Search

Inclusion of the patient perspective in the reporting of symptomatic adverse events provides different and complementary information to clinician reporting using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE

This study was conducted to describe the portfolio of symptom science research conducted through the community oncology network supported by the US National Cancer Institute during the 12-year period 2008 to 2019.The National Cancer Institute conducted a retrospective review of the National Cancer Institute database to identify pediatric and adult symptom management studies that were opened between 2008 and 2019 in the community oncology network and to determine types of studies, accrual patterns, completed studies, and number of publications reporting clinical trial results.The NCI community oncology network conducted 109 symptom studies between 2008 and 2019. The majority of these studies were phase II and III clinical trials. Neurotoxicities were the most frequently occurring symptom studied, with the majority of those focused on neurocognitive impairments. Gastrointestinal symptoms, pain, and fatigue were the next most frequently studied. A variety of interventions were utilized including pharmacologic, behavioral, complementary and alternative medicines, and radiation therapy. Accrual to symptom studies ranged from a low of 896 participants in 2008 to a high of 3468 participants in 2012. The number of open studies ranged from 8 in 2008 to 35 in 2012.Examining the symptom science portfolio of the NCI community oncology network has identified research gaps and has highlighted the need to focus on a mechanistic understanding of symptoms and phenotyping of patients experiencing cancer and treatment-related symptoms. Subsequently, targeted interventions can be developed to prevent or treat these symptoms.

One in five Americans experiences disability that affects their daily function because of impairments in mobility, cognitive function, sensory impairment, or communication impairment. The need for rehabilitation strategies to optimize function and reduce disability is a clear priority for research to address this public health challenge. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently published a Research Plan on Rehabilitation that provides a set of priorities to guide the field over the next 5 years. The plan was developed with input from multiple Institutes and Centers within the NIH, the National Advisory Board for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the public. This article provides an overview of the need for this research plan, an outline of its development, and a listing of six priority areas for research. The NIH is committed to working with all stakeholder communities engaged in rehabilitation research to track progress made on these priorities and to work to advance the science of medical rehabilitation. This article is being published almost simultaneously in the following six journals: American Journal of Occupational Therapy, American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, Physical Therapy, and Rehabilitation Psychology. Citation information is as follows: NIH Medical Rehabilitation Coordinating Committee. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;97(4):404—407.

The clinical trials investigative team faces a number of challenges during the execution of a chemoprevention protocol that often depend on the phase of the trial. Phase II chemoprevention trials test promising agents for biomarker modulation in cohorts of 30 to 200 participants at greater than average risk of the cancer being studied who meet strict eligibility criteria. By contrast, phase III trials test agents for their efficacy in cancer prevention in thousands of participants who are generally healthy or may be at slightly elevated risk. Consideration must be given to accruing a very large cohort or a smaller but relatively rare group of participants, and to maintaining vigilance over the toxicity profile of the agent, which may be taken for a lengthy period of time. Additional considerations include clear communication to the participants of the risks and benefits associated with participating on the trial, as well as the need for their long-term commitment. In light of the layer of complexities that chemoprevention research adds to clinical trials, one or more team members need a unique set of skills and knowledge, beyond understanding the scientific aspects of the trial.

Wound care, a form of palliative care, supports the health care needs of dying patients by focusing on alleviating symptoms. Although wound care can be both healing and palliative, it can impair the quality of the end of life for the dying if it is done without proper consideration of the patient’s wishes and best interests. Wound care may be optional for dying patients. This article will discuss the ethical responsibilities and challenges of providing wound care for surgical wounds, pressure ulcers, and wounds associated with cancer as well as wound care in home health compared to end of life.

In almost every way, cancer care in the United States today reflects brilliant advances in research, education, and training. Patients receive sophisticated treatments that have become so routine family members can provide them at home. When they want to be involved in treatment decisions, these same patients and families can turn to the Internet and learn about clinical trials and recommendations from the best medical facilities throughout the world. As patients receive chemotherapy and other treatments at home, medical professionals are turning over care to families and other nonprofessional caregivers. However, while cancer diagnosis and treatment explode with promise for the future, policies that support families providing care lag far behind.

Education of health care providers has historically been based on the traditional model of curative care. In this model, the curative care focus suddenly ends, substituted by a palliative approach to care, too often only in the last hours of life. Patient goals and wishes may never be clearly established, leaving family and care providers to guess at what the patient's wishes were. If we are to provide quality palliative care, we must equate it with health care providers establishing, acknowledging, and honoring patient and family goals. A major facilitator in accomplishing palliative care goals can arise from the nursing assessment. This article reviews the elements of a comprehensive nursing palliative care assessment (PCA). Although this article focuses on nurses, it has application for all health care professionals. Completion of the PCA provides an opportunity for reflection and evaluation of personal practices that support integrating palliative care into the care of all patients diagnosed with a life-threatening illness, beginning at the time of diagnosis and accelerating in intensity as the disease progresses.