Quality of End-of-Life Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

To evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the quality of end-of-life care for patients with advanced cancer, we compared a random sample of 250 inpatient deaths from 1 April 2019, to 31 July 2019, with 250 consecutive inpatient deaths from 1 April 2020, to 31 July 2020, at a comprehensive cancer center. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, the timing of palliative care referral, timing of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, location of death, and pre-admission out-of-hospital DNR documentation were included. During the COVID-19 pandemic, DNR orders occurred earlier (2.9 vs. 1.7 days before death, p = 0.028), and palliative care referrals also occurred earlier (3.5 vs. 2.5 days before death, p = 0.041). During the pandemic, 36% of inpatient deaths occurred in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and 36% in the Palliative Care Unit, compared to 48 and 29%, respectively, before the pandemic (p = 0.001). Earlier DNR orders, earlier palliative care referrals, and fewer ICU deaths suggest an improvement in the quality of end-of-life care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These encouraging findings may have future implications for maintaining quality end-of-life care post-pandemic.

Just-in-Time Decision Making: Preliminary Findings of a Goals of Care Rapid Response Team.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic placed the issue of resource utilization front and center. Our comprehensive cancer center developed a Goals of Care Rapid Response Team (GOC RRT) to optimize resource utilization balanced with goal-concordant patient care. OBJECTIVES: Primary study objective was to evaluate feasibility of the GOC RRT by describing the frequency of consultations that occurred from those requested. Secondary objectives included adherence to consultation processes in terms of core team member participation and preliminary efficacy in limiting care escalation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients referred to GOC RRT (3/23/2020-9/30/2020). Analysis was descriptive. Categorical variables were compared with Fisher's exact or Chi-Square tests and continuous variables with Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were referred. Eighty-five percent (76 of 89) underwent a total of 95 consultations. Median (range) patient age was 61 (49, 69) years, 54% (48 of 89) male, 19% (17 of 89) Hispanic, 48% (43/89) White, 73% (65 of 89) married/partnered and 66% (59 of 89) Christian. Hematologic malignancies and solid tumors were evenly balanced (53% [47/89] vs. 47% [42 of 89, P = 0.199]). Most patients (82%, 73 of 89) had metastatic disease or relapsed leukemia. Seven percent (6 of 89) had confirmed COVID-19. Sixty-nine percent (61 of 89) died during the index hospitalization. There was no statistically significant difference in demographic or clinical characteristics among groups (no consultation, 1 consultation, >1 consultation). Core team members were present at 64% (61 of 95) of consultations. Care limitation occurred in 74% (56 of 76) of patients. CONCLUSION: GOC RRT consultations were feasible and associated with care limitation. Adherence to core team participation was fair.

Meta-Analysis of Pharmacological, Nutraceutical and Phytopharmaceutical Interventions for the Treatment of Cancer Related Fatigue.

Purpose: In this study we aimed to estimate the effectiveness of pharmacological, nutraceutical, and phytopharmaceutical treatments on CRF. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Psych info, CINHAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 30 September 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, nutraceutical and phytopharmaceutical interventions for treatment of CRF for at least one week duration and have used valid tool to assess severity of CRF as a primary or secondary outcome were considered. Results: 32 eligible studies (4896 patients) were reviewed. For the overall meta-analysis, the random effect models yielded the treatment effect (95% CI) of −0.29 (−0.48,−0.09), p < 0.001. The meta-analysis did not show significant reduction of CRF with treatment with ginseng (n = 6), guarana (n = 3), megestrol (n = 2), mistletoe (n = 3), psychostimulants (n = 14), SSRI/antidepressants (n = 2). Corticosteroids (n = 2) showed significant reduction in CRF with treatment effects of 0.94 (−1.21, −0.67), p <0.0001, respectively. Conclusions: In this study, overall meta-analysis of all studies demonstrates significant reduction of CRF using Pharmacological, Nutraceutical and Phytopharmaceutical interventions with a pooled standardized treatment effect of −0.29. Metanalysis of Corticosteroids studies showed significant reduction in CRF. Further studies are needed.

The development of a nomogram to determine the frequency of elevated risk for non-medical opioid use in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Non-medical opioid use (NMOU) is a growing crisis. Cancer patients at elevated risk of NMOU (+risk) are frequently underdiagnosed. The aim of this paper was to develop a nomogram to predict the probability of +risk among cancer patients receiving outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center. METHOD: 3,588 consecutive patients referred to a supportive care clinic were reviewed. All patients had a diagnosis of cancer and were on opioids for pain. All patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP-14), and CAGE-AID (Cut Down-Annoyed-Guilty-Eye Opener) questionnaires. "+risk" was defined as an SOAPP-14 score of ≥7. A nomogram was devised based on the risk factors determined by the multivariate logistic regression model to estimate the probability of +risk. RESULTS: 731/3,588 consults were +risk. +risk was significantly associated with gender, race, marital status, smoking status, depression, anxiety, financial distress, MEDD (morphine equivalent daily dose), and CAGE-AID score. The C-index was 0.8. A nomogram was developed and can be accessed at https://is.gd/soappnomogram. For example, for a male Hispanic patient, married, never smoked, with ESAS scores for depression = 3, anxiety = 3, financial distress = 7, a CAGE score of 0, and an MEDD score of 20, the total score is 9 + 9+0 + 0+6 + 10 + 23 + 0+1 = 58. A nomogram score of 58 indicates the probability of +risk of 0.1. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: We established a practical nomogram to assess the +risk. The application of a nomogram based on routinely collected clinical data can help clinicians establish patients with +risk and positively impact care planning.

