National Cancer Institute's Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee convened a meeting of experts in the CIPN and oncology symptom management fields to participate in a Clinical Trials Planning Meeting (CTPM). Investigators presented data from preclinical and translational studies for possible CIPN interventions; these were evaluated for readiness of randomized clinical trial testing by experts, and recommendations were provided. Breakout sessions were convened to discuss and develop future studies. The CTPM experts concluded that there is compelling evidence to move forward with selected pharmacological and nonpharmacological clinical trials for the prevention and treatment of CIPN. Several key feasibility issues need to be addressed, however. These include identification of optimal outcome measures to define the CIPN phenotype, establishment of parameters that guide the evaluation of clinically meaningful effects, and adoption of approaches for inclusion of translational and biomarker and/or genetic measures. The results of the CTPM provide support for conducting clinical trials that include both pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches, alone or in combination, with biomarkers, genetics, or other measures designed to inform underlying CIPN mechanisms. Several working groups were formed to design rigorous CIPN clinical trials, the results of which are ongoing.

Survivorship Science at the NIH: Lessons Learned From Grants Funded in Fiscal Year 2016.

Federal investment in survivorship science has grown markedly since the National Cancer Institute's creation of the Office of Cancer Survivorship in 1996. To describe the nature of this research, provide a benchmark, and map new directions for the future, a portfolio analysis of National Institutes of Health-wide survivorship grants was undertaken for fiscal year 2016. Applying survivorship-relevant terms, a search was conducted using the National Institutes of Health Information for Management, Planning, Analysis and Coordination grants database. Grants identified were reviewed for inclusion and categorized by grant mechanism used, funding agency, and principal investigator characteristics. Trained pairs of coders classified each grant by focus and design (observational vs interventional), population studied, and outcomes examined. A total of 215 survivorship grants were identified; 7 were excluded for lack of fit and 2 for nonresearch focus. Forty-one (19.7%) representing training grants (n = 38) or conference grants (n = 3) were not coded. Of the remaining 165 grants, most (88.5%) were funded by the National Cancer Institute; used the large, investigator-initiated (R01) mechanism (66.7%); focused on adult survivors alone (84.2%), often breast cancer survivors (47.3%); were observational in nature (57.3%); and addressed a broad array of topics, including psychosocial and physiologic outcomes, health behaviors, patterns of care, and economic/employment outcomes. Grants were led by investigators from diverse backgrounds, 28.4% of whom were early in their career. Present funding patterns, many stable since 2006, point to the need to expand research to include different cancer sites, greater ethnoculturally diverse samples, and older (>65 years) as well as longer-term (>5 years) survivors and address effects of newer therapies.

Long-Term Survivorship Care After Cancer Treatment - Summary of a 2017 National Cancer Policy Forum Workshop.

The National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine sponsored a workshop on July 24 and 25, 2017 on Long-Term Survivorship after Cancer Treatment. The workshop brought together diverse stakeholders (patients, advocates, academicians, clinicians, research funders, and policymakers) to review progress and ongoing challenges since the Institute of Medicine (IOM)'s seminal report on the subject of adult cancer survivors published in 2006. This commentary profiles the content of the meeting sessions and concludes with recommendations that stem from the workshop discussions. Although there has been progress over the past decade, many of the recommendations from the 2006 report have not been fully implemented. Obstacles related to the routine delivery of standardized physical and psychosocial care services to cancer survivors are substantial, with important gaps in care for patients and caregivers. Innovative care models for cancer survivors have emerged, and changes in accreditation requirements such as the Commission on Cancer's (CoC) requirement for survivorship care planning have put cancer survivorship on the radar. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation's Oncology Care Model (OCM), which requires psychosocial services and the creation of survivorship care plans for its beneficiary participants, has placed increased emphasis on this service. The OCM, in conjunction with the CoC requirement, is encouraging electronic health record vendors to incorporate survivorship care planning functionality into updated versions of their products. As new models of care emerge, coordination and communication among survivors and their clinicians will be required to implement patient- and community-centered strategies.

Systematic Review of the Impact of Cancer Survivorship Care Plans on Health Outcomes and Health Care Delivery.

Purpose Numerous organizations recommend that patients with cancer receive a survivorship care plan (SCP) comprising a treatment summary and follow-up care plans. Among current barriers to implementation are providers' concerns about the strength of evidence that SCPs improve outcomes. This systematic review evaluates whether delivery of SCPs has a positive impact on health outcomes and health care delivery for cancer survivors. Methods Randomized and nonrandomized studies evaluating patient-reported outcomes, health care use, and disease outcomes after delivery of SCPs were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Library. Data extracted by independent raters were summarized on the basis of qualitative synthesis. Results Eleven nonrandomized and 13 randomized studies met inclusion criteria. Variability was evident across studies in cancer types, SCP delivery timing and method, SCP recipients and content, SCP-related counseling, and outcomes assessed. Nonrandomized study findings yielded descriptive information on satisfaction with care and reactions to SCPs. Randomized study findings were generally negative for the most commonly assessed outcomes (ie, physical, functional, and psychological well-being); findings were positive in single studies for other outcomes, including amount of information received, satisfaction with care, and physician implementation of recommended care. Conclusion Existing research provides little evidence that SCPs improve health outcomes and health care delivery. Possible explanations include heterogeneity in study designs and the low likelihood that SCP delivery alone would influence distal outcomes. Findings are limited but more positive for proximal outcomes (eg, information received) and for care delivery, particularly when SCPs are accompanied by counseling to prepare survivors for future clinical encounters. Recommendations for future research include focusing to a greater extent on evaluating ways to ensure SCP recommendations are subsequently acted on as part of ongoing care.

