As cancer survival rates increase, healthcare professionals may be treating more patients who are considered long-term survivors (5 years or more after treatment). The 5-year survival milestone is often a cause for celebration, but results from studies show that 20% to 30% of long-term survivors continue to have needs that nurses and other members of their healthcare team can address, at least in part.

Survivorship comes with its own set of physical, emotional, and financial challenges. To promote good quality of life and autonomy, long-term survivors will need ongoing support. Healthcare teams can provide this by implementing survivorship care plans, using telemedicine, or bringing on more support staff, such as patient navigators.

Even 5 years or more after treatment, patients can continue to experience the physical effects of cancer treatment, which may affect their ability to perform typical daily activities. These effects can include pain, neuropathy, sexual dysfunction, incontinence, and fatigue, among others. Some treatments lead to other health risks, such as damage to the heart, bones, or other organs, as well as an increased risk for other cancers.

Patients often feel as if they’ve been cut off from their healthcare team a few years after treatment and that they have been left to deal with these issues on their own. Once patients stop seeing their oncologist regularly, nurses are perhaps in the best position to let them know who can address these salient concerns. Providing patients with detailed guidance can help them recognize that they have support as they continue through survivorship. Nurses can encourage some to call their primary care physician or educate others on how to stay in touch with their oncologist.

Long-term cancer survivors often have similar psychosocial needs as patients who have recently completed treatment. Although anxiety is highest in the first year or two after treatment completion, long-term survivors often continue to experience anxiety related to fear of recurrence. Survivors also sometimes experience ongoing depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and poor body image.

Patients should be screened for mental health and psychosocial needs on an ongoing basis. Ideally, this evaluation would be part of the conversation during follow-up visits and yearly checkups. Even if a patient is coping well during their first year in recovery, new issues may arise throughout their survivorship trajectory.

Although not all patients may be willing, or able, to seek formal mental health or counseling support, some may benefit from psychoeducation or peer support through groups or mentors.

Patients need information and tools to guide them in the right direction, and nurses are uniquely qualified to provide these resources. Patients want to get healthy, lose weight, and take action to prevent a recurrence. Information on diet, exercise, and lifestyle changes is an important part of cancer survivorship. This affords patients some control of their own and provides new ways to care for their health.

Nurses can steer patients toward excellent online and mobile resources for diet, such as Ina, the Intelligent Nutrition Assistant from Savor Health and CancerCare. This service provides patients and survivors with on-demand nutrition guidance through text messages, and many health insurance companies offer vouchers or reimbursement for gym memberships. 

Nurses can also help keep patients informed through survivorship care plans. Cancer survivors want to know what to expect once treatment is complete. After seeing their doctor frequently for months or years, patients may experience increased anxiety as they adjust to fewer visits. Survivorship care plans maintain the conversation about what the patient is experiencing throughout survivorship.

This tool assesses the patient as a whole person and can address many facets, including physical well-being, ongoing symptoms, mental and emotional health, financial needs, and reproductive or sexual concerns. These plans also allow providers, especially those outside the oncology team, to understand the specific needs of a patient.

Unfortunately, only about half of the top cancer centers in the United States use a survivorship care plan,4 even though they can access many versions of the tool online, such as the OncoLife Survivorship Care Plan from OncoLink (

Although many cancer survivors can move forward post-treatment with minimal psychological or physical distress, some need support 5 years or more after treatment.

 Healthcare providers, especially oncology nurses, are well-positioned to connect patients with the appropriate avenues of support for life after treatment.

Burg, MA, Adorno G, Lopez ED, et al. Current unmet needs of cancer survivors: analysis of open-ended responses to the American Cancer Society Study of Cancer Survivors II. 

2015;121(4):623-630. doi: 10.1002/cncr.2895

Foster C, Wright D, Hill H, Hopkinson J, Roffe L. Psychosocial implications of living 5 years or more following a cancer diagnosis: a systemic review of the research evidence. 