Sleep disturbance in patients with cancer: a feasibility study of multimodal therapy.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine feasibility and effect sizes of bright light therapy (BLT), melatonin (MLT), methylphenidate (MP) and eight combinations (BLT+MLT+MP, BLT+MLT, BLT+MP, BLT alone, MLT+MP, MLT alone, MP alone, placebo for BLT, MLT and MP) defined as multimodal therapy (MMT), to improve sleep quality (SQ) (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)) from baseline to day 15. We also examined the effects of MMT on insomnia, fatigue, depression, quality of life and actigraphy. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer with poor SQ (PSQI ≥5) were eligible. Using a double-blind randomised factorial study design, patients were randomised into 1 of the 8 arms for 2 weeks. Feasibility and effect sizes were assessed. RESULTS: 81% (54/67) of randomised patients completed the study. There were no differences in the demographics and SQ between groups. The adherence rates for BLT, MLT and MP were 93%, 100% and 100%, respectively. BLT+MLT+placebo of MP; BLT+placebo of MLT+placebo of MP; BLT+MLT+MP showed an effect size (Cohen's d) for change in PSQI scores of 0.64, 0.57 and 0.63, respectively. PSQI change using linear regression showed BLT (n=29) has effect size of 0.46, p=0.017; MLT (n=26), 0.24, p=0.20; MP (n=26), 0.06, p=0.46. No significant differences were observed in scores for insomnia, fatigue, depression, quality of life and actigraphy. There were no differences in adverse events by groups(p=0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The use of MMT to treat SQ disturbance was feasible. BLT+MLT showed the most promising effect size in improvement in SQ, and additional larger studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01628029.

Random urine drug testing among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding the true frequency of nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain. Data to guide patient selection for urine drug testing (UDT) as well as the timing and frequency of ordering UDT are insufficient. This study examined the frequency of abnormal UDT among patients with cancer who underwent random UDT and their characteristics. METHODS: Demographic and clinical information for patients with cancer who underwent random UDT were retrospectively reviewed and compared with a historical cohort that underwent targeted UDT. Random UDT was ordered regardless of a patient's risk potential for NMOU. Targeted UDT was ordered on the basis of a physician's estimation of a patient's risk for NMOU. RESULTS: In all, 552 of 573 eligible patients (96%) underwent random UDT. Among these patients, 130 (24%) had 1 or more abnormal results; 38 of the 88 patients (43%) who underwent targeted UDT had 1 or more abnormal results. When marijuana was excluded, 15% of the random group and 37% of the targeted group had abnormal UDT findings (P < .001). It took a shorter time from the initial consultation to detect 1 or more abnormalities with the random test than the targeted test (median, 130 vs 274 days; P = .02). Abnormal random UDT was independently associated with younger age (P < .0001), male sex (P = .03), Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs positivity (P = .001), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System anxiety (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 4 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain at a supportive care clinic who underwent random UDT had 1 or more abnormalities. Random UDT detected abnormalities earlier than the targeted test. These findings suggest that random UDT is justified among patients with cancer pain.

Implications of the Parenteral Opioid Shortage for Prescription Patterns and Pain Control Among Hospitalized Patients With Cancer Referred to Palliative Care.

IMPORTANCE: The recent parenteral opioid shortage (POS) has potential implications for cancer-related pain management in hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: This study compared changes in opioid prescriptions and clinically improved pain (CIP) among patients treated by an inpatient palliative care (PC) team before and after our institution first reported the POS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort study of 386 eligible patients with cancer treated at a comprehensive cancer center 1 month before and after the announcement of the POS. We reviewed data from electronic health records, including patient demographics, opioid type, route of administration, and dose. Board-certified palliative care specialists assessed CIP at follow-up day 1. EXPOSURES: The announcement of the POS by the institution's pharmacy and therapeutics committee on February 8, 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was to measure the change in opioid prescription patterns of physicians, and the secondary outcome was to measure the proportion of patients who achieved CIP before and after announcement of the POS. RESULTS: Of 386 eligible patients, 196 were men (51%), 270 were white (70%), and the median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 46-67 years). Parenteral opioids were prescribed less frequently by the referring oncology teams after the POS (56 of 314 [18%]) vs before the POS (109 of 311 [35%]) (P < .001). The PC team also prescribed fewer parenteral opioids after the POS (96 of 336 [29%]) vs before the POS (159 of 338 [47%]) (P < .001). After the POS (vs before the POS), significantly fewer patients achieved CIP on follow-up day 1 (119 [62%] vs 144 [75%] of 193; P = .01). Multivariate analysis showed that before the POS, patients had an 89% higher chance of achieving CIP on follow-up day 1 (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.22-2.94; P = .005). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was a significant change in opioid prescription patterns associated with the POS. Furthermore, after the POS, fewer patients achieved CIP. These factors have potential implications for patient satisfaction and hospital length of stay.

