Search

Background: Palliative care (PC) education and research are essential to developing a skilled workforce and evidence base to support the delivery of quality cancer care. The current state of PC education and research at US cancer centers is unclear. In this national survey, the education and research programs of the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and nondesignated cancer centers and the changes between 2009 and 2018 are compared., Methods: Between April and August 2018, PC program leaders at all NCI-designated cancer centers and a random sample of nondesignated centers were sent a survey to examine the structure, processes, and outcomes of their programs on the basis of questions from a 2009 national survey. This preplanned analysis focused on education and research., Results: There were 52 of 61 (85%) NCI-designated and 27 of 38 (71%) nondesignated cancer centers that responded. NCI-designated centers were more likely than nondesignated centers to have a PC fellowship program (87% vs 30%; P < .001), training for advanced practice providers (71% vs 44%; P = .03), PC research program (58% vs 15%; P < .001), peer-reviewed funding (43% vs 11%; P = .005), and philanthropic grants (41% vs 7%; P = .002). There were few significant improvements in PC education or research between 2009 and 2018 for both groups, notable exceptions include an increase in PC fellowships (38% vs 87%; P < .001) and mandatory PC rotations for medical oncology fellows (29% vs 55%; P = .02) at NCI-designated cancer centers., Conclusions: PC education and research are more developed at NCI-designated cancer centers. Despite some progress over the past decade, it is relatively slow and suboptimal., (© 2021 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Workplace interventions are needed to prevent burnout and support the well-being of the palliative care workforce., Measures: We conducted a survey of all palliative care clinical staff to evaluate the usefulness and feasibility of checklist items and the checklist itself. We collected demographics, perceptions of professional satisfaction and burnout, and qualitative feedback aimed at improving the checklist., Intervention: We implemented a 13-item self-care checklist, included in a handbook on palliative care carried in the laboratory coat of all clinical personnel, to remind them to care of their own well-being., Outcomes: Of 39 personnel contacted, 32 (82%) responded. Most (20; 62%) found the checklist useful. Exercise was the most highly ranked item, whereas watching visual arts was the lowest ranked item., Conclusions/lessons Learned: Numerous opportunities were identified to improve the checklist and facilitate achievement of checklist items. Survey data will be used in the next checklist version., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background, Aim, and Hypothesis: This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the impact of a physician's attire on the perceptions of patients with cancer of compassion, professionalism, and physician preference. Our hypothesis was that patients would perceive the physician with formal attire as more compassionate than the physician wearing casual attire., Materials and Methods: One hundred five adult follow-up patients with advanced cancer were randomized to watch two standardized, 3-minute video vignettes with the same script, depicting a routine physician-patient clinic encounter. Videos included a physician in formal attire with tie and buttoned-up white coat and casual attire without a tie or white coat. Actors, patients, and investigators were all blinded to the purpose and videos watched, respectively. After each video, patients completed validated questionnaires rating their perception of physician compassion, professionalism, and their overall preference for the physician., Results: There were no significant differences between formal and casual attire for compassion (median [interquartile range], 25 [10-31] vs. 20 [8-27]; p = .31) and professionalism (17 [13-21] vs. 18 [14-22]; p = .42). Thirty percent of patients preferred formal attire, 31% preferred casual attire, and 38% had no preference. Subgroup analysis did not show statistically significant differences among different cohorts of age, sex, marital status, and education level., Conclusion: Doctors' attire did not affect the perceptions of patients with cancer of physician's level of compassion and professionalism, nor did it influence the patients' preference for their doctor or their trust and confidence in the doctor's ability to provide care. There is a need for more studies in this area of communications skills. Clinical trial identification number. NCT03168763 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The significance of physician attire as a means of nonverbal communication has not been well characterized. It is an important element to consider, as patient preferences vary geographically, are influenced by cultural beliefs, and may vary based on particular care settings. Previous studies consisted of nonblinded surveys and found increasing confidence in physicians wearing a professional white coat. Unfortunately, there are no randomized controlled trials, to the authors' knowledge, to confirm the survey findings. In this randomized, blinded clinical trial the researchers found that physician's attire did not affect patients' perception of the physician's level of compassion and professionalism. Attire also did not influence the patients' preferences for their doctor or their trust and confidence in the doctor's ability to provide care., (© AlphaMed Press 2020.)

Background: Few studies have investigated water balance as a predictor of survival in cancer patients in the last days of life. Objective: To examine the association between extracellular water (ECW), intracellular water (ICW), ratio of ECW to ICW (ECW/ICW), and survival in nonedematous and edematous patients with advanced cancer admitted to a palliative care unit. Design: A prospective observational study. Setting/Subjects: Patients with advanced cancer admitted to a palliative care unit. Measurements: Upon enrollment, bioelectrical impedance analysis was used to assess ECW, ICW, and body composition. We conducted time-to-event analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Results: A total of 190 of 204 patients who participated in this study had ICW and ECW measures available for analysis. The median survival was 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 9-12) days. The median ECW, ICW, and ECW/ICW were 18.9 L, 19.1 L, and 1.0 for 72 nonedematous patients, and 21.9 L, 20.1 L, and 1.1 for 118 edematous patients, respectively. In univariate Cox regression analysis, ICW ≤20 L was associated with a shorter survival in the nonedematous patients (hazard ratio [HR] 1.92, 95% CI 1.10-3.34, p  = 0.02) and a longer survival in the edematous patients (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.90, p  = 0.01). In multivariable analysis, ICW (≤20 L vs. >20 L) remained an independent prognostic factor in edematous patients (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.95, p  = 0.03). Conclusions: Greater ICW was an independent predictor of poorer survival in cancer patients with edema in the last days of life.

Background: Increasing the total opioid dose is the standard approach for managing uncontrolled cancer pain. Other than simply increasing the opioid dose, palliative care interventions are multidimensional and may improve pain control in the absence of opioid dose increase. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of patients referred to our inpatient palliative care (IPC) team who achieved clinically improved pain (CIP) without opioid dose increase. Design: We reviewed consecutive patients referred to our IPC team. Setting/Subjects: Eligibility criteria included (1) taking opioid medication; (2) having ≥2 consecutive visits with the IPC team; and (3) an Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) pain score ≥4 at consultation. Measurements: We assessed patient demographics and clinical variables, including cancer type, opioid prescription data (type, route, and oral morphine equivalent daily dose [MEDD]), presence of opioid rotation, psychological consultation, changes in adjuvant medications (e.g., corticosteroids; antiepileptics-gabapentin and pregabalin; benzodiazepines; and neuroleptics), and achievement of CIP. Results: Of the 300 patients enrolled, CIP was achieved in 196 (65%) patients. Of CIP patients, 85 (43%) achieved CIP without an increase in MEDD. CIP without MEDD increase was associated with more adjuvant medication changes ( p  = 0.003), less opioid rotation ( p  = 0.005), and lower symptom distress scale of ESAS ( p  = 0.04). Conclusions: Nearly half of the patients achieved CIP without MEDD increase, suggesting that the multidimensional palliative care intervention is effective in improving pain control in many opioid-tolerant patients without the need to increase the opioid dose.

Background: An international panel achieved consensus on 9 need-based and 2 time-based major referral criteria to identify patients appropriate for outpatient palliative care referral. To better understand the operational characteristics of these criteria, we examined the proportion and timing of patients who met these referral criteria at our Supportive Care Clinic., Methods: We retrieved data on consecutive patients with advanced cancer who were referred to our Supportive Care Clinic between January 1, 2016, and February 18, 2016. We examined the proportion of patients who met each major criteria and its timing., Results: Among 200 patients (mean age 60, 53% female), the median overall survival from outpatient palliative care referral was 14 (95% confidence interval 9.2, 17.5) months. A majority (n = 170, 85%) of patients met at least 1 major criteria; specifically, 28%, 30%, 20%, and 8% met 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4 criteria, respectively. The most commonly met need-based criteria were severe physical symptoms (n = 140, 70%), emotional symptoms (n = 36, 18%), decision-making needs (n = 26, 13%), and brain/leptomeningeal metastases (n = 25, 13%). For time-based criteria, 54 (27%) were referred within 3 months of diagnosis of advanced cancer and 63 (32%) after progression from ≥ 2 lines of palliative systemic therapy. The median duration from patient first meeting any criterion to palliative care referral was 2.4 (interquartile range 0.1, 8.6) months., Conclusions: Patients were referred early to our palliative care clinic and a vast majority (85%) of them met at least one major criteria. Standardized referral based on these criteria may facilitate even earlier referral.

