Spiritual and psychological distress in older and the oldest-old living with advanced cancer patients (O-OOAdCa) in a comprehensive cancer center.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23041-e23041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marvin Omar Delgado-Guay ◽  
Maxine Grace Jaucian De La Cruz ◽  
Linda Pang ◽  
Janet L. Williams ◽  
Eduardo Bruera
Keyword(s):  
Financial Distress ◽  
Oldest Old ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Spiritual Distress ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Living With Cancer

e23041 Background: Older adults living with cancer may experience multiple physical, emotional and spiritual symptoms. Limited literature describing the frequency of psychological and spiritual distress in O-OOAdCa. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients seen by the Palliative Care team from January 2013 to December 2016. We randomly sampled 200 patients aged < 65, 200 patients aged 65 - < 85) and 41 consecutive patients ≥85). Using the ESAS-FS, determined the frequency, and correlates of self-reported Spiritual Pain (SP) and Anxiety (Anx) and Depression (Dep) among these patients. Psycho-spiritual distress was defined as the presence of SP ≥1/10, Anx ≥2/10, and Dep ≥2/10. Results: 52% were female, 61% white, and 48% with ECOG of 2 in the group < 65, 48% were female, 61% white, and 43% an ECOG of 2 from group 65 to 84, and 49% were female, and 83% white, and 49% an ECOG of 3 from the group > 85 years. Spiritual Pain was present in 101/200 (51%) in the group < 65 vs. 61/187 (36%) in group 65-84 vs. 15/54 (29%) in ≥85, p = 0.004. Anxiety was present in 130/200 (65%), vs. 120/187 (65%), vs. 35/54(65%) per group respectively, p = NS. Depression was present in 109/200 (55%), vs. 100/187 (54%), vs. 29/54 (54%), respectively per group, p = NS. Psycho-spiritual distress was present in 65/200 (33%), vs. 44/187 (24%), vs. 11/54 (20%) per group respectively, P = NS. Logistic regression showed gender female correlated with higher psycho-spiritual distress (OR:2.08, p = 0.012), fatigue OR:1.32, p = 0.01, Well-Being OR:1.32, p = 0.02, Financial Distress OR:1.63, p = 0.00, age group < 65, OR:9.24, p = 0.03. Conclusions: High prevalence of Anxiety, Depression and Spiritual Pain in O-OOAdCa. Less frequency of Spiritual Pain in the Oldest-Old when compared with the rest of the population. Highlights the importance of an integrative Psycho-spiritual care to this population. More research is needed.

Outcomes of supportive/palliative care (SPC) for advanced cancer patients (AdCa) in a general public hospital and a comprehensive cancer center.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 208-208
Author(s):  
Marvin Omar Delgado-Guay ◽  
Jeanette Ferrer ◽  
Jewel Ochoa ◽  
Hilda Cantu ◽  
Janet L. Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Public Hospital ◽  
Clinical Pathways ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Time Range ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients

208 Background: AdCa experience severe physical, psychosocial and existential distress. Their needs might not be met only by standard care. We compared outcomes of AdCa receiving SPC at a General Public Hospital (GPH) and at a Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC). Methods: We reviewed 364 consecutive AdCa(182 at GPH and 182 at CCC). AdCa were managed by SPC-specialists with common clinical-pathways. We assessed symptoms(Edmonton Symptom Assessment System:ESAS) and outcomes at consult and first follow-up. Results: Race was White, African-American, and Hispanic in 42(23%), 70(39%), 63(35%) at GPH vs. 112(64%, p<0.0001), 30(17%, p<0.0001), 20(11%, p<0.0001) at CCC, respectively. Age, gender and cancer diagnoses were similar at both sites. 98(54%) at GPH vs. 181(99%) at CCC reported to have some health-insurance(p<0.0001). Symptoms at consult-time at GPH and CCC: Pain 133(85%) vs. 151(91%,p=0.0586); Fatigue 127(80%) vs. 153(94%,p<0.0001); Nausea 69(44%) vs. 89(55%,p=0.0438); Depression 79(51%) vs. 109(68%,p=0.0015); Anxiety 72(46%) vs. 121(75%,p<0.0001); Drowsiness 78(50%) vs. 119(76%, p<0.0001); Appetite 89(56%) vs. 146(91%, p<0.0001); Dyspnea 72(46%) vs. 107(65%,p=0.0004); Sleep 90(59%) vs. 142(88%,p<0.0001); and Well-Being 95(63%) vs. 132(93%,p<0.0001). Both SPC provided multiple not different interventions: opioid-management, medication review for polypharmacy, bowel-regimen, antiemetics, and interdisciplinary counseling. At follow-up ESAS-improvement(decrease ≥2 points) was: pain 21/80(26%) at GPH vs. 43/107(40%) at CCC(p=0.0469), anxiety 18/75(24%) vs. 40/98(41%,p=0.0202); appetite 15/74(20%) vs. 37/90(41%,p=0.0043); sleep 20/74(27%) vs. 42/95(44%,p=0.0215); nausea 23/77(30%) vs. 35/97(36%,p=0.3879); depression 18/74(24%) vs. 30/94(32%,p=0.2796). Median Time(range) from consult-to-follow-up at GPH 21 days(0-427) vs. 14 days(1-275,p=0.032), and from consult-to-death at GPH 53 days(1-699) vs. 51 days(1-898,p=0.8473). Conclusions: AdCa at GPH and CCC had frequent and severe-symptoms. Response-rate was lower and follow-up less-frequent at GPH. SPC needs to be more frequent and more resources are needed at GPH.

