Colorectal Cancer in Young Adults: Considerations for Oncology Nurses.

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the young adult population has increased during the past several decades, which is concerning to healthcare professionals. Awareness of CRC needs to be at the forefront for healthca.

GUIDE Communication Framework: Developing Skills to Improve Nurse-Patient Interactions.

GUIDE is a communication framework that helps nurses to empower patients through guidance and support. The five letters in GUIDE stand for gaining insight into the goals of treatment and care, understanding the gaps in the patient's knowledge, informing and educating, directing to additional support, and empowering patients. With the GUIDE communication framework, nurses are supported in being active members of the interprofessional team and participating in shared decision-making. The Ask-Tell-Ask model also allows nurses to discover patients' knowledge gaps and provide efficient education.

Chemotherapy Education and Support: A Model for Use in the Ambulatory Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: Oncology nurses are challenged to coordinate an effective, evidence-based approach to comprehensive patient education, symptom management, and psychosocial support for patients with pancreatic and colorectal cancers during chemotherapy. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to develop and evaluate a nurse-led psychoeducational intervention using a multimedia tool. METHODS: Development and testing of the intervention was grounded in the Science and Practice Aligned Within Nursing model for evidence-based practice implementation. FINDINGS: Forty-five participants completed the study (29 with pancreatic cancer and 16 with colorectal cancer). Patient knowledge increased significantly in patients with pancreatic cancer following the intervention (p = 0.05).

Self-Care Support for Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer: iCancerHealth.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered symptom assessment and management tools allow patients to perform self-assessments and engage in self-symptom management. Efficacious tools exist for reducing symptom distress; however, little is known about feature-specific use. OBJECTIVES: This article evaluates the feasibility of the iCancerHealth app as an adjunct to usual patient education regarding cancer symptoms and medication management. METHODS: We conducted a single-arm, pilot study grounded in the health outcomes model. Our evaluation included (1) enrollment rates, (2) 2-month utilization rates, (3) patient acceptability, and (4) clinician satisfaction with the provider-side application. English-speaking, adult patients receiving care in the gastrointestinal oncology service of a comprehensive cancer center were invited to participate. Research coordinators enrolled consenting participants who had a personal, Internet-connected device; participants registered and used the platform to complete the baseline symptom assessment in clinic. Participants were reminded weekly to use the app and to perform a symptom report 4 to 6 weeks later. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were approached, of which 57 (89%; 95% exact confidence interval [CI], 79-96%) enrolled. About half were ≥ 60 years old and 40% were women. Fifty-three patients (93%; 95% exact CI, 85-99%) accessed at least one app feature, at least once, from home. The most frequently used (86%) feature was Health Tracker in which participants monitored and reported symptoms; followed by My Inbox (63%) and My Medications features (60%). The mean acceptability score was 24.8 (standard deviation = 4.2), indicating good acceptability. Clinicians reported that the app was most acceptable with regard to facilitating in-person interactions that occurred after app use. CONCLUSION: In a sample of adults with various stages of gastrointestinal malignancies, the iCancerHealth app was utilized at a high rate. Features that focused on symptoms and medication side effects plus communication with clinicians were used most frequently. This extends our understanding of preferences and specific feature use with patient-centered technologies.

Desired elements and timing of cancer survivorship care: one approach may not fit all.

INTRODUCTION: Although survivorship care recommendations exist, there is limited evidence about current practices and patient preferences. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was completed by survivors of lymphoma, head and neck, and gastrointestinal cancers at an academic cancer center. The survey was designed to capture patients' reports of receipt of survivorship care planning and their attitudes, preferences, and perceived needs regarding content and timing of cancer survivorship care information. Elements of survivorship care were based on the Institute of Medicine recommendations, literature review, and clinical experience. RESULTS: Eighty-five survivors completed the survey (response rate, 81%). More than 75% reported receiving a follow-up plan or appointment schedule, a monitoring plan for scans and blood tests, information about short- and long-term adverse effects, and a detailed treatment summary. These elements were reported as desired by more than 90% of responders. Approximately 40% of these elements were only verbally provided. Although more than 70% described not receiving information about employment, smoking cessation, sexual health, genetic counseling, fertility, or financial resources, these elements were not reported as desired. However, "strategies to cope with the fear of recurrence" was most often omitted, yet desired by most respondents. Survivors' preferences regarding optimal timing for information varied depending on the element. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that cancer survivorship care planning is heterogeneous and may not need to be comprehensive, but rather tailored to individual survivors' needs. Providers must assess patient needs early and continue to revisit them during the cancer care continuum.

