Neighborhood-Level Social Determinants of Health Burden Among Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Patients and Impact on Overall Survival

BACKGROUND: Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation has been linked to adverse health outcomes, yet it is unclear whether neighborhood-level social determinants of health (SDOH) measures affect overall survival in adolescent and young adult patients with cancer. METHODS: This study used a diverse cohort of adolescent and young adult patients with cancer (N = 10 261) seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center. Zip codes were linked to Area Deprivation Index (ADI) values, a validated neighborhood-level SDOH measure, with higher ADI values representing worse SDOH. RESULTS: ADI was statistically significantly worse (P \u3c .050) for Black (61.7) and Hispanic (65.3) patients than for White patients (51.2). Analysis of ADI by cancer type showed statistically significant differences, mainly driven by worse ADI in patients with cervical cancer (62.3) than with other cancers. In multivariable models including sex, age at diagnosis, cancer diagnosis, and race and ethnicity, risk of shorter survival for people residing in neighborhoods with the least favorable ADI quartile was greater than for individuals in the most favorable ADI quartile (hazard ratio = 1.09, 95% confidence interval = 1.00 to 1.19, P = .043). CONCLUSION: Adolescent and young adult patients with cancer and the worst ADI values experienced a nearly 10% increase in risk of dying than patients with more favorable ADI values. This effect was strongest among White adolescent and young adult survivors. Although the magnitude of the effect of ADI on survival was moderate, the presence of a relationship between neighborhood-level SDOH and survival among patients who received care at a tertiary cancer center suggests that ADI is a meaningful predictor of survival. These findings provide intriguing evidence for potential interventions aimed at supporting adolescent and young adult patients with cancer from disadvantaged neighborhoods

Starting an adolescent and young adult program: some success stories and some obstacles to overcome.

Item does not contain fulltextAdolescent and young adult (AYA) patients seem to be in a sort of no-man's land, halfway between the two different worlds of pediatric and adult medical oncology and bearing the brunt, in terms of inclusion in clinical trials and quality of professional care, of the lack of integration between these two worlds. This article discusses the different organization models of care used in pediatric oncology (mainly family-focused) and in adult medical oncology (disease-focused). There is a growing awareness that these models are not ideally suited to the complex needs of AYA patients, which require a different, new, patient-focused multidisciplinary approach. A comprehensive, multipronged effort is required to bridge the gap in the care of AYA patients, with the ultimate challenge of creating a new discipline, AYA oncology. In this article, we review the experiences of AYA oncology programs in Europe, North America, and Australia, focusing on similarities and differences in strategy, as well as the major challenges and opportunities faced by these programs. Among the most important factors for the successful establishment of an AYA oncology service are the degree of engagement of both pediatric and adult medical oncologists, the philanthropic support of powerful charities, and the role of dedicated professionals across a range of disciplines in driving the development of services for AYA patients

Randomized Clinical Trial of a Self-care and Communication Intervention for Parents of Adolescent/Young Adults Undergoing High-Risk Cancer Treatment: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group

Background: Parents of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer offer primary support to their children and often experience their own high levels of distress, affecting parent-AYA communication and quality of life. Objective: To reduce parent distress and improve communication during high-risk cancer treatment, we examined efficacy of a self-care and communication intervention for parents and indirect benefit for AYAs receiving a therapeutic music video (TMV) intervention. Methods: In this study, we conducted a multisite, randomized controlled trial with AYAs and parents enrolled as dyads (n = 110). Parents were randomized to intervention or low-dose control; all AYAs received TMV. Data collection occurred at baseline, 2 weeks post intervention (T2), and 90 days post intervention (T3). Results: There were no significant between-group differences on primary outcomes for parents or AYAs. We did find significant differences favoring the parent intervention group on parenting confidence at T2 and marginally better outcomes for family adaptability/cohesion at T3. Both groups exhibited significant within-group improvement for parent distress (state anxiety, T3; perceived stress, T2 and T3; mood, T3), state anxiety (T2) intervention only, and family strengths control group only. Qualitative data demonstrate the parent intervention raised self-awareness and parent confidence in the short term. Conclusion: Parents found their intervention helpful. Absence of significant results may be due to short intervention duration, need for tailored content, underpowered sample, and potential indirect parent benefit from AYA participation in TMV. The parent intervention did not provide an indirect benefit for AYAs. Implications for nursing: Parents identified their own need for communication and support from nurses. Nurses can optimize AYA care by attending to parent needs through supportive listening and encouraging self-care