1. Introduction
Advances in the treatment of hematologic malignancies (HMs), such as targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, have led to improvements in survival yet people with HMs still face significant risks of morbidity and mortality [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Patients with HMs may experience disease and treatment-related symptoms that can adversely impact quality of life [ 1 , 5 ]. Symptom burden, a concept that considers symptom prevalence, frequency, and intensity, can fluctuate throughout the disease and treatment trajectories [ 6 ]. Previous research has found that symptom burden is high in patients with HMs, with patients reporting both frequent and severe symptoms throughout the disease trajectory [ 7 , 8 ].
Both the underlying HM as well as the associated treatments can contribute to an array of physical and psychosocial symptoms [ 9 ]. Some HMs are considered incurable but may be responsive to treatment, whereas others are managed with observation [ 1 , 4 , 10 ]. Observation can lead to uncertainty and associated emotional distress that has been reported by some patients to be even more burdensome than physical symptoms [ 11 ]. Several studies reported that patients with HMs often experience multiple symptoms or clusters. Symptoms in a cluster may share a common underlying biological etiology or pathogenic mechanism, such as being driven by inflammatory cytokines, hormones, neurotransmitters, or other immunomodulators [ 12 ]. For example, Manitta et al. [ 8 ] found that patients with HMs (N = 180) reported a mean number of 8.8 symptoms (range 2.9–14.7). Similarly, Zimmermann et al. [ 13 ] found that patients with newly diagnosed or recently relapsed acute leukemia who had been referred to palliative care reported a median of nine physical and two psychological symptoms. Other symptoms that were prominent across many studies include: impaired well-being, pain, lack of appetite, drowsiness, tingling hands/feet, insomnia, breathlessness, anxiety, and delirium [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. The co-occurrence of multiple symptoms has been associated with impairments in patients’ functional status and quality of life [ 12 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. To date, most research on co-occurring symptoms in patients with HMs has focused on a single type of HM such as lymphoma [ 23 , 26 ], leukemia [ 27 , 28 ], or multiple myeloma [ 29 , 30 , 31 ].
Previous research has explored the association between sociodemographic factors and symptoms in patients with cancer. Studies on patients with HMs have found that being female [ 32 , 33 , 34 ], of younger age [ 32 ], lower education level [ 35 ], without a partner [ 35 ], and being unemployed [ 32 ] are associated with worse symptoms and worse quality of life. Rurality has also been found to be associated with more distress and worse physical health-related quality of life [ 36 ]. Healthcare utilization has been found to be higher among patients who reside rurally, with more emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions (HAs) compared to patients from urban regions [ 37 ]. Rurality has also been found to adversely impact survival after a cancer diagnosis [ 38 , 39 ].
There is a need to better understand symptoms, including profiles of co-occurring symptoms, in patients with HMs so that interventions can be tailored to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life. Further, considering associations among patient sociodemographic factors, clinical variables, and symptoms in patients with HMs may also contribute to the development of targeted interventions and strategies to help reduce symptoms. The aims of this study were to explore the prevalence and severity of symptoms in patients with HMs, including during the last year of life, and to explore symptom profiles in patients with HMs. Associations among symptoms/symptom profiles and demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables were explored as were relationships among symptoms, symptom profiles, and healthcare utilization, including ED visits and HAs, for patients with HMs.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
In Cancer Care Alberta (CCA), patients’ symptoms are routinely measured using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); such data are typically collected at first consult and routine clinic and treatment visits. For this study, a secondary analysis of data previously collected for a retrospective observational cohort study was undertaken. Patients who had a diagnosis of HM and PROMs were filled out between 1 October 2019, and 1 April 2020 [ 40 ].
Data on demographic characteristics, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and acute care utilization data were collected from the Alberta Cancer Registry, electronic medical records, the Discharge Abstract Database [ 41 ], and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System [ 42 ]. The data were analyzed and organized by cohort where Cohort A (n = 944) consisted of patients who did not complete PROMs (“No PROMs”), Cohort B (n = 6136) consisted of patients who completed PROMs (“PROMs”), and Cohort C consisted of patients who died within a year of completing PROMs (n = 432) (“Died within a Year of PROMs”). Cohorts B (PROMs) and C (Died Within a Year of PROMs) were not mutually exclusive.
2.1.1. Data Sources
The Putting Patients First (PPF) questionnaire is used at all 17 cancer care facilities in Alberta and was the PROM used to assess patients’ symptoms prior to clinic and treatment appointments. The PPF questionnaire includes the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) and an expanded Canadian Problem Checklist (CPC) [ 43 , 44 , 45 ]. For patients who had completed the PPF multiple times during the study period, the last ESAS-r scores collected during the study period were used. Chart audits were conducted for patients in Cohort C (Died Within a Year of PROMs).
2.1.2. Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS)
The ESAS is a PROM used to assess symptoms in patients with advanced cancer [ 46 ]. A revised version of the ESAS, the ESAS-r, includes nine symptoms (pain, tiredness, breathlessness, drowsiness, well-being, nausea, anxiety, lack of appetite, and depression) with the option for patients to add an additional 10th symptom [ 40 , 47 , 48 ]. Severity of symptoms is rated on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 indicating the highest severity [ 40 , 47 ].
2.1.3. Sociodemographic, Disease, and Treatment-Specific Variables
We collected data about age, sex, diagnosis, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), mean and median income, and rurality. Cancer Care Alberta uses a modified version of the CCI that excludes cancer given that all patients have a diagnosis of cancer [ 49 ]. Age was collapsed into ≤60 and >60, congruent with the World Health Organization definition of aging populations as those over 60 years [ 50 ]. At the time of ethics approval, Cancer Care Alberta had been utilizing an electronic health record system (EHR) called ARIA that captures data throughout a patient’s care trajectory, including demographic data, as well as information about the diagnosis, treatment, comorbidities, and medications used [ 51 ]. Data extracted from chart audits included marital status, reasons for ED visits and HAs, and use of supportive care medications.
2.1.4. Acute Care Utilization Outcomes
Emergency department (ED) visits and HA data were extracted from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System and the Discharge Abstract Database, respectively; ED visits and HAs within 7 days of completed PROM were included. The 7-day interval for ED visits and HAs was used as Watson et al. [ 40 ] found literature that a similar study [ 52 ] used the same interval. As per Barbera et al. [ 53 ], the 7-day window could allow for the patient’s provider to respond to the symptom scores while still potentially contributing to the ED visit. For patients who had died within 1 year of completing a PROM, reasons for ED visits and HAs were also extracted via chart audits.
2.2. Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from the Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta—Cancer Committee (HREBA.CC-20-0022).
2.3. Data Analysis
Demographic, disease and clinical/treatment characteristics, and healthcare utilization data were summarized with means and standard deviations (continuous variables), and frequencies, medians, and ranges (categorical variables) for Cohorts A (No PROMs), B (PROMs), and C (Died Within a Year of PROMs). Chi-square analyses were undertaken to examine differences in categorical variables, including differences between patients who completed PROMs and those who did not. A value of p < 0.05 was used as a cutoff to indicate statistical significance. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) Version 29 [ 54 ] and MPlus (Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA, USA) Version 8.10 [ 52 ].
2.3.1. Symptom Prevalence and Severity
For symptom prevalence, the number and types of symptoms that each participant reported were assessed. For symptom severity [ 47 , 55 , 56 ], ESAS-r scores were collapsed into the following categories: none (score of 0), mild (score of 1–3), moderate (score of 4–6), and severe (score of 7–10) [ 47 , 55 , 56 ]. Descriptive statistics for ESAS-r scores were calculated. The mean number of symptoms reported by patients and the number of moderate and severe symptoms were calculated for Cohorts B (PROMs) and C (Died Within a Year of PROMs).
2.3.2. Latent Class Analysis
A patient-centered approach was undertaken which categorizes subgroups of patients with distinct symptom profiles that represent the types and severity of symptoms endorsed by patients [ 57 , 58 ]. Latent class analysis was undertaken to look for ‘hidden’ subgroups (latent classes) of patients who have similar symptom profiles based on the prevalence and severity of each symptom. Each symptom was thus represented as an ordinal variable with values 0 (=none), 1 (=mild), 2 (=moderate), and 3 (=severe), as described above. To identify the latent classes, we started with a one-class model and then added additional classes, one at a time, until the best-fitting model was identified. We assessed model fit based on guidelines described in the literature (outlined below) and interpretability [ 59 , 60 ]. We used the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) to compare the relative fit of models with k and k-1 classes (lower values for the BIC indicate better fit) [ 23 , 60 ]. Additionally, we used the bootstrapped likelihood ratio test and the Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test [ 23 ] to determine the statistical significance of the difference between k and k-1 class models. Entropy, a diagnostic statistic that is used to examine how accurately the model defines the classes, was also examined [ 23 , 60 ]. An entropy value of greater than 0.80 is generally recommended [ 60 , 61 ]. The latent classes were ordered from higher symptom burden to lower symptom burden to facilitate interpretation. However, it is important to note that symptom profiles do not directly correspond with the severity of symptom burden, but rather reflect profiles of symptom occurrence and severity.