Managing toxicities associated with antiangiogenic biologic agents in combination with chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Toxicities commonly associated with antiangiogenic agents include hypertension, proteinuria, wound-healing complications, bleeding or hemorrhage, thromboembolic events, hypersensitivity reactions, and gastrointestinal perforation; however, toxicities most often attributed to chemotherapy include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, fatigue, neuropathy, mucositis, hand-foot syndrome, hypersensitivity reactions, and myelosuppression. Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who receive an antiangiogenic agent in combination with chemotherapy may experience toxicities related to both chemotherapy and the antiangiogenic agent. If possible, evidence-based interventions should be used for the management of toxicities. Patient education about expected toxicities and optimal toxicity management can promote the optimal use of therapy to improve survival and quality of life. Oncology nurses are well positioned to educate patients and their families on anticipated treatment and management of side effects. This article summarizes the incidence of toxicities associated with the antiangiogenic biologic agents aflibercept and bevacizumab, in combination with chemotherapy for patients with mCRC, and provides strategies for managing these toxicities based on clinical practice guidelines.

Managing toxicities associated with colorectal cancer chemotherapy and targeted therapy: a new guide for nurses.

This article will provide an overview of the principal toxicities associated with commonly used chemotherapy treatment regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and explore the role of the oncology nurse in the management of treatment-associated toxicity. Although patients with mCRC have benefited considerably from recent therapeutic advances, the use of more complex treatment regimens has inevitably resulted in an increase in treatment-related toxicities. This can ultimately lead to dose reductions, delays, or discontinuation of therapy, which may negatively affect efficacy outcomes. Early identification and treatment of toxicities often can allow treatment to continue as planned or at a lower dose, if required. The oncology nurse is ideally positioned to assist with the timely recognition and management of side effects. This allows therapy to be continued on schedule and at the appropriate dose, enabling patients to achieve a better clinical outcome and maintain or improve their quality of life.

Long term survivors with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma treated with gemcitabine: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a short median overall survival (OS) of 5-6 months. However, a subgroup of patients survives more than 1 year. We analyzed the survival outcomes of this subgroup and evaluated clinical and pathological factors that might affect survival durations. METHODS: We identified 20 patients with metastatic or recurrent pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received single-agent gemcitabine and had an OS longer than 1 year. Baseline data available after the diagnosis of metastatic or recurrent disease was categorized as: 1) clinical/demographic data (age, gender, ECOG PS, number and location of metastatic sites); 2) Laboratory data (Hematocrit, hemoglobin, glucose, LDH, renal and liver function and CA19-9); 3) Pathologic data (margins, nodal status and grade); 4) Outcomes data (OS, Time to Treatment Failure (TTF), and 2 year-OS). The lowest CA19-9 levels during treatment with gemcitabine were also recorded. We performed a univariate analysis with OS as the outcome variable. RESULTS: Baseline logarithm of CA19-9 and total bilirubin had a significant impact on OS (HR = 1.32 and 1.31, respectively). Median OS and TTF on gemcitabine were 26.9 (95% CI = 18 to 32) and 11.5 (95% CI = 9.0 to 14.3) months, respectively. Two-year OS was 56.4%, with 7 patients alive at the time of analysis. CONCLUSION: A subgroup of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer has prolonged survival after treatment with gemcitabine. Only bilirubin and CA 19-9 levels were predictive of longer survival in this population. Further analysis of potential prognostic and predictive markers of response to treatment and survival are needed.