Responsiveness and interpretation of the PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D Profile.

BACKGROUND: Measuring function with valid and responsive tools in patients with cancer is essential for driving clinical decision-making and for the end points of clinical trials. Current patient-reported outcome measurements of function fall short for many reasons. This study evaluates the responsiveness of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Cancer Function Brief 3D Profile, a novel measure of function across multiple domains. METHODS: Two hundred nine participants across five geographically distinct tertiary care centers completed the assessment and pain rating at two outpatient cancer rehabilitation clinic visits. Patients and providers completed a global rating of change measure at the second visit to indicate whether the patient was improving or worsening in function. Multiple response indices and linear models measured whether the measure was responsive to self-reported and clinician-rated changes over time. Correlations between changes in function and changes in anchors (pain rating and performance status) were also calculated. RESULTS: Function as measured by the PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D Profile changed appropriately as both patients and clinicians rated change. Small to moderate effect sizes supported the tool's responsiveness. Function was moderately correlated with pain and more strongly correlated with performance status, and changes in function corresponded with changes in anchor variables. No floor/ceiling effect was found. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D Profile is sensitive to changes over time in patients with cancer. The measure may be useful in clinical practice and as an end point in clinical trials. LAY SUMMARY: We gave patients a questionnaire by which they told their physicians how well they were functioning, including how fatigued they were. This study tested that questionnaire to see whether the scores would change if patients got better or worse.

Translating 2019 ACSM Cancer Exercise Recommendations for a Physiatric Practice: Derived Recommendations from an International Expert Panel.

In 2018, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) reconvened an international, multi-disciplinary group of professionals to review pertinent published literature on exercise for people with cancer. The 2018 roundtable resulted in the publication of three articles in 2019. The three articles serve as an important update to the original ACSM Roundtable on Cancer, which convened in 2010. Although the focus of the three 2019 articles is on exercise, which is only one part of comprehensive cancer rehabilitation, the evidence presented in the 2019 ACSM articles has direct implications for physiatrists and other rehabilitation professionals who care for people with cancer. As such, the narrative review presented here has two primary objectives. First, we summarize the evidence within the three ACSM articles and interpret it within a familiar rehabilitation framework, namely the Dietz model of Cancer Rehabilitation, in order to facilitate implementation broadly within rehabilitation practice. Second, via expert consensus, we have tabulated relevant exercise recommendations for specific cancer populations at different points in the cancer care continuum and translated them into text, tables, and figures for ease of reference. Notably, the authors of this article are members of the Cancer Rehabilitation Physician Consortium (CRPC), a group of physicians who subspecialize in cancer rehabilitation medicine (CRM).

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.

Consensus-Building efforts to identify best tools for screening and assessment for supportive services in oncology.

Purpose: To build consensus around an optimal patient-reported outcome measure of cancer symptoms and patient needs to facilitate patient-provider communication and trigger referrals to supportive services.Methods and materials: The Grid-Enabled Measures platform was used to crowdsource and facilitate collaboration to achieve consensus. Respondents were invited to nominate and independently rate the usefulness of measures that: (1) have been actively used at a healthcare institution, (2) have a multiple choice or yes/no type format, (3) are applicable to adults with cancer, (4) are patient-reported, and 5) have psychometric data if possible. Discussion boards within the GEM workspace allowed respondents to identify barriers to implementing patient assessment and referral systems.Results: 166 individuals from various disciplines from 25 organizations participated. Six instruments were nominated, and 553 rating surveys were submitted. The three most highly-rated overall instruments were the Distress Thermometer, the James Supportive Case Screening, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. Participants noted that wide-scale implementation of this process requires both identifying problems and providing clinicians with algorithms to facilitate appropriate referrals.Conclusions: Consensus reported three most highly-related measures as optimal for comprehensive screening and identification for referral by assessing multiple domains of functioning and quality of life.Implications for RehabilitationGaining consensus on the best patient reported outcome measures is an important step towards improving access to cancer rehabilitation services.A consensus agreed on several measures to use for cancer rehabilitation screening. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, National Comprehensive Cancer. Network Distress Thermometer and the James Instrument.The selected measures do not put undue burden on clinicians and patients.

