Search

Objectives Since 2015, the Harvard Workshop on Research Methods in Supportive Oncology has trained early-career investigators in skills to develop rigorous studies in supportive oncology. This study examines workshop evaluations over time in the context of two factors: longitudinal participant feedback and a switch from in-person to virtual format during the COVID pandemic. Methods We examined post-workshop evaluations for participants who attended the workshop from 2015 to 2021. We qualitatively analyzed evaluation free text responses on ways in which the workshop could be improved and “other comments.” Potential areas of improvement were categorized and frequencies were compiled longitudinally. Differences in participants' ratings of the workshop and demographics between in-person and virtual formats were investigated with t-tests and Chi-square tests, respectively. Results 286 participants attended the workshop over 8 years. Participant ratings of the workshop remained consistently high without substantial variation across all years. Three main themes emerged from the “other comments” item: (1) sense of community; (2) passion and empowerment; and (3) value of protected time. Participants appeared to identify fewer areas for improvement over time. There were no significant differences in participant ratings or demographics between the in-person and virtual formats. Signifinace of results While the workshop has experienced changes over time, participant evaluations varied little. The core content and structure might have the greatest influence on participants’ experiences.

Patients taking adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) after breast cancer face adherence challenges and symptom-related distress. We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a telehealth intervention (Symptom-Targeted Randomized Intervention for Distress and Adherence to Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy [STRIDE]) for patients taking AET.From October 2019 to June 2021, 100 patients reporting difficulty with AET were randomly assigned to either STRIDE or a medication monitoring (MedMon) control group. STRIDE included six weekly small-group videoconferencing sessions and two individual calls. We defined feasibility as having50% of eligible patients enroll,70% complete the 12-week assessment, and 70% of STRIDE patients complete ≥4/6 sessions. We monitored adherence with the Medication Event Monitoring System Caps (MEMS Caps). At baseline and 12- and 24-weeks after baseline, patients self-reported adherence (Medication Adherence Report Scale), AET satisfaction (Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire), symptom distress (Breast Cancer Prevention Trial-Symptom Checklist), self-management of symptoms (Self-efficacy for Symptom Management-AET), coping (Measure of Current Status), quality of life (QOL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast), and mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). We used linear mixed effects models to assess the effect of STRIDE on longitudinal outcomes.We enrolled 70.9% (100/141) of eligible patients; 92% completed the 12-week assessment, and 86% completed ≥4/6 STRIDE sessions. Compared with MedMon, STRIDE patients reported less symptom distress (B[difference] = -1.91; 95% CI, -3.29 to -0.52; p = .007) and better self-management of AET symptoms, coping, QOL, and mood. We did not observe significant differences in AET satisfaction or adherence.STRIDE is feasible and acceptable, showing promise for improving outcomes in patients taking AET after breast cancer.Patients taking adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) after breast cancer may face challenges while following their treatment regimen. In this randomized controlled trial of 100 patients taking AET, a brief, small-group virtual intervention (STRIDE) was well-received by patients and led to improvements in how upset patients were due to symptoms, how confident they were in managing symptoms, and how well they could cope with stress. Thus, STRIDE is a promising intervention and should be tested in future multi-site trials.

BACKGROUND: Each year, approximately one million older adults die in American ICUs or survive with significant functional impairment. Inadequate symptom management, surrogates’ psychological distress and inappropriate healthcare use are major concerns. Pioneering work by Dr. J. Randall Curtis paved the way for integrating palliative care (PC) specialists to address these needs, but convincing proof of efficacy has not yet been demonstrated. DESIGN: We will conduct a multicenter patient-randomized efficacy trial of integrated specialty PC (SPC) versus usual care for 500 high-risk ICU patients over age 60 and their surrogate decision-makers from five hospitals in Pennsylvania. INTERVENTION: The intervention will follow recommended best practices for inpatient PC consultation. Patients will receive care from a multidisciplinary SPC team within 24 hours of enrollment that continues until hospital discharge or death. SPC clinicians will meet with patients, families, and the ICU team every weekday. SPC and ICU clinicians will jointly participate in proactive family meetings according to a predefined schedule. Patients in the control arm will receive routine ICU care. OUTCOMES: Our primary outcome is patient-centeredness of care, measured using the modified Patient Perceived Patient-Centeredness of Care (PPPC) scale. Secondary outcomes include surrogates’ psychological symptom burden and health resource utilization. Other outcomes include patient survival, as well as interprofessional collaboration. We will also conduct prespecified subgroup analyses using variables such as PC needs, measured by the Needs of Social Nature, Existential Concerns, Symptoms, and Therapeutic Interaction (NEST) scale. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide robust evidence about the impact of integrating SPC with critical care on patient, family, and health system outcomes.

