How well do medical oncologists manage chronic cancer pain? A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain is usually managed by oncologists, occasionally with input from specialists in hospice and palliative medicine (PLM) or pain medicine (PMD). We evaluated the knowledge of cancer pain management in these three specialty groups. METHODS: Eight vignettes depicting challenging scenarios of patients with poorly controlled pain were developed; each had five or six treatment choices. Respondents indicated choices likely to be safe and efficacious as "true" and choices likely to be unsafe or inefficacious as "false." Two questionnaires were created, each with four vignettes. Three anonymous mailings targeted geographically representative U.S. samples of 570 oncologists, 266 PMD specialists, and 280 PLM specialists, each randomly assigned one version of the questionnaire. Vignette scores were normalized to a 0-100 numeric rating scale (NRS); a score of 50 indicates that the number of correct choices equals the number of incorrect choices (consistent with guessing). RESULTS: Overall response rate was 49% (oncologists, 39%; PMD specialists, 48%; and PLM specialists, 70%). Average vignette score ranges were 53.2-66.5, 45.6-65.6, and 50.8-72.0 for oncologists, PMD specialists, and PLM specialists, respectively. Oncologists scored lower than PLM specialists on both questionnaires and lower than PMD specialists on one. On a 0-10 NRS, oncologists rated their ability to manage pain highly (median 7, with an interquartile range [IQR] of 5-8). Lower ratings were assigned to pain-related training in medical school (median 3, with an IQR of 2-5) and residency/fellowship (median 5, with an IQR of 4-7). Oncologists older than 46-47 years rated their training lower than younger oncologists. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that oncologists and other medical specialists who manage cancer pain have knowledge deficiencies in cancer pain management. These gaps help clarify the need for pain management education.

Barriers and approaches to the successful integration of palliative care and oncology practice.

As management of patients with cancer is evolving, an increased focus is being placed on individualized patient-centered care. Early integration of palliative care into the overall management of patients with cancer can help achieve this paradigm shift. Despite recommendations for earlier integration of palliative care by national and international societies, several barriers remain to achieving this goal. Survey studies have indicated a significant need for increased education regarding palliative care for both medical undergraduates and postgraduate physicians. Key issues in the early integration of palliative care include relationship-building across multiple health systems and specialties; development of a standardized definition of palliative care, making clear that it should be fully integrated with cancer-directed therapy; identification of physician and nonphysician champions; standardization of tools for patient assessment; education programs designed to meet the needs of health care professionals; and ongoing evaluation to assess program benefits and limitations.

Palliative care always.

Palliative cancer care is the integration into oncologic care of therapies that address the issues that cause physical and psychosocial suffering for the patient and family. Effective provision of palliative cancer care requires an interdisciplinary team that can provide care in all settings (home, inpatient, and outpatient). There is clear evidence for improved outcomes in multiple domains-symptoms, quality of end-of-life care, provider satisfaction, cost of care-with the integration of palliative care into cancer care. As a result, there are now guideline-based recommendations for incorporating palliative care into cancer care. Unfortunately there continue to be barriers to effective integration; these include gaps in education and research, and a cultural stigma that equates palliative care with end-of-life care. These barriers will need to be addressed in order to achieve seamless palliative care integration across the continuum of cancer care for all patients and their families.

Palliative care training and associations with burnout in oncology fellows.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among physicians can lead to decreased career satisfaction, physical and emotional exhaustion, and increased medical errors. In oncologists, high exposure to fatal illness is associated with burnout. METHODS: The Maslach Burnout Inventory, measuring Emotional Exhaustion (EE), Depersonalization (DP), and Personal Accomplishment (PA), was administered to second-year US oncology fellows. Bivariate and multivariate analyses explored associations between burnout and fellow demographics, attitudes, and educational experiences. RESULTS: A total of 254 fellows out of 402 eligible US fellows responded (63.2%) and 24.2% reported high EE, 30.0% reported high DP, and 26.8% reported low PA. Over half of the fellows reported burnout in at least one domain. Lower EE scores were associated with the fellows' perceptions of having received better teaching, explicit teaching about certain end-of-life topics, and receipt of direct observation of goals-of-care discussions. Fellows who reported better overall teaching quality and more frequent observation of their skills had less depersonalization. Fellows who felt a responsibility to help patients at the end of life to prepare for death had higher PA. LIMITATIONS: This survey relies on the fellows' self-reported perceptions without an objective measure for validation. Factors associated with burnout may not be causal. The number of analyses performed raises the concern for Type I errors; therefore, a stringent P value (0.01) was used. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is prevalent during oncology training. Higher-quality teaching is associated with less burnout among fellows. Fellowship programs should recognize the prevalence of burnout among oncology fellows as well as components of training that may protect against burnout.

