Search

Background: Integrative Oncology (IO) interventions may decrease physical, psychological, and social distress related to cancer and its treatments. Little is known about the frequency and predictors of IO referral for symptom management for cancer rehabilitation inpatients. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients with cancer who underwent inpatient rehabilitation at a specialized tertiary cancer center from 5/2016 to 3/2020. Patient demographics and IO consultation details, including patient-reported outcome measures of symptom burden using ESAS-FS and functional status using the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care “6 clicks,” were extracted. Descriptive summary statistics and logistic regression were used to analyze the data. Results: Out of 1196 inpatient rehabilitation admissions, 100 (8.4%) were referred to IO. The Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care “6 clicks” basic mobility admission scores were significant at a 1-point difference between the intervention and control group (39.5 vs 40.8, P

Background: Our aim was to examine the frequency and prescription pattern of breakthrough (BTO) and scheduled (SCH) opioids and their ratio (BTO/SCH ratio) of use, prior to and after referral to an inpatient supportive care consult (SCC) for cancer pain management (CPM). Methods and Materials: Patients admitted at the MD Anderson Cancer Center and referred to a SCC were retrospectively reviewed. Cancer patients receiving SCH and BTO opioids for ≥24 h were eligible for inclusion. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics, including the type and route of SCH and BTO opioids, daily opioid doses (MEDDs) of SCH and BTO, and BTO/SCH ratios were reviewed in patients seen prior to a SCC (pre-SCC) and during a SCC. A normal BTO ratio was defined as 0.5–0.2. Results: A total of 665/728 (91%) patients were evaluable. Median pain scores (p < 0.001), BTO MEDDs (p < 0.001), scheduled opioid MEDDs (p < 0.0001), and total MEDDs (p < 0.0001) were higher, but the median number of BTO doses was fewer (2 vs. 4, p < 0.001), among patients seen at SCC compared to pre-SCC. A BTO/SCH ratio over the recommended ratio (>0.2) was seen in 37.5% of patients. The BTO/SCH ratios in the pre-SCC and SCC groups were 0.10 (0.04, 0.21) and 0.17 (0.10, 0.30), respectively, p < 0.001. Hydromorphone and Morphine were the most common BTO and SCH opioids prescribed, respectively. Patients in the early supportive care group had higher pain scores and MEDDs. Conclusions: BTO/SCH ratios are frequently prescribed higher than the recommended dose. Daily pain scores, BTO MEDDs, scheduled opioid MEDDs, and total MEDDs were higher among the SCC group than the pre-SCC group, but the number of BTO doses/day was lower.

Abstract Purpose In this study, we aimed to assess the clinical characteristics, reasons for referral, and outcomes of patients with brain metastases (BM) referred to the supportive care center. Methods Equal numbers of patients with melanoma, breast cancer, and lung cancer with (N = 90) and without (N = 90) BM were retrospectively identified from the supportive care database for study. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic, disease, and clinical data. Kaplan Meier method was used to evaluate survival outcomes. Results While physical symptom management was the most common reason for referral to supportive care for both patients with and without BM, patients with BM had significantly lower pain scores on ESAS at time of referral (p = 0.002). They had greater interaction with acute care in the last weeks of life, with higher rates of ICU admission, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations after initial supportive care (SC) visit. The median survival time from referral to Supportive Care Center (SCC) was 0.90 years (95% CI 0.73, 1.40) for the brain metastasis group and 1.29 years (95% CI 0.91, 2.29) for the group without BM. Conclusions Patients with BM have shorter survival and greater interaction with acute care in the last weeks of life. This population also has distinct symptom burdens from patients without BM. Strategies to optimize integration of SC for patients with BM warrant ongoing study.