To look for associations among categorical sociodemographic and clinical variables and latent class membership, bivariate regression analyses were undertaken using the ‘DCAT’ procedure [ 62 , 63 ]. DCAT is a syntax statement that is used in MPlus to analyze distal categorical outcomes following the procedures described by Lanza et al. [ 64 ] This approach factors in the possibility of participants’ partial membership (imperfect entropy) in latent classes [ 60 , 61 ]. Latent class analysis provides probabilities of class membership but not absolute membership in each class; it is possible for individuals to have partial membership in multiple classes [ 60 , 61 ]. Latent class proportions for each sociodemographic and clinical variable were estimated and the Wald Chi-square test was used to look for differences in proportions among the classes.
3. Results
3.1. Demographics
Demographic information is shown in Table 1 . The full cohort (N = 7080) was comprised of 6136 patients who completed PROMs (Cohort B) and 944 patients who did not complete PROMs (Cohort A). There were more males (n = 4055, 57.3%) than females (n = 3025, 42.7%). Mean age was 64.12 years (range 18–100, standard deviation 15.16). Most patients were from urban settings (n = 5533, 78.1%) with only 21.7% (n = 1534) residing in rural regions. Most patients had CCI scores of 0 (n = 5932, 83.8%). Age, CCI, and rurality were associated with PROM completion. In addition, healthcare utilization differed among patients who completed PROMs and those who did not. These differences are displayed in Table 1 .
Demographic data for Cohort C (Died Within a Year of PROMs, n = 432) are shown in Table 2 . Most patients in this cohort were male (63.2%) and were older than 60 years of age (86.8%).
3.2. Prevalence and Severity of Symptoms
Symptom prevalence and severity for Cohorts B (PROMs) and C (Died Within a Year of PROMs) are shown in Figure 1 . The most prevalent symptoms in Cohort B (PROMs) were tiredness, impaired well-being, and drowsiness; these were also the symptoms that were rated the most severe. Tiredness, impaired well-being, and drowsiness were also the most reported symptoms in Cohort C (Died Within a Year of PROMs). As with Cohort B (PROMs), tiredness was the symptom that was rated severe most often. Patients in Cohort C (Died Within a Year of PROMs) rated breathlessness, drowsiness, impaired well-being, lack of appetite, and pain as severe. In terms of number of symptoms, the mean number of symptoms for patients in Cohorts B (PROMs) and C (Died Within a Year of PROMs) was 4.3 and 5.8, respectively. Most patients in Cohort B (PROMs) reported having more than three symptoms (58.5%) and more than 20% of patients reported three or more moderate/severe symptoms ( Figure 2 ). Most patients in Cohort C (Died Within a Year of PROMs) also reported having more than three symptoms (81.3%), and more than half (57.7%) of patients in this cohort reported having three or more moderate/severe symptoms ( Figure 2 ).
3.3. Symptom Profiles
The latent class analysis identified six classes in Cohort B (PROMs) and three classes in Cohort C (Died Within a Year of PROMs). Information about the fit of the latent class models is shown in Table 3 and Table 4 . For Cohort B (PROMs), even though the information criteria continued to decline when more classes were identified, the VLMR likelihood ratio test indicates that the difference in the fit of the six- and seven-class models was not statistically significant, thus suggesting a six-class model as being more defensible. The symptom profiles for the six classes are shown in Figure 3 . The probability of belonging to Class 5 was highest (28.0%) while the probability of being in Class 1 was lowest (6.5%).
The symptom profile for Class 1 included prevalent and moderate/severe symptoms (all ESAS-r symptoms). The symptom profile for Class 2 included prevalent and mild/moderate symptoms. Patients in Class 3 reported prevalent, mostly mild/moderate symptoms, including anxiety and depression. Class 4 represented patients who reported prevalent, moderate/severe tiredness, impaired well-being, and drowsiness, with other symptoms being less prevalent and less severe. Patients in Class 5 reported prevalent, mostly mild physical symptoms, with less prevalent nausea and lack of appetite. The symptom profile for Class 6 included less prevalent, mild symptoms for all ESAS-r symptoms, particularly for drowsiness, nausea, lack of appetite, and depression. For all classes, tiredness was one of the most commonly reported symptoms and was often reported as moderate or severe. Nausea was the least reported symptom. Symptom profiles for each class are shown in Figure 3 .
For Cohort C (Died Within a Year of PROMs), the latent class analysis found that a three-class model was the most defensible. The probability of belonging to Class 3 (less prevalent, mild/moderate physical symptoms) was highest (38.3%), followed closely by Class 1 (prevalent, moderate/severe symptoms) (37.4%), with the probability of belonging to Class 2 (prevalent, mild/moderate symptoms) the least (24.4%).
The symptom profile for Class 1 included prevalent, moderate/severe symptoms. Tiredness, impaired well-being, and drowsiness were the most reported symptoms. Nausea was the least commonly reported symptom. Patients in Class 2 reported prevalent, mild/moderate symptoms, with nausea being less prevalent. Patients in Class 3 reported less prevalent, mild/moderate physical symptoms except nausea, and less prevalent anxiety and depression. Symptom profiles for each class are shown in Figure 4 .
Correlates of Latent Class Membership
There were several demographic and clinical differences between the subgroups ( Table 5 ). Sex distribution varied from 33.6% females in Class 6 (less prevalent, mild symptoms) to 60.3% in Class 1 (prevalent, moderate/severe symptoms). Patients in Class 6 (less prevalent, mild symptoms) were more likely to be younger. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score was associated with class membership, with patients in Class 1 (prevalent, moderate/severe symptoms) more likely to have higher CCI scores and patients in Class 6 (less prevalent, mild symptoms) more likely to have low CCI scores. Class membership was associated with type of HM, with Class 6 (less prevalent, mild symptoms) having the highest percentage of patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma, while Class 1 (prevalent, moderate/severe symptoms) had the highest percentage of patients with ‘other’ HMs.
In addition, healthcare utilization differed among classes with differences in any ED visits, number of ED visits, any HAs, and number of HAs. Classes 1 (prevalent, moderate/severe symptoms) and 2 (prevalent, mild/moderate symptoms) had the highest likelihood of having any ED visits (56.1% and 57.0%, respectively) and the highest percentage of 7+ ED visits (5.6%). Class 6 (less prevalent, mild symptoms) had the lowest percentage of any ED visits (28.3%) and the lowest percentage of 7+ ED visits (1.4%). Similarly, Class 1 (prevalent, moderate/severe symptoms) had the highest percentage of any HA (39.4%) and 7+ HAs (0.9%). Class 6 (less prevalent, mild symptoms) had the lowest percentage of any HA (12.5%) and 7+ HAs (0.2%).
For Cohort C (Died Within a Year of PROMs), there were no differences in demographic variables across the three latent classes ( Table 6 ). There were differences among classes only for supportive care medication use. Class 1 (prevalent, moderate/severe symptoms) had the highest probability of supportive care medication use (62.7%) while Class 3 (less prevalent, mild/moderate physical symptoms, less prevalent anxiety/depression) had the lowest probability of supportive care medication use (38.3%).
4. Discussion
This cohort study examined symptom prevalence, severity, and symptom profiles associated with sociodemographic and clinical variables in patients with HMs. Notable findings include that the patients in this study reported multiple symptoms co-occurring at the time of PROM completion. In addition, patients experienced moderate/severe symptoms. The most reported symptoms were tiredness, impaired well-being, and drowsiness. Nausea was the least commonly reported symptom. These findings are similar to those reported by others [ 8 , 13 ].
Patients who died within a year of completing PROMs (Cohort C) reported prevalent and severe symptoms. This finding is consistent with others who have found high symptom burden during the end-of-life phase for patients with HMs. Leblanc et al. [ 65 ] found that patients reported high scores for fatigue (mean 5.2, SD 2.7) and loss of appetite (mean score 2.3, SD 2.9) and that both symptoms worsened as death approached [ 65 ]. Button et al. [ 66 ] undertook a literature review and found that the most frequently reported end-of-life signs and symptoms were pain, hematopoietic dysfunction, dyspnea, and reduced oral intake.
