Search

BackgroundSurvivorship for those living with primary CNS cancers begins at diagnosis, continues throughout a person's life, and includes caregivers. Opportunities and challenges exist to advance survivorship care for those living with primary CNS cancers that necessitate stakeholder involvement.MethodsIn June 2021, NCI-CONNECT convened a two-day virtual workshop about survivorship care in neuro-oncology. Two expert panels provided key recommendations and five working groups considered critical questions to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the advancement of survivorship care and developed recommendations and action items.ResultsThe following action items emanated from the workshop: seek endorsement of meeting report from stakeholder organizations; address barriers in access to survivorship care and provider reimbursement; advance survivorship research through NIH and private grant support; develop a survivorship tool kit for providers, people living with primary CNS cancers and their caregivers; provide accessible educational content for neuro-oncology, neurology, and oncology community providers about survivorship care in neuro-oncology; and establish core competencies for survivorship care for neuro-oncology providers to be included in training and standardized exams.ConclusionsAction items aim to address access and reimbursement barriers, expand patient and provider education, develop core competencies, and support survivorship research through funding and other supports.

PurposeStudies focusing on patients with and survivors of cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic highlight unique psychological and behavioral challenges. These findings were obtained in surveys using self-report questionnaires with pre-specified response options that may not capture the broad range of experiences of individuals affected by cancer, including people with cancer and informal caregivers, in this unprecedented situation. Online forums produce a large amount of valuable first-hand user-generated content that can be used to better understand their day-to-day lives. This study, based on the analysis of narratives in cancer online forums, aims to describe and categorize the experiences of people affected by cancer during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodAn inductive, descriptive, thematic approach was applied to publicly available cancer forums from Germany, the USA, the UK, and Ireland posted between mid-March and mid-April 2020.ResultsAn analysis of the content of 230 main posts revealed three major themes: (1) concerns related to the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care, the risks and fears of getting infected, logistic issues, and economic impact; (2) adaptation challenges faced at the individual and societal level; and (3) the need for advice including information about COVID-19 and the (self-)management of cancer symptoms and treatment.ConclusionOur qualitative description of the experiences of people affected by cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak can help to improve communication, education, and the development of supportive care strategies. Furthermore, the themes and subthemes identified could potentially inform item development for future self-report questionnaires.

PURPOSE: Routine collection of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI; collectively SOGI) in cancer clinics advances cancer care equity. METHODS: In 2022, NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practice groups were asked about routine collection of SOGI data in the electronic health record. The proportions of practice groups reporting collection of SO and/or GI data were calculated, and practice group characteristics were assessed for associations. RESULTS: Of 271 practice groups nationwide, 42% (n = 112) collect SO data, 58% (n = 157) collect GI data, and 35% (n = 96) collect both. In multivariate analyses, SO data collection was associated with practice groups having minority outreach staff (odds ratio [OR], 2.07 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.81]; P =.02); GI data collection was associated with practice groups located in the Northeastern United States (OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 0.73 to 5.91]; P =.045), and those with a higher proportion of new patients who were White (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04]; P <.001). Practice groups in the South were least likely to collect SOGI data (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.94]; P =.004). There were no statistically significant differences in SO and/or GI collection on the basis of the practice group's proportion of Medicaid/Medicare patients, number of new patients with cancer per year, or practice ownership. CONCLUSION: Slightly over one third of NCORP practice groups report routinely collecting SOGI data. There are regional differences in data collection, underscoring the need to craft targeted, region-specific interventions focused on boosting the capture and recording of SOGI data in an affirming manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose/objectivesTo identify priority areas of research for the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Research Agenda for 2014-2018, consistent with ONS's mission to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care
.Data sourcesReview of the literature, 2013 ONS Research Priorities Survey, National Institute of Nursing Research, and the National Cancer Institute research foci
.Data synthesisMultimethod consensus-building approach by content leaders and content experts of the ONS Research Agenda Project Team
.ConclusionsThe 2014-2018 Research Agenda Project Team identified eight high-priority research areas: symptoms, late effects of cancer treatment and survivorship care, palliative and end-of-life care, self-management, aging, family and caregivers, improving healthcare systems, and risk reduction. In addition, four cross-cutting themes were identified: biomarkers, bioinformatics, comparative effectiveness research, and dissemination and implementation science.Implications for nursingThe Research Agenda is a synthesis of the state of the science in cancer and identifies gaps and directions for the conduct and dissemination of research. Oncology nurses can use the agenda to inform clinical practice, develop research proposals, inform policy makers, support interdisciplinary research efforts, and promote scientist and clinician collaborations in targeted patient-centered research
.

