Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology最新文献

Purpose: A complication of cancer-directed therapy that often goes undiscussed is infertility. Although guidelines recommend addressing the possibility of infertility and fertility preservation approaches before initiating treatment, an internal review at our institution showed only 49% of female patients had infertility risk counseling documented. As a result, a fertility assessment communication was added into all oncology treatment plans to improve rates of fertility discussion and documentation. Methods: This retrospective observational study included newly diagnosed patients of childbearing potential who initiated cancer-directed therapy between January 1, 2020, and October 31, 2021. Patients who were no longer of childbearing potential due to age or surgery were excluded. Patients were divided into pre- and post-implementation groups to assess the impact of the fertility assessment communication implemented on November 1, 2020. Results: A total of 152 patients met inclusion criteria, with 80 patients in the pre-implementation group and 72 patients in the post-implementation group. The primary outcome of documentation of infertility risk discussion was 47.5% in the pre-implementation group and 86.1% in the post-implementation group (p < 0.0001). Discussion of fertility preservation options was documented in 28.7% of the pre-implementation group and 43.1% in the post-implementation group (p = 0.13). In the pre-implementation group, 5% underwent fertility preservation versus 27.8% in the post-implementation group (p = 0.0001). Of the 27 patients who received fertility preservation, 13 received hormonal therapy, 11 sperm banking, and 3 egg harvesting. Conclusion: This intervention significantly increased rates of infertility risk discussion and fertility preservation approaches received. There are opportunities to help patients receive fertility preservation, especially sperm banking and egg harvesting.

Purpose: There is limited research addressing the bereavement needs of parents whose young adult (YA) children have died from cancer. Research within oncology about the impact of child loss has tended to focus on parents of pediatric aged children. We adapted a general bereavement support group curriculum used with adults to address the unique needs of bereaved parents of YAs. Methods: Using a quality improvement framework, 25 bereaved parents of YA children participated in one of three 6-session bereavement support group programs during 2020 and 2021. Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the programs were offered virtually. The participants provided feedback and completed an evaluation. Results: Nineteen mothers and six fathers participated with 20 (80%) completing the evaluation. The median time since the death of their child was 6 months. The participants evaluated the program highly, reporting that they felt less isolated (4.25/5 on a 5-point Likert scale); that their concerns were similar to others (4.45/5); and the discussion topics were relevant (4.20/5). Other topics that were identified included the impact on the family of losing a YA child, and how other relationships change. Forty-five percent of participants expressed a preference for a hybrid delivery model, incorporating in-person and virtual sessions. The majority also wished to continue meeting monthly, given they had little contact with other bereaved parents of YAs. Conclusion: The general bereavement support group curriculum was readily adapted for use with bereaved parents of YA children who died from cancer. A hybrid delivery model was the preferred method for future groups.

Purpose: Timely supportive and palliative care (SPC) integration in adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer management is recommended in curative and palliative settings. However, multiple barriers exist to implementing this goal. Liverpool Cancer Therapy Center (LCTC) serviced a growing AYA (15-39 years) population without AYA-dedicated services and the vast majority receiving no SPC engagement. Concerned this was placing AYA patients' wellbeing at risk, we determined a cultural change was required and that the newly established AYA Supportive and Palliative Care (AYASPC) Service could facilitate this. Methods: The AYASPC Service conducted a 6-month quality improvement project aiming to increase its referrals from a baseline average of one per month to four per month, to increase confidence in making SPC referrals and to enhance appreciation for specialized AYA care. Interventions included formalizing an AYASPC referral pathway with broad indications, and educating clinicians on holistic AYA care, the AYASPC Service's model of care (MoC) and AYASPC referral benefits. Results: During the project, 27 AYASPC referrals were made. Referrals consistently exceeded the Service's baseline, and from 3 months onward exceeded the project target. Additionally, referrals were made earlier (29.6% at diagnosis), for a variety of cancer diagnoses with varied prognoses, and for indications beyond traditional issues of complex symptoms and end-of-life care. Clinicians also expressed greater confidence in supporting AYAs and making SPC referrals. Conclusion: In a brief timeframe, the AYASPC Service's innovative and adaptable MoC and project interventions sustainably improved AYASPC access and affected a positive cultural shift around AYA care and advocacy.