Cancer-Related Fatigue Outcome Measures in Integrative Oncology: Evidence for Practice and Research Recommendations.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most common symptoms across the cancer continuum and is often underreported and undertreated. Defined as a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of tiredness or exhaustion related to cancer or its treatment, CRF includes physical, emotional, cognitive, and spiritual dimensions. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are the most widely used tool to screen for and assess fatigue and the associated negative impacts on quality of life. However, selecting subjective CRF measures can be complex. This has resulted in the availability of and inconsistent use of numerous PROs, limiting the ability to cross-compare outcomes clinically and within research. To address this, the PROs that are most widely reported in the literature are recommended to support the standardization of a core set of validated measures. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network single-item tool for clinical significance is recommended for quick use in clinical environments; the Brief Fatigue Inventory allows for fast, easy, helpful cutoffs on severity threshold for triage, and measures both severity and interference with daily functioning; while the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory allows for multisymptomatic assessment. In addition, a fundamental consideration for any PRO use is the administrative burden on the patient and clinician. In this review, we aim to summarize current, validated PROs specific to CRF to aid clinicians and researchers in patient care and in study design and implementation. We conclude with suggestions for future directions in CRF research that can increase the possibility for long-term impact on future guidelines of fatigue management.

Pain Improvement After Healing Touch and Massage in Breast Cancer: an Observational Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Healing Touch (HT) and Oncology Massage (OM) are nonpharmacologic pain interventions, yet a comparative effectiveness study has not been conducted for pain in breast cancer. PURPOSE: This breast cancer subgroup analysis compared the effectiveness of HT vs. OM on pain. SETTING: The research occurred at an outpatient setting at an academic hybrid, multi-site, community-based cancer institute and Department of Supportive Oncology across four regional locations. PARTICIPANTS: Breast cancer outpatients along the cancer continuum who experienced routine clinical, nonexperimentally manipulated HT or OM. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study was an observational, retrospective, comparative effectiveness post hoc subanalysis of a larger dataset. Patients reporting pain < 2 were excluded. Pre- and posttherapy pain scores and differences were calculated. Logistic regression modeled posttherapy pain by modality, adjusting for pretherapy pain. The proportions experiencing ≥ 2-point (clinically significant) pain reduction were compared with chi-square tests. INTERVENTION: The study focused on the first session of either HT or OM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre- and posttherapy pain (range: 0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain). RESULTS: A total of 407 patients reported pre- and posttherapy pain scores, comprised of 233 (57.3%) who received HT and 174 (42.8%) who received OM. Pretherapy mean pain was higher in HT (M=5.1, ± 2.3) than OM (M=4.3, ± 2.1) (p < .001); posttherapy mean pain remained higher in HT (M=2.7, ± 2.2) than OM (M=1.9, ± 1.7) (p < .001). Mean difference in pain reduction was 2.4 for both HT and OM. Both HT (p < .001) and OM (p < .001) were associated with reduced pain. Proportions of clinically significant pain reduction were similar (65.7% HT and 69.0% OM, p = .483). Modality was not associated with pain improvement (p = .072). CONCLUSIONS: Both HT and OM were associated with clinically significant pain improvement. Future research should explore attitudes toward the modalities and potential influence of cancer stage and treatment status on modality self-selection.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Pain and Related Symptoms in Integrative Oncology Practice and Clinical Research: Evidence and Recommendations.

Pain is a primary concern among patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Integrative interventions such as acupuncture, massage, and music therapy are effective nonpharmacologic approaches for cancer pain with low cost and minimal adverse events. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that have been validated in many clinical and research settings can be used to evaluate pain intensity, associated symptom burden, and quality of life. Clearly defined, reliable PROs can improve patient satisfaction and symptom control. As integrative oncology continues to evolve and expand, cancer-related pain PROs must be standardized to accurately guide clinicians and researchers. Well-validated pain PROs, such as the Brief Pain Inventory, are among the most commonly used for pain intensity assessment. Multiple symptom assessment tools such as the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events measurement system can also capture pain-associated symptom burden. Electronic PROs provide flexibility in collecting and analyzing PRO data. Clinical trials using carefully selected PROs and rigorous statistical analysis plans are fundamental to conducting high-quality integrative oncology research and promoting utilization of effective integrative interventions to improve patient outcomes. In this review, we aim to summarize current, validated PROs specific to cancer-related pain to aid integrative oncology clinicians and researchers in patient care and in study design and implementation.