Background: It is unclear if validated prognostic scores such as the Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, and Palliative Prognostic Score are more accurate than clinician prediction of survival in patients admitted to an acute palliative care unit with only days of survival., Aim: We compared the prognostic accuracy of Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, Palliative Prognostic Score, and clinician prediction of survival in this setting., Design: This is a pre-planned secondary analysis of a prospective study., Setting/participants: We assessed Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, Palliative Prognostic Score, and clinician prediction of survival at baseline. We computed their prognostic accuracy using the Concordance index and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for 7-, 14-, and 30-day survival., Results: A total of 204 patients were included with a median overall survival of 10 days (95% confidence interval: 8-11 days). The Concordance index for Palliative Performance Scale, Palliative Prognostic Index, Palliative Prognostic Score, and clinician prediction of survival were 0.74, 0.71, 0.70, and 0.75, respectively. The areas under the curve for these approaches were 0.82-0.87 for 30-day survival, 0.75-0.80 for 14-day survival, and 0.74-0.81 for 7-day survival. The four prognostic approaches had similar accuracies, with the exception of 7-day survival in which clinician prediction of survival was significantly more accurate than Palliative Prognostic Score (difference: 7%) and Palliative Prognostic Index (difference: 8%)., Conclusion: In patients with advanced cancer with days of survival, clinician prediction of survival and Palliative Performance Scale alone were as accurate as Palliative Prognostic Score and Palliative Prognostic Index. These four approaches may be useful for prognostication in acute palliative care units. Our findings highlight how patient population may impact the accuracy of prognostic scores.

Background: This study examined the changes in outpatient palliative care services at US cancer centers over the past decade., Methods: Between April and August 2018, all National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and a random sample of 1252 non-NCI-designated cancer centers were surveyed. Two surveys used previously in a 2009 national study were sent to each institution: a 22-question cancer center executive survey regarding palliative care infrastructure and attitudes toward palliative care and an 82-question palliative care program leader survey regarding detailed palliative care structures and processes. Survey findings from 2018 were compared with 2009 data from 101 cancer center executives and 96 palliative care program leaders., Results: The overall response rate was 69% (140 of 203) for the cancer center executive survey and 75% (123 of 164) for the palliative care program leader survey. Among NCI-designated cancer centers, a significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics was observed between 2009 and 2018 (59% vs 95%; odds ratio, 12.3; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-48.2; P < .001) with no significant changes in inpatient consultation teams (92% vs 90%; P = .71), palliative care units (PCUs; 26% vs 40%; P = .17), or institution-operated hospices (31% vs 18%; P = .14). Among non-NCI-designated cancer centers, there was no significant increase in outpatient palliative care clinics (22% vs 40%; P = .07), inpatient consultation teams (56% vs 68%; P = .27), PCUs (20% vs 18%; P = .76), or institution-operated hospices (42% vs 23%; P = .05). The median interval from outpatient palliative care referral to death increased significantly, particularly for NCI-designated cancer centers (90 vs 180 days; P = 0.01)., Conclusions: Despite significant growth in outpatient palliative care clinics, there remain opportunities for improvement in the structures and processes of palliative care programs., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The concurrent use of opioids with benzodiazepines (BZD) or nonbenzodiazepine sedatives (S) recently was found to be associated with an increased risk of overdose death compared with the use of opioids alone. In the current study, the authors examined the frequency and trend of concurrent opioid/BZD-S use and its associated risk factors among patients with cancer., Methods: Data regarding the frequency and trend of concurrent opioid/BZD-S use were extracted for 1500 randomly selected patients referred to the outpatient palliative care clinic at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between the calendar years of 2011 and 2016. To explore associated risk factors, the authors compared the demographic and clinical predictors of 418 patients each in the concurrent opioid/BZD-S group and opioids-only group., Results: In 2011, at the time of referral to the palliative care clinic, 96 of 221 patients with cancer (43%) were prescribed concurrent opioids/BZD-S. This rate progressively declined to 67 of 217 patients (31%) by 2016 (P = .0008). Patients in the concurrent opioid/BZD-S group had a higher percentage of females (233 individuals; 55% [P = .007]) and whites (323 individuals; 77% [P = .002]), and patients reported higher scores regarding depression (P = .0001), anxiety (P ≤ .0001), drowsiness (P = .048), and worst feeling of well-being (P = .001). The morphine equivalent daily dose was significantly higher in concurrent opioid/BZD-S group (median of 67.5 mg/day [interquartile range (IQR), 30-135 mg/day] vs 60 mg/day [IQR, 30-105 mg/day]; P = .034). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that anxiety (P ≤ .0001), white race (P = .0092), and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P = .0017) were significantly associated with concurrent use., Conclusions: The concurrent use of opioids with BZD-S has declined but continues to be frequent among patients with cancer. Anxiety, white race, and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status were associated with its use. More research is needed to explore which medications can replace these agents., (© 2019 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: The primary aim of this study was to determine the attitudes and beliefs of hematology and medical oncology (HMO) fellows regarding palliative care (PC) after they completed a 4-week mandatory PC rotation., Methods: The PC rotation included a 4-week standardized curriculum covering all PC domains. HMO fellows were provided educational materials and attended all didactic sessions. All had clinical rotation in an acute PC unit and an outpatient clinic. All HMO fellows from 2004 to 2017 were asked to complete a 32-item survey on oncology trainee perception of PC., Results: Of 105 HMO fellows, 77 (73%) completed the survey. HMO fellows reported that PC rotation improved assessment and management of symptoms (98%); opioid prescription (89%), opioid rotation (78%), and identification of opioid adverse effects (87%); communication with patients and families (91%), including advance care planning discussion (88%) and do-not-resuscitate discussion (88%); and they reported comfort with discussing ethical issues (74%). Participants reported improvement in knowledge of symptom assessment and management (n = 76; 98%) as compared with efficacy in ethics (n = 57 [74%]; P = .0001) and for coping with stress of terminal illness (n = 45 [58%]; P = .0001). The PC rotation educational experience was considered either far better or better (53%) or the same (45%) as other oncology rotations. Most respondents (98%) would recommend PC rotations to other HMO fellows, and 95% felt rotation should be mandatory., Conclusion: HMO fellows reported PC rotation improved their attitudes and knowledge in all PC domains. PC rotation was considered better than other oncology rotations and should be mandatory.

Background: There is a growing preference for the use of marijuana for medical purposes, despite limited evidence regarding its benefits and potential safety risks. Legalization status may play a role in the attitudes and preferences toward medical marijuana (MM). Objectives: The attitudes and beliefs of cancer patients in a legalized (Arizona) versus nonlegalized state (Texas) regarding medical and recreational legalization and medical usefulness of marijuana were compared. Settings/Subjects: Two hundred adult cancer patients were enrolled from outpatient Palliative Care centers at Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center in Gilbert, AZ ( n  = 100) and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX ( n  = 100). Design and Measurements: Adult cancer patients seen by the Palliative Care teams in the outpatient centers were evaluated. Various physical and psychosocial assessments were conducted, including a survey of attitudes and beliefs toward marijuana. Results: The majority of individuals support legalization of marijuana for medical use (Arizona 92% [85-97%] vs. Texas 90% [82-95%]; p  = 0.81) and belief in its medical usefulness (Arizona 97% [92-99%] vs. Texas 93% [86-97%]; p  = 0.33) in both states. Overall, 181 (91%) patients supported legalization for medical purposes whereas 80 (40%) supported it for recreational purposes ( p  < 0.0001). Patients preferred marijuana over current standard treatments for anxiety (60% [51-68%]; p  = 0.003). Patients found to favor legalizing MM were younger ( p  = 0.027), had worse fatigue ( p  = 0.015), appetite ( p  = 0.004), anxiety ( p  = 0.017), and were Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs (CAGE-AID) positive for alcohol/drugs ( p  < 0.0001). Conclusion: Cancer patients from both legalized and nonlegalized states supported legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and believed in its medical use. The support for legalization for medical use was significantly higher than for recreational use in both states.

Context: Psychology services utilization in cancer patients remains low due to barriers such as patient/caregiver acceptance of counseling., Objective: We aimed to determine if the manner of introducing psychology services impacted patients' acceptance of services and to identify factors associated with acceptance and barriers to psychology utilization., Methods: In this double-blind randomized cross-over trial, cancer patients with no prior psychology services observed two video vignettes: (a) physician introducing counselor and psychology services to the patient (PI) and (b) counselor introducing psychology services alone (CI). A counterbalanced design was used to control for order effects. After viewing both videos, patients completed a survey regarding preference, attitudes, and barriers for psychology services. Patients and investigators were blinded to the purpose of the study and content and order of videos, respectively. We hypothesized that patients would prefer physician introduction of counselor., Results: One hundred patients participated: 40 (40%) expressed no difference, 34 (34%) preferred PI, and 26 (26%) preferred CI (P > .2). Younger patients (less than 40 years) either preferred PI (86%) or had no preference (14%, P = .01). Most reported awareness of available psychology services (N = 63), and half (N = 50) were offered psychology services by their physician. Only 40 (40%) and 43 (43%) patients felt psychology services would be helpful for them and their family/caregivers, respectively. Patients who perceived psychology as helpful for self or family had higher anxiety (P = .01 and P = .006, respectively)., Conclusions: No significant difference was found in patient preference of introducing psychology services except in patients less than 40 years old who preferred PI., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Systematic symptom assessment is not a standard of care in children with cancer. Many well-known symptom assessment tools are lengthy or difficult to integrate into a daily pediatric palliative care practice. We created a series of brief and simple questions to be systematically given to children and their caregivers. Objective: The primary objective was to determine the percentage of eligible children and caregivers exposed to the questions that were able to complete the assessment. Secondary objectives included documenting the symptom burden at the time of consultation, evaluating the level of agreement in symptom reporting between children and caregivers, as well as between children/caregivers and the referring medical team. Design: A series of systematic questions were presented to all caregivers (if present) and children who were seven years of age or older at the time of initial consultation with pediatric palliative care. Results: One hundred twenty-two consecutive children/caregiver dyads were given the survey. One hundred seven of 108 (99%) eligible caregivers and 83 of 97 (86%) eligible children completed the survey. Lack of appetite (child-72/83, 87%; caregiver-89/107, 83%) and pain (child-71/83, 86%; caregiver-86/107, 80%) were the most commonly reported symptoms. Caregivers reported irritability ( p  = 0.005) and nervousness ( p  < 0.001) more frequently than children. Referring medical teams significantly underdiagnosed psychological and other less clinically evident symptoms such as lack of appetite, fatigue, and sleep disturbance ( p  < 0.001). Conclusions: Our series of questions is easy to complete by children and caregivers. Systematic symptom assessment of children with cancer referred to palliative care should become a true standard of care.