Advancing the Clinician Educator Career Pathway in Oncology.

PURPOSE: Education is an important component of cancer care; however, most clinician educators (CEs) receive little formal training in this area. Little is known about the factors that influence oncologists to pursue a career as a CE. The primary objective of this study was to determine the current state of oncologists' perceptions regarding the clinician educator role. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A one-time cross-sectional survey was administered to program directors/associate program directors (PDs/APDs) and fellows in November 2021. The survey was meant to elicit their perceptions regarding the CE role, training opportunities, and barriers to a career as a CE. RESULTS: The surveys were completed by a total of 2,134 oncology fellows and 88 PDs/APDs. Most PDs/APDs were female (52%), were associate professors (42%), and considered themselves a CE (82%). Over one-third of PDs/APDs reported no formal educator training (67%) and did not have a CE track for fellows at their institution (76%). The majority of PDs/APDs (80%) perceived the CE track to be a viable career pathway. Over half of fellows (56%) perceived the CE track to be a viable career pathway. Approximately one-third (62%) reported receiving CE training during their residency/fellowship. The top reported barriers to a career in medical education were a lack of jobs and opportunity for future promotions. CONCLUSION: Oncology PDs/APDs and fellows perceive the CE to be a viable career track. Greater advocacy efforts are needed to raise awareness about this career path.

Palliative care.

These guidelines were developed and updated by an interdisciplinary group of experts based on clinical experience and available scientific evidence. The goal of these guidelines is to help patients with cancer experience the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory by providing guidance for the primary oncology team for symptom screening, assessment, palliative care interventions, reassessment, and afterdeath care. Palliative care should be initiated by the primary oncology team and augmented by collaboration with an interdisciplinary team of palliative care experts.

Priority symptoms in advanced breast cancer: development and initial validation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16).

OBJECTIVES: By using methods consistent with recent regulatory guidance on patient-reported outcomes as endpoints in clinical trials, we created a new version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (FBSI), with emphasis on patient input during the development process. METHODS: We obtained input on the most important symptoms to monitor during treatment for stage III or IV breast cancer from 52 patients recruited from National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions as well as support service organizations. Participating patients shared their top-priority symptoms/concerns through open-ended interviews and symptom checklists. To ensure adequate content coverage, we evaluated results alongside the original version of the FBSI, which was created on the basis of a survey of oncology clinicians at National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions and items in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy measurement system. We also obtained input from 10 National Comprehensive Cancer Network oncologists regarding whether symptoms were primarily related to disease or treatment. RESULTS: We selected breast cancer-related symptoms and concerns endorsed as high priority by both oncology patients and clinicians for inclusion in the new National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index-16 (NFBSI-16), which includes all eight items from the original FBSI and eight additional items from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy measures. The NFBSI-16 is formatted by subscale: Disease-Related Symptom, Treatment Side-Effect, and General Function and Well-Being. Results provide preliminary support for NFBSI-16's internal consistency reliability (α = 0.87) and validity as evidenced by moderate-to-strong relationships with expected criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Reflecting the priority symptoms of breast cancer patients and clinicians, the NFBSI-16 can be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for advanced breast cancer in clinical practice and research.

Development and validation of 11 symptom indexes to evaluate response to chemotherapy for advanced cancer.

Recent guidance from the FDA discusses patient-reported outcomes as end points in clinical trials. Using methods consistent with this guidance, the authors developed symptom indexes for patients with advanced cancer. Input on the most important symptoms was obtained from 533 patients recruited from NCCN Member Institutions and 4 nonprofit social service organizations. Diagnoses included bladder, brain, breast, colorectal, head and neck, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, kidney, lung, ovarian, and prostate cancers and lymphoma. Physician experts in each of these diseases were also surveyed to differentiate symptoms that were predominantly disease-based from those that were predominantly treatment-induced. Results are evaluated alongside previously published indexes for 9 of these 11 advanced cancers that were created based on expert provider surveys, also implemented at NCCN Member Institutions. Final results are 11 symptom indexes that reflect the highest priorities of people affected by these 11 advanced cancers and the experienced perspective of the people who provide their medical treatment. Beyond the clinical value of such indexes, they may also contribute significantly to satisfying regulatory requirements for a standardized tool to evaluate drug efficacy with respect to symptomatology.

The integration of palliative care and oncology: the evidence.

Cancer care and palliative care each require a complex multi- and interdisciplinary approach to maximize the care of people with cancer. Recommendations for cancer treatment should both relieve the symptoms of cancer and prevent and treat side effects of anticancer therapy. Unrelieved symptoms not only contribute to worse quality of life but also can reduce a patient's ability to tolerate cancer therapy and may have a negative impact on survival. Consistent integration of palliative care practices into standard oncology care is needed across the trajectory of the cancer experience. This article will review the overlap between palliative care and oncology and discuss the available evidence that true integration of palliative and oncology care provides patients with optimal oncology care.

Palliative care and the cancer patient: current state and state of the art.

Comprehensive cancer care requires the integration of palliative care practices and principles across the trajectory of the cancer experience. It complements the treatment of curable disease and may be the sole focus of care for those patients with advanced incurable disease. As the incidence of cancer increases worldwide and the burden of cancer rises, especially in low and middle resource countries, the need for palliative care is greater than ever before. There are numerous barriers to the provision of integrated care, including the ongoing misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care, the "cure-care dichotomy," inadequate training of health professionals and lack of resources. This article reviews the essential elements of comprehensive cancer care and the challenges to providing integrated cancer and palliative care to patients world-wide.

Morphine bioavailability from a topical gel formulation in volunteers.

Although available therapies provide relief to many patients with cancer-related pain, swallowing difficulties or intestinal obstruction may preclude oral analgesic delivery in some. Topical morphine might provide an alternate delivery form but morphine bioavailability from a topical gel formulation has not been reported in humans. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study of five volunteers after they provided institutionally-approved, written, informed consent. They were admitted to the Northwestern University General Clinical Research Center twice, being randomly assigned to receive either 1mL of morphine compounded at 10mg/mL in pluronic lecithin organogel (PLO) base applied to the wrist and 1mL of normal saline administered subcutaneously, or 1mL of topical drug-free PLO base and 1mL of subcutaneous morphine, 3mg/mL, the first time and the opposite combination the second. Seventeen blood samples were collected from 5minutes to 10hours after dose administration for morphine concentration determination. Plasma samples were prepared by solid-phase extraction and morphine concentrations measured by a mass spectrometric technique with a linear range of 0.5-500ng/mL. Bioavailability of the topical formulation relative to the subcutaneous dose was to be estimated from doses and the plasma morphine concentration versus time relationships. Because morphine was seldom detected in plasma samples after topical administration and was unquantifiable when it was, the low bioavailability of topical morphine was unquantifiable. These results suggest that topical administration of morphine compounded in a PLO base for transdermal drug delivery is unlikely to provide relief of cancer-related pain.

Use of a single-item screening tool to detect clinically significant fatigue, pain, distress, and anorexia in ambulatory cancer practice.

Fatigue, pain, distress, and anorexia are four commonly encountered symptoms in cancer. To evaluate the usefulness of a single-item screening for these symptoms, 597 ambulatory outpatients with solid tumors were administered a self-report screening instrument within the first 12 weeks of chemotherapy. Patients rated the severity of each symptom on a 0-10 scale, at its worst over the past three days, with higher ratings associated with higher symptom levels. From this sample, 148 patients also completed a more comprehensive assessment of these symptoms. Two criteria were used to determine optimal cut-off scores on the screening items: 1) the sensitivity and specificity of each screening item to predict clinical cases using receiver-operating characteristics analysis and 2) the proportion of patients at each screening score who reported that some relief of the target symptom would significantly improve their life. Optimal cut-off scores ranged from 4 to 6 depending on the target symptom (area under the curve range=0.68-0.88). Use of single-item screening instruments for fatigue, pain, distress, and anorexia may assist routine clinical assessment in ambulatory oncology practice. In turn, such assessments may improve identification of those at risk of morbidity and decreased quality of life due to excess symptom burden.

Testosterone supplementation of megestrol therapy does not enhance lean tissue accrual in men with human immunodeficiency virus-associated weight loss: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial.

