Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Communicating cardiovascular risk to high-risk cancer survivors: a mixed-methods pilot study of a statin risk communication tool

Abstract

Purpose

Childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors treated with radiation therapy (RT) may be unaware of their high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk or how to mitigate it. Tools are needed to improve understanding. We developed and pilot-tested a risk communication tool for shared decision-making with survivors regarding CVD risk reduction with statin therapy. We included quantitative and qualitative arms to further tool development and testing.

Methods

The statin risk communication tool was adapted from a previously validated tool. Patients were at increased risk for CVD due to history of chest RT and recruited to usual care and intervention arms. The post-visit survey included Likert-like scales to explore acceptability of the tool, knowledge questions, and a decisional conflict scale. This pilot study used descriptive statistics and was not powered for significance. Semi-structured interviews with intervention arm participants explored shared decision-making processes.

Results

Median participant (n = 46) age was 45. Most intervention patients (22/24, 92%) and 50% (11/22) of controls found statin information acceptable while 31% (7/22) of the control arm selected “not applicable” regarding information acceptability. Most participants were unaware of their personal CVD risk or potential statin side effects. In semi-structured interviews, participants found the tool is helpful to visualize risk and aid conversations.

Conclusions

The risk communication tool was acceptable. Qualitative data suggested the tool improved decisional clarity and comfort.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Poor knowledge of CVD and statins and poor recall of CVD risk conversation suggest a need to continue to optimize conversations regarding cardiovascular risk and statin therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Armstrong GT, Liu Q, Yasui Y, Neglia JP, Leisenring W, Robison LL, et al. Late mortality among 5-year survivors of childhood cancer: a summary from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(14):2328–38. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2008.21.1425.

  2. 2.

    Oeffinger KC, Mertens AC, Sklar CA, Kawashima T, Hudson MM, Meadows AT, et al. Chronic health conditions in adult survivors of childhood cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(15):1572–82. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa060185.

  3. 3.

    Heidenreich PA, Hancock SL, Lee BK, Mariscal CS, Schnittger I. Asymptomatic cardiac disease following mediastinal irradiation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(4):743–9.

  4. 4.

    McEniery PT, Dorosti K, Schiavone WA, Pedrick TJ, Sheldon WC. Clinical and angiographic features of coronary artery disease after chest irradiation. Am J Cardiol. 1987;60(13):1020–4.

  5. 5.

    Kupeli S, Hazirolan T, Varan A, Akata D, Alehan D, Hayran M, et al. Evaluation of coronary artery disease by computed tomography angiography in patients treated for childhood Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(6):1025–30. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2009.25.2627.

  6. 6.

    Heidenreich PA, Schnittger I, Strauss HW, Vagelos RH, Lee BK, Mariscal CS, et al. Screening for coronary artery disease after mediastinal irradiation for Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(1):43–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.07.0805.

  7. 7.

    Hull MC, Morris CG, Pepine CJ, Mendenhall NP. Valvular dysfunction and carotid, subclavian, and coronary artery disease in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma treated with radiation therapy. Jama. 2003;290(21):2831–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.290.21.2831.

  8. 8.

    Chow EJ, Chen Y, Hudson MM, Feijen EAM, Kremer LC, Border WL, et al. Prediction of ischemic heart disease and stroke in survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(1):44–52. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.74.8673.

  9. 9.

    Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, Bairey Merz CN, Blum CB, Eckel RH, et al. ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults—a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013, 2014;63(25_PA). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.002.

  10. 10.

    Lenarczyk M, Su J, Haworth ST, Komorowski R, Fish BL, Migrino RQ, et al. Simvastatin mitigates increases in risk factors for and the occurrence of cardiac disease following 10 Gy total body irradiation. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2015;3(3):e00145. https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.145.

  11. 11.

    Chotenimitkhun R, D'Agostino R Jr, Lawrence JA, Hamilton CA, Jordan JH, Vasu S, et al. Chronic statin administration may attenuate early anthracycline-associated declines in left ventricular ejection function. Can J Cardiol. 2015;31(3):302–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2014.11.020.

  12. 12.

