Citations

193 Background: National standards recommend distress screening as part of cancer care. While many patients report improved quality of life after cancer treatment concludes there remains a population who experience ongoing anxiety and depressive symptoms. We sought to describe psychosocial distress in lymphoma survivors and frequency of visits to mental health providers (MHP). Methods: Lymphoma patients were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource and systematically followed. Brief Profile of Mood States (POMS) and State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) were administered 3 yrs after diagnosis. Lower scores on POMS indicated more distress. A higher score on STAI indicated more anxiety, and a score ≥ 40 was considered clinically significant. Pts were asked if they ever saw a MHP due to their lymphoma. Results: Between 2002-2012, 2465 lymphoma pts age 18-91 (10% 18-40, 54% 41-65, and 36% > 65) were enrolled, met survivor definition, and completed 3-yr POMS and STAI questionnaires. 57% were male. 40% had aggressive and 60% had indolent lymphoma. The median score on STAI 1 (state) was 32 (range 20-76) and on STAI 2 (trait) was 31 (range 20-77). Median POMS total mood disturbance (TMD) score was 88 (range 1-100). 8% of pts reported seeing a MHP. 609 pts (25%) had clinically significant anxiety by STAI 1, 73 (12%) of whom saw a MHP. Those who reported clinically significant anxiety on STAI were more likely to be younger, unemployed, unmarried, and less likely to have seen a MHP. Anxiety levels were similar between those with aggressive lymphoma and indolent lymphoma regardless of treatment. Higher distress levels, measured by TMD, were more often reported by those who were unemployed or over age 65 while there was no association with lymphoma subtype, marital status, or choice of therapy. Conclusions: Clinically significant anxiety was reported in 25% of 3-yr survivors of lymphoma and was associated with younger age, unmarried status, and unemployment. Higher distress levels were associated with older age, and unemployment. However, only 8% of our cohort was seen by a MHP. Identifying distress and appropriately referring to a MHP is important for the optimal care of lymphoma survivors.

274 Background: The objectives of the formative research were to identify key themes of patient-centered cancer care and determine the best method to collect data to develop the CAHPS Survey for Cancer Care Prototype. This survey seeks to measure aspects of care most important to patients and allow comparisons of those aspects across treatment centers and treatment modalities. Methods: We developed a library of 1,781 items from CAHPS and cancer care surveys. We conducted 14 focus groups with patients (including 2 conducted in Spanish) who had received cancer care in the past 12 months, and 2 focus groups involving family members of cancer patients. We met with 10 experts representing patients and survivors, or who had expertise in quality improvement, oncology, shared decision-making and patient safety to obtain feedback on the development of the survey, potential markets for the instrument, and to assist with overall strategy. Finally, we conducted separate interviews with 5 stakeholder groups representing oncology associations to obtain feedback on focal provider, attribution and sampling. Results: While the focus group results validated findings from the item library, new concepts also emerged, such as the need for having a plan of care. Patients most readily identified with a team of providers, rather than a single provider. The two most important domains to patients were (1) how well the cancer care team communicates with patients and (2) whether the cancer care team keeps patients informed about cancer treatment. Patients were also interested in care coordination, access to information, providers who are up-to-date, and shared decision-making. Stakeholder interviews noted that survey results would be most valuable if presented by treatment modality: medical, radiation, and surgical oncology. Conclusions: These findings suggest that cancer care is best for the patient when providers are knowledgeable and straightforward with medical information, yet can demonstrate empathy and compassion.

134 Background: The CAHPS Survey for Cancer Care Prototype (application for CAHPS trademark in process) represents a significant advancement towards helping cancer care providers understand patients’ experiences of care. Although a number of standard commercial surveys are in use, currently none are available that both (1) capture the aspects of care most important to patients and (2) allow comparisons of those aspects of care across treatment centers and modalities. Methods: We developed a survey instrument that incorporated patient, clinician, and other stakeholder input throughout the development process. The survey measures patients’ perceptions of observable provider behaviors that are indicative of high quality care. Field test data were collected from 1,367 of 2,826 eligible patients (48% response rate) treated with surgery, radiation, or medical oncology from 6 accredited cancer treatment centers across the US. Classical psychometric methods were used to evaluate the measurement properties of composite scales per standard CAHPS methodology. Results: Based on a priori conceptualization, patient and stakeholder input, and empirical analyses, we identified 5 composites measuring shared decision-making, exchanging information about treatment, affective communication, access to care, and patient self-management. A confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling showed an excellent fit (CFI > 0.96; RMSEA < 0.05) between the observed data and the structure for these five composites. Cronbach’s alpha for these composites ranged from 0.71-0.88, discriminant validity was good for all scales, and correlations with overall ratings of cancer care providers were moderate (0.31) to high (0.69). Evaluation of the precision with which the composites distinguish among cancer centers indicated that the measures were reliable; however, a second field test with a greater number and variety of centers will be needed to establish a standard sampling approach and confirm these results. Conclusions: We anticipate wide-spread adoption of this measure by cancer care providers to direct quality improvement efforts due to great interest and involvement in this project on the part of stakeholders.

