Who Treats Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer? A Report from the AYA HOPE Study

PURPOSE

Physicians play a critical role in delivering effective treatment and enabling successful transition to survivorship among adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients. However, with no AYA cancer medical specialty, information on where and by whom AYAs with cancer are treated is limited.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Institute's population-based AYA HOPE Study, 464 AYAs aged 15-39 at diagnosis treated by 903 physicians were identified. Differences in physician and hospital characteristics were examined by age at diagnosis and cancer type (germ cell cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, acute lymphocytic leukemia [ALL], and sarcoma) using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Treating physicians were predominately 51-64 years old, male, United States-trained in non-pediatric specialties, and in group practices within large metropolitan areas. Older patients were less often treated by pediatric physicians (p < 0.01) and more likely to be treated by United States-trained physicians without research/teaching responsibilities and in hospitals without residency programs (p < 0.05). The majority of the few pediatricians (n = 44) treated ALL patients. Physicians with research/teaching responsibilities and those based in medical schools were more likely to treat patients with ALL and sarcoma compared with other cancer types (p < 0.01). Of HL patients, 73% were treated at a cancer center compared with 56% of patients with germ cell cancer (p < 0.01), while ALL (85%) and sarcoma (87%) patients were more likely to be treated in hospitals with residency programs (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Most AYAs with cancer were treated by non-pediatric physicians in community settings, although physician characteristics varied significantly by patient cancer type and age at diagnosis.

Fertility preservation knowledge, counseling, and actions among adolescent and young adult patients with cancer: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

The fertility of adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer can be threatened by treatments, but to the authors' knowledge little is known regarding the extent to which providers discuss this with patients or recommend fertility preservation, or the patient and physician characteristics associated with these interactions.

METHODS

Questionnaires from 459 AYA patients with cancer who were diagnosed between 2007 and 2008 and recruited through 7 US population-based cancer registries were analyzed using sex-specific multivariable models. The authors assessed characteristics associated with not discussing therapy effects on fertility or fertility preservation options, and not making fertility preservation arrangements.

RESULTS

Males without a medical oncologist were more likely not to be told that therapy might affect fertility than those with a medical oncologist (male odds ratio [OR], 2.28; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.03-5.00). Individuals without insurance (male OR, 2.91 [95% CI, 1.41-5.91] and female OR, 5.46 [95% CI, 1.59-18.72]); those raising children aged <18 years; and, among males only, those who received treatment posing no or a low fertility risk (OR, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.60-7.16) were more likely not to discuss fertility preservation with providers. Finally, among males, those without a college degree (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.00-3.97), lacking private insurance (OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.16-7.63), and raising children aged <18 years (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 1.63-7.65) were more likely to not make fertility preservation arrangements; too few females had made fertility preservation arrangements for similar analyses to be performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Discussion and action surrounding fertility preservation for AYA patients with cancer are associated with medical factors, patient socioeconomic data, and child-rearing status. These results highlight the need for insurance coverage for fertility preservation and increased awareness of fertility preservation options.

Use of appropriate initial treatment among adolescents and young adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

There has been little improvement in the survival of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients aged 15 to 39 years relative to other age groups, raising the question of whether such patients receive appropriate initial treatment.

METHODS

We examined receipt of initial cancer treatment for a population-based sample of 504 AYAs diagnosed in 2007-2008 with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), Hodgkin's or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, germ cell cancer, or sarcoma. Registry data, patient surveys, and detailed medical record reviews were used to evaluate the association of patient demographic, socioeconomic, and health care setting characteristics with receipt of appropriate initial treatment, which was defined by clinical specialists in AYA oncology based on adult guidelines and published literature available before 2009 and analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Approximately 75% of AYA cancer patients in our sample received appropriate treatment, 68% after excluding stage I male germ cell patients who all received appropriate treatment. After this exclusion, appropriate treatment ranged from 79% of sarcoma patients to 56% of ALL patients. Cancer type (P < .01) and clinical trial participation (P = .04) were statistically significantly associated with appropriate treatment in multivariable analyses. Patients enrolled in clinical trials were more likely to receive appropriate therapy relative to those not enrolled (78% vs 67%, adjusted odds ratio = 2.6, 95% confidence interval = 1.1 to 6.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Except for those with early stage male germ cell tumors, approximately 30% (or 3 in 10) AYA cancer patients did not receive appropriate therapy. Further investigation is required to understand the reasons for this potential shortfall in care delivery.

