Donovan, Kristine A.

Stress is ubiquitous in our modern society and contributes to many disease states. This narrative review describes the effect of stress/distress on cancer development and progression. Seminal randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, and distress management guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and the Society for Integrative LinearOncology (SIO) are highlighted. We describe the physiological effects of distress, distress assessment, and management. Psychological treatments are summarized. Evidence-based lifestyle modifications and integrative therapies are reviewed in detail, including mindfulness-based techniques, yoga, guided imagery, breathing techniques, hypnosis, exercise, music therapy, qigong/Tai Chi, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and improving sleep and heart rate variability. Recognition and treatment of distress can improve quality of life. More research is needed to determine the effects of managing distress on cancer outcomes, as well as the best type and duration of intervention, noting that the benefits of interventions may be specific for patients with different cancer types.

Background Genetics may influence symptoms experienced by breast cancer survivors (BCS) by moderating the effects of stress-reducing interventions, including the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR(BC)) program, to reduce symptom severity. As part of a larger clinical trial, the aim of this study was to evaluate genetic variants as moderators of MBSR(BC) on improvements among BCS in cognitive functioning and symptoms. Methods BCS ( n = 128) were randomized to MBSR(BC) or the Breast Cancer Education Support Program. Objective neuropsychological and subjective measures of cognitive performance, and psychological and physical symptoms were collected at baseline, 6, 12, and 26 weeks. Linear mixed models were implemented to identify MBSR(BC)’s effects over time. A total of 22 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 20 genes known to be related to these symptoms were investigated using genomic DNA. These SNPs were tested as moderators of MBSR(BC) program effects. Results Results showed MBSR(BC) participants experienced significantly greater benefits in cognitive functioning, however, the level of benefit varied based on one’s genetic profile. Effects sizes, consistency across similar measures were investigated. Among 22 candidate SNPs, rs4680 in COMT, rs1800497 in ANKK1, and rs6277 in DRD2 demonstrated the strongest, most consistent positive effects in moderating MBSR(BC)’s impact on cognitive outcomes. Conclusions Although the effects were small, this translational research may potentially identify BCS with genotypes that would be most influenced by the MBSR(BC) program. These results may be used to develop personalized intervention programs tailored to the genetic profile of each breast cancer survivor who received chemotherapy or chemotherapy and radiation. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, https://www.ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT02786797.

Introduction: The Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) Program for breast cancer survivors (BCS) is designed to enhance cognitive training through formal and informal meditational practices. This randomized clinical trial (RCT) aimed to evaluate if BCS assigned to either the MBSR(BC), Breast Cancer Education Support (BCES), or Usual Care (UC) regimens experienced greater improvements at 6, 12, and 26 weeks on objective and subjective cognitive performance. Methods: BCS ( n = 212) randomized to a three-group RCT: MBSR(BC) ( n = 91), BCES ( n = 90), or UC ( n = 31) were assessed on cognitive performance and symptoms at baseline, 6, 12, and 26 weeks. Linear mixed models were fit to evaluate the effects of the MBSR(BC) program, hypothesizing ordered effect improvements: (MBSR[BC] highest, BCES intermediate, UC lowest) along with baseline characteristics evaluated as moderators. Results: Of the BCS (mean age of 57), 73% were White, and non-Hispanic, and 77% received both chemotherapy (CT) and radiation. Cognitive performance improved in all groups. Although there were no statistically significant between-group differences in cognitive outcomes, significant symptom reductions occurred for the MBSR(BC) group ( p = 0.003). Within-group effect size analysis at 26 weeks showed substantial improvements in all three groups (effect sizes >0.50) in subjective impairments and quality of life (effect size >0.50) and objective measures of cognitive performance. MBSR(BC) showed the largest within-group effect size in the reduction of fatigue (effect size = 0.81). Effect sizes occurred in the hypothesized direction for 10 of the 18 outcomes. Discussion: Although the MBSR(BC) program did not show significant differences in cognitive performance compared with BCES and UC, all groups improved and reductions in fatigue were beneficial for MBSR(BC). Results suggest that cognitive performance may improve after CT over time considering one’s natural history. Furthermore, BCS enrolled in RCTs may be more motivated to improve their health status (NCT02786797).