CONTEXT: Reduced energy intake is a primary factor in HIV-associated wasting. Megestrol acetate (MA) stimulates appetite and weight gain. However, much of the weight gained is fat, possibly as a result of MA-induced hypogonadism. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to determine whether coadministration of testosterone with MA could enhance lean body mass (LBM) accrual and evaluate the effects of MA, alone or combined with testosterone, on sexual functioning and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. DESIGN: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. SETTING: Fourteen AIDS Clinical Trials Units in the United States participated in the study. SUBJECTS: Seventy-nine HIV-positive men with 5% or more weight loss or body mass index less than 20 kg/m2 took part in the study. INTERVENTION: Subjects were randomized to receive MA (800 mg daily) plus testosterone enanthate (200 mg; MA/TE; n = 41) or placebo (MA/PL; n = 38) biweekly for 12 wk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight, body composition (bioelectric impedance analysis), adrenal and gonadal hormones, and sexual functioning (questionnaire) were measured. RESULTS: Both groups experienced robust increases in weight (median 5.3 and 7.3 kg in MA/TE and MA/PL, respectively), LBM (3.3 and 3.3 kg), and fat (3.0 and 3.8 kg). There were no significant differences between groups in the magnitude or composition of weight gain (P = 0.44, 0.90, and 0.11 for weight, LBM, and fat, respectively). Trough testosterone concentrations decreased to a greater extent in MA/PL (-12.3 vs. -6.1 nmol/liter in MA/TE; P = 0.04). Cortisol levels became nearly undetectable in subjects with plasma MA levels greater than 150 ng/ml. Sexual functioning was preserved with MA/TE but worsened in MA/PL. CONCLUSIONS: MA produced robust weight gain. Coadministration of testosterone preserved sexual functioning but did not enhance LBM accrual.

A phase II study of single agent bortezomib in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a single institution experience.

PS-341, now known as bortezomib (Velcade[Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cambridge, MA; and Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, LLC, Spring house, PA]), is a proteasome inhibitor approved for the treatment of refractory multiple myeloma. Preclinical and early clinical studies showed PS-341 to be effective in solid tumors, one of which was breast cancer. We conducted a single institution, phase II study using PS-341 in the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. The primary objective of this study was to determine the objective tumor response in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving PS-341. The secondary objectives were to estimate progression-free survival of patients receiving single-agent PS-341 and to evaluate toxicity related to PS-341. In all 12 patients who met criteria for enrollment, there were no observed objective responses. Further, all 12 patients progressed while receiving therapy with PS-341. This study was terminated after the first stage due to the lack of any objective response.

Management of intractable nausea and vomiting in patients at the end of life: "I was feeling nauseous all of the time . . . nothing was working".

Nausea and vomiting, symptoms that occur commonly near the end of life, represent a substantial source of physical and psychological distress for patients and families. In the context of the case of Mr Q, a 50-year-old man with metastatic esophageal cancer admitted to the hospital with intractable nausea and vomiting, we review the evaluation and treatment of this symptom complex. A thorough history and physical examination are essential first steps in the management of these patients because they define the severity of the symptoms and clues to their underlying etiology. Once the most likely cause is determined, the clinician discerns the mechanism, specific transmitters, and receptors by which this etiology is triggering nausea and vomiting. Subsequent pharmacological management focuses on prescribing the appropriate antagonist to the implicated receptors. If symptoms are refractory despite adequate dosage and around-the-clock prophylactic administration, an empirical trial combining several therapies to block multiple emetic pathways should be attempted. Less traditional agents are also discussed, although evidence for their use is limited. Often, oral administration of medication is not feasible and alternate routes such as rectal suppositories, subcutaneous infusions, and orally dissolvable tablets should be considered. Using this step-wise approach, nausea and vomiting can be successfully managed in most patients at the end of life.

Phase II evaluation of low-dose oral etoposide for the treatment of relapsed or progressive AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma: an AIDS Clinical Trials Group clinical study.

