Cancer-related fatigue among patients with advanced cancer receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with severity of cancer related fatigue (CRF) as assessed by Functional Assessment of Cancer Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), prior to, and during 12 weeks of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We also explored the effects of ICIs on fatigue dimensions and interference with daily activities (Multidimensional Functional Symptom Inventory, MFSI-SF, Patient-Related Outcome Symptom Measurement Information System Short form Fatigue 7a, PROMIS F-SF), QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, FACT-G), and cancer symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, ESAS). METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal observational study, patients with a diagnosis of advanced cancer receiving ICIs were evaluated. Patient demographics, FACT-G, FACIT-F, MFSI-SF, PROMIS F-SF, and ESAS were collected prior to, and during 12 weeks of ICIs. RESULTS: A total of 160 of the 212 enrolled patients were analyzed. The median age was 61 years, 60% were female, most common cancer was melanoma (73%), and most common ICI was nivolumab 46%. The frequency of clinically significant fatigue (defined as ≤ 34/52 on FACIT-F score) was 25.6% at baseline, 25.7% at week 8, and 19.5% at week 12. There was significant improvement in FACIT-F (P = 0.016), FACT-G physical well-being (P = 0.041), FACT-G emotional well-being (P = 0.011), ESAS anxiety (P = 0.045), and ESAS psychological distress (P = 0.03) scores from baseline to week 12 of ICIs. Multivariate analysis found significant association between clinically significant CRF and PROMIS F-SF (P < 0.001) and MFSI-SF global scores (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CRF is frequent prior to the initiation of ICI treatment. Over 12 weeks of ICI treatment, CRF significantly improved. FACT-G physical well-being, FACT-G emotional well-being, ESAS anxiety, and ESAS psychological distress scores improved overtime. Further studies are needed to validate these findings.

Healthcare provider perceptions and reported practices regarding opioid prescription for patients with chronic cancer pain.

PURPOSE: Data indicates that clinicians might be under-prescribing opioids for patients with chronic cancer pain, and this could impact adequate pain management. Few studies have sought to understand healthcare provider (HCP) perceptions and practices regarding the prescription of opioids for chronic cancer pain. We assessed HCP perceptions and practices regarding opioid prescription for patients with chronic cancer pain since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among 186 HCPs who attended an opioid educational event in April 2021 and 2022. RESULTS: Sixty-one out of 143 (44%) opioid prescribers reported reluctance to prescribe opioids for chronic cancer pain. In a multivariate logistic model, younger participants (log OR - 0.04, 95% CI - 0.085, - 0.004; p = 0.033) and pain medicine clinicians (log OR - 1.89, CI - 3.931, - 0.286; p = 0.034) were less reluctant, whereas providers who worry about non-medical opioid use were more reluctant to prescribe opioids (log OR 1.58 95% CI 0.77-2.43; p < 0.001). Fifty-three out of 143 (37%) prescribers had experienced increased challenges regarding opioid dispensing at pharmacies, and 84/179 (47%) of all respondents reported similar experience by their patients. Fifty-four out of 178(30%) were aware of opioid-related harmful incidents to patients or their families, including incidents attributed to opioid misuse by a household or family member. CONCLUSION: A considerable number of opioid prescribers were reluctant to prescribe opioids for patients with chronic cancer pain. Many reported challenges regarding dispensing of opioids at the pharmacies. These may be unintended consequences of policies to address the opioid crisis. Future measures should focus on addressing regulatory barriers without undermining the gains already made to combat the opioid crisis.

Assessing risk for nonmedical opioid use among patients with cancer: Stability of the CAGE-AID questionnaire across clinical care settings.