Abstract Objective: We examined post-traumatic reactions and quality of life in women with recurrent gynecologic cancer who underwent a pelvic exenteration (PE), a rare, potentially life-saving radical surgery associated with life-altering sequalae. Methods: Twenty-one women who had completed PE at least 6 months prior completed measures of post-traumatic stress, post-traumatic growth, depression, and quality of life. Quality of life scores were compared to normative values for the general and gynecologic cancer populations. Results: Thirty percent of women reported clinically significant post-traumatic stress symptoms and 71% endorsed clinically significant depressive symptoms. More post-traumatic stress was associated with less post-traumatic growth, more depressive symptoms, and worse quality of life. In general, women’s quality of life was worse than the general population but comparable to women with stage III-IV ovarian cancer and women with cervical cancer. Social functioning was markedly lower in our sample and women reported more pain, diarrhea, and financial difficulties post-PE compared to published norms. There were no differences in quality of life based on age, type of PE, or cancer type. Conclusions: Findings support long-term continued symptom management and the ongoing rehabilitation of patients to optimize physical, psychological, and social well-being in PE survivorship.

Abstract Objective Emotional distress has been correlated with greater healthcare utilization and economic costs in cancer; however, the prospective relationship between positive distress screens and future healthcare utilization is less clear. Taken together, there is a critical need to synthesize studies examining the prospective relationship between emotional distress and future healthcare use to inform distress management protocols and motivate institutional resource allocation to distress management. The aim of the systematic review is to explore the relationship between emotional distress, measured via validated emotional distress questionnaires, and subsequent healthcare utilization in patients diagnosed with cancer. Methods A systematic search of seven databases was conducted on 29 March 2022 and updated 3 August 2023. Eligibility criteria were: (1) peer‐reviewed, (2) quantitative or mixed methods, (3) adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with cancer, (4) cancer distress questionnaire(s) completed prior to healthcare utilization, and (5) written in English. Exclusion criteria included: (1) non‐emotional aspects of distress (i.e., spiritual or physical distress), (2) healthcare utilization characterized via economic or monetary variables, and (3) caregiver or non‐cancer populations. Results Nineteen peer‐reviewed articles were included in the review. There was significant heterogeneity in emotional distress instruments and type of healthcare utilization used. Most studies examining general distress or anxiety found that increased distress was predictive of greater future healthcare utilization. Conclusion The results suggest that individuals with higher levels of general distress and anxiety are at increased risk for future healthcare utilization.

Abstract Introduction The CYP2D6 enzyme metabolizes opioids commonly prescribed for cancer‐related pain, and CYP2D6 polymorphisms may contribute to variability in opioid response. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing CYP2D6 ‐guided opioid prescribing for patients with cancer and reported pilot outcome data. Methods Adult patients from two cancer centers were prospectively enrolled into a hybrid implementation‐effectiveness clinical trial and randomized to CYP2D6 ‐genotype‐guided opioid selection, with clinical recommendations, or usual care. Implementation metrics, including provider response, medication changes consistent with recommendations, and patient‐reported pain and symptom scores at baseline and up to 8 weeks, were assessed. Results Most (87/114, 76%) patients approached for the study agreed to participate. Of 85 patients randomized, 71% were prescribed oxycodone at baseline. The median (range) time to receive CYP2D6 test results was 10 (3–37) days; 24% of patients had physicians acknowledge genotype results in a clinic note. Among patients with CYP2D6 ‐genotype‐guided recommendations to change therapy ( n = 11), 18% had a change congruent with recommendations. Among patients who completed baseline and follow‐up questionnaires ( n = 48), there was no difference in change in mean composite pain score (−1.01 ± 2.1 vs. −0.41 ± 2.5; p = 0.19) or symptom severity at last follow‐up (3.96 ± 2.18 vs. 3.47 ± 1.78; p = 0.63) between the usual care arm ( n = 26) and genotype‐guided arm ( n = 22), respectively. Conclusion Our study revealed high acceptance of pharmacogenetic testing as part of a clinical trial among patients with cancer pain. However, provider response to genotype‐guided recommendations was low, impacting assessment of pain‐related outcomes. Addressing barriers to utility of pharmacogenetics results and clinical recommendations will be critical for implementation success.

These NCCN Guidelines for Distress Management discuss the identification and treatment of psychosocial problems in patients with cancer. All patients experience some level of distress associated with a cancer diagnosis and the effects of the disease and its treatment regardless of the stage of disease. Clinically significant levels of distress occur in a subset of patients, and identification and treatment of distress are of utmost importance. The NCCN Distress Management Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe updates to the NCCN Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List, and to the treatment algorithms for patients with trauma- and stressor-related disorders.

Distress is defined in the NCCN Guidelines for Distress Management as a multifactorial, unpleasant experience of a psychologic (ie, cognitive, behavioral, emotional), social, spiritual, and/or physical nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms, and its treatment. Early evaluation and screening for distress leads to early and timely management of psychologic distress, which in turn improves medical management. The panel for the Distress Management Guidelines recently added a new principles section including guidance on implementation of standards of psychosocial care for patients with cancer.