COVID-19 pandemic stress and cancer symptom burden.

OBJECTIVES: In a sample of patients with cancer (n=1145) who were assessed during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups of patients with distinct stress profiles and to evaluate for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics and symptom severity scores among these subgroups. METHODS: Patients completed measures of cancer-specific and COVID-19 stress, global stress, social isolation, loneliness, depression, state and trait anxiety, morning and evening fatigue, morning and evening energy, sleep disturbance, cognitive function, and pain. Latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups of patients with distinct stress profiles. Differences among the subgroups in study measures were evaluated using parametric and non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Using clinically meaningful cut-off scores for the stress measures, four distinct stress profiles were identified (ie, none class (51.3%); low stress and moderate loneliness class (24.4%), high stress and moderate loneliness class (14.0%), and very high stress and moderately high loneliness class (high, 10.3%)). Risk factors associated with membership in the high class included: younger age, lower annual household income, lower functional status and higher comorbidity burden. The two worst stress profiles reported clinically meaningful levels of all of the common symptoms associated with cancer and its treatments. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study, obtained prior to the availability of COVID-19 vaccines and anti-viral medications, provide important 'benchmark data' to evaluate for changes in stress and symptom burden in patients with cancer in the postvaccine era and in patients with long COVID-19.

Risk Factors for a Higher Symptom Burden in Patients With Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate for subgroups of patients with distinct symptom profiles and differences in demographic and clinical characteristics and stress and resilience among these subgroups. SAMPLE & SETTING: 1,145 patients with cancer aged 18 years or older completed a survey online. Data were collected between May 2020 and February 2021. METHODS & VARIABLES: Patients completed measures for depression, state anxiety, cognitive function, morning fatigue, evening fatigue, morning energy, evening energy, sleep disturbance, pain, stress, and resilience. Latent class profile analysis was used to identify subgroups of patients with distinct symptom profiles. Differences among the subgroups on study measures were evaluated using parametric and nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Four distinct profiles were identified (none, low, high, and very high). Patients in the high and very high classes reported clinically meaningful levels of all nine symptoms. Differences among the four profiles for stress and resilience exhibited a dose-response effect. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Findings can serve as benchmark data of the symptom burden of patients with cancer following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Loneliness and symptom burden in oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Loneliness and social isolation are significant public health problems that are being exacerbated during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Little is known about the associations between loneliness and symptom burden in oncology patients before and during the pandemic. Study purposes include determining the prevalence of loneliness in a sample of oncology patients; evaluating for differences in demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics between lonely and nonlonely patients; and determining which demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics were associated with membership in the lonely group. METHODS: A convenience sample (n = 606) completed online surveys that evaluated the severity of loneliness, social isolation, and common symptoms (ie, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and pain) in oncology patients. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used to evaluate for differences in scores between the lonely and nonlonely groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for membership in the loneliness group. RESULTS: Of the 606 patients, 53.0% were categorized in the lonely group. The lonely group reported higher levels of social isolation, as well as higher symptom severity scores for all of the symptoms evaluated. In the multivariate model, being unmarried, having higher levels of social isolation, as well as higher levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms were associated with membership in the lonely group. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest that a significant number of oncology patients are experiencing loneliness, most likely as a result of mandate social distancing and isolation procedures. The symptom burden of these patients is extremely high and warrants clinical evaluation and interventions.

Data Quality of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting Documentation.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to characterize the completeness and concordance of the electronic health record (EHR) documentation of cancer symptoms among multidisciplinary health care professionals. METHODS: We examined the EHRs of children, adolescents, and young adults who received highly emetogenic chemotherapy and characterized the completeness and concordance of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) documentation by clinician type and by the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) coding choice. RESULTS: The EHRs of 127 patients, comprising 870 patient notes, were abstracted and reviewed. A CINV assessment was documented by prescribers in 75% of patients, and by nurses in 58% of patients. Of the 60 encounters where both prescribers and nurses documented, 72% agreed on the presence/absence of CINV. CONCLUSION: Most patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy had a documented assessment of CINV; however, many had incomplete or discordant documentation of CINV from different providers by role, implying the importance of incorporating pragmatic knowledge of EHR documentation patterns among multidisciplinary health professionals for EHR phenotyping and clinical decision support systems directed toward cancer-related symptom management.