2009;18(3):223-247. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2008.01001.x.

Painter K. Life after cancer: more survivors live longer, face new health challenges. 

usatoday.com/in-depth/news/50-states/2019/02/13/life-after-cancer-survivors-oncology-survivorship-plans-long-term-health/2794121002/

Harrison SE, Watson EK, Ward AM, et al. Primary health and supportive care needs of long-term cancer survivors: a questionnaire survey. 

2011;29(15):2091-2098. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.5167.

Articles

For patients with cancer, their journey does not end after treatment is over.

What Are the Needs of Cancer Survivors 5 Years or More After Treatment?

A flood of information about genetic tests for cancer risk is available outside the clinic—in the media and even in public places like senior centers, churches, and community fairs. If these promotions have caught your attention or that of your patients and their families, and they are considering DNA or genetic testing, you need to be armed with important information that you should first share with your patients. As an oncology nurse, you can be the first line of defense against fraudulent genetic tests and help steer patients and their family members to tests that are trustworthy and can provide reliable information to act on.

Genetic testing can provide important, potentially lifesaving information if performed in the right way. If a patient is considering genetic testing to learn more about their cancer risk, or if they have already received genetic test results, speaking with a genetic counselor, a doctor, or other healthcare provider who has advanced training in genetics is crucial. This is the most reliable way to obtain and understand information about their cancer.

With the growing interest and availability of genetic testing, the industry has witnessed a striking uptick in advertisements and sales representatives aggressively promoting genetic tests directly to consumers at community events, on Facebook, and in other nonmedical settings. The vast majority of these salespeople and “health advocates” have no medical background and little or no training in genetics.

These marketing representatives often target the Medicare population. Some are evasive about the lab performing the testing, and most provide misleading information, making false promises of “free” genetic testing to individuals who do not qualify. Ultimately, unwitting consumers may hand over sensitive information such as their health insurance ID number and Social Security number, enabling fraudulent billing of insurance companies—or worse.

Contrary to most health insurance policies, these businesses claim that the broad genetic test panels they offer are free to individuals

who have certain health insurance coverage. Although genetic counseling and testing for a BRCA mutation is considered an essential health benefit for certain women under the Affordable Care Act (ACA),

 the tests for hereditary cancer genes (CGX) and pharmacogenetic tests (PGX) offered by companies are rarely covered at 100%, if they are covered at all.

Importantly, the BRCA testing requirement under the ACA does not apply to Medicare or Medicaid. In fact, a Medicare policy imple- mented in late 2018 severely restricts genetic testing for hereditary cancer mutations. In most cases, it covers testing only for individ- uals with “recurrent, relapsed, refractory, metastatic, or advanced stage III or IV cancer” who are seeking additional treatment. Even before this policy took effect, Medicare rarely covered multigene panel testing for cancer survivors, and it has never covered genetic testing for previvors (those with a strong predisposition to cancer who do not have a diagnosis of the disease).

Despite complaints filed with the Federal Trade Commission, the Office of Inspector General, and state attorneys general, the number of unscrupulous companies and concerns is growing. These companies take advantage of individuals by misinforming them about their need and eligibility for hereditary cancer genetic testing, providing a medical service without the expertise of qualified healthcare providers, and committing fraud by stealing personal information

and/or billing insurers for services not provided.

Reliable Genetic Testing is Still Important

National guidelines recommend genetic counseling with a qualified expert before and after genetic testing. Talking to a healthcare provider with expertise in cancer

genetics is important. This helps assure that the right test is performed (many are available) at a reliable, high-quality lab; that results are interpreted correctly; and that you or patients receive accurate infor- mation about what the results mean and the available medical options.

When genetic testing for cancer risk is performed outside a healthcare setting, the like- lihood of misinformation is high and could lead to harm, including misinterpretation or misuse of the results. This includes “recreational” genetic tests such as 23andMe, which are not comprehen- sive or reliable measures of disease risk.

