Search

To characterize delivery features and explore effectiveness of telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions that address disability in adult cancer survivors.A systematic review of electronic databases (CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library: Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, National Health Service's Health Technology Assessment, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) was conducted in December 2019 and updated in April 2021.Searches identified 3,499 unique studies. Sixty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. There were 81 unique interventions across included studies. Interventions were primarily delivered post-treatment and lasted an average of 16.5 weeks (SD = 13.1). They were most frequently delivered using telephone calls (59%), administered delivered by nursing professionals (35%), and delivered in a one-on-one format (88%). Risk of bias of included studies was primarily moderate to high. Included studies captured 55 measures of disability. Only 54% of reported outcomes had data that allowed calculation of effect sizes ranging -3.58 to 15.66.The analyses suggest small effects of telehealth-based cancer interventions on disability, though the heterogeneity seen in the measurement of disability makes it hard to draw firm conclusions. Further research using more diverse samples, common measures of disability, and pragmatic study designs is needed to advance telehealth in cancer rehabilitation.Telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions have the potential to increase access to care designed to reduce disability across the cancer care continuum.

ImportanceAlthough 1 in 4 head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors experience clinically significant body image distress (BID), a psychosocial morbidity that adversely affects quality of life, effective interventions for these patients are lacking.ObjectiveTo evaluate the acceptability and preliminary efficacy of BRIGHT (Building a Renewed ImaGe after Head and neck cancer Treatment), a brief tele–cognitive behavioral therapy, at reducing BID among HNC survivors.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis parallel-group pilot randomized clinical trial recruited adult HNC survivors with BID between August 13, 2020, and December 9, 2021, from the Medical University of South Carolina HNC clinic during a routine survivorship encounter. Data were analyzed from May 3 to June 16, 2022.InterventionsBRIGHT consisted of 5 weekly psychologist-led video tele–cognitive behavioral therapy sessions. Attention control (AC) consisted of dose- and delivery-matched survivorship education.Main Outcomes and MeasuresChange in HNC-related BID was assessed using IMAGE-HN (Inventory to Measure and Assess imaGe disturbancE–Head and Neck), a validated patient-reported outcome (score range, 0-84, with higher scores indicating greater HNC-related BID). Clinical response rate was measured as the proportion of patients with a clinically meaningful change in IMAGE-HN scores.ResultsOf the 44 HNC survivors with BID allocated to BRIGHT (n = 20) or AC (n = 24), the median (range) age was 63 (41-80) years, and 27 patients (61%) were female. Patients rated BRIGHT’s acceptability highly (all metrics had a mean rating of ≥4.5/5), and 19 of 20 patients (95%) receiving BRIGHT were likely or highly likely to recommend it to other HNC survivors with BID. BRIGHT decreased HNC-related BID from baseline to 1 month postintervention relative to AC (mean model-based difference in change in IMAGE-HN score, –7.9 points; 90% CI, –15.9 to 0.0 points) and from baseline to 3 months postintervention relative to AC (mean model-based difference in change in IMAGE-HN score, –17.1 points; 90% CI, −25.6 to −8.6 points). At 3 months postintervention, the clinical response rate of BRIGHT was 6.6-fold higher than AC (model-based odds ratio, 6.6; 90% CI, 2.0-21.8). The improvement in HNC-related BID for BRIGHT vs AC at 3 months was clinically significant, and the effect size was large (Cohen d, −0.9; 90% CI, −1.4 to −0.4).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this pilot randomized clinical trial, BRIGHT was acceptable, may result in a clinically meaningful improvement in HNC-related BID, and showed a high clinical response rate. These promising preliminary data support conducting a large efficacy trial to establish BRIGHT as the first evidence-based treatment for HNC survivors with BID.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03831100