Supplementary Tables 1-2

Supplementary Figures

Supplementary methods, figure legends

Purpose:Current standard initial therapy for advanced, ROS proto-oncogene 1, receptor tyrosine kinase fusion (ROS1)-positive (ROS1+) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is crizotinib or entrectinib. Lorlatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase/ROS1 inhibitor, recently demonstrated efficacy in ROS1+ NSCLC, including in crizotinib-pretreated patients. However, mechanisms of lorlatinib resistance in ROS1+ disease remain poorly understood. Here, we assessed mechanisms of resistance to crizotinib and lorlatinib.Experimental Design:Biopsies from patients with ROS1+ NSCLC progressing on crizotinib or lorlatinib were profiled by genetic sequencing.Results:From 55 patients, 47 post-crizotinib and 32 post-lorlatinib biopsies were assessed. Among 42 post-crizotinib and 28 post-lorlatinib biopsies analyzed at distinct timepoints, ROS1 mutations were identified in 38% and 46%, respectively. ROS1 G2032R was the most commonly occurring mutation in approximately one third of cases. Additional ROS1 mutations included D2033N (2.4%) and S1986F (2.4%) post-crizotinib and L2086F (3.6%), G2032R/L2086F (3.6%), G2032R/S1986F/L2086F (3.6%), and S1986F/L2000V (3.6%) post-lorlatinib. Structural modeling predicted ROS1L2086F causes steric interference to lorlatinib, crizotinib, and entrectinib, while it may accommodate cabozantinib. In Ba/F3 models, ROS1L2086F, ROS1G2032R/L2086F, and ROS1S1986F/G2032R/L2086F were refractory to lorlatinib but sensitive to cabozantinib. A patient with disease progression on crizotinib and lorlatinib and ROS1 L2086F received cabozantinib for nearly 11 months with disease control. Among lorlatinib-resistant biopsies, we also identified MET amplification (4%), KRAS G12C (4%), KRAS amplification (4%), NRAS mutation (4%), and MAP2K1 mutation (4%).Conclusions:ROS1 mutations mediate resistance to crizotinib and lorlatinib in more than one third of cases, underscoring the importance of developing next-generation ROS1 inhibitors with potency against these mutations, including G2032R and L2086F. Continued efforts are needed to elucidate ROS1-independent resistance mechanisms.

The NTRK genes encode the TRK proteins. NTRK fusions lead to constitutively active, ligand-independent downstream signaling. NTRK fusions are implicated in up to 1% of all solid tumors and 0.2% of NSCLC. Larotrectinib, a highly selective small molecule inhibitor of all three TRK proteins, has a response rate of 75% across a wide range of solid tumors. Mechanisms of primary resistance to larotrectinib are not well understood. We report a case of a 75-year-old male with minimal smoking history with NTRK fusion-positive metastatic squamous NSCLC with primary resistance to larotrectinib. We suggest subclonal NTRK fusion as a possible mechanism contributing to primary resistance to larotrectinib.

PURPOSE: Preoperative therapy for pancreatic cancer represents a new treatment option with the potential to improve outcomes for patients, yet with complex risks. By not discussing the potential risks and benefits of new treatment options, clinicians may hinder patients from making informed decisions. METHODS: From 2017 to 2019, we conducted a mixed-methods study. First, we elicited clinicians' (n = 13 medical, radiation, and surgery clinicians), patients' (n = 18), and caregivers' (n = 14) perceptions of information needed for decision making regarding preoperative therapy and generated a list of key elements. Next, we audio-recorded patients' (n = 20) initial multidisciplinary oncology visits and used qualitative content analyses to describe how clinicians discussed this information and surveyed patients to ask if they heard each key element. RESULTS: We identified 13 key elements of information patients need when making decisions regarding preoperative therapy, including treatment complications, alternatives, logistics, and potential outcomes. Patients reported hearing infrequently about complications (eg, hospitalizations [n = 3 of 20]) and alternatives (n = 8 of 20) but frequently recalled logistics and potential outcomes (eg, likelihood of surgery [n = 19 of 20]). Clinicians infrequently discussed complications (eg, hospitalizations [n = 7 of 20]), but frequently discussed alternatives, logistics, and potential outcomes (eg, likelihood of surgery [n = 20 of 20]). No overarching differences in clinician discussion content emerged to explain why patients did or did not hear about each key element. CONCLUSION: We identified key elements of information patients with pancreatic cancer need when considering preoperative therapy. Patients infrequently heard about treatment complications and alternatives, while frequently hearing about logistics and potential outcomes, underscoring areas for improvement in educating patients about new treatment options in oncology.

Background: Studies show that early, integrated palliative care (PC) improves quality of life (QoL) and end-of-life (EoL) care for patients with poor-prognosis cancers. However, the optimal strategy for delivering PC for those with advanced cancers who have longer disease trajectories, such as metastatic breast cancer (MBC), remains unknown. We tested the effect of a PC intervention on the documentation of EoL care discussions, patient-reported outcomes, and hospice utilization in this population. Patients and Methods: Patients with MBC and clinical indicators of poor prognosis (n=120) were randomly assigned to receive an outpatient PC intervention (n=61) or usual care (n=59) between May 2, 2016, and December 26, 2018, at an academic cancer center. The intervention entailed 5 structured PC visits focusing on symptom management, coping, prognostic awareness, decision-making, and EoL planning. The primary outcome was documentation of EoL care discussions in the electronic health record (EHR). Secondary outcomes included patient-report of discussions with clinicians about EoL care, QoL, and mood symptoms at 6, 12, 18, and 24 weeks after baseline and hospice utilization. Results: The rate of EoL care discussions documented in the EHR was higher among intervention patients versus those receiving usual care (67.2% vs 40.7%; P=.006), including a higher completion rate of a Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment form (39.3% vs 13.6%; P=.002). Intervention patients were also more likely to report discussing their EoL care wishes with their doctor (odds ratio [OR], 3.10; 95% CI, 1.21–7.94; P=.019) and to receive hospice services (OR, 4.03; 95% CI, 1.10–14.73; P=.035) compared with usual care patients. Study groups did not differ in patient-reported QoL or mood symptoms. Conclusions: This PC intervention significantly improved rates of discussion and documentation regarding EoL care and delivery of hospice services among patients with MBC, demonstrating that PC can be tailored to address the supportive care needs of patients with longer disease trajectories. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02730858