"Chemotherapy-periodized" Exercise to Accommodate for Cyclical Variation in Fatigue.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to provide a rationale for "chemotherapy-periodized" exercise by characterizing cyclical variations in fatigue and exercise response across a chemotherapy cycle and comparing exercise adherence during chemotherapy between a prescription that is periodized according to chemotherapy cycle length and a standard linearly progressed prescription. METHODS: Women with breast cancer who were prescribed taxane-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned to a supervised aerobic and resistance exercise program after a chemotherapy-periodized exercise prescription (n = 12) or to usual care during chemotherapy (n = 15). Fatigue and steady state exercise responses were assessed in both groups before the first taxane treatment and across the third treatment (i.e., 0-3 d prior and 3-5 d after the third treatment, and 0-3 d before the fourth treatment) to assess cyclical variations. Adherence to the chemotherapy-periodized exercise prescription was compared with adherence to a standard linear prescription from a prior study in a similar population (n = 51). RESULTS: Fatigue increased from baseline (marginal mean ± standard error: 3.2 ± 0.4) to before the third treatment (4.1 ± 0.4, P = 0.025), then peaked at 3 to 5 d after the third treatment (5.1 ± 0.4, P = 0.001), before recovering before the fourth treatment (4.3 ± 0.5, P = 0.021). The peak in fatigue at 3 to 5 d post-third treatment corresponded to a decrease in steady state exercise oxygen consumption (V˙O2) (P = 0.013). Compared with a standard linear exercise prescription during chemotherapy, a chemotherapy-periodized exercise prescription resulted in higher attendance during the week after chemotherapy (57% ± 30% vs 77% ± 28%, P = 0.04) and overall attendance (63% + 25% vs 78% ± 23%, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Fatigue and exercise V˙O2 vary across a chemotherapy cycle. A chemotherapy-periodized exercise prescription that accommodates cyclical variations in fatigue may increase adherence to supervised exercise.

Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable.

PURPOSE: The number of cancer survivors worldwide is growing, with over 15.5 million cancer survivors in the United States alone-a figure expected to double in the coming decades. Cancer survivors face unique health challenges as a result of their cancer diagnosis and the impact of treatments on their physical and mental well-being. For example, cancer survivors often experience declines in physical functioning and quality of life while facing an increased risk of cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality compared with persons without cancer. The 2010 American College of Sports Medicine Roundtable was among the first reports to conclude that cancer survivors could safely engage in enough exercise training to improve physical fitness and restore physical functioning, enhance quality of life, and mitigate cancer-related fatigue. METHODS: A second Roundtable was convened in 2018 to advance exercise recommendations beyond public health guidelines and toward prescriptive programs specific to cancer type, treatments, and/or outcomes. RESULTS: Overall findings retained the conclusions that exercise training and testing were generally safe for cancer survivors and that every survivor should "avoid inactivity." Enough evidence was available to conclude that specific doses of aerobic, combined aerobic plus resistance training, and/or resistance training could improve common cancer-related health outcomes, including anxiety, depressive symptoms, fatigue, physical functioning, and health-related quality of life. Implications for other outcomes, such as peripheral neuropathy and cognitive functioning, remain uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed recommendations should serve as a guide for the fitness and health care professional working with cancer survivors. More research is needed to fill remaining gaps in knowledge to better serve cancer survivors, as well as fitness and health care professionals, to improve clinical practice.

Follow the trail: Using insights from the growth of palliative care to propose a roadmap for cancer rehabilitation.