Follow-up care experiences and perceived quality of care among long-term survivors of breast, prostate, colorectal, and gynecologic cancers

INTRODUCTION

Post-treatment follow-up represents a crucial aspect of quality cancer care; however, data are lacking regarding follow-up care experiences, perception of provider involvement in care, and perceived quality of care from diverse samples of long-term survivors diagnosed as adults.

METHODS

Questionnaires were mailed in 2005 to 2006 to breast, prostate, colorectal, endometrial, and ovarian cancer survivors (4 to 14 years after diagnosis), sampled from California SEER cancer registries.

RESULTS

Most survivors (n = 1,490) reported recent follow-up care (68.7%), generally from oncology specialists only (47.4%) or shared between oncology and primary care providers (PCPs; 27.6%). Most survivors reported follow-up care advice (79.9%); fewer reported late-effects advice or receipt of a treatment summary (41.7% and 19.9%, respectively). Survivors who identified a PCP as their main follow-up care physician were as likely as those identifying an oncology specialist to rate their care as high quality (odds ratio [OR], 2.56; 95% CI, 0.98 to 6.74); however, survivors who could not identify a main follow-up care provider were less likely to report high-quality care (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.50). Compared with follow-up care by an oncology specialist only, care by a PCP only was associated with a lower quality-of-care rating (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.91), but there was no significant difference in quality rating by survivors when care was shared by an oncology specialist and PCP compared with an oncology specialist only.

CONCLUSION

Long-term survivors commonly report follow-up care years after their diagnosis; however, many patients' follow-up lacks important components. Care is more likely to be rated as high quality when one main provider is identified and an oncology specialist is involved.

Social support, self-efficacy for decision-making, and follow-up care use in long-term cancer survivors

OBJECTIVE

Cancer survivors play an important role in coordinating their follow-up care and making treatment-related decisions. Little is known about how modifiable factors such as social support are associated with active participation in follow-up care. This study tests associations between social support, cancer-related follow-up care use, and self-efficacy for participation in decision-making related to follow-up care (SEDM). We also identified sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with social support among long-term survivors.

METHODS

The FOllow-up Care Use among Survivors study is a cross-sectional, population-based survey of breast, prostate, colon, and gynecologic cancer survivors (n=1522) 4-14 years post-diagnosis. Multivariable regression models were used to test associations between perceived social support (tangible and emotional/informational support modeled separately), follow-up care use (past 2 years), and SEDM, as well as to identify factors associated with perceived support.

RESULTS

Neither support type was associated with follow-up care use (all p>0.05), although marital status was uniquely, positively associated with follow-up care use (p<0.05). Both tangible support (B for a standard deviation increase (SE)=9.75(3.15), p<0.05) and emotional/informational support (B(SE)=12.61(3.05), p<0.001) were modestly associated with SEDM. Being married, having adequate financial resources, history of recurrence, and better perceived health status were associated with higher perceived tangible and emotional support (all p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

While perceived social support may facilitate survivor efficacy for participation in decision-making during cancer follow-up care, other factors, including marital satisfaction, appear to influence follow-up care use. Marital status and social support may be important factors to consider in survivorship care planning.

Cardiovascular risk factors among long-term survivors of breast, prostate, colorectal, and gynecologic cancers: a gap in survivorship care?

PURPOSE

Individuals diagnosed with high survival cancers will often die of cardiovascular disease (CVD) rather than a recurrence of their cancer, yet CVD risk factors may be overlooked during survivorship care. We assess the prevalence of CVD risk factors among long-term cancer survivors and compare results to survey data from the general population in the same geographic region. We also characterize how often at-risk survivors discuss CVD-related health behaviors with their health care providers.

METHODS

Survivors (n = 1,582) of breast, prostate, colorectal, and gynecologic cancers, 4-14 years after diagnosis, were recruited from two California cancer registries for a cross-sectional mail survey. We assessed CVD risk factors, including smoking, body mass index, physical inactivity, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and diabetes, as well as report of discussions with health care providers about diet, exercise, smoking, and lifestyle change assistance.

