Neuroprotective effect of SSRI among 781 cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: A URCC CCOP Study

9512

Background: Cancer and its treatment impact important areas of cognitive function such as attention and memory, which are essential to patients effective psychosocial functioning and quality of life. Previous studies reported that 17% to 75% of cancer patients reported cognitive dysfunction during and after treatment. Few studies, however, have examined the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions to control cancer-related cognitive dysfunction (CRCD). The present study examines the effect of paroxetine hydrochloride (Paxil, P) on CRCD. Methods: The sample included 574 female and 207 male cancer patients between 22 and 87 years. Memory Problems was assessed using a Self-Reported Memory Problem (SRMP) measures derived from the Fatigue Symptom Checklist that relate to memory dysfunction. Cronbach coefficient alpha (α) and a principal components analysis (PCA) were conducted to determine reliability and appropriateness of the SRMP for this sample. A repeated measure ANOVA (r-ANOVA) and t-tests were used to assess changes in mean scores on the SRMP and the effect of P versus placebo. Depression was assessed using the CESD. Results: Scale reliability assessment showed α = .90, supporting the reliability of the SRMP. The PCA revealed a one-component structure that explained 72% of the variance. The r-ANOVA showed a significant difference between scores on the SRMP at baseline (after first chemotherapy cycle, and before P) and follow-up (after four cycles of chemotherapy, after P) (Wilks' Lambda = .99, F (1, 583) = 5.52, p = 0.02). The t-tests also showed a significant effect of P on CRMP (p < 0.05). P had a significant effect after controlling for depression (p < 0.001) Conclusions: CRCD is a serious problem for patients that can be alleviated by P. Future studies should examine the usefulness of other psychotropic agents and combined behavioral and pharmacologic interventions to control CRCD. Supported by NCI Grants U10CA37420, R25CA102618, and 3U01CA116924–04S1.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Communication about physical activity in an underserved patient population

17012

Background: Promoting physical activity may help reduce the incidence of several cancers. The 5A model, used to promote other patient behavior changes in clinical practice, may be applicable to physical activity. Our goal was to determine clinicians’ use of the 5A (Ask, Advise, Agree, Assist, Arrange) guidelines when communicating about physical activity and cancer risk with an underserved patient population. Methods: Analysis of 50 audiotaped transcribed office visits with adult patients and their clinicians in two community health centers in Rochester, NY. We conducted post-visit interviews to assess patient recall of communication about physical activity.We used descriptive statistics to assess patient demographics and the frequency of each of the 5As occurring in the audiotaped visits. Analysis of the transcripts of the visits explored other contextual factors related to use of the 5As for communication about physical activity and cancer risk. Results: Patients were predominantly female (70%) and were African American (50%), Caucasian (35%) and other/mixed ethnicity (15%). In the 50 office visits, there were twelve (24%) Ask, twelve (24%) Advise, three (6%) Agree, two (4%) Assist, and one (2%) Arrange statement. Physical activity communication was mostly (92%) clinician-initiated; the only discussion which included all 5As was patient-initiated. No discussion linked physical activity to cancer risk or cancer prevention. Patients recalling the most communication about physical activity with their clinician reported that it was contextualized to their specific health needs, included support and encouragement, and consisted of clear, simple advice. Conclusions: Communication about physical activity incorporating the Agree and Arrange steps of the 5As was infrequent. Cancer prevention interventions should target these steps and prompt the patient to initiate communication to improve physical activity in underserved populations. This project was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute, R25- CA102618.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Post-treatment skin reactions reported by cancer patients differ by race, not by treatment or expectations

Cancer patients may experience skin problems while undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Frequency of skin reactions may be influenced by skin pigmentation and psychological factors. A Symptom Inventory completed by 656 cancer patients nationwide before and after chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or chemotherapy plus radiation therapy was analysed to determine if treatment type, race (Black vs White), and pretreatment expectations influenced post-treatment skin reactions. Subsequent analysis of a local Symptom Inventory completed weekly for 5 weeks by 308 patients receiving radiation therapy examined severity of reported skin reactions. Significantly more patients receiving radiation therapy had stronger expectations of skin problems (62%) than patients receiving chemotherapy (40%, P=0.001) or chemotherapy plus radiation therapy (45%, P=0.003). Overall, expectations did not correlate with patient reported post-treatment skin problems in white (r=0.014, P=0.781) or black (r=0.021, P=0.936) patients. Although no significant difference was found between black and white patients in their pretreatment expectations of skin problems (P=0.32), black patients (10 out of 18, 56%) reported more skin problems than white patients (90 out of 393, 23%, P=0.001). Similarly, the local study showed that significantly more black patients (1 out of 5, 20%) reported severe skin reactions at the treatment site than white patients (12 out of 161, 8%). A direct correlation was observed between severity of skin problems and pain at the treatment site (r=0.541, P<0.001). Total radiation exposure did not significantly correlate with the report of skin problems at the treatment site for white or black patients. Overall, black patients reported more severe post-treatment skin problems than white patients. Our results suggest that symptom management for post-treatment skin reactions in cancer patients receiving radiation treatment could differ depending on their racial background.