4.1. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures
Patients who completed PROMs were less likely to have died compared to patients who did not complete PROMs. This aligns with the study by Barbera et al. [ 67 ] who found that the probability of survival was higher for patients exposed to ESAS questionnaires compared to those who were not (81.9% versus 76.4% survival at 1 year, 68.3% versus 66.1% at 3 years, and 61.9% versus 61.4% at 5 years, p < 0.0001). There are many potential reasons why PROM completion may be associated with improved survival. It is possible that patients who did not complete PROMs were too unwell to do so and as such, may have already been more likely to die due to advanced disease, relapse, and/or treatment-related complications [ 68 , 69 ]. In addition, PROM completion may lead to improved symptom management which could result in patients staying on treatment as scheduled and/or longer than patients with no PROM completion [ 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ]. In our study, we found that patients who resided rurally/remotely were less likely to complete PROMs. It is possible that patients who reside rurally/remotely may have disparate access to diagnosis, treatment, and/or supportive care [ 38 , 73 ].
4.2. Rural and Remote Challenges
Patients who reside rurally and remotely in Canada face a wide array of challenges and barriers that can adversely impact disease and treatment-related outcomes, including symptom management, quality of life, and survival. Such barriers include but are not limited to the distance required to travel to/from cancer centers, transportation barriers, lack of access to specialty oncology and palliative care specialists, and sociodemographic factors [ 74 , 75 ]. In Canada, approximately 2% of specialists practice in rural areas [ 76 ]. Lack of access to oncology and palliative care specialists may adversely impact quality of life [ 77 , 78 ]. Patients with cancer who reside in rural or remote regions do not have the same access to the types of diagnostics, treatment, and supportive care services that are available in urban centers [ 38 , 79 ]. Reduced access to screening may mean that patients are diagnosed with later-stage disease, which may be associated with increased symptom burden compared to earlier-stage disease and may also adversely impact curability [ 80 , 81 ].
One potential strategy for increasing access to care for rural/remote patients with cancer is the use of virtual cancer care. Virtual care may help to mitigate issues related to access, allowing patients in rural/remote regions to access care, including specialty palliative care [ 82 , 83 , 84 ]. Remote symptom monitoring has been associated with improved symptom burden and improved quality of life [ 85 , 86 , 87 ]. As one example, Mooney et al. [ 87 ] conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the impact of remote symptom monitoring on symptom burden, quality of life, and healthcare utilization. Patients were randomized to the intervention group (n = 128) or usual care (n = 124). Symptom burden was found to be lower and quality of life better for patients in the intervention group at months 1 and 2 [ 87 ]. Patients in the usual care group had more unplanned healthcare visits (43 visits) compared to patients in the intervention group (28 visits). It is important to note that both virtual cancer care and remote symptom monitoring are not without challenges, including issues pertaining to technology, availability of internet, digital health literacy, and privacy, to name a few [ 82 , 83 , 88 , 89 ].
4.3. Sex Differences and Symptoms
We found that female patients in Cohort B (PROMs) were more likely to be in the class that reported prevalent and moderate/severe symptoms (Class 1). Previous research has found that females with HMs are more likely to report symptoms compared to males. For example, in their integrative review of sex differences in quality of life and symptoms in patients with HMs that included 11 studies, Tinsley-Vance et al. [ 90 ] found that female patients were more likely to report moderate to severe symptoms of nausea, anxiety, drowsiness, poor well-being, and tiredness compared to male patients. Ebraheem et al. [ 91 ] also found that female sex was associated with higher odds of reporting many symptoms, including impaired well-being, pain, loss of appetite, anxiety, and nausea.
4.4. Age and Symptoms
Patients older than 60 were more likely to be in Class 4 (prevalent, moderate/severe tiredness, impaired well-being, drowsiness with less prevalent anxiety and depression) in Cohort B (PROMs). Research has been conflicting in terms of age and symptoms, with some studies reporting increased symptoms in patients who are older, thought to possibly be due to the contribution of comorbidities on symptom burden [ 92 , 93 , 94 ]. In contrast, other studies have reported that younger patients experience more symptoms, particularly more psychological symptoms such as anxiety and depression [ 95 , 96 , 97 ]. Such variability and discordance in findings could reflect the different populations being studied, including different types of cancer and different treatment contexts (cancer-directed treatment, observation/follow-up, survivorship, end-of-life care, and age cutoffs used).
4.5. Symptoms and Healthcare Utilization
Analysis of class membership probability also revealed that for patients in Cohort B (PROMs), Class 1 (prevalent, moderate/severe symptoms) was associated with higher percentages of both ED visits and HAs while Class 6 (less prevalent, mild symptoms) was associated with lower probabilities of ED visits and HAs. Nipp et al. [ 98 ] examined the relationship between physical and psychological symptoms and healthcare utilization in patients with advanced cancer (N = 1036) and found that high symptom burden was associated with prolonged hospital admission and readmission. Similarly, Mian et al. [ 18 ] found that among patients with multiple myeloma (N = 2876), higher total ESAS scores were associated with greater odds of ED visits/hospitalizations (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.34, 95% CI: 1.29–1.38).
4.6. Symptoms in the Last Year of Life
As with other studies on symptom burden in patients with HMs [ 99 , 100 ], we also found that patients with HMs experienced high symptom burden in the last year of life and high healthcare utilization in the last year of life, with 90% of patients having had both ED visits and HAs. The chart audits found that most ED visits had been for symptom management. Our findings align with a study by Phung et al. [ 101 ] who conducted a descriptive, retrospective study to review after-hours calls to the hematology/oncology clinic. Of 500 calls representing 398 unique patients, the authors found that most calls were to report symptoms (n = 325, 65%); 120 (24%) of the calls had been from patients with HMs. Grewal et al. [ 102 ] conducted a retrospective study to examine ED visits (n = 218,459 visits) among patients receiving chemotherapy (n = 87,555) in Ontario between 2013 and 2017. The authors reported that the top three reasons for ED visits had been fever/infection, gastrointestinal issues (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea), and pain [ 102 ].
4.7. Implications for Practice, Education, and Research
This study found that patients with HMs experienced prevalent and often severe symptoms and that symptoms were associated with healthcare utilization, such as ED visits, highlighting the need for more support for symptom management. Early integration of palliative care has been identified as a recommended approach to address the need for better symptom management and support in this population. Previous research has demonstrated the positive impact of integrating palliative care for patients with cancer, particularly as related to reduced symptom burden and improved quality of life [ 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 ]. For example, Cui et al. [ 103 ] conducted a meta-analysis of the effects of early palliative care on health-related outcomes among patients with advanced cancer. The authors included 19 studies in their review and found that early palliative care positively impacted quality of life (standard mean difference (SMD) = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.62–0.223), and improved symptom burden (SMD = 0.14, 95% CI: 0.01–0.26). Rogers et al. [ 104 ] conducted a critical evaluation of four meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials that examined palliative care in oncology. The authors found that all four meta-analyses reported improved quality of life for patients randomized to receive palliative care. Despite these known benefits, patients with HMs do not routinely receive palliative care and if they do, it is typically very late in the disease trajectory [ 19 , 105 , 107 ]. Integrating palliative care into the treatment trajectory for patients with HMs may contribute to reduced symptom burden and improved quality of life, and may also potentially reduce healthcare utilization [ 107 , 108 ].
Of the patients who died within a year of PROM completion, symptoms were both prevalent and severe. Specifically, pain, anxiety, and depression were reported by 66.5%, 58.5%, and 51.7% of patients, respectively. However, when medications were reviewed, only 43.3% of patients had documentation of opioid pain medication use, 6.7% had documentation of anxiolytic use, and 23.8% had documentation of antidepressant use. Other authors have reported that patients often underreport, and clinicians often underestimate symptoms [ 109 , 110 , 111 ]. In addition, some patients and clinicians expect that some degree of suffering is unavoidable [ 111 , 112 ].
Additional reasons for patients not reporting their symptoms include patients not wanting their treatment to be interrupted or discontinued or feeling as if their symptoms were not severe enough to warrant mention to their healthcare providers [ 113 ]. Regarding pain management, patients and clinicians may harbor negative perceptions of opioid use [ 114 , 115 ].
