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]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

Context: A daily nine-item "Handbook for Self-Care at Work" was created to increase the well-being and satisfaction of the staff at the department of palliative care of a tertiary oncological center in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the perceived usefulness of and adherence to the Handbook. Design, Setting and Participants: An anonymous survey was conducted among the palliative care staff asking for the frequency of utilization and the perception of usefulness of the Handbook. Additional data collected included demographics, satisfaction with professional life, frequency of burnout, and frequency of callousness toward people. We also compared the use and perception of the Handbook before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of 52 palliative care clinicians, 39 (75%) completed the survey. Most participants were women and were <49 years. Most respondents (59%) found the Handbook useful or very useful. Offer help, ask for help, and hydration were perceived as the most useful items. The items most frequently achieved were movement, hydration, and eat light. The least useful perceived item was nap time, which was rarely achieved. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 32 (82%) respondents found the Handbook to be as/somewhat more/much more useful, and 29 (75%) were able to adhere to the items as/somewhat more/much more often than before. Conclusion: Most respondents found the Handbook useful and were able to accomplish the items most of the days. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the staff felt that the Handbook was more useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine (PRIM) department members anonymously reported a positive experience with work from home (WFH) two months after its rapid pandemic transition in March 2020. Data are limited on the stability of such preferences and experiences over time. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to survey the attitudes and beliefs of PRIM employees toward remote work 16 months after the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic since vaccines and to determine changes in perceptions of WFH. Methods: All 138 PRIM employees were invited to participate in an anonymous survey from mid-July to mid-August 2021. The 30-question survey included demographics, perceptions toward WFH, and the pandemic. Results: One hundred fifteen (83%) employees completed the survey: 29 (74%) research, 62 (83%) clinicians, and 24 (100%) administrative personnel. Most were female (76%), 30–59 years old (88%), PRIM employees before May 2020 (89%), shared office space (52%), and had received either first or second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (88%). Overall experience (86%) and emotional response (74%) with WFH were positive and not significantly different from 2020 (p = 0.128 and 0.782, respectively). Positive experience was associated with having adequate equipment (p = 0.002), perception of productivity (p = 0.002), financial advantage (p = 0.002), and time demands caring for dependents (p = 0.038). Clinicians reported less positive response (78%, p = 0.002) and less productivity (49%, p = 0.002) with WFH and higher level of stress (54%, p = 0.026) since COVID-19. Employees continued to support WFH permanently (79%) for two or more days/week (82%). There was continued increased emotional exhaustion (71%) similar to 2020 (p = 0.868), and being asked to work partially or completely from home permanently was favored by 64% versus 97% and 96% of clinicians, research, and administrative, respectively (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Support for WFH was sustained a year later and after three pandemic waves. These findings serve as a model for future rapid work transitions and can help elucidate factors associated with stress and emotional exhaustion in a new post-COVID-19 work environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of inhaled isopropyl alcohol (IPA) has been proposed as a therapeutic intervention for the relief of nausea in various settings. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the existing evidence for the use of inhaled IPA in the management of nausea and vomiting. Methods: We performed a literature search on Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library databases before November 2021. The following concepts were searched using subject headings and keywords as needed "aromatherapy," "alcohol," "ethylic alcohol," "ethanol," "isopropyl alcohol," "emesis," "chemotherapy-induced," "pregnancy," "hyperemesis gravidarum," "motion sickness," "emetics," "antiemetics," "inhalation," and "inhale." Searches were not limited to a specific language. The bibliographies of identified articles were also manually searched. Two authors independently assessed the included studies for risk of bias. Results: Thirteen randomized controlled trials out of 158 studies identified met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1253 participants. Twelve studies were conducted in the postoperative anesthesia care unit and two studies were performed in the emergency department setting. Four studies were double blinded, one was single blind, and eight were open label. Three studies assessed the use of inhaled IPA for prevention, whereas 10 studies evaluated its use in the treatment of nausea and vomiting. Seven studies reported IPA to be more effective, four studies reported no difference, and two studies reported IPA to be ineffective. Participant satisfaction was high overall, regardless of intervention received. No adverse effects were reported. The overall quality of evidence was low. Conclusion: There is a lack of strong evidence to support the use of inhaled IPA in the management of nausea and vomiting. Additional trials are warranted to confirm this finding and to further explore the use of inhaled IPA in various populations and settings. [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: Patients with cancer-related pain use opioids for nociceptive pain, while gabapentinoids are common to treat neuropathic pain. The simultaneous use of opioids with gabapentinoids has been associated with an increased risk of opioid-related death. Objectives: Determine the frequency of combined use of gabapentinoids among patients receiving opioids for cancer-related pain. We also examined if concomitant use of opioids and gabapentinoids together was associated with increased scores of fatigue and drowsiness on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) compared to patients on opioids. Design: Retrospective study of patients on opioids and opioids plus gabapentinoids at their third visit to the outpatient Supportive Care Center. Results: We found that 48% (508/1059) of patients were on opioids. Of these patients, 51% (257/508) were on opioids only, and 49% (251/508) were on opioids plus gabapentinoids. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) morphine equivalent daily dose for patients on opioids was 75 (45, 138) mg, and opioids plus gabapentinoids was 68 (38, 150) mg (p = 0.94). The median (IQR) gabapentinoid equivalent daily dose was 900 (300, 1200) mg. The median (IQR) for ESAS-fatigue in patients on opioids was 5 (3, 7), and opioids plus gabapentinoids was 5 (3, 7) (p = 0.27). The median (IQR) for ESAS-drowsiness in patients on opioids was 3 (0, 5), and opioids plus gabapentinoids was 3 (0, 6) (p = 0.11). Conclusion: Almost 50% of advanced cancer patients receiving opioids for pain were exposed to gabapentinoids. Maximal efforts should be made to minimize potential complications from the concomitant use of opioids with gabapentinoids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]