212 Background: Nearly 1 in 3 head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors suffer from body image distress (BID), a source of devastating psychosocial morbidity that impairs quality of life. Evidence-based strategies to manage BID among HNC survivors are lacking. This trial evaluates the preliminary efficacy of BRIGHT (Building a Renewed ImaGe after Head & neck cancer Treatment), a brief tele-cognitive behavioral intervention, relative to attention control (AC), at reducing BID among HNC survivors. Methods: HNC survivors with clinically significant BID were randomized to BRIGHT (n = 20) or AC (n = 24). BRIGHT was delivered by a psychologist in 5 weekly video tele-medicine sessions. AC consisted of dose- and delivery-matched survivorship education. Changes in HNC-related BID and cancer-related BID were assessed using the IMAGE-HN and Body Image Scale (BIS), respectively. The effect of BRIGHT vs AC was analyzed using generalized linear models. Clinical response (proportion of patients with a clinically meaningful change in IMAGE-HN and BIS scores) for BRIGHT vs AC was analyzed with logistic regression. Results: The median age was 63 years (range 41-80) and 61% had stage III/IV HNC. BRIGHT decreased HNC-related BID from baseline to 1- and 3-months post-intervention relative to AC (Table). At 3-months post intervention, the response rate of BRIGHT on HNC-related BID was 6.6-fold higher than AC (OR = 6.6; 90% CI 2.0 to 21.8). BRIGHT decreased cancer-related BID from baseline to 3-months post-intervention vs AC (Table). The improvement in HNC-related BID and cancer-related BID for BRIGHT vs AC at 3-months was clinically significant and the effect size was large (Cohen’s d = -0.9, 90% CI -1.4 to -0.4 for each). Conclusions: In this pilot RCT, BRIGHT results in clinically meaningful improvements in BID among HNC survivors. These promising preliminary data support conducting a large efficacy trial to establish BRIGHT as the first evidence-based treatment for HNC survivors with BID. Clinical trial information: NCT03831100. [Table: see text]

A cancer diagnosis and treatment can lead to a broad range of symptoms and side effects that interfere with a survivor’s ability to work. Multilevel and multidisciplinary strategies are needed to support individuals as they co-navigate cancer treatment and work. Cancer rehabilitation is an example of a multidisciplinary approach to care with potential to improve work outcomes among cancer survivors. As illustrated by this case study, a referral to cancer rehabilitation can improve the domains of functioning that are needed for work. However, implementation science is needed to overcome key challenges to integrating rehabilitation into cancer care, including testing different models of care delivery that support routine screening and assessment of cancer-related work limitations and referral for rehabilitation services.

Background: Cancer survivors represent a growing population, heterogeneous in their need for medical care, psychosocial support, and practical assistance. To inform survivorship research and practice, this manuscript will describe the prevalent population of cancer survivors in terms of overall numbers and prevalence by cancer site and time since diagnosis. Methods: Incidence and survival data from 1975–2007 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program and population projections from the United States Census Bureau. Cancer prevalence for 2012 and beyond was estimated using the Prevalence Incidence Approach Model, assuming constant future incidence and survival trends but dynamic projections of the U.S. population. Results: As of January 1, 2012, approximately 13.7 million cancer survivors were living in the United States with prevalence projected to approach 18 million by 2022. Sixty-four percent of this population have survived 5 years or more; 40% have survived 10 years or more; and 15% have survived 20 years or more after diagnosis. Over the next decade, the number of people who have lived 5 years or more after their cancer diagnosis is projected to increase approximately 37% to 11.9 million. Conclusions: A coordinated agenda for research and practice is needed to address cancer survivors' long-term medical, psychosocial, and practical needs across the survivorship trajectory. Impact: Prevalence estimates for cancer survivors across the survivorship trajectory will inform the national research agenda as well as future projections about the health service needs of this population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(4); 561–70. ©2013 AACR.

Objective Although the Institute of Medicine provided a vision for effective psychosocial care for cancer survivors, limited guidance exists regarding the essential components of comprehensive care or progressive steps for implementing each component. This paper describes the development of a unique tool for assessing capacity to provide quality psychosocial care to cancer survivors and the results of the first implementation of this tool in community settings. Methods The psychosocial working group of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed the Cancer Psychosocial Care Matrix assessment tool. All NCCCP sites (n = 30, enrolled in 2007 and 2010) completed the matrix indicating their capacity for providing psychosocial care at entry into NCCCP (‘baseline’) after 2 years of NCCCP participation (2007 sites only) and within the coming year (‘future aspirations’). Results At baseline, matrix responses reflected few or no systematic processes in place for most components of comprehensive psychosocial care. However, reported capacity to deliver specific components improved at 2 years post-NCCCP entry for the 2007 sites and in all NCCCP sites' future aspirations. Conclusions With growing demand on cancer centers to meet new metrics of quality care, the psychosocial matrix can help centers systematically identify and develop steps to address gap areas in their capacity to meet these new standards. The Cancer Psychosocial Care Matrix appears to enable evaluation of psychosocial programs, may promote intentions to improve psychosocial services, and can facilitate communication of ‘best practices’ among cancer centers. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