Similar to physical symptoms, clinicians may underrecognize and/or undertreat psychological symptoms [ 116 ]. Walker et al. [ 117 ] analyzed data from patients with cancer who participated in routine screening for depression in Scotland (N = 21,151). The authors found that of the patients who had been diagnosed with major depression and had treatment information available (n = 1538), most were not receiving any treatment (n = 1130, 73%) and only 24% (n = 370) were taking an antidepressant [ 117 ]. Fisch et al. [ 118 ] reported similar findings in their study involving ambulatory patients with solid tumor cancers (N = 3106), where 47% (n = 1457) of patients were found to have depressive symptoms. Antidepressants had been prescribed in 25% of patients with depressive symptoms [ 118 ].
The low rate of psychotropic medications, specifically anxiolytics and antidepressants, in our study may have been due to a lack of mental health assessment, reluctance on behalf of oncology clinicians to prescribe psychotropics, concern about side effects, concern about drug-drug interactions, patient preferences (to not embark on pharmacotherapy), or possibly, because patients had access to other modalities of care, such as counseling/psychotherapy that were effective [ 119 , 120 , 121 ]. The American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline for the management of anxiety and depression in cancer survivors calls for a stepped approach that includes education, psychotherapy, and pharmacotherapy tailored to the individual patient’s needs [ 116 ].
Patient education on cancer and treatment-related symptoms as well as systematic assessment of symptoms may help to improve symptom detection and management [ 122 , 123 , 124 ]. The routine use of PROMs may also help clinicians recognize and better manage symptoms that are bothersome to patients [ 125 , 126 ].
A better understanding of disease and treatment-related side effects and symptoms and their underlying pathogenic mechanisms are needed [ 58 , 126 ]. Symptoms may co-occur in patients with HMs and further research may reveal shared pathologic processes that contribute to both the underlying disease as well as to the development of symptoms [ 127 , 128 ]. As one example, interleukin-6 (IL-6) is implicated in the pathogenesis of multiple myeloma [ 129 ] and also, in the development of symptoms such as fatigue [ 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 ]. Patton et al. [ 134 ] undertook a systematic review that included 20 studies (n = 1806 patients, n = 199 controls) to examine the literature on the relationships between cytokines and symptoms in people with incurable cancer. The authors found that symptoms experienced by patients with incurable cancer—most often, depression, fatigue, pain, and lack of appetite—were associated with circulating cytokines such as IL-6, interleukin 8, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha, among others [ 134 ].
Further research is also needed on pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions for the most prevalent and severe symptoms experienced by patients with HMs. A better understanding of the pathophysiology of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) has led to the development of antiemetics such as 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists and neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists, which have reduced the incidence of CINV [ 135 , 136 ]. Unfortunately, fewer options are available to help manage symptoms such as fatigue and drowsiness. More research is needed on interventions that might help alleviate symptoms such as fatigue, impaired well-being, and drowsiness [ 123 , 125 ].
4.8. Limitations
There are some important limitations in our study. Given that not all patients completed PROMs at multiple time points, we elected to use only one time point for PROM scores. Tracking patient symptom scores over time would have allowed for a more complete picture of the symptom experience. Patients with HMs may experience rapid deterioration and as such, we may have missed important symptom scores or, conversely, may have captured symptom scores at a time when patients were particularly unwell. There were several potentially relevant variables that were not available for our study, including educational level, employment status, preferred language, and stage of disease. An additional limitation is that the ESAS-r does not capture all the symptoms and concerns that are important for patients with HMs, such as peripheral neuropathy or bowel concerns.
An additional potential confounder is that some of the data collection occurred during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in March–April 2020. The first case of COVID-19 in Alberta was announced in early March 2020 with restrictions on gatherings coming into effect on 12 March 2020 [ 137 ]. Cancer Care Alberta rapidly implemented virtual clinic visits for many patients in March 2020 [ 138 ]. This shift to virtual care, in addition to the additional stressors of the pandemic, may have influenced patients’ symptom experiences, PROM completion, and results.
5. Conclusions
This retrospective observational study contributes to the literature on symptom burden in patients with HMs and confirms that patients with HMs experience significant symptom burden, particularly in the last year of life. In addition, this study found that symptoms and symptom profiles are associated with demographic factors as well as with healthcare utilization, particularly ED visits. This study also yields important information regarding patient groups who may benefit from more targeted symptom management interventions, such as female patients and older adults. There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that patients with HMs may benefit from the integration of palliative care, particularly as related to reduced symptom burden and improved quality of life. Future research should continue to examine how best to integrate palliative care into the care of patients with HMs.
Acknowledgments
Data were extracted from the Alberta Cancer Registry and linked with the ARIA electronic medical record, Discharge Abstract Database, and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System by Surveillance and Reporting within Advanced Analytics, Cancer Research and Analytics, Cancer Care Alberta.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.B., R.S., K.S. and L.W.; methodology, R.B. and R.S.; formal analysis, R.B. and R.S.; data curation, S.Q.; writing—original draft preparation, R.B. and R.S.; writing—review and editing, R.B., R.S., A.S., K.S., C.L., S.Q. and L.W.; project administration, L.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Health Research Ethics Board of Alberta (protocol CC 20-0022, 29 May 2020).
Informed Consent Statement
Patient consent was waived because this study only involved retrospective patient data. This study did not involve direct patient contact. All data were kept confidential and no identifying information was released.
Data Availability Statement
The data used in this study are not publicly available. However, data may be provided upon request, on a case-by-case basis. Please contact the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. El-Jawahri A. Webb J.A. Breffni H. Zimmermann C. Integrating palliative care and hematologic malignancies: Bridging the gaps for our patients and their caregivers Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2024 44 e432196 10.1200/EDBK_432196 38768404
2. El-Jawahri A. Nelson A.M. Gray T.F. Lee S.J. LeBlanc T.W. Palliative and end-of-life care for patients with hematologic malignancies J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 944 953 10.1200/JCO.18.02386 32023164 PMC8462532
3. Gebel C. Ditscheid B. Meissner F. Slotina E. Kruschel I. Marschall U. Wedding U. Freytag A. Utilization and quality of palliative care in patients with hematological and solid cancers: A population-based study J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2024 150 191 10.1007/s00432-024-05721-6 38607376 PMC11014814
4. Robbins-Welty G.A. Webb J.A. Shalev D. El-Jawahri A. Jackson V. Mitchell C. LeBlanc T.W. Advancing palliative care integration in hematology: Building upon existing evidence Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2023 24 542 564 10.1007/s11864-023-01084-1 37017909 PMC10074347
5. Cleeland C.S. Symptom burden: Multiple symptoms and their impact as patient-reported outcomes J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007 37 16 21 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgm005 17951226
6. Gapstur R.L. Symptom burden: A concept analysis and implications for oncology nurses Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2007 34 673 680 10.1188/07.ONF.673-680 17573326
