Multifactorial analysis of cancer patients’ willingness for COVID-19 vaccination.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12062-12062
Author(s):  
Paris A. Kosmidis ◽  
Christie Lagogianni ◽  
Thanos Kosmidis
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Diagnosis Date ◽  
Time Since Diagnosis

12062 Background: Public health authorities advocate vaccinations for the general population, including cancer patients and survivors. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, its vaccine has been eagerly awaited, but the extent of cancer patients’ willingness to get vaccinated is not clear. As health promotion is crucial for these individuals, it is important to measure and analyze their willingness to receive the vaccine. Methods: A few days after the regulatory approval for the first COVID-19 vaccine, the CareAcross online interactive platforms were used to evaluate the willingness of patients to get vaccinated. Through an online survey, within a few hours, 1106 cancer patients selected either “Yes, I plan to get the vaccine” or “No, I will not get the vaccine”. The patients were from the UK, Germany, France, Spain or Italy; they had been diagnosed with breast, lung, prostate or colorectal cancer. Their responses were analyzed to determine how their cancer diagnosis (including date, metastatic status, and other aspects), and their country of origin, affected their reported willingness to get vaccinated. Results: Overall, 70.6% of patients indicated willingness to get the vaccine (WTV), and 29.4% reported the opposite (NWTV). The strongest determinant of WTV was the patient’s country of origin: patients in the UK, Spain, Italy, Germany and France reported WTV of 84.1%, 64.2%, 58.7%, 47.4% and 38.3%, respectively. The next strongest determinant was the time elapsed since the patient’s diagnosis: for the largest population with available diagnosis date (451 UK patients), the average time since diagnosis for patients with WTV vs NWTV was: breast, 3.5 vs 2.5 years; lung, 1.6 vs 1.4 years; prostate, 2.4 vs 3.3 years; colorectal, 1.9 vs 1.5 years. Among patients from other countries with available diagnosis date: as the time since diagnosis increased, among 148 Italian patients WTV gradually increased; among 94 Spanish patients, WTV substantially decreased; among 85 French patients, WTV gradually decreased; among 50 German patients, WTV substantially increased. There was no significant correlation of WTV percentages with cancer type; metastatic status; triple negative vs non-triple negative among breast cancer patients; non-small cell vs small cell among lung cancer patients. Conclusions: Despite long-standing efforts of the scientific community for health promotion through the COVID-19 vaccine, a substantial percentage of cancer patients reported no willingness to get vaccinated. This appeared to depend on each patient’s country of origin, and the time elapsed since their diagnosis. This patient input was collected shortly after the first vaccine’s approval. With increasing evidence of efficacy and safety through more vaccinations of citizens and patients, willingness is expected to increase. We are in the process of conducting a follow-up survey to track these changes and update the results to be reportable during ASCO.

Attention to diet, exercise, and weight in the oncology clinic: Results of a national patient survey.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10549-10549
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Ligibel ◽  
Lori J. Pierce ◽  
Catherine M. Bender ◽  
Tracy E Crane ◽  
Christina Marie Dieli-Conwright ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Diet And Exercise ◽  
To Receive

10549 Background: Obesity and related factors are increasingly associated with increased risk of developing and dying from cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) conducted a survey of cancer patients to assess their experience in receiving recommendations and referrals related to weight, diet and exercise as a part of their cancer care. Methods: An online survey was distributed to potential participants between March and June 2020 via ASCO channels and patient advocacy organizations, with an estimated reach of over 25,000 individuals. Eligibility criteria included being 18 years, living in the US, and having been diagnosed with cancer. Logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with recommendation and referral patterns. Results: In total, 2419 individuals responded to the survey. Most respondents were female (75.5%), 61.8% had an early-stage malignancy, 38.2% had advanced disease, and 49.0% were currently receiving treatment. Breast cancer was the most common cancer type (36.0%). Average BMI was 25.8 kg/m2. The majority of respondents consumed £2 servings of fruits and vegetables per day (50.9%) and exercised £2 times per week (50.4%). Exercise was addressed at most or some oncology visits in 57.5% of respondents, diet in 50.7%, and weight in 28.4%. Referrals were less common: 14.9% of respondents were referred to an exercise program, 25.6% to a dietitian and 4.5% to a weight management program. In multiple regression analyses, racial and ethnicity minority respondents were more likely to receive advice about diet (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.92, 95% CI 1.56-2.38) and weight (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.23-2.17) compared to non-Hispanic whites, individuals diagnosed with cancer in the past 5 yrs (vs > 5 yrs) were more likely to receive advice about exercise (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.23-1.79), and breast cancer patients were more likely to receive advice about exercise (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11-1.68) and weight (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03-2.07) than other cancer patients. Overall, 74% of survey respondents had changed their diet or exercise after cancer diagnosis. Respondents reporting that their oncologist spoke to them about increasing exercise or eating healthier foods were more likely to report a change in behavior than those whose oncologists did not (exercise: 79.6% vs 69.0%, P < 0.001; diet 81.1% vs 71.4%, P < 0.001). Respondents whose oncologist had spoken to them about exercise were more likely to exercise > 2 times per week compared to respondents whose oncologists did not address exercise (53.5% vs 44.1%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: In a national survey of oncology patients, slightly more than half of respondents reported attention to diet and exercise during oncology visits. Provider recommendations for diet and exercise were associated with positive changes in these behaviors. Additional attention to diet and exercise as part of oncology visits is needed to help support healthy lifestyle change in cancer patients.