All individuals can benefit from meeting with a qualified and trustworthy healthcare professional who has their best interests at heart. Former teachers, pyramid marketing representatives, and insurance salespeople should not be involved in genetic testing— even if it involves just taking a cheek swab. Too much rides on the results of these tests.

So please, talk to your patients’ family members and friends. Warn them about the bad actors and fraud that is taking place. If they are interested in genetic testing, encourage them to seek out trust- worthy medical professionals such as yourself, a trusted colleague, or their primary care provider for guidance and expertise.

Alternatively, the Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered website has information on finding a cancer genetics specialist.

Affordable Care Act implementation FAQs - set 12

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Fact-Sheets-and-FAQs/aca_implementation_faqs12.html. Accessed August 19, 2019.

Genetic testing has come a long way in cancer care, but not all genetic tests are as defentive as some would have you or your patients beleive.

Protect Yourself and Your Patients From Fraud in Genetic Testing

5. New Guidelines Published for Oral Mucositis Relief

Researchers and clinicians from around the world have issued new guidelines for the treatment of oral mucositis that involve 

. Learn more about these updates in this piece.

Here, we take a closer look at the increased risk of 

 that adolescent and young adult cancer survivors face, and how oncology nurses can help.  

 for oncology nurses everywhere, contributor and oncology nurse Karen Harris takes a look at how nurses will have to take an active role to minimize burnout.

nurse practitioners and physician assistants

 comprise the largest group of cancer care providers for Medicare beneficiaries in some regions. Learn more, with this piece.

1. FDA Takes Action Against Implant-Associated Cancer 

In our top story of the month, learn how the FDA is taking action to protect women from 

breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma

 by requiring the implant manufacturers to recall the products in question.

Here are the top 5 Oncology Nursing News stories for July 2019.

ONN's Top 5 Stories: July 2019

An exercise intervention was no more effective than a more passive health promotion program in affecting nutrient intake in female cancer survivors, according to study results presented at the ONS 44

The findings highlight the need for nurses to repetitively assess and monitor diet and exercise among cancer survivors to promote a healthy lifestyle, one of the study’s authors said.

“Healthy eating and regular physical activity are critical behaviors to minimize health risks in cancer survivors,” So-Hyun Park Ph.D, ANP-BC, RN, assistant professor at Hunter Bellevue School of Nursing at the City University of New York, said during her presentation. “It is important to understand cancer survivors' current diet and whether physical activity levels may affect their dietary behavior.”

In the randomized, controlled trial, the researchers evaluated whether participation in an exercise intervention compared with more passive health promotion would affect nutrient intake over a 12-month period among 154 perimenopausal or early postmenopausal female cancer survivors. Women were assigned to either an aerobic resistance exercise intervention arm or a health promotion arm that involved home-based physical activity.

Both groups received written information on dietary guidelines, calcium and vitamin D supplementation and national recommendations for physical activity.

Dietary records were collected at baseline, 6, and 12 months, and International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) results were collected via telephone for 12 months.

Mean age was 51.9 years. The majority of women were white (88.3%), married (70.0%), employed (82.0%) and had children (78.6%) and a high level of education (57% college or graduated high school). The study included survivors of breast cancer (83.1%), gynecologic cancer (11.7%), and lymphoma or colorectal cancer (5.2%).

At baseline, energy and mean daily intake of 4 major nutrients were as follows:

energy: 1535.0±406.1 kcal; energy per unit of weight: 21.2±8.0 kcal/kg

protein: 70.4±18.4 g; protein per unit of weight: 1.0±0.3 g/kg

Of note, protein intake was significantly higher among the health promotion arm versus the exercise intervention arm at baseline (1.0±0.4 g/kg vs. 0.9±0.3 g/kg; 

 = .03). The researchers found no other significant differences between groups at baseline.

Over the 12-month period, women in both groups demonstrated a reduced intake of energy, protein, total fat, and carbohydrates. Meanwhile, fiber intake at 6 months increased slightly in both arms.

