Cathcart-Rake, Elizabeth J

AbstractIntroductionNasal symptoms are frequently reported by patients undergoing chemotherapy.MethodsEligible patients planning to receive paclitaxel, docetaxel, nab‐paclitaxel, bevacizumab without a concomitant taxane, or “other” (non‐taxane, non‐bevacizumab) chemotherapy regimens were invited to participate in this prospective study. Patients reported nasal symptoms prior to each dose of chemotherapy.ResultsThe percentage of patients (95% CI) who reported nasal symptoms was the same for patients who received bevacizumab or nab‐paclitaxel, 82.6% (61.2%, 95.1%). There were no significant differences among the proportions of patients experiencing nasal symptoms within the paclitaxel, nab‐paclitaxel, and bevacizumab cohorts. Patients in the nab‐paclitaxel cohort were more likely to experience symptoms than those in the non‐taxane non‐bevacizumab cohort or docetaxel cohort (p = 0.001, p = 0.001). Patients in the bevacizumab cohort were more likely to experience nasal symptoms than those in the non‐taxane non‐bevacizumab cohort (p = 0.03).ConclusionNasal vestibulitis symptoms are common in patients receiving chemotherapy, especially those receiving paclitaxel, docetaxel, and bevacizumab. Further investigations into treatments of this symptom complex are warranted.

Sella and colleagues provide insight into the mechanisms potentially underlying weight changes for young survivors after a breast cancer diagnosis. However, policy and regulatory changes that target modifiable determinants of health with practical, sustainable interventions are needed to translate this information into meaningful action.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.

In the United States, one in 196 women is diagnosed with breast cancer under the age of 40 years. Adolescents and young adults (AYAs), of age 15-39 years at diagnosis, experience a number of unique challenges when confronting breast cancer. The incidence of invasive breast cancer has increased among AYA women in the United States since 2004, and most of this change is due to an increase in young women diagnosed with distant disease. AYAs are more likely than older women to present with aggressive subtypes and advanced disease, and they often require systemic staging at diagnosis. Clinical trials should be considered whenever possible, particularly in AYAs with locally advanced or metastatic disease at diagnosis and those with disease progression or recurrence. A significant proportion of AYAs carry germline cancer predisposition mutations, which necessitates prompt genetic testing for all AYAs at diagnosis and may influence choice of local therapy. Suppression of ovarian function, as an adjunct to chemotherapy, may improve breast cancer survival in AYAs. To provide optimal care for AYAs with breast cancer, clinicians should engage multidisciplinary teams that offer fertility preservation, genetic counseling, physical and occupational therapy, nutrition, and psychosocial support, along with medical expertise in tailoring cancer-directed therapy and symptom management toward young women.

Objective: This study sought to understand the patients’ perspective of what contributes to an absence of discussions of sexual orientation (SO), gender identity (GI), and sexual health in cancer care. Methods: Patients were recruited from oncology, gynecology, and a gender transition clinic to participate in semistructured interviews, which were analyzed with qualitative methods. Results: A total of 25 patients were interviewed, shedding light on 2 themes. The first was that these conversations are important but infrequent. One patient explained, “…. we know people who have had sex changes…[they] would have appreciated that question.” In response to whether sexual health was ever brought up, one patient responded, “No doctor ever has.” Patients described unaddressed issues: “There have been times, you know, we’ve wondered if it was okay to make love.” The second theme consisted of 4 pragmatic, patient-provided points to facilitate discussions: (1) implementation of a scale of 1 to 10 (with 10 being comfortable) to first gauge patients’ comfort in talking about SO, GI, and sexual health; (2) having the health-care provider explore the topic again over-time; (3) making sure the health-care provider is comfortable, as such comfort appears to enhance the patient’s comfort (“I have a doctor here, a female doctor, who just matter of fact will ask if I get erections and so on because of the medication she’s giving me);” and (4) eliminating euphemisms (one patient stated, “I don’t know what you mean by ‘sexual health’.”). Conclusion: Oncology health-care providers have a unique opportunity and responsibility to address SO, GI, and sexual health.

Background: Although national organizations advocate that health-care providers ask patients about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status—to learn, for example, about side effects of treatment and to understand patients’ social support—these conversations often do not occur. This study explored health-care providers’ reasons for having/not having these conversations. Methods: This single-institution study recruited health-care providers from medical oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and gynecology. Face-to-face interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively. Results: Three main themes emerged: (1) patient-centric reasons for discussing/not discussing sexual health and sexual and gender minority status (“So I think just the holistic viewpoint is important”); (2) health-care provider–centric reasons for discussing/not discussing these issues (“That’s going to take more time to talk about and to deal with…” or “I was raised orthodox, so this is not something we talk about…”; and (3) reasons that appeared to straddle both of the above themes (eg, acknowledgment of the sometimes taboo nature of these topics). Conclusion: Although many health-care providers favor talking with patients with cancer about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status, limited time, personal reluctance, and the taboo nature of these topics appear at times to hamper the initiation of these conversations.

End of life is difficult for all patients but sexual and gender minorities (SGM) are prone to isolation and loneliness, especially if their SGM status is unknown or unaccepted. In oncology clinics, where goals of care discussions about end of life are integral and frequent, querying patients about their SGM status and sexual health is of particular importance. The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently released a position statement that called for greater focus on SGM populations with the goal of reducing and eventually eliminating disparities in cancer care within this group. An important first step in addressing such disparities is learning how best to train cancer health-care providers to ask patients about their SGM status and about sexual health in general. This article summarizes the mandate for understanding cancer issues in SGM populations and the dearth of cancer-related data within this group. This article also describes an ongoing 3-part study intended to build a mini curriculum with the goal of helping cancer health-care providers to ask patients with cancer about SGM status and to ask all patients with cancer about sexual health issues. The results of this ongoing study could potentially improve end-of-life care for subgroups of patients.

Although chemotherapy‐induced neuropathy is perceived as a peripheral nervous system problem, data suggest that it may be ameliorated by addressing central nervous system functions. See also pages 1989–97.