RESULTS

With the exception of current smoking, CVD risk factors were more common among survivors than the general adult population. Of survivors, 62.0 % were overweight or obese, 55.0 % reported hypertension, 20.7 % reported diabetes, 18.1 % were inactive, and 5.1 % were current smokers. Compared to white, non-Hispanic survivors, Hispanic (b = 0.37, p = 0.007) and African-American (b = 0.66, p < 0.0001), but not Asian, survivors reported significantly more risk factors. One in three survivors with one or more risk factors for CVD did not report a health promotion discussion with their health care providers.

CONCLUSIONS

CVD risk factors are common among long-term survivors, but many at-risk survivors may not discuss lifestyle prevention with their health care team. Primary care and oncology should work together to deliver optimal survivorship care that addresses CVD risk factors, as well as prevalent disease.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cardiovascular disease may compromise cancer survivors' long-term health and well-being, yet cardiovascular risk factors may be overlooked during survivorship care. We document that CVD risk factors are common among cancers survivors, yet nearly a third of survivors do not report health promotion discussions with their medical teams. Survivors should be aware of their cardiovascular risk factors and initiate discussions with their medical teams about health promotion topics, if appropriate.

Unmet Support Service Needs and Health-Related Quality of Life among Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer: The AYA HOPE Study

INTRODUCTION

Cancer for adolescents and young adults (AYA) differs from younger and older patients; AYA face medical challenges while navigating social and developmental transitions. Research suggests that these patients are under or inadequately served by current support services, which may affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

METHODS

We examined unmet service needs and HRQOL in the National Cancer Institute's Adolescent and Young Adult Health Outcomes and Patient Experience (AYA HOPE) study, a population-based cohort (n = 484), age 15-39, diagnosed with cancer 6-14 months prior, in 2007-2009. Unmet service needs were psychosocial, physical, spiritual, and financial services where respondents endorsed that they needed, but did not receive, a listed service. Linear regression models tested associations between any or specific unmet service needs and HRQOL, adjusting for demographic, medical, and health insurance variables.

RESULTS

Over one-third of respondents reported at least one unmet service need. The most common were financial (16%), mental health (15%), and support group (14%) services. Adjusted models showed that having any unmet service need was associated with worse overall HRQOL, fatigue, physical, emotional, social, and school/work functioning, and mental health (p's < 0.0001). Specific unmet services were related to particular outcomes [e.g., needing pain management was associated with worse overall HRQOL, physical and social functioning (p's < 0.001)]. Needing mental health services had the strongest associations with worse HRQOL outcomes; needing physical/occupational therapy was most consistently associated with poorer functioning across domains.

DISCUSSION

Unmet service needs in AYAs recently diagnosed with cancer are associated with worse HRQOL. Research should examine developmentally appropriate, relevant practices to improve access to services demonstrated to adversely impact HRQOL, particularly physical therapy and mental health services.

Impact of cancer on work and education among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To examine the impact of cancer on work and education in a sample of adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

By using the Adolescent and Young Adult Health Outcomes and Patient Experience Study (AYA HOPE)-a cohort of 463 recently diagnosed patients age 15 to 39 years with germ cell cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, sarcoma, and acute lymphocytic leukemia from participating Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registries-we evaluated factors associated with return to work/school after cancer diagnosis, a belief that cancer had a negative impact on plans for work/school, and reported problems with work/school after diagnosis by using descriptive statistics, χ(2) tests, and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

More than 72% (282 of 388) of patients working or in school full-time before diagnosis had returned to full-time work or school 15 to 35 months postdiagnosis compared with 34% (14 of 41) of previously part-time workers/students, 7% (one of 14) of homemakers, and 25% (five of 20) of unemployed/disabled patients (P < .001). Among full-time workers/students before diagnosis, patients who were uninsured (odds ratio [OR], 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.67; no insurance v employer-/school-sponsored insurance) or quit working directly after diagnosis (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.37; quit v no change) were least likely to return. Very intensive cancer treatment and quitting work/school were associated with a belief that cancer negatively influenced plans for work/school. Finally, more than 50% of full-time workers/students reported problems with work/studies after diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Although most AYA patients with cancer return to work after cancer, treatment intensity, not having insurance, and quitting work/school directly after diagnosis can influence work/educational outcomes. Future research should investigate underlying causes for these differences and best practices for effective transition of these cancer survivors to the workplace/school after treatment.