Context: Current guidelines recommend early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer; however, no studies have examined the optimal timing of referral from the patients' perspective., Objectives: To examine patients' perceptions of timeliness of referral and its association with survival among patients with advanced cancer referred to an outpatient supportive care (SC) clinic., Methods: This cross-sectional prospective study in an SC clinic at a comprehensive cancer center included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic cancer. Patients were asked to complete an anonymous survey regarding the timeliness and perceived usefulness of SC referral within four weeks of their first SC consultation., Results: Of 253 eligible patients, 209 (83%) enrolled in the study and 200 completed the survey. Median survival was 10.3 months. Most patients (72%) perceived that referral occurred "just in time," whereas 21% felt it was "late," and 7% felt "early." A majority (83%) found the referral useful, and 88% would recommend it to other patients with cancer. The perception of being referred early was associated with lower reported levels of pain (P = 0.043), fatigue (P = 0.004), drowsiness (P = 0.005), appetite loss (P = 0.041), poor well-being (P = 0.041), and lower physical (P = 0.001) and overall symptom distress (P = 0.001). No other associations were found between perceived timeliness and usefulness and patients' baseline characteristics., Conclusion: Most patients with a median survival of 10 months perceived that SC referral was timely and useful. Patient care needs rather than the timing of advanced cancer diagnosis drove this perception of referral timing. Lower symptom burden was associated with the perception of being referred to early., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Phase angle is a prognostic factor in patients with months of survival, but its accuracy has not been examined in patients with weeks/days of survival. We determined the association between phase angle and survival in patients with advanced cancer admitted to an acute palliative care unit (APCU)., Subjects, Materials, and Methods: We prospectively assessed phase angle in consecutive patients with advanced cancer admitted to our APCU. We conducted univariate and multivariate survival analyses adjusting for established prognostic factors. Post hoc subgroup analyses examined patients with and without edema., Results: Among 204 patients, the median overall survival was 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 8-11 days). Seventy-four (36%) did not have edema. The median phase angle was 3.7° for the entire cohort, 3.9° for the nonedematous subgroup and 3.6° for the edematous subgroup. In univariate analysis, a low phase angle was associated with decreased survival for the entire cohort (≤3° vs. >3°, median survival 7 vs. 10 days, p = .045) and the nonedematous subgroup (5 vs. 18 days, p < .001) but not the edematous subgroup (9 vs. 9 days, p = .84). In multivariate analysis, phase angle did not reach significance for the entire cohort but remained significant in the nonedematous subgroup (hazard ratio 2.46, 95% CI 1.14-5.31, p < .001). Specifically, phase angle ≤3° had an accuracy of 86% (95% CI 77%-93%) for 3-day survival in patients without edema., Conclusion: Phase angle had limited prognostic utility in unselected APCU patients but was significant in the nonedematous subgroup. Further studies are required to confirm these preliminary findings., Implications for Practice: In this prospective study involving 204 patients with advanced cancer, phase angle as measured by bioelectric impedance analysis was a significant predictor of mortality independent of known prognostic factors in patients without edema but not patients with edema. Among patients without edema, a phase angle ≤3° had an accuracy of 86% for 3-day survival, which may inform the diagnosis of impending death and potentially end-of-life decision making., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Context: Methadone is a long-acting opioid known for its unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. Most research on methadone in children is limited to its effect on the prolongation of the corrected QT (QTc) interval., Objectives: To better understand the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of pediatric palliative care physicians regarding the use of methadone in children with advanced cancer., Methods: A survey was sent to the American Academy of Pediatrics Section of Hospice and Palliative Medicine LISTSERV. Information on demographics, dosing of methadone, and the use of electrocardiograms (ECGs) was collected., Results: One-hundred and five respondents (91%) provide palliative care to children ≥ 50% of the time, and a majority (81, 77%) prescribe methadone. Most (62, 77%) physicians were board certified in Hospice and Palliative Medicine, and most (39, 63%) certified via the direct pathway ("grandfathering"). Most physicians (57, 70%) do not use loading doses of methadone. Board-certified physicians trended toward decreasing methadone dose more (40% ± 19%) than non-board-certified physicians (28%, ±20%) when changing from the oral to intravenous route (P = 0.07). Respondents defined a QTc interval as "prolonged" (mean ± SD) at 444 milliseconds (±68 milliseconds). The percentage of patients receiving a baseline ECG was 65% (±33%). The most common reason for not performing a baseline ECG was that the patient was on hospice (13, 36%)., Conclusions: There are consistent practices, attitudes, and beliefs of pediatric palliative care providers with regard to methadone. More education is needed on the accurate value of a prolonged QTc interval., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: Optimal benefits from palliative care (PC) are achieved when first consults (PC1) occur early, in the outpatient setting. Late PC1, like those in the intensive care unit (ICU), limit these benefits., Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of PC1 over time in the outpatient, ICU, and inpatient non-ICU settings. We also examined patients' baseline characteristics and the timing of PC access (from PC1 to death) by the setting of PC1., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive cancer patients' records at our cancer center to ascertain the annual number of PC1 and its distribution across settings (2011-2017). ICU PC1 (n = 309) and a random sample of an equal number of outpatient and inpatient non-ICU PC1 were reviewed to retrieve patients' characteristics and death date., Results: PC1 total annual number increased by 58% from 2011 (n = 2286) to 2017 (n = 3615). We found a significant decrease in the proportion of ICU PC1 (from 2.3% in 2011 to 1% in 2017, P < 0.001). There were no significant changes in the proportion of PC1 at outpatient versus inpatient settings (P = 0.2). Hematologic cancer patients were more likely to have an ICU PC1 (P < 0.001). Median survival (months) was 7.7 (6.3-9.7), 3.4 (2.4-4.5), and 0.1 (0.1-0.1) for outpatient, inpatient, and ICU, respectively (P < 0.01)., Conclusion: PC1 total annual number has increased, and the proportion of PC1 at ICU, a very late clinical setting, is decreasing. Further efforts are needed to integrate PC in hematologic cancer care., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Opioid misuse is a growing crisis. Patients with cancer who are at risk of aberrant drug behaviors are frequently underdiagnosed. The primary objective of this study was to determine the frequency and factors predicting a risk for aberrant opioid and drug use behaviors (ADB) among patients who received an outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center. In addition, the screening performance of the Cut Down-Annoyed-Guilty-Eye Opener (CAGE) questionnaire adapted to include drug use (CAGE-AID) was compared with that of the 14-item Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain (SOAPP-14) tool as instruments for identifying patients at risk for ADB., Methods: In total, 751 consecutive patients with cancer who were referred to a supportive care clinic were reviewed. Patients were eligible if they had diagnosis of cancer and had received opioids for pain for at least 1 week. All patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), the SOAPP-14, and the CAGE-AID. SOAPP scores ≥7 (SOAPP-positive) were used to identify patients who were at risk of ADB., Results: Among the 729 of 751 (97%) evaluable consults, 143 (19.6%) were SOAPP-positive, and 73 (10.5%) were CAGE-AID-positive. Multivariate analysis revealed that the odds ratio of a positive SOAPP score was 2.3 for patients who had positive CAGE-AID scores (P < .0001), 2.08 for men (P = .0013), 1.10 per point for ESAS pain (P = .014), 1.13 per point for ESAS anxiety (P = .0015), and 1.09 per point for ESAS financial distress (P = .012). A CAGE-AID cutoff score of 1 in 4 had 43.3% sensitivity and 90.93% specificity for screening patients with a high risk of ADB., Conclusions: The current results indicate a high frequency of an elevated risk of ADB among patients with cancer. Men and patients who have anxiety, financial distress, and a prior history of alcoholism/illicit drug use are at increased risk of ADB., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