OBJECTIVES: The Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye opener- Adapted to Include Drugs (CAGE-AID) questionnaire (CA) is a validated screening tool used to assess risk for nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) in patients receiving opioids for cancer pain. Data on consistencies and variations in responses to the CA between different clinical settings are lacking. We evaluated the frequency and consistency in scoring of the CA among patients seen between the first inpatient consult (T1) and the first outpatient follow-up (T2) visits. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 333 consecutive patients seen at both T1 and T2 within 3 months between August 2016 and March 2017 was reviewed. RESULTS: Median age was 58 years (range, 18-87 years); 53% were female. CA was completed for 88% of patients at T1 and 94% at T2. Of these, 10% and 13% were CAGE-AID positive, respectively. CA score changed from negative to positive in 4% and from positive to negative in 1% of patients between T1 and T2. Kappa coefficient for agreement of CA between T1 and T2 was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.62-0.86, p = 0.02). SIGNIFICANT OF RESULTS: Completion rate and consistency of patient responses to the CA were high irrespective of clinical setting. Of these patients, 10% and 13% were CA positive which is suggestive of high risk for NMOU. Further studies are needed to evaluate ways to ensure more consistency in the completion of the CA and enhance its utilization in routine clinical practice.

Interdisciplinary intervention for the management of nonmedical opioid use among patients with cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed interventions aimed at managing nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) behavior among patients with cancer. The authors developed the Compassionate High-Alert Team (CHAT) intervention to manage patients receiving opioids for cancer pain who demonstrate NMOU behavior. The objective of this study was to determine the change in frequency of NMOU behaviors, pain intensity, and opioid requirements among those who received the intervention. METHODS: A total of 130 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain that had documented evidence of NMOU and received the CHAT intervention were reviewed. Demographic and clinical information such as NMOU behaviors, pain scores, and morphine equivalent daily dose at baseline, 3, and 6 months post-intervention was obtained. RESULTS: NMOU behaviors significantly decreased from a median (interquartile range) of 2 (1-3) at baseline to 0 (0-1) at both 3 and 6 months post-intervention (p < .001). A total of 45 of 75 (60%) and 31 of 50 (62%) of CHAT recipients achieved complete response to the intervention at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Higher baseline number of NMOU behaviors was independently associated with patient response to the intervention (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.09-4.28, p = .049 at 3 months; OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.20-6.47, p = .03 at 6 months). The median pain score decreased from 7 at baseline to 6 at both 3 and 6 months (p = .01). Morphine equivalent daily dose did not significantly change during that same period (143 mg/day vs. 139 mg/day, p = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who received the CHAT intervention improved in their NMOU behaviors and pain intensity scores 3 and 6 months post-intervention. These preliminary findings support the efficacy of CHAT in managing patients receiving opioids for cancer pain who demonstrate NMOU behavior.

Open-Label Placebo for the Treatment of Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of an open-labeled placebo (OLP) compared to a waitlist control (WL) in reducing cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in patients with advanced cancer using Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, patients with fatigue ≥4/10 on Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were randomized to OLP one tablet twice a day or WL for 7 days. On day 8, patients of both arms received a placebo for 3 weeks. Changes in FACIT-F from baseline to day 8 (primary outcome) and at day 29, were assessed. Secondary outcomes included FACT-G, Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-SF, Fatigue cluster (defined as a composite of ESAS fatigue, pain, and depression), Center for epidemiologic studies-depression, Godin leisure-time physical activity questionnaire, and global symptom evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 84/90 (93%) patients were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F change at day 8 was 6.6 (7.6) after OLP, vs. 2.1 (9.4) after WL (P = .016). On days 15 and 29, when all patients received OLP, there was a significant improvement in CRF and no difference between arms. There was also a significant improvement in ESAS fatigue, and fatigue cluster score in the OLP arm on day 8 of the study (0.029, and 0.044, respectively). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes and adverse events between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Open-labeled placebo was efficacious in reducing CRF and fatigue clusters in fatigued advanced cancer patients at the end of 1 week. The improvement in fatigue was maintained for 4 weeks. Further studies are needed.

Frequency and characteristics of advanced cancer patients with COVID + ve status among inpatient supportive care consults during the pandemic: experience from a tertiary cancer center.