Reducing informal caregiver burden in cancer: evidence-based programs in practice.

Caring for people with cancer can be a burdensome and emotionally straining experience. Without adequate psychosocial support, distressed caregivers are at risk for psychiatric and medical morbidity, which can adversely affect patient outcomes. Although there is a tremendous need to provide effective and timely supportive care services for cancer caregivers, few community or clinically based services exist and the needs of these essential caregivers are profoundly underserved. This article describes three existing evidence-based programs and tools that address the needs of family caregivers of cancer patients: (a) the FOCUS Program, tested for efficacy in prior randomized clinical trials and implemented in community settings by agency staff; (b) the Program for the Study of Cancer Caregivers at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), which addresses the needs of caregivers in a large health care system; and (c) CancerSupportSource®-Caregiver, an online platform for distress screening and referral developed by the Cancer Support Community to assess and address caregivers' needs. We also describe next steps related to broader dissemination for practitioners considering how best to support cancer caregivers now and in the future. Although each evidence-based program or tool represents a unique approach to supporting caregivers, together these approaches allow for a greater likelihood of meeting caregiver needs across a variety of contexts. Collaboration within and across organizations allowed for the development and effective implementation of each of the described initiatives.

Interrelationships Between Health Behaviors and Coping Strategies Among Informal Caregivers of Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Recent research among cancer survivors suggests that health behaviors and coping are intertwined, with important implications for positive behavior change and health. Informal caregivers may have poor health behaviors, and caregivers' health behaviors have been linked to those of survivors. AIMS: This hypothesis generating study assessed the correlations among health behaviors and coping strategies in a population of lung and colorectal cancer caregivers. METHOD: This cross-sectional study used data from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research & Surveillance Consortium. Caregivers ( n = 1,482) reported their health behaviors, coping, and sociodemographic and caregiving characteristics. Descriptive statistics assessed the distribution of caregivers' health and coping behaviors, and multivariable linear regressions assessed the associations between health behaviors and coping styles. RESULTS: Many informal caregivers reported regular exercise (47%) and adequate sleep (37%); few reported smoking (19%) or binge drinking (7%). Problem-focused coping was associated with greater physical activity and less adequate sleep (effect sizes [ESs] up to 0.21, p < .05). Those with some physical activity scored higher on emotion-focused coping, while binge drinkers scored lower (ES = 0.16 and 0.27, p < .05). Caregivers who reported moderate daily activity, current smoking, binge drinking, and feeling less well rested scored higher on dysfunctional coping (ES up to 0.49, p < .05). DISCUSSION: Health behaviors and coping strategies were interrelated among informal cancer caregivers. The relationships suggest avenues for future research, including whether targeting both factors concurrently may be particularly efficacious at improving informal caregiver self-care. CONCLUSION: Understanding the link between health behaviors and coping strategies may inform health behavior research and practice.

Interventions to Address Sexual Problems in People With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Adaptation of Cancer Care Ontario Guideline.

Purpose The adaptation of the Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) guideline Interventions to Address Sexual Problems in People With Cancer provides recommendations to manage sexual function adverse effects that occur as a result of cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. Methods ASCO staff reviewed the guideline for developmental rigor and updated the literature search. An ASCO Expert Panel ( Table A1 ) was assembled to review the guideline content and recommendations. Results The ASCO Expert Panel determined that the recommendations from the 2016 CCO guideline are clear, thorough, and based upon the most relevant scientific evidence. ASCO statements and modifications were added to adapt the CCO guideline for a broader audience. Recommendations It is recommended that there be a discussion with the patient, initiated by a member of the health care team, regarding sexual health and dysfunction resulting from cancer or its treatment. Psychosocial and/or psychosexual counseling should be offered to all patients with cancer, aiming to improve sexual response, body image, intimacy and relationship issues, and overall sexual functioning and satisfaction. Medical and treatable contributing factors should be identified and addressed first. In women with symptoms of vaginal and/or vulvar atrophy, lubricants in addition to vaginal moisturizers may be tried as a first option. Low-dose vaginal estrogen, lidocaine, and dehydroepiandrosterone may also be considered in some cases. In men, medication such as phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors may be beneficial, and surgery remains an option for those with symptoms or treatment complications refractory to medical management. Both women and men experiencing vasomotor symptoms should be offered interventions for symptomatic improvement, including behavioral options such as cognitive behavioral therapy, slow breathing and hypnosis, and medications such as venlafaxine and gabapentin.Additional information is available at: www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .