Patient reported outcomes in physical, cognitive, and reproductive and sexual health between early onset and average onset gastrointestinal cancers.
Year: 2025
Type: conference-abstract
Abstract: 415 Background: Incidence and mortality related to early-onset (age 18-49) GI Cancers (EOGIC) is rising sharply. To understand the unique care needs of patients with EOGIC, we compared patient reported outcomes (PROs) in EOGIC and average-age onset GI cancers (AOGIC) patients in domains of reproductive and sexual health (RSH), physical health (PH) and wellbeing, and cognitive function. Methods: Patients were approached for study participation at the end of a routine clinical visit. Consenting patients were enrolled in two cohorts: EOGIC and AOGIC. AYA Sexual Health (SH) Battery, PROMIS 29+2, GP5 and NeuroQOL Cognitive Short Form were completed by consenting patients on an iPad using Qualtrics. Survey data was then annotated with clinical data abstracted from medical records. Descriptive statistics were used for RSH. Standard scoring method was used for PROMIS+2 and NeuroQOL to generate mean T score, and the two cohorts were compared using unpaired t-tests. Results: 52 EOGIC subjects and 49 AOGIC onset subjects completed the study. Response rates are 83.05% and 79.03% in EOGIC and AOGIC cohorts respectively. Baseline characteristics are found in the table, and diagnosis, stage, and current treatment are comparable between cohorts. More EOGIC patients reported being sexually active over past 30 days (63% vs 23% p < 0.001). More EOGIC patients discussed RSH concerns with their oncology team, however, the frequency of counseling was low. 14% discussed safe sex with cytopenia, 12% STI prevention, 26% contraception, and 16% body image. EOGIC patients were more likely to be worried about dating (67% vs 9% p = 0.009), report pain with recent sexual activity (16% vs 0% p = 0.009), and were more interested in counseling on contraception (16% vs 0% p = 0.006), and safe sex (39% vs 14% p = 0.008). Both EOGIC and AOGIC cohorts had unmet needs in addressing body image (34% and 53%, p = 0.09). No significant differences in physical nor cognitive function were apparent between the 2 cohorts, however both cohorts reported lower physical function, higher anxiety and pain interfering in daily life compared to general population. Conclusions: EOGIC patients reported higher unmet needs for RSH concerns compared to AOGIC patients. All GI cancer patients report worse physical health, wellness and cognitive health compared to general population and have unmet needs in body image concerns. It is imperative to illicit and address EOGIC patients’ unique needs to provide comprehensive care. Baseline clinical characteristics of EOGIC and AOGIC cohorts. EOGIC (n, %) AOGIC (n, %) p value Cancer Type Colorectal 26, 50% 13, 26.5% Pancreatic 6, 11.5% 8, 16.3% Biliary Tract Cancers 9, 17.3% 8, 16.3% Other 11, 21.2% 20, 40.1% 0.1867 Stage No evidence of disease 14, 26.9% 8, 16.3% Stage 1-3 8, 15.4% 16, 33.7% Stage 4 30, 57.7% 25, 51% 0.324 Treatment On current treatment 31, 59.6% 29, 59.1% 1.00
Source: JCO Oncology Practice
Authors: Susan Feldt, Jenna Nimer, Afnan Shaik, Chetan Nambiar, Blase N. Polite, Chih-Yi Liao, Aurelie Desgardin, Adam DuVall, Ardaman Shergill
Institutions: University of Chicago Medical Center, University of Chicago
Language: English
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W4414913308
Cites:
Cited by:
Related to: