Major Stressful Life Events and the Risk of Pancreatic, Head and Neck Cancers: A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Major stressful life events have been shown to be associated with an increased risk of lung cancer, breast cancer and the development of various chronic illnesses. The stress response generated by our body results in a variety of physiological and metabolic changes which can affect the immune system and have been shown to be associated with tumor progression. In this study, we aim to determine if major stressful life events are associated with the incidence of head and neck or pancreatic cancer (HNPC). METHODS: This is a matched case-control study. Cases (CAs) were HNPC patients diagnosed within the previous 12 months. Controls (COs) were patients without a prior history of malignancy. Basic demographic data information on major stressful life events was collected using the modified Holmes-Rahe stress scale. A total sample of 280 was needed (79 cases, 201 controls) to achieve at least 80% power to detect odds ratios (ORs) of 2.00 or higher at the 5% level of significance. RESULTS: From 1 January 2018 to 31 August 2021, 280 patients were enrolled (CA = 79, CO = 201) in this study. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis after controlling for potential confounding variables (including sex, age, race, education, marital status, smoking history), there was no difference between the lifetime prevalence of major stressful event in cases and controls. However, patients with HNPC were significantly more likely to report a major stressful life event within the preceding 5 years when compared to COs (p = 0.01, OR = 2.32, 95% CI, 1.18-4.54). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with head, neck and pancreatic cancers are significantly associated with having a major stressful life event within 5 years of their diagnosis. This study highlights the potential need to recognize stressful life events as risk factors for developing malignancies.

"A Pain Deep in Your Soul (Being) that is Not Physical:" Assessing Spiritual Pain in Integrative Oncology Consultations.

CONTEXT: Spiritual pain contributes to the suffering of cancer patients. However, it is unclear whether patients seen outside of palliative care report spiritual pain and its relationship with symptom burden. OBJECTIVES: Characteristics of patients reporting spiritual pain were examined, as well as the association of spiritual pain with symptom burden and how spiritual pain affected the factor structure of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of integrative oncology patients who completed the PROMIS10 and a modified ESAS (ESAS-FS) including financial distress and spiritual pain (pain deep in your soul/being that is not physical). Multiple logistic regression was used to assess associations between demographics and spiritual pain. T-tests compared ESAS-FS symptoms and global health for patients endorsing spiritual pain (0 vs. ≥1). Principal component analyses (oblique rotation) were also used to determine ESAS-FS symptom clusters. RESULTS: The sample (N = 1662) was mostly women (65%) and 39% endorsed spiritual pain at least ≥one. Men and older individuals were less likely to endorse spiritual pain (ps < 0.05). Presence of spiritual pain was associated with worse symptoms on the ESAS-FS and global health (ps < 0.001). The ESAS-FS had two symptom clusters, with the psychological factor including depression, anxiety, wellbeing, sleep, financial distress, and spiritual pain (Cronbach's alpha 0.78). CONCLUSION: Assessing spiritual pain and understanding the effects of its presence or absence in the context of other physical and psychosocial symptoms may provide additional opportunities for preventing exacerbation of symptoms, improving quality of life, and enhancing overall experience of care.

Machine Learning-Based Short-Term Mortality Prediction Models for Patients With Cancer Using Electronic Health Record Data: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, national guidelines suggest that aggressive cancer care should be avoided in the final months of life. However, guideline compliance currently requires clinicians to make judgments based on their experience as to when a patient is nearing the end of their life. Machine learning (ML) algorithms may facilitate improved end-of-life care provision for patients with cancer by identifying patients at risk of short-term mortality. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to summarize the evidence for applying ML in ≤1-year cancer mortality prediction to assist with the transition to end-of-life care for patients with cancer. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE to identify relevant articles. We included studies describing ML algorithms predicting ≤1-year mortality in patients of oncology. We used the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool to assess the quality of the included studies. RESULTS: We included 15 articles involving 110,058 patients in the final synthesis. Of the 15 studies, 12 (80%) had a high or unclear risk of bias. The model performance was good: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.72 to 0.92. We identified common issues leading to biased models, including using a single performance metric, incomplete reporting of or inappropriate modeling practice, and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: We found encouraging signs of ML performance in predicting short-term cancer mortality. Nevertheless, no included ML algorithms are suitable for clinical practice at the current stage because of the high risk of bias and uncertainty regarding real-world performance. Further research is needed to develop ML models using the modern standards of algorithm development and reporting.