54 Background: After diagnosis and treatment, lung cancer survivors do not return to a health-related quality of life (QOL) and function comparable to pre-diagnosis levels as observed in other adult cancer survivors. We hypothesize that inadequate attention has been paid to addressing and improving QOL and function among lung cancer survivors. Our primary goal is to evaluate existing symptoms and QOL deficits among lung cancer survivors. Methods: We are evaluating patterns of QOL deficits (scored 5 or less on the scale from 0 [worst] to 10 [best]) in relation to time of lung cancer diagnosis, treatments, progression and/or recurrence, and health-related conditions. We are collecting and analyzing relevant health care utilization for selected QOL deficits, and identifying availability, accessibility, and effectiveness of evidence-based interventions. The expected outcomes will be new knowledge on patterns of QOL deficits, quality-adjusted life years in relation to the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of needed care and the effectiveness of interventions targeting improvement in QOL and symptoms. Results: In our initial analysis, among 3,707 lung cancer survivors who were diagnosed in 1999 to 2010, post-cancer treatment, and followed through 2011, 39% (1,442) reported deficits in overall QOL, 71% fatigue, 60% dyspnea, 41% being sedentary, 17% low spiritual well-being (SWB), and 10% currently smoking cigarettes. Among the 1,442 lung cancer survivors with a deficit in overall QOL, 97.5% reported severe fatigue or dyspnea, being sedentary or smoking, or having low SWB. In the remaining 36 of the 1,442, 24 had pain, cough, poor appetite, or other symptoms; only 12 (<1%) did not report deficit in any of the measured QOL domains. Analyses are ongoing. Conclusions: Based on evidence gained to date, we are developing and testing interventions targeting symptoms and QOL deficits. We expect to gain strong evidence for recommendations in redefining and delivering care and support that are necessary for improving the health and QOL of lung cancer survivors.

270 Background: At the 2013 ASCO Quality Symposium, we presented the formative development work and results of the 1st field test of the Cancer CAHPS survey. At that time, we noted next steps in the development and validation of the survey. In this poster/presentation, we will provide updates on these activities. Methods: The Spanish translation was completed in 2013. We conducted interviews with 9 cancer patients in 2014 to identify composite labels that resonated with consumers. We collaborated with diverse cancer care providers (health maintenance organizations, medical foundations, small oncology practices, and comprehensive cancer centers) to identify an approach to sampling patients that could be standardized across settings. With the input of stakeholders, we added additional Shared Decision Making (SDM) and Access to Care questions. Data on the revised survey were collected in a 2nd field test from May 2015 – November 2015. We will analyze these data to assess the feasibility of the sampling approach and confirm the psychometric properties of the survey. We embedded several secondary experiments in the 2nd field test including assessing the effect of language (Spanish vs. English) and mode of administration (mail only vs. web-mail mixed mode) on survey responses. Results: The Spanish-language survey is currently being fielded. Consumers identified “user friendly” composite labels, abbreviated here as Communicates well, SDM, Explains treatment, Supports self-management, Access, Delays, and Claims. We developed a comprehensive sampling approach that relies on billing data to identify cancer patient eligible to receive the survey. Preliminary findings indicate that the standardized sampling approach is feasible. The survey was administered to 3,581 patients across 4 cancer centers (i.e. reporting units) in the 2nd field test. Results of the psychometric analyses and embedded experiments will be completed in December 2015 and available for dissemination in January 2016. Conclusions: The cumulative findings from the 1st and 2nd field tests and other development activities conducted to date will be used to support an application for the CAHPS trademark.

64 Background: The goals of our Lymphoma Survivorship Clinic (SC) are to coordinate care, educate patients, and create a survivorship care plan (SCP). The aim of this study was to determine if patient-centered outcomes are improved after a SC visit. Methods: From 11/13-5/15, surveys were mailed to recently-treated lymphoma patients who were within 4 weeks of their last visit and in remission. Quality of life (QOL) was measured with PROMIS and distress was measured with the Impact of Events scale. Responses between those who attended SC and those who were eligible but did not attend were analyzed. Results: There were 96 surveys sent to the SC group; 59 were returned (61% response rate). Of the non-SC group, 140 surveys were sent and 84 were returned (60% response rate). Mean age was 57 years (range 23-77) in the SC group and 59 years (23-88) in the non-SC group. There were more females in the SC group (52% vs 30%) but no differences in race, marital status, education, or health literacy. Those who attended the SC were more likely to recall receiving a summary of cancer treatment and recommendations for follow-up care (90% SC vs. 75% non-SC, p = 0.03). Furthermore, SC attendees were more likely to “definitely” recall discussion on improving health or preventing illness (89% vs. 53%), getting help in making changes in habits/lifestyle (76% vs. 50%), diet (80% vs. 31%), and exercise (82% vs. 51%), all p < 0.001. There were no differences in discussions regarding smoking, follow-up testing, and symptom monitoring. The SC group was less likely to need more information regarding sexuality (6% vs 20%, p = 0.045). There were no differences in need for information regarding anxiety, fitness, familial cancer risk, fertility, complementary therapies, and social issues. The SC group was slightly more confident that they could get information or advice related to cancer (completely confident 76% vs. 61%, p = 0.07). There were no differences in QOL or distress. Conclusions: A Lymphoma SC visit increased receipt of SCP and provided more information on survivorship issues, particularly health behaviors, but did not improve QOL or distress. Further study is needed to determine if this leads to long-term health benefits.