Characteristics of patients with unscheduled versus scheduled visits to outpatient supportive care center (SCC) at a comprehensive cancer center.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 144-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Ahsan Azhar ◽  
Maria Agustina Cerana ◽  
Vishidha Reddy Balankari ◽  
Madhuri Adabala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Financial Distress ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Opioid Dose ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale

144 Background: There is limited literature regarding outpatient palliative care, and even more limited literature describing factors associated with unscheduled visits. Our aim was to identify clinical characteristics of patients who walk-in (present unscheduled) to the outpatient SCC with the hypothesize that the patients who present for unscheduled visits have more severe symptom distress as compared to those patients who present for scheduled appointments. Methods: We compared 183 patients with unscheduled consults (CO) vs a random sample of 361 patients with scheduled CO and 159 patients with unscheduled follow-up (FU) visits vs a random sample of 318 patients with scheduled FU visits. Results: Among 544 total CO visits, unscheduled visits had worse median Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) symptoms (on a scale from 0 to 10): pain (6.5 vs 4.7, p < .0001), fatigue (p = .002), nausea (p = .017), depression (p = .003), anxiety (p = 0.02), sleep (p = .0002), and overall feeling of well-being (p = 0.0009). There was no statistical difference in shortness of breath, financial distress, nor spiritual pain. Daily opioid dose (MEDD in mg) was significantly higher in unscheduled CO visits (119.7 vs 62.9, p = .0004). Among 344 total FU visits, unscheduled visits had worse median ESAS symptoms: pain (5.7 vs 4.2, p = .0001), fatigue (p = .0006), depression (p = .019), anxiety (p = .014) and higher MEDD (111.3 vs 73.6, p = .0009). There was no difference in type of insurance coverage and better ECOG (p = .015) in unscheduled vs scheduled CO visits. Unscheduled CO visits were more likely to be from outside the Houston area (161/361, 45% vs. 40/133, 30%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Patients who are either referred as unscheduled CO visits or who present as unscheduled FU visits have higher levels of physical and psychosocial distress and higher opioid dose. Outpatient palliative care centers need to provide opportunity for walk-in referrals for timely management of these issues.

scholarly journals Changes in fatigue, barriers, and predictors towards physical activity in advanced cancer patients over a period of 12 months—a comparative study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Frikkel ◽  
M. Beckmann ◽  
N. De Lazzari ◽  
M. Götte ◽  
S. Kasper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Physical Functioning ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Psychological Conditions ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Purpose Physical activity (PA) is recommended to improve advanced cancer patients’ (ACP) physical functioning, fatigue, and quality of life. Yet, little is known about ACPs’ attitude towards PA and its influence on fatigue and depressiveness over a longer period. This prospective, non-interventional cohort study examined ACPs’ fatigue, depression, motivation, and barriers towards PA before and after 12 months of treatment among ACP Methods Outpatients with incurable cancer receiving treatment at a German Comprehensive Cancer Center reporting moderate/severe weakness/tiredness during self-assessment via MIDOS II were enrolled. Fatigue (FACT-F), depression (PHQ-8), cancer-related parameters, self-assessed PA behavior, motivation for and barriers against PA were evaluated (T0). Follow-up data was acquired after 12 months (T1) using the same questionnaire. Results At follow-up, fatigue (p=0.017) and depressiveness (p=0.015) had increased in clinical relevant extent. Physically active ACP did not show significant progress of FACT-F (p=0.836) or PHQ-8 (p=0.799). Patient-reported barriers towards PA remained stable. Logistic regression analyses identified motivation as a positive predictor for PA at both time points (T0, β=2.152, p=0.017; T1, β =2.264, p=0.009). Clinically relevant depression was a negative predictor for PA at T0 and T1 (T0, β=−3.187, p=0.044; T1, β=−3.521, p=0.041). Conclusion Our findings emphasize the importance of psychological conditions in physical activity behavior of ACP. Since psychological conditions seem to worsen over time, early integration of treatment is necessary. By combining therapy approaches of cognitive behavioral therapy and exercise in interdisciplinary care programs, the two treatment options might reinforce each other and sustainably improve ACPs’ fatigue, physical functioning, and QoL. Trial registration German Register of Clinical Trials, DRKS00012514, registration date: 30.05.2017

