Purpose Lymphedema following breast cancer surgery remains a common and feared treatment complication. Accurate information on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes among patients with lymphedema is critically needed to inform shared medical decision making and evidence-based practice in oncologic breast surgery. Our systematic review aimed to (1) identify studies describing HRQOL outcomes in breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) patients, (2) assess the quality of these studies, and (3) assess the quality and appropriateness of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used. Methods Using the PRISMA statement, we performed a systematic review including studies describing HRQOL outcomes among BCRL patients. Studies were classified by levels of evidence and fulfillment of the Efficace criteria. PRO instruments were assessed using the COSMIN criteria. Results Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria, including 8 level I and 14 level II studies. Sixteen of 39 studies were compliant with the Efficace criteria. Seventeen HRQOL instruments were used, two specific to lymphedema patients. Exercise and complex decongestive therapy treatment interventions were associated with improved HRQOL. Conclusions High-quality data on HRQOL outcomes is required to inform surgical decisions for breast cancer management and survivors. Of the lymphedema-specific PRO instruments, the Upper Limb Lymphedema 27 (ULL-27) was found to have strong psychometric properties. Future studies should strive to use high-quality condition-specific PRO instruments, follow existing guidelines for HRQOL measurement and to consider economic burdens of BCRL. Implications for Cancer Survivors As lymphedema may develop many years after breast cancer surgery, the ULL-27 may offer greater content validity for use in survivorship research.

No abstract

Anxiety and depression are prevalent among cancer patients, with significant negative impact. Many patients prefer herbs for symptom relief to conventional medications which have limited efficacy/side effects. We identified single-herb medicines that may warrant further study in cancer patients. Our search included PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Embase, and Cochrane databases, selecting only single-herb randomized controlled trials between 1996 and 2016 in any population for data extraction, excluding herbs with known potential for interactions with cancer treatments. One hundred articles involving 38 botanicals met our criteria. Among herbs most studied (≥6 randomized controlled trials each), lavender, passionflower, and saffron produced benefits comparable to standard anxiolytics and antidepressants. Black cohosh, chamomile, and chasteberry are also promising. Anxiety or depressive symptoms were measured in all studies, but not always as primary endpoints. Overall, 45% of studies reported positive findings with fewer adverse effects compared with conventional medications. Based on available data, black cohosh, chamomile, chasteberry, lavender, passionflower, and saffron appear useful in mitigating anxiety or depression with favorable risk-benefit profiles compared to standard treatments. These may benefit cancer patients by minimizing medication load and accompanying side effects. However, well-designed larger clinical trials are needed before these herbs can be recommended and to further assess their psycho-oncologic relevance.

The extant literature documents burden among caregivers of patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), but little is known about the burden of caregivers of patients receiving outpatient and homebound HSCTs. This scoping study sought to evaluate what is known about the burden of the increasing number of adult caregivers of patients receiving outpatient HSCTs and to create practice guidelines for how to best support this vulnerable group. Online databases were searched for studies that evaluated caregiver burden in adult caregivers of HSCT patients since 2010 (the publication date of the most recent systematic review on HSCT caregiver burden). Of the 1,271 articles retrieved, 12 met inclusion criteria, though none specifically examined outpatient or homebound caregivers. Overall, studies corroborated existing literature on the experience of significant burden among HSCT caregivers across the HSCT trajectory, and highlighted the emotional costs of outpatient transplants on caregivers and the need to identify caregivers at high risk for burden early in the transplant process. Future studies of outpatient caregivers should include a comprehensive assessment of burden and seek to identify points along the transplant trajectory at which caregivers are at particular risk for negative outcomes and when intervention is most appropriate.

A monoclonal antibody (MAb), PAM4, having reactivity with pancreatic carcinoma has been developed. PAM4 is an IgG1 immunoglobulin produced by immunization of mice with mucin purified from the xenografted RIP1 human pancreatic carcinoma. An immunohistochemical study of normal adult tissues showed the PAM4 reactive epitope to be restricted to the gastrointestinal tract and absent from normal pancreas. In neoplastic tissue, PAM4 was reactive with 85% of the pancreatic carcinomas, approximately half of the colon cancers and none of the breast, ovarian, prostate, renal and liver cancers. PAM4 was, in general, non-reactive with pancreatitis specimens whereas CA19.9 and DUPAN2 were strongly reactive with each one. Treatment of the mucin antigen by heating, reduction of disulfide bonds, or protease digestion abolished immunoreactivity with PAM4. Treatment of the mucin by neuraminidase or periodate oxidation reduced immunoreactivity but did not completely abolish it. Our data are consistent with the proposal that the PAM4 epitope is a conformationally dependent peptide epitope and that certain carbohydrate structures are necessary in order to maintain the correct peptide conformation. The high specificity and intense reactivity of PAM4 with pancreatic carcinoma tissue suggests that the antibody may prove useful for in vitro diagnostic assays as well as in vivo targeting of diagnostic and therapeutic agents.

Purpose The process of assessing patient symptoms and functionality using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and functional performance status (FPS) is an essential aspect of patient-centered oncology research and care. However, PRO and FPS measures are often employed separately or inconsistently combined. Thus, the purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the level of association between PRO and FPS measures to determine their differential or combined utility. Methods A systematic search was conducted using five databases (1966 to February 2014) to identify studies that described an association between PRO and FPS. Studies were excluded if they were non-cancer specific, did not include adults aged 18 or older, or were review articles. Publications were selected for review by consensus among two authors, with a third author arbitrating as needed. Results A total of 18 studies met inclusion criteria. FPS was primarily assessed by clinicians using the ECOG Performance Status or Karnofsky Performance Status measures. PROs were captured using a variety of measures, with numerous domains assessed (e.g., pain, fatigue, and general health status). Concordance between PROs and FPS measures was widely variable, falling in the low to moderate range (0.09–0.72). Conclusions Despite consistency in the method of capture of PROs or FPS, domain capture varied considerably across reviewed studies. Irrespective of the method of capturing PROs or FPS, the quantified level of association between these two areas was moderate at best, providing evidence that FPS and PRO assessments offer unique information to assist clinicians in their decision-making.

Background Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. Objective This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. Methods A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. Results A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). Conclusions This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.

No abstract