PURPOSE: There is limited literature available regards the frequency and characteristics of COVID-19 + ve status among advanced cancer patients referred to an inpatient supportive care consultation(PC) at a tertiary cancer center. Our study aimed to determine the frequency and characteristics of COVID-19 + ve cancer patients seen by PC. METHODS: Advanced cancer patients seen as a consult by PC between June 15 and September 25, 2020, at MD Anderson Cancer Center were eligible for the study. We evaluated the patient demographics, clinical characteristics including symptoms(ESAS), delirium(MDAS), COVID + status prior to, and after PC referral(converters), and type of PC delivery(in person or virtual care). RESULTS: Sixty-six out of 1380 (4.8%) PC consults were COVID-19 + ve: 42 prior to PC (79%), and 14 (21%) were COVID-19 + ve after the PC (converters). COVID-19 + PC patients had lower depression (P = .035), spiritual distress (P = .003), and were more seen frequently virtually (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between COVID-19-ve patients and converters. Converters had higher symptom distress (P = 0.007), lower delirium (P = 0.014), and were referred earlier (P = .011) compared to COVID + PC patients diagnosed prior to PC consult. Overall, patients seen virtually compared in-person by PC were younger (P = 0.02) and had lower delirium (P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The burden of COVID-19 + status among patients referred to PC was low. COVID-19 + ve patients had more frequent virtual visits, lower depression, and spiritual distress scores. Patient seen virtually were significantly younger and had lower delirium. During a new pandemic, universal virtual care might be emphasized especially at initial encounters after admission and further research is needed on the potential efficacy of this intervention.

Random urine drug testing among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding the true frequency of nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain. Data to guide patient selection for urine drug testing (UDT) as well as the timing and frequency of ordering UDT are insufficient. This study examined the frequency of abnormal UDT among patients with cancer who underwent random UDT and their characteristics. METHODS: Demographic and clinical information for patients with cancer who underwent random UDT were retrospectively reviewed and compared with a historical cohort that underwent targeted UDT. Random UDT was ordered regardless of a patient's risk potential for NMOU. Targeted UDT was ordered on the basis of a physician's estimation of a patient's risk for NMOU. RESULTS: In all, 552 of 573 eligible patients (96%) underwent random UDT. Among these patients, 130 (24%) had 1 or more abnormal results; 38 of the 88 patients (43%) who underwent targeted UDT had 1 or more abnormal results. When marijuana was excluded, 15% of the random group and 37% of the targeted group had abnormal UDT findings (P < .001). It took a shorter time from the initial consultation to detect 1 or more abnormalities with the random test than the targeted test (median, 130 vs 274 days; P = .02). Abnormal random UDT was independently associated with younger age (P < .0001), male sex (P = .03), Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs positivity (P = .001), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System anxiety (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 4 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain at a supportive care clinic who underwent random UDT had 1 or more abnormalities. Random UDT detected abnormalities earlier than the targeted test. These findings suggest that random UDT is justified among patients with cancer pain.

High-Flow Oxygen and High-Flow Air for Dyspnea in Hospitalized Patients with Cancer: A Pilot Crossover Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of high-flow oxygen (HFOx) and high-flow air (HFAir) on dyspnea in nonhypoxemic patients is not known. We assessed the effect of HFOx, HFAir, low-flow oxygen (LFOx), and low-flow air (LFAir) on dyspnea. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: This double-blind, 4×4 crossover clinical trial enrolled hospitalized patients with cancer who were dyspneic at rest and nonhypoxemic (oxygen saturation >90% on room air). Patients were randomized to 10 minutes of HFOx, HFAir, LFOx, and LFAir in different orders. The flow rate was titrated between 20-60 L/minute in the high-flow interventions and 2 L/minute in the low-flow interventions. The primary outcome was dyspnea numeric rating scale (NRS) "now" where 0 = none and 10 = worst. RESULTS: Seventeen patients (mean age 51 years, 58% female) completed 55 interventions in a random order. The absolute change of dyspnea NRS between 0 and 10 minutes was -1.8 (SD 1.7) for HFOx, -1.8 (2.0) for HFAir, -0.5 (0.8) for LFOx, and - 0.6 (1.2) for LFAir. In mixed model analysis, HFOx provided greater dyspnea relief than LFOx (mean difference [95% confidence interval] -0.80 [-1.45, -0.15]; p = .02) and LFAir (-1.24 [-1.90, -0.57]; p < .001). HFAir also provided significantly greater dyspnea relief than LFOx (-0.95 [-1.61, -0.30]; p = .005) and LFAir (-1.39 [-2.05, -0.73]; p < .001). HFOx was well tolerated. Seven (54%) patients who tried all interventions blindly preferred HFOx and four (31%) preferred HFAir. CONCLUSION: We found that HFOx and HFAir provided a rapid and clinically significant reduction of dyspnea at rest in hospitalized nonhypoxemic patients with cancer. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02932332). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This double-blind, 4×4 crossover trial examined the effect of oxygen or air delivered at high- or low-flow rates on dyspnea in hospitalized nonhypoxemic patients with cancer. High-flow oxygen and high-flow air were significantly better at reducing dyspnea than low-flow oxygen/air, supporting a role for palliation beyond oxygenation.

