Introduction

Internalized lung cancer stigma (i.e., feelings of regret, shame, and self-blame about one's lung cancer) is related to poorer psychological outcomes. Less is known about how internalized stigma relates to physical and functional outcomes or how constrained disclosure (i.e., avoidance of or discomfort about disclosing one's lung cancer status to others) relates to well-being. Furthermore, no study has examined whether internalized stigma and constrained disclosure predict changes in well-being for lung cancer patients. This longitudinal study characterized relationships of internalized stigma and constrained disclosure with emotional and physical/functional outcomes.

Methods

Participants (N = 101, 52.4% male, 63.4% currently/formerly smoked) were lung cancer patients on active medical treatment who completed questionnaires on stigma and well-being at study entry and at 6- and 12-week follow-up. Multivariable linear regressions characterized relationships of internalized stigma and constrained disclosure with emotional and physical/functional well-being at study entry and across time.

Results

Participants who currently or formerly smoked reported higher levels of internalized stigma (but not constrained disclosure), compared to never smokers (p < 0.001). Higher internalized stigma and constrained disclosure were uniquely associated with poorer emotional and physical/functional well-being at study entry (all p < 0.05), beyond sociodemographic characteristics, time elapsed since diagnosis, and smoking status. Higher internalized stigma predicted significant declines in emotional well-being across 6 and 12 weeks (all p < 0.01) and declines in physical/functional well-being across 6 weeks (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Internalized lung cancer stigma and constrained disclosure relate to emotional and physical/functional maladjustment. Findings carry implications for provider- and patient-focused interventions to reduce internalized stigma and promote well-being.

Background

Clinical trials in lung cancer increasingly require patients to provide fresh tumor tissue as a prerequisite to enrollment. The effects of this requirement on enrollment rates, enrollment durations, and patient selection have not been fully elucidated.

Methods

The authors retrospectively reviewed data generated by patients who consented to 1 or more interventional lung cancer clinical trials at the University of California-Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center between January 2013 and December 2014. Trials were considered to require a biopsy when enrollment was conditional on the procurement of tissue without intervening therapy between procurement and enrollment.

Results

In total, 311 patients underwent 368 screening incidents for 1 or more of 19 trials. Trials that required a new biopsy had a longer median screening duration (34 vs 14 days) than trials that did not require a biopsy (P < .001). Trials that required a biopsy had a greater screen failure rate (49.1% vs 26.5%; P < .001), which was largely driven by patients who did not undergo the required biopsy or lacked the required biomarker. Worsening performance status led to the majority of screen failures (56.5%) among biomarker-eligible patients.

Conclusions

Although the scientific benefits of obtaining a new biopsy and requiring specific results for trial enrollment are clear, these requirements lead to a lengthening of the screening period, which, in some patients, is associated with clinical decline before enrollment. Implications for the interpretation of data from studies of this design should be explored. Cancer 2017;123:4800-7. © 2017 American Cancer Society.