7. Hochman M.J. Yu Y. Wolf S.P. Samsa G.P. Kamal A.H. LeBlanc T.W. Comparing the palliative care needs of patients with hematologic and solid malignancies J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2018 55 82 88.e1 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.08.030 PMC5921902 28887271
8. Manitta V. Zordan R. Cole-Sinclair M. Nandurkar H. Philip J. The symptom burden of patients with hematological malignancy: A cross-sectional observational study J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2011 42 432 442 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.12.008 21477979
9. Kuczmarski T.M. Roemer L. Odejide O.O. Depression in patients with hematologic malignancies: The current landscape and future directions Blood Rev. 2024 65 101182 10.1016/j.blre.2024.101182 38402023
10. Rajkumar S.V. Multiple myeloma: 2022 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management Am. J. Hematol. 2022 97 1086 1107 10.1002/ajh.26590 35560063 PMC9387011
11. Howell D.A. McCaughan D. Smith A.G. Patmore R. Roman E. Incurable but treatable: Understanding, uncertainty and impact in chronic blood cancers—A qualitative study from the UK’s Haematological Malignancy Research Network PLoS ONE 2022 17 e0263672 10.1371/journal.pone.0263672 35143569 PMC8830712
12. Simao D. Barata P.C. Alves M. Papoila A.L. Oliveira S. Lawlor P. Symptom clusters in patients with advanced cancer: A prospective longitudinal cohort study to examine their stability and prognostic significance Oncologist 2024 29 e152 e163 10.1093/oncolo/oyad211 37536276 PMC10769798
13. Zimmermann C. Yuen D. Mischitelle A. Minden M.D. Brandwein J.M. Schimmer A. Gagliese L. Lo C. Rydall A. Rodin G. Symptom burden and supportive care in patients with acute leukemia Leuk. Res. 2013 37 731 736 10.1016/j.leukres.2013.02.009 23490030 PMC3808347
14. Chan K.Y. Chan T.S.Y. Gill H. Chan T.C.W. Li C.W. Au H.Y. Wong C.Y. Tsang K.W. Lo R.S.K. Cheng B.H.W. Supportive care and symptom management in patients with advanced hematological malignancies: A literature review Ann. Palliat. Med. 2022 11 3273 3291 10.21037/apm-22-691 36267009
15. Schatz F. Mehnert-Theuerkauf A. Platzbecker U. Springer F. Götze H. Health-related quality of life in older hematological cancer survivors (70+) compared to older general population—A German cancer-register-based cross-sectional comparative study Eur. J. Haematol. 2024 113 693 703 10.1111/ejh.14285 39090028
16. Ferraz L.F.M. Ferreira A.P.S. Guimarães T.V.V. de Melo Campos P. Early integration of palliative care in hematology: An urgency for patients, a challenge for physicians Hematol. Transfus. Cell Ther. 2022 44 567 573 10.1016/j.htct.2022.06.007 35989250 PMC9605907
17. Goswami P. Oliva E.N. Ionova T. Else R. Kell J. Fielding A.K. Jennings D.M. Karakantza M. Al-Ismail S. Collins G.P. Quality-of-life issues and symptoms reported by patients living with haematological malignancy: A qualitative study Ther. Adv. Hematol. 2020 11 2040620720955002 10.1177/2040620720955002 33101618 PMC7549153
18. Mian H. Sutradhar R. Pond G.R. Sivapathasundaram B. Sussman J. Balitsky A. D’Souza A. Wildes T.M. Seow H. Patient-reported outcome measures are associated with health care utilization in patients with transplant ineligible multiple myeloma: A population-based study Blood Cancer J. 2022 12 17 10.1038/s41408-021-00602-4 35087029 PMC8795114
19. Shaulov A. Aviv A. Alcalde J. Zimmermann C. Early integration of palliative care for patients with haematological malignancies Br. J. Haematol. 2022 199 14 30 10.1111/bjh.18286 35670630 PMC9796711
20. Sommer M. Nielsen L.K. Nielsen L.B. Brondum R.F. Nielsen M.M. Rytter A.S. Vesteghem C. Severinsen M.T. El-Galaly T.C. Bøgsted M. Patient-reported outcomes in patients with hematological relapse or progressive disease: A longitudinal observational study Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2021 19 251 10.1186/s12955-021-01887-6 34736479 PMC8567661
21. Dodd M.J. Miaskowski C. Paul S.M. Symptom clusters and their effect on the functional status of patients with cancer Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2001 28 465 470 11338755
22. Miaskowski C. Barsevick A. Berger A. Casagrande R. Grady P.A. Jacobsen P. Kutner J. Patrick D. Zimmerman L. Xiao C. Advancing symptom science through symptom cluster research: Expert panel proceedings and recommendations J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2017 109 djw253 10.1093/jnci/djw253 28119347 PMC5939621
23. Lee L.J. Han C.J. Saligan L. Wallen G.R. Comparing symptom clusters in cancer survivors by cancer diagnosis: A latent class profile analysis Support. Care Cancer 2024 32 308 10.1007/s00520-024-08489-0 38662054 PMC11045444
24. Lynch Kelly D. Dickinson K. Hsiao C.P. Lukkahatai N. Gonzalez-Marrero V. McCabe M. Saligan L.N. Biological basis for the clustering of symptoms Semin. Oncol. Nurs. 2016 32 351 360 10.1016/j.soncn.2016.08.002 27776832 PMC5143166
25. Dong S.T. Butow P.N. Costa D.S. Lovell M.R. Agar M. Symptom clusters in patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review of observational studies J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2014 48 411 450 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.10.027 24703941
26. Wu C.J. Bai L.Y. Chen Y.C. Wu C.F. Lin K.C. Wang Y.J. Symptom clusters in lymphoma survivors before, during, and after chemotherapy: A prospective study Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2023 50 361 371 10.1188/23.ONF.361-371 37155978
27. Fang J. Wong C.L. Liu C.Q. Huang H.Y. Qi Y.S. Xu L.L. Wang M.X. Lin Y. Identifying central symptom clusters and correlates in children with acute leukemia undergoing chemotherapy: A network analysis Front. Oncol. 2023 13 1236129 10.3389/fonc.2023.1236129 37671049 PMC10475730
28. Lin D.M. Yin X.X. Wang N. Zheng W. Wen Y.P. Meng L.M. Zhang L.L. Consensus in identification and stability of symptom clusters using different symptom dimensions in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia patients undergoing induction therapy J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2019 57 783 792 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.12.329 30639731
29. Brazauskas R. Flynn K. Krishnan A. Landau H. Giralt S. Pasquini M.C. Stadtmauer E.A. D’Souza A. Symptom clusters and their impact on quality of life in multiple myeloma survivors: Secondary analysis of BMT CTN 0702 trial Br. J. Haematol. 2024 204 1429 1438 10.1111/bjh.19326 38348544 PMC11006567
30. Chen F. Leng Y. Ni J. Niu T. Zhang L. Li J. Zheng Y. Symptom clusters and quality of life in ambulatory patients with multiple myeloma Support. Care Cancer 2022 30 4961 4970 10.1007/s00520-022-06896-9 35182229
31. Zeng L. Huang H. Qirong C. Ruan C. Liu Y. An W. Guo Q. Zhou J. Multiple myeloma patients undergoing chemotherapy: Which symptom clusters impact quality of life? J. Clin. Nurs. 2023 32 7247 7259 10.1111/jocn.16791 37303229
32. Boyes A.W. Clinton-McHarg T. Waller A.E. Steele A. D’Este C.A. Sanson-Fisher R.W. Prevalence and correlates of the unmet supportive care needs of individuals diagnosed with a haematological malignancy Acta Oncol. 2015 54 507 514 10.3109/0284186X.2014.958527 25238282
33. Oerlemans S. Mols F. Nijziel M.R. Lybeert M. van de Poll-Franse L.V. The impact of treatment, socio-demographic and clinical characteristics on health-related quality of life among Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivors: A systematic review Ann. Hematol. 2011 90 993 1004 10.1007/s00277-011-1274-4 21670973 PMC3150657
34. Shreders A.J. Niazi S.K. Hodge D.O. Chimato N.T. Kureti M. Kirla N. Agrawal A. Swaika A. Gustetic E. Foster R. Correlation of sociodemographic and clinical parameters with depression and distress in patients with hematologic malignancies Ann. Hematol. 2018 97 519 528 10.1007/s00277-017-3198-0 29218388
35. Pulgar A. Alcala A. Reyes Del Paso G.A. Psychosocial predictors of quality of life in hematological cancer Behav. Med. 2015 41 1 8 10.1080/08964289.2013.833083 24965511
36. Tulk J. Wurz A. Hou S.H.J. Bender J. Schulte F.S.M. Eaton G. Chalifour K. Garland S.N. Rural-urban differences in distress, quality of life, and social support among Canadian young adult cancer survivors: A Young Adults with Cancer in Their Prime (YACPRIME) study J. Rural Health 2024 40 121 127 10.1111/jrh.12774 37355833
37. Cerni J. Rhee J. Hosseinzadeh H. End-of-life cancer care resource utilisation in rural versus urban settings: A systematic review Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 17 4955 10.3390/ijerph17144955 32660146 PMC7400508
38. Bhatia S. Landier W. Paskett E.D. Peters K.B. Merrill J.K. Phillips J. Osarogiagbon R.U. Rural-urban disparities in cancer outcomes: Opportunities for future research J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2022 114 940 952 10.1093/jnci/djac030 35148389 PMC9275775
39. Loughery J. Woodgate R.L. Supportive care needs of rural individuals living with cancer: A literature review Can. Oncol. Nurs. J. 2015 25 157 178 10.5737/23688076252157166 26638285
