Background

The predominant oncologist-led model in many countries is unsustainable to meet the needs of a growing cohort of breast cancer survivors (BCS). Despite available alternative models, adoption rates have been poor. To help BCS navigate survivorship care, we aimed to systematically develop a decision aid (DA) to guide their choice of follow-up care model and evaluate its acceptability and usability among BCS and health care providers (HCPs).

Methods

We recruited BCS aged ≥ 21 years who have completed primary treatment and understand English. BCS receiving palliative care or with cognitive impairment were excluded. HCPs who routinely discussed post-treatment care with BCS were purposively sampled based on disciplines. Each participant reviewed the DA during a semi-structured interview using the 'think aloud' approach and completed an acceptability questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and directed content analysis were used.

Results

We conducted three rounds of alpha testing with 15 BCS and 8 HCPs. All BCS found the final DA prototype easy to navigate with sufficient interactivity. The information imbalance favouring the shared care option perceived by 60% of BCS in early rounds was rectified. The length of DA was optimized to be 'just right'. Key revisions made included (1) presenting care options side-by-side to improve perceived information balance, (2) creating dedicated sections explaining HCPs' care roles to address gaps in health system contextual knowledge, and (3) employing a multicriteria decision analysis method for preference clarification exercise to reflect the user's openness towards shared care. Most BCS (73%) found the DA useful for decision-making, and 93% were willing to discuss the DA with their HCPs. Most HCPs (88%) agreed that the DA was a reliable tool and would be easily integrated into routine care.

Conclusions

Our experience highlighted the need to provide contextual information on the health care system for decisions related to care delivery. Developers should address potential variability within the care model and clarify inherent biases, such as low confidence levels in primary care. Future work could expand on the developed DA's informational structure to apply to other care models and leverage artificial intelligence to optimize information delivery.

Background

There is little information about cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) in adolescent and young adults (AYA, 15-39 years old) due to its rare incidence. Here, we present the pre-treatment (before chemotherapy or radiotherapy) evaluation of cognitive function and ability of AYA with cancer (AYAC) in a multicentered cohort study.

Methods

Newly diagnosed AYAC and age-matched healthy controls (HC) were recruited between 2018 and 2021. The primary outcome was the comparison of pre-treatment cognitive impairment defined as 2 standard deviations (SDs) below the HC on ≥1 cognitive test, or >1.5 SDs below on ≥2 tests using CANTAB® between AYAC and HC. Secondary outcomes included self-perceived cognitive ability assessed by FACT-Cog v3 and biomarkers (inflammatory cytokines and brain-derived neurotrophic factor [BDNF]).

Results

We recruited 74 AYAC (median age = 34) and 118 HC (median age = 32). On objective cognitive testing, we observed three times more AYAC patients performed poorly on at least 2 cognitive tests compared to HC (40.5% vs. 13.6%, p < 0.001). AYAC self-perceived less degree of cognitive impairment than HC (p < 0.001). However, AYAC perceived a greater impact of cognitive changes on their quality of life compared to HC (p = 0.039). Elevated baseline inflammatory markers (IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10 and IFN-γ) were observed among AYAC compared to HC, and baseline BDNF was lower in AYAC compared to HC. Interaction effects between cancer diagnosis and biomarkers were observed in predicting cognitive function.

Conclusion

With the pre-existence of CRCI and risk factors of neuroinflammation even prior to systemic therapy, AYAC should receive early rehabilitation to prevent further deterioration of cognitive function after initiation of systemic therapies. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03476070).

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) improves cognitive function by stimulating neurogenesis and neuroplasticity. We hypothesize that higher plasma BDNF levels are protective against cognitive toxicity among adolescent and young adult cancer patients (15-39 years old). In a prospective, longitudinal study, we recruited 74 newly diagnosed cancer and 118 age-matched non-cancer controls who completed the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function questionnaire (FACT-Cog) and blood draws. Plasma BDNF was quantified using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Genomic DNA from buffy coat was genotyped for BDNF Val66Met. Most cancer participants were diagnosed with breast (24%) and head/neck (22%) cancers. After adjusting for sociodemographic variables (age, gender, race, marital status, education years), cancer participants had lower BDNF levels (ng/mL) at baseline (median: 10.7 vs 21.6, p < 0.001) and 6-months post-baseline (median: 8.2 vs 15.3, p = 0.001) compared to non-cancer controls. Through linear mixed modelling adjusted for sociodemographic variables, baseline cognition, fatigue, psychological distress, and time, we observed that among cancer participants, lower baseline BDNF levels were associated with worse attention (p = 0.029), memory (p = 0.018) and self-perceived cognitive abilities (p = 0.020) during cancer treatment. Met/Met was associated with enhanced executive function compared to Val/Val (p = 0.012). Plasma BDNF may serve as a predictive biomarker of cancer-related cognitive impairment.