Background: Older adults account for 70% of cancer-related deaths, but previous studies have shown that they are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. We sought to analyze the representation and outcomes of older adults in trials conducted in the era of novel targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Methods: We searched the 2020 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology and retrieved trials from the past 10 years leading to category 1 recommendations in the first-line metastatic setting for the 5 most common causes of cancer death. We categorized trials by cancer type, single-agent versus multiagent approach, and therapeutic class. We described the percentage of older adults (according to each trial’s definition) and used a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects meta-analysis model to compare overall and progression-free survival by age. Results: We identified 30 trials consisting of 24,416 patients. Across all trials, 44% of enrolled patients were older adults. Representation of older adults by cancer type within trials was 49% prostate cancer, 38% pancreatic cancer, 37% breast cancer, and 34% non–small cell lung cancer. Representation of older adults also varied by therapeutic class: 20% received immunotherapy, 44% received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 54% received targeted/hormonal therapy, and 34% received combination therapy (PConclusions: We found that >40% of patients in practice-changing trials are older adults. Although they remain underrepresented in clinical trials compared with the general population, older adults in practice-changing trials seem to be better represented than in previously reported analyses of cooperative group trials.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care improves symptoms and coping in patients with advanced cancers, but has not been evaluated for patients with curable solid malignancies. Because of the tremendous symptom burden and high rates of psychological distress in head and neck cancer (HNC), we evaluated feasibility and acceptability of a palliative care intervention in patients with HNC receiving curative-intent chemoradiation therapy (CRT). METHODS: This was a prospective single-arm study in HNC patients receiving CRT at a single center in the United States. The intervention entailed weekly palliative care visits integrated with oncology care with a focus on symptoms and coping. The primary outcome was feasibility, defined as a >50% enrollment rate with >70% of patients attending at least half of the visits. To assess acceptability, we collected satisfaction ratings post-intervention. We also explored symptom burden, mood, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: We enrolled 91% (20/22) of eligible patients. Patients attended 133 of 138 palliative care visits (96%); all 20 attended >85% of visits. Eighteen of 19 (95%) found the intervention “very helpful” and would “definitely recommend” it. QOL and symptom burden worsened from baseline to week 5, but subsequently improved at one-month post-CRT. Overall, patients valued the one-on-one format of the intervention and receipt of additional care. CONCLUSIONS: Our palliative care intervention during highly morbid CRT was feasible and acceptable with high enrollment, excellent intervention compliance, and high patient satisfaction. Future randomized studies will further explore the impact on patient-reported outcomes and health care utilization.

Context Targeted therapy has revolutionized lung cancer treatment and markedly increased survival, though data are lacking on patient-reported and end-of-life (EOL) outcomes among patients receiving targeted therapy. Objectives This study aimed to compare quality of life (QOL), symptoms, prognostic communication, and EOL care between patients receiving targeted therapy and patients with lung cancer without targetable mutations. Methods In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial of early palliative care in advanced lung cancer (n=154), we compared change in QOL and symptoms (per the Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment [FACT]-Lung scale) over 24 weeks among patients with lung cancer receiving targeted therapy versus those without targetable mutations using linear mixed effects models, adjusted for receipt of palliative care, age and gender. We also compared prognostic communication and decedents’ EOL health care utilization using logistic regression, adjusted for palliative care. Results Compared to individuals without targetable mutations, patients receiving targeted therapy (n=35) reported greater improvements in QOL (FACT-General B=0.46; 95% CI=0.19, 0.73) and symptoms (FACT-Lung Cancer Subscale B=0.12; 95% CI=0.03, 0.20) over time, independent of palliative care. Patients receiving targeted therapy were also more likely to report they rarely discussed prognosis with their clinicians (OR=2.59, 95% CI=1.01, 6.63) and were more likely to receive cancer-directed therapy in their last 14 days of life (OR=14.98, 95% CI=4.08, 54.96). Conclusions Relative to patients without targetable mutations, patients with lung cancer who receive targeted therapy experience improved QOL and symptoms, are less likely to discuss prognosis early in their illness course, and more likely to continue treatment until death and die in the hospital.