Cancer patients’ reported illness and treatment related concerns, perception of availability and use of available information: The influence of socio-demographics

6077

Backgrounds: Studies that examine the roles of socio-demographics in illness perception and healthcare communication among cancer patients are relatively absent. Methods: This sample included 973 (904 whites, 69 non-whites) patients undergoing treatment for cancer at 20 geographically separate sites. Concerns over understanding the diagnosis and treatment plan were assessed on a 5-point-scale (“1=no concern” to “5=a great deal of concern”). Patients were also asked if: a) whether or not information was available to them, b) if yes, did they used it or not, and c) would more information have been helpful. χ2-analyses and ANCOVAs, were conducted to examine group differences in education, occupation, and concern over understanding the diagnosis and treatment plan. Logistic regressions were conducted to assess the independent association of race to patients’ beliefs that additional information would have been helpful. Results: χ2 analyses showed no significant difference between whites and non-whites in education and occupation (Ps > .05). Subsequent ANCOVAs showed significant group differences in concerns over understanding the diagnosis (F(1, 967) = 9.13, p = 0.003) and treatment plan (F(1, 967) = 7.95, p = 0.01), after adjusting for education, occupation, age, and gender. Additionally, χ2 showed significant group differences in beliefs that more information would have been helpful (p < .05). More non-whites (70.3%) than whites (53.1%) indicated that additional information would have been helpful to understanding the diagnosis. Similarly, more non-whites (69.4%) than whites (53.4%) indicated that additional information would have been helpful to understanding the treatment plan. Subsequent logistic regressions confirmed that race independently predicted patients’ indications that more information would have been helpful to understanding the diagnosis (OR = 1.96, 95%CI = 1.12, 3.42) and treatment plan (OR = 1.84, 95%CI = 1.05, 3.22). Conclusion: The findings underscore the need for oncology professionals to consider and integrate information about socio-demographics in their intervention and communication with racial/ethnic minority patients. Supported by NHI PHS-grant U10-CA37420

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Two studies from the JP Wilmot Cancer Center on the relationship of treatment, expectations, and race with post-treatment skin reactions reported by cancer patients

18560

Background: Cancer patients may experience skin problems while undergoing treatment. Frequency of skin reactions may be influenced skin pigmentation and/or psychological factors. Methods: A Symptom Inventory (SI) completed by 411 cancer patients nationwide before and after treatment was analyzed to determine if treatment type, race (Black versus White), and pre-treatment expectations influenced post-treatment skin reactions. Subsequent analysis of a SI completed weekly for five weeks by 167 local patients receiving radiotherapy examined severity of reported skin reactions. Results: One-way between-group ANOVA, with Bonferroni correction, showed significantly more patients receiving radiotherapy had stronger expectations of skin problems (62%) compared to patients receiving chemotherapy (40%, p = 0.001) or chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (45%, p = 0.003). Overall, expectations did not correlate with patient reported skin problems post-treatment (Spearman’s rho = 0.02, p = 0.70). Likewise, a Kruskal Wallis test showed no significant difference in severity of skin reactions reported by patients receiving radiotherapy (n = 138) and/or chemotherapy (n = 273, p = 0.56). Severe skin problems were reported more frequently by 10/18 (56%) Blacks than 90/393 (23%) Whites (p = 0.001), although no significant difference was found between Blacks and Whites in their pre-treatment expectations of skin problems (p = 0.32). Further, pre-treatment expectations of skin problems did not influence post-treatment reporting of skin problems in Blacks (Spearman’s rho = −0.02, p = 0.93) or Whites (Spearman’s rho = 0.02, p = 0.65). Similarly, the local study showed that significantly more Blacks (38%) reported severe skin reactions at the treatment site than Whites (6%). Total radiation exposure was significantly related to the severity of skin problems reported by Blacks (Spearman’s rho = 0.90, p = 0.04), but not Whites (Spearman’s rho = −0.06 p = 0.52). Conclusions: Overall, Blacks reported more severe post-treatment skin problems than Whites. How this self-reported skin damage correlates with clinical findings remains to be determined. Supported by NCI PHS grants 1R25CA102618 and U10CA37420.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.