236 Background: Patients (pts) with aggressive lymphoma are generally treated with curative intent and many become long-term survivors. There is little data on health behaviors after lymphoma diagnosis and their effect on QOL and long-term outcomes. Methods: Lymphoma pts were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic SPORE Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and systematically followed. We measured QOL (FACT-G) and health behaviors (tobacco/alcohol use; diet/exercise habits) 3 years after diagnosis. For this study, “survivor” was defined as alive at 3 years from diagnosis with no active disease or treatment within the previous year. Results: From 2002-2012, 671 patients with aggressive lymphoma were enrolled, met survivor definition, and completed 3-year QOL and health behavior questionnaires. At 3-years, 31% of female (F) and 48% of male (M) reported a history of tobacco use for 6+ months. Of these, 13% of F and 7% of M were still smoking; 52% reported decreased use from baseline. 66% reported no change in alcohol intake at 3-years while 25% of F and 34% of M reported decreased intake. 60% often chose whole grains and 65% get 2+ servings of vegetables daily. 42% of F and 38% of M “somewhat” believed diet could change the course of their lymphoma. Most pts endorsed no significant change in diet as a result of diagnosis. Those who made changes did so primarily out of concern for “health problems other than cancer”. Overweight/obese responders were 72% pre- and 66% post-treatment. A desire to lose weight was reported by 55% of pts. 14% of F and 23% of M often engaged in regular physical activity (PA). Nearly 50% reported a decrease in PA. Pts with advanced stage (p = 0.006), age > 60 (p = 0.001), ECOG PS > 2 (p = 0.04), and worse prognostic score (p = 0.006) were more likely to report decreased PA since diagnosis. 68% of F and 61% of M intend to become more active in the next months. Regular PA (p = < 0.0001) was associated with higher QOL, while increased alcohol intake was associated with lower QOL (p = 0.009) at 3 years. Conclusions: Many survivors of aggressive NHL strive to adopt healthy behaviors and these behaviors are associated with higher QOL. Interventions aimed at emphasizing these behaviors may have potential to improve long-term outcomes and QOL.

Purpose: The authors designed a community-based participatory research study to develop and test a family-based behavioral intervention to improve cancer literacy and promote mammography among Navajo women. Method: Using data from focus groups and discussions with a community advisory committee, they adapted an existing questionnaire to assess cancer knowledge, barriers to mammography, and cancer beliefs for use among Navajo women. Questions measuring health literacy, numeracy, self-efficacy, cancer communication, and family support were also adapted. Results: The resulting questionnaire was found to have good content validity, and to be culturally and linguistically appropriate for use among Navajo women. Conclusions: It is important to consider culture and not just language when adapting existing measures for use with AI/AN (American Indian/Alaskan Native) populations. English-language versions of existing literacy measures may not be culturally appropriate for AI/AN populations, which could lead to a lack of semantic, technical, idiomatic, and conceptual equivalence, resulting in misinterpretation of study outcomes.

ObjectiveSeveral studies have demonstrated small but statistically significant differences in quality‐of‐life (QOL) scores among vestibular schwannoma (VS) treatment modalities. However, does a several‐point difference on a 100‐point scale really matter? The minimal clinically important difference (MCID)—defined as the smallest difference in scores that patients perceive as important and that could lead to a change in management—was developed to answer this important question. While the MCID has been determined for QOL measures used in other diseases, it remains undefined in the VS literature.Study DesignDistribution‐ and anchor‐based techniques were utilized to define the MCID for the Penn Acoustic Neuroma Quality of Life (PANQOL) and 36‐Item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36).SettingTwo academic referral centers.PatientsPatients with VS (N = 538).InterventionCross‐sectional postal survey.Main Outcome MeasuresMCID for PANQOL domains and total score and SF‐36 Physical and Mental Health Component Summary scores.ResultsThe MCID (median, interquartile range) for the PANQOL total score was 11 points (10‐12); the MCIDs for individual domains were as follows: hearing, 6 (5‐8); balance, 16 (14‐19); facial, 10 (no interquartile range); pain, 11 (10‐13); energy, 13 (10‐17); anxiety, 11 (5‐22); and general, 15 (11‐19). The MCID was 7 points (6‐11) for the SF‐36 Mental Health Component Summary score and 8 points (6‐10) for the Physical Health Component Summary score.ConclusionsThe MCIDs determined in the current study generally exceed differences reported in previous prospective studies, in which conclusions about QOL benefit (or harm) among VS treatment modalities were based on statistical significance alone. Moving forward, these MCIDs should be considered when interpreting results of VS QOL studies.