Most patients report pain while taking adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) for the treatment of breast cancer. While studies have examined patients' experiences with side effects, none solely capture patients' experiences with AET-related pain, a troubling symptom that reduces quality of life and impairs treatment adherence. This study explored themes of AET-related pain to inform future intervention development.Between November 2017 and November 2018, female patients (n = 30) with early-stage breast cancer enrolled between 3 and 36 months post-initiation of AET. Purposeful sampling was stratified by adherence level, age, distress level and time taking AET. Study staff conducted, transcribed and coded semi-structured interviews via inductive thematic coding to identify pain-related themes and achieved high inter-coded reliability (Kappa = 0.96).Several pain-related themes were observed. Attitudes around pain are generally negative, and management needs are largely unmet. Patients reported preferences for non-pharmacological management strategies and cited AET pain as a reason for medication breaks but not discontinuation. Patients within 19 months of starting AET and low adherers reported more intense and disruptive pain.Patients' experiences varied by patient attributes and revealed modifiable factors that may be targeted through behavioural interventions. AET-related pain is a complex side effect for which psychosocial support may be beneficial.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends that outpatient specialty palliative care (OSPC) be offered within 8 weeks of an advanced cancer diagnosis. To meet the rising demand, there has been an increase in the availability of OSPC services at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers; however, many OSPC referrals still occur late in the disease course.Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we evaluated facilitators and barriers to early OSPC implementation and associated clinic characteristics.We selected relevant CFIR constructs for inclusion in a survey that was distributed to the OSPC clinic leader at each NCI-designated cancer center. For each statement, respondents were instructed to rate the degree to which they agreed on a 5-point Likert scale. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses to survey items and explore differences in barriers based on OSPC clinic size and maturity.Of 60 eligible sites, 40 (67%) completed the survey. The most commonly agreed upon barriers to early OSPC included inadequate number of OSPC providers (73%), lack of performance metric goals (65%), insufficient space to deliver early OSPC (58%), logistical challenges created by early OSPC (55%), and absence of formal interdisciplinary communication systems (53%). The most frequently reported barriers differed according to clinic size and maturity.Most barriers were modifiable in nature and related to the "Inner Setting" domain of the CFIR, which highlights the need for careful strategic planning by leadership when implementing early OSPC.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members’ clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention among patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with pancreatic cancer from a parent trial of neoadjuvant fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX). The intervention entailed (1) remote monitoring of patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; (2) a hospital-at-home care model; and (3) structured communication with the oncology team. We defined the intervention as feasible if ≥ 60% of patients enrolled in the study and ≥ 60% completed the daily assessments within the first 2-weeks of enrollment. We determined rates of treatment delays, urgent clinic visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations among those who did (n = 20) and did not (n = 24) receive Supportive Oncology Care at Home from the parent trial. RESULTS: From January 2019 to September 2020, we enrolled 80.8% (21/26) of potentially eligible patients. One patient became ineligible following consent because of moving out of state, resulting in 20 participants (median age = 67 years). In the first 2 weeks of enrollment, 65.0% of participants completed all daily assessments. Overall, patients reported 96.1% of daily symptoms, 96.1% of daily vital signs, and 92.5% of weekly body weights. Patients receiving the intervention had lower rates of treatment delays (55.0% v 75.0%), urgent clinic visits (10.0% v 25.0%), and emergency department visits/hospitalizations (45.0% v 62.5%) compared with those not receiving the intervention from the same parent trial. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention. Future work will investigate the efficacy of this intervention for decreasing health care use and improving patient outcomes.

An inpatient palliative care intervention during HCT led to improvement in patient QOL and mood. We sought to describe components of the intervention, investigate differences in supportive care practices by treatment arm, and explore whether these differences mediated the impact of the intervention on patient QOL and mood. We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized trial investigating inpatient palliative care integrated with transplant care versus standard transplant care for HCT recipients. Palliative care clinicians completed weekly surveys to describe topics addressed during visits. We extracted use of supportive care medications from the medical record. Participants completed QOL and mood assessments at baseline and two weeks post-HCT. Causal mediation assessed whether differences in supportive care practices mediated the impact of the intervention on patient-reported outcomes. A total of 160 HCT recipients participated. Palliative care visits most frequently focused on managing symptoms and coping with HCT. Patients randomized to the intervention were more likely to use Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA) (32.1% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.02) and atypical antipsychotics (35.8% vs. 17.7%, p = 0.01). Neither PCA nor atypical antipsychotics mediated the effect of the intervention on patient-reported outcomes. Future work to explore mechanisms by which the palliative care intervention improves QOL and mood is needed.

Molecularly targeted therapies have revolutionized non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment. Many patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving targeted therapy may live several years with incurable cancer. We sought to describe how these metastatic cancer survivors and their caregivers experience uncertainty about the future and identify their unmet supportive care needs. We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving targeted therapy (n = 39) and their caregivers (n = 16). We used a framework approach to code and analyze the qualitative data. Metastatic lung cancer survivors described awareness of their mortality and the possibility that their cancer could progress at any time. Though some found ways to cope, many felt inadequately supported to manage their distress, especially since they were “doing fine medically.” Survivors struggled with decisions about working and managing their finances given their uncertain life expectancy and sought trustworthy lung cancer information in plain language. They wished to compare experiences with other patients with their molecular subtype of NSCLC. Participants desired comprehensive cancer care that includes psychosocial support, preparation for the future, and ways to promote their own health, such as through lifestyle changes. Patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving targeted therapy and their caregivers experience distress related to living with uncertainty and desire more coping support, connection with peers, information, and healthy lifestyle guidance. Patients living with treatable yet incurable cancer and their caregivers are a growing population of cancer survivors. Recognition of their unmet needs may inform the development of tailored support services to help them live well with cancer.