This study reports cancer-treating institutions' capacity to deliver comprehensive psychosocial support services.Oncology care providers at 60 cancer-treating institutions completed surveys assessing the capacity of their institutions to provide psychosocial care. Capacity was assessed with the Cancer Psychosocial Care Matrix (CPCM) from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Scores represented individuals' perceptions of their cancer program's performance with respect to 10 fundamental elements of psychosocial care.Among 2134 respondents, 62% reported a mid-level capacity for ≥5 of 10 CPCM items. In comparison with other types of cancer programs (eg, NCI-designated, academic, or comprehensive centers), providers at community cancer programs reported a significantly greater capacity with respect to patient-provider communication, psychosocial needs assessment, and continuity in the delivery of psychosocial care over time. Nurses and primary medical providers reported a significantly lower capacity for linking patients and families with needed psychosocial services within their respective cancer programs. They also reported a significantly higher capacity for conducting follow-up, re-evaluations, and adjustments of psychosocial treatment plans.Cancer programs are performing moderately well in terms of communicating to patients the importance of psychosocial care, identifying patient psychosocial needs, and referring patients and families to psychosocial services. They are doing less well with respect to the provision of that care over time. Findings suggest that gaps in psychosocial service capacity are a function of patient, provider, and system characteristics. These results may be useful in formulating strategies to enhance psychosocial care delivery. Cancer 2016;122:1937-45. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Background: No studies have estimated the population-level burden of morbidity in individuals diagnosed with cancer as children (ages 0–19 years). We updated prevalence estimates of childhood cancer survivors as of 2011 and burden of morbidity in this population reflected by chronic conditions, neurocognitive dysfunction, compromised health-related quality of life, and health status (general health, mental health, functional impairment, functional limitations, pain, and fear/anxiety). Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data from 1975 to 2011 were used to update the prevalence of survivors of childhood cancers in the United States. Childhood Cancer Survivor Study data were used to obtain estimates of morbidity burden indicators, which were then extrapolated to SEER data to obtain population-level estimates. Results: There were an estimated 388,501 survivors of childhood cancer in the United States as of January 1, 2011, of whom 83.5% are ≥5 years after diagnosis. The prevalence of any chronic condition among ≥5-year survivors ranged from 66% (ages 5–19) to 88% (ages 40–49). Estimates for specific morbidities ranged from 12% (pain) to 35% (neurocognitive dysfunction). Generally, morbidities increased by age. However, mental health and anxiety remained fairly stable, and neurocognitive dysfunction exhibited initial decline and then remained stable by time since diagnosis. Conclusions: The estimated prevalence of survivors of childhood cancer is increasing, as is the estimated prevalence of morbidity in those ≥5 years after diagnosis. Impact: Efforts to understand how to effectively decrease morbidity burden and incorporate effective care coordination and rehabilitation models to optimize longevity and well-being in this population should be a priority. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(4); 653–63. ©2015 AACR.

This paper presents the first estimates of school-level intraclass correlation (ICC) for smoking-related variables from an urban and largely African American population. Seventh graders (n = 6967) from 39 middle schools in Memphis, TN, were measured at baseline in 1994 and annually through 1997. Mixed model regression methods were used to estimate variance components for school and residual error. School-level ICCs were large enough, if ignored, to substantially inflate the Type I error rate in an analysis of treatment effects. We show how those correlations can be reduced using regression adjustments and used to determine sample size for future school-based smoking prevention studies.