A double-edged sword: Prolonged detection of SARS-COV-2 in patients receiving cancer directed therapy.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 (S-2) infection duration and its impact on patients with cancer and mild to moderate COVID-19 undergoing cancer-directed therapy (CDT), especially in the underserved population, is not well described. We conducted a retrospective study to analyze S-2 positive (+) patients on CDT to describe the S-2 duration and its impact on CDT. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-nine patients with cancer were tested with nasopharyngeal (NP) S-2 PCR assay at Columbia University Medical Irving Center (CUIMC), a Minority-NCI Community Oncology site, of which 77 (26%) tested positive. We retrospectively analyzed 26 S-2 (+) patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 receiving CDT who consented to the study. NP PCR was repeated every 1 to 2 weeks until 2 successive negative (-) PCRs were obtained prior to restarting CDT. Time to 2 (-) PCR and serology results were recorded. Cycling thresholds (Ct) were obtained for S-2 specific targets and represented an indirect measure of viral load. RESULTS: Demographics of N = 26 patients are: Hispanic (N = 17, 65%), Black (N = 1, 4%), White (N = 7, 27%), and undeclared (N = 1, 4%). Among the tumor histologies represented, gastrointestinal (N = 9, 35%), breast (N = 5, 19%), and sarcoma (N = 3, 12%) were most common. Median time to 2 (-) PCR was 32 days. Twenty patients required greater than 14 days to achieve 2 sequential (-) swabs. CDT was delayed in 21 patients (81%) of whom three experienced disease progression, likely attributed to an interruption in CDT, which was delayed by a mean of 53 days. Interestingly, nine (41%) patients had Ct values greater than 34 for the pan SARS target and seven (32%) patients had Ct values greater than 34 for the SARS-COV-2 target. Sixteen of 16 patients on CDT, tested positive for IgG antibodies at the time of consent, despite protracted viral detectability by NP PCR. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving CDT appear to have prolonged detectable S-2 by PCR, which can lead to interruption of CDT and POD in patients. We believe and recommend that patients with asymptomatic to mild COVID-19 and aggressive malignancies are at greatest risk for cancer related morbidity and mortality due to CDT cessation and should be considered for continued CDT without interruption. Ct values and serology testing are tools that can help identify those patients on CDT who may be at greatest risk of worsening COVID-19 or of spreading S-2.

Oncology patients' perceptions of and experiences with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: No information is available on cancer patients' knowledge of and experiences with COVID-19. We undertook an evaluation of differences in COVID-19 symptom occurrence rates, COVID-19 testing rates, clinical care activities, knowledge of COVID-19, and use of mitigation procedures between patients who were and were not receiving active cancer treatment. METHODS: Patients enrolled were > 18 years of age; had a diagnosis of cancer; and were able to complete the emailed study survey online. RESULTS: Of the 174 patients who participated, 27.6% (n = 48) were receiving active treatment, 13.6% were unemployed because of COVID-19, 12.2% had been tested for COVID-19, and 0.6% had been hospitalized for COVID-19. Patients who were not on active treatment reported a higher mean number of COVID-19 symptoms (3.1 (± 4.2) versus 1.9 (± 2.6)), and patients who reported a higher number of COVID-19 symptoms were more likely to be tested. Over 55% of the patients were confident that their primary care provider could diagnose COVID-19, and the majority of the patients had high levels of adherence with the use of precautionary measures (e.g., social distancing, use of face coverings). CONCLUSION: The high level of COVID-19 symptoms and the significant overlap of COVID-19 and cancer-related symptoms pose challenges for clinicians who are assessing and triaging oncology patients for COVID-19 testing. For patients on active treatment, clinicians face challenges with how to assess and manage symptoms that, prior to COVID-19, would be ascribed to acute toxicities associated with cancer treatments or persistent symptoms in cancer survivors.

