Background: Social isolation and connectedness are social determinants of health that have demonstrated effects on cancer‐related outcomes. These constructs have been systematically evaluated among pediatric and older adult cancer populations. In this review, the authors evaluated the prevalence, correlates, and psychosocial implications of social isolation and connectedness among young adult (YA) cancer survivors aged 18–39 years.Methods: Peer‐reviewed articles published in English before June 2021 were identified from database searches and included articles' reference lists according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) guidelines. Included articles described studies that assessed social isolation and/or connectedness among YA cancer survivors.Results: In total, 5094 unique records were identified; 4143 were excluded after title/abstract screening, and 907 were excluded after full‐text review. Forty‐four articles were included. Few studies used validated measures or directly assessed social isolation or connectedness. Social isolation was similarly prevalent among YAs and older cancer survivors and noncancer populations. Demographic, clinical, and behavioral risk and protective factors for social isolation were identified. Social isolation was related to worse psychological well‐being, whereas social connectedness was often, but not always, related to better psychological well‐being.Conclusions: This growing literature underscores the relevance of social isolation and connectedness as important health determinants among YA cancer survivors. The identified risk and protective factors can identify YAs who especially may benefit from screening for social isolation. Future studies are needed that directly, reliably, and validly evaluate social isolation and connectedness to inform the development of interventions to decrease isolation and increase connectedness.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy can lead to durable responses in patients with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies. Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) and cytokine release syndrome (CRS) are common and may place patients at risk for longer-term cognitive impairment. This study examined changes in cognition in the first year after CD19-directed CAR-T-cell therapy for lymphoma, as well as CAR T-cell therapy-specific risk-factors (e.g., ICANS, CRS) and non-specific risk factors (e.g., baseline quality of life, frailty) for worsening cognition. Patients’ perceived cognition was assessed at baseline and at days 90 and 360. Clinical variables were abstracted from medical records. Piecewise mixed models were used to examine acute change (i.e., within 90 days) and longer-term change (i.e., from 90 days to 360 days) in cognition as well as to explore risk factors for worsening cognition. Among 118 participants (mean age 61, 59% male), mean levels of perceived cognition did not change from baseline to day 90 (p values>0.05) but worsened from day 90 to day 360 in global cognition and in the domains of memory, language, organization, and divided attention (p values<0.05). Although statistically significant, changes were small (d values 0.15-0.28). Greater baseline fatigue, anxiety, and depression were associated with worse global cognition at day 90 (p values<0.01). Patients with more severe ICANS post-CART reported worse global cognition at day 360 (p0.05). Other putative risk factors were not associated with acute or longer-term changes in perceived cognition (p values>0.05). CAR T-cell therapy recipients reported delayed deterioration in several cognitive domains, although changes were small. These findings may be useful when educating future patients on what to expect when receiving CAR T-cell therapy.

Living with metastatic cancer, or metavivorship, differs from cancer survivorship and has changed as novel treatments have increased survival time. The purpose of this narrative review is to describe factors that impact challenges in metavivorship within a conceptual framework to guide future research. This review focuses on the specific metavivorship outcomes of progressive disease, survival time, symptoms, distress, financial toxicity, and quality of life. We describe the predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating (3P) model of metavivorship. Understanding the biological, psychological, and social 3P factors that contribute to the development and maintenance of challenges in metavivorship provides a roadmap for future research. Implications of this model include prevention by targeting predisposing factors, management of precipitating factors after onset of metastatic disease, and treatment of perpetuating factors to reduce symptoms and improve quality of life during the chronic phase of metavivorship. This can be accomplished through biopsychosocial screening efforts, monitoring of patient-reported outcomes, education and communication interventions, interdisciplinary symptom management, advance care planning, and behavioral interventions to cultivate psychological resilience.

Background: Rapid implementation of telehealth for cancer care during COVID-19 required innovative and adaptive solutions among oncology health care providers and professionals (HPPs). Objective: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore oncology HPPs’ experiences with telehealth implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study was conducted at Moffitt Cancer Center (Moffitt), an NCI (National Cancer Institute)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Prior to COVID-19, Moffitt piloted telehealth visits on a limited basis. After COVID-19, Moffitt rapidly expanded telehealth visits. Telehealth visits included real-time videoconferencing between HPPs and patients and virtual check-ins (ie, brief communication with an HPP by telephone only). We conducted semistructured interviews with 40 oncology HPPs who implemented telehealth during COVID-19. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for themes using Dedoose software (version 4.12). Results: Approximately half of the 40 participants were physicians (n=22, 55%), and one-quarter of the participants were advanced practice providers (n=10, 25%). Other participants included social workers (n=3, 8%), psychologists (n=2, 5%), dieticians (n=2, 5%), and a pharmacist (n=1, 3%). Five key themes were identified: (1) establishing and maintaining patient-HPP relationships, (2) coordinating care with other HPPs and informal caregivers, (3) adapting in-person assessments for telehealth, (4) developing workflows and allocating resources, and (5) future recommendations. Participants described innovative strategies for implementing telehealth, such as coordinating interdisciplinary visits with multiple HPPs and inviting informal caregivers (eg, spouse) to participate in telehealth visits. Health care workers discussed key challenges, such as workflow integration, lack of physical exam and biometric data, and overcoming the digital divide (eg, telehealth accessibility among patients with communication-related disabilities). Participants recommended policy advocacy to support telehealth (eg, medical licensure policies) and monitoring how telehealth affects patient outcomes and health care delivery. Conclusions: To support telehealth growth, implementation strategies are needed to ensure that HPPs and patients have the tools necessary to effectively engage in telehealth. At the same time, cancer care organizations will need to engage in advocacy to ensure that policies are supportive of oncology telehealth and develop systems to monitor the impact of telehealth on patient outcomes, health care quality, costs, and equity.