Simple Summary: Insomnia is prevalent in patients with cancer, with rates ranging from 30% to 60%. Addressing insomnia remains important in this population, as it can improve patient quality of life and reduce suffering. However, inconsistent methods of defining insomnia and evaluating potential interventions renders treatment difficult. Furthermore, many factors influence insomnia's presentation, requiring a specialized and individualized approach to its management for each patient. This review sought to use thorough and strict criteria to assess current psychological intervention for insomnia. To this end, we describe current psychological treatment options for insomnia, highlight gaps in the existing research, and offer suggestions for treating insomnia in patients with cancer. Background/Objectives: Insomnia is a frequent and distressing symptom with limited treatment in patients with cancer. Among the available treatments for insomnia, psychological interventions are some of the most assessed. While studies and reviews show promise of interventions improving insomnia in patients with cancer, inconsistent approaches to operationalizing and measuring insomnia combined with the heterogeneity of available treatments render comparisons and synthetization difficult. This review sought to rigorously synthesize psychological interventions for patients with cancer and insomnia by describing current therapies, identifying gaps in the literature, and offering supportive interventions. Methods: A comprehensive search of five databases—Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycInfo, EBSCO CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and Cochrane Library—was conducted through 1 August 2024. The review included randomized trials and non-inferiority trials evaluating psychological interventions for patients with various types of cancers. Twenty-one studies were included, and study quality ranged from good to excellent, according to the PEDro scale. Results: The current evidence supports the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to treat insomnia over and above psychoeducation alone, mindfulness-based stress reduction, Brief Behavioral Therapy, the Benson Relaxation Technique, progressive muscle relaxation, mindfulness meditation, mind-body bridging, and home-based psychological nursing. Digital, minimal, and internet-based intervention modalities are effective, though professional-delivered CBT proved most effective. Conclusions: CBT remains the most effective psychological intervention for insomnia in this population. Challenges exist regarding the implementation of CBT, so further research is warranted to identify the best psychological interventions for specific settings and subsets of patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In our study we found that the overall meta-analysis of all cancer related fatigue (CRF) treatment studies showed significant reduction of CRF. The meta-analysis did not show significant reduction of CRF with treatment ginseng, guarana, megestrol, mistletoe, psychostimulants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/antidepressants. Metanalysis of Corticosteroids studies showed significant reduction in CRF. Further studies are needed. Purpose: In this study we aimed to estimate the effectiveness of pharmacological, nutraceutical, and phytopharmaceutical treatments on CRF. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Psych info, CINHAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 30 September 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, nutraceutical and phytopharmaceutical interventions for treatment of CRF for at least one week duration and have used valid tool to assess severity of CRF as a primary or secondary outcome were considered. Results: 32 eligible studies (4896 patients) were reviewed. For the overall meta-analysis, the random effect models yielded the treatment effect (95% CI) of −0.29 (−0.48,−0.09), p < 0.001. The meta-analysis did not show significant reduction of CRF with treatment with ginseng (n = 6), guarana (n = 3), megestrol (n = 2), mistletoe (n = 3), psychostimulants (n = 14), SSRI/antidepressants (n = 2). Corticosteroids (n = 2) showed significant reduction in CRF with treatment effects of 0.94 (−1.21, −0.67), p <0.0001, respectively. Conclusions: In this study, overall meta-analysis of all studies demonstrates significant reduction of CRF using Pharmacological, Nutraceutical and Phytopharmaceutical interventions with a pooled standardized treatment effect of −0.29. Metanalysis of Corticosteroids studies showed significant reduction in CRF. Further studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integrative Oncology (IO) interventions may decrease physical, psychological, and social distress related to cancer and its treatments. Little is known about the frequency and predictors of IO referral for symptom management for cancer rehabilitation inpatients., Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients with cancer who underwent inpatient rehabilitation at a specialized tertiary cancer center from 5/2016 to 3/2020. Patient demographics and IO consultation details, including patient-reported outcome measures of symptom burden using ESAS-FS and functional status using the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care "6 clicks," were extracted. Descriptive summary statistics and logistic regression were used to analyze the data., Results: Out of 1196 inpatient rehabilitation admissions, 100 (8.4%) were referred to IO. The Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care "6 clicks" basic mobility admission scores were significant at a 1-point difference between the intervention and control group (39.5 vs 40.8, P  < .05); both scores equate to a ˃50% degree of functional impairment. Referred patients were younger (62, P  = .02) and Hispanics or Latinos ( P  = .02). The top symptoms for IO consultation included pain (N = 73), integrative approach (N = 41), relaxation (N = 38), and stress/anxiety (N = 33). Patients who reported a baseline symptom score ≥ 1 in the ESAS-FS, had both statistically ( P  < .05) and clinically significant improvements (≥1 point change) for pain, fatigue, well-being, anxiety, and sleep after massage therapy., Conclusion: Cancer rehabilitation inpatients were commonly referred to IO to address pain, with observed improvements across multiple symptoms with massage therapy. Lower mobility scores and younger patients received significantly higher referrals to IO. Larger trials are needed to characterize the effects of IO interventions on the inpatient rehabilitation of patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.