Characterizing Different Multidisciplinary Team Models Implemented Within One Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Background: The multidisciplinary approach is considered "best practice" in oncology. Multidisciplinary Teamwork (MDTW) can be broadly classified into Multidisciplinary Team Meetings (MDTM) and Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinics (MDCC; involving also patients), yet both models are heterogeneously implemented. Purpose: This study aims at describing the different MDTW implemented models in a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methods: All clinical unit directors of the hospital were contacted to identify any MDTW activities the personnel of the unit were involved in. Structured interviews were carried out to collect MDTWs information, ie, type (MDTM vs MDCC), team composition, aims, disease phase, use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Descriptive analyses and Social Network Analysis (SNA) were performed. Results: Among 38 structured interviews, 25 concerned MDTMs and 13 in MDCCs. Responders were mainly surgeons (35%) and oncologists (29%), 35% of them were team leaders. Teams were mostly composed of physicians only (64% in MDTMs, 69% in MDCCs). Case managers (8% and 31%), palliative care specialists (12% and 23%) and psychologists (20% and 31%) were involved to a lesser extent, mainly when dealing with advanced disease. MDTWs were mainly aimed at integrating the skills of the different specialists (respectively 72% for MDTMs and 64% for MDCCs) and offering the best overall patient care pathway (64%, 61.5%). MDTWs were directed at patients in both diagnostic (72%, 61.5%) and locally advanced/metastatic (32%, 38.4%) disease. PROMs were seldom used (24%, 23%). SNA shows a similar density in the two MDTWs, but in the MDCCs two nodes remain isolated (pathologists and radiologists). Conclusion: Despite a high number of MDTWs for advanced/metastatic disease, there is limited involvement of palliative care specialists, psychologists, and nurses.

Occurrence of breast-cancer-related lymphedema after reverse lymphatic mapping and selective axillary dissection versus standard surgical treatment of axilla: A two-arm randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The need for axillary dissection (AD) is declining, but it is still essential for many patients with nodal involvement who risk developing breast-cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) with lifelong consequences. Previous nonrandomized studies found axillary reverse mapping and selective axillary dissection (ARM-SAD) a safe and feasible way to preserve the arm's lymphatic drainage. METHODS: The present two-arm prospective randomized clinical trial was held at a single comprehensive cancer center to ascertain whether ARM-SAD can reduce the risk of BCRL, compared with standard AD, in patients with node-positive breast cancer. Whatever the type of breast surgery or adjuvant treatments planned, 130 patients with nodal involvement met our inclusion criteria: 65 were randomized for AD and 65 for ARM-SAD. Twelve months after surgery, a physiatrist assessed patients for BCRL and calculated the excess volume of the operated arm. Lymphoscintigraphy was used to assess drainage impairment. Self-reports of any impairment were also recorded. RESULTS: The difference in the incidence of BCRL between the two groups was 21% (95% CI, 3-37; p = .03). A significantly lower rate of BCRL after ARM-SAD was confirmed by a multimodal analysis that included the physiatrist's findings, excess arm volume, and lymphoscintigraphic findings, but this was not matched by a significant difference in patients' self-reports. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings encourage a change of surgical approach when AD is still warranted. ARM-SAD may be an alternative to standard AD to reduce the treatment-related morbidity.

Knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of the positive impact of routine assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their systematic collection is not widely implemented in cancer care. AIM: To assess the knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards PROMs and electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs) in clinical practice and research and to explore respondent-related factors associated with the above dimensions. METHOD: An ad hoc developed online survey was administered to all HCPs employed in clinical activity in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. The survey investigated which PROMs were known and used, as well as HCPs' opinions on the advantages and drawbacks of routine PROM assessment, including electronic assessment (ePROM). Linear and logistic regression models were used for association analyses. RESULTS: Five Hundred Eleven of nine hundred ninety-two invited HCPs (52%) provided analyzable responses. 68% were women, 46% were nurses and 42% physicians, and 52.5% had > 20 years seniority. The average number of PROMs known was six among 17 proposed. All proved to be under-used (< 28%) except unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales (77 and 36%). Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards PROMs, with strengths outweighing weaknesses (mean overall scores 3.6 and 2.9, respectively, on a 1-5 scale). 67% of respondents preferred electronic collection over paper and pencil. Profession was associated with knowledge and use (physicians reported knowing more PROMs than other professionals) and with a preference for electronic collection (nurses were less likely to prefer the electronic format than physicians). Senior HCPs were slightly more critical about both PROMs and electronic administration. CONCLUSIONS: This survey indicates an acceptable level of knowledge of common PROM tools but low usage in practice. Based on the generally positive attitude of HCPs, routine implementation of ePROMs can be promoted as long as adequate resources and training are provided. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not registered.