40. Watson L. Qi S. Link C. DeIure A. Afzal A. Barbera L. Patient-reported symptom complexity and acute care utilization among patients with cancer: A population-based study using a novel symptom complexity algorithm and observational data J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2023 21 173 180 10.6004/jnccn.2022.7087 36791760
41. Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database Metadata 2024 Available online: www.cihi.ca/en/discharge-abstract-database-dad-metadata (accessed on 21 October 2024)
42. Canadian Institute for Health Information National Ambulatory Care Reporting System Metadata Available online: www.cihi.ca/en/national-ambulatory-care-reporting-system-nacrs-metadata (accessed on 21 October 2024)
43. Ashbury F.D. Findlay H. Reynolds B. McKerracher K. A Canadian survey of cancer patients’ experiences: Are their needs being met? J. Pain Symptom Manag. 1998 16 298 306 10.1016/S0885-3924(98)00102-X 9846024
44. Bultz B.D. Groff S.L. Fitch M. Blais M.C. Howes J. Levy K. Mayer C. Implementing screening for distress, the 6th vital sign: A Canadian strategy for changing practice Psycho-Oncology 2011 20 463 469 10.1002/pon.1932 21456060
45. Cuthbert C.A. Watson L. Xu Y. Boyne D.J. Hemmelgarn B.R. Cheung W.Y. Patient-reported outcomes in Alberta: Rationale, scope, and design of a database initiative Curr. Oncol. 2019 26 e503 e509 10.3747/co.26.4919 31548818 PMC6726254
46. Bruera E. Kuehn N. Miller M.J. Selmser P. Macmillan K. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): A simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients J. Palliat. Care 1991 7 6 9 10.1177/082585979100700202 1714502
47. Hui D. Bruera E. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System 25 years later: Past, present, and future developments J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2017 53 630 643 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2016.10.370 PMC5337174 28042071
48. Watanabe S.M. Nekolaichuk C.L. Beaumont C. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, a proposed tool for distress screening in cancer patients: Development and refinement Psycho-Oncology 2012 21 977 985 10.1002/pon.1996 21671304
49. Quan H. Sundararajan V. Halfon P. Fong A. Burnand B. Luthi J.C. Saunders L.D. Beck C.A. Feasby T.E. Ghali W.A. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data Med. Care 2005 43 1130 1139 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83 16224307
50. World Health Organization Ageing and Health Available online: www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health (accessed on 21 October 2024)
51. Varian Medical Services ARIA Oncology Information System Available online: www.varian.com/products/software/digital-oncology/oncology-management-systems/aria-oncology-information-system (accessed on 21 October 2024)
52. Muthen L.K. Muthen B.O. MPlus Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables. User’s Guide Available online: www.statmodel.com/download/usersguide/MplusUserGuideVer_8.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2024)
53. Barbera L. Atzema C. Sutradhar R. Seow H. Howell D. Husain A. Sussman J. Earle C. Liu Y. Dudgeon D. Do patient-reported symptoms predict emergency department visits in cancer patients? A population-based analysis Ann. Emerg. Med. 2013 61 427 437.e5 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.10.010 23290526
54. IBM SPSS Statistics 29 Available online: www.ibm.com/spss (accessed on 25 October 2024)
55. Oldenmenger W.H. de Raaf P.J. de Klerk C. van der Rijt C.C. Cut points on 0–10 numeric rating scales for symptoms included in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in cancer patients: A systematic review J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2013 45 1083 1093 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.06.007 23017617
56. Sutradhar R. Rostami M. Barbera L. Patient-reported symptoms improve performance of risk prediction models for emergency department visits among patients with cancer: A population-wide study in Ontario using administrative data J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2019 58 745 755 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.007 31319103
57. Hammer M.J. Cooper B. Paul S.M. Kober K.M. Cartwright F. Conley Y.P. Wright F. Levine J.D. Miaskowski C. Identification of distinct symptom profiles in cancer patients using a pre-specified symptom cluster J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2022 64 17 27 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2022.03.007 35339613
58. Miaskowski C. Dunn L. Ritchie C. Paul S.M. Cooper B. Aouizerat B.E. Alexander K. Skerman H. Yates P. Latent class analysis reveals distinct subgroups of patients based on symptom occurrence and demographic and clinical characteristics J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2015 50 28 37 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.12.011 25647419 PMC4492860
59. Naldi L. Cazzaniga S. Research techniques made simple: Latent class analysis J. Investig. Dermatol. 2020 140 1676 1680.e1 10.1016/j.jid.2020.05.079 32800180
60. Weller B.E. Bowen N.K. Faubert S.J. Latent class analysis: A guide to best practice J. Black Psychol. 2020 46 287 311 10.1177/0095798420930932
61. Sinha P. Calfee C.S. Delucchi K.L. Practitioner’s guide to latent class analysis: Methodological considerations and common pitfalls Crit. Care Med. 2021 49 e63 e79 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004710 33165028 PMC7746621
62. Asparouhov T. Muthén B. Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus Struct. Equ. Model. 2014 21 329 341 10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
63. Nylund-Gibson K. Grimm R.P. Masyn K.E. Prediction from latent classes: A demonstration of different approaches to include distal outcomes in mixture models Struct. Equ. Model. 2019 26 967 985 10.1080/10705511.2019.1590146
64. Lanza S.T. Tan X. Bray B.C. Latent class analysis with distal outcomes: A flexible model-based approach Struct. Equ. Model. 2013 20 1 26 10.1080/10705511.2013.742377 PMC4240499 25419096
65. LeBlanc T.W. Smith J.M. Currow D.C. Symptom burden of haematological malignancies as death approaches in a community palliative care service: A retrospective cohort study of a consecutive case series Lancet Haematol. 2015 2 e334 e338 10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00111-8 26688486
66. Button E. Chan R. Chambers S. Butler J. Yates P. Signs, symptoms, and characteristics associated with end of life in people with a hematologic malignancy: A review of the literature Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2016 43 E178 E187 10.1188/16.ONF.E178-E187 27541560
67. Barbera L. Sutradhar R. Seow H. Mittmann N. Howell D. Earle C.C. Li Q. Thiruchelvam D. The impact of routine Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) use on overall survival in cancer patients: Results of a population-based retrospective matched cohort analysis Cancer Med. 2020 9 7107 7115 10.1002/cam4.3374 32794634 PMC7541161
68. Mierzynska J. Piccinin C. Pe M. Martinelli F. Gotay C. Coens C. Mauer M. Eggermont A. Groenvold M. Bjordal K. Prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes from international randomised clinical trials on cancer: A systematic review Lancet Oncol. 2019 20 e685 e698 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30656-4 31797795
69. Caminiti C. Maglietta G. Diodati F. Puntoni M. Marcomini B. Lazzarelli S. Pinto C. Perrone F. The effects of patient-reported outcome screening on the survival of people with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis Cancers 2022 14 5470 10.3390/cancers14215470 36358888 PMC9657884
70. Lizan L. Perez-Carbonell L. Comellas M. Additional value of patient-reported symptom monitoring in cancer care: A systematic review of the literature Cancers 2021 13 4615 10.3390/cancers13184615 34572842 PMC8469093
71. Basch E. Barbera L. Kerrigan C.L. Velikova G. Implementation of patient-reported outcomes in routine medical care Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2018 38 122 134 10.1200/EDBK_200383 30231381
72. Basch E. Deal A.M. Dueck A.C. Scher H.I. Kris M.G. Hudis C. Schrag D. Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment JAMA 2017 318 197 198 10.1001/jama.2017.7156 28586821 PMC5817466
73. Chan J. Polo A. Zubizarreta E. Bourque J.M. Hanna T.P. Gaudet M. Dennis K. Brundage M. Slotman B. Abdel-Wahab M. Access to radiotherapy and its association with cancer outcomes in a high-income country: Addressing the inequity in Canada Radiother. Oncol. 2019 141 48 55 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.09.009 31575428
74. Henley S.J. Jemal A. Rural cancer control: Bridging the chasm in geographic health inequity Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2018 27 1248 1251 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0807 PMC7076627 30385497
