Do Stress Responses Promote Leukemia Progression? An Animal Study Suggesting a Role for Epinephrine and Prostaglandin-E2 through Reduced NK Activity

In leukemia patients, stress and anxiety were suggested to predict poorer prognosis. Oncological patients experience ample physiological and psychological stress, potentially leading to increased secretion of stress factors, including epinephrine, corticosteroids, and prostaglandins. Here we tested whether environmental stress and these stress factors impact survival of leukemia-challenged rats, and studied mediating mechanisms. F344 rats were administered with a miniscule dose of 60 CRNK-16 leukemia cells, and were subjected to intermittent forced swim stress or to administration of physiologically relevant doses of epinephrine, prostaglandin-E2 or corticosterone. Stress and each stress factor, and/or their combinations, doubled mortality rates when acutely applied simultaneously with, or two or six days after tumor challenge. Acute administration of the β-adrenergic blocker nadolol diminished the effects of environmental stress, without affecting baseline survival rates. Prolonged β-adrenergic blockade or COX inhibition (using etodolac) also increased baseline survival rates, possibly by blocking tumor-related or normal levels of catecholamines and prostaglandins. Searching for mediating mechanisms, we found that each of the stress factors transiently suppressed NK activity against CRNK-16 and YAC-1 lines on a per NK basis. In contrast, the direct effects of stress factors on CRNK-16 proliferation, vitality, and VEGF secretion could not explain or even contradicted the in vivo survival findings. Overall, it seems that environmental stress, epinephrine, and prostaglandins promote leukemia progression in rats, potentially through suppressing cell mediated immunity. Thus, patients with hematological malignancies, which often exhibit diminished NK activity, may benefit from extended β-blockade and COX inhibition

Comparing Physician and Nurse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG‐PS) Ratings as Predictors of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Cancer

BackgroundThe Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) scale is commonly used by physicians and nurses in oncology, as it correlates with cancer morbidity, mortality, and complications from chemotherapy and can help direct clinical decisions and prognostication. This retrospective cohort study aimed to identify whether ECOG-PS scores rated by oncologist versus nurses differ in their ability to predict clinical outcomes.Materials and methodsOver 19 months, 32 oncologists and 41 chemotherapy nurses from a single academic comprehensive cancer center independently scored ECOG-PS (range: 0-5) for a random sample of 311 patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Logistic regression models were fit to evaluate the ability of nurse and physician ECOG-PS scores, as well as the nurse-physician ECOG-PS score difference (nurse minus physician), to predict the occurrence of chemotherapy toxicity (CTCAE v4, grade ≥3) and hospitalizations within 1 month from ECOG-PS ratings, as well as 6-month mortality or hospice referrals.ResultsPhysician/nurse ECOG-PS agreement was 71% (Cohen's κ = 0.486, p < .0001). Nurse ECOG-PS scores had stronger odds ratio for 6-month mortality or hospice (odds ratio [OR], 3.29, p < .0001) than physician ECOG-PS scores (OR, 2.71, p = .001). Furthermore, ECOG-PS ratings by nurses, but not physicians, correlated with 1-month chemotherapy toxicity (OR, 1.44, p = .021) and 1-month hospitalizations (OR, 1.57, p = .041). Nurse-physician disagreement, but only when physicians gave "healthier" (lower) ratings, was also associated with worse outcomes (chemotherapy toxicity OR = 1.51, p = .045; 1-month hospitalization OR, 1.86, p = .037; 6-month mortality or hospice OR, 2.99, p < .0001).ConclusionNurse ECOG-PS ratings seem more predictive of important outcomes than those of physicians, and physician-nurse disagreement in ECOG-PS ratings predicts worse outcomes; scoring by nurses may result in additional clinical benefit.Implications for practiceNurse-rated Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) scores, compared with those rated by oncologists, better predicted hospitalizations and severe chemotherapy toxicity within 1 month from ECOG-PS assessment, as well as mortality or hospice referrals within 6 months. Physician-nurse disagreement in ECOG-PS scoring was associated with worse hospitalization, chemotherapy toxicity, and mortality and hospice referral rates. Rating performance statuses of patients with cancer by nurses instead or in addition to oncologists can result in additional clinical benefits, such as improved prognostication, as well as better informed clinical decision making regarding whether or not to administer chemotherapy, the need for additional supportive care, and goals of care discussions

Mobile app activity engagement by cancer patients and their caregivers informs remote monitoring