Background: There is significant variation in access to palliative care. We examined the pattern of outpatient palliative care referral among thoracic medical oncologists and identified oncologist characteristics associated with greater referral., Materials and Methods: We retrieved data on all patients who died of advanced thoracic malignancies at our institution between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2012. Using median as a cutoff, we defined two groups (high-referring and low-referring oncologists) based on their frequency of referral. We examined various oncologist- and patient-related characteristics associated with outpatient referral., Results: Of 1,642 decedents, 444 (27%) had an outpatient palliative care referral. The median proportion of referral among 26 thoracic oncologists was 30% (range 9%-45%; median proportion of high-referring 37% vs. low-referring 24% when divided into two groups at median). High-referring oncologists were significantly younger (age 45 vs. 56) than low-referring oncologists; they were also significantly more likely to refer patients earlier (median interval between oncology consultation and palliative care consultation 90 days vs. 170 days) and to refer those without metastatic disease (7% vs. 2%). In multivariable mixed-effect logistic regression, younger oncologists (odds ratio [OR] = 0.97 per year increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-0.995), younger patients (OR = 0.98 per year increase, 95% CI 0.97-0.99), and nonmetastatic disease status (OR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.29-0.78) were significantly associated with outpatient palliative care referral., Conclusion: The pattern of referral to outpatient palliative care varied widely among thoracic oncologists. Younger oncologists were not only referring a higher proportion of patients, but also referring patients earlier in the disease trajectory., Implications for Practice: This retrospective cohort study found that younger thoracic medical oncologists were significantly more likely to refer patients to outpatient palliative care and to do so earlier in the disease trajectory compared with older oncologists, even after adjusting for other known predictors such as patient demographics. The findings highlight the role of education to standardize palliative care access and imply that outpatient palliative care referral is likely to continue to increase with a shifting oncology workforce., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Background: Palliative care physicians often assist with pain management in children with cancer, but little is known about how they use long-acting opioids for chronic pain with these patients., Objective: To determine the practices, attitudes, and beliefs of palliative care physicians toward the use of long-acting opioids in children with advanced cancer., Design: An electronic survey was sent to all members of The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Section of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (SOHPM) and those identified as physicians who provide palliative care to children on the AAP SOHPM LISTSERV ® ., Results: The response rate to the survey was 62% (116/188). A majority (66% [77/116]) of physicians are board certified in both pediatrics and hospice and palliative medicine. This represents 28% of all board-certified pediatric palliative care physicians. Most palliative care physicians report comfort in using long-acting opioids in children (84-94%), with the exception of long-acting hydromorphone (37%). Physicians perceived methadone as least costly (3%) but associated it with a higher perceived family resistance (51%). As compared with pediatric palliative care fellowship-trained physicians, nonpediatric fellowship-trained physicians perceived titration of oxycodone ER and morphine ER to be easier (p = 0.06, p = 0.07) and less likely to agree that the main reason for starting methadone is that the existing formulations of other long-acting opioids are unsuitable for children (p = 0.05)., Conclusions: Most physicians who provide palliative care to children are comfortable using opioids but there is significant variation in the level of comfort with different opioids. This information will be helpful in developing targeted education for palliative care providers.

Context: Psychologists can provide unique contributions to interdisciplinary palliative care. Despite research indicating high distress in palliative care cancer patients, little has been reported regarding the feasibility and practice of psychology in this setting., Objectives: To review the integration of clinical psychology practice in a palliative care department at a major comprehensive cancer center., Methods: Retrospective chart review of 1940 unique cancer patients (6451 total patient contacts) referred for psychology services provided by clinical psychologists in palliative care from September 1, 2013 to February 29, 2016., Results: Psychologists provided services to 1644 inpatients (24% of palliative care inpatients) and 296 outpatients (19% of palliative care outpatients). Most of them (85%) received services in the inpatient setting. Most patients were females (57%) and white (68%) with a variety of cancer diagnoses. Adjustment disorders were the most prevalent in both settings with significant differences in other Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition) diagnoses by service location (P < 0.0001). Psychological assessment (86%) and supportive expressive counseling (79%) were the most frequent services provided in the initial consult. Duration of initial visit was significantly longer in outpatient (median 60 minutes) compared with inpatient setting (median 40 minutes) (P < 0.0001). No significant differences were noted between settings regarding the median number of counseling sessions per patient; however, most (70%) only received one or two sessions. Over time, total patient encounters increased in the inpatient setting (P < 0.0001), whereas session lengths in both settings significantly decreased (P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Palliative care psychology services successfully integrated into an interdisciplinary palliative care department and rapidly grew in both inpatient and outpatient settings., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: There is limited literature regarding outpatient palliative care and factors associated with unscheduled clinic visits., Objectives: To compare characteristics of patients with unscheduled vs. scheduled outpatient palliative care clinic visits., Methods: Medical records of 183 unscheduled cancer new outpatients and 104 unscheduled follow-up (FU) patients were compared with random samples of 361 and 314 scheduled new patients and FU patients, respectively. We gathered data on demographics, symptoms, daily opioid usage, and performance status., Results: Compared with scheduled new patients, unscheduled new patients had worse Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale subscores for pain (P < 0.001), fatigue (P = 0.002), nausea (P = 0.016), depression (P = 0.003), anxiety (P = 0.038), drowsiness (P = 0.002), sleep (P < 0.001), and overall feeling of well-being (P = 0.001); had a higher morphine equivalent daily dose of opioids (median of 45 mg for unscheduled vs. 30 mg for scheduled; P < 0.001); and were more likely to be from outside the greater Houston area (P < 0.001). Most unscheduled and scheduled new and FU visits were for uncontrolled physical symptoms. Unscheduled FU patients, compared with scheduled FU patients, had worse Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale subscores for pain (P < 0.001), fatigue (P < 0.001), depression (P = 0.002), anxiety (P = 0.004), drowsiness (P = 0.010), appetite (P = 0.023), sleep (P = 0.022), overall feeling of well-being (P < 0.001), and higher morphine equivalent daily dose of opioid (median of 58 mg for unscheduled FU visits vs. 40 mg for scheduled FU visits; P = 0.054)., Conclusion: Unscheduled new FU patients have higher levels of physical and psychosocial distress and higher opioid intake. Outpatient palliative care centers should consider providing opportunities for walk-in visits for timely management and close monitoring of such patients., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are limited data on illness understanding and perception of cure among advanced cancer patients around the world. The aim of the study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with inaccurate perception of curability among advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care across the globe., Materials and Methods: Secondary analysis of a study to understand the core concepts in end-of-life care among advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care from 11 countries across the world. Advanced cancer patients were surveyed using a Patient Illness Understanding survey and Control Preference Scale. Descriptive statistics and multicovariate logistic regression analysis were performed., Results: Fifty-five percent (763/1,390) of patients receiving palliative care inaccurately reported that their cancer is curable. The median age was 58, 55% were female, 59% were married or had a partner, 48% were Catholic, and 35% were college educated. Sixty-eight percent perceived that the goal of therapy was "to get rid of their cancer," and 47% perceived themselves as "seriously ill." Multicovariate logistic regression analysis shows that accurate perception of curability was associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, p  = .027), higher education (OR 0.37, p  < .0001), unemployment status (OR 0.69, p  = .02), and being from France (OR 0.26, p  < .0001) and South Africa (OR 0.52, p  = .034); inaccurate perception of curability was associated with better Karnofsky performance status (OR 1.02 per point, p  = .0005), and being from Philippines (OR 15.49, p  < .0001), Jordan (OR 8.43, p  < .0001), Brazil (OR 2.17, p  = .0037), and India (OR 2.47, p  = .039)., Conclusion: Inaccurate perception of curability in advanced cancer patients is 55% and significantly differs by gender, education, performance status, employment status, and country of origin. Further studies are needed to develop strategies to reduce this misperception of curability in advanced cancer patients., Implications for Practice: The findings of this study indicate that inaccurate perception of curability among advanced cancer patients is 55%. Inaccurate perception of curability significantly differs by gender, education, performance status, employment status, and country of origin. There is great need to facilitate improved patient-physician communication so as to improve health care outcomes and patient satisfaction., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)

