Search

PURPOSE In patients with metastatic prostate cancer (MPC), the contribution of nonmalignant etiologies to morbidity is often overlooked. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the documented specialist assessments of back pain in men with MPC in a joint medical oncology and physiatry clinic at our tertiary cancer care center. Data on cancer disease extent, hormonal status, sites of spread, pain characteristics, physiatric examination findings, imaging, and recommended management were reviewed, extracted, and codified. For those with back pain at a site of known disease, pain etiology was classified as malignant, nonmalignant, or mixed. RESULTS Ninety-three men were collaboratively assessed for back pain, 24 (26%) with a biochemical recurrence and 69 (74%) with MPC of whom 53 (77%) reported pain in an area of known spinal metastases including 35 (66%) metastatic castration-resistant disease and 34 (64%) a precancer history of back pain. The presenting pain symptoms of the 53 patients were activity-related in 22 (42%), radicular in eight (15%), transitional movement-related in seven (13%), biologic in five (9%), and multifactorial in 11 (21%). Overall, pain was deemed malignant in 20 (38%; five castration-sensitive, 15 metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer), nonmalignant in 12 (23%; four castration-sensitive, eight CRPC), and of mixed etiology in 21 (40%; nine castration-sensitive, 12 CRPC). CONCLUSION Nonmalignant etiologies contributed significantly to back pain at sites of metastatic spread for 33/53 (62%) patients with MPC assessed by medical oncology and physiatry. We recommend multidisciplinary care for patients with MPC and back pain to address nonmalignant etiologies that contribute to functional compromise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Although the Institute of Medicine provided a vision for effective psychosocial care for cancer survivors, limited guidance exists regarding the essential components of comprehensive care or progressive steps for implementing each component. This paper describes the development of a unique tool for assessing capacity to provide quality psychosocial care to cancer survivors and the results of the first implementation of this tool in community settings. Methods The psychosocial working group of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed the Cancer Psychosocial Care Matrix assessment tool. All NCCCP sites ( n = 30, enrolled in 2007 and 2010) completed the matrix indicating their capacity for providing psychosocial care at entry into NCCCP ('baseline') after 2 years of NCCCP participation (2007 sites only) and within the coming year ('future aspirations'). Results At baseline, matrix responses reflected few or no systematic processes in place for most components of comprehensive psychosocial care. However, reported capacity to deliver specific components improved at 2 years post-NCCCP entry for the 2007 sites and in all NCCCP sites' future aspirations. Conclusions With growing demand on cancer centers to meet new metrics of quality care, the psychosocial matrix can help centers systematically identify and develop steps to address gap areas in their capacity to meet these new standards. The Cancer Psychosocial Care Matrix appears to enable evaluation of psychosocial programs, may promote intentions to improve psychosocial services, and can facilitate communication of 'best practices' among cancer centers. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This prospective study was designed in order to compare the most common subjective measurements of physical function in patients with advanced lung cancer with an objective physical functional test (Simmonds Functional Assessment Tool [SFA]). Patients and Methods: One hundred patients agreed to participate and complete the study before or after their outpatient medical oncology appointment. Patients underwent assessment using the Karnofsky, the Brief fatigue Inventory, The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung patients (FACT-L) and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). These results were compared to the SFA tool. The SFA consists of six tasks: tying a belt, putting coins in a cup, reaching above head, standing up/sitting down, reaching forward and walking 50 feet. Results: Ninety-nine patients completed the study over 8 months: median Karnofsky performance status was 85 (70 to 100), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) score (0 to 10) was generally low (0.5 to 2.8). SFA scores were significantly different in patients compared to a control group. The correlation between the subscales of the SFA and the Karnofsky, the Brief Fatigue Inventory, The FACT-L and the ESAS was generally low to moderate (r values: 0.22 to 0.38). There was generally a moderate correlation between the different subjective scales ( r values: 0.3 to 0.62). Conclusion: Adherence to the SFA tool was excellent. The low to moderate correlation between the abnormalities found in the objective SFA and the subjective fatigue tests suggest that objective evaluation of the functional capacity provides a potentially useful and independent end-point for clinical trials and therapeutic interventions. These assessment tools should be used complementary to each other to better assess the functional status of patients with advanced lung cancer. Large trials of objective functional assessment are justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]