Purpose: Current standard initial therapy for advanced, ROS proto-oncogene 1, receptor tyrosine kinase fusion (ROS1)-positive (ROS1+) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is crizotinib or entrectinib. Lorlatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase/ROS1 inhibitor, recently demonstrated efficacy in ROS1+ NSCLC, including in crizotinib-pretreated patients. However, mechanisms of lorlatinib resistance in ROS1+ disease remain poorly understood. Here, we assessed mechanisms of resistance to crizotinib and lorlatinib. Experimental Design: Biopsies from patients with ROS1+ NSCLC progressing on crizotinib or lorlatinib were profiled by genetic sequencing. Results: From 55 patients, 47 post-crizotinib and 32 post-lorlatinib biopsies were assessed. Among 42 post-crizotinib and 28 post-lorlatinib biopsies analyzed at distinct timepoints, ROS1 mutations were identified in 38% and 46%, respectively. ROS1 G2032R was the most commonly occurring mutation in approximately one third of cases. Additional ROS1 mutations included D2033N (2.4%) and S1986F (2.4%) post-crizotinib and L2086F (3.6%), G2032R/L2086F (3.6%), G2032R/S1986F/L2086F (3.6%), and S1986F/L2000V (3.6%) post-lorlatinib. Structural modeling predicted ROS1L2086F causes steric interference to lorlatinib, crizotinib, and entrectinib, while it may accommodate cabozantinib. In Ba/F3 models, ROS1L2086F, ROS1G2032R/L2086F, and ROS1S1986F/G2032R/L2086F were refractory to lorlatinib but sensitive to cabozantinib. A patient with disease progression on crizotinib and lorlatinib and ROS1 L2086F received cabozantinib for nearly 11 months with disease control. Among lorlatinib-resistant biopsies, we also identified MET amplification (4%), KRAS G12C (4%), KRAS amplification (4%), NRAS mutation (4%), and MAP2K1 mutation (4%). Conclusions: ROS1 mutations mediate resistance to crizotinib and lorlatinib in more than one third of cases, underscoring the importance of developing next-generation ROS1 inhibitors with potency against these mutations, including G2032R and L2086F. Continued efforts are needed to elucidate ROS1-independent resistance mechanisms.

Background: Low muscle mass (quantity) is common in patients with advanced cancer, but little is known about muscle radiodensity (quality). We sought to describe the associations of muscle mass and radiodensity with symptom burden, healthcare use, and survival in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Methods: We prospectively enrolled hospitalized patients with advanced cancer from September 2014 through May 2016. Upon admission, patients reported their physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) and psychological (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]) symptoms. We used CT scans performed per routine care within 45 days before enrollment to evaluate muscle mass and radiodensity. We used regression models to examine associations of muscle mass and radiodensity with patients’ symptom burden, healthcare use (hospital length of stay and readmissions), and survival. Results: Of 1,121 patients enrolled, 677 had evaluable muscle data on CT (mean age, 62.86 ± 12.95 years; 51.1% female). Older age and female sex were associated with lower muscle mass (age: B, –0.16; PPPP=.014), and higher BMI was associated with higher muscle mass (B, 0.58; PPPP=.016), ESAS-Total (B, –0.29; P=.002), PHQ-4-Depression (B, –0.03; P=.006), and PHQ-4-Anxiety (B, –0.03; P=.008) symptoms, as well as decreased hospital length of stay (B, –0.07; P=.005), risk of readmission or death in 90 days (odds ratio, 0.97; PPConclusions: Although muscle mass (quantity) only correlated with survival, we found that muscle radiodensity (quality) was associated with patients’ symptoms, healthcare use, and survival. These findings underscore the added importance of assessing muscle quality when seeking to address adverse muscle changes in oncology.

ImportanceInvolvement of palliative care specialists in the care of medical oncology patients has been repeatedly observed to improve patient-reported outcomes, but there is no analogous research in surgical oncology populations.ObjectiveTo determine whether surgeon–palliative care team comanagement, compared with surgeon team alone management, improves patient-reported perioperative outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgery for high morbidity and mortality upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsFrom October 20, 2018, to March 31, 2022, a patient-randomized clinical trial was conducted with patients and clinicians nonblinded but the analysis team blinded to allocation. The trial was conducted in 5 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the US. Individuals pursuing curative-intent surgery for an upper GI cancer who had received no previous specialist palliative care were eligible. Surgeons were encouraged to offer participation to all eligible patients.InterventionSurgeon–palliative care comanagement patients met with palliative care either in person or via telephone before surgery, 1 week after surgery, and 1, 2, and 3 months after surgery. For patients in the surgeon-alone group, surgeons were encouraged to follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network–recommended triggers for palliative care consultation.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome of the trial was patient-reported health-related quality of life at 3 months following the operation. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported mental and physical distress. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.ResultsIn total, 359 patients (175 [48.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [10.7] years) were randomized to surgeon-alone (n = 177) or surgeon–palliative care comanagement (n = 182), with most patients (206 [57.4%]) undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery. No adverse events were associated with the intervention, and 11% of patients in the surgeon-alone and 90% in the surgeon–palliative care comanagement groups received palliative care consultation. There was no significant difference between study arms in outcomes at 3 months following the operation in patient-reported health-related quality of life (mean [SD], 138.54 [28.28] vs 136.90 [28.96]; P = .62), mental health (mean [SD], −0.07 [0.87] vs −0.07 [0.84]; P = .98), or overall number of deaths (6 [3.7%] vs 7 [4.1%]; P > .99).Conclusions and RelevanceTo date, this is the first multisite randomized clinical trial to evaluate perioperative palliative care and the earliest integration of palliative care into cancer care. Unlike in medical oncology practice, the data from this trial do not suggest palliative care–associated improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgeries for upper GI cancers.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611309

Behavioral medicine researchers have rapidly adapted study procedures and interventions to telehealth modalities during the pandemic. We rely heavily on telehealth research methods to avoid study delays and mitigate risk to chronically ill patients our studies aim to support. We implemented methods to virtually recruit, enroll, and retain patients and their families on clinical trials, and virtually deliver study interventions. These adaptations are likely to become permanent amid ongoing virus variants and surges in cases. However, little has been written about how remote methods apply in practice. This paper documents these processes to maximize efficiency across our research studies and systems and highlights the strengths and challenges of transitioning our research protocols to telehealth. We outline solutions to using remote methods across the entire span of the research process, including study recruitment, data collection, and intervention delivery. We offer insight into the implications of these transitions on research staff and interventionists. In providing a transparent review of the advantages and challenges of implementing remote methods, we encourage discourse around remote methods implementation, share the lessons we learned, and inform the design of future trials. Further research is needed to review the clinical feasibility and acceptability of these procedures.

