Adapting and avoiding coping strategies for women with ovarian cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for people living with cancer, impacting not only physical health but psychological well-being. The psychological response affects the individual as well as the community and can persist long after the outbreak. We aim to assess coping strategies employed by women with ovarian cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Women with a current or prior diagnosis of ovarian cancer completed an online survey which included a query about coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was distributed from March 30th through April 13, 2020 through survivor networks and social media. RESULTS: Six hundred and three women visited the survey website during the study period and 555 (92.0%) completed the survey. Four hundred and eight (73.5%) provided information on coping strategies utilized during COVID-19. Among those who responded, the median age was 58 years (range 20-85) and 150 participants (40.8%) were undergoing active cancer treatment. Commonly utilized adaptive coping strategies included emotional support (159, 39.0%), self care (148, 36.3%), hobbies (139, 34.1%), planning (87, 21.3%), positive reframing (54, 13.2%), religion (50, 12.3%) and instrumental support (38, 9.3%). Many participants also relied on avoidance coping strategies including self distraction (111, 27.2%) and substance use (19, 4.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Most ovarian cancer survivors are using adaptive, problem-focused coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic, however many are practicing avoidance strategies as well. As coping mechanisms profoundly impact quality of life, oncology providers must assist patients in identifying coping strategies that optimize physical and psychological well-being.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the quality of life for women with ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for the oncology community. For people living with cancer, treatments are interrupted, surgeries cancelled, and regular oncology evaluations rescheduled. People with cancer and their physicians must balance plausible fears of coronavirus disease 2019 and cancer treatment with the consequences of delaying cancer care. OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the experience of women with ovarian cancer during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Women with a current or previous diagnosis of ovarian cancer completed an online survey focusing on treatment interruptions and quality of life. The quality of life was measured with the Cancer Worry Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The survey was distributed through survivor networks and social media. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analysis were used to evaluate the effect of participant characteristics on quality of life survey scores. RESULTS: A total of 603 women, from 41 states, visited the survey website between March 30, 2020, and April 13, 2020, and 555 (92.0%) completed the survey. The median age was 58 years (range, 20-85). At the time of survey completion, 217 participants (43.3%) were in active treatment. A total of 175 participants (33%) experienced a delay in some component of their cancer care. Ten (26.3%) of the 38 participants scheduled for surgery experienced a delay, as did 18 (8.3%) of the 217 participants scheduled for nonsurgical cancer treatment. A total of 133 participants (24.0%) had a delayed physician appointment, 84 (15.1%) laboratory tests, and 53 (9.6%) cancer-related imaging. Among the cohort, 88.6% (489) reported significant cancer worry, 51.4% (285) borderline or abnormal anxiety, and 26.5% (147) borderline or abnormal depression. On univariate analysis, age less than 65 years, being scheduled for cancer treatment or cancer surgery, delay in oncology care, being self-described as immunocompromised, and use of telemedicine were all associated with higher levels of cancer worry. Higher anxiety scores were associated with age less than 65 years and being self-described as immunocompromised. Higher depression scores were associated with age less than 65 years, being scheduled for cancer surgery, delay in oncology care, being self-described as immunocompromised, and use of telemedicine. On multivariable linear regression analysis, age less than 65 and being self-described as immunocompromised were independently predictive of greater cancer worry, anxiety, and depression, and delay in cancer care was predictive of anxiety and depression. CONCLUSION: The coronavirus disease 2019 crisis is affecting care of patients with ovarian cancer; surgeries, treatments, scheduled physician appointments, laboratory tests, and imaging are cancelled or delayed. Younger age, presumed immunocompromise, and delay in cancer care were associated with significantly higher levels of cancer worry, anxiety, and depression. Providers must work with patients to balance competing risks of coronavirus disease 2019 and cancer, recognizing that communication is a critical clinical tool to improve quality of life in these times.

Ovarian cancer survivors' acceptance of treatment side effects evolves as goals of care change over the cancer continuum.

OBJECTIVES: Women with ovarian cancer can have long overall survival and goals of treatment change over time from cure to remission to stable disease. We sought to determine whether survivors' acceptance of treatment side effects also changes over the disease continuum. METHODS: Women with ovarian cancer completed an online survey focusing on survivors' goals and priorities. The survey was distributed through survivor networks and social media. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-four women visited the survey website and 328 (76%) completed the survey. Among participants, 141 (43%) identified themselves as having ever recurred, 119 (36%) were undergoing treatment at the time of survey completion and 86 (26%) had received four or more chemotherapy regimens. Respondents' goals of care were cure for 115 women (35%), remission for 156 (48%) and stable disease for 56 (17%). When asked what was most meaningful, 148 women (45%) reported overall survival, 135 (41%) reported quality of life and 40 (12%) reported progression-free survival. >50% of survivors were willing to tolerate the following symptoms for the goal of cure: fatigue (283, 86%), alopecia (281, 86%), diarrhea (232, 71%), constipation (227, 69%), neuropathy (218, 66%), arthralgia (210, 64%), sexual side effects (201, 61%), reflux symptoms (188, 57%), memory loss (180, 55%), nausea/vomiting (180, 55%), hospitalization for treatment side effects (179, 55%) and pain (169, 52%). The rates of tolerance for most symptoms decreased significantly as the goal of treatment changed from cure to remission to stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Women with ovarian cancer willingly accept many treatment side effects when the goal of treatment is cure, however become less accepting when the goal is remission and even less so when the goal is stable disease. Physicians and survivors must carefully consider treatment toxicities and quality of life effects when selecting drugs for patients with incurable disease.

A qualitative study of ovarian cancer survivors' perceptions of endpoints and goals of care.

OBJECTIVES: A survey of the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance revealed a communication gap between physicians and survivors. This qualitative study explored the space between perceptions in hopes of better defining treatment endpoints meaningful to treating physicians and their patients. METHODS: A focus group of ovarian cancer survivors (n=22) was assembled via the survivor support network SHARE. A physician-guided session explored expectations of treatment, perceived outcomes, toxicity thresholds and decision making. The session was recorded, transcribed and coded. Common themes were identified and used to perform intra-case analysis by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: The main themes identified were barriers to communication, importance of frequent communication between patient and physician regarding goals, and expectations of treatment changing with position along the treatment continuum. One hundred percent of participants identified communication with their physician as an essential element in determining treatment course. However, only 14% reported having a discussion about goals, values and perceptions with their physician preceding treatment decisions. Participants reported that the terms progression free and overall survival held minimal significance for them and instead they preferred an individualized approach to care focusing on quality of life. Many women underreported side effects with reasons ranging from fear of dose reductions and additional tests to forgetting about symptoms due to anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: An objective measure of treatment success meaningful to survivors, physicians and regulators is, at present, elusive and may not exist. Ideally, future trial design would place equal weight on quantitative and qualitative measures and include information about goals of treatment.