The researchers observed no significant differences in changes between both study arms at 6 and 12 months.

“Although the physical activity level of participants in the exercise intervention group increased over the 12 months of the study, it did not affect their nutrient intake behavior. Thus, targeted interventions specific to diet are needed to promote healthy dietary behavior in female cancer survivors,” Park said.

Next steps, she said, should involve testing both exercise and nutrition interventions to assess whether multitargeted interventions improve healthy lifestyle behaviors. In addition, she recommended that qualitative inquiry be made about the factors that influence the physical activity and diet of this population.

Park SH, Knobf T, Kerstetter J, Jeon S. Effect of an exercise intervention on nutrient intake in cancer survivors. Presented at: ONS 44th Annual Congress; April 11-14, 2019; Anaheim, CA. Abstract 4570.

Despite increased physical activity, nutritional intake behavior among female cancer survivors did not improve with an exercise intervention program, according to a randomized, controlled trial.

Targeted Dietary Interventions Necessary to Promote Healthy Lifestyle

Ninety percent of patients with cancer enter their first oncology appointment with a nutritional issue, according to Susan Bratton. However, Savor Health, who works in conjunctions with Merck’s Your Cancer Game Plan, has set out to combat just that.

, Bratton, founder and CEO of Savor Health, discussed the importance of nutrition for patients and caregivers before, during and after treatment, as well as the nurse’s role in the multidisciplinary approach.

: What prompted you to create Savor Health?

I had lost a very close friend to glioblastoma. My friend struggled with nutritional issues and when he asked, “Can I strengthen my immune system to fight alongside chemotherapy and radiation?” he was told that nutrition doesn’t matter and to eat whatever he wanted. This struck me as really odd. I was working in the healthcare industry at the time and so I went to the evidence-based literature because that was really how I had been trained. What I found was that nutrition does matter, and it matters a lot.

In fact, 90% of patients (with cancer) at the time that they walk in to their first oncology appointment are already experiencing addressable nutritional issues ranging from under 5% (who experience) weight loss and up to about 8% to 9% who already have severe malnutrition, and of course, everything in between those two points. But what my research also found is that 85% of patients are actively seeking solutions to address their nutritional issues and to answer the question of what to eat. Because there is only one dietitian for every 2,700 patients, it’s just physically impossible to address these issues from a systemic perspective. So, I looked at this and said, “Wow, there is this huge unmet need that can, not only when addressed, improve patients’ clinical outcomes, but it can also improve their quality of life — as well as their family and caregivers’ quality of life, too.

Can you briefly explain what Savor Health is?

Our mission and goal is to make the lives of patients (with cancer) and their caregivers easier and less stressful by addressing their nutritional needs and issues from point of diagnosis through treatment and in to survivorship.

How we do that is through a personalized nutrition technology platform that provides highly-personalized, clinically appropriate nutrition support and advice that is based on evidence-based science and clinical best practices. So, what that is from a patient perspective is customized tips to managing or preventing side effects or recommendations of what to eat based on what they are telling us about their situation, individually customizing recipes, and (delivery) solutions. So, it’s an end-to-end solution (that is free to patients).

How does a multidisciplinary health care approach play a role in Savor Health’s mission? In particular, what role can nurses play in helping patients with nutrition?

We are big believers in the multidisciplinary role. If I think about the multidisciplinary team that should surround a patient, it includes doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses, potentially physical therapists, pharmacists, and nutritionists. Nutritionists and registered dietitians are important members of the multidisciplinary team. It is our objective to work with the medical team to understand what the patient’s issued and concerns are, and what direction the doctors and nurses are giving us. We need to work collaboratively with them.

This specifically relates to nurses. Nurses really are in the front line from a patient perspective. Doctors are also, but they don’t have as much time with the patients. (Nurses) are the unsung heroes. They are with the patients for a much longer period of time. They know when nutritional issues are happening. They have so much wisdom to provide. They know a great deal, and like doctors they are incredibly compassionate. So our goal is to work collaboratively with every one of those members of the multidisciplinary team.

