Individuals with schizophrenia are a vulnerable population that has been relatively neglected in health disparities research. Despite having an equivalent risk of developing most cancers, patients with schizophrenia are more likely to die of cancer than the general population. Cancer care disparities are likely the result of patient-, provider-, and systems-level factors and influenced by the pervasive stigma of mental illness. Individuals with schizophrenia have higher rates of health behaviors linked with cancer mortality including cigarette smoking. They also have significant medical comorbidity, are less likely to have up-to-date cancer screening, and may present at more advanced stages of illness. Patients with schizophrenia may be less likely to receive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, have more postoperative complications, and have less access to palliative care. However, opportunities exist for the interdisciplinary team, including medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists; psychiatrists; and primary care physicians, to intervene throughout the continuum of cancer care to promote survival and quality of life. This review summarizes data on overall and cancer-specific mortality for individuals with schizophrenia and reviews specific disparities across the cancer care continuum of screening, diagnosis, treatment, and end-of-life care. Using a case, the authors illustrate clinical challenges for this population including communication, informed consent, and risk of suicide, and provide suggestions for care. Finally, recommendations for research to address the disparities in cancer care for individuals with schizophrenia are discussed. Despite significant challenges, with collaboration between oncology and mental health teams, individuals with schizophrenia can receive high-quality cancer care. Cancer 2014;120:323-34.

IMPORTANCE Persistent smoking may cause adverse outcomes among patients with cancer. Many cancer centers have not fully implemented evidence-based tobacco treatment into routine care.OBJECTIVE To determine the effectiveness of sustained telephone counseling and medication (intensive treatment) compared with shorter-term telephone counseling and medication advice (standard treatment) to assist patients recently diagnosed with cancer to quit smoking. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis unblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital/Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Adults who had smoked 1 cigarette or more within 30 days, spoke English or Spanish, and had recently diagnosed breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecological, head and neck, lung, lymphoma, or melanoma cancers were eligible. Enrollment occurred between November 2013 and July 2017; assessments were completed by the end of February 2018.INTERVENTIONS Participants randomized to the intensive treatment (n = 153) and the standard treatment (n = 150) received 4 weekly telephone counseling sessions and medication advice. The intensive treatment group also received 4 biweekly and 3 monthly telephone counseling sessions and choice of Food and Drug Administration-approved cessation medication (nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, or varenicline). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were treatment utilization rates. RESULTS Among 303 patients who were randomized (mean age, 58.3 years; 170 women [56.1%]), 221 (78.1%) completed the trial. Six-month biochemically confirmed quit rates were 34.5% (n = 51 in the intensive treatment group) vs 21.5% (n = 29 in the standard treatment group) (difference, 13.0% [95% CI, 3.0%-23.3%]; odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.13-3.27]; P < .02). The median number of counseling sessions completed was 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) in the intensive treatment group. A total of 97 intensive treatment participants (77.0%) vs 68 standard treatment participants (59.1%) reported cessation medication use (difference, 17.9% [95% CI, 6.3%-29.5%]; odds ratio, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.32-4.04]; P = .003). The most common adverse events in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively, were nausea (n = 13 and n = 6), rash (n = 4 and n = 1), hiccups (n = 4 and n = 1), mouth irritation (n = 4 and n = 0), difficulty sleeping (n = 3 and n = 2), and vivid dreams (n = 3 and n = 2). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among smokers recently diagnosed with cancer in 2 NationalCancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, sustained counseling and provision of free cessation medication compared with 4-week counseling and medication advice resulted in higher 6-month biochemically confirmed quit rates. However, the generalizability of the study findings is uncertain and requires further research.

Patients with advanced cancer experience a significant burden of physical symptoms and psychological distress at the end of life, and many elect to receive aggressive cancer-directed therapy. The goal of palliative care is to relieve suffering and promote quality of life (QOL) for patients and families. Traditionally, both the public and medical community have conceptualized the need for patients to make a choice between pursuing curative therapy or receiving palliative care. However, practice guidelines from the World Health Organization and leadership from the oncology and palliative care communities advocate a different model of palliative care that is introduced from the point of diagnosis of life-threatening illness. Early palliative care has been shown to provide benefits in QOL, mood, and health care utilization. Additionally, preliminary research has suggested that in contrast to fears about palliative care hastening death, referral to palliative care earlier in the course of illness may have the potential to lengthen survival, particularly in patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer. This review summarizes the literature on potential survival benefits of palliative care and presents a model of how early integrated palliative care could potentially influence survival in patients with advanced cancer.

Context Patients with incurable cancer engage in several coping styles to manage the impact of cancer and its treatment. The Brief COPE is a widely used measure intended to capture multiple, distinct types of coping. The Brief COPE has not been validated among patients with incurable cancer. Objectives We sought to validate seven subscales of the Brief COPE in a large sample of patients newly diagnosed with incurable lung and non-colorectal gastrointestinal cancers (N=350). Methods Participants completed the Brief COPE and measures assessing quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General) and psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) within eight weeks of diagnosis of incurable cancer. We evaluated the psychometric properties of the Brief COPE using a confirmatory factor analysis and tests of correlation with the quality of life and distress scales. Results The Brief COPE factors were consistent with the original subscales, though the behavioral disengagement scale had low internal consistency. Factors showed anticipated relationships with quality of life and distress measures, except emotional support coping, which was correlated with increased depression and anxiety. We also conducted an exploratory higher-order factor analysis to determine if subscales’ score variances grouped together. The higher-order factor analysis resulted in two factors, with active, emotional support, positive reframing, and acceptance loading onto one factor and denial and self-blame loading onto the second. Conclusion The selected subscales of the Brief COPE are appropriate measures of coping among individuals newly diagnosed with incurable lung and gastrointestinal cancers.