Combination Therapy of Physical Activity and Dexamethasone for Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Phase II Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high frequency of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and its debilitating effects on the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer, there are limited treatment options available. Treatments including physical activity (PA) or dexamethasone (Dex) improve CRF; however, they have lower adherence rates (PA) or long-term adverse effects (Dex). The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of and preliminary results for the combination of PA and Dex in improving CRF. METHODS: In this phase II randomized controlled trial, patients with advanced cancer and CRF scores of ≥4/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale were eligible. Patients were randomized to standardized PA for 4 weeks with either 4 mg of Dex (LoDex arm) or 8 mg of Dex (HiDex arm) twice a day for 7 days. Feasibility and change in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Illness Therapy-Fatigue subscale (FACIT-F) from baseline to day 8 and day 29 (primary outcome) were assessed. Secondary outcomes included changes in fatigue dimensions (FACIT-General, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]-Fatigue). RESULTS: A total of 60 of 67 (90%) patients were evaluable. All patients were adherent to study medication. We found that 84% and 65% of patients in the LoDex arm and 96% and 68% of patients in the HiDex arm were adherent to aerobic and resistance exercise, respectively. The FACIT-F effect size in the LoDex arm was 0.90 (P<.001) and 0.92 (P<.001) and the effect size in the HiDex arm was 0.86 and 1.03 (P<.001 for both) at days 8 and 29, respectively. We found significant improvements in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Physical (P≤.013) and the PROMIS-Fatigue (P≤.003) at days 8 and 29 in both arms. Mixed-model analysis showed a significant improvement in the FACIT-F scores at day 8 (P<.001), day 15 (P<.001), and day 29 (P=.002). Changes in the FACIT-F scores were not significantly different between patients in the 2 arms (P=.86). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that the combination therapy of PA with Dex was feasible and resulted in the improvement of CRF. The improvement was seen for up to 3 weeks after the discontinuation of Dex. Further larger studies are justified. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT02491632.

The development of a nomogram to determine the frequency of elevated risk for non-medical opioid use in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Non-medical opioid use (NMOU) is a growing crisis. Cancer patients at elevated risk of NMOU (+risk) are frequently underdiagnosed. The aim of this paper was to develop a nomogram to predict the probability of +risk among cancer patients receiving outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center. METHOD: 3,588 consecutive patients referred to a supportive care clinic were reviewed. All patients had a diagnosis of cancer and were on opioids for pain. All patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP-14), and CAGE-AID (Cut Down-Annoyed-Guilty-Eye Opener) questionnaires. "+risk" was defined as an SOAPP-14 score of ≥7. A nomogram was devised based on the risk factors determined by the multivariate logistic regression model to estimate the probability of +risk. RESULTS: 731/3,588 consults were +risk. +risk was significantly associated with gender, race, marital status, smoking status, depression, anxiety, financial distress, MEDD (morphine equivalent daily dose), and CAGE-AID score. The C-index was 0.8. A nomogram was developed and can be accessed at https://is.gd/soappnomogram. For example, for a male Hispanic patient, married, never smoked, with ESAS scores for depression = 3, anxiety = 3, financial distress = 7, a CAGE score of 0, and an MEDD score of 20, the total score is 9 + 9+0 + 0+6 + 10 + 23 + 0+1 = 58. A nomogram score of 58 indicates the probability of +risk of 0.1. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: We established a practical nomogram to assess the +risk. The application of a nomogram based on routinely collected clinical data can help clinicians establish patients with +risk and positively impact care planning.