Group Acupuncture Model in a Cancer Institute: Improved Access and Affordability.

Cancer patients may experience significant symptom mitigation from acupuncture. However, this service may not be easily accessible or affordable at all cancer institutions. The development of a group acupuncture program provided one institution with improved availability, lower cost to patients, and a foundation for oncology acupuncture research. This care delivery model was deployed at a large southeastern cancer institution within a multistate academic-community hybrid hospital system. The cancer institute serves >15,000 patients annually. Acupuncture is provided through the institute's Integrative Medicine section of the Department of Supportive Oncology. The purpose of this commentary is to describe the successful transition from an individual to group acupuncture model at this cancer institute. With the implementation of group acupuncture, patient visits increased 275% from individual care delivery. Although successful implementation of a group acupuncture model may be affordable and clinically positive, the authors also share unique challenges learned through the development and expansion of this program.

Patients With Cancer and Social Media: Harness Benefits, Avoid Drawbacks.

Social media (SM) platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and online cancer support groups are an emerging source of social support. However, oncology care professionals may be unfamiliar with how patients use SM related to their cancer diagnosis. SM can be potentially beneficial by providing an avenue for patient engagement and empowerment, increasing psychosocial and informational support, strengthening patient-physician relationships, and relaying opportunities for clinical and research study participation. Conversely, it can spread misinformation, overwhelm with information overload, violate privacy, and expose users to financial exploitation. The purpose of this article is to describe five potential benefits and five potential drawbacks patients may experience while using SM and to encourage oncologists to become aware of these, to guide patients in using SM to their benefit. This review also provides specific care practice behaviors that oncologists can apply during care delivery to guide patients' SM use, to help avoid the potential drawbacks and harness the potential benefits.

Cancer Pain Relief After Healing Touch and Massage.

OBJECTIVES: To establish and compare the effectiveness of Healing Touch (HT) and Oncology Massage (OM) therapies on cancer patients' pain. DESIGN: pretest/post-test, observational, retrospective study. SETTINGS/LOCATION: Outpatient oncology setting at an academic hybrid, multisite, community-based cancer institute. SUBJECTS: n = 572 cancer outpatients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients reported pain before and after receiving a single session of either HT or OM from a certified practitioner. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain scores from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-one patients (50.9%) receiving HT and 281 (49.1%) receiving OM reported pretherapy and post-therapy pain. Pretherapy mean pain was higher in HT patients (M = 5.1, ±2.2) than OM (M = 4.4, ±2.2), p < 0.001; post-therapy mean pain remained higher in HT patients (M = 2.6, ±2.1) than OM (M = 2.0, ±1.8), p < 0.001. Both HT (p < 0.01) and OM (p < 0.01) significantly reduced pain. Unadjusted rates of clinically significant pain improvement (defined as ≥2-point reduction in pain score) were 0.68 HT and 0.71 OM. Adjusted for pretherapy pain, OM was associated with increased odds of pain improvement (odds ratio [OR] 1.49 95% confidence interval (1.02-2.19); p = 0.041). For patients with severe pretherapy pain, OM was not more effective in yielding clinically significant pain reduction (p = 0.236) when adjusting for pretherapy pain score. CONCLUSIONS: Both HT and OM provided immediate pain relief. Future research should explore the duration of pain relief, patient attitudes about HT compared with OM, and how this may differ among patients with varied pretherapy pain levels.

Social Media for Networking, Professional Development, and Patient Engagement.

Social media has become an established method of communication, and many physicians are finding these interactive tools and platforms to be useful for both personal and professional use. Risks of social media, or barriers to its use, include perceived lack of time, privacy concerns, and the risk of damage to one's reputation by unprofessional behavior. Of the social media platforms, Twitter has become favored by physicians and other health care professionals. Although one of the most obvious uses of social media is for rapid dissemination and receipt of information, oncologists are finding that social media is important for networking through blogs, Facebook, and Twitter. These platforms also have potential for providing opportunities for professional development, such as finding collaborators through networking, participation in Twitter journal clubs, and participating in online case-based tumor boards. Social media can also be used for patient engagement, such as through participation in tweet chats. There is emerging data that patient engagement through these platforms may lead to improvement in some health-related outcomes; however, data are sparse for oncology-specific outcomes. Efforts are underway to determine how to assess how social media engagement impacts health outcomes in oncology patients.