Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 9 of 9 items for

  • Author: Jimmie C. Holland x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Jimmie C. Holland

Many patients being treated for cancer have significant distress and often do not receive the attention they require. The psychosocial concerns of these patients are now better recognized and treated through psycho-oncology, which has become a multidisciplinary subspecialty of oncology concerned with the emotional responses of patients at all stages of disease, their families, and staff. In her presentation at the NCCN 18th Annual Conference, Dr. Jimmie C. Holland briefly reviewed the early role played by the NCCN as well as other national and international organizations in improving the psychosocial care of patients with cancer.

Full access

Jimmie C. Holland and Barry D. Bultz

Psychosocial care of patients has traditionally been seen as separate from routine medical care and has been criticized as being “soft” and lacking evidence. This traditional perspective continues in many settings, despite the fact that patients and families, when asked, state that emotional care is highly valued. The question of how to integrate psychosocial care into routine cancer care has also been an issue, partly because of the stigma associated with cancer. In 1997, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) established a multidisciplinary panel to examine this problem.1 Because patient and physician attitudes toward pain can pose similar barriers to care as can distress, the panel used as a model the rating system for assessing pain that resulted in successful improvement of pain management in the United States. The rating system's success seemed partly based on routinely using a single question to assess a patient's pain: “How is your pain on a scale of 0 to 10?” The system uses a score of 5 or higher as the indication to reassess pain medications or refer the patient for more expert management. This system is widely used, and patient self-report of subjective symptoms is now accepted as appropriate and reliable. Pain has become the fifth vital sign, after pulse, respiration, blood pressure, and temperature, ensuring that it is evaluated as part of routine care. Drawing on this experience, the NCCN panel recommended a simple question to ask patients about psychosocial concerns. They found that distress was the best umbrella word to...
Full access

Jimmie C. Holland, Mark Lazenby and Matthew J. Loscalzo

Full access

Jimmie C. Holland, Brian J. Kelly and Mark I. Weinberger

This issue of JNCCN reviews the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Distress Management for 2010, updated by the NCCN Distress Management Panel. The NCCN appointed this multidisciplinary panel, which met first in 1997, to address the barriers to psychosocial care and to develop clinical practice guidelines. 1 The panel members felt that the major barrier, for both physicians and patients, was the negative meaning and stigma attached to words implying the psychological domain, such as psychiatric, psychological, and psychosocial. The panel considered descriptive words that could encompass the range of fears, worries, and concerns of patients with cancer, and proposed the word distress because it could vary in severity from a normal response to a more significant level, consistent with a psychiatric disorder requiring intervention. The word distress also encompasses the range of fears, anxieties, and sadness that patients with cancer experience. The panel then developed guidelines for the management of distress, recommending that patients be first screened for distress with a short, initial, rapid screening question, followed by a second phase during which the doctor or nurse asks about specific problems. This process should be repeated as clinically indicated as part of routine care. Learning from the success of pain management, the panel suggested using a 0 to 10 scale in the form of a Distress Thermometer (DT) to allow patients to indicate their level of distress, either verbally or with pen and paper. Those who scored above a cutoff score for “caseness” (≥ 4) were asked to identify...
Full access

Daniel C. McFarland, Heather Polizzi, John Mascarenhas, Marina Kremyanskaya, Jimmie Holland and Ronald Hoffman

Background: BCR-ABL–negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) represent a heterogeneous group of diseases, including essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV), and myelofibrosis (MF). Psychological manifestations among these diseases have not been adequately described. Methods: Cross-sectional surveys measuring distress, anxiety, and depression were collected from patients with BCR-ABL–negative MPNs from May 2015 to October 2015. Participants provided demographic information and completed the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT&PL) to assess distress and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) to assess distress, anxiety, and depression. They provided information on how their MPN affected their lives. Results: Of the 117 participants, 31.2% had PV, 28.4% had ET, 28.4% had MF, and 11.9% had another type of MPN. Time with MPN varied from less than 1 year (7.5%), 1 to 3 years (19.8%), 3 to 5 years (23.6%), 5 to 10 years (19.8%), and more than 10 years (29.2%). Distress averaged 3.14 (SD, 2.83; DT&PL), with 40.4% meeting NCCN criteria for distress, and averaged 8.97 (SD, 7.44; HADS), with 38.5% meeting HADS criteria for distress. Anxiety averaged 5.54 (SD, 4.37), with 31.3% meeting HADS criteria for anxiety. Depression averaged 3.4 (SD, 3.4), with 12.5% meeting HADS criteria for depression. Distress was higher for PV (3.86), MF (3.12), and “other” MPN (4.33) than it was for ET (1.81; P=.016). Distress was more common in non-white patients (P=.015) and those with either PV or MF but not ET (DT&PL ≥4; P=.038). Patients' comments described coping strategies or symptom burden. Conclusions: Distress and anxiety are highly prevalent with BCR-ABL–negative MPNs and may correspond to disease-related symptom burden. These findings deserve further study.