Savor Health Addresses Unmet Medical Need: Nutrition for Patients With Cancer

The FDA has expanded the approval of aprepitant (Cinvanti) injectable emulsion to include a 2-minute intravenous (IV) use for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).1

The decision is based on results of a two-part, phase I study that demonstrated bioequivalence and a similar safety profile for patients who received aprepitant as a standard 30-minute IV infusion compared with a 2-minute IV injection, which is also referred to as an IV push.2

Aprepitant is a polysorbate 80-free, IV formulation of an NK1 receptor antagonist, which is designed to significantly reduce CINV in both the acute and delayed phases following chemotherapy. The FDA previously approved aprepitant as a 30-minute IV infusion in November 2017, making it the first IV formulation to directly deliver aprepitant, which is the active ingredient in fosaprepitant (Emend) capsules.

"Cinvanti, delivering the efficacy of aprepitant, but without polysorbate 80, has been an important addition for the prevention of CINV. Notably, data now show that the 2-minute IV push has comparable safety to the 30-minute IV infusion,” said Rudolph M. Navari, MD, PhD, Division of Hematology Oncology, University of Alabama, Birmingham School of Medicine. “This approval will enable physicians to leverage the operational advantages of this method of administration and will contribute to a reduction in total patient time spent in the infusion suite."

Part A of the study randomized 24 patients to receive aprepitant at 130 mg IV via injection over 15 minutes (cohort 1), 5 minutes (cohort 2), or 2 minutes (cohort 3). The primary endpoint was tolerability and safety of single doses of aprepitant across the 3 cohorts. Patients then progressed to Part B of the trial, which was a two-sequence crossover study, following establishment of acceptable tolerability in cohorts 2 and 3.

In Part B, 50 patients were randomized to receive a 2-minute injection of 130 mg aprepitant at 9 ml/min or a 30-minute infusion at 296 ml/h. The primary endpoint was pharmacokinetics of plasma aprepitant following a single dose as an injection or infusion; secondary endpoints were safety and tolerability. The mean age of patients was 34; 19 patients were female and 31 were male.

Results showed bioequivalence between the 2 administration arms, confirming the short injection as an alternative method to administer aprepitant to patients. The values for area under the curve (AUC)0-last, AUC0-inf and t1/2 were similar between injections and infusions. Additionally, Cmax was higher in patients who received aprepitant via injection than in those who received it via infusion, and Tmax occurred earlier with the injection versus the infusion.

Regarding safety, 8 patients on the injection arm experienced 11 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 6 related) versus 9 patients who experienced 14 TEAEs (9 related) in the infusion group. The most prevalent treatment-related TEAEs were headache and fatigue; 1 patient in each arm reported feeling hot ≤30 minutes following treatment.

The initial approval of aprepitant was based on findings from 2 randomized, crossover studies that demonstrated the bioequivalence of aprepitant to fosaprepitant IV for the prevention of acute and delayed CINV following highly emetogenic cancer (HEC) chemotherapy and moderately emetogenic cancer (MEC) chemotherapy.3,4 Specifically, results showed that patients who received aprepitant reported fewer adverse events (AEs) than those who received IV fosaprepitant, including substantially fewer infusion-site reactions.

"We are pleased to have strengthened our CINV franchise with today's label expansion for Cinvanti, as we now have the only NK1 [receptor antagonist] that offers the benefits and flexibility of an IV push method of administration," said Barry Quart, PharmD, president and chief executive officer of Heron Therapeutics. "Administration of Cinvanti by 2-minute IV push is an important advantage for our customers compared to Emend IV, which requires reconstitution and an IV bag for infusion."

FDA Approves Aprepitant Injection for CINV

1. Heron Announces FDA Approval of Supplemental New Drug Application to Expand CINVANTI® Label for IV Push. Heron Therapeutics. Published February 26, 2019. https://prn.to/2EDxtvR. Accessed February 28, 2019.

