RESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the last 2 decades, integrative oncology (IO) has seen exponential growth within cancer care. It aims to combine evidence-based complementary therapies with conventional treatments to improve the well-being and quality of life for individuals dealing with cancer. The proliferation of integrative medicine programs in major cancer centers globally reflects varying approaches shaped by cultural, demographic, and resource-based factors. RECENT FINDINGS: Drawing upon the expertise of leaders in IO from the Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO) Clinical Practice Committee, this manuscript serves as a practical guide for establishing an IO practice. Collating insights from diverse professionals, including oncologists, integrative oncologists, supportive care physicians, researchers, and clinicians, the paper aims to provide a comprehensive roadmap for initiating and advancing IO services. The primary objective is to bridge the gap between conventional cancer care and complementary therapies, fostering a patient-centric approach to address the multifaceted challenges encountered by individuals with cancer. This paper delineates several key sections elucidating different aspects of IO practice. It delves into the core components necessary for an IO service's foundation, outlines the initial medical consultation process, and presents crucial tools essential for successful consultations. By consolidating insights and expertise, this manuscript seeks to facilitate the integration of IO into mainstream cancer care, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and experiences.
Asunto(s)
Terapias Complementarias , Medicina Integrativa , Oncología Integrativa , Neoplasias , Humanos , Calidad de Vida , Desarrollo de Programa , Neoplasias/terapiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: With rising interest in complementary approaches to symptom management, awareness of real-world practice patterns in the incorporation of integrative oncology (IO) into cancer care is limited. Therefore, we examined the reasons for referral, symptom burdens, and clinical outcomes for cancer patients who underwent initial IO consultations. METHODS: The records of adult patients with cancer who underwent initial outpatient IO consultations at our cancer center for a representative 10-day period at the start of each month for 12 months starting January 1, 2017, were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographic and medical characteristics and outpatient IO consultation details, including patient-reported outcome measures of symptom burden, were extracted. Descriptive summary statistics and logistic regression were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Among the 473 study patients, 71% were women, breast cancer (42%) was the most common cancer type, and 31% had metastatic cancer. Referring clinicians listed an integrative approach (57%) as the most common reason for referral, followed by diet (26%), pain (19%), discussion of herbs and supplements (18%), and stress (18%). In comparison, patients listed their primary concerns as diet (16%), pain (15%), and an integrative approach to overall health (11%). After the IO consultations, the highest likelihood of subsequent recommendations were acupuncture for hot flashes (odds ratio [OR], P = .002) or peripheral neuropathy (OR = 6.59, P < .001), oncology massage for pain (OR = 3.04, P < .001), psychology referral for patient's self-reported anxiety (OR = 2.35, P < .001), and mind-body therapies for stress (OR = 2.57, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Cancer patients' top concerns regarding IO consultation may not always match providers' reasons for referral. Longitudinal data analysis is needed to determine the effect of integrative interventions on symptom burden.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Medicina Integrativa , Adulto , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Oncología Médica , Neoplasias de la Mama/terapia , DolorRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Family/caregiver visitation provides critical support for patients confronting cancer and is associated with positive outcomes. However, the COVID-19 pandemic brought historic disruptions including widespread visitation restrictions. Here, we characterize in-depth the visitor policies of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) and analyze geographic/temporal patterns across CCCs. METHODS: The public-facing CCC websites, including archived webpages, were reviewed to abstract initial visitation policies and revisions, including end-of-life (EoL) exceptions and timing of visitation restrictions relative to regional lockdowns. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were employed to analyze associations between geographic region, timing, and severity of restrictions. RESULTS: Most CCCs (n=43, 86%) enacted visitation restrictions between March 15 and April 15, 2020. About half barred all visitors for COVID-negative inpatients (n=24, 48%) or outpatients (n=26, 52%). Most (n=36, 72%) prohibited visitors for patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19. Most (n=40, 80%) published EoL exceptions but the specifics were highly variable. The median time from initial restrictions to government-mandated lockdowns was 1 day, with a wide range (25 days before to 26 days after). There was no association between timing of initial restrictions and geographic location (p=0.14) or severity of inpatient policies (p=1.0), even among centers in the same city. Outpatient policies published reactively (after lockdown) were more restrictive than those published proactively (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: CCCs enacted strict but strikingly variable COVID-19 visitation restrictions, with important implications for patients/families seeking cancer care. A unified, evidence-based approach to visitation policies is needed to balance proven infection control measures with the needs of patients and families.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Instituciones Oncológicas/organización & administración , Neoplasias/terapia , Política Organizacional , Visitas a Pacientes , Humanos , Apoyo Social , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
CONTEXT: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused unprecedented disruptions to cancer care, including through strict hospital visitation policies. Since a substantial proportion of the U.S. population report a non-English language as their primary language, it is critical that information is disseminated in multiple languages. OBJECTIVES: To examine the availability of language translations of visitation restrictions on adult National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) Web sites. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of visitation policies abstracted from public-facing Web sites of CCCs in June 2020. Using U.S. Census data, CCC's city and state proportions of self-identifying Hispanic/Latinx population were categorized into three cohorts: low (<10%), moderate (10%-20%), and high (>20%). RESULTS: As of June 2020, all 50 CCCs published a COVID-19 visitation policy on their Web site. Of these, 33 (66%) posted policies only in English, whereas 17 (34%) included one or more non-English translations. A minority of CCCs published Spanish language resources, which did not differ based on state or city demographics: for example, only 42% (8 of 19), 10% (1 of 10), and 38% (8 of 21) of CCCs published Spanish language resources in cities with low, moderate, and high Hispanic/Latinx populations, respectively. CONCLUSION: `Most CCC's did not publish non-English language translations of their visitor policies. Even in cities and states with larger Hispanic/Latinx populations, most CCCs did not publish resources in Spanish. This study highlights a key opportunity to mitigate communication barriers and deliver culturally competent, patient-centered care.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias , Adulto , Estudios Transversales , Disparidades en Atención de Salud , Hispánicos o Latinos , Humanos , Lenguaje , Neoplasias/epidemiología , Neoplasias/terapia , Pandemias , Políticas , SARS-CoV-2 , TraduccionesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The benefit of preoperative chemotherapy prior to pulmonary metastasectomy for patients with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is unknown. Here, we identify outcomes of preoperative chemotherapy in patients with resected primary CRC who then underwent pulmonary metastasectomy. METHODS: We queried a prospective database to identify treatment characteristics. Multivariate analyses identified predictors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: 229 patients underwent lung metastasectomy, of whom 115 proceeded to surgery without chemotherapy while 114 received preoperative regimen based on oxaliplatin (32%), irinotecan (46%), capecitabine (16%), or other (6%). Median PFS in preoperative chemotherapy vs. surgery alone arms were comparable (p=0.004). Patients on oxaliplatin-based therapy had an improved OS vs. an irinotecan, capecitabine, or alternate regimen (p=.019). On multivariate analysis, the irinotecan subset had a worse OS (HR 1.846; 95% CI 1.070, 3.185) vs. surgery alone arm (p=0.028). The OS of an oxaliplatin-based regimen vs. no chemotherapy was inconclusive (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.237 to 1.389, p=0.218). Multivariate analysis demonstrated a worse PFS and OS for the male gender and an incomplete resection (R2). CONCLUSION: Prospective trials on specific preoperative regimens and criteria for patient selection may identify a role for preoperative chemotherapy prior to a curative pulmonary metastasectomy.