Effect of Perioperative Palliative Care on Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Undergoing Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Involvement of palliative care specialists in the care of medical oncology patients has been repeatedly observed to improve patient-reported outcomes, but there is no analogous research in surgical oncology populations. Objective: To determine whether surgeon-palliative care team comanagement, compared with surgeon team alone management, improves patient-reported perioperative outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgery for high morbidity and mortality upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: From October 20, 2018, to March 31, 2022, a patient-randomized clinical trial was conducted with patients and clinicians nonblinded but the analysis team blinded to allocation. The trial was conducted in 5 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the US. Individuals pursuing curative-intent surgery for an upper GI cancer who had received no previous specialist palliative care were eligible. Surgeons were encouraged to offer participation to all eligible patients. Intervention: Surgeon-palliative care comanagement patients met with palliative care either in person or via telephone before surgery, 1 week after surgery, and 1, 2, and 3 months after surgery. For patients in the surgeon-alone group, surgeons were encouraged to follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended triggers for palliative care consultation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the trial was patient-reported health-related quality of life at 3 months following the operation. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported mental and physical distress. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Results: In total, 359 patients (175 [48.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [10.7] years) were randomized to surgeon-alone (n = 177) or surgeon-palliative care comanagement (n = 182), with most patients (206 [57.4%]) undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery. No adverse events were associated with the intervention, and 11% of patients in the surgeon-alone and 90% in the surgeon-palliative care comanagement groups received palliative care consultation. There was no significant difference between study arms in outcomes at 3 months following the operation in patient-reported health-related quality of life (mean [SD], 138.54 [28.28] vs 136.90 [28.96]; P = .62), mental health (mean [SD], -0.07 [0.87] vs -0.07 [0.84]; P = .98), or overall number of deaths (6 [3.7%] vs 7 [4.1%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: To date, this is the first multisite randomized clinical trial to evaluate perioperative palliative care and the earliest integration of palliative care into cancer care. Unlike in medical oncology practice, the data from this trial do not suggest palliative care-associated improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgeries for upper GI cancers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611309.

Induction Chemotherapy Reduces Patient-reported Toxicities During Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation with Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy for Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Initial treatment with either neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) or induction FOLFOX (5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy followed by CRT is considered standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. We compared patient-reported outcomes (PRO) during CRT in patients who had received induction chemotherapy versus those who did not. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed records of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were treated with CRT between September 2009 and October 2014, and who had completed ≥ 4 PRO assessments during treatment. Clinician- and patient-reported toxicities were collected each week during treatment. We fit binomial generalized linear models to maximum toxicity scores across all patients' visits. RESULTS: Of 123 patients with ≥ 4 PRO assessments, 87 (71%) patients reported a clinically meaningful PRO score of 3 or higher for diarrhea, and 91 (74%) patients reported a PRO score of ≥ 3 for urgency, during 1 or more weeks of treatment, corresponding to 'very frequent' or worse. Of 116 patients who had also completed ≥ 4 clinician-reported assessments for descriptive analysis, clinically significant diarrhea (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥ 2) was reported in 9% of patients, and grade 2 proctitis and cystitis were reported in 20% and 4%, respectively. Eighty-four (68%) patients had undergone induction chemotherapy prior to CRT. Patients who received induction chemotherapy had 68% lower odds of experiencing significant urgency (odds ratio [OR], 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.95; P = .04), 76% lower odds of bleeding (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.1-0.62; P < .01), and 75% lower odds of tenesmus (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.6; P < .01) versus those treated with upfront CRT. CONCLUSION: Based on PROs, a high proportion of patients experienced clinically significant symptoms during pelvic CRT, with diarrhea and urgency being most commonly reported. This appears to be under-reported on clinician-reported assessments. Delivery of induction chemotherapy was associated with lower odds of experiencing urgency, bleeding, and tenesmus on PROs during subsequent CRT, with no significant impact on diarrhea and rectal pain.

Duration of use of oral cannabis extract in a cohort of pediatric epilepsy patients.

OBJECTIVE: Oral cannabis extracts (OCEs) are being used in the treatment of epilepsy with increasing rates in the United States following product legalization; however, no studies demonstrate clear efficacy. We evaluated the duration of use of OCEs as a measure of perceived benefit in a cohort of patients with pediatric epilepsy. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed of children and adolescents who were given OCEs for treatment of epilepsy. RESULTS: Of the 119 patients included in the analysis, 71% terminated use of their OCE product during the study period. The average length of use of OCE was 11.7 months (range 0.3-57 months). Perceived seizure benefit was the only factor associated with longer duration of treatment with OCE (p < 0.01). Relocation to Colorado was associated with perceived benefit of OCEs for seizures (65% vs. 38%, p = 0.01), but was not independently associated with longer OCE use. Factors associated with shorter use included adverse effects (p = 0.03) and a diagnosis of Dravet syndrome (p = 0.02). Twenty-four percent of patients were considered OCE responders, which was defined by a parent's report of a > 50% reduction in seizures while on this therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 19% of patients, with the most common side effects being somnolence and worsening of seizures. SIGNIFICANCE: Parental report of OCE use in refractory pediatric epilepsy suggests that some families perceive benefit from this therapy; however, discontinuation of these products is common. Duration appears to be affected by logical factors, such as perceived benefit and side effect profile. Surprisingly, families of patients with Dravet syndrome terminated use of OCEs more quickly than patients with other epilepsy syndromes. Results from this study highlight the need for rigorous clinical studies to characterize the efficacy and safety of OCEs, which can inform discussions with patients and families.