Recommended Patient-Reported Core Set of Symptoms and Quality-of-Life Domains to Measure in Ovarian Cancer Treatment Trials

There is no consensus as to what symptoms or quality-of-life (QOL) domains should be measured as patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in ovarian cancer clinical trials. A panel of experts convened by the National Cancer Institute reviewed studies published between January 2000 and August 2011. The results were included in and combined with an expert consensus-building process to identify the most salient PROs for ovarian cancer clinical trials. We identified a set of PROs specific to ovarian cancer: abdominal pain, bloating, cramping, fear of recurrence/disease progression, indigestion, sexual dysfunction, vomiting, weight gain, and weight loss. Additional PROs identified in parallel with a group charged with identifying the most important PROs across cancer types were anorexia, cognitive problems, constipation, diarrhea, dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, and insomnia. Physical and emotional domains were considered to be the most salient domains of QOL. Findings of the review and consensus process provide good support for use of these ovarian cancer–specific PROs in ovarian cancer clinical trials

Advancing the science of distress screening and management in cancer care

Given the high prevalence (30-35%) of psychosocial and psychiatric morbidity amongst cancer patients in any phase of the disease trajectory, screening for emotional problems and disorders has become mandatory in oncology. As a process, screening begins at the entry to the cancer care system and continues at clinically meaningful times, periodically during active cancer care, or when clinically indicated. The goal is to facilitate proper referral to psychosocial oncology specialists for more specific assessment and care, as well as treatment and evaluation of the response, according to the implementation of distress management guidelines. In this editorial, we will provide a non-exhaustive overview of relevant protocols, with particular reference to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Distress Management in Oncology Guidelines, and review the challenges and the problems in implementing screening, and the assessment and management of psychosocial and psychiatric problems in cancer centres and community care

Effect of Androgen Deprivation Therapy on Sexual Function and Bother in Men with Prostate Cancer: A Controlled Comparison

Objectives: The adverse sexual effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) on men with prostate cancer have been well described. Less well known is the relative degree of sexual dysfunction and bother associated with ADT compared to other primary treatment modalities such as radical prostatectomy. We sought to describe the trajectory and relative magnitude of changes in sexual function and bother in men on ADT and to examine demographic and clinical predictors of ADT\u27s adverse sexual effects. Methods: Prostate cancer patients treated with ADT (n = 60) completed assessments of sexual function and sexual bother 3 times during a 1‐year period after the initiation of ADT. Prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy only and not receiving ADT (n = 85) and men with no history of cancer (n = 86) matched on age and education completed assessments at similar intervals. Results: Androgen deprivation therapy recipients reported worsening sexual function and increasing bother over time compared to controls. Effect sizes for the differences in sexual function were large to very large, and for bother were small to very large. Age younger than 83 years predicted relatively poorer sexual function, and age younger than 78 years predicted greater sexual bother at 12 months in men on ADT compared to men not on ADT. Conclusions: Most men on ADT for prostate cancer will never return to baseline levels of sexual function. Interventions focused on sexual bother over function and designed to help couples build and maintain satisfying relationship intimacy are likely to more positively affect men\u27s psychological well‐being while on ADT than medical or sexual aids targeting sexual dysfunction

Right Place, Right Time: Preferences of Women with Ovarian Cancer for Delivery of CAM Education

The purpose of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of on-site complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) education sessions to maximize quality of life for women with ovarian cancer. The pilot intervention consisted of four weekly sessions, each focusing the techniques and benefits of a particular CAM topic (e.g., nutrition, massage, relaxation). Participants were recruited from the Center for Women’s Oncology at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center from 2010 to 2012. Eligible participants had an ovarian cancer diagnosis with a life expectancy of at least 12 months, and were 18 years or older. The Gynecologic Oncology research nurse invited women in the outpatient clinic who matched the eligibility criteria. The research nurse explained the study and provided an informed consent form and return envelope. Because ovarian cancer is not only a rare cancer but, also, most patients seen at Moffitt have recurrent or advanced disease, many women did not have an adequate ECOG score. Many women who consented had rapid changes in health status, with morbidity and mortality outpacing recruitment of the 20 needed to proceed with the four education sessions. Baseline and follow-up surveys were conducted to assess changes in QOL, knowledge, and satisfaction with the intervention. While 27 women consented and 24 women completed the baseline survey, only five women participated in the intervention. The five women who participated were all white, and at time of consenting had a mean age of 60 (SD 9.08) and an average of 102 months (SD 120.65) since diagnosis, and were all on active treatment, except for one. The intervention pilot did not encounter difficulties with regard to recruitment, but suffered problems in achieving an adequate number of women to launch the on-site sessions because of rapidly changing morbidity and significant mortality. The team recognized that a larger-scaled intervention comprised of on-site sessions was impractical and compared attendance rates with a more convenient format currently underway in the Women’s Oncology program at Moffitt. While low participation prevented an intervention analysis of scientific merit, the study data is informative with regard to barriers, facilitators, and alternative methods for sharing useful information to women with advanced ovarian cancer. The comparison strongly suggested that CAM education for women compromised by the disease and treatment associated with ovarian cancer would best be delivered in the convenient-access format that allowed remote access to live and recorded discussions of specific topics