75. Levit L.A. Byatt L. Lyss A.P. Paskett E.D. Levit K. Kirkwood K. Schenkel C. Schilsky R.L. Closing the rural cancer care gap: Three institutional approaches JCO Oncol. Pract. 2020 16 422 430 10.1200/OP.20.00174 32574128
76. Canadian Medical Association Medical Oncology Profile Available online: www.cma.ca/sites/default/files/2019-01/medical-oncology-e.pdf (accessed on 29 December 2024)
77. Chih M.Y. McCowan A. Whittaker S. Krakow M. Ahern D.K. Aronoff-Spencer E. Hesse B.W. Mullett T.W. Vanderpool R.C. The landscape of connected cancer symptom management in rural America: A narrative review of opportunities for launching connected health interventions J. Appalach. Health 2020 2 64 81 35769642 10.13023/jah.0204.08 PMC9159365
78. Ream E. Hughes A.E. Cox A. Skarparis K. Richardson A. Pedersen V.H. Wiseman T. Forbes A. Bryant A. Telephone interventions for symptom management in adults with cancer Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020 6 CD007568 10.1002/14651858.CD007568 32483832 PMC7264015
79. Munhoz R. Sabesan S. Thota R. Merrill J. Hensold J.O. Revolutionizing rural oncology: Innovative models and global perspectives Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book 2024 44 e432078 10.1200/EDBK_432078 38838274
80. Hanna T.P. King W.D. Thibodeau S. Jalink M. Paulin G.A. Harvey-Jones E. O’Sullivan D.E. Booth C.M. Sullivan R. Aggarwal A. Mortality due to cancer treatment delay: Systematic review and meta-analysis BMJ 2020 371 m4087 10.1136/bmj.m4087 33148535 PMC7610021
81. Yabroff K.R. Han X. Zhao J. Nogueira L. Jemal A. Rural cancer disparities in the United States: A multilevel framework to improve access to care and patient outcomes JCO Oncol. Pract. 2020 16 409 413 10.1200/OP.20.00352 32574130
82. Baldwin-Medsker A. Holland J. Rodriguez E.S. Access to care: Using eHealth to limit location-based barriers for patients with cancer Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2020 24 16 23 10.1188/20.CJON.S1.16-23 32441695
83. Booker R. Haase K.R. Virtual cancer care equity in Canada: Lessons from COVID-19 Clin. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2022 26 224 227 10.1188/22.CJON.224-227 35302552
84. Sanders J.J. Temin S. Ghoshal A. Alesi E.R. Ali Z.V. Chauhan C. Cleary J.F. Epstein A.S. Firn J.I. Jones J.A. Palliative care for patients with cancer: ASCO Guideline Update J. Clin. Oncol. 2024 42 2336 2357 10.1200/JCO.24.00542 38748941
85. Franzoi M.A. Ferreira A.R. Lemaire A. Rodriguez J. Grosjean J. Ribeiro J.M. Polastro L. Grellety T. Artignan X. Le Du K. Implementation of a remote symptom monitoring pathway in oncology care: Analysis of real-world experience across 33 cancer centres in France and Belgium Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 2024 44 101005 10.1016/j.lanepe.2024.101005 39444707 PMC11496975
86. Maguire R. McCann L. Kotronoulas G. Kearney N. Ream E. Armes J. Patiraki E. Furlong E. Fox P. Gaiger A. Real time remote symptom monitoring during chemotherapy for cancer: European multicentre randomised controlled trial (eSMART) BMJ 2021 374 n1647 10.1136/bmj.n1647 34289996 PMC8293749
87. Mooney K. Iacob E. Wilson C.M. Lloyd J. Nielson H. Ward J.H. Randomized trial of remote cancer symptom monitoring during COVID-19: Impact on symptoms, QoL, and unplanned health care utilization J. Clin. Oncol. 2021 39 12000 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.12000
88. Chen L. Bartel C. Cai X. Cheng Y. Perer A. McClaine S. Kairis E. Durica K. Huang W. Low C.A. Patient and provider perspectives on symptom monitoring during outpatient chemotherapy: Interview study JMIR Form. Res. 2023 7 e46001 10.2196/46001 37067857 PMC10131985
89. Smith C.S. Henderson N.L. Hendrix E.K. Padalkar T. Huang C.S. Dent D.N. Ingram S.A. McGowan C. Odom J.N. Kaufmann T. Patient-perceived benefits and limitations of standard of care remote symptom monitoring during cancer treatment Cancer Control 2024 31 10732748241297368 10.1177/10732748241297368 39547695 PMC11569491
90. Tinsley-Vance S.M. Durosier Mertilus D.S. Nodzon L. Lengacher C.A. An integrative review of sex differences in quality of life and symptoms among survivors of hematologic malignancies Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2023 50 299 312 37155973 10.1188/23.ONF.299-312 PMC11401479
91. Ebraheem M.S. Seow H. Balitsky A.K. Pond G.R. Wildes T.M. Sivapathasundaram B. Sussman J. Mian H. Trajectory of symptoms in patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplant for multiple myeloma: A population-based cohort study of patient-reported outcomes Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2021 21 e714 e721 10.1016/j.clml.2021.05.002 34099429
92. Morse L. Cooper B.A. Ritchie C.S. Wong M.L. Kober K.M. Harris C. Shin J. Oppegaard K. Hammer M.J. Schimmel A.C. Stability and consistency of symptom clusters in younger versus older patients receiving chemotherapy BMC Geriatr. 2024 24 164 10.1186/s12877-024-04755-2 38365584 PMC10870638
93. Flannery M.A. Culakova E. Canin B.E. Peppone L. Ramsdale E. Mohile S.G. Understanding treatment tolerability in older adults with cancer J. Clin. Oncol. 2021 39 2150 2163 10.1200/JCO.21.00195 34043433 PMC8238902
94. Gaudernack H.E. Hareide M.M. Miaskowski C. Ritchie C. Løyland B. Grov E.K. Paul S.M. Torstveit A.H. Utne I. Symptom experience of older oncology patients with low versus high levels of multimorbidity prior to chemotherapy Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2021 54 102029 10.1016/j.ejon.2021.102029 34520997
95. Cataldo J.K. Paul S. Cooper B. Skerman H. Alexander K. Aouizerat B. Blackman V. Merriman J. Dunn L. Ritchie C. Differences in the symptom experience of older versus younger oncology outpatients: A cross-sectional study BMC Cancer 2013 13 6 10.1186/1471-2407-13-6 23281602 PMC3576303
96. Goerling U. Ernst J. Esser P. Haering C. Hermann M. Hornemann B. Hovel P. Keilholz U. Kissane D. von dem Knesebeck O. Estimating the prevalence of mental disorders in patients with newly diagnosed cancer in relation to socioeconomic status: A multicenter prospective observational study ESMO Open 2024 9 103655 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103655 39088984 PMC11345380
97. Wu H.S. Harden J.K. Symptom burden and quality of life in survivorship: A review of the literature Cancer Nurs. 2015 38 E29 E54 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000135 24831042
98. Nipp R.D. El-Jawahri A. Moran S.M. D’Arpino S.M. Johnson P.C. Lage D.E. Wong R.L. Pirl W.F. Traeger L. Lennes I.T. The relationship between physical and psychological symptoms and health care utilization in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer Cancer 2017 123 4720 4727 10.1002/cncr.30912 29057450 PMC5746191
99. Hui D. Didwaniya N. Vidal M. Shin S.H. Chisholm G. Roquemore J. Bruera E. Quality of end-of-life care in patients with hematologic malignancies: A retrospective cohort study Cancer 2014 120 1572 1578 10.1002/cncr.28614 24549743 PMC4013204
100. Shaw B. Parker C. Opat S. Shortt J. Poon P. Hematologic malignancy: Who cares in the end? A retrospective cohort study of markers of quality end-of-life care J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2023 21 813 820.e1 10.6004/jnccn.2023.7033 37549908
101. Phung Q.H. Masel R.H. Bijlani S. Tanzer J.R. Hsu A. Almhanna K. Characterizing after-hours hematology/oncology clinic calls Ann. Palliat. Med. 2024 13 93 100 10.21037/apm-23-80 38199799
102. Grewal K. Krzyzanowska M.K. McLeod S. Borgundvaag B. Atzema C.L. Outcomes after emergency department use in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada: A population-based cohort study CMAJ Open 2020 8 E496 E505 10.9778/cmajo.20190198 PMC7850167 32792349
103. Cui J. Fang P. Bai J. Tan L. Wan C. Yu L. Meta-analysis of effects of early palliative care on health-related outcomes among advanced cancer patients Nurs. Res. 2023 72 E180 E190 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000687 37733650
104. Rogers J.L. Perry L.M. Hoerger M. Summarizing the evidence base for palliative oncology care: A critical evaluation of the meta-analyses Clin. Med. Insights Oncol. 2020 14 1179554920915722 10.1177/1179554920915722 32341671 PMC7171985
105. Elliott E. Watson T. Singh D. Wong C. Lo S.S. Outcomes of specialty palliative care interventions for patients with hematologic malignancies: A systematic review J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2021 62 863 875 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.03.014 33774128
106. Fulton J.J. LeBlanc T.W. Cutson T.M. Porter Starr K.N. Kamal A. Ramos K. Freiermuth C.E. McDuffie J.R. Kosinski A. Adam S. Integrated outpatient palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis Palliat. Med. 2019 33 123 134 10.1177/0269216318812633 30488781 PMC7069657
