Association of Patient-Reported Outcomes With Subsequent Nonfatal Self-injury After a New Cancer Diagnosis

Interventions for Concerning Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine cancer care improves patient-clinician communication, decision making, and overall patient satisfaction. Recommendations exist regarding standardized ways to collect, store, and interpret PRO data. However, evidence on incorporating PROs into cancer process of care, especially the type of HIs that are warranted after observing a concerning PRO and the effectiveness of these HIs are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study summarizes HIs triggered after PRO completion and their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes for adults being treated for cancer types that are resource intensive and associated with high symptom burden [i.e., gastrointestinal (GI), lung, and head and neck cancer (HNC)]. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with poor implementation of PROs.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A literature search of peer-reviewed publications on MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, APA PsycInfo, Scopus, and Cochrane was conducted following PRISMA guidelines from 1 January 2012, to 31 July 2022. Trial and real-world studies describing HIs after PRO completion for adult patients being treated for GI, lung, and HNC were included. Sixteen studies involving 144,496 patients were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist was used to assess risk of bias.

FINDINGS

Of the 16 included studies, 5 included patients with HNC. Commonly used PRO measurement tools were the PRO-CTCAE and ESAS. Only three studies reported specific HIs delivered in response to concerning PROs and measured their effectiveness on patient outcomes. In all three studies, these HIs significantly improved cancer-related care. The most common HIs undertaken in response to concerning PROs were referrals to other specialists/allied healthcare professionals, medication changes, or self-management advice. Provider-related barriers to PRO measurement and delivery included the overwhelming number of alerts, the time required to address each PRO and the unclear role of healthcare providers in response to these alerts. Patient-related barriers included lower digital literacy and socioeconomic status, older age, rural living, and patients suffering from GI and HNC.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review highlights that PRO-triggered HIs are heterogenous and can improve patient quality of life. Further studies are necessary to determine the types of interventions with the greatest impact on patient care and outcomes.

Gaps in Depression Symptom Management for Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To understand practice patterns and identify care gaps within a large-scale depression screening program for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC).

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

This was a population-based study of adults diagnosed with a HNC between January 2007 and October 2020. Each patient was observed from time of first symptom assessment until end of study date, or death. The exposure of interest was a positive depressive symptom screen on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). Outcomes of interest included psychiatry/psychology assessment, social work referral, or palliative care assessment. Cause specific hazard models with a time-varying exposure were used to investigate the exposure-outcome relationships.

RESULTS

Of 14,054 patients with HNC, 9016 (64.2%) reported depressive symptoms on at least one ESAS assessment. Within 60 days of first reporting depressive symptoms, 223 (2.7%) received a psychiatry assessment, 646 (7.9%) a social work referral, and 1131 (13.9%) a palliative care assessment. Rates of psychiatry/psychology assessment (HR 3.15 [95% CI 2.67-3.72]), social work referral (HR 1.83 [95% CI 1.64-2.02]), and palliative care assessment (HR 2.34 [95% CI 2.19-2.50]) were higher for those screening positive for depression. Certain patient populations were less likely to receive an assessment including the elderly, rural residents, and those without a prior psychiatric history.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of head and neck patients report depressive symptoms, though this triggers a referral in a small number of cases. These data highlight areas for improvement in depression screening care pathways.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 133:2638-2646, 2023.

Mental health considerations in patients undergoing complex head and neck reconstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize recent advances in the psycho-oncology literature, with a focus on findings relevant to the head and neck cancer patient.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with cancer are at an increased risk of suicide and self-harm. Head and neck cancer patients are among the highest risk compared with other cancer patients. Unique challenges pertaining to disfigurement and voicelessness may, in part, explain these observations. Patient-reported outcome measures can be used to help identify high-risk patients.

SUMMARY

Psychosocial support needs are highest for head and neck cancer patients. Patient-reported outcome measures should be integrated within clinical workflows to identify high-risk patients.