Barriers and Facilitators to Stool-Based Screening for Colorectal Cancer Among Black Louisville Residents.

Knowledge of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options remains suboptimal in Black populations, contributing to screening disparities. Guided by community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles, we partnered with five Black churches in Louisville, a region of Kentucky with high Black-white CRC screening disparities, to explore screening barriers and facilitators for CRC education and outreach. Project champions (n = 5) served as primary points of contact, developed project support within their churches, and were trained to recruit church and community members (n = 39) to participate in five semi-structured focus groups. Interview questions probed actual and perceived barriers to CRC screening, focusing on knowledge and perceptions of stool-based tests. Subsequent questions explored perceptions of different screening tests, CRC knowledge and beliefs, and trusted community locations for screening outreach. Transcripts were analyzed iteratively, and codes were derived inductively and refined to develop overarching themes. Participants experienced multilevel barriers to completing CRC screening. Primary themes about CRC screening included acknowledgment of importance, positive and negative personal experiences, need for increased outreach, and desire for greater cultural representation in educational materials. Participants frequently discussed perceptions of inadequate medical care, with most having only ever been offered colonoscopy; subsequently, knowledge of stool-based tests was low. To address this knowledge gap, participants stressed interpersonal communication from trusted individuals, such as local Black medical providers and CRC survivors. Given the low knowledge of stool-based testing among participants and identified inequities in receipt of clinical care, community-based CRC screening interventions are warranted to reduce Black-white CRC screening disparities.

An open label pilot study of citalopram for depression and boredom in ambulatory cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Significant levels of depressive symptoms are an impediment to adjustment and affect greater than one-third of people with cancer. The clinical diagnosis of major depression is estimated to occur in 25%. Depression is dramatically underrecognized by oncologists and oncology nurses, and as a result, often undertreated. Clinical experience suggests that antidepressants of virtually all types are well tolerated and potentially efficacious. There is, however, a lack of an evidence base for the use of antidepressants in cancer patients. METHODS: We undertook an open-label pilot study using citalopram in 30 cancer patients who reported a high level of depressive symptoms on the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZSDS). In addition to the ZSDS, eligible patients completed a series of visual analog scales for pain, depression, and sleep disturbance; the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Module; and the Purposelessness, Understimulation, and Boredom Scale developed by the research team. Patients began a 2-month course of therapy with citalopram 20 mg, increasing to 40 mg at the end of the fourth week if the patient was in the same range of depressive symptoms as measured by the ZSDS. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 30 patients completed the protocol. The average age of the sample was 57.32 years (SD = 12.6) and was comprised of 11 women (52.4%) and 10 men (47.6%). Depressive symptoms decreased and quality of life improved during the 8-week treatment period. Of special interest was the rate of improvement in boredom, and using the total boredom score of the PUB, significant improvement compared to baseline was seen in weeks 6 (F = 5.266, p < .05) and 8 (F = 9.248, p < .01). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Overall, the positive findings suggest the need for a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of citalopram in cancer patients. Regarding the interplay of boredom and depression, the relationship between improvements in depressive symptoms and boredom is complex. This is illustrated by the way in which the different elements respond to antidepressant treatment. Depression began to improve almost immediately upon initiation of treatment whereas improvement in boredom does not become evident until week 6.

Use of a depression screening tool and a fluoxetine-based algorithm to improve the recognition and treatment of depression in cancer patients. A demonstration project.

Helping oncologists to identify and treat depression is an important step in improving the overall care of people with cancer. In previous work performed in our community-based, ambulatory oncology outreach network, we validated a depression screening tool, put into place depression screening programs, and taught oncologists how to follow up on screening with brief, reliable clinical interviews. Subsequently, we provided these oncologists with a fluoxetine-based antidepressant algorithm to follow for the treatment of their depressed patients. In this article, we report on the initial experience identifying and treating 35 ambulatory oncology patients who were screened with the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (ZSDS). Structured follow-up interviews by their oncologist determined whether the patients qualified for a diagnosis of a major depressive episode. These patients then received 1 of 4 treatments based on the algorithm (no treatment, fluoxetine alone, fluoxetine plus bedtime doxepin, or fluoxetine plus methylphenidate). Patients were matched by their oncologist to a prototype patient for each treatment arm based on their symptomatic presentation (i.e., patients requiring a side effect minimization approach were to be placed on fluoxetine alone; patients who had significant insomnia, weight loss, or neuropathic pain were placed on the fluoxetine plus doxepin regimen; those with prominent fatigue were to receive fluoxetine plus methylphenidate). Patients were followed weekly for one month, and then every two weeks for two more months, with telephone assessments of their depression, associated symptoms and overall quality of life. Results suggested that oncologists most often chose the simplest regimen (fluoxetine alone) but that patients uniformly benefited in terms of improved mood and overall quality of life throughout the 12 weeks of follow-up. Our initial experience suggests that oncologists can be empowered to recognize and treat depression in their patients with a screen-and-intervene approach. Such an approach may benefit patients, and, if kept simple, can be incorporated into day-to-day care of people with cancer.

A pilot study of oncology staff perceptions of palliative care and psycho-oncology services in rural and community settings in Indiana.

