Most National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center Websites Do Not Provide Survivors with Information About Cancer Rehabilitation Services.

This study is the first to evaluate the existence and quality of patient-related cancer rehabilitation content on the websites of National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Centers. In 2016, a team of cancer rehabilitation physicians (physiatrists) conducted an analysis of the patient-related rehabilitation content on the websites of all NCI-Designated Cancer Centers that provide clinical care (N = 62 of 69). The main outcome measures included qualitative rating of the ease of locating descriptions of cancer rehabilitation services on each website, followed by quantitative rating of the quality of the cancer rehabilitation descriptions found. More than 90% of NCI-Designated Cancer Centers providing clinical care did not have an easily identifiable patient-focused description of or link to cancer rehabilitation services on their website. Use of a website's search box and predetermined terms yielded an additional 13 descriptions (21%). Therefore, designers of nearly 70% of the websites evaluated overlooked an opportunity to present a description of cancer rehabilitation services. Moreover, only 8% of the websites included accurate and detailed information that referenced four core rehabilitation services (physiatry and physical, occupational and speech therapy). Further research is needed to confirm the presence of cancer rehabilitation services and evaluate access to these types of services at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers providing clinical care.

Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care: critical components in the delivery of high-quality oncology services.

Palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are important collaborative referral sources for each other who can work together to improve the lives of cancer patients, survivors, and caregivers by improving both quality of care and quality of life. Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care involve the delivery of important but underutilized medical services to oncology patients by interdisciplinary teams. These subspecialties are similar in many respects, including their focus on improving cancer-related symptoms or cancer treatment-related side effects, improving health-related quality of life, lessening caregiver burden, and valuing patient-centered care and shared decision-making. They also aim to improve healthcare efficiencies and minimize costs by means such as reducing hospital lengths of stay and unanticipated readmissions. Although their goals are often aligned, different specialized skills and approaches are used in the delivery of care. For example, while each specialty prioritizes goal-concordant care through identification of patient and family preferences and values, palliative care teams typically focus extensively on using patient and family communication to determine their goals of care, while also tending to comfort issues such as symptom management and spiritual concerns. Rehabilitation clinicians may tend to focus more specifically on functional issues such as identifying and treating deficits in physical, psychological, or cognitive impairments and any resulting disability and negative impact on quality of life. Additionally, although palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are trained to diagnose and treat medically complex patients, rehabilitation clinicians also treat many patients with a single impairment and a low symptom burden. In these cases, the goal is often cure of the underlying neurologic or musculoskeletal condition. This report defines and describes cancer rehabilitation and palliative care, delineates their respective roles in comprehensive oncology care, and highlights how these services can contribute complementary components of essential quality care. An understanding of how cancer rehabilitation and palliative care are aligned in goal setting, but distinct in approach may help facilitate earlier integration of both into the oncology care continuum-supporting efforts to improve physical, psychological, cognitive, functional, and quality of life outcomes in patients and survivors.

Prophylactic Lymphovenous Bypass at the Time of Axillary Lymph Node Dissection Decreases Rates of Lymphedema.

Background: Breast cancer-related lymphedema impacts 30% to 47% of women who undergo axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Studies evaluating the effectiveness of prophylactic lymphovenous bypass (LVB) at the time of ALND have had small patient populations and/or short follow-up. The aim of this study is to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate prophylactic LVB in patients with breast cancer. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent ALND from 2018 to 2022 was performed. Patients were divided into cohorts based on whether they underwent prophylactic LVB at the time of ALND. Primary outcomes included 30-day complications and lymphedema. Lymphedema was quantitatively evaluated by bioimpedance analysis, with L-dex scores >7.1 indicating lymphedema. Results: One-hundred five patients were identified. Sixty-four patients (61.0%) underwent ALND and 41 patients (39.0%) underwent ALND+LVB. Postoperative complications were similar between the cohorts. At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, lymphedema occurred significantly higher in the ALND only group compared with ALND+LVB group (50.0% vs 12.2%; P < 0.001). ALND without LVB was an independent risk factor for lymphedema development (odds ratio, 4.82; P = 0.003). Conclusions: Prophylactic LVB decreases lymphedema and is not associated with increased postoperative complications. A multidisciplinary team approach is imperative to decrease lymphedema development in this patient population.

Health, social, and economic characteristics of patients enrolled in a COVID-19 recovery program.

