Identifying Factors Associated With Disparities in Access to Integrative Oncology Program.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES: Cancer centers are increasingly providing complementary medicine as part of an emerging discipline termed 'integrative oncology' (IO). The present study explored factors associated with disparities in referral and adherence to a freely-provided IO program. METHODS: The databases of three oncology centers in northern Israel were searched retrospectively for chemotherapy-treated oncology patients eligible for referral by their oncology healthcare professionals to an integrative physician (IP) consultation. Demographic and cancer-related variables associated with the referral, and attendance by patients at the consultation were identified, as was adherence to the 6-week IO treatment program (high adherence, attending ≥4 IO treatment sessions; low adherence, 0-3 sessions). RESULTS: Of 4988 eligible patients, 1694 (34%) were referred to the IP consultation, with 1331 (78.6%) attending the consultation of which 766 (57.6%) were adherent to IO treatments. Multivariate analysis revealed lower referral rates among patients speaking primarily Arabic and Russian vs. Hebrew (OR = 3.0, 95% CI = 2.0-4.6, P < 0.0001); males vs. females (OR = 1.94, CI = 1.3-2.9, P = 0.001); those not reporting emotional distress (OR = 1.5, CI = 1.02-2.16, P = 0.037); and older age (OR = 1.04, CI = 1.03-1.06, P < 0.0001). Arabic and Russian-speaking patients were less likely to adhere to IO treatments (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.32-0.83, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Patients' ethno-national origin and immigration status (primary language, Arabic and Russian), male gender and older age were associated with lower rates of referral to and attendance of the IP consultation, with reduced adherence to weekly IO treatments. These findings require further study to identify barriers toward diversity, equity and inclusion in IO care, increasing awareness among healthcare professionals regarding the benefits of these services for improving patient wellbeing.

Exploring a multi-disciplinary model of supportive cancer care for monoclonal antibody treatment-related dermatological symptoms.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES: The present study examined the perspectives of healthcare providers (HCPs) in designing a multi-disciplinary model of supportive cancer care for the relief of dermatology-related symptoms caused by monoclonal antibody therapies. METHODS: The study employed a mixed research methodology, with qualitative research embedded within a pragmatic prospective study of a registry protocol study. Patients undergoing oncology therapy with MoAB, anti-HER2, and anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies were identified among a cohort of patients referred to an integrative oncology (IO) consultation for symptom relief and improved quality of life (QoL). Case studies with significant dermatology-related concerns were selected and presented to a panel of 6 HCPs trained in medical oncology, oncology nursing, family medicine, supportive cancer care, and IO. HCP narratives were qualitatively analyzed and assessed using ATLAS.Ti software for systematic coding. RESULTS: Of the 924 patients referred to the IO consultation, 208 were treated with monoclonal antibodies, from which 50 were selected for further evaluation. Of these, 7 cases were presented to the HCP team who were asked to identify treatment gaps requiring a multi-disciplinary approach. Qualitative analysis identified 3 major themes: a biophysical perspective; a psycho-social-spiritual perspective; and the implementation of integrated care. DISCUSSION: There is a need for a multi-disciplinary approach when treating patients suffering from monoclonal antibody treatment-related skin toxicities. HCP-reported themes highlight the need to identify patients for whom such an approach is warranted; conditions in which a psycho-social-spiritual perspective should be considered, in addition to a bio-physical approach; and considerations of who should be designated as the patient's primary case manager.