107. Seow H. Barbera L.C. McGrail K. Burge F. Guthrie D.M. Lawson B. Chan K.K.W. Peacock S.J. Sutradhar R. Effect of early palliative care on end-of-life health care costs: A population-based, propensity score-matched cohort study JCO Oncol. Pract. 2022 18 e183 e192 10.1200/OP.21.00299 34388021 PMC8758090
108. Tsang M. Bischoff K. Schoenbeck K.L. Berry K. O’Riordan D. Fakhri B. Wong S.W. Shah N. Olin R. Andreadis C. Value of embedded palliative care: Outpatient palliative care and health care utilization for patients with hematologic malignancies Blood Adv. 2023 7 3146 3149 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022009039 36809787 PMC10362539
109. Arenare L. Di Liello R. De Placido P. Gridelli C. Morabito A. Pignata S. Nuzzo F. Avallone A. Maiello E. Gargiulo P. Under-reporting of subjective symptoms and its prognostic value: A pooled analysis of 12 cancer clinical trials ESMO Open 2024 9 102941 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.102941 38452437 PMC10937229
110. Hannon B. Dyck M. Pope A. Swami N. Banerjee S. Mak E. Bryson J. Rodin G. Ridley J. Lo C. Modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System including constipation and sleep: Validation in outpatients with cancer J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2015 49 945 952 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.10.013 25523890
111. Martin M.L. Chung H. Rydén A. Willingness to report treatment-related symptoms of immunotherapy among patients with non-small cell lung cancer Qual. Life Res. 2022 31 1147 1155 10.1007/s11136-021-02966-3 34383226 PMC8960557
112. Booker R. McLennan A.I.G. Beattie S. Stajduhar K.I. Sawatzky R. Integrating palliative care in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A qualitative study exploring patient, caregiver, and clinician perspectives Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2023 50 313 323 10.1188/23.ONF.313-323 37155974
113. Di Maio M. Basch E. Bryce J. Perrone F. Patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of toxicity of anticancer treatments Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2016 13 319 325 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.222 26787278
114. Harsanyi H. Cuthbert C. Schulte F. The stigma surrounding opioid use as a barrier to cancer-pain management: An overview of experiences with fear, shame, and poorly controlled pain in the context of advanced cancer Curr. Oncol. 2023 30 5835 5848 10.3390/curroncol30060437 37366920 PMC10296997
115. Makhlouf S.M. Pini S. Ahmed S. Bennett M.I. Managing pain in people with cancer-a systematic review of the attitudes and knowledge of professionals, patients, caregivers and public J. Cancer Educ. 2020 35 214 240 10.1007/s13187-019-01548-9 31119708 PMC7076060
116. Andersen B.L. Lacchetti C. Ashing K. Berek J.S. Berman B.S. Bolte S. Dizon D.S. Given B. Nekhlyudov L. Pirl W. Management of anxiety and depression in adult survivors of cancer: ASCO guideline update J. Clin. Oncol. 2023 41 3426 3453 10.1200/JCO.23.00293 37075262
117. Walker J. Hansen C.H. Martin P. Symeonides S. Ramessu R. Murray G. Sharpe M. Prevalence, associations, and adequacy of treatment of major depression in patients with cancer: A cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected clinical data Lancet Psychiatry 2014 1 343 350 10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70313-X 26360998
118. Fisch M.J. Zhao F. Manola J. Miller A.H. Pirl W.F. Wagner L.I. Patterns and predictors of antidepressant use in ambulatory cancer patients with common solid tumors Psychooncology 2015 24 523 532 10.1002/pon.3606 24930693 PMC4265573
119. Mohamed F. Uvais N.A. Moideen S. Cp R.R. Saif M. Psychotropic medication prescriptions for home-based palliative care oncology patients Prim. Care Companion CNS Disord. 2024 26 23m03668 10.4088/PCC.23m03668 38728674
120. Grassi L. Caruso R. Riba M.B. Lloyd-Williams M. Kissane D. Rodin G. McFarland D. Campos-Ródenas R. Zachariae R. Santini D. Anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients: ESMO clinical practice guideline ESMO Open 2023 8 101155 10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.101155 37087199 PMC10163167
121. Perna G. Pinto E. Spiti A. Torti T. Cucchi M. Caldirola D. Foundations for a personalized psycho-oncology: The state of the art J. Pers. Med. 2024 14 892 10.3390/jpm14090892 39338146 PMC11433554
122. Basch E. Schrag D. Henson S. Jansen J. Ginos B. Stover A.M. Carr P. Spears P.A. Jonsson M. Deal A.M. Effect of electronic symptom monitoring on patient-reported outcomes among patients with metastatic cancer: A randomized clinical trial JAMA 2020 327 2413 2422 10.1001/jama.2022.9265 PMC9168923 35661856
123. Emery J. Butow P. Lai-Kwon J. Nekhlyudov L. Rynderman M. Jefford M. Management of common clinical problems experienced by survivors of cancer Lancet 2022 399 1537 1550 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00242-2 35430021
124. Lewandowska A. Rudzki G. Lewandowski T. Prochnicki M. Rudzki S. Laskowska B. Brudniak J. Quality of life of cancer patients treated with chemotherapy Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020 17 6938 10.3390/ijerph17196938 32977386 PMC7579212
125. Fabi A. Bhargava R. Fatigoni S. Guglielmo M. Horneber M. Roila F. Weis J. Jordan K. Ripamonti C.I. ESMO Guidelines Committee Cancer-related fatigue: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment Ann. Oncol. 2020 31 713 723 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.016 32173483
126. Balitsky A.K. Rayner D. Britto J. Lionel A.C. Ginsberg L. Cho W. Wilfred A.M. Sardar H. Cantor N. Mian H. Patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis JAMA Netw. Open 2024 7 e2424793 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.24793 39136947 PMC11322847
127. O’Higgins C.M. Brady B. O’Connor B. Walsh D. Reilly R.B. The pathophysiology of cancer-related fatigue: Current controversies Support. Care Cancer 2018 10 3353 3364 10.1007/s00520-018-4318-7 29961146
128. Kwekkeboom K.L. Tostrud L. Costanzo E. Coe C.L. Serlin R.C. Ward S.E. Zhang Y. The role of inflammation in the pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance symptom cluster in advanced cancer J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2018 55 1286 1295 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.01.008 29360570 PMC5899940
129. Nilsberth C. Sackmann V. Fransson K. Jakobsson M. Karlsson M. Milberg A. Symptom clusters in palliative-stage cancer correlate with proinflammatory cytokine cluster Ann. Palliat. Med. 2023 12 458 471 10.21037/apm-22-974 37272019
130. Harmer D. Falank C. Reagan M.R. Interleukin-6 Interweaves the bone marrow microenvironment, bone loss, and multiple myeloma Front. Endocrinol. 2019 8 788 10.3389/fendo.2018.00788 30671025 PMC6333051
131. Booker R. Olson K. Pilarski L.M. Noon J.P. Bahlis N.J. The relationships among physiologic variables, quality of life, and fatigue in patients with multiple myeloma Oncol. Nurs. Forum 2009 36 209 216 10.1188/09.ONF.209-216 19273410
132. Hoogland A.I. Jim H.S.L. Gonzalez B.D. Small B.J. Gilvary D. Breen E.C. Bower J.E. Fishman M. Zachariah B. Jacobsen P.B. Systemic inflammation and symptomatology in patients with prostate cancer treated with androgen deprivation therapy: Preliminary findings Cancer 2021 127 1476 1482 10.1002/cncr.33397 33378113 PMC8084887
133. Shah L. Murata K. Holder H. Marcello L. Cho S. Hoover E. Chung D.J. Bahi P.B. Lahoud O.B. Scordo M. Improved quality of life with interleukin-6 (IL-6) blockade with siltuximab peri-autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHCT) in older patients with multiple myeloma (MM) Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020 26 S129 S130 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.12.648
134. Patton R. Paval D.R. McDonald J.J. Brown D. Gallagher I.J. Skipworth R.J.E. McMillan D.C. Dolan R.D. Fallon M. Laird B.J.A. Relationship between cytokines and symptoms in people with incurable cancer: A systematic review Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2021 159 103222 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103222 33482344
135. Gupta K. Walton R. Kataria S.P. Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Pathogenesis, recommendations, and new trends Cancer Treat. Res. Commun. 2021 26 100278 10.1016/j.ctarc.2020.100278 33360668
136. Navari R.M. Nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2020 21 14 10.1007/s11864-020-0704-8 32025954
137. Karstens-Smith B. A Timeline of COVID-19 in Alberta. Global News 28 December 2020 Available online: https://globalnews.ca/news/7538547/covid-19-alberta-health-timeline/ (accessed on 21 October 2024)
138. Watson L. Qi S. Delure A. Link C. Photitai E. Chmielewski L. Hildebrand A. Ruether D. Rawson K. Virtual cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta: Evidence from a mixed methods evaluation and key learnings JCO Oncol. Pract. 2021 17 e1354 e1361 10.1200/OP.21.00144 34351822 PMC8457798