Search

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals address the complex and varied needs of cancer survivors. The NCCN Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for psychosocial and physical problems resulting from adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthy behaviors and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize recent guideline updates and panel discussions pertaining to sleep disorders, fatigue, and cognitive function in cancer survivors.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors to ensure that the survivors' complex and varied needs are addressed. The NCCN Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for the consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote physical activity, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes updates to the NCCN Guidelines pertaining to preventive health for cancer survivors, including recommendations about alcohol consumption and vaccinations.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors to ensure that each survivor's complex and varied needs are addressed. The Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthful lifestyle behaviors, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes the recommendations regarding employment and return to work for cancer survivors that were added in the 2021 version of the NCCN Guidelines.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment, with the goal of helping healthcare professionals who work with survivors, including those in primary care. The guidelines also provide recommendations to help clinicians promote physical activity, weight management, and proper immunizations in survivors and facilitate care coordination to ensure that all of the survivors needs are addressed. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize additions and changes made to the guidelines in 2020 regarding cardiovascular disease risk assessment and screening for subsequent primary malignancies.

Background: Older head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors have concerning rates of potentially unsafe opioid prescribing. Identifying the specialties of opioid prescribers for HNC survivors is critical for targeting the settings for opioid safety interventions. This study hypothesized that oncology and surgery providers are primarily responsible for opioid prescriptions in the year after treatment but that primary care providers (PCPs) are increasingly involved in prescribing over time. Methods: Using linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare data, a retrospective analysis was conducted of adults aged >65 years diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 with stage I–III HNC and who had ≥6 months of treatment‐free follow‐up through 2019. Starting at treatment completion, opioid fills were assigned to a prescriber specialty: oncology, surgery, primary care, pain management, or other. Prescriber patterns were summarized for each year of follow‐up. Multinomial logistic regression models captured the likelihood of opioids being prescribed by each specialty. Results: Among 5135 HNC survivors, 2547 (50%) had ≥1 opioid fill (median, 2.1‐year follow‐up). PCPs prescribed 47% of all fills (42%–55% each year). PCPs prescribed opioids to 45% of survivors with ≥1 opioid fill, which was a greater share than other specialties. PCPs prescribed longer supplies of opioids (median, 20 days/fill; median, 30 days/year) than oncologists or surgeons. The likelihood of an opioid being prescribed by an oncology provider was four times lower than that of it being prescribed by a PCP. Conclusions: PCP involvement in opioid prescribing remains high throughout HNC survivorship. Interventions to improve the safety of opioid prescribing should target primary care, as is typical for opioid reduction efforts in the noncancer population. Half of older head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors, who experience a high burden of pain after treatment completion, fill opioid prescriptions in the early years after treatment completion, and those who fill opioid prescriptions are most likely to have their opioids prescribed by a primary care provider. Further exploration of opioid safety among HNC survivors, and interventions to improve opioid safety, should focus largely on primary care settings in the early years after treatment completion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain is a common symptom associated with cancer and its treatment. Pain management is an important aspect of oncologic care, and unrelieved pain significantly comprises overall quality of life. These NCCN Guidelines list the principles of management and acknowledge the range of complex decisions faced in the management oncologic pain. In addition to pain assessment techniques, these guidelines provide principles of use, dosing, management of adverse effects, and safe handling procedures of pharmacologic therapies and discuss a multidisciplinary approach for the management of cancer pain.

Persons experiencing homelessness (PEH) face countless barriers to equitable health, social, and palliative care across all settings. Brandon was a 23-year-old male, well-spoken, groomed, and polite despite difficult circumstances. He was severely abused then abandoned as a child, living in multiple foster homes until 18. With no consistent caring adult figure, he predictably fell into a chaotic lifestyle, had 3 children by different mothers, and became homeless in New York City. He presented with newly diagnosed renal cell carcinoma metastatic to lung, lymph nodes, and bone. Spine and pelvic metastases caused paralyzing somatic pain that interfered with walking and sitting and prevented Brandon from performing the activities of daily living essential for his survival on the streets and safekeeping of opioids. Lack of basic social support and a history of multiple abandonments made a care plan for this young, homeless, and truly isolated man very challenging. The inpatient and outpatient interdisciplinary team members partnering with Brandon each earned his trust with time. A "safe place" opened hearts on all sides of the therapeutic relationship and led to a plan that was acceptable for both the patient and the palliative care team. Clinicians are often challenged to provide sustained and pragmatic palliative care services for PEH due to complex barriers. Continued advocacy for equitable and tailored services that ensure high-quality palliative care for PEH is critical at individual, institutional, and system levels to promote health equity and dignified care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The different ways of measuring and managing acute pain are discussed. A case study of a 33-year old man with a 4-year history of advanced cancer is used to understand acute pain crisis and suggests that more focus be paid in treatment to the psychological, social and existential needs of patient and family.