scholarly journals A Survey of Therapeutic Radiographers’ Knowledge, Practices, and Barriers in Delivering Health Behaviour Advice to Cancer Patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nickola D. Pallin ◽  
Rebecca J. Beeken ◽  
Kathy Pritchard Jones ◽  
Nick Woznitza ◽  
Abigail Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Health Behaviour ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Healthy Lifestyle ◽  
Health Behaviours ◽  
Positive Health ◽  
Knowledge Resources ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Healthy Behaviour ◽  
And Training

Abstract Therapeutic radiographers (TRs) are well-placed to deliver advice to cancer patients; however, limited research exists on their practices in providing advice on healthy lifestyle behaviours. Through an online survey, this study aimed to explore TRs’ current practices, barriers, and facilitators around delivering healthy behaviour advice to cancer patients. An online survey was sent to 72 radiotherapy departments in the UK and 583 TRs responded to the survey. Findings showed that levels of enquiry and provision of advice on healthy behaviours were low, with less than 25% advising patients on physical activity, healthy eating, weight management, smoking cessation, and reducing alcohol intake as standard practice. Lack of knowledge, resources, and training were identified as barriers, in addition to perceived lack of patient interest and lack of time. TRs reported a strong desire to undergo training to enable them to deliver health behaviour advice to patients, with an identified preference for online training. Cancer patients look to healthcare professionals for advice on health behaviours, and TRs are well-placed to deliver this advice. The findings of this study provide insight into the areas that need addressing to enable TRs to support positive health behaviours among cancer patients.

scholarly journals Differences in Health Care Experiences Between Rare Cancer and Common Cancer Patients: Results From a National Cross-Sectional Survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eline de Heus ◽  
Vivian Engelen ◽  
Irene Dingemans ◽  
Carol Richel ◽  
Marga Schrieks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Rare Cancer ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Rare Cancers ◽  
Health Care Experiences ◽  
Common Cancer

Abstract Background Patients with rare cancers face challenges in the diagnostic and treatment phase, and in access to clinical expertise. Since studies on health care experiences of these patients in comparison to patients with more common cancers are scarce, we aimed to explore these differences.Methods Data were cross-sectionally collected among (former) cancer patients through a national online survey in the Netherlands (October 2019). Descriptive statistics were reported and subgroups (rare vs. common patients) were compared.Results In total, 7,343 patients (i.e., 1,856 rare and 5,487 common cancer patients) participated. Rare cancer patients were more often diagnosed and treated in different hospitals compared to common cancer patients (67% vs. 59%, p<0.001). Rare cancer patients received treatment more often in a single hospital (60% vs. 57%, p=0.014), but reported more negative experiences when treated in multiple hospitals than common cancer patients (14% vs. 9%, p<0.001). They also more often received advise from their physician about the hospital to go to for a second opinion (50% vs. 36%, p<0.001), were more likely to choose a hospital specialized in their cancer type (33% vs. 22%, p<0.001), and were more willing to travel as long as necessary to receive specialized care than common cancer patients (55% vs. 47%, p<0.001).Conclusions Rare and common cancer patients differ in their health care experiences. Health care for rare cancer patients can be further improved by proper referral to centers of expertise and building a clinical network specifically for rare cancers.

scholarly journals Prevalence and Prognostic Significance of Hyponatremia in Lung Cancer Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eszter Bartalis ◽  
Marin Gergics ◽  
Benedek Tinusz ◽  
Mária Földi ◽  
Szabolcs Kiss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background The prevalence of hyponatremia is highly variable among lung cancer patients. It is also an important predictive factor, according to numerous studies. However, its prevalence and prognostic significance in subgroups of lung cancer patients, e.g. in small cell and non-small cell lung cancers (SCLC and NSCLC, respectively), have not yet been evaluated in a meta-analysis.Methods We report this systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2009) Statement. We have registered our meta-analysis and review’s protocol to the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, with the following registration number: CRD42020167013. A systematic search was done in the following sources: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, a WHO Global Health Library. We extracted the effect measure for each outcome as the relative risk (RR) with the related 95% confidence interval (CI). Results We identified a total of 8127 potentially eligible studies and we included 25 studies in our evaluation. The prevalence of hyponatremia in lung cancer patients varied between 3% and 56.1% with an average of 23% without any significant differences between the following subgroups: cancer type (p=0.780), gender (p=0.223), age (p=0.773), ECOG state (p=0.317) and the extent of disease (p=0.999). Hyponatremia was more consistently an independent prognostic factor in NSCLC than in SCLC. The overall survival (OS) was significantly lower in hyponatremic compared to normonatremic patients at 10 months (RR: 0.59, 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.74, p<0.001) and at 20 months (RR: 0.44, 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.59, p<0.001), with worse survival rates in NSCLC than in SCLC (27% vs 42%) (p<0.001). If hyponatremia was corrected, OS at 10 months was 1.83 times higher than in the uncorrected hyponatremia group (95% CI, 1.37 to 2.44, p<0.001), but at 20 months no statistically significant difference could be found between these subgroups (p=0.067).Conclusions Low serum sodium levels have a negative impact on mortality at 10 and 20 months, which is more pronounced among NSCLC patients. The correction of hyponatremia has a positive effect on OS rates at 10 months, but this advantage disappears by 20 months.