Although most patients with cancer prefer to know their prognosis, prognostic communication between oncologists and patients is often insufficient. Targeted therapies for lung cancer improve survival yet are not curative and produce variable responses. This study sought to describe how oncologists communicate about prognosis with patients receiving targeted therapies for lung cancer.This qualitative study included 39 patients with advanced lung cancer with targetable mutations, 14 caregivers, and 10 oncologists. Semistructured interviews with patients and caregivers and focus groups or interviews with oncologists were conducted to explore their experiences with prognostic communication. One oncology follow-up visit was audio-recorded per patient. A framework approach was used to analyze interview transcripts, and a content analysis of patient-oncologist dialogue was conducted. Themes were identified within each source and then integrated across sources to create a multidimensional description of prognostic communication.Six themes in prognostic communication were identified: Patients with targetable mutations develop a distinct identity in the lung cancer community that affects their information-seeking and self-advocacy; oncologists set high expectations for targeted therapy; the uncertain availability of new therapies complicates prognostic discussions; patients and caregivers have variable information preferences; patients raise questions about progression by asking about physical symptoms or scan results; and patients' expectations of targeted therapy influence their medical decision-making.Optimistic patient-oncologist communication shapes the expectations of patients receiving targeted therapy for lung cancer and affects their decision-making. Further research and clinical guidance are needed to help oncologists to communicate uncertain outcomes effectively.

Palliative care (PC) clinicians faced many challenges delivering outpatient care during the coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic.We described trends for in-person and video visit PC delivery challenges before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.We performed a secondary data analysis of patient characteristics and PC clinician surveys from a multisite randomized controlled trial at 20 academic cancer centers. Patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (N = 653) were randomly assigned to receive either early in-person or telehealth PC and had at least monthly PC clinician visits. PC clinicians completed surveys documenting PC delivery challenges after each encounter. We categorized patients into 3 subgroups according to their PC visit dates relative to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.-pre-COVID-19 (all visits before March 1, 2020), pre/post-COVID-19 (≥1 visit before and after March 1, 2020), and post-COVID-19 (all visits after March 1, 2020). We performed Pearson's chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests to examine associations.We analyzed 2329 surveys for video visits and 2176 surveys for in-person visits. For video visits, the pre-COVID-19 subgroup (25.8% [46/178]) had the most technical difficulties followed by the pre/post-COVID-19 subgroup (17.2% [307/1784]) and then the post-COVID-19 subgroup (11.4% [42/367]) (P = 0.0001). For in-person visits, challenges related to absent patients' family members occurred most often in the post-COVID-19 subgroup (6.2% [16/259]) followed by the pre/post-COVID-19 subgroup (3.6% [50/1374]) and then the pre-COVID-19 subgroup (2.2% [12/543]) (P = 0.02).Technical difficulties related to PC video visits improved, whereas in-person visit challenges related to absent patients' family members worsened during the pandemic.

Purpose: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) prevents recurrence after early-stage, hormone sensitive breast cancer; however, adherence to AET is suboptimal, and efficacious interventions are severely lacking. Barriers to adherence are well established; however, interventions thus far have failed to produce meaningful changes in adherence and have generally not followed guiding principles of psychosocial intervention development. The purpose of this paper is to describe the iterative development, using the National Institutes of Health Stage Model for Behavioral Intervention Development, of an evidence-based, patient-centered, telehealth intervention to enhance adherence, improve symptom management, and reduce distress for patients taking AET after breast cancer, with a focus on 1) a small open pilot study which informed modifications and refinement of the intervention based on quantitative and qualitative patient feedback about feasibility and acceptability; and 2) the underlying theoretical and empirical rationale for each component of the finalized intervention. Clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

BACKGROUND: In a recent trial, a six-session intervention (BMT-CARE) that integrated medical information with cognitive-behavioral strategies improved quality of life (QOL), mood, coping skills, and self-efficacy in family/friend caregivers of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) recipients. We examined whether improvements in coping and self-efficacy mediated the intervention effects on QOL and mood. METHODS: From 12/2017 to 4/2019, we enrolled 100 caregivers of HCT recipients in a randomized clinical trial of BMT-CARE versus usual care. Caregivers completed self-report measures of QOL (CareGiver Oncology QOL questionnaire), depression and anxiety symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), coping skills (Measure of Current Status), and self-efficacy (Cancer Self-Efficacy Scale-Transplant) at enrollment (prior to HCT) and 60 days post-HCT. We used causal mediation regression models to examine whether changes in coping and self-efficacy mediated intervention effects on QOL, as well as depressive and anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: Improvements in 60-day QOL in patients assigned to BMT-CARE were partially mediated by improved coping and self-efficacy (indirect effect=6.93, SE=1.85, 95% CI [3.71, 11.05]). Similarly, reductions in 60-day depression and anxiety symptoms were partially mediated by improved coping and self-efficacy (indirect effect depression=−1.19, SE=0.42, 95% CI [−2.23, −0.53]; indirect effect anxiety=−1.46, SE=0.55, 95% CI [−2.52, −0.43]). Combined improvements in coping and self-efficacy accounted for 67%, 80%, and 39% of the total intervention effect on QOL and depression and anxiety symptoms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Coping and self-efficacy are essential components of a brief psychosocial intervention that improves QOL and mood for caregivers of HCT recipients during the acute recovery period. PRECIS: A brief multimodal psychosocial intervention improved quality of life and reduced depression and anxiety symptoms for caregivers of patients undergoing stem cell transplant, compared to a usual care control group. These effects were partially mediated by improvements in coping skills and self-efficacy for caregivers assigned to the intervention. LAY SUMMARY: We previously reported that a six-session program (BMT-CARE), focused on providing medical information, caregiving skills, and self-care and coping strategies, improved quality of life (QOL) and mood of caregivers of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) recipients, compared to a group of caregivers who received care as usual. Using statistical models, our findings suggest that learning coping skills and improving self-efficacy were the most essential components of this program that likely led to better QOL and mood for those caregivers.