Abstract Mobile phone applications (“apps”) are potentially an effective, low-burden method to collect patient-reported outcomes outside the clinical setting. Using such apps consistently and in a timely way is critical for complete and accurate data capture, but no studies of concurrent reporting by cancer patient–caregiver dyads have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. This study assessed app engagement, defined as adherence, timing, and attrition with two smartphone applications, one for adult cancer patients and one for their informal caregivers. This was a single-arm, pilot study in which adult cancer patients undergoing IV chemotherapy or immunotherapy used the DigiBioMarC app, and their caregivers used the TOGETHERCare app, for approximately one month to report weekly on the patients’ symptoms and wellbeing. Using app timestamp metadata, we assessed user adherence, overall and by participant characteristics. Fifty patient–caregiver dyads completed the study. Within the one-month study period, both adult cancer patients and their informal caregivers were highly adherent, with app activity completion at 86% for cancer patients and 84% for caregivers. Caregivers completed 86% of symptom reports, while cancer patients completed 89% of symptom reports. Cancer patients and their caregivers completed most activities within 48 h of availability on the app. These results suggest that the DigiBioMarC and TOGETHERCare apps can be used to collect patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes data during intensive treatment. From our research, we conclude that metadata from mobile apps can be used to inform clinical teams about study participants' engagement and wellbeing outside the clinical setting

Wearable activity monitors to assess performance status and predict clinical outcomes in advanced cancer patients.

An objective evaluation of patient performance status (PS) is difficult because patients spend the majority of their time outside of the clinic, self-report to providers, and undergo dynamic changes throughout their treatment experience. Real-time, objective activity data may allow for a more accurate assessment of PS and physical function, while reducing the subjectivity and bias associated with current assessments. Consenting patients with advanced cancer wore a wearble activity monitor for three consecutive visits in a prospective, single-cohort clinical trial. Provider-assessed PS (ECOG/Karnofsky) and NIH PROMIS® patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed at each visit. Associations between wearable activity monitor metrics (steps, distance, stairs) and PS, clinical outcomes (adverse events, hospitalizations, survival), and PROs were assessed using correlation statistics and in multivariable logistic regression models. Thirty-seven patients were evaluated (54% male, median 62 years). Patients averaged 3700 steps, 1.7 miles, and 3 flights of stairs per day. Highest correlations were observed between average daily steps and ECOG-PS and KPS (r = 0.63 and r = 0.69, respectively p < 0.01). Each 1000 steps/day increase was associated with reduced odds for adverse events (OR: 0.34, 95% CI 0.13, 0.94), hospitalizations (OR: 0.21 95% CI 0.56, 0.79), and hazard for death (HR: 0.48 95% CI 0.28-0.83). Significant correlations were also observed between activity metrics and PROs. Our trial demonstrates the feasibility of using wearable activity monitors to assess PS in advanced cancer patients and suggests their potential use to predict clinical and patient-reported outcomes. These findings should be validated in larger, randomized trials

Care in the time of COVID-19: impact on the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in a large, integrated health care system.

PurposesTo delineate operational changes in Kaiser Permanente Northern California breast care and evaluate the impact of these changes during the initial COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place period (SiP, 3/17/20-5/17/20).MethodsBy extracting data from institutional databases and reviewing electronic medical charts, we compared clinical and treatment characteristics of breast cancer patients diagnosed 3/17/20-5/17/20 to those diagnosed 3/17/19-5/17/2019. Outcomes included time from biopsy to consultation and treatment. Comparisons were made using Chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.ResultsFewer new breast cancers were diagnosed in 2020 during the SiP period than during a similar period in 2019 (n = 247 vs n = 703). A higher percentage presented with symptomatic disease in 2020 than 2019 (78% vs 37%, p < 0.001). Higher percentages of 2020 patients presented with grade 3 (37% vs 25%, p = 0.004) and triple-negative tumors (16% vs 10%, p = 0.04). A smaller percentage underwent surgery first in 2020 (71% vs 83%, p < 0.001) and a larger percentage had neoadjuvant chemotherapy (16% vs 11%, p < 0.001). Telehealth utilization increased from 0.8% in 2019 to 70.0% in 2020. Times to surgery and neoadjuvant chemotherapy were shorter in 2020 than 2019 (19 vs 26 days, p < 0.001, and 23 vs 28 days, p = 0.03, respectively).ConclusionsDuring SiP, fewer breast cancers were diagnosed than during a similar period in 2019, and a higher proportion presented with symptomatic disease. Early-stage breast cancer diagnoses decreased, while metastatic cancer diagnoses remained similar. Telehealth increased significantly, and times to treatment were shorter in 2020 than 2019. Our system continued to provide timely breast cancer treatment despite significant pandemic-driven disruption