Adverse Health Outcomes Among US Testicular Cancer Survivors After Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy vs Surgical Management.

We evaluated for the first time, to our knowledge, adverse health outcomes (AHOs) among US testicular cancer survivors (TCS) given chemotherapy (n = 381) vs surgery-only patients (n = 98) managed at a single institution, accounting for non-treatment-related risk factors to delineate chemotherapy's impact. Chemotherapy consisted largely of bleomycin-etoposide-cisplatin (BEP) administered in three or four cycles (BEPx3, n = 235; BEPx4, n = 82). Incidence of at least 3 AHOs was lowest in surgery-only TCS and increased with BEPx3, BEPx4, and other cisplatin-based regimens (12.2%, 40.8%, 52.5%, 54.8%; P < .0001). Multivariable modeling assessed associations of risk factors and treatment with hearing impairment, tinnitus, peripheral neuropathy, and Raynaud phenomenon. Risk for each AHO statistically increased with both increasing chemotherapy burden (P < .0001) and selected modifiable risk factors (P < .05): hypertension (odds ratio [OR] = 2.40) and noise exposure (OR ≥ 2.3) for hearing impairment; noise exposure for tinnitus (OR ≥ 1.69); peripheral vascular disease for neuropathy (OR = 8.72); and current smoking for Raynaud phenomenon (OR = 2.41). Clinicians should manage modifiable risk factors for AHOs among TCS.

Delivery of psychosocial care for cancer patients: a pilot investigation.

Psychosocial distress is common in cancer patients. Although common, psychosocial distress is frequently under-diagnosed and poorly managed in the U.S. health system. This paper describes 25 in-depth telephone interviews with health care professionals working within cancer care centers. Interview questions address perception of the psychosocial services offered within their cancer care organizations. Results indicate that access to psychosocial care is frequently dependent upon the subjective judgment of busy clinicians. Information technology could improve the delivery of psychosocial care by easing the administration of psychosocial assessments and increasing clinician contact with research evidence regarding distress management.

Provision of psychosocial care for cancer patients: service delivery in urban and rural settings.

Although common, psychosocial distress is frequently under diagnosed and untreated in the US health care system. Previous research shows that cancer patients have unmet psychosocial needs, and provision of psychosocial care frequently falls to primary care providers who may lack the resources to adequately deal with complex psychosocial issues. We conducted 25 in-depth key informant interviews with health care professionals working within medical facilities that provide care to cancer patients. Cancer care centers included in the sample were located within both rural and urban communities in a midwestern state, and included providers of both inpatient and outpatient services. Interview questions addressed the assessment of psychosocial needs, availability of psychosocial care, perceptions of the effectiveness of psychosocial services, and perceptions of organizational processes to manage psychosocial needs among their patients. Respondents were also queried regarding recommendations for improving psychosocial care for patients with cancer. Assessment of psychosocial need in most settings was often subjective, not performed, or completed without access to an accepted standardized assessment tool, and clinical pathways to direct psychosocial care were often lacking. Because of the lack of systematic assessment, access to psychosocial care was frequently dependent on the subjective judgment of busy clinicians. This study shows the clear need for organizational and practice redesign initiatives in both rural and urban settings to improve the delivery of psychosocial services to cancer patients. A number of possible system improvements were identified, including the use of allied health providers, standardized screening, and information technology to increase the ease and efficiency of psychosocial assessment.

Effect of telecare management on pain and depression in patients with cancer: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Pain and depression are 2 of the most prevalent and treatable cancer-related symptoms, yet they frequently go unrecognized, undertreated, or both. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether centralized telephone-based care management coupled with automated symptom monitoring can improve depression and pain in patients with cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized controlled trial conducted in 16 community-based urban and rural oncology practices involved in the Indiana Cancer Pain and Depression (INCPAD) trial. Recruitment occurred from March 2006 through August 2008 and follow-up concluded in August 2009. The participating patients had depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score > or = 10), cancer-related pain (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] worst pain score > or = 6), or both. INTERVENTION: The 202 patients randomly assigned to receive the intervention and 203 to receive usual care were stratified by symptom type. Patients in the intervention group received centralized telecare management by a nurse-physician specialist team coupled with automated home-based symptom monitoring by interactive voice recording or Internet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blinded assessment at baseline and at months 1, 3, 6, and 12 for depression (20-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist [HSCL-20]) and pain (BPI) severity. RESULTS: Of the 405 participants enrolled in the study, 131 had depression only, 96 had pain only, and 178 had both depression and pain. Of the 274 patients with pain, 137 patients in the intervention group had greater improvements in BPI pain severity over the 12 months of the trial whether measured as a continuous severity score or as a categorical pain responder (> or = 30% decrease in BPI) than the 137 patients in the usual-care group (P < .001 for both). Similarly, of the 309 patients with depression, the 154 patients in the intervention group had greater improvements in HSCL-20 depression severity over the 12 months of the trial whether measured as a continuous severity score or as a categorical depression responder (> or = 50% decrease in HSCL) than the 155 patients in the usual care group (P < .001 for both). The standardized effect size for between-group differences at 3 and 12 months was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33-1.02) and 0.39 (95% CI, 0.01-0.77) for pain, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.16-0.69) and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.08-0.72) for depression. CONCLUSION: Centralized telecare management coupled with automated symptom monitoring resulted in improved pain and depression outcomes in cancer patients receiving care in geographically dispersed urban and rural oncology practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00313573.

The Indiana Cancer Pain and Depression (INCPAD) trial Design of a telecare management intervention for cancer-related symptoms and baseline characteristics of study participants.

OBJECTIVE: Pain and depression are two of the most prevalent and treatable cancer-related symptoms, each present in at least 20-30% of oncology patients. Both symptoms are frequently either unrecognized or undertreated, however. This article describes a telecare management intervention delivered by a nurse-psychiatrist team that is designed to improve recognition and treatment of pain and depression. The enrolled sample is also described. METHODS: The Indiana Cancer Pain and Depression study is a National Cancer Institute-sponsored randomized clinical trial. Four hundred five patients with cancer-related pain and/or clinically significant depression from 16 urban or rural oncology practices throughout Indiana have been enrolled and randomized to either the intervention group or to a usual-care control group. Intervention patients receive centralized telecare management coupled with automated home-based symptom monitoring. Outcomes will be assessed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months by research assistants blinded to treatment arms. RESULTS: Of 4465 patients screened, 2185 (49%) endorsed symptoms of pain or depression. Of screen-positive patients, about one-third were ineligible (most commonly due to pain or depression not meeting severity thresholds or to pain that is not related to cancer). Of the 405 patients enrolled, 32% have depression only, 24% have pain only and 44% have both depression and pain. At baseline, participants reported an average of 16.8 days out of the past 4 weeks during which they were confined to bed or had to reduce their usual activities by > or =50% due to pain or depression. Also, 176 (44%) reported being unable to work due to health reasons. CONCLUSIONS: When completed, the Indiana Cancer Pain and Depression trial will test whether centralized telecare management coupled with automated home-based symptom monitoring improves outcomes in cancer patients with depression and/or pain. Findings will be important for both oncologists and mental health clinicians confronted with oncology patients' depression or pain.