Coping Strategies Among Early-Phase Cancer Clinical Trial Participants.

IF 16.4
Anh B Lam, Andrea Pelletier, Cynthia Moore, Sienna Durbin, Kaitlyn Lynch, Laura Petrillo, Rachel Jimenez, Mary Boulanger, Leah Thompson, Viola Bame, Vaishnavi Yalala, Nicholas Ollila, Benjamin Malowitz, Casandra McIntyre, Dejan Juric, Ryan David Nipp, Debra Lundquist
{"title":"Coping Strategies Among Early-Phase Cancer Clinical Trial Participants.","authors":"Anh B Lam, Andrea Pelletier, Cynthia Moore, Sienna Durbin, Kaitlyn Lynch, Laura Petrillo, Rachel Jimenez, Mary Boulanger, Leah Thompson, Viola Bame, Vaishnavi Yalala, Nicholas Ollila, Benjamin Malowitz, Casandra McIntyre, Dejan Juric, Ryan David Nipp, Debra Lundquist","doi":"10.6004/jnccn.2026.7037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals with cancer often use numerous coping strategies. However, little is known about coping behavior among patients enrolled on early-phase cancer clinical trials (EPCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We prospectively enrolled adults with cancer initiating EPCTs at Massachusetts General Hospital from April 2021 to March 2025. Participants completed surveys at the time of EPCT enrollment assessing coping (Brief COPE [Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced]; scores range 0-6), quality of life (QoL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G]), depression and anxiety symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]), symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS]), and financial well-being (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity [COST]). We used regression models to explore associations of coping strategies with patient-reported and clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 195 participants enrolled, 188 completed the survey assessments (96.4% response rate). Among these participants (median age, 63.5 [range, 31.8-88.6]; 56.4% female), the most common cancer types were gastrointestinal (34.0%) and breast (20.7%). At the time of EPCT enrollment, patients' coping strategies included acceptance (mean Brief COPE score, 4.77), emotional support (mean score, 4.60), active coping (mean score, 4.25), positive reframing (mean score, 3.11), religion (mean score, 2.85), self-blame (mean score, 0.88), denial (mean score, 0.62), and behavioral disengagement (mean score, 0.35). Greater use of approach-oriented strategies (acceptance, emotional support, and positive reframing) and lower use of avoidant strategies (denial, self-blame, and behavioral disengagement) were associated with better QoL, fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety, lower symptom burden, and greater financial well-being (P<.05). Greater use of denial coping was associated with a lower risk of hospitalizations (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P=.007). Use of acceptance coping was associated with lower odds of completing the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period (odds ratio, 0.57; P=.023) and with a shorter time on trial (HR, 1.16; P=.011). Use of emotional support coping was associated with a shorter time on trial (HR, 1.13; P=.016) and worse survival (HR, 1.17; P=.005). Use of religion (HR, 1.09; P=.035) and positive reframing (HR, 1.11; P=.039) coping strategies was associated with worse survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this cohort of EPCT participants, we found associations of coping behaviors with patient outcomes. Specifically, approach-oriented coping strategies correlated with higher QoL and lower distress. Interventions seeking to enhance outcomes in this population should target the diverse coping strategies used by EPCT participants.</p>","PeriodicalId":520697,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2026.7037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Individuals with cancer often use numerous coping strategies. However, little is known about coping behavior among patients enrolled on early-phase cancer clinical trials (EPCTs).

Methods: We prospectively enrolled adults with cancer initiating EPCTs at Massachusetts General Hospital from April 2021 to March 2025. Participants completed surveys at the time of EPCT enrollment assessing coping (Brief COPE [Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced]; scores range 0-6), quality of life (QoL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G]), depression and anxiety symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]), symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS]), and financial well-being (Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity [COST]). We used regression models to explore associations of coping strategies with patient-reported and clinical outcomes.

Results: Among 195 participants enrolled, 188 completed the survey assessments (96.4% response rate). Among these participants (median age, 63.5 [range, 31.8-88.6]; 56.4% female), the most common cancer types were gastrointestinal (34.0%) and breast (20.7%). At the time of EPCT enrollment, patients' coping strategies included acceptance (mean Brief COPE score, 4.77), emotional support (mean score, 4.60), active coping (mean score, 4.25), positive reframing (mean score, 3.11), religion (mean score, 2.85), self-blame (mean score, 0.88), denial (mean score, 0.62), and behavioral disengagement (mean score, 0.35). Greater use of approach-oriented strategies (acceptance, emotional support, and positive reframing) and lower use of avoidant strategies (denial, self-blame, and behavioral disengagement) were associated with better QoL, fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety, lower symptom burden, and greater financial well-being (P<.05). Greater use of denial coping was associated with a lower risk of hospitalizations (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; P=.007). Use of acceptance coping was associated with lower odds of completing the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) period (odds ratio, 0.57; P=.023) and with a shorter time on trial (HR, 1.16; P=.011). Use of emotional support coping was associated with a shorter time on trial (HR, 1.13; P=.016) and worse survival (HR, 1.17; P=.005). Use of religion (HR, 1.09; P=.035) and positive reframing (HR, 1.11; P=.039) coping strategies was associated with worse survival.

Conclusions: In this cohort of EPCT participants, we found associations of coping behaviors with patient outcomes. Specifically, approach-oriented coping strategies correlated with higher QoL and lower distress. Interventions seeking to enhance outcomes in this population should target the diverse coping strategies used by EPCT participants.

早期癌症临床试验参与者的应对策略
背景:癌症患者通常使用多种应对策略。然而,对早期癌症临床试验(epct)患者的应对行为知之甚少。方法:我们前瞻性地招募了2021年4月至2025年3月在马萨诸塞州总医院接受癌症启动epct治疗的成人患者。参与者在EPCT入组时完成了调查,评估应对(简要COPE[所经历问题的应对取向],得分范围为0-6),生活质量(QoL;癌症治疗功能评估[FACT-G]),抑郁和焦虑症状(患者健康问卷-4 [PHQ-4]),症状负担(埃德蒙顿症状评估量表[ESAS])和财务状况(财务毒性综合评分[COST])。我们使用回归模型来探讨应对策略与患者报告和临床结果的关系。结果:195名参与者中,188人完成了调查评估,应答率为96.4%。在这些参与者中(年龄中位数为63.5岁[范围31.8-88.6岁],56.4%为女性),最常见的癌症类型是胃肠道(34.0%)和乳腺癌(20.7%)。在EPCT入组时,患者的应对策略包括接受(Brief COPE平均得分4.77)、情感支持(平均得分4.60)、积极应对(平均得分4.25)、积极重构(平均得分3.11)、宗教信仰(平均得分2.85)、自责(平均得分0.88)、否认(平均得分0.62)和行为脱离(平均得分0.35)。更多地使用方法导向策略(接受、情感支持和积极重构)和更少地使用回避策略(否认、自责和行为脱离)与更好的生活质量、更少的抑郁和焦虑症状、更低的症状负担和更大的经济福祉相关(p结论:在这个EPCT参与者队列中,我们发现应对行为与患者预后相关。具体而言,方法导向的应对策略与更高的生活质量和更低的痛苦相关。寻求提高这一人群预后的干预措施应针对EPCT参与者使用的不同应对策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书