2. Ottoboni T, Lauw M, Keller MR, Cravets M, Manhard K, Clendeninn N, Quart B. HTX-019 via 2-min injection or 30-min infusion in healthy subjects [published online ahead of print December 21, 2018]. Future Med. doi: 10.2217/fon-2018-0809.

3. Heron Therapeutics Announces U.S. FDA Approval of CINVANTI (aprepitant) Injectable Emulsion for the Prevention of Acute and Delayed Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting (CINV). Heron Therapeutics. Published November 9, 2017. https://bit.ly/2NyINfA. Accessed February 28, 2019.

4. Ottoboni T, Boccia G, Keller MR, Cravets M, Clendeninn N, Quart B. Bioequivalence of HTX-019 (aprepitant IV) and fosaprepitant in healthy subjects. Presented at: 2017 Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association Annual Conference; March 29-April 1, 2017; Anaheim, CA.

The FDA has expanded the approval of aprepitant (Cinvanti) injectable emulsion to include a 2-minute intravenous (IV) use for the prevention of acute and delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

In her first piece as a contributor for ONN, Angee Kilmer highlights the importance of 

 and the role oncology nurses can play in helping their patients beyond treatment.

4. Rising Cost of Cancer Drugs Takes a Toll

While oncology nurses typically focus on the on the physical and emotional side of therapy, they may now have to help patients 

3. Addressing Patients’ Pyschosocial Needs

This piece takes a look at why it’s critical to address patients’ psychosocial needs to resolve the challenges of delivering 

2. Three Ways to Improve the Patient Experience

In her recent story, ONN contributor Debi Fischer explores three things oncology nurses can do to give their patients 

 we recapped in this piece, there is no more trusted profession than nursing — for 17 years and counting.

Did you know? Our sister publication Cure Magazine will be honoring the second class of Ovarian Cancer Heroes on March 15 in beautiful Honolulu at the SGO Annual Meeting - will you be there? Don't miss your chance to enjoy dinner & drinks while hearing these heroes' incredible stories! Learn more at 

And as always, for links to all of our top stories and more, visit 

Take a look back at the top 5 Oncology Nursing News stories for January 2019.

ONN's Top 5 Stories: January 2019

Women between the ages of 30 and 39 who have at least 1 of 3 

 risk factors may benefit from starting their annual mammography screening at age 30, according to results from a large-scale study that was presented at the 2018 Radiological Society of North America Annual Meeting.

The 3 risk factors include a breast density of heterogeneously or extremely dense, a personal history of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer.

Currently, the American Cancer Society recommends that all women who are at average risk for breast cancer begin 

, with the option to receive an annual mammogram once they are 40 years of age. However, recommendations for younger women between the ages of 30 and 39 are unclear.

"Women under 40 have not been the focus of our attention when it comes to breast cancer screening,” Cindy S. Lee, MD, an assistant professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health, said in a press release.

 “Everyone is talking about the 40 to 49 range, and not the 30 to 39 age range."

This population is particularly challenging to evaluate because most women in this age group do not receive mammograms, Lee added. However, there are younger women who may be at increased risk for breast cancer who could potentially benefit from early or supplemental screening.

In an effort to provide sufficient evidence to support that hypothesis, Lee and colleagues compared performance metrics of screening younger women between the ages of 30 and 39 and had the 3 risk factors for breast cancer with metrics of screening older women between the ages of 40 and 49 without those risk factors. The information was collected from the 

For the study, the investigative team evaluated data from 5,772,730 screening mammograms that were performed in a total of 2,647,215 women in 150 facilities throughout 31 states from January 2008 to December 2015. Patients were stratified by 5-year age intervals and specific risk factors for breast cancer.

Current breast risk prediction models incorporate different risk factors than those used in the study, according to Lee, and because these factors are often weighed differently, they can produce different results for the same patient—resulting in confusion and uncertainty for doctors and patients. To avoid this complexity, investigators defined increased risk for breast cancer as any woman who had a breast density of heterogeneously or extremely dense (C or D), a personal history of breast cancer, or a history of breast cancer in any first-degree relative, regardless of age.

The team calculated performance metrics for screening mammography for each age and risk group, with a specific focus on recall rate, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values for biopsy recommended (PPV2) and biopsy performed (PPV3).

Overall, results showed that the mean recall rate was 9.8% (95% CI, 9.8-9.8) and the cancer detection rate was 3.7 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.65-3.75), while PPV2 was 20.1% (95% CI, 19.9-20.4) and PPV3 was 28.2% (27.0-28.5).

Women between the ages of 30 and 34 had cancer detection rates, recall rates, and PPVs that were comparable to women between the ages of 35 and 39. In addition, the presence of the 3 evaluated risk factors were found to be associated with substantially higher cancer detection rates.

In addition, incidence mammography screening of women between the ages of 30 and 39 with the 3 evaluated risk factors had cancer detection rates and recall rates similar to those between the ages of 40 and 44 without known risk factors.

Therefore, the investigators concluded that younger women between the ages of 30 and 39 with any of the 3 evaluated risk factors could potentially benefit from beginning annual mammography screening earlier, at age 30, rather than the currently recommended age of 40.

Lee C. Risk-based screening mammography for women age <40: Outcomes from the National Mammography Database. In: Proceedings from the Radiological Society of North America annual meeting; Nov. 25-30, 2018; Chicago, Illinois. https://bit.ly/2FLtU9f?rel=0" . Accessed November 28, 2018.

New Study Supports Mammography Screening at 30 for Some Women. Radiological Society of North America. Published November 28, 2018. https://bit.ly/2ABi8IK?rel=0" . Accessed November 28, 2018.

This article was originally published on 

Some Women May Benefit From Mammography Screening Beginning at Age 30

Women between the ages of 30 and 39 who have at least 1 of 3 breast cancer risk factors may benefit from starting their annual mammography screening at age 30, according to results from a large-scale study that was presented at the 2018 Radiological Society of North America Annual Meeting.

Researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) used data from its Health Information National Trends Survey (cycle 4, August—November 2014) to assess knowledge of, and beliefs about, cancer screening. Survey respondents included 189 adults who provided socioeconomic data and answered questions about cancer screening.

Only 5.6% of the 189 respondents answered all four true/false questions about cancer screening correctly. For the first question, 70% of survey respondents correctly answered “false” for the statement, “These tests can definitely tell that a person has cancer.” The second statement, “When a test finds something abnormal, more tests are needed to know if it is cancer” is a true statement and was answered correctly by 92%. For the third question, 34% responded correctly (false) to the statement, “When a test finds something abnormal, it is very likely to be cancer.” Only 20% knew that “the harms of these tests and exams sometimes outweigh the benefits.”

Men, racial/ethnic minorities, and those with lower education levels and higher cancer fatalism beliefs were less likely to have accurate beliefs about cancer screening. Beliefs were not associated with respondents’ personal screening activities, such as having had mammograms or pap testing in the past. The NCI researchers concluded that public and patient education about cancer screening tests is needed and recommend using a shared-decision model approach.

American Journal of Preventative Medicine

Researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) used data from its Health Information National Trends Survey to assess knowledge of, and beliefs about, cancer screening.

Cancer Screening Knowledge and Beliefs

Physical activity interventions should be individualized for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer, according to study findings presented at the Oncology Nursing Society 43

Of note, these interventions are needed during and after treatment, said Jeanne Erickson PhD, RN, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee College of Nursing.

Despite the fact that cancer is the leading disease-related cause of death in AYAs, this group of individuals tends to be an understudied patient population. As a result, few studies have evaluated physical activity interventions in this population.

In addition, staying physically active has important short- and long-term benefits for patients with cancer, including reduced symptom severity, improved physical function, and better tolerance to treatment. However, AYAs tend to be less active during and after chemotherapy.