scholarly journals Fears, beliefs, and quality of life of patients with cancer vs the general population during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Lombardy

2021 ◽  
pp. 030089162110228
Author(s):  
Carla Ida Ripamonti ◽  
Giacomo Massa ◽  
Daniela Insolvibile ◽  
Mauro Guglielmo ◽  
Guido Miccinesi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
General Population ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Psychological Consequences ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Fear Of Cancer

Aim: To understand how patients with cancer reacted to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and whether their quality of life (QoL) was affected. Methods: In June 2020, 111 patients with cancer treated in the supportive care unit of a Comprehensive Cancer Center in Milan and 201 healthy controls from the general population were enrolled and assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively for fears and COVID-19–related beliefs as well as for QoL. Results: Fear of COVID-19 was significantly lower among patients (41% vs 57.6%; p = 0.007), as was fear of cancer (61.5% vs 85.6%; p < 0.001) and other diseases. The perceived risk of getting COVID-19 was lower among patients (25.2% vs 52.7%; p < 0.001), as was the belief of having been exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (18.1% vs 40.8%; p < 0.001). The physical component of QoL was better among the population (54.5 vs 43.8; p < 0.001); the reverse was true for patients’ psychological well-being (44.6 vs 39.6; p < 0.001). The qualitative data supported such results, showing a reduced psychological effect on the patients with cancer compared to the controls. Various reasons explain this result, including the awareness of being treated for cancer and nevertheless protected against getting infected in a cancer center of public health reorganized to continue treating patients by protecting them and personnel from the risk of infection. Conclusions: The experience of a cancer diagnosis, together with proper hospital reorganization, may act as protective factors from fears and psychological consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Meaning-Centered Group Psychotherapy for Patients with Advanced Cancer

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
William S. Breitbart ◽  
Shannon R. Poppito
Keyword(s):  
Group Psychotherapy ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Expression Of Emotion ◽  
Spiritual Well Being ◽  
The Face ◽  
Desire For Death

The importance of spiritual well-being and the role of "meaning" in moderating depression, hopelessness and desire for death in terminally-ill cancer and AIDS patients has been well-supported by research, and has led many palliative clinicians to focus on the development of non-pharmacologic interventions that can help their patients address these issues. Individual Meaning-Centered Group Psychotherapy (IMCP), an intervention developed and rigorously tested by the Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, is a seven-week program based around the work of Viktor Frankl, and which utilizes a mixture of didactics, discussion and experiential exercises that focus around particular themes related to meaning and advanced cancer. Patients are assigned readings and homework that are specific to each session's theme and which are utilized in each session. While the focus of each session is on issues of meaning and purpose in life in the face of advanced cancer and a limited prognosis, elements of support and expression of emotion are inevitable in the context of each group session.

scholarly journals Comparison of 2 Quality-of-Life Questionnaires in Women Treated for Breast Cancer: The RAND 36-Item Health Survey and the Functional Living Index–Cancer

2005 ◽  
Vol 85 (9) ◽  
pp. 851-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick W Wilson ◽  
Lorraine M Hutson ◽  
Deborah VanStry
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Health Survey ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Global Quality Of Life ◽  
Index Cancer