Background Patient-reported medical status and treatment goal are measures of prognostic understanding with demonstrated relationships to important clinical and patient-reported outcomes in the general cancer population. Among older adults, relationships between these measures and other patient-reported (quality of life [QOL], symptoms, functional impairment) and clinical (hospitalization risk, survival) outcomes remains unclear. Methods We enrolled patients ≥70 with advanced gastrointestinal cancers, collecting patient-reported medical status (terminally ill vs not), treatment goal (curative vs non-curative), QOL (EORTC-Elderly Cancer Patients), symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]), and functional impairment (activities of daily living [ADLs]). We also obtained information about hospitalizations and survival. To explore relationships between patient-reported medical status, treatment goal, QOL, symptoms, functional impairment, hospitalizations, and survival, we used regression models adjusted for age, sex, and education. Results Of 103 patients, 49.5% reported terminally ill status and 64.0% a non-curative treatment goal. Terminally ill status was associated with worse QOL (EORTC illness burden: 53.59 vs 35.26, p = 0.001), higher symptom burden (ESAS: 28.15 vs 16.79, p = 0.002), more functional impairment (ADLs: 3.63 vs 5.24, p = 0.006), greater hospitalization risk (HR = 2.41, p = 0.020), and worse survival (HR = 1.93, p = 0.010). We did not find associations between patient-reported treatment goal and these outcomes. Conclusions In older adults with advanced cancer, report of terminally ill status was associated with other important patient-reported and clinical outcomes, suggesting disease severity may inform illness perceptions. We did not find similar associations for patient-reported treatment goal, indicating that questions related to medical status and treatment goal measure different constructs and more nuanced measures are needed.

Background: Studies have shown gaps in prognostic understanding among patients with cancer. However, few studies have explored patients’ perceptions of their treatment goals versus how they perceive their oncologist’s goals, and the association of these views with their psychological distress. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 559 patients with incurable lung, gastrointestinal, breast, and brain cancers. The Prognosis and Treatment Perception Questionnaire was used to assess patients’ reports of their treatment goal and their oncologist’s treatment goal, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was used to assess patients’ psychological symptoms. Results: We found that 61.7% of patients reported that both their treatment goal and their oncologist’s treatment goal were noncurative, whereas 19.3% reported that both their goal and their oncologist’s goal were to cure their cancer, 13.9% reported that their goal was to cure their cancer whereas their oncologist’s goal was noncurative, and 5% reported that their goal was noncurative whereas their oncologist’s goal was curative. Patients who reported both their goal and their oncologist’s goal as noncurative had higher levels of depression (B=0.99; P=.021) and anxiety symptoms (B=1.01; P=.015) compared with those who reported that both their goal and their oncologist’s goal was curative. Patients with discordant perceptions of their goal and their oncologist’s goal reported higher anxiety symptoms (B=1.47; P=.004) compared with those who reported that both their goal and their oncologist’s goal were curative. Conclusions: One-fifth of patients with incurable cancer reported that both their treatment goal and their oncologist’s goal were to cure their cancer. Patients who acknowledged the noncurative intent of their treatment and those who perceived that their treatment goal was discordant from that of their oncologist reported greater psychological distress.

BACKGROUND Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers have substantial misperceptions regarding hospice, which contributes to its underuse. METHODS The authors conducted a single-site randomized trial of a video educational tool versus a verbal description of hospice in 150 hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Patients without a caregiver were eligible. Intervention participants (75 patients and 18 caregivers) viewed a 6-minute video depicting hospice. Control participants (75 patients and 26 caregivers) received a verbal description identical to the video narrative. The primary outcome was patient preference for hospice. Secondary outcomes included patient and/or caregiver knowledge and perceptions of hospice, and hospice use. RESULTS Between February 2017 and January 2019, approximately 55.7% of eligible patients (150 of 269 eligible patients) and 44 caregivers were enrolled. After the intervention, there was no difference noted with regard to patients' preferences for hospice (86.7% vs 82.7%; P = .651). Patients in the video group reported greater knowledge regarding hospice (9.0 vs 8.4; P = .049) and were less likely to endorse that hospice is only about death (6.7% vs 21.6%; P = .010). Among deceased patients, those assigned to the intervention were more likely to have used hospice (85.2% vs 63.6%; P = .01) and to have had a longer hospice length of stay (median, 12 days vs 3 days; P