Correction to: What to Do and What Not to Do in the Management of Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Choosing Wisely Report.

The original article can be found online.

What to Do and What Not to Do in the Management of Opioid-Induced Constipation: A Choosing Wisely Report.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the essential utility of opioids for the clinical management of pain, opioid-induced constipation (OIC) remains an important obstacle in clinical practice. In patients, OIC hinders treatment compliance and has negative effects on quality of life. From a clinician perspective, the diagnosis and management of OIC are hampered by the absence of a clear, universal diagnostic definition across disciplines and a lack of standardization in OIC treatment and assessment. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of physician experts who treat OIC was assembled to identify a list of ten corrective actions-five "things to do" and five "things not to do"-for the diagnosis and management of OIC, utilizing the Choosing Wisely methodology. RESULTS: The final list of corrective actions to improve the diagnosis and clinical management of OIC emphasized a need for: (i) better physician and patient education regarding OIC; (ii) systematic use of diagnostically validated approaches to OIC diagnosis and assessment (i.e., Rome IV criteria and Bristol Stool Scale, respectively) across various medical contexts; and (iii) awareness about appropriate, evidence-based treatments for OIC including available peripheral mu-opioid receptor antagonists (PAMORAs). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who prescribe long-term opioids should be forthcoming with patients about the possibility of OIC and be adequately versed in the most recent guideline recommendations for its management.

PATIENT VOICES, a project for the integration of the systematic assessment of patient reported outcomes and experiences within a comprehensive cancer center: a protocol for a mixed method feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Listening to "patient voices" in terms of symptoms, emotional status and experiences with care, is crucial for patient empowerment in clinical practice. Despite convincing evidence that routine patient reported outcomes and experience measurements (PRMs) with rapid feed-back to oncologists can improve symptom control, patient well-being and cost effectiveness, PRMs are not commonly used in cancer care, due to barriers at various level. Part of these barriers may be overcome through electronic PRMs collection (ePRMs) integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR). The PATIENT VOICES initiative is aimed at achieving a stepwise integration of ePRMs assessment into routine cancer care. The feasibility project presented here is aimed at assessing the knowledge, use and attitudes toward PRMs in a comprehensive cancer centre; developing and assessing feasibility of a flexible system for ePRM assessment; identifying barriers to and developing strategies for implementation and integration of ePRMs clinical practice. METHODS: The project has been organized into four phases: a) pre-development; b) software development and piloting; c) feasibility assessment; d) post-development. A convergent mixed method design, based on concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection will be applied. A web-survey on health care providers (HCPs), qualitative studies on patients and HCPs (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) as well as longitudinal and cross-sectional quantitative studies will be carried out. The quantitative studies will enroll 600 patients: 200 attending out-patient clinics (physical symptom assessement), 200 attending inpatient wards (psychological distress assessment) and 200 patients followed by multidisciplinary teams (patient experience with care assessment). The Edmonton symptom assessment scale, the Distress Thermometer, and a tool adapted from existing patient reported experience with cancer care questionnaires, will be used in quantitative studies. A multi-disciplinary stakeholder team including researchers, clinicians, health informatics professionals, health system administrators and patients will be involved in the development of potentially effective implementation strategies in the post development phase. DISCUSSION: The documentation of potential advantages and implementation barriers achieved within this feasibility project, will serve as a starting point for future and more focused interventions aimed at achieving effective ePRMs routine assessment in cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03968718 ) May 30th, 2019.

Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care.

Secondary chronic cluster headache treated by posterior hypothalamic deep brain stimulation: first reported case.

INTRODUCTION: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the posterior hypothalamus (pHyp) has been reported as an effective treatment for primary, drug-refractory and chronic cluster headache (CCH). We here describe the use of such a procedure for the treatment of secondary CCH due to a neoplasm affecting the soft tissues of the right hemiface. METHODS: A 27-year-old man affected by infiltrating angiomyolipoma of the right hemiface who subsequently developed drug refractory homolateral CCH underwent DBS of the right pHyp region at the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Neurologico Carlo Besta. RESULTS: After surgery, the patient presented a significant reduction in frequency of pain bouts. However, because of a subsequent infection, the entire system was removed. After re-implantation of the system, successful outcome was observed at 2 years follow-up. DISCUSSION: This brief report shows the feasibility of pHyp DBS in secondary drug-refractory CCH syndromes; future reports are needed in order to confirm our positive result.