Abstract Background and Purpose. A variety of health status questionnaires have been used in physical rehabilitation studies involving women with breast cancer, but the usefulness of these questionnaires as measures of physical, mental, and social well-being has not been firmly established in this population. This study was conducted to assess the convergent and discriminative properties of the RAND 36-Item Health Survey and the Functional Living Index–Cancer (FLIC). Subjects Both questionnaires were administered concurrently to 110 outpatients treated surgically for breast cancer at a National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methods Bivariate correlations and a multi-trait–multi-method matrix were used to evaluate convergent validity between summary and subscale scores from both questionnaires. Discriminative validity was assessed by testing for expected differences between women who were treated for breast cancer with and without secondary lymphedema. Results Correlations between overall quality-of-life scores produced by both questionnaires were modest, indicating that the instruments focus on somewhat different aspects of health-related quality of life. Global quality-of-life and physical well-being scores were lower among women with lymphedema secondary to breast cancer. The FLIC demonstrated greater sensitivity to group differences in emotional well-being. Discussion and Conclusion The results suggest that neither questionnaire can be replaced by the other in studies of women treated for breast cancer. Both questionnaires were able to distinguish physical functioning deficits in women with lymphedema secondary to breast cancer, but symptom- or treatment-specific measures may be required to assess more subtle difficulties related to the emotional aspects of health and functioning in this population.

Quality improvement outcomes in an academic practice participating in ASCO’s Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 206-206
Author(s):  
Mary Anne Fenton
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Quality Control ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Academic Practice ◽  
Improvement Interventions

206 Background: The ASCO QOPI is an instrument for community and academic practices to assess quality and adherence to guidelines in areas of treatment planning and goals, chemotherapy consent documentation, smoking cessation, symptom control, palliative care, and disease specific measures. Following data submission QOPI summary reports for the submitting practice and QOPI aggregate are available for review and comparison. Methods: The academic practice of Rhode Island Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Center has participated in QOPI since the fall of 2008. QOPI measure summary reports for our practice and comparison to the Academic Aggregate are reviewed by our physicians after each round of chart abstraction, measures are identified for improvement. Interventions include education on practice improvement and development of policy and procedures for implementation by our Quality Control Officer in compliance with hospital policies. Results: Presented is a summary of quality improvement interventions implemented. Additional areas of quality improvement have been identified based on QOPI data, and improvement plans are ongoing including treatment summaries for patient and primary care physicians, tools to assess patient emotional well being, documentation of family history and referral for genetic assessment. Conclusions: QOPI provides a platform for collection, analysis and comparison of quality measures. For the measures of formulating a pain plan the intervention was a reminder to document the plan. For the measure hospice enrollment, a reflection on our hospice enrollment has lead to an increase in referral to palliative care. The ASCO QOPI program is a tool for quality improvement, our Quality Control Officer was essential in implementation of our improvement projects. [Table: see text]

Frequency and factors predicting the risk for aberrant opioid use in patients receiving outpatient palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 228-228
Author(s):  
Sriram Yennu ◽  
Tonya Edwards ◽  
Joseph Anthony Arthur ◽  
Zhanni Lu ◽  
John M Najera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Drug Use ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Financial Distress ◽  
Male Gender ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale

228 Background: Opioid misuse is a growing crisis among patients with chronic pain. Cancer patients at risk of aberrant drug behaviors (ADB) are frequently underdiagnosed in routine cancer care. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and factors predicting risk for Aberrant Opioid and Drug use among Patients receiving Outpatient Supportive Care Consultation at a Comprehensive Cancer Center Methods: In this retrospective study, 690 consecutive patients referred to a supportive care clinic were reviewed. Patients were eligible if they were ≥18 years, had a diagnosis of cancer, and were on opioids for pain for atleast a week. All patients were assessed with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), SOAPP-14, and CAGE-AID. At risk patients with aberrant opioid behavior (+Risk) was defined as SOAPP-14 score ≥7. Descriptive statistics, spearman correlation coefficient, multivariate analysis were performed. Results: 690/752 consults were eligible. A total of 135(20%)were +risk. 69(11%) were CAGE-AID +.SOAPP-14 scores were positively associated with CAGE-AID p < 0.001; male gender p = 0.007; ESAS pain p = < 0.006; ESAS depression p < 0.001; ESAS anxiety, p < 0.001, and ESAS financial distress p = < 0.001. Multivariate analysis indicated that the odds ratio for +Risk was 2.47 in patients with CAGE-AID+ (p < 0.001), 1.95 for male gender (p = 0.005), 1.11 per point for ESAS anxiety (p = 0.019), and 1.1 per point. for ESAS financial distress (p = 0.02). Conclusions: 20% of cancer patients on opioids presenting to supportive care center are at risk of aberrant drug behavior. Male patients with anxiety, financial distress, and prior alcoholism/illicit drug use are significant predictors of +Risk. Further research to effectively manage these patients is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document