At least one in five people who recovered from acute COVID-19 have persistent clinical symptoms, however little is known about the impact on quality-of-life (QOL), socio-economic characteristics, fatigue, work and productivity. We present a cross-sectional descriptive characterization of the clinical symptoms, QOL, socioeconomic characteristics, fatigue, work and productivity of a cohort of patients enrolled in the MedStar COVID Recovery Program (MSCRP). Our participants include people with mental and physical symptoms following recovery from acute COVID-19 and enrolled in MSCRP, which is designed to provide comprehensive multidisciplinary care and aid in recovery. Participants completed medical questionnaires and the PROMIS-29, Fatigue Severity Scale, Work and Productivity Impairment Questionnaire, and Social Determinants of Health surveys. Participants (n = 267, mean age 47.6 years, 23.2% hospitalized for COVID-19) showed impaired QOL across all domains assessed with greatest impairment in physical functioning (mean 39.1 ± 7.4) and fatigue (mean 60.6 ±. 9.7). Housing or "the basics" were not afforded by 19% and food insecurity was reported in 14% of the cohort. Participants reported elevated fatigue (mean 4.7 ± 1.1) and impairment with activity, work productivity, and on the job effectiveness was reported in 63%, 61%, and 56% of participants, respectively. Patients with persistent mental and physical symptoms following initial illness report impairment in QOL, socioeconomic hardships, increased fatigue and decreased work and productivity. Our cohort highlights that even those who are not hospitalized and recover from less severe COVID-19 can have long-term impairment, therefore designing, implementing, and scaling programs to focus on mitigating impairment and restoring function are greatly needed.

The Cancer Rehabilitation Medicine Metrics Consortium: A Path to Enhanced, Multi-Site Outcome Assessment to Enhance Care and Demonstrate Value.

PURPOSE: A primary objective stated at the Cancer Rehabilitation Symposium at the National Institutes of Health was to improve outcome measurement. The purpose of this project was for the Cancer Rehabilitation Medicine Metrics Consortium (CRMMC) to develop an assessment tool to evaluate function in cancer patients via a data-driven and methodologically sound process. There is no agreed-upon measure of physical and cognitive function for cancer patients, making it difficult to demonstrate the value of rehabilitation interventions. Cancer patients are a particularly challenging population, with many tumor- and treatment-related variables impacting function. METHODS: Investigators from nine different cancer rehabilitation programs participated in a modified-Delphi process to delineate necessary aspects of an ideal patient assessment tool, including instrument type, domains evaluated, applicability across a range of patient traits, clinical feasibility, and item response characteristics. This involved numerous meetings, data review, and analysis of items involved in patient assessment. RESULTS: The CRMMC developed a 21-item patient-reported outcome measure based on item response theory. The process by which the short form was developed was documented and provides a framework for other clinicians to follow. CONCLUSION: This document provides a framework for rehabilitation providers to follow when developing an assessment tool. This process is described in a stepwise fashion for reproducibility even in different, non-cancer populations.

An Evolving Role for Cancer Rehabilitation in the Era of Low-Dose Lung Computed Tomography Screening.

Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and is often detected in the later stages. Use of low-dose chest computed tomography in at-risk patients provides earlier detection and is being adopted as the standard screening tool, replacing less precise methods of radiography and sputum cytology. In the past, late detection of disease meant that rehabilitation interventions attempted to salvage function and to improve aerobic capacity to the point where patients could tolerate the sometimes-extensive oncologic treatment, including lobectomy or pneumonectomy. Earlier detection may shift this toward more often addressing specific neuromusculoskeletal impairments, such as postthoracotomy pain or peripheral neuropathy, as patients with early-stage disease may not be as debilitated by chronic disease or metastases as those with late-stage lung cancer. Patients with advanced disease, however, will still require rehabilitation interventions, and this fragile population creates unique challenges. Rehabilitation professionals should look for ways to expand care to lung cancer patients, as both the number of those treated and the 5-year survival rate are expected to increase.

Ultrasound-Guided Intercostobrachial Nerve Block for Intercostobrachial Neuralgia in Breast Cancer Patients: A Case Series.

This case series describes 3 cases in which ultrasound-guided intercostobrachial perineural injection was used for intercostobrachial neuralgia, a common cause of postmastectomy pain syndrome. All cases had undergone modified radical mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. Two cases developed axillary and unilateral chest wall pain. The third case initially presented with axillary pain and lateral shoulder pain 1 year out from radical mastectomy. After a cervical epidural steroid injection, her lateral shoulder pain resolved, but she continued to have residual chest wall paresthesia. It was at this time, we decided to treat with an intercostobrachial nerve perineural injection. Injury to the intercostobrachial nerve is thought to be a common cause of postmastectomy pain. In our case series, all patients had pain relief after the intercostobrachial perineural injection. There is a relative dearth of published information on the treatment of postmastectomy pain and more specifically intercostobrachial neuralgia. We review the anatomy of the intercostobrachial nerve and its variants, etiologies of intercostobrachial neuralgia, and current indications and methods of an intercostobrachial perineural injection.