To meet the complex needs of a growing number of cancer survivors, it is essential to accelerate the translation of survivorship research into evidence-based interventions and, as appropriate, recommendations for care that may be implemented in a wide variety of settings. Current progress in translating research into care is stymied, with results of many studies un- or underutilized. To better understand this problem and identify strategies to encourage the translation of survivorship research findings into practice, four agencies (American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, LIVE STRONG: Foundation, National Cancer Institute) hosted a meeting in June, 2012, titled: "Biennial Cancer Survivorship Research Conference: Translating Science to Care." Meeting participants concluded that accelerating science into care will require a coordinated, collaborative effort by individuals from diverse settings, including researchers and clinicians, survivors and families, public health professionals, and policy makers. This commentary describes an approach stemming from that meeting to facilitate translating research into care by changing the process of conducting research-improving communication, collaboration, evaluation, and feedback through true and ongoing partnerships. We apply the T0-T4 translational process model to survivorship research and provide illustrations of its use. The resultant framework is intended to orient stakeholders to the role of their work in the translational process and facilitate the transdisciplinary collaboration needed to translate basic discoveries into best practices regarding clinical care, self-care/management, and community programs for cancer survivors. Finally, we discuss barriers to implementing translational survivorship science identified at the meeting, along with future directions to accelerate this process.

Although the Institute of Medicine provided a vision for effective psychosocial care for cancer survivors, limited guidance exists regarding the essential components of comprehensive care or progressive steps for implementing each component. This paper describes the development of a unique tool for assessing capacity to provide quality psychosocial care to cancer survivors and the results of the first implementation of this tool in community settings.The psychosocial working group of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed the Cancer Psychosocial Care Matrix assessment tool. All NCCCP sites (n=30, enrolled in 2007 nd 2010) completed the matrix indicating their capacity for providing psychosocial care at entry into NCCCP ('baseline') after 2 years of NCCCP participation (2007 sites only) and within the coming year ('future aspirations').At baseline, matrix responses reflected few or no systematic processes in place for most components of comprehensive psychosocial care. However, reported capacity to deliver specific components improved at 2 years post-NCCCP entry for the 2007 sites and in all NCCCP sites' future aspirations.With growing demand on cancer centers to meet new metrics of quality care, the psychosocial matrix can help centers systematically identify and develop steps to address gap areas in their capacity to meet these new standards. The Cancer Psychosocial Care Matrix appears to enable evaluation of psychosocial programs, may promote intentions to improve psychosocial services, and can facilitate communication of 'best practices' among cancer centers.

between 2010-2013 were selected for a retrospective analysis. The analysis will compare the LCDs against the REVEAL prognostication tool in predicting actual date of death and length of stay in hospice. Conclusions. The REVEAL risk calculator is a prognostication tool that could aid hospice and palliative care physicians in more accurately predicting survival time as well as appropriate and timely referrals to hospice. Implications for Research, Policy, or Practice. As therapies and treatment options progress, it is critical to continue to research prognostication measures. Up to date prognostication tools are required for improving clinical practice. Accurate prognostication allows appropriate plans of care.

42 Background: Growing national attention to the need for metrics to document delivery of quality palliative care has resulted in a proliferation of measures and standards (e.g., Commission on Cancer, Quality Oncology Practice Initiative). While these standards offer benchmarks to strive for, there are few resources for programs to self-assess development of organizational infrastructure to achieve them. Methods: The NCCCP Cancer Palliative Care Matrix (PCM) is a performance measure and evaluation tool to aid palliative care program development in the community setting. The PCM was completed annually by 21 NCCCP sites from 2010 to 2013. Four domains related to quality measures are reported here. Proportional-odds logistic regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between year and level of response. Results: Variations in program development were seen in the quality domains of symptom assessment, palliative care services offered across the continuum of care, identification for palliative care services, and use of quality measures. In 2010, 13/21 sites reported that symptom assessment were not performed or performed inconsistently. By 2013, 13 sites reported consistent assessment with standardized tools, with 5 of these 13 able to review sequential patient assessment (p=0.002). Similar gains were seen in the domains of providing services across the continuum of cancer care and utilization of quality measures such as patient/provider satisfaction and service utilization (p=0.004, p