PURPOSE: Liposomal anthracyclines and paclitaxel are considered the best available cytotoxic therapies for Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), but relapse is common. To identify new interventions for relapsed or progressive KS, a phase II study of low-dose etoposide to assess its toxicity and efficacy was conducted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients with high-risk KS were treated with oral etoposide 50 mg/d for 7 consecutive days of every 2-week cycle. All patients' disease had relapsed or progressed after prior combination chemotherapy or anthracycline therapy. For patients without a complete or partial response after two cycles of therapy and no toxicity greater than grade 2, the dose of etoposide was escalated to 100 mg/d orally on days 1 to 7 of each 14-day cycle. Treatment-related and disease-specific quality of life was evaluated using patient reports on the General Health Self-Assessment Form and a KS-specific measure. RESULTS: One patient achieved a complete response, 12 patients had a partial response (overall response rate, 36.1%), and stable disease was observed in 12 patients (33.3%). Tumor responses were seen in all disease sites. Fourteen patients had their dose escalated, of whom five responded. The median time to response was 17.7 weeks; the median duration of response was 25 weeks. The most frequent hematologic abnormality was neutropenia, which was grade 4 in seven patients and grade 3 in six. Opportunistic infections occurred in eight patients during the treatment period. Both response to treatment and toxicity influenced patient-reported quality of life. CONCLUSION: We conclude that low-dose oral etoposide at a dose of 50 mg/d is safe and effective for the treatment of refractory or progressed AIDS-related KS and has an overall positive effect on the quality of life of responding patients.

Phase II trial of infusional cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide in patients with HIV-associated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial (E1494).

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of an infusional chemotherapy regimen in patients with HIV-associated lymphoma treated before and after the use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in routine clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight assessable patients with HIV-associated intermediate- or high-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma received cyclophosphamide 200 mg/m(2)/d, doxorubicin 12.5 mg/m(2)/d, and etoposide 60 mg/m(2)/d (CDE) given by continuous intravenous infusion for 4 days (96 hours) every 4 weeks plus filgrastim. Concurrent antiretroviral treatment consisted of the nucleoside analog didanosine in the first 43 patients enrolled before December 1996 (pre-HAART group), or HAART in the remaining 55 patients enrolled after that time (HAART group). RESULTS: Complete response occurred in 44 patients (45%; 95% CI, 35% to 55%). Failure-free survival and overall survival (OS) at 2 years was 36% (95% CI, 26% to 46%) and 43% (95% CI, 33% to 53%), respectively. At the time of the analysis, 30% in the pre-HAART group were alive compared with 47% in the HAART group; when adjusted for varying length of follow-up, patients in the HAART group had improved OS (P =.039). Patients in the HAART group experienced less grade 4 nonhematologic toxicity (22% v 42%; P =.037), thrombocytopenia (31% v 52%; P =.033), and anemia (9% v 27%; P =.021), and had fewer treatment-associated deaths (0% v 10%; P =.013). CONCLUSION: Infusional CDE is an effective and potentially curative regimen for patients with HIV-associated lymphoma. Patients treated in the HAART era have less chemotherapy-associated toxicity and improved survival.

Control of common, non-pain cancer symptoms.

Despite major advances in cancer biology and therapeutics, cancer and its treatment continue to cause devastating suffering. Patients with advanced cancer most often experience multiple physical and psychological symptom concurrently. We review here some of the common non-pain cancer symptoms, focusing on the assessment and treatment of fatigue, anorexia and cachexia, dyspnea, and symptoms common near the end of life.

Final results of a phase II trial of preoperative TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) in stage III breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of preoperative chemotherapy for breast cancer has been demonstrated to result in similar disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast after preoperative chemotherapy has been shown to correlate with survival. The objective of this study was to determine the pCR rate in patients with stage III breast cancer treated with 4 cycles of TAC (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2) on day 1 before surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From November 1998 through August 2001, we treated 40 patients (mean age, 47 years) with stage III breast cancer with TAC administered every 3 weeks for 4 cycles. RESULTS: We now report follow-up at 24 months. Responses were seen in 83% of patients, with 25% experiencing a clinical complete response, of which 4 patients (10%) had pCRs. At a follow-up of 2 years, data on DFS and OS are available on 37 patients: 12 patients (38%) had disease progression, and 7 patients (21%) had died. Despite the use of prophylactic ciprofloxacin, some degree of myelosuppression was seen in all patients, with 24 patients (63%) experiencing grade 3/4 neutropenia. CONCLUSION: Based on the pCR rate seen in this trial, docetaxel given concomitantly with AC (doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide) for 4 cycles does not appear to be superior to 4 cycles of AC as preoperative treatment for stage III breast cancer. Based on other trials, longer durations of therapy and/or sequencing of AC and docetaxel may result in a higher pCR rate.