Background: Oncologists often struggle with managing the unique care needs of older adults with cancer. This study sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a transdisciplinary intervention targeting the geriatric-specific (physical function and comorbidity) and palliative care (symptoms and prognostic understanding) needs of older adults with advanced cancer. Methods: Patients aged ≥65 years with incurable gastrointestinal or lung cancer were randomly assigned to a transdisciplinary intervention or usual care. Those in the intervention arm received 2 visits with a geriatrician, who addressed patients’ palliative care needs and conducted a geriatric assessment. We predefined the intervention as feasible if >70% of eligible patients enrolled in the study and >75% of eligible patients completed study visits and surveys. At baseline and week 12, we assessed patients’ quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and communication confidence. We calculated mean change scores in outcomes and estimated intervention effect sizes (ES; Cohen’s d) for changes from baseline to week 12, with 0.2 indicating a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect. Results: From February 2017 through June 2018, we randomized 62 patients (55.9% enrollment rate [most common reason for refusal was feeling too ill]; median age, 72.3 years; cancer types: 56.5% gastrointestinal, 43.5% lung). Among intervention patients, 82.1% attended the first visit and 79.6% attended both. Overall, 89.7% completed all study surveys. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had less QoL decrement (–0.77 vs –3.84; ES = 0.21), reduced number of moderate/severe symptoms (–0.69 vs +1.04; ES = 0.58), and improved communication confidence (+1.06 vs –0.80; ES = 0.38). Conclusions: In this pilot trial, enrollment exceeded 55%, and >75% of enrollees completed all study visits and surveys. The transdisciplinary intervention targeting older patients’ unique care needs showed encouraging ES estimates for enhancing patients’ QoL, symptom burden, and communication confidence.

Background Patients with malignant gliomas have a poor prognosis. However, little is known about patients’ and caregivers’ understanding of the prognosis and the primary treatment goal. Methods We conducted a prospective study in patients with newly diagnosed malignant gliomas (N = 72) and their caregivers (N = 55). At 12 weeks after diagnosis, we administered the Prognosis and Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire to assess understanding of prognosis and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to evaluate mood. We used multivariable regression analyses to explore associations between prognostic understanding and mood and McNemar tests to compare prognostic perceptions among patient-caregiver dyads (N = 48). Results A total of 87.1% (61/70) of patients and 79.6% (43/54) of caregivers reported that it was “very” or “extremely” important to know about the patient’s prognosis. The majority of patients (72.7%, [48/66]) reported that their cancer was curable. Patients who reported that their illness was incurable had greater depressive symptoms (B = 3.01, 95% CI, 0.89-5.14, P = .01). There was no association between caregivers’ prognostic understanding and mood. Among patient-caregiver dyads, patients were more likely than caregivers to report that their primary treatment goal was cure (43.8% [21/48] vs 25.0% [12/48], P = .04) and that the oncologist’s primary goal was cure (29.2% [14/48] vs 8.3% [4/48], P = .02). Conclusions Patients with malignant gliomas frequently hold inaccurate perceptions of the prognosis and treatment goal. Although caregivers more often report an accurate assessment of these metrics, many still report an overly optimistic perception of prognosis. Interventions are needed to enhance prognostic communication and to help patients cope with the associated distress.

BACKGROUND Caregivers of patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) experience an immense caregiving burden before, during, and after HCT. METHODS We conducted an unblinded, randomized trial of a psychosocial intervention (BMT-CARE) for caregivers of patients undergoing autologous and allogeneic HCT at Massachusetts General Hospital. Caregivers were randomly assigned to BMT-CARE or usual care. BMT-CARE was tailored to the HCT trajectory and integrated treatment-related education and self-care with cognitive-behavioral skills to promote coping. Caregivers assigned to BMT-CARE met with a trained interventionist (a psychologist or a social worker) in person, via telephone, or via videoconferencing for 6 sessions starting before HCT and continuing up to day +60 after HCT. The primary endpoint was feasibility, which was defined as at least 60% of eligible caregivers enrolling and completing 50% or more of the intervention sessions. We assesed caregiver quality of life (QOL; Caregiver Oncology Quality of Life Questionnaire), caregiving burden (Caregiver Reaction Assessment), psychological distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), self-efficacy (Cancer Self-Efficacy Scale-Transplant), and coping (Measures of Current Status) at baseline and 30 and 60 days after HCT. We used mixed linear effect models to assess the effect of BMT-CARE on outcomes longitudinally. RESULTS We enrolled 72.5% of eligible caregivers (100 of 138), and 80% attended 50% or more of the intervention sessions. Caregivers randomized to BMT-CARE reported improved QOL (B = 6.11; 95% CI, 3.50-8.71; P

Advanced cancer, with its considerable physical symptoms and psychosocial burdens, represents an existential threat and major stressor to patients and their caregivers. In response to such stress, patients and their caregivers use a variety of strategies to manage the disease and related symptoms, such as problem-focused, emotion-focused, meaning-focused, and spiritual/religious coping. The use of such coping strategies is associated with multiple outcomes, including quality of life, symptoms of depression and anxiety, illness understanding, and end-of-life care. Accumulating data demonstrate that early palliative care, integrated with oncology care, not only improves these key outcomes but also enhances coping in patients with advanced cancer. In addition, trials of home-based palliative care interventions have shown promise for improving the ways that patients and family caregivers cope together and manage problems as a dyad. In this article, we describe the nature and correlates of coping in this population, highlight the role of palliative care to promote effective coping strategies in patients and caregivers, and review evidence supporting the beneficial effects of palliative care on patient coping as well as the mechanisms by which improved coping is associated with better outcomes. We conclude with a discussion of the limitations of the state of science, future directions, and best practices on the basis of available evidence.