36 Background: There is a paucity of research providing evaluation of implementation strategies contributing to provision of high quality early palliative care. Data from the NCI Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) offers insight into ways in which patients, providers, and systems negotiate the provision of early palliative care in the community setting. The purpose of this project was to test the implementation of early palliative care programs for patients diagnosed with a high lethality cancer in participating NCCCP centers. Methods: Thirteen of 21 NCCCP sites elected to participate. Data on project activities and progress was gathered quarterly between July 2012 and June 2014. Qualitative data were evaluated using inductive and deductive methods and models of care, barriers and strategies were identified. Results: Models of care described included group education visits for patients and caregivers, outpatient clinics, and electronic consultation referral triggers. Irrespective of the model of care, sites reported barriers at the patient, provider and system levels. Barriers included reluctance by both patients and providers to consider palliative care services due to the perception of "giving up," and inadequate staffing and clinic space were also cited as systemic barriers. Strategies for facilitating implementation included integrating palliative care staff into existing cancer center programs (e.g., multi-disciplinary clinics), electronic referrals, and utilizing navigation services, as well as a variety of programs targeted to increase oncologist "buy-in." Conclusions: These results provide guidance for both researchers and clinicians in designing future multi-level interventions to facilitate the delivery of early palliative care, and the importance of identifying and utilizing provider and system resources in program design, development and promotion. Provider buy-in is an essential factor, but patient and system resources are equally important components of a successful implementation strategy.

192 Background: The newest Commission on Cancer (CoC) standards focus on patient-centered care across the cancer continuum and include palliative care (PC) and psychosocial care (PS). Little is published regarding the challenges of implementing these standards in community oncology settings. To help examine the integration of PC and PS and to identify barriers and best practices, an assessment was conducted by sites selected to take part in the National Cancer Institutes’ Community Cancer Centers Project (NCCCP). Methods: The NCCCP’s goals to improve quality of care and reduce healthcare disparities included goals for expansion of PC and PS services. Volunteers formed workgroups using monthly teleconferences to share best practices and resources. A questionnaire based on the National Quality Forum (NQF) preferred practices was completed (January-April 2012) by 22 of 29 sites. Results: All respondents have inpatient PC available, 65% in the outpatient setting; 39% described PC as an integral part of their cancer program. All have designated outpatient staff providing symptom management and rehabilitation services. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are used at 78% of the centers. Interdisciplinary staff includes pharmacists and dietitians; integrative/complementary medicine is found in 57% of the centers. All have integrated PS services: social workers are available in 91% of sites, 30% have psychiatrists, and 30% have psychologists. Most perform psychosocial screening using the NCCN Distress Management tool; 74% have standardized processes. Spiritual support is present in 70% of programs, sexual counseling services in 26%. The majority provides bereavement support. 48% have an outpatient advanced directive program. Inpatient hospice beds are available in 52% of the institutions and 22% own a hospice. Conclusions: Challenges remain with implementation of psychosocial screening and care. Programs to address sexual counseling and advanced directives are lacking. Additional efforts are needed to integrate PC services across the cancer continuum. Project funded with federal funds from the NCI, Contract No. HHSN261200800001E.

250 Background: Although the Institute of Medicine provided a vision for effective psychosocial care for cancer survivors, guidance regarding the essential components of comprehensive care or progressive steps for implementing each component is limited. This abstract presents a unique tool for self-assessing capacity to provide quality psychosocial care to cancer survivors and results of the first full-scale implementation of this tool. Methods: The psychosocial workgroup of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed the Psychosocial Care Matrix Assessment Tool which covers 7 domains (e.g., distress screening, patient-provider communication, evaluation of psychosocial programs). All NCCCP sites (16 enrolled in 2007, 14 enrolled in 2010) completed the matrix in 2010 regarding their capacity for psychosocial care at entry into NCCCP (baseline), after two years of NCCCP participation (2007 sites only), and within the coming year (future aspirations). Results: At baseline, matrix responses reflected few or no systematic processes in place for most components of psychosocial care. However, reported capacity to deliver specific components improved at two years post-NCCCP entry for the 2007 sites and in all sites’ future aspirations. For example, about 80% of all sites reported no or inconsistent distress screening at baseline. After two years, 48% of the 2007 sites reported consistent screening with a standardized tool or consistent screening plus a comprehensive interview. Nearly all 2007 sites (89%) aspired to provide consistent screening plus comprehensive interview with 50% also hoping to add systematic follow-up screenings. The majority of 2010 sites (71%) aspired to provide consistent screening with a standardized tool. Conclusions: The psychosocial matrix tool was found to be useable and valuable. At the NCCCP sites, some aspects of psychosocial care (e.g., communicating the importance of psychosocial care) are more readily implemented than others (e.g., follow-up after a positive distress screen). With growing demand on cancer centers to meet new metrics of quality care, the psychosocial matrix can help identify and develop steps to address gap areas.