Context: Low-income patients face barriers to palliative care access, which might negatively influence symptom management and advanced care planning., Objective: Our aim was to compare time of referral and characteristics (level of symptom distress) among uninsured (indigent), low-insured (Medicaid), and insured patients presenting to our supportive care center (SCC)., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of randomly selected 100 indigent, 100 Medicaid, and 300 insured outpatients referred during the same five-year period. We reviewed demographic and clinical characteristics including date of diagnosis of advanced cancer and of first visit to SCC, symptom assessment (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System), type and dose of opioid medication, number of total outpatient visits, and date of last contact with palliative care team., Results: Among 482 evaluable patients, indigent, Medicaid, and insured patients, respectively, had mean (SD) ages of 48 (11), 50 (12), and 63 (13) years (P < 0.001); Edmonton Symptom Assessment System pain scores at first visit of 6.7 (2.5), 5.6 (3.2), and 4.9 (3.2) (P < 0.001); nonwhite race in 60%, 49%, and 25% of cases (P < 0.001); unmarried status in 68%, 64%, and 33% of cases (P < 0.001), while 63%, 87%, and 54% of patients (P < 0.001) were on opioids with median number of encounters per month of 0.6, 0.8, and 0.5 (P = 0.001). Median survival (95% CI) from first visit to last contact was 4.6 (2.8-6.2), 5.4 (3.5-7), and 5.6 (4.7-7.3) months (P = 0.036)., Conclusion: Patients with limited or no insurance had significantly higher pain and were more frequently on opioids, younger, nonwhite, and not married. They required higher number of SCC follow-up visits. Insurance status did not affect timing of SCC referral or follow-ups at our cancer center., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the United States, opioid regulations have become increasingly stringent in recent years. Increased regulatory scrutiny, in part, is related to heightened awareness through literature and a recent media blitz on the opioid prescription epidemic. These regulations have the potential to impact prescription trends by health care providers. Our objective was to evaluate changes in the type and dose of opioid prescriptions among patients who are referred by oncologists to an outpatient palliative care clinic., Materials and Methods: We reviewed the electronic health records of 750 patients who were seen as new consultations at MD Anderson Cancer Center's outpatient palliative care clinic between January 1 and April 30 each year from 2010 through 2015. Data collected included demographics, cancer type and stage, symptom assessment, performance status, opioid type, and opioid dose defined as the morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD)., Results: Median age was 59 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51 to 67), 383 (51%) were female, 529 (70%) were white, and 654 (87%)of patients had advanced cancer. In 2010, median MEDD before referral was 78 mg/d (IQR, 30 to 150); however, by 2015, the MEDD had progressively decreased to 40 mg/d (IQR, 19 to 80; P = .001). Hydrocodone was the most common opioid prescribed between 2010 and 2015; however, after its reclassification as a schedule II opioid in October 2014, the use of tramadol, a schedule IV opioid, increased ( P < .001)., Conclusion: During the past several years, the MEDD prescribed by referring oncologists has decreased. After hydrocodone reclassification, the use of tramadol with less stringent prescription limits has increased.

Importance: The use of benzodiazepines to control agitation in delirium in the last days of life is controversial., Objective: To compare the effect of lorazepam vs placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium in the setting of advanced cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted at an acute palliative care unit at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, enrolling 93 patients with advanced cancer and agitated delirium despite scheduled haloperidol from February 11, 2014, to June 30, 2016, with data collection completed in October 2016., Interventions: Lorazepam (3 mg) intravenously (n = 47) or placebo (n = 43) in addition to haloperidol (2 mg) intravenously upon the onset of an agitation episode., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score (range, -5 [unarousable] to 4 [very agitated or combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. Secondary end points were rescue neuroleptic use, delirium recall, comfort (perceived by caregivers and nurses), communication capacity, delirium severity, adverse effects, discharge outcomes, and overall survival., Results: Among 90 randomized patients (mean age, 62 years; women, 42 [47%]), 58 (64%) received the study medication and 52 (90%) completed the trial. Lorazepam + haloperidol resulted in a significantly greater reduction of RASS score at 8 hours (-4.1 points) than placebo + haloperidol (-2.3 points) (mean difference, -1.9 points [95% CI, -2.8 to -0.9]; P < .001). The lorazepam + haloperidol group required less median rescue neuroleptics (2.0 mg) than the placebo + haloperidol group (4.0 mg) (median difference, -1.0 mg [95% CI, -2.0 to 0]; P = .009) and was perceived to be more comfortable by both blinded caregivers and nurses (caregivers: 84% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 37% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 14% to 73%], P = .007; nurses: 77% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 30% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 17% to 71%], P = .005). No significant between-group differences were found in delirium-related distress and survival. The most common adverse effect was hypokinesia (3 patients in the lorazepam + haloperidol group [19%] and 4 patients in the placebo + haloperidol group [27%])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this preliminary trial of hospitalized patients with agitated delirium in the setting of advanced cancer, the addition of lorazepam to haloperidol compared with haloperidol alone resulted in a significantly greater reduction in agitation at 8 hours. Further research is needed to assess generalizability and adverse effects., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01949662.

Introduction: Delirium is the most common neuropsychiatric condition in very ill patients and those at the end of life. Previous case reports found that delirium-induced disinhibition may lead to overexpression of symptoms. It negatively affects communication between patients, family members, and the medical team and can sometimes lead to inappropriate interventions. Better understanding would result in improved care. Our aim was to determine the effect of delirium on the reporting of symptom severity in patients with advanced cancer., Methods: We reviewed 329 consecutive patients admitted to the acute palliative care unit (APCU) without a diagnosis of delirium from January to December 2011. Demographics, Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance status, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) on two time points were collected. The first time point was on admission and the second time point for group A was day one (+two days) of delirium. For group B, the second time point was within two to four days before discharge from the APCU. Patients who developed delirium and those who did not develop delirium during the entire course of admission were compared using chi-squared test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Paired t-test was used to assess if the change of ESAS from baseline to follow-up was associated with delirium., Results: Ninety-six of 329 (29%) patients developed delirium during their admission to the APCU. The median time to delirium was two days. There was no difference in the length of stay in the APCU for both groups. Patients who did not have delirium expressed improvement in all their symptoms, while those who developed delirium during hospitalization showed no improvement in physical symptoms and worsening in depression, anxiety, appetite, and well-being., Conclusion: Patients with delirium reported no improvement or worsening symptoms compared to patients without delirium. Screening for delirium is important in patients who continue to report worsening symptoms despite appropriate management.

Objective: There is a limited number of pragmatic studies to evaluate the criteria for referral to outpatient palliative care. The aim of our study was to compare the characteristics, symptoms, and survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) referred (RF) versus not referred (NRF) to a novel embedded same-day rapid-access supportive care clinic (RASCC) and to compare the subgroups among referred patients., Method: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who received treatment at the thoracic oncology clinic for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer between August 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, who were referred to the RASCC and those who were not referred. An oncology-estimated prognosis of ≤6 months and/or severe symptom distress was employed as criteria for referral to the RASCC., Results: Of 410 eligible patients, 155 (37.8%) were referred to the RASCC. RF patients had significantly higher patient-reported scores for pain, fatigue, lack of appetite, and symptom distress, as well as worse performance status and shorter survival than NRF patients. Among the RF patients, those who were referred early (≤3 months) had significantly worse symptom distress and shorter overall survival than patients who were referred later on. The patients treated by thoracic oncologists who referred a smaller proportion of their patients to the RASCC had significantly worse anxiety, well-being, spiritual pain, and symptom distress than patients treated by those who referred a larger proportion of their patients to the RASCC., Significance of Results: We found that patients who were referred to the RASCC had higher reported symptom distress and worse survival ratings. Further studies are needed to evaluate the optimal criteria for timely integration of palliative care and oncology care.

Background: Data on the use of question prompt sheets (QPSs) in palliative care are limited. Our team previously developed a single-page QPS using a Delphi process. The main objective of this study was to determine the perception of helpfulness of a QPS in patient-physician communication among advanced cancer outpatients., Methods: Hundred of 104 (96%) eligible patients and 68/68 (100%) caregivers received the QPS during their first palliative care clinic. Twelve palliative medicine specialists also participated in the study. Patient and physician perceptions about the QPS were assessed at the end of the visit. Patients' anxiety was also measured before and after consultation using the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory., Results: Among the responders, most agreed that the material was helpful in communicating with their doctor (77%), clear to understand (90%), had the right amount of information (87%), and they would use a similar material in the future (76%) and recommend it to other patients (70%). Overall, 92% were satisfied with their consultation visit. Physicians perceived that the QPS was helpful in 68% of the encounters and it did not prolong the consultation in 73% of the encounters. Physician agreement on helpfulness of the QPS was not significantly different from that of the patients (P = 0.3). Patient anxiety improved after consultation from a mean (SD) Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory score of 39.2 (12.8) to 33.8 (10.7), P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: The QPS was perceived as helpful in patient-physician communication among advanced cancer outpatients and it did not increase patient anxiety. Physicians similarly reported that the QPS was helpful and it did not prolong clinic visits. Further research is needed for its widespread adoption and integration into routine clinical practice., (Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Trust influences healthcare through the willingness to seek care, disclose sensitive information, adhere to treatment, and satisfaction with care. Understanding factors that influence trust may help in physician-patient relationship particularly at end of life., Objectives: We explored the association between trust and other demographic and psychosocial factors. We also explored the performance of the single-item Degree of Trust scale (0 best to 10 worst) compared with the validated five-item Trust in Medical Profession scale (5 best to 25 worst)., Design: A secondary analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Trust scores completed by 100 patients were correlated with age, gender, ethnicity, educational level, anxiety, depression, and hopefulness (Herth Hope Index [12 best to 48 worst])., Setting/subjects: The study was conducted on 100 patients in an outpatient Supportive Care Center in a cancer center in Houston, Texas., Results: Median age was 57 years (49-65), depression was 6 (3-9), and hopefulness was 22 (20-25). Trust in Medical Profession score was 13, 11-14 (median, IQR) and Degree of Trust score was 2, 1-4 (median, IQR) with moderate correlation (r = 0.587, p < 0.001). On evaluating performance of Degree of Trust scale to the validated Trust in Medical Profession scale, a moderately high performance was found (Youden's J = 0.73; Topleft = 0.21). Older age (p = 0.02) lower depression scores (p < 0.01) and more hopefulness (p = 0.01) were associated with higher levels of trust., Conclusions: Trust was associated with older age, less depressed, and more hopeful patients. A single 0-10 item trust scale was found to perform adequately compared with a multiple-item questionnaire.