Predicting the risk for aberrant opioid use behavior in patients receiving outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center.

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.

Perception of Curability Among Advanced Cancer Patients: An International Collaborative Study.

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.

Decisional control preferences among patients with advanced cancer: An international multicenter cross-sectional survey.

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.

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Panax Ginseng for Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients With Advanced Cancer.

Background: Despite the high frequency, severity, and effects of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer, limited treatment options are available. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of oral Panax ginseng extract (PG) and placebo on CRF. Secondary objectives were to determine the effects of PG on QoL, mood, and function. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CRF ≥4/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were eligible. Based on a pilot study, we randomized patients to receive either 400 mg of standardized PG twice daily or a matching placebo for 28 days. The primary end point was change in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) subscale from baseline to day 29. Results: Of 127 patients, 112 (88.2%) were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F subscale scores at baseline, day 15, and day 29 were 22.4 (10.1), 29.9 (10.6), and 30.1 (11.6) for PG (P<.001), and 24.0 (9.4), 30.0 (10.1), and 30.4 (11.5) for placebo (P<.001). Mean (SD) improvement in the FACIT-F subscale at day 29 was not significantly different in the PG than in the placebo group (7.5 [12.7] vs 6.5 [9.9]; P=.67). QoL, anxiety, depression, symptoms, and functional scores were not significantly different between the PG and placebo groups. Improvement in the FACIT-F subscale correlated with baseline scores (P=.0005), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale results (P=.032), and sex (P=.023). There were fewer any-grade toxicities in the PG versus placebo group (28/63 vs 33/64; P=.024). Conclusions: Both PG and placebo result in significant improvement in CRF. PG was not significantly superior to placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. There is no justification to recommend the use of PG for CRF. Further studies are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375114.

Characteristics of patients with advanced lung cancer referred to a rapid-access supportive care clinic.

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.

Frequency, predictors, and outcomes of urine drug testing among patients with advanced cancer on chronic opioid therapy at an outpatient supportive care clinic.

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.

Predictors of a Preference for Telemedicine Virtual Visits in Patients Undergoing Cancer Rehabilitation.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this retrospective study was to examine the use of virtual visits (telemedicine) at our cancer rehabilitation outpatient clinics from March 2020 to August 2021, when virtual visits became more widely available, and to identify any demographic and clinical variables making patients more likely to favor virtual over in-person visits. There were 3971 outpatient encounters (2020 virtual and 1951 in-person visits from a total of 1638 patients) in our cancer rehabilitation outpatient clinics during this time frame. Significant findings in both the univariate and multivariate analyses were race ( P < 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively), cancer type ( P < 0.001 for both), and distance to the clinic ( P < 0.001 for both). Our research showed that virtual visits were accepted by patients with cancer, and that younger age (62 compared to 65), non-White race/ethnicity, solid tumor, and shorter distance to the clinic were associated with a preference for virtual over in-person visits.

Sex differences in osteosarcoma survival across the age spectrum: A National Cancer Database analysis (2004-2016).

BACKGROUND: Osteosarcoma displays a bimodal peak in incidence in adolescence and later adulthood. Males are more frequently diagnosed with osteosarcoma in both periods. Males have worse survival than females, which is generally poor at 30-70% 5-years post diagnosis, depending on age, but treatment received is often unaccounted for in survival analyses. METHODS: Therefore, we estimated sex differences in survival for children and adults stratifying by treatment received and other disease characteristics using the National Cancer Database (2004-2016, n=9017). We estimated sex differences in long-term survival using Kaplan Meier survival curves and Log-Rank p-values. We also estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the measure of association between sex and death using Cox regression. RESULTS: In all age groups, cases were predominantly male (52-58%). In Kaplan-Meier analyses, males had worse overall survival than females for 0-19, 20-39, and ≥60-year-olds (Log-Rank p<0.05). Females had higher 5- and 10-year survival percentages in all age groups. In adjusted Cox models, males had a higher risk of death among 0-19-year-olds (HRoverall: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06-1.44; HRnon-metastatic disease: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.63, HRlower limb tumors: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.09-1.59). Among 20-39-year-olds, males had an increased risk of death when receiving surgery only (HR: 4.67, 95% CI: 1.44, 15.09). Among those ≥60-year-olds, males had a suggestive increased risk of death overall (HR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.99-1.39) and a higher risk of death based on some tumor locations, (HRupper limb: 2.52, 95% CI: 1.24, 5.11; HRmidline: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.82). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the worse survival among young males compared to females with osteosarcoma persisted after accounting for many major disease characteristics, including treatment received. Collectively, our work points toward other unexplored mechanisms beyond treatment, potentially biologic or otherwise, which may be driving the observed sex differences in long-term survival.