    Marlatt KL, Steinberger J, Rudser KD, Dengel DR, Sadak KT, Lee JL, et al. The effect of atorvastatin on vascular function and structure in young adult survivors of childhood cancer: a randomized, placebo-controlled pilot clinical trial. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1089/jayao.2017.0075.

  13. 13.

    Addison D, Lawler PR, Emami H, Janjua SA, Staziaki PV, Hallett TR, et al. Incidental statin use and the risk of stroke or transient ischemic attack after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. J Stroke. 2018;20(1):71–9. https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2017.01802.

  14. 14.

    Boulet J, Pena J, Hulten EA, Neilan TG, Dragomir A, Freeman C, et al. Statin use and risk of vascular events among cancer patients after radiotherapy to the thorax, head, and neck. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(13):e005996. https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.117.005996.

  15. 15.

    Gamboa CM, Safford MM, Levitan EB, Mann DM, Yun H, Glasser SP, et al. Statin underuse and low prevalence of LDL-C control among U.S. adults at high risk of coronary heart disease. Am J Med Sci. 2014;348(2):108–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/maj.0000000000000292.

  16. 16.

    Wong ND, Young D, Zhao Y, Nguyen H, Caballes J, Khan I, et al. Prevalence of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association statin eligibility groups, statin use, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control in US adults using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011-2012. J Clin Lipidol. 2016;10(5):1109–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2016.06.011.

  17. 17.

    Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in A. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001.

  18. 18.

    Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):608–18. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2115.

  19. 19.

    Zipkin DA, Umscheid CA, Keating NL, Allen E, Aung K, Beyth R, et al. Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(4):270–80. https://doi.org/10.7326/m14-0295.

  20. 20.

    Mann DM, Ponieman D, Montori VM, Arciniega J, McGinn T. The statin choice decision aid in primary care: a randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(1):138–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.008.

  21. 21.

    Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, Thabane L, Hopewell S, Coleman CL, et al. Defining feasibility and pilot studies in preparation for randomised controlled trials: development of a conceptual framework. PloS One. 2016;11(3):e0150205. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150205.

  22. 22.

    Weymiller AJ, Montori VM, Jones LA, Gafni A, Guyatt GH, Bryant SC, et al. Helping patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus make treatment decisions: statin choice randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(10):1076–82. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.10.1076.

  23. 23.

    O'Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9501500105.

  24. 24.

    Selic P, Svab I, Repolusk M, Gucek NK. What factors affect patients’ recall of general practitioners’ advice? BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:141. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-141.

  25. 25.

    Kessels RPC. Patients’ memory for medical information. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(5):219–22.

  26. 26.

    Krosnick JA, Alwin DF. An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opin Q. 1987;51(2):201–19. https://doi.org/10.1086/269029.

  27. 27.

    Egleston BL, Miller SM, Meropol NJ. The impact of misclassification due to survey response fatigue on estimation and identifiability of treatment effects. Stat Med. 2011;30(30):3560–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4377.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The risk communication tool is modified with permission from the Mayo Clinic Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit Clinic Statin Choice Decision Aid (https://statindecisionaid.mayoclinic.org/).

Funding

Support for this research was provided by grants from the Meg Berté Owen Memorial Fund, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748), the Division of Survivorship and Supportive Care Research Grant program, and the National Institutes of Health/National Center for Achieving Translational Science (NIH/NCATS) Grant KL2TR000458.

Author information

Correspondence to Nirupa J. Raghunathan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

NR declares that she has no conflict of interest. ECZ declares she has no conflict of interest. NA declares she has no conflict of interest. KO declares he has no conflict of interest. EST declares she has no conflict of interest. DK has no personal relationship to industry; her spouse serves on the scientific board of Vedanta Biosciences and as a consultant for Takeda.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 Number (percent) correct of knowledge questionnaire responses, subdivided

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raghunathan, N.J., Zabor, E.C., Anderson, N. et al. Communicating cardiovascular risk to high-risk cancer survivors: a mixed-methods pilot study of a statin risk communication tool. J Cancer Surviv (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-020-00860-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cardiovascular risk
  • Risk communication tools
  • Shared decision-making
  • Mixed-methods study
  • Decisional conflict
  • Statins