Background: Cancer survivors receive more long‐term opioid therapy (LTOT) than people without cancer, but the safety of LTOT prescribing is unknown. Methods: Opioid‐naive adults aged ≥66 years who had been diagnosed in 2008‐2015 with breast, lung, head and neck, or colorectal cancer were identified with data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries linked with Medicare claims. Survivors with 1 or more LTOT episodes (≥90 consecutive days) occurring ≥1 year after their cancer diagnosis and before censoring at hospice entry, another cancer diagnosis, 6 months before death, or December 2016 were included. The safety of prescribing during the first 90 days of the first LTOT episode was measured during follow‐up. As a positive safety indicator, the proportion of survivors with concurrent nonopioid pain management was measured. Indicators of less safe prescribing were the proportion of survivors with a high average daily opioid dose (≥90 morphine milligram equivalents) and the proportion of survivors with concurrent benzodiazepine dispensing. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify clinical predictors of each safety outcome. Results: In all, 3628 cancer survivors received LTOT during follow‐up (median duration, 4.9 months; interquartile range, 3.5‐8.0 months). Seventy‐two percent of the survivors received multimodal pain management concurrently with LTOT. Eight percent of the survivors had high‐dose opioid prescriptions; 25% of the survivors received benzodiazepines during LTOT. Multivariable analyses identified variations in safety measures by multiple clinical factors, although none were consistently significant across outcomes. Conclusions: To improve safe LTOT prescribing for survivors, efforts should focus on increasing multimodal pain management and reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing. Different clinical predictors of each outcome suggest different drivers of safe prescribing. Cancer survivors are more likely than those without cancer to receive long‐term opioid therapy, and this study of older survivors of cancer finds shortcomings in the safety of long‐term opioid therapy prescribing. Specifically, 28% of survivors receive opioids without concurrent multimodal pain management, 8% of survivors have high average daily opioid doses, and 25% of survivors receive concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) have increased risk of opioid misuse. Methods: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End‐Results‐Medicare data, we matched adults ≥66 years diagnosed with HNC 2008‐2015 with cancer‐free controls. We computed odds ratios (OR) for receipt of chronic opioid therapy (COT, claims for ≥90 consecutive days) for HNC survivors compared to controls each year after matching through 2016. Results: The cohort of HNC survivors declined from 5107 in the first year after diagnosis to 604 in the sixth year after diagnosis. For 5 years, rates of COT among HNC survivors exceeded that of controls. Differences between survivors and controls declined each year (ORs: year 1, 4.36; year 2, 2.60; year 3, 2.18; year 4, 1.85; and year 5, 1.35; all P‐values <.05). Conclusions: Among older HNC survivors, cancer‐associated opioid use in the first years after diagnosis suggests that the benefit of opioids must balance the risk of opioid misuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer pain is often treated with opioids, a therapeutic regimen that can become a challenge in patients with an opioid use disorder (OUD). While use of the buprenorphine-naloxone combination is an effective medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for OUD, its use in pain patients with OUD has been controversial due to concerns that co-administration of buprenorphine can reduce or block analge-sia and precipitate opioid withdrawal in those patients requiring full opioid agonists. Data on its use in cancer pain patients are lack-ing. In this case series, the authors explore the frequency of buprenorphine-naloxone use and its outcomes in patients in a Compre-hensive Care Center (CCC) Pain Registry. OUD was deduced from an International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnostic code for opioid-related disorders recorded in the electronic medical records. Of 2,320 chronic cancer pain patients, 125 patients had ICD-10 code for opioid-related disorders, and 43 had a diagnosis of opioid abuse of whom 11 received buprenorphine-naloxone combina-tions. Eight patients on 18 (6-24) mg per day of buprenorphine-naloxone remained in therapy for 4 (2-7) years without opioid abuse relapse. This assessment was based on clinician's notes, the Prescription Monitoring Program, random urine drug screening, and the absence of Urgent Care Center visits for opioid withdrawal or overdose. When short-term opioids were administered for acute pain, these patients were able to taper down and stop them quickly without an opioid abuse relapse. Buprenorphine-naloxone was effec-tive as the sole analgesic in selected patients. Given its success at the CCC, buprenorphine-naloxone should be made available and strongly considered as a treatment for patients suffering from OUD during and following cancer treatment and when cancer pain re-duces or resolves.

In recent years, the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Adult Cancer Pain have undergone substantial revisions focusing on the appropriate and safe prescription of opioid analgesics, optimization of nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant medications, and integration of nonpharmacologic methods of cancer pain management. This selection highlights some of these changes, covering topics on management of adult cancer pain including pharmacologic interventions, nonpharmacologic interventions, and treatment of specific cancer pain syndromes. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Adult Cancer Pain addresses additional aspects of this topic, including pathophysiologic classification of cancer pain syndromes, comprehensive pain assessment, management of pain crisis, ongoing care for cancer pain, pain in cancer survivors, and specialty consultations.

D-Methadone is the d optical isomer of racemic mixture (DL-methadone) used clinically to treat pain and addiction in the United States. D-Methadone is practically devoid of opioid activity but maintains N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonism. Evidence from extensive preclinical studies suggests that NMDA receptor antagonists attenuate neuronal plasticity, reverse opioid analgesic tolerance, and alleviate chronic pain states. The authors conducted a phase I open label study of D-methadone administered for the first time to patients with chronic pain to determine the safety and tolerability of D-methadone. In addition to their long-term regimen of opioids, the patients received 40 mg of D-methadone twice daily for 12 days. Analgesia and toxicity were recorded by the patients in a daily diary and assessed in clinic on days 1, 8, and 12. Eight patients of the 10 enrolled completed the study. Pain scores on Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) did not change between days 1 and 12, but five of eight patients (62.5 percent) characterized D-methadone as moderately or very effective in relieving pain on the Global Assessment for pain. Five of the eight patients (62.5 percent) who completed the study requested to start treatment with commercially available methadone (DL-racemic methadone) after completing the study. D-Methadone at the dose of 40 mg PO Q 12 hours was well tolerated. Perspective: This is the first clinical study of D-methadone in patients suffering from chronic pain. Additional phase I and phase II studies are needed to confirm its safety and analgesic effects. If D-methadone is well tolerated, it is likely to become a useful adjuvant to the treatment of a wide spectrum of pain syndromes.