Acupuncture and integrative oncology for taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy: a randomized multicentered study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of acupuncture alone or with additional integrative oncology modalities for taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy-related symptoms in patients with gynecological and breast cancer. METHODS: The study was a prospective evaluation of patients undergoing twice-weekly treatments with either acupuncture alone (single-modality, group A) or with additional manual-movement and mind-body therapies (multimodality, group B), for 6 weeks. Symptom severity was assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 9 weeks using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Taxane (FACT-Tax) tool; and von Frey perception thresholds. Additional symptoms were also assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW) study tool. RESULTS: For the 120 participants (60 in each study arm), baseline to 6-week scores were similar in both groups for improved FACT-Tax physical wellbeing and scores for hand numbness/tingling; EORTC physical functioning and global health status; and MYCaW scores. FACT-Tax taxane subscales and scores for foot numbness/tingling improved only in group A (p=0.038), while emotional wellbeing FACT-Tax (p=0.02) and EORTC pain (p=0.005) improved only in group B. Group B showed greater improvement for FACT-Tax neuropathy-related concerns than group A at 24 hours (p=0.043) and 7 days (p=0.009) after the first treatment. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture alone or with additional integrative oncology modalities may help reduce neuropathy-related symptoms. The single-modality group demonstrated greater improvement for foot numbness/tingling, and the multimodality group demonstrated improvement for pain and improved emotional wellbeing and neuropathy-related concerns in the first week of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03290976.

Effects of a patient-tailored integrative oncology intervention in the relief of pain in palliative and supportive cancer care.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVES: The present study examined the impact of an integrative oncology treatment program in the relief of pain in patients undergoing chemotherapy and/or palliative care. METHODS: In this pragmatic prospective controlled study, patients undergoing chemotherapy and/or palliative care were referred by their oncology healthcare providers to an integrative physician (IP) consultation, followed by weekly integrative treatments. Patients attending ≥ 4 sessions during the first 6 weeks of the study were considered to be highly adherent to integrative care (AIC). Pain was assessed at baseline and at 6 and 12 weeks using the ESAS (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire) tools. RESULTS: Of 815 eligible patients, 484 (59.4%) were high-AIC and 331 low-AIC. Mean pain scores decreased significantly from baseline to 6 and 12 weeks in both groups. However, ESAS and EORTC pain scores improved significantly more in the high-AIC group at 6 weeks (p= 0.008), though not at 12 weeks. Between-group analysis of participants undergoing adjuvant/neo-adjuvant chemotherapy showed higher pain reduction in the high-AIC group at 6 weeks (ESAS, p = 0.006; EORTC, p = 0.046), as was the case with patients receiving palliative care (ESAS p = 0.04; EORTC p = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: High adherence to integrative care was found to be associated with a greater effect on pain relief at 6 weeks but not at 12 weeks in patients undergoing chemotherapy and/or palliative care.

Impact of the 12-Gene Colon Cancer Assay on Clinical Decision Making for Adjuvant Therapy in Stage II Colon Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the 12-gene Colon Cancer Recurrence Score Assay-a clinically validated prognosticator in stage II colon cancer after surgical resection-on adjuvant treatment decisions in T3 mismatch repair proficient (MMR-P) stage II colon cancer in clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included all patients with T3 MMR-P stage II colon cancer (Clalit Health Services members) with Recurrence Score results (time frame January 2011 to May 2012). Treatment recommendations pretesting were compared with the treatments received. Changes were categorized as decreased (to observation alone/removing oxaliplatin from the therapy) or increased (from observation alone/adding oxaliplatin to the therapy) intensity. RESULTS: The analysis included 269 patients; 58%, 32%, and 10% of the values were in the low (<30), intermediate (30-40), and high (≥41) score groups, respectively. In 102 patients (38%), treatment changed post-testing (decreased/increased intensity 76/26 patients). The overall impact was decreased chemotherapy use (45.0% to 27.9%; P < 0.001). Treatment changes occurred in all score groups, but more frequently in the high (change rate 63.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 42.3%-80.6%) than in the intermediate (30.6%; 95% CI 21.0%-41.5%) and low (37.6%; 95% CI 30.0%-45.7%) score groups. The direction of the change was consistent with the assay result, with increased intensity more common in higher score values and decreased intensity more common in lower score values. CONCLUSIONS: Testing significantly affected adjuvant treatment in T3 MMR-P stage II colon cancer in clinical practice. The study is limited by its design, which compared treatment recommendations pretesting to actual treatments received post-testing, lack of a control group, and nonassessment of confounding factors that may have affected treatment decisions.