Predicting the risk for aberrant opioid use behavior in patients receiving outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Opioid misuse is a growing crisis. Patients with cancer who are at risk of aberrant drug behaviors are frequently underdiagnosed. The primary objective of this study was to determine the frequency and factors predicting a risk for aberrant opioid and drug use behaviors (ADB) among patients who received an outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center. In addition, the screening performance of the Cut Down-Annoyed-Guilty-Eye Opener (CAGE) questionnaire adapted to include drug use (CAGE-AID) was compared with that of the 14-item Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain (SOAPP-14) tool as instruments for identifying patients at risk for ADB. METHODS: In total, 751 consecutive patients with cancer who were referred to a supportive care clinic were reviewed. Patients were eligible if they had diagnosis of cancer and had received opioids for pain for at least 1 week. All patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), the SOAPP-14, and the CAGE-AID. SOAPP scores ≥7 (SOAPP-positive) were used to identify patients who were at risk of ADB. RESULTS: Among the 729 of 751 (97%) evaluable consults, 143 (19.6%) were SOAPP-positive, and 73 (10.5%) were CAGE-AID-positive. Multivariate analysis revealed that the odds ratio of a positive SOAPP score was 2.3 for patients who had positive CAGE-AID scores (P < .0001), 2.08 for men (P = .0013), 1.10 per point for ESAS pain (P = .014), 1.13 per point for ESAS anxiety (P = .0015), and 1.09 per point for ESAS financial distress (P = .012). A CAGE-AID cutoff score of 1 in 4 had 43.3% sensitivity and 90.93% specificity for screening patients with a high risk of ADB. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicate a high frequency of an elevated risk of ADB among patients with cancer. Men and patients who have anxiety, financial distress, and a prior history of alcoholism/illicit drug use are at increased risk of ADB.

Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation for the Management of Depression, Anxiety, Sleep Disturbance, and Pain in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Preliminary Study.

CONTEXT: Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) is a safe modulation of brain activity for treating depression, anxiety, insomnia, and pain. However, there are no published studies in patients with advanced cancer (ACPs). OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to determine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a four-week CES intervention on depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and pain scores. Concurrent salivary biomarker studies were conducted. METHODS: In this one group open label pre- and post-intervention study with a four-week CES intervention, ACPs with one or more of four moderate intensity (≥3/10) Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) symptoms (depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and pain) were eligible. Adherence (0%-100%), satisfaction rates (0-10), and safety were assessed. ESAS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Brief Pain Inventory, and salivary levels (cortisol, alpha amylase, C-reactive protein, and interleukin-1ß, and interleukin-6) were assessed from baseline to Week 4. RESULTS: Thirty-three of 36 patients (92%) completed the CES. Median (interquartile range) adherence CES use and satisfaction scores were 93% (89-100) and 10% (9-10), respectively, and the adherence criteria was met in the study. CES use was safe (no Grade 3 or higher adverse events). HADS anxiety (P < 0.001), HADS depression (P = 0.024), ESAS anxiety (P = 0.001), ESAS depression (P = 0.025), Brief Pain Inventory pain (P = 0.013), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index daytime dysfunction (P = 0.002), and medication use (P = 0.006) scores improved after four-week CES treatment. CONCLUSION: In this preliminary study, we found that the use of CES was safe and feasible in ACP. The use of CES was associated with significant improvement of depression, anxiety, pain, and sleep scores. These findings support further studies of CES in ACP for symptom control.

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Panax Ginseng for Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients With Advanced Cancer.

Background: Despite the high frequency, severity, and effects of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer, limited treatment options are available. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of oral Panax ginseng extract (PG) and placebo on CRF. Secondary objectives were to determine the effects of PG on QoL, mood, and function. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CRF ≥4/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were eligible. Based on a pilot study, we randomized patients to receive either 400 mg of standardized PG twice daily or a matching placebo for 28 days. The primary end point was change in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) subscale from baseline to day 29. Results: Of 127 patients, 112 (88.2%) were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F subscale scores at baseline, day 15, and day 29 were 22.4 (10.1), 29.9 (10.6), and 30.1 (11.6) for PG (P<.001), and 24.0 (9.4), 30.0 (10.1), and 30.4 (11.5) for placebo (P<.001). Mean (SD) improvement in the FACIT-F subscale at day 29 was not significantly different in the PG than in the placebo group (7.5 [12.7] vs 6.5 [9.9]; P=.67). QoL, anxiety, depression, symptoms, and functional scores were not significantly different between the PG and placebo groups. Improvement in the FACIT-F subscale correlated with baseline scores (P=.0005), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale results (P=.032), and sex (P=.023). There were fewer any-grade toxicities in the PG versus placebo group (28/63 vs 33/64; P=.024). Conclusions: Both PG and placebo result in significant improvement in CRF. PG was not significantly superior to placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. There is no justification to recommend the use of PG for CRF. Further studies are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375114.