“Physical activity interventions are recommended to relieve symptoms and improve function,” Erickson said. “Few studies have explored symptoms and physical activity in AYAs during cancer treatment.”

Therefore, Erickson and colleagues are conducting the randomized PROMIS-29 trial which is designed to examine the effects of physical activity interventions for AYAs to help them self-manage fatigue. In her presentation, she described the symptoms and physical activity of young adults during the early months of chemotherapy to provide baseline data for the larger study.

Patients treated at the Froedtert Hospital/Medical College of Wisconsin Cancer Center and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin who were aged 18 to 39 years and starting a chemotherapy regimen for any cancer diagnosis are eligible for the study.

To document their baseline physical activity, participants wore an accelerometer device for 7 days during chemotherapy administration to determine steps per day and the amount of time participants spent per day in light, moderate, and/or vigorous physical activity. In addition, symptom severity was surveyed on day 1 of a patient’s chemotherapy cycle.

The 21 AYAs were an average age of 33 years of age (range, 18-39 years); and majority were female (n = 15, 71%), white (n = 17; 81%), married (n = 12; 57.1%), and parents (n = 12; 57.1%). The AYAs were diagnosed with breast cancer (32%), lymphoma (31%), acute lymphocytic leukemia (25%), myeloma (6%), or melanoma (6%).

At baseline, the group averaged 4638 steps per day (range, 1318-11,572) with 233.35 minutes per day of light physical activity (range, 119-330), 16.08 minutes per day of moderate physical activity (range, 0.02-92), and no vigorous physical activity.

“These young adults were inactive during the early months of chemotherapy. We can measure that and compare that to an age-matched, national, healthy cohort. In that cohort, by average, young adults, males and females, had about 20 to 30 minutes of moderate physical activity a day, and this sample only had about 15,” said Erickson. “But there were various levels of physical activity in this sample. And their symptom scores were about average at the beginning of their chemotherapy regimen.”

For the PROMIS-29 profiling, a T score of 50 is considered average for the general US population, with a higher score being more of the concept, Erickson said. The mean standardized PROMIS-29 profile scores varied for physical function (49.48; range, 33.3-56.9), anxiety (56.33; range, 40.3-67.3), depression (52.27; range, 41-79.4), fatigue (55.86; range, 33.7-69.0), sleep disturbance (53.07; range, 37.5-66.0), ability to participate (49.56; range, 34.0-64.2), and pain interference (50.33; range, 37.3-64.2).

“It is interesting how their symptoms were about average,” Erickson said. “There is some evidence that, in particular, AYAs have higher symptom severity scores than other ages, but that didn’t look to be true in this beginning sample that I have. So, I will be interested to see how their related symptoms change over the months of treatment, and how that affects their physical activity.”

She is also interested to see what the AYA population impacted by chemotherapy treatment does with the remaining hours of their day, and how researchers can combat inactivity.

“If you think they had 4 hours of light physical activity, that means there about 20 hours filled with sedentary behavior and sleep,” Erickson said. “So how can we make sure we are looking more at their sleep and sedentary behavior, and prevent those minutes of inactivity?”

Lastly, Erickson noted she will continue to follow these patients for 8 months.

“It is important to look at how their physical activity changes during their months of cancer treatment,” she said. “The other concern is that they get caught in that cycle where they have fatigue and become less active and have more fatigue and become even more inactive. So, what I would like to see my intervention do is break that cycle of fatigue and try to maintain activity or prevent inactivity over the months of chemotherapy.”

Erickson J, Swartz A, Tokarek N. Physical Activity and Symptoms in Young Adults with Cancer in Early Months of Chemotherapy. Presented at: ONS 43rd Annual Congress; May 17-20, 2018; Washington D.C. 

https://ons.confex.com/ons/2018/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/3716

As part of a larger study, nurses found it is important for AYAs to remain physically active during and after cancer treatment.

Prevention