INTRODUCTION Effective tobacco treatments are available but are often not delivered to individuals with an actual or potential diagnosis of thoracic malignancy. The specific aims of this study were to identify the prevalence of tobacco use and examine the effectiveness of the Clinical and community Effort Against Smoking and secondhand smoke Exposure (CEASE), a system-level computer-facilitated intervention, to improve provider delivery of tobacco treatment in a thoracic surgery and oncology outpatient setting. METHODS A pre-post-test design was used to assess the effectiveness of CEASE. A 3-step approach was used to integrate tobacco treatment into routine care: ask about tobacco use, assist with cessation, and refer to a quitline. An end-of-visit survey was conducted to collect prevalence of tobacco use and delivery of tobacco treatment. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were used for analysis. RESULTS A total of 218 individuals were enrolled; 105 participants were in usual care (UC) and 113 were in the CEASE group. Of those who enrolled, 27.6% were never smokers in UC and 27.7% in CEASE, 60% were former smokers in UC and 50% in CEASE, and 12.4% were current smokers in UC and 21.4% in CEASE. Significant differences were noted in delivery of tobacco treatment with 15.4% having received tobacco treatment in UC compared to 62.5% in CEASE (p<0.004). CONCLUSIONS A computer-facilitated intervention increased provider delivery of tobacco treatment in a thoracic surgery and oncology outpatient setting. This intervention provided a low-resource approach that has the potential to be scaled and implemented more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Few studies have examined the effect of baseline attitudes toward nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) on its actual adherence in a smoking cessation intervention. Purpose This study (i) examined the predictability of baseline variables (quantitative data) on NRT adherence and (ii) explored the congruence of participants' statements about NRT products (qualitative data) during counseling sessions with their baseline attitudes. Methods This is a mixed-methods research study using a convergent parallel design. Participants included 74 individuals in the treatment group who received behavioral counseling and combination NRT. A Poisson regression analysis was performed to identify baseline variables predicting NRT adherence. Thematic analysis was completed with a subset of participants (n = 38) who varied in NRT attitude scores and adherence. A joint display was created to integrate quantitative and qualitative data and discover convergence. Results Approximately 59% of the participants (41/74) used NRT continuously for ≥5 weeks. Having negative attitudes toward NRT and depressive symptoms predicted NRT adherence even after controlling for education and anxiety symptoms. Thematic analysis revealed that NRT adherence is a learning process that consists of the following three distinctive but interrelated phases: (i) information needs, (ii) comprehensive readiness, and (iii) experiential learning. Of the 38 participants, 34 (89.5%) showed convergence between baseline attitude scores and statements about NRT made during counseling sessions. Conclusions Individuals who have negative attitudes toward NRT are less likely to use the products in a smoking cessation intervention. Counselors should assess attitudes toward NRT at baseline and address them proactively during counseling sessions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shortness of breath occurs in 10%–70% of oncology patients. Very little is known about interindividual variability in its severity and distress and associated risk factors. Using latent profile analyses (LPAs), purpose was to identify subgroups of patients with distinct severity and distress profiles for shortness of breath as single symptom dimensions. In addition, a joint LPA was done using patients' severity AND distress ratings. For each of the three LPAs, differences among the shortness of breath classes in demographic, clinical, symptom, stress, and resilience characteristics were evaluated. Methods: Patients completed ratings of severity and distress from shortness of breath a total of six times over two cycles of chemotherapy. All of the other measures were completed at enrollment (i.e., prior to the second or third cycle of chemotherapy). Separate LPAs were done using ratings of severity and distress, as well as a joint analysis using severity AND distress ratings. Differences among the latent classes were evaluated using parametric and nonparametric tests. Results: For severity, two classes were identified (Slight to Moderate [91.6%] and Moderate to Severe [8.4%]). For distress, two classes were identified (A Little Bit to Somewhat [83.9%] and Somewhat to Quite a Bit [16.1%]). For the joint LPA, two classes were identified (Lower Severity and Distress [79.9%] and Higher Severity and Distress [20.1%]). While distinct risk factors were associated with each of the LPAs, across the three LPAs, the common risk factors associated with membership in the worse class included: a past or current history of smoking, poorer functional status, and higher comorbidity burden. In addition, these patients had a higher symptom burden and higher levels of cancer‐specific stress. Conclusions: Clinicians can use the information provided in this study to identify high‐risk patients and develop individualized interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: We described information technology support and use of telemedicine for cancer care and research purposes at community oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). METHODS: We used data from the NCORP 2017 and 2022 Landscape Assessments. Separate logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with the use of telemedicine for delivery of cancer care in 2017 and for research purposes in 2022 (cancer care delivery not assessed in 2022). RESULTS: Information was available from 210 and 259 practice groups excluding pediatric-only groups in 2017 and 2022, respectively. In 2017, 30% of practice groups used telemedicine for delivery of cancer care; half of these (15% overall) could use telemedicine for research purposes. In 2022, telemedicine was used for research purposes in 73% of practice groups. In multivariable models, self-identifying as a safety-net hospital was associated with a lower odd of telemedicine use for delivery of cancer care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.93), whereas affiliation with a designated critical access hospital was associated with a higher odd of telemedicine use for delivery of cancer care (AOR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.76). Having a general survivorship clinic (AOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.54) and number of oncology providers (increase per 10 providers; AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.65) were associated with telemedicine use for research purposes. CONCLUSION: Almost one third of NCORP practice groups used telemedicine for cancer care delivery in 2017. In 2022, there is high capacity among NCORP practices (almost three-quarters) to use telemedicine for research purposes, especially among practices with a general survivorship clinic and a greater provider number. 3/4 of #ncorp practices used #telemed for research, more use when they have more providers and a survivorship clinic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]