Background: Clinician prediction of survival (CPS) has low accuracy in the advanced cancer setting, raising the need for prediction models such as the palliative prognostic (PaP) score that includes a transformed CPS (PaP-CPS) and five clinical/laboratory variables (PaP-without CPS). However, it is unclear if the PaP score is more accurate than PaP-CPS, and whether PaP-CPS helps to improve the accuracy of PaP score. We compared the accuracy among PaP-CPS, PaP-without CPS and PaP-total score in patients with advanced cancer., Patients and Methods: In this prospective study, PaP score was documented in hospitalised patients seen by palliative care. We compared the discrimination of PaP-CPS versus PaP-total and PaP-without CPS versus PaP-total using four indices: concordance statistics, area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC), net reclassification index and integrated discrimination improvement for 30-day survival and 100-day survival., Results: A total of 216 patients were enrolled with a median survival of 109 d (95% confidence interval [CI] 71-133 d). The AUC for 30-day survival was 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.67) for PaP-CPS, 0.78 (95% CI 0.7-0.87) for PaP-without CPS, and 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.82) for PaP-total score. PaP-total was significantly more accurate than PaP-CPS according to all four indices for both 30-day and 100-day survival (P < 0.001). PaP-without CPS was significantly more accurate than PaP-total for 30-day survival (P < 0.05)., Conclusion: We found that PaP score was more accurate than CPS, and the addition of CPS to the prognostic model reduced its accuracy. This study highlights the limitations of clinical gestalt and the need to use objective prognostic factors and models for survival prediction., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Palliative care (PC) training and integration with oncology care remain suboptimal. Current attitudes and beliefs of the oncology trainees regarding PC are not fully known. This study was undertaken in an attempt to address this issue., Participants and Methods: We conducted a survey to determine awareness of PC among graduate medical trainees at a comprehensive cancer center with an established PC program. One hundred seventy oncology trainees who completed$9 months of training in medical, surgical, gynecologic, and radiation oncology fellowships and residency programs during the 2013 academic year completed an online questionnaire. Descriptive, univariable, and multivariable analyses were performed., Results: The response rate was 78% (132 of 170 trainees); 10 trainees without hands-on patient care were excluded. Medical (53 of 60 [88%]), gynecologic (six of six [100%]), and radiation oncology (20 of 20 [100%]) trainees reported more awareness of PC compared with surgical oncology (22 of 36 [61%]) trainees (P = .001). One hundred twelve of 122 (92%) perceived PC as beneficial to patients and families. One hundred eight of 122 (89%) perceived that PC can reduce health care costs, 78 (64%) believed that PC can increase survival, and 90 (74%) would consult PC for a patient with newly diagnosed cancer with symptoms. Eighty-two trainees (67%) believed a mandatory PC rotation is important. Trainees with previous exposure to PC rotations were more aware of the role of PC services than were trainees without PC rotation (96% [46 of 48] v 74% [55 of 74]; P = .005, respectively)., Conclusion: Surgical trainees and trainees without previous PC rotation had significantly less awareness of PC. Overall, trainees perceived PC as beneficial to patients and capable of reducing costs while increasing survival; they also supported early PC referrals and endorsed a mandatory PC rotation., (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Checklists are used in many different settings for the purpose of standardization and reduction of preventable errors in practice. Our group sought to determine whether a palliative care checklist (PCC) would improve the clinical documentation of key patient information., Methods: An initial review of 110 randomly selected medical records dictated by 10 physicians was performed. The authors identified portions of the dictated medical records that were included regularly, as well as those that were frequently missed. A PCC was drafted after final approval was obtained from the 13 faculty members. Dictations from 13 clinical faculties in the supportive care center were reviewed. A χ(2) test or Fisher's exact test was applied to assess the difference in overall checked rates before and after checklist use. A paired t test was used to examine the difference in the average complete rate and checked rates before and after checklist use., Results: There were improvements in the documentation before and after the checklist for scores on the Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener questionnaire for alcoholism (79% v 94%; P ≤ .0001), psychosocial history (69% v 95%; P ≤ .0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (38% v 81%; P ≤ .0001), advance care planning (28% v 41%; P = .0008), and overall (78% v 95%; P ≤ .0001). There was no significant improvement in the documentation for opioid-induced neurotoxicity (37% v 37%; P = .9492) or the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (98% v 99%; P = .4511)., Conclusion: Our study showed that the use of a PCC improved the quality of the documentation of a patient visit in an outpatient clinical setting., (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: Palliative care (PC) referrals are often delayed for patients with hematologic malignancies. We examined the differences in attitudes and beliefs toward PC referral between hematologic and solid tumor specialists and how their perception changed with use of the service name "supportive care" (SC)., Materials and Methods: We randomly surveyed 120 hematologic and 120 solid tumor oncology specialists at our tertiary care cancer center to examine their attitudes and beliefs toward PC and SC referral., Results: Of the 240 specialists, 182 (76%) responded. Compared with solid tumor specialists, hematologic specialists were less likely to report that they would refer symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed cancer to PC (solid tumor, 43% vs. hematology, 21%; p = .002). A significantly greater proportion of specialists expressed that they would refer a patient with newly diagnosed cancer to SC than PC (solid tumor specialists: SC, 81% vs. PC, 43%; p < .001; hematology specialists: SC, 66% vs. PC, 21%; p < .001). The specialists perceived that PC was more likely than SC to be a barrier for referral (PC, 36% vs. SC, 3%; p < .001), to be synonymous with hospice (PC, 53% vs. SC, 6%; p < .001), to decrease hope (PC, 58% vs. SC, 8%; p < .001), and to be less appropriate for treatment of chemotherapy side effects (PC, 64% vs. SC, 19%; p < .001). On multivariate analysis, female clinicians (odds ratio [OR], 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-15.2; p = .02) and the perception that PC is a barrier for referral (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2-7.6; p = .02) were associated with PC referral if the service name "SC" was used., Conclusion: Hematologic specialists were less likely to refer patients early in the disease trajectory and were conducive to referral with the service name SC instead of PC., Implications for Practice: The present survey of oncology specialists found that hematologic specialists were less likely than solid tumor specialists to report that they would refer symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed cancer to palliative care. However, both groups were significantly more willing to refer patients early in the disease trajectory if the service name "supportive care" were used instead of "palliative care." These findings suggest that rebranding might help to overcome the stigma associated with palliative care and improve patient access to palliative care services., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Background: Delirium is one of the most common neuropsychiatric complications in advanced cancer patients with a frequency of up to 85 % before death. It is associated with adverse clinical outcomes such as increased morbidity and mortality as well as significant family and patient distress. The aim of our study is to determine at the frequency of missed delirium (MD) and identify factors associated with MD., Methods: Seven hundred seventy-one consecutive palliative care inpatient consults from August 1, 2009 to January 31, 2010 were reviewed. Demographics, Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), primary referral symptom, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), and physician diagnosis of delirium were collected along with delirium etiology, subtype, and reversibility. Delirium was diagnosed with a MDAS score of ≥ 7 or by a palliative medicine specialist using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV TR) Criteria. MD was reported in those patients found to have delirium by the palliative medicine specialists but were referred by the primary team for other reasons besides delirium. Chi-squared test and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test were used to examine the difference on measurements among or between different groups. Univariate logistic regression model was applied to assess for associations for MD., Results: Two hundred fifty-two (33 %) had a diagnosis of delirium by the palliative medicine specialist. One hundred fifty-three (61 %) were missed by the primary referring team. Females comprised 53 % (n = 81), white 62 % (n = 95), and pain was the most common referral symptom (n = 77, 50 %). Hypoactive delirium was the most common subtype of delirium in MD (n = 47, 63 %). Opioid-related delirium was the most common etiology of MD (n = 47, 31 %). Patients referred for pain were more likely to have MD (odds ratio (OR) = 2.57, p = 0.0109). Of the 82 patients with delirium that was reversed, 67 % (n = 55) had a diagnosis of MD., Conclusion: Sixty-one percent of patients with a diagnosis of delirium by a palliative care specialist were missed by the primary referring team. Patients with MD were frequently referred for pain. Universal screening of cancer patients for delirium is recommended.

