14 – 17 March, 2021 ● Virtual Meeting

Copyright: Modified and published with permission from https://www.ebmt.org/annual-meeting

Sponsorship Statement: Publication of this supplement is sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. All content was reviewed and approved by the EBMT Committee, which held full responsibility for the abstract selections.

Psychology Oral Session

O170. A cross-sectional study of the psychosocial issues experienced by patients with lymphoma treated with stem cell transplant

Natalie Dren1, Lorna Warwick1, Olufunmilayo Bamigbola1

1 Lymphoma Coalition, Mississauga, Canada

Background: Stem cell transplantation is a unique and intense treatment experience, which has the potential to cause prolonged psychosocial distress for patients. Using the Lymphoma Coalition (LC) 2020 Global Patient Survey (GPS) on Lymphomas and CLL, this study provides insight into the psychosocial experiences of patients with lymphoma who have been treated with a stem cell transplant in comparison to those who have not.

Methods: This study is a sub-analysis of the 2020 LC GPS, which was available in 19 languages and was hosted online from January to March of 2020. Globally, there were 11,878 respondents, including 9179 patients and 2,699 caregivers.

Patients who received a stem cell transplant (allogeneic or autologous) (n = 732) were compared against patients who had not received a stem cell transplant, and whose lymphoma had relapsed (either once or twice) (n = 1,474). Demographics of the two patient groups were examined, and questions relating to psychosocial issues were analysed. Differences in proportions were tested using chi-square tests (p = 0.05) and odds ratios with 95% CI. Logistic regressions were performed where necessary.

Results: The two patient groups (stem cell transplant “SCT”; no stem cell transplant + relapse “NSCT”) were similar in their distribution of sex; over half of the patients in both groups were female (55% SCT, 52% NSCT, p = 0.19). The patient groups differed significantly (p < 0.001) in the distribution of age group and area of residence. The patient groups also differed significantly in lymphoma subtypes (p < 0.001), with diffuse large B-cell accounting for 24% of the SCT group compared to 11% of the NSCT group.

Patients were asked if they had experienced any psychosocial issues in the past 12 months. Compared to NSCT patients, except for fear of lymphoma progression, a greater proportion of SCT patients reported experiencing each issue listed (figure 1). Using NSCT as the reference group, odds ratios (controlled for age, area of residence, and subtype) showed the SCT group was associated with higher odds of reporting loss of self-esteem, concerns about body image, changes in relationships, isolation, anxiety, and fear of cancer relapse (FCR) (OR= 1.06, 1.05, 1.21, 1.06, 1.14, 1.40, respectively). This association was statistically significant for FCR [1.16-1.70(p = 0.001)].

Patients who experienced FCR were asked which associated feelings they experienced. Compared to NSCT patients, a greater proportion of SCT patients reported experiencing each listed feeling (figure 2). Using NSCT as the reference group, odds ratios (controlled for demographics) showed that SCT patients were twice as likely to report examining themselves for physical signs of cancer [OR=2.18(1.66–2.86),(p < 0.001)], and nearly twice as likely to report thinking about the cancer returning [OR=1.90(1.52–2.37),(p < 0.001)], having thoughts about dying [OR=1.87(1.38–2.54),(p < 0.001)], having difficulty making future plans [OR=1.75(1.29–2.36),(p < 0.001)], and having thoughts that intrude on their day-to-day activities [OR=1.60(1.05–2.43),(p = 0.030)].

Conclusions: Patients with lymphoma who were treated with a stem cell transplant reported a higher prevalence of psychosocial issues compared to patients who had not received a stem cell transplant. The treatment and recovery periods for stem cell transplants are complex, and psychosocial assessment and intervention should be a high priority for this population.

Disclosure: Natalie Dren- Pfizer Inc (research funding), AbbVie Corporation (research funding), Takeda Oncology (research funding). Lorna Warwick- Pfizer Inc (research funding), AbbVie Corporation (research funding), Takeda Oncology (research funding). Olufunmilayo Bamigbola- Pfizer Inc (research funding), AbbVie Corporation (research funding), Takeda Oncology (research funding). None of the authors benefited personally from this support.

O171. The ebmt psy day has inspired the development of a uk psy day

Henrietta Saunders1

1 Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom

Background: The successful establishment of the EBMT PSY Day, and recognising the value of community of practices (CoP), inspired a UK equivalent to be organised.

Methods: An event was held in 2020 for psychological professionals working in UK Adult and Paediatric Stem Cell Transplant (SCT) services. It was free-of-charge, virtual (due to Covid-19 pandemic) and organised with Anthony Nolan who provided administrative and technical support. The aims were to provide an opportunity to meet and network, share learning and peer support and create a CoP to help develop services and improve psychological care for SCT patients. 31 attended consisting of clinical and counselling psychologists, psychotherapists, counsellors and trainees. The programme comprised presentations (on screening, prehab, research ideas, a service story, EMDR and self-care) and small group ‘breakout’ discussions. An online survey collected quantitative and qualitative data from attendees to evaluate the event.

Results: To date, 22/31 attendees (71%) have completed the survey – 18 in Adult, 4 in Paediatric services; 18/22 (82%) have worked in SCT for more than 1 year; 15/22 (68%) have never attended EBMT. The event was rated highly; when asked how valuable they found it the mean response was 8.8 (1 – not valuable at all, 10 – very valuable) and when asked how likely it is they would attend a similar event in future the mean was 9.6 (1 – not likely at all, 10 – very likely). Qualitative data was gathered from the following survey questions; key themes emerged which are outlined and illustrated with quotes. What did you find most valuable about the day? Opportunity to meet and connect with fellow professionals in the field, learn about other services, share experiences and best practice. “I really enjoyed hearing the talks from each person working into SCT as it got me thinking about what we do in our service, and how we could shape our service further. I also really enjoyed the breakout rooms and having the opportunity for discussions about each of our services…” How could it have been improved? Most commonly, attendees felt no improvements were needed. “I think with all the restrictions of covid and remote meeting, it was the best it could be.” Constructive suggestions were made regarding timings, pre-event advertising/communication and content e.g. “Good to get a patient view or Expert by Experience?” What would future events be like to make you feel that attending them was a good use of your time? Similar format, key topics for learning and discussion covering clinical practice and service development, opportunity to participate in collaborative projects. “Again, learning from others” experiences in service development/xpathways/innovative ways to improve patient experience... “That they build up to more collective work on policy/quality/influence/research.” Preferred frequency and duration of future meetings – biannual virtual meeting, 3–4 h.

Conclusions: Feedback from attendees demonstrated the event achieved its aims and will also shape the development of a CoP for SCT psychological professionals in the UK. Establishing this has promising potential benefits for its members, their services and SCT patients.

Disclosure: Nothing to declare