Although there has been an increased interest in health care delivery for rural community populations, concerns remain regarding the lack of access to primary health care and specialty services (such as palliative care), particularly in rural areas that are medically underserved (MU). This survey was conducted to examine the perceptions of palliative care services in rural communities and toward identifying perceived barriers that interfere with accessing palliative care services. In conducting the study, personnel from various disciplines throughout the Community Cancer Care (CCC) network (the largest private provider of oncology services in Indiana) completed a survey that assessed their perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the available palliative care services in their communities. These responses, which indicate discrepancies in perceptions among staff within sites, suggest problems of integration of palliative care in given locations. Results revealed three particularly problematic areas: accessing pain control, accessing psychological or psychiatric services or both, and overcoming barriers to hospice care. Although no significant differences were found for any variables between MU and adequately medically served (AMS) areas, in general palliative care is limited and unintegrated into oncology care. Confusion among staff at a particular oncology program likely contributes to the haphazard delivery and poor integration of palliative care. Conclusions are tempered by important study limitations but the results suggest the need for programs that improve delivery of palliative care in rural Indiana.

A pilot exploration of the antiemetic activity of olanzapine for the relief of nausea in patients with advanced cancer and pain.

This open-label pilot study explored the antiemetic activity of olanzapine, an atypical antipsychotic, in patients with advanced cancer requiring opioid analgesics for pain. Fifteen patients received 2 days of a washout and placebo "run-in" followed by two day periods on each of three doses of olanzapine (2.5 mgs, 5 mgs, and 10 mgs). Patients completed a daily food journal as well as the Mini Mental State Exam, Simpson Angus Scale, Barnes Akathisia Scale, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General across four time periods, with special attention being placed on the nausea item. Eleven women and 4 men with varied primary cancer sites participated. The average age of the sample was 58 years (SD = 16.8). All three dose levels were associated with significant reductions in nausea compared to baseline. Diary entries recorded by the subjects suggested substantial benefits to overall well being and the 5mg condition was associated with statistically significant improvement in overall quality of life over baseline (F = 12.0, p < 0.005). No extrapyramidal symptoms were noted and mental status exams were not changed over the course of the eight days. These results suggest an antiemetic effect for olanzapine and indicate the need for a controlled trial.

An open-label, crossover trial of mirtazapine (15 and 30 mg) in cancer patients with pain and other distressing symptoms.

We performed a pilot open-label, crossover trial of mirtazapine (15 and 30 mg at night) in advanced cancer patients with pain and other distressing symptoms. Twenty patients completed the trial and sixteen dropped out. Following a baseline assessment, patients completed a one-week observation period and were then randomized to a starting dose of either 15 mg or 30 mg of mirtazapine given at bedtime. After three weeks, subjects were switched to the alternate dose and followed by an additional three-week period, completing the treatment. The average age of the completers was 60.2 years and consisted of 7 women and 13 men. The majority were Caucasian (n = 18, 90%) and married (n = 18, 90%). The drop-out group did not significantly differ from the completers based on age, gender, race, marital status, or tumor type. We examined the impact of mirtazapine therapy on patients' levels of depression, pain intensity, appetite, insomnia, weight, and overall quality of life. A series of repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to compare the completers' status at Weeks 1, 4, and 7 compared to baseline and to examine the interaction with starting dose and baseline observations. Scores on the Zung self-rating Depression Scale (F = 8.20, P < 0.05) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Measure (F = 5.73, P < 0.05) were significantly improved at study end (Week 7) and were not dependent on mirtazapine dosage. Patients' weights were significantly higher at both Week 4 and Week 7, independent of dosage. Trend level differences were found on Memorial Pain Assessment Card items for pain, pain relief, and mood and on numeric rating scales measuring nausea, anxiety, insomnia, and appetite. This open-label pilot study suggests that mirtazapine may be effective for improving multiple symptoms, depression and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. A controlled trial of this drug would be valuable.

Patient-related barriers to fatigue communication: initial validation of the fatigue management barriers questionnaire.

Fatigue is a highly prevalent and distressing symptom of cancer and its treatment. However, cancer patients often fail to communicate with their oncologists about fatigue. In this study, we attempted to identify the patient-related barriers to communication about fatigue, as cited by patients. Two hundred patients were sampled across the Community Cancer Care, Inc. (CCC) network of Indiana using the Cancer Behavior Inventory-Brief scale (CBI-B), the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (ZSDS), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Inventory-Fatigue scale (FACT-F), and the Fatigue Management Barriers Questionnaire (FMBQ), a questionnaire devised by experts in the field of cancer-related fatigue. There were no significant correlations between the instrument scores and demographic variables. Scores on the instruments did not differ significantly based on whether the patient was from a rural or urban site. One hundred thirty-two patients (66%) reported that they had never spoken to their doctor about fatigue. The most frequently reported reasons for this lack of patient communication about fatigue included the doctor's failure to offer interventions (47%), patients' lack of awareness of effective treatments for fatigue (43%), a desire on the patient's part to treat fatigue without medications (40%), and not wanting to complain to the doctor (28%). Patients reported that medical staff offered a mean of 11.63 recommendations for dealing with fatigue. The FMBQ was found to correlate significantly with self-efficacy (CBI-B, r = -0.20, P < 0.01) and correlate weakly with the number of recommendations made (r = -0.15, P < 0.05). The FMBQ was noted to have acceptable internal consistency (alpha = 0.88) and validity and may prove to be a useful instrument for understanding why patients do not communicate about fatigue. Multiple barriers contribute to why cancer patients do not comment about fatigue but may be overcome if physicians screen and assess for this symptom.