Despite research explicating the benefits of cancer rehabilitation interventions to optimize physical, social, emotional, and vocational functioning, many reports document low rates of referral to and uptake of rehabilitation in oncology. Cancer rehabilitation clinicians, researchers, and policy makers could learn from the multidisciplinary specialty of palliative care, which has benefited from a growth strategy and has garnered national recognition as an important and necessary aspect of oncology care. The purpose of this article is to explore the actions that have increased the uptake and integration of palliative care to yield insights and multimodal strategies for the development and growth of cancer rehabilitation. After examining the history of palliative care and its growth, the authors highlight 5 key strategies that may benefit the field of cancer rehabilitation: 1) stimulating the science in specific gap areas; 2) creating clinical practice guidelines; 3) building clinical capacity; 4) ascertaining and responding to public opinion; and 5) advocating for public policy change. Coordinated and simultaneous advances on these 5 strategies may catalyze the growth, utilization, and effectiveness of patient screening, timely referrals, and delivery of appropriate cancer rehabilitation care that reduces disability and improves quality of life for cancer survivors who need these services.

Agenda for Translating Physical Activity, Nutrition, and Weight Management Interventions for Cancer Survivors into Clinical and Community Practice.

Evidence supporting physical activity, diet, and weight management for cancer survivors has grown, leading to the development of guidelines and interventions. The next step is to identify necessary practice and policy changes and to develop a research agenda to inform how interventions can be delivered to survivors most effectively and efficiently in health care settings and by community-based organizations. Here, an agenda is proposed for research, practice, and policy that incorporates recommendations for a range of programming options, a patient-centered, tailored screening and referral approach, and training needs for survivorship care providers and providers of exercise, nutrition, and weight management services. Research needs to focus on sustainability, dissemination, and implementation. Needed policy changes are presented, as well as opportunities to leverage current health care policies.

Cancer Rehabilitation: An Overview of Current Need, Delivery Models, and Levels of Care.

The relevance of cancer rehabilitation as a public health issue grows steadily as cancer incidence, survival, and mean patient age increase. Reported rates of physical impairment and disability are already high, prior to the anticipated influx of aged cancer survivors. Despite the high prevalence of cancer-related disablement, treatment rates, even for readily remediable physical impairments, are as low as 1-2%. In addition to low referral rates, a challenge to patient-centric cancer rehabilitation is a fractured system that requires multiple visits to a range of specialists to address even a single issue, and cancer survivors generally have several. Effective solutions must acknowledge the limited cancer rehabilitation clinical work force and its clustering in tertiary centers, as well as the lack of consensus regarding the essential and effective components of a cancer rehabilitation program. A number of models of cancer rehabilitation service delivery have been developed, but, as yet, none have been empirically validated. This paper describes these models and proposes a taxonomy for stratifying the needs of cancer survivors. Modalities used to preserve or restore function among survivors range from simple, relatively intuitive activities to complex, integrated programs that include diagnostic and multi-modal pharmacological, manual, and even procedural interventions. Criteria for determining a survivor's needs across this spectrum are proposed, and the role of the physiatrist as a vital advocate and champion discussed.

A prospective model of care for breast cancer rehabilitation: function.

A significant proportion of adult breast cancer survivors experience deficits in function and restriction in participation in life roles that may remain many years after diagnosis. Function is a complex construct that takes into account the interactions between an individual, their health condition, and the social and personal context in which they live. Research to date on limitations in activities of daily living, upper extremity function, and functional capacity in breast cancer survivors illustrates the need for prospective measurement of function using measures that are sensitive to the unique issues of breast cancer survivors and the need for the development of effective rehabilitation interventions to improve function. Limitations in function have a significant impact on quality of life, but less is known about the implications on return to work and survival, as well as the impact of other comorbidities and aging on the function limitations in breast cancer survivors. This review provides a rationale for the integration of measures of function into breast cancer care to more fully appreciate the functional limitations associated with breast cancer diagnosis and treatment and to aid in the development of better rehabilitation care for breast cancer survivors.