Acupuncture as a Complementary Therapy for Cancer Care: Acceptability and Preferences of Patients and Informal Caregivers.

Background: Acupuncture can effectively manage cancer-related side effects, for both patients undergoing treatment and for cancer survivors. It may also be effective in managing physiological and psychological symptoms common among informal caregivers of cancer patients. Objectives: The aim of this survey was to explore the acceptability and preferences of cancer patients, cancer survivors, and their informal caregivers in relation to acupuncture. Methods: The survey was conducted from 20th November to 27th November 2018. The questionnaire was developed to explore acceptability and preferences, including motivation, symptoms to be addressed, and practical issues (location, cost, etc.), in relation to acupuncture. Results: The survey response rate was 94.5% in cancer patients and cancer survivors and 100% in caregivers. Acceptability of acupuncture was 34.5% (n = 40/116) and 48.0% (n = 26/54) in cancer patients and caregivers, respectively. About 52.5% (n = 21/40) of patients preferred to undergo acupuncture at the day center clinic, whereas caregivers had no specific preference. Patients and cancer survivors would use acupuncture for symptoms of fatigue (60%), listlessness (57.5%), and pain (47.5%). Informal caregivers expressed an interest in using acupuncture for their pain, stress, and sleeping difficulties 48.0% (n = 26/54). Conclusion: Cancer patients, cancer survivors, and informal caregivers would accept acupuncture as a complementary therapy. This openness and preference to acupuncture provide the foundations for this complementary therapy to be incorporated into holistic and supportive cancer care, both for patients and those supporting them.

The distress thermometer predicts subjective, but not objective, cognitive complaints six months after treatment initiation in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: Research has indicated that cancer-related cognitive impairments (CRCI) may be influenced by psychosocial factors such as distress, worry and fatigue. Therefore, we aimed to validate the distress thermometer (DT) as a screening tool to detect CRCI six months post-treatment-initiation in a group of general cancer patients. METHODS: Patients (≥18 years, n = 125) with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of a solid cancer or hematological malignancy, scheduled for a curative treatment, were evaluated at baseline (T0) and six months post-treatment-initiation (T1) for CRCI by a neuropsychological assessment, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Assessed cognitive domains included premorbid intelligence, attention, processing speed, flexibility, verbal and visual episodic memory and verbal fluency. PROMs entailed distress (DT, cut-off ≥4, range 0-10), anxiety and depression, fatigue (FACIT-fatigue scale) and subjective cognitive complaints. RESULTS: At T0, 60.4% of patients showed a DT score of ≥4, whereas 50% met this criterion at T1. According to the definition of the International Cognition and Cancer Task Force, 25.5% and 28.3% of patients presented with a CRCI at T0 and T1, respectively. When evaluating the DT as a screening tool for CRCI at T1, data showed an inverse relationship between the DT and CRCI. ROC-curve analysis revealed an AUC <0.5. ROC-curve analyses evaluating the DT and FACIT-fatigue scale as screening tools for subjective cognitive complaints showed an AUC ± SE of, respectively, 0.642 ± 0.067 and 0.794 ± 0.057. CONCLUSIONS: The DT at T0 cannot be used to screen for objective CRCI at T1, but both the DT and FACIT-fatigue scale at T0 showed potential as screening tools for subjective cognitive complaints at T1.