Background: The opioid rotation ratios (ORRs) and conversion ratios (CRs) used worldwide among palliative care (PC) professionals to perform opioid rotations (ORs) and route conversions may have a wide variation. Methods: We surveyed PC professionals on opioid ratios used through email to the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer's PC study group and Twitter and Facebook posts between September and November 2020. Results: We received 370 responses from respondents from 53 countries: 276 (76%) were physicians, 46 (13%) advanced practice providers, 39 (11%) pharmacists, and 9 respondents did not report their profession. There were statistically significant variations in median CR from intravenous (IV) to oral morphine (2–3), IV to oral hydromorphone (2–4.5), ORR from IV hydromorphone to oral morphine (10–20), and ORR from transdermal fentanyl mcg/hour to oral morphine (2–3.5) across various groups. Conclusion: This survey highlights the wide variation in ORRs and CRs among PC clinicians worldwide and the need for further research to standardize practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence about the response of breakthrough pain (BTP) to the most commonly used oral immediate‐release (IR) opioids. Our aim was to determine response rate to oral IR opioids for BTP control in patients with advanced cancer. Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, palliative care outpatients, with advanced cancer and adequately managed background pain, were asked to complete a self‐administered survey. We assessed patients' baseline demographics, pain characteristics, alcoholism (CAGE questionnaire), tobacco and substance abuse, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scores (ESAS). We determined the effectiveness of oral IR BTP opioids by using a 7‐point Likert scale ranging from "very ineffective" to "very effective." "Effective" and "very effective" were defined a priori as a good response to IR opioids for BTP. Results: Of 592 evaluable patients, 192 (32%) had background pain of ≤3 (ESAS pain scale 0–10). Among these 192 patients, 152 (79%) reported BTP, 143/152 (94%) took oral IR opioids for BTP, and 127/143 (89%) responded to a median dose of 10% of the total morphine equivalent daily dose. In univariate logistic regression analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 per year; p =.008), higher ESAS scores for pain (OR, 1.32; p =.012), anxiety (OR, 1.24; p =.017), and dyspnea (OR, 1.31; p =.007) had statistically significant association with poor response to IR opioids for BTP. In multicovariate logistic regression, adjusted for age, a higher ESAS dyspnea score was significantly associated with poor response to oral IR opioids (OR, 1.44; p =.002). Conclusion: The vast majority of patients with advanced cancer with adequately controlled background pain reported a good response to oral IR opioids for BTP, supporting their use in clinical practice. Implications for Practice: Oral immediate‐release opioids are standard treatment for cancer breakthrough pain. However, information regarding treatment response to these commonly used opioids is limited. This study provides information that the vast majority of patients with advanced cancer, with adequately controlled background pain, reported good response to oral immediate release opioids for managing their breakthrough pain episodes. Results of this study support the use of conventional oral immediate release opioids that are relatively inexpensive and readily available for management of breakthrough pain in patients with advanced cancer. This article focuses on the response rate to short‐acting immediate‐release oral opioids for control of breakthrough pain in advanced cancer patients treated by palliative care physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding patients' decision control preferences is important in providing quality cancer care. Patients' decisional control preference can be either active (patients prefer to make decisions themselves), shared (collaborative between patient, their physician, and/or family), or passive (patients prefer that the decisions are made by either the physician and/or their family). Aim: To determine the frequency and predictors of passive decision control preferences among advanced cancer patients. We also determined the concordance between actual decision-making and decision control preferences and its association with patient satisfaction. Design: In this cross-sectional survey of advanced cancer patients referred to palliative care across 11 countries, we evaluated sociodemographic variables, Control Preference Scale, and satisfaction with the decisions and care. Results: A total of 1490 participants were evaluable. Shared, active, and passive decision control preferences were 33%, 44%, and 23%, respectively. Passive decision control preferences (odds ratio, p value) was more frequent in India (4.34, <0.001), Jordan (3.41, <0.001), and France (3.27, <0.001). Concordance between the actual decision-making and decision control preferences was highest in the United States (k = 0.74) and lowest in Brazil (0.34). Passive decision control preference was significantly associated with (odds ratio per point, p value) better performance status (0.99/point, 0.017), higher education (0.64, 0.001), and country of origin (Brazil (0.26, <0.0001), Singapore (0.25, 0.0003), South Africa (0.32, 0.0002), and Jordan (2.33, 0.0037)). Conclusion: Passive decision control preferences were less common (23%) than shared and active decision control preference even among developing countries. Significant predictors of passive decision control preferences were performance status, education, and country of origin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data are limited on the use and outcomes of urine drug tests (UDTs) among patients with advanced cancer. The main objective of this study was to determine the factors associated with UDT ordering and results in outpatients with advanced cancer.Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of 1058 patients who attended an outpatient supportive care clinic from March 2014 to November 2015. Sixty-one patients who were receiving chronic opioid therapy and underwent UDTs were identified. A control group of 120 patients who did not undergo UDTs was selected for comparison.Results: Sixty-one of 1058 patients (6%) underwent UDTs, and 33 of 61 patients (54%) had abnormal results. Multivariate analysis indicated that the odds ratio for UDT ordering was 3.9 in patients who had positive Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener (CAGE) questionnaire results (P = .002), 4.41 in patients aged < 45 years (P < .001), 5.58 in patients who had moderate-to-severe pain (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale pain scores ≥4; P < .001), 0.27 in patients with advanced-stage cancer, (P = .008), and 0.25 in patients who had moderate-to-severe fatigue (P = .001). Among 52 abnormal UDT results in 33 patients, the most common opioid findings were prescribed opioids absent in urine (14 of 52 tests; 27%) and unprescribed opioids in urine (13 of 52 tests; 25%).Conclusions: UDTs were used infrequently among outpatients with advanced cancer who were receiving chronic opioid therapy. Younger age, positive CAGE questionnaire results, early stage cancer or no evidence of disease status, higher pain intensity, and lower fatigue scores were significant predictors of UDT ordering. More than 50% of UDT results were abnormal. More research is necessary to better characterize aberrant opioid use in patients with advanced cancer. Cancer 2016;122:3732-9. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Delirium is a common neuropsychiatric condition seen in patients with severe illness, such as advanced cancer. Few published studies are available of the frequency, course, and outcomes of standardized management of delirium in advanced cancer patients admitted to acute palliative care unit (APCU). In this study, we examined the frequency, characteristics, and outcomes of delirium in patients with advanced cancer admitted to an APCU. Methods. Medical records of 609 consecutive patients admitted to the APCU from January 2011 through December 2011 were reviewed. Data on patients' demographics; Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) score; palliative care specialist (PCS) diagnosis of delirium; delirium etiology, subtype, and reversibility; late development of delirium; and discharge outcome were collected. Delirium was diagnosed with MDAS score ≥7 and by a PCS using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition, Text Revision criteria. All patients admitted to the APCU received standardized assessments and management of delirium per best practice guidelines in delirium management. Results. Of 556 patients in the APCU, 323 (58%) had a diagnosis of delirium. Of these, 229 (71%) had a delirium diagnosis on admission and 94 (29%) developed delirium after admission to the APCU. Delirium reversed in 85 of 323 episodes (26%). Half of patients with delirium (n 5 162) died. Patients with the diagnosis of delirium had a lower median overall survival than those withoutdelirium. Patients who developed delirium after admission to the APCU had poorer survival (p ≤ .0001) and a lower rate of delirium reversal (p = .03) compared with those admitted with delirium. Conclusion. More than half of the patients admitted to the APCU had delirium. Reversibility occurred in almost one-third of cases. Diagnosis of delirium was associated with poorer survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delirium is one of the most common neuropsychiatric complications in advanced cancer patients with a frequency of up to 85 % before death. It is associated with adverse clinical outcomes such as increased morbidity and mortality as well as significant family and patient distress. The aim of our study is to determine at the frequency of missed delirium (MD) and identify factors associated with MD. Methods: Seven hundred seventy-one consecutive palliative care inpatient consults from August 1, 2009 to January 31, 2010 were reviewed. Demographics, Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), primary referral symptom, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), and physician diagnosis of delirium were collected along with delirium etiology, subtype, and reversibility. Delirium was diagnosed with a MDAS score of ≥7 or by a palliative medicine specialist using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV TR) Criteria. MD was reported in those patients found to have delirium by the palliative medicine specialists but were referred by the primary team for other reasons besides delirium. Chi-squared test and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test were used to examine the difference on measurements among or between different groups. Univariate logistic regression model was applied to assess for associations for MD. Results: Two hundred fifty-two (33 %) had a diagnosis of delirium by the palliative medicine specialist. One hundred fifty-three (61 %) were missed by the primary referring team. Females comprised 53 % ( n = 81), white 62 % ( n = 95), and pain was the most common referral symptom ( n = 77, 50 %). Hypoactive delirium was the most common subtype of delirium in MD ( n = 47, 63 %). Opioid-related delirium was the most common etiology of MD ( n = 47, 31 %). Patients referred for pain were more likely to have MD (odds ratio (OR) = 2.57, p = 0.0109). Of the 82 patients with delirium that was reversed, 67 % ( n = 55) had a diagnosis of MD. Conclusion: Sixty-one percent of patients with a diagnosis of delirium by a palliative care specialist were missed by the primary referring team. Patients with MD were frequently referred for pain. Universal screening of cancer patients for delirium is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Cancer pain management guidelines recommend initial treatment with intermediate-strength analgesics such as hydrocodone and subsequent escalation to stronger opioids such as morphine. There are no published studies on the process of opioid rotation (OR) from hydrocodone to strong opioids in cancer patients. Our aim was to determine the opioid rotation ratio (ORR) of hydrocodone to morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) in cancer outpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of consecutive patient visits at our supportive care center in 2011-2012 for OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioids. Data regarding demographics, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and MEDD were collected from patients who returned for follow-up within 6 weeks. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the ORR between hydrocodone and MEDD. Successful OR was defined as 2-point or 30% reduction in the pain score and continuation of the new opioid at follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 170 patients underwent OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioid. The median age was 59 years, and 81% had advanced cancer. The median time between OR and follow-up was 21 days. We found 53% had a successful OR with significant improvement in the ESAS pain and symptom distress scores. In 100 patients with complete OR and no worsening of pain at follow-up, the median ORR from hydrocodone to MEDD was 1.5 (quintiles 1-3: 0.9-2). The ORR was associated with hydrocodone dose (r = -.52; p < .0001) and was lower in patients receiving ≥40 mg of hydrocodone per day (p < .0001). The median ORR of hydrocodone to morphine was 1.5 (n = 44) and hydrocodone to oxycodone was 0.9 (n = 24). CONCLUSION: The median ORR from hydrocodone to MEDD was 1.5 and varied according to hydrocodone dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. Improper storage, use, and disposal of prescribed opioids can lead to diversion or accidental poisoning. Our objective was to determine the patterns of storage, utilization, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients. Patients and Methods.We surveyed 300 adult cancer outpatients receiving opioids in our supportive care center and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal, along with scores on the CAGE (cut down, annoyed, guilty, eye-opener) alcoholism screening questionnaire. Unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids; unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight. Results. The median age was 57 years. CAGE was positive in 58 of 300 patients (19%), and 26 (9%) had a history of illicit drug use. Fifty-six (19%) stored opioids in plain sight, 208 (69%) kept opioids hidden but unlocked, and only 28 (9%) locked their opioids. CAGE-positive patients (p 5 .007) and those with a history of illicit drug use (p5.0002) or smoking (p5.03) were more likely to lock their opioids. Seventy-eight (26%) reported unsafe use by sharing (9%) or losing (17%) their opioids. Patients who were never married or single (odds ratio: 2.92; 95% confidence interval: 1.48-5.77; p 5 .006), were CAGE positive (40% vs. 21%; p5.003), or had a history of illicit drug use (42% vs. 23%; p 5 .031) were more likely to use opioids unsafely. Overall, 223 of 300 patients (74%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, and 138 (46%) had unused opioids at home. Conclusion. A large proportion of cancer patients improperly and unsafely use, store, and dispose of opioids, highlighting the need for establishment of easily accessed patient education and drug take-back programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palliative care is seeing cancer patients earlier in the disease trajectory with a multitude of chronic issues. Chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) in cancer patients is under-studied. In this prospective study, we examined the prevalence and management of CNMP in cancer patients seen at our supportive care clinic for consultation. We systematically characterized each pain type with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and documented current treatments. The attending physician made the pain diagnoses according to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) task force classification. Among 200 patients (mean age 60 years, 69% metastatic disease, 1-year survival of 77%), the median number of pain diagnosis was 2 (IQR 1–2); 67 (34%, 95% CI 28–41%) had a diagnosis of CNMP; 133 (67%) had cancer-related pain; and 52 (26%) had treatment-related pain. In total, 12/31 (39%) patients with only CNMP and 21/36 (58%) patients with CNMP and other pain diagnoses were on opioids. There was a total of 94 CNMP diagnoses among 67 patients, including 37 (39%) osteoarthritis and 20 (21%) lower back pain; 30 (32%) were treated with opioids. In summary, CNMP was common in the timely palliative care setting and many patients were on opioids. Our findings highlight the need to develop clinical guidelines for CNMP in cancer patients to standardize its management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An international panel achieved consensus on 9 need-based and 2 time-based major referral criteria to identify patients appropriate for outpatient palliative care referral. To better understand the operational characteristics of these criteria, we examined the proportion and timing of patients who met these referral criteria at our Supportive Care Clinic.Methods: We retrieved data on consecutive patients with advanced cancer who were referred to our Supportive Care Clinic between January 1, 2016, and February 18, 2016. We examined the proportion of patients who met each major criteria and its timing.Results: Among 200 patients (mean age 60, 53% female), the median overall survival from outpatient palliative care referral was 14 (95% confidence interval 9.2, 17.5) months. A majority (n = 170, 85%) of patients met at least 1 major criteria; specifically, 28%, 30%, 20%, and 8% met 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4 criteria, respectively. The most commonly met need-based criteria were severe physical symptoms (n = 140, 70%), emotional symptoms (n = 36, 18%), decision-making needs (n = 26, 13%), and brain/leptomeningeal metastases (n = 25, 13%). For time-based criteria, 54 (27%) were referred within 3 months of diagnosis of advanced cancer and 63 (32%) after progression from ≥ 2 lines of palliative systemic therapy. The median duration from patient first meeting any criterion to palliative care referral was 2.4 (interquartile range 0.1, 8.6) months.Conclusions: Patients were referred early to our palliative care clinic and a vast majority (85%) of them met at least one major criteria. Standardized referral based on these criteria may facilitate even earlier referral. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Assessment of cancer-related fatigue is currently based on patient-reported outcomes. We asked whether objective assessments, such as muscle strength and nutritional markers, can be used as surrogate measures of cancer-related fatigue.Objective: We examined the association among three fatigue scales, muscle strength, and nutritional markers in patients with advanced cancer.Methods: In this prospective study, we enrolled hospitalized cancer patients who had been seen in palliative care consultation at MD Anderson Cancer Center. We assessed fatigue using three fatigue scales-the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30)-and determined their association with objective assessments, including handgrip strength, maximal inspiratory pressure, lean body mass, phase angle, and albumin. Spearman's correlation test was used to assess associations.Results: Among 222 patients, the mean age was 55 years; 59% were women. The median overall survival was 106 days. The total BFI score had weak association with handgrip strength (ρ = -0.18, P = 0.007) and no association with the remaining objective measures. ESAS fatigue and EORTC fatigue showed similar findings. Total BFI had moderate-to-strong association with ESAS (ρ = 0.54, P < 0.0001) and EORTC (ρ = 0.60, P < 0.0001) fatigue.Conclusion: Our study showed that subjective assessment of fatigue based on patient-reported outcomes correlates only weakly with muscle strength and nutritional markers; thus, patient-reported outcomes remain the gold standard for fatigue assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Palliative care referrals (PCRs) improve symptom management, provide psychosocial and spiritual support, clarify goals of care, and facilitate discharge planning. However, very late PCR can result in increased clinician distress and prevent patients and families from benefiting from the full spectrum of interdisciplinary care.Objectives: To determine the frequency and predictors of PCR within 24 hours of death.Methods: Consecutive first-time inpatient PCR from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017 was identified to determine the frequency and predictors of referrals within 24 hours of death. We compared the clinical characteristics with a random sample of patients discharged alive or died more than 24 hours after first-time PCR as a control, stratified by year of consult in a 1:1 ratio.Results: Of 7322 first-time PCRs, 154 (2%) died within 24 hours of referral. These patients were older (P = 0.003) and had higher scores for depression (P = 0.0009), drowsiness (P = 0.02), and shortness of breath (P = 0.008) compared with a random sample of 153 patients discharged alive or died more than 24 hours after first-time PCR. Patients who received a PCR within 24 hours of death were more likely than the control group to have Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 4 (95% vs. 25%, P < 0.0001), delirium (89% vs. 17%, P < 0.0001), do-not-resuscitate code status (81% vs. 18%, P < 0.0001), and hematologic malignancies (39% vs. 16%, P < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis, depression (odds ratio [OR] 1.4; P = 0.005), do-not-resuscitate code status (OR 9.1; P = 0.003), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 4 (OR 9.8; P = 0.003) were independently associated with first-time PCR within 24 hours of death.Conclusion: Although only a small proportion of first-time PCR occurred in the last 24 hours of life, the patients had a significant amount of distress, indicating a missed opportunity for timely palliative care intervention. These sentinel events call for specific guidelines to better support patients, families, and clinicians during this difficult time. Further research is needed to understand how to minimize very late PCR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Limited access to opioids for patients with cancer has been reported as a potential unintended consequence of recent regulations restricting opioid use and prescribing practices. To our knowledge, there are a limited number of peer-reviewed studies that evaluate the perceived difficulties of the patients with cancer when filling their opioid prescription. To understand these difficulties, we surveyed patients receiving opioids in our outpatient supportive care center (SCC).Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate cancer patients' perceptions of overall difficulties when filling their opioid prescription. Secondary objectives included determining associations between patient characteristics and difficulty and comparing difficulty between filling opioid and nonopioid prescriptions.Methods: Patients with cancer receiving opioids that had been seen two times or more at our SCC were asked to complete a survey. The information collected included patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and patients' experiences filling their opioid prescription.Results: The patients' median age was 60 years; 54% were female and 69% were white. Forty-four patients (32%) reported that they have experienced difficulty filling their opioid prescription. More than 25% of those 44 patients perceived difficulty from interactions with the pharmacy and/or pharmacist. Forty-six patients (33%) reported more difficulty filling their opioid prescriptions than filling their nonopioid prescriptions.Conclusion: This study provides evidence that patients with cancer visiting our SCC perceived difficulties obtaining their opioid prescriptions. The results suggest that negative interactions with the pharmacy and/or pharmacist contribute to their perceived difficulty. Additional research is needed to further characterize the contributors of the difficulties patients with cancer face in filling their opioid prescriptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]