Medical conditions and physical function deficits among multiple primary cancer survivors

Harvest for Health, a Randomized Controlled Trial Testing a Home-Based, Vegetable Gardening Intervention Among Older Cancer Survivors Across Alabama: An Analysis of Accrual and Modifications Made in Intervention Delivery and Assessment During COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Accelerated functional decline is a concern among older cancer survivors that threatens independence and quality of life. Pilot studies suggest that vegetable gardening interventions ameliorate functional decline through improved diet and physical activity.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article was to describe the rationale, recruitment challenges, and enrollment for the Harvest for Health randomized controlled trial (RCT), which will test the impact of a home-based, vegetable gardening intervention on vegetable and fruit consumption, physical activity, and physical functioning among older cancer survivors. Modifications made to the intervention and assessments to assure safety and continuity of the RCT throughout the COVID-19 pandemic also are reported.

DESIGN

Harvest for Health is a 2-year, 2-arm, single-blinded, wait-list controlled RCT with cross-over.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

Medicare-eligible survivors of cancers with ≥60% 5-year survival were recruited across Alabama from October 1, 2016 to February 8, 2021.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomly assigned to a wait-list control or a 1-year home-based gardening intervention and individually mentored by extension-certified master gardeners to cultivate spring, summer, and fall vegetable gardens.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Although the RCT's primary end point was a composite measure of vegetable and fruit consumption, physical activity, and physical functioning, this article focuses on recruitment and modifications made to the intervention and assessments during COVID-19.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED

χ2 and t tests (α < .05) were used to compare enrolled vs unenrolled populations.

RESULTS

Older cancer survivors (n = 9,708) were contacted via mail and telephone; 1,460 indicated interest (15% response rate), 473 were screened eligible and consented, and 381 completed baseline assessments and were randomized. Enrollees did not differ from nonrespondents/refusals by race and ethnicity, or rural-urban status, but comprised significantly higher numbers of comparatively younger survivors, those who were female, and survivors of breast cancer (P < .001). Although COVID-19 delayed trial completion, protocol modifications overcame this barrier and study completion is anticipated by June 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

This RCT will provide evidence on the effects of a mentored vegetable gardening program among older cancer survivors. If efficacious, Harvest for Health represents a novel, multifaceted approach to improve lifestyle behaviors and health outcomes among cancer survivors-one with capacity for sustainability and widespread dissemination.

Subsequent primary cancer risk among five-year survivors of adolescent and young adult cancers

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive examination of the incidence and mortality of subsequent primary cancers (SPCs) among adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors in the US is lacking.

METHODS

Cancer incidence and mortality among 170,404 ≥ 5-year cancer survivors aged 15-39 years at first primary cancer diagnosis during 1975-2013 in 9 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were compared to those in the general population using standardized incidence ratio (SIR), absolute excess incidence (AEI), standardized mortality ratio (SMR), and absolute excess mortality (AEM).

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 14.6 years, 13,420 SPC cases and 5,008 SPC deaths occurred among survivors (excluding the same-site as index cancer), corresponding to 25% higher incidence (95%CI = 1.23-1.27; AEI = 10.8 per 10,000) and 84% higher mortality (95%CI = 1.79-1.89; AEM = 9.2 per 10,000) than that in the general population. Overall SPC risk was statistically significantly higher for 20 of 29 index cancers for incidence and 26 for mortality, with the highest SIR among female Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (SIR = 3.05, 95%CI = 2.88-3.24; AEI = 73.0 per 10,000) and the highest SMR among small intestine cancer survivors (SMR = 6.97, 95%CI = 4.80-9.79; AEM = 64.1 per 10,000). Type-specific SPC risks varied substantially by index cancers; however, SPCs of the female breast, lung, and colorectum combined constituted 36% of all SPC cases and 39% of all SPC deaths, with lung cancer alone representing 11% and 24% of all cases and deaths, respectively.

CONCLUSION

AYA cancer survivors are almost twice as likely to die from a new primary cancer as the general population, highlighting the need for primary care clinicians to prioritize cancer prevention and targeted surveillance strategies in these individuals.

Trends in the proportion of second or later primaries among all newly diagnosed malignant cancers

BACKGROUND

Improvements in cancer survival mean that an increasing number of survivors may live long enough beyond their initial cancer to be diagnosed with additional independent primary cancers. The proportion of newly diagnosed cancers that are second- or higher-order primaries and how this proportion has changed over the past several decades were examined.

METHODS

Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program were used to identify incident malignant primaries diagnosed between 1975 and 2017. Using the SEER sequence number, the authors tabulated the proportion of all cancers in each calendar year that were second- or higher-order primaries. The average annual percent change (AAPC) was then calculated to assess how this proportion has changed over time.

RESULTS

Analyses included nearly 4.9 million incident cancers diagnosed during 1975-2017. The proportion of all cancers that were second- or higher-order increased steadily from 9.77% during 1975-1984 to 21.03% during 2015-2017, reflecting an AAPC of 2.41% (95% CI, 2.16%-2.65%). In 2015-2017, second- or higher-order cancers were most prevalent among cancers of the bladder (28.79%), followed by lung and bronchus (28.07%), melanoma (27.88%), and leukemia (26.10%). The highest AAPCs over the study period were observed for melanoma (4.05%), leukemia (3.51%), and lung and bronchus (3.36%).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of newly diagnosed cancers that are second- or higher-order has grown rapidly over the past several decades and currently exceeds 20%. Continued monitoring of second and later primaries will be critical for anticipating the future impact on cancer treatment and survivorship care.

Evidence Gaps in Cancer Survivorship Care: A Report from the 2019 National Cancer Institute Cancer Survivorship Workshop

Today, there are more than 16.9 million cancer survivors in the United States; this number is projected to grow to 22.2 million by 2030. While much progress has been made in understanding cancer survivors needs and in improving survivorship care since the seminal 2006 Institute of Medicine report From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition, there is a need to identify evidence gaps and research priorities pertaining to cancer survivorship. Thus, in April 2019, the National Cancer Institute convened grant-funded extramural cancer survivorship researchers, representatives of professional organizations, cancer survivors, and advocates for a one-day in-person meeting. At this meeting, and in a subsequent webinar aimed at soliciting input from the wider survivorship community, evidence gaps and ideas for next steps in the following six areas, identified from the 2006 Institute of Medicine report, were discussed: surveillance for recurrence and new cancers, management of long-term and late physical effects, management of long-term and late psychosocial effects, health promotion, care coordination, and financial hardship. Identified evidence gaps and next steps across the areas included the need to understand and address disparities among cancer survivors, to conduct longitudinal studies as well as longer-term (>5 years post-diagnosis) follow-up studies, to leverage existing data, and to incorporate implementation science strategies to translate findings into practice. Designing studies to address these broad evidence gaps, as well as those identified in each area, will expand our understanding of cancer survivors' diverse needs, ultimately leading to the development and delivery of more comprehensive evidence-based quality care.