PM2.5, vegetation density, and childhood cancer: a case-control registry-based study from Texas 1995-2011.

BACKGROUND: Air pollution is positively associated with some childhood cancers, whereas greenness is inversely associated with some adult cancers. The interplay between air pollution and greenness in childhood cancer etiology is unclear. We estimated the association between early-life air pollution and greenness exposure and childhood cancer in Texas (1995 to 2011). METHODS: We included 6101 cancer cases and 109 762 controls (aged 0 to 16 years). We linked residential birth address to census tract annual average fine particulate matter <2.5 µg/m³ (PM2.5) and Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between PM2.5/NDVI interquartile range increases and cancer. We assessed statistical interaction between PM2.5 and NDVI (likelihood ratio tests). RESULTS: Increasing residential early-life PM2.5 exposure was associated with all childhood cancers (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.15), lymphoid leukemias (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.23), Hodgkin lymphomas (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.58), non-Hodgkin lymphomas (OR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.51), ependymoma (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.60), and others. Increasing NDVI exposure was inversely associated with ependymoma (0- to 4-year-old OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.97) and medulloblastoma (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.91) but positively associated with malignant melanoma (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.23 to 2.47) and Langerhans cell histiocytosis (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.07 to 2.28). There was evidence of statistical interaction between NDVI and PM2.5 (P < .04) for all cancers. CONCLUSION: Increasing early-life exposure to PM2.5 increased the risk of childhood cancers. NDVI decreased the risk of 2 cancers yet increased the risk of others. These findings highlight the complexity between PM2.5 and NDVI in cancer etiology.

Scheduled and Breakthrough Opioid Use for Cancer Pain in an Inpatient Setting at a Tertiary Cancer Hospital.

Background: Our aim was to examine the frequency and prescription pattern of breakthrough (BTO) and scheduled (SCH) opioids and their ratio (BTO/SCH ratio) of use, prior to and after referral to an inpatient supportive care consult (SCC) for cancer pain management (CPM). Methods and Materials: Patients admitted at the MD Anderson Cancer Center and referred to a SCC were retrospectively reviewed. Cancer patients receiving SCH and BTO opioids for ≥24 h were eligible for inclusion. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics, including the type and route of SCH and BTO opioids, daily opioid doses (MEDDs) of SCH and BTO, and BTO/SCH ratios were reviewed in patients seen prior to a SCC (pre-SCC) and during a SCC. A normal BTO ratio was defined as 0.5-0.2. Results: A total of 665/728 (91%) patients were evaluable. Median pain scores (p < 0.001), BTO MEDDs (p < 0.001), scheduled opioid MEDDs (p < 0.0001), and total MEDDs (p < 0.0001) were higher, but the median number of BTO doses was fewer (2 vs. 4, p < 0.001), among patients seen at SCC compared to pre-SCC. A BTO/SCH ratio over the recommended ratio (>0.2) was seen in 37.5% of patients. The BTO/SCH ratios in the pre-SCC and SCC groups were 0.10 (0.04, 0.21) and 0.17 (0.10, 0.30), respectively, p < 0.001. Hydromorphone and Morphine were the most common BTO and SCH opioids prescribed, respectively. Patients in the early supportive care group had higher pain scores and MEDDs. Conclusions: BTO/SCH ratios are frequently prescribed higher than the recommended dose. Daily pain scores, BTO MEDDs, scheduled opioid MEDDs, and total MEDDs were higher among the SCC group than the pre-SCC group, but the number of BTO doses/day was lower.