Full access

Daniel C. McFarland, Kelly M. Shaffer, Heather Polizzi, John Mascarenhas, Marina Kremyanskaya, Jimmie Holland and Ronald Hoffman

Background: Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) can have a severe physical symptom burden over an extended disease trajectory that contributes to decreased quality of life. Few studies, however, have characterized which patients most frequently consider physical symptoms a problem. This study describes the physical symptoms of patients with MPNs and the relationship of these symptoms to patient characteristics. Methods: Patients with MPNs (N=117) completed questionnaires in a dedicated academic medical center MPN clinic. Patients reported demographics (age, race/ethnicity, sex, marital status, employment status), disease characteristics (MPN type, time with MPN), and whether they were bothered by any of 22 variables in the “Physical Problems” list in the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT&PL). Results: The median number of physical problems endorsed by patients was 2 (median, 2.26; SD, 3.18), with a range from 0 to 20. Two-fifths endorsed no physical problems, one-fifth endorsed 1 problem, and two-fifths endorsed ≥2 problems, with fatigue (35.5%), sleep (27.1%), pain (21.5%), dry skin/pruritus (18.7%), and memory/concentration (16.8%) being the most commonly reported. Non-Caucasian participants reported more problems with sleep (P=.050), pain (P=.016), and tingling (P=.026). Patients with polycythemia vera (PV) reported more issues with tingling (P=.046) and sexual problems (P=.032). Conclusions: Patients with MPNs are more likely to report physical symptom bother than to report no bother with multiple physical problems on the DT&PL. Patients of minority race/ethnicity and those with PV, however, showed heightened prevalence of physical problems—characteristics which may be used to triage patients for more intensive symptom management.

Full access

Arti Hurria, Ilene S. Browner, Harvey Jay Cohen, Crystal S. Denlinger, Mollie deShazo, Martine Extermann, Apar Kishor P. Ganti, Jimmie C. Holland, Holly M. Holmes, Mohana B. Karlekar, Nancy L. Keating, June McKoy, Bruno C. Medeiros, Ewa Mrozek, Tracey O’Connor, Stephen H. Petersdorf, Hope S. Rugo, Rebecca A. Silliman, William P. Tew, Louise C. Walter, Alva B. Weir III and Tanya Wildes

Full access

Jimmie C. Holland, Barbara Andersen, William S. Breitbart, Bruce Compas, Moreen M. Dudley, Stewart Fleishman, Caryl D. Fulcher, Donna B. Greenberg, Carl B. Greiner, George F. Handzo, Laura Hoofring, Paul B. Jacobsen, Sara J. Knight, Kate Learson, Michael H. Levy, Matthew J. Loscalzo, Sharon Manne, Randi McAllister-Black, Michelle B. Riba, Kristin Roper, Alan D. Valentine, Lynne I. Wagner and Michael A. Zevon

OverviewIn the United States, a total of 1,479,350 new cancer cases and 562,340 deaths from cancer were estimated to occur in 2009.1 All patients experience some level of distress associated with the diagnosis and treatment of cancer at all stages of the disease. Surveys have found that 20% to 40% of patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent cancer show a significant level of distress.2 However, fewer than 10% are actually identified and referred for psychosocial help.3 Many cancer patients who are in need of psychosocial care are not able to get the help they need due to the under recognition of patient's psychological needs by the primary oncology team and lack of knowledge of community resources. The need is particularly acute in community oncology practices that have few to no psychosocial resources, and cancer care is often provided in short visits.4For many centuries, patients were not told their diagnosis of cancer because of the stigma attached to the disease. Since the 1970s, this situation has changed and patients are well aware of their diagnosis and treatment options. However, patients are reluctant to reveal emotional problems to the oncologist. The words psychological, psychiatric, and emotional are as stigmatizing as cancer. Psychological issues remain stigmatized even in the context of coping with cancer. Consequently, patients often do not tell their physicians about their distress and physicians do not inquire about the psychological concerns of their patients. Recognition of patients' distress has become more difficult as cancer care has shifted to the...
Full access

Jimmie C. Holland, Barbara Andersen, William S. Breitbart, Luke O. Buchmann, Bruce Compas, Teresa L. Deshields, Moreen M. Dudley, Stewart Fleishman, Caryl D. Fulcher, Donna B. Greenberg, Carl B. Greiner, George F. Handzo, Laura Hoofring, Charles Hoover, Paul B. Jacobsen, Elizabeth Kvale, Michael H. Levy, Matthew J. Loscalzo, Randi McAllister-Black, Karen Y. Mechanic, Oxana Palesh, Janice P. Pazar, Michelle B. Riba, Kristin Roper, Alan D. Valentine, Lynne I. Wagner, Michael A. Zevon, Nicole R. McMillian and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass

The integration of psychosocial care into the routine care of all patients with cancer is increasingly being recognized as the new standard of care. These NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Distress Management discuss the identification and treatment of psychosocial problems in patients with cancer. They are intended to assist oncology teams identify patients who require referral to psychosocial resources and to give oncology teams guidance on interventions for patients with mild distress to ensure that all patients with distress are recognized and treated.