The impact of COVID-19 on delivery of systemic anti-cancer treatment in urological cancer patients: A comparison with 2019 data from Guy’s Cancer Center.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17057-e17057
Author(s):  
Christina Karampera ◽  
Muhammad Khan ◽  
Beth Russell ◽  
Charlotte Moss ◽  
Maria J Monroy-Iglesias ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Severe Pneumonia ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Urological Cancer ◽  
Cancer Services ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

e17057 Background: The provision of cancer services has been strongly impacted by the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2. Our Cancer Centre in South-East London treats approximately 8,800 patients annually and is one of the largest Comprehensive Cancer Centres in the UK. When dealing with the second wave of COVID-19, it is important to further evaluate the safety of cancer treatments whilst balancing the risks of COVID-19 infection and complications. Here, we report on the patient/tumour characteristics of those patients undergoing SACT for a urological cancer diagnosis during the first wave, so as to help establish clinical guidelines for the management of these patients in a SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. Methods: All urological cancer patients receiving at least one SACT between 1st March- 31st May 2020 (COVID-19 period) were compared to the same timeframe in 2019. SARS-CoV2 infection was defined as a positive RT-PCR test; patients with symptoms or radiological changes alone were excluded. As part of Guy’s Cancer Cohort, we collected information on demographics, and cancer type, stage, and treatment. Results: A total of 455 patients (305 prostate, 102 renal, 38 bladder, and 10 testicular) received SACT in 2020 as compared to 535 (353 prostate, 129 renal, 37 bladder, and 15 testicular) in 2019 (15% overall decline). Patient characteristics in terms of demographics were fairly comparable, with 10% female patients in 2019 and 9% in 2020; 49% aged 70+ vs 45%; and 77% in the low socio-economic category vs 78%. There was an increase in patients with stage 4 (89% vs 95% in 2020) and a slight change in distribution of SACT types (2019 vs 2020): chemotherapy (18% vs 14%), immunotherapy (7% vs 10%), biological or targeted (63% vs 66%), combination of biological/targeted (6% vs 5%), other combinations (5% vs 5%). The proportion of SACT delivered as part of radical treatment declined from 3% to 0.2% in 2020. A total of 5 patients (1%) developed COVID-19 (2 prostate, 2 renal, and 1 bladder). All were male and aged 60+; three had 2+ comorbidities. One patient was on immunotherapy and four on biological or targeted treatment. Four patients had severe pneumonia and one died of their COVID-19 (bladder cancer). Conclusions: Whilst there was a decline of number of patients receiving SACT during COVID-19, we were still able to provide a safe high-quality urological cancer SACT pathway during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, with very few COVID-19 positive patients. In a next step we will evaluate oncological outcomes at 6 months follow-up

scholarly journals Differences in health care experiences between rare cancer and common cancer patients: results from a national cross-sectional survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eline de Heus ◽  
Vivian Engelen ◽  
Irene Dingemans ◽  
Carol Richel ◽  
Marga Schrieks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Rare Cancer ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Rare Cancers ◽  
Health Care Experiences ◽  
Common Cancer

Abstract Background Patients with rare cancers face challenges in the diagnostic and treatment phase, and in access to clinical expertise. Since studies on health care experiences of these patients in comparison to patients with more common cancers are scarce, we aimed to explore these differences. Methods Data were cross-sectionally collected among (former) adult cancer patients through a national online survey in the Netherlands (October 2019). Descriptive statistics were reported and subgroups (rare vs. common patients) were compared. Results In total, 7343 patients (i.e., 1856 rare and 5487 common cancer patients) participated. Rare cancer patients were more often diagnosed and treated in different hospitals compared to common cancer patients (67% vs. 59%, p < 0.001). Rare cancer patients received treatment more often in a single hospital (60% vs. 57%, p = 0.014), but reported more negative experiences when treated in multiple hospitals than common cancer patients (14% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). They also more often received advise from their physician about the hospital to go to for a second opinion (50% vs. 36%, p < 0.001), were more likely to choose a hospital specialized in their cancer type (33% vs. 22%, p < 0.001), and were more willing to travel as long as necessary to receive specialized care than common cancer patients (55% vs. 47%, p < 0.001). Conclusions Rare and common cancer patients differ in their health care experiences. Health care for rare cancer patients can be further improved by proper referral to centers of expertise and building a clinical network specifically for rare cancers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document