Stress and Symptom Burden in Oncology Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: No information is available on oncology patients' level of stress and symptom burden during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics, levels of social isolation and loneliness, and the occurrence and severity of common symptoms between oncology patients with low vs. high levels of COVID-19 and cancer-related stress. In addition, to determine which of these characteristics were associated with membership in the high-stressed group. METHODS: Patients were 18 years and older; had a diagnosis of cancer; and were able to complete an online survey. RESULTS: Of the 187 patients in this study, 31.6% were categorized in the stressed group (Impact of Event Scale-Revised [score of ≥24]). Stressed group's Impact of Event Scale-Revised score exceeds previous benchmarks in oncology patients and equates with probable post-traumatic stress disorder. In this stressed group, patients reported occurrence rates for depression (71.2%), anxiety (78.0%), sleep disturbance (78.0%), evening fatigue (55.9%), cognitive impairment (91.5%), and pain (75.9%). Symptom severity scores equate with clinically meaningful levels for each symptom. CONCLUSION: We identified alarmingly high rates of stress and an extraordinarily high symptom burden among patients with cancer, exceeding those previously benchmarked in this population and on par with noncancer patients with post-traumatic stress disorder. Given that the COVID-19 pandemic will likely impact cancer care for an indefinite period, clinicians must exhibit increased vigilance in their assessments of patients' level of stress and symptom burden. Moreover, an increase in referrals to appropriate supportive care resources must be prioritized for high-risk patients.

Cancer and the Immune System: The History and Background of Immunotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: This article will outline the link between the immune system and cancer, and provide a historical timeline of immunotherapy developmental milestones. DATA SOURCES: Published data and peer reviewed publications/manuscripts, and textbook chapters. CONCLUSION: Science has provided a greater understanding of the interactions between cancer and the human immune system. As this knowledge has grown, there has been significant progress in the development of clinically effective cancer immunotherapies. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses' knowledge of the different types of immunity and the interaction of cancer cells with the immune system provides foundational knowledge for understanding cancer immunotherapy. Familiarity with the history of cancer immunotherapy will allow nurses to better comprehend why immunotherapy is now a pillar of cancer treatment that continues to develop. This knowledge will translate to better understanding and provision of care for patients receiving immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer.

Risk for Health Care-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Pediatric Oncology Patients With Various Malignancies.

This was a retrospective cohort study to identify the rates, predictors, and outcomes of health care-associated bloodstream infections (HA-BSI) among children with solid tumors, lymphoma, lymphoid leukemia, and myeloid leukemia. The study population included 4500 children ≤18 years old at a pediatric hospital in New York City from 2006 to 2014. A total of 147 HA-BSI cases were identified; using multivariable logistic regression modeling, children with a hematologic diagnosis (lymphoma, lymphoid leukemia, myeloid leukemia) were at greater risk for HA-BSI than those with a solid tumor diagnosis (all P values <.0001). The odds of mortality for patients with HA-BSI were 6.98 (95% confidence interval 3.02-16.10) times that of those without HA-BSI. Although malignancy type was identified as risk factor for HA-BSI, there was no significant difference in overall mortality from HA-BSI by tumor type ( P = .51).

Programmed death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Programmed death 1 (PD-1) is an immune checkpoint that provides inhibitory signals to the immune system in order to modulate the activity of T cells in peripheral tissues and maintain self-tolerance in the setting of infection and inflammation. In cancer, the immune checkpoints are exploited so that the tumor cells are able to evade the immune system. Immune checkpoint inhibitors are a type of cancer immunotherapy that targets pathways such as PD-1 in order to reinvigorate and enhance the immune response against tumor cells. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 2 PD-1 inhibitors, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, and several others are under investigation. Although PD-1 inhibitors have demonstrated activity in many different types of malignancies, FDA approval has been granted only in melanoma and in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Identifying biomarkers that can predict response to PD-1 inhibitors is critical to maximizing the benefit of these agents. Future directions for PD-1 inhibitors include investigation of combination therapies, use in malignancies other than melanoma and NSCLC, and refinement of biomarkers.