Acupuncture vs Massage for Pain in Patients Living With Advanced Cancer: The IMPACT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Pain is challenging for patients with advanced cancer. While recent guidelines recommend acupuncture and massage for cancer pain, their comparative effectiveness is unknown. Objective: To compare the effects of acupuncture and massage on musculoskeletal pain among patients with advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted at US cancer care centers consisting of a northeastern comprehensive cancer center and a southeastern cancer institute from September 19, 2019, through February 23, 2022. The principal investigator and study statisticians were blinded to treatment assignments. The duration of follow-up was 26 weeks. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed (linear mixed models). Participants included patients with advanced cancer with moderate to severe pain and clinician-estimated life expectancy of 6 months or more. Patient recruitment strategy was multipronged (eg, patient database queries, mailings, referrals, community outreach). Eligible patients had English or Spanish as their first language, were older than 18 years, and had a Karnofsky score greater than or equal to 60 (range, 0-100; higher scores indicating less functional impairment). Interventions: Weekly acupuncture or massage for 10 weeks with monthly booster sessions up to 26 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the change in worst pain intensity score from baseline to 26 weeks. The secondary outcomes included fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life. The Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0-10; higher numbers indicate worse pain intensity or interference) was used to measure the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life. Results: A total of 298 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [14.1] years, 200 [67.1%] were women, 33 [11.1%] Black, 220 [74.1%] White, 46 [15.4%] Hispanic, and 78.5% with solid tumors). The mean (SD) baseline worst pain score was 6.9 (1.5). During 26 weeks, acupuncture reduced the worst pain score, with a mean change of -2.53 (95% CI, -2.92 to -2.15) points, and massage reduced the Brief Pain Inventory worst pain score, with a mean change of -3.01 (95% CI, -3.38 to -2.63) points; the between-group difference was not significant (-0.48; 95% CI, -0.98 to 0.03; P = .07). Both treatments also improved fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life without significant between-group differences. Adverse events were mild and included bruising (6.5% of patients receiving acupuncture) and transient soreness (15.1% patients receiving massage). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial among patients with advanced cancer, both acupuncture and massage were associated with pain reduction and improved fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life over 26 weeks; however, there was no significant different between the treatments. More research is needed to evaluate how best to integrate these approaches into pain treatment to optimize symptom management for the growing population of people living with advanced cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04095234.

Integrating evidence-based communication principles into routine cancer care.

PURPOSE: The global incidence of cancer and available cancer-directed therapy options is increasing rapidly, presenting patients and clinicians with more complex treatment decisions than ever before. Despite the dissemination of evidence-based communication training tools and programs, clinicians cite barriers to employing effective communication in cancer care (e.g., discomfort of sharing serious news, concern about resource constraints to meet stated needs). We present two composite cases with significant communication challenges to guide clinicians through an application of evidence-based approaches to achieve quality communication. METHODS: Composite cases, communication skills blueprint, and visual conceptualization. RESULTS: High-stakes circumstances in each case are described, including end-of-life planning, advanced pediatric illness, strong emotions, and health inequities. Three overarching communication approaches are discussed: (1) content selection and delivery; (2) rapport development; and (3) empathic connection. The key takeaways following each case provide succinct summaries of challenges encountered and approaches used. A communication blueprint from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Communication Skills Training Program and Research Laboratory has been adapted and is comprised of strategies, skills, process tasks, and sample talking points. A visually concise tool - the Communication Blueprint Traffic Circle - illustrates these concepts and demonstrates the iterative, holistic, and agile considerations inherent to effective communication. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based communication is foundational to person-centeredness, associated with improved clinician and patient/caregiver outcomes, and can be integrated throughout routine oncology care. When used by clinicians, evidence-based communication can improve patient and caregiver experiences and assist in ensuring goal-concordant cancer care delivery.

Advance Care Planning in Serious Illness: A Narrative Review.

CONTEXT: Advance care planning (ACP) intends to support person-centered medical decision-making by eliciting patient preferences. Research has not identified significant associations between ACP and goal-concordant end-of-life care, leading to justified scientific debate regarding ACP utility. OBJECTIVE: To delineate ACP's potential benefits and missed opportunities and identify an evidence-informed, clinically relevant path ahead for ACP in serious illness. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review merging the best available ACP empirical data, grey literature, and emergent scholarly discourse using a snowball search of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar (2000-2022). Findings were informed by our team's interprofessional clinical and research expertise in serious illness care. RESULTS: Early ACP practices were largely tied to mandated document completion, potentially failing to capture the holistic preferences of patients and surrogates. ACP models focused on serious illness communication rather than documentation show promising patient and clinician results. Ideally, ACP would lead to goal-concordant care even amid the unpredictability of serious illness trajectories. But ACP might also provide a false sense of security that patients' wishes will be honored and revisited at end-of-life. An iterative, 'building block' framework to integrate ACP throughout serious illness is provided alongside clinical practice, research, and policy recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: We advocate a balanced approach to ACP, recognizing empirical deficits while acknowledging potential benefits and ethical imperatives (e.g., fostering clinician-patient trust and shared decision-making). We support prioritizing patient/surrogate-centered outcomes with more robust measures to account for interpersonal clinician-patient variables that likely inform ACP efficacy and may better evaluate information gleaned during serious illness encounters.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2021.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members' clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

A Novel Patient Values Tab for the Electronic Health Record: A User-Centered Design Approach.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has shined a harsh light on a critical deficiency in our health care system: our inability to access important information about patients' values, goals, and preferences in the electronic health record (EHR). At Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), we have integrated and systematized health-related values discussions led by oncology nurses for newly diagnosed cancer patients as part of routine comprehensive cancer care. Such conversations include not only the patient's wishes for care at the end of life but also more holistic personal values, including sources of strength, concerns, hopes, and their definition of an acceptable quality of life. In addition, health care providers use a structured template to document their discussions of patient goals of care. OBJECTIVE: To provide ready access to key information about the patient as a person with individual values, goals, and preferences, we undertook the creation of the Patient Values Tab in our center's EHR to display this information in a single, central location. Here, we describe the interprofessional, interdisciplinary, iterative process and user-centered design methodology that we applied to build this novel functionality as well as our initial implementation experience and plans for evaluation. METHODS: We first convened a working group of experts from multiple departments, including medical oncology, health informatics, information systems, nursing informatics, nursing education, and supportive care, and a user experience designer. We conducted in-depth, semistructured, audiorecorded interviews of over 100 key stakeholders. The working group sought consensus on the tab's main content, homing in on high-priority areas identified by the stakeholders. The core content was mapped to various EHR data sources. We established a set of high-level design principles to guide our process. Our user experience designer then created wireframes of the tab design. The designer conducted usability testing with physicians, nurses, and other health professionals. Data validation testing was conducted. RESULTS: We have already deployed the Patient Values Tab to a pilot sample of users in the MSK Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Service, including physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and administrative staff. We have early evidence of the positive impact of this EHR innovation. Audit logs show increasing use. Many of the initial user comments have been enthusiastically positive, while others have provided constructive suggestions for additional tab refinements with respect to format and content. CONCLUSIONS: It is our challenge and obligation to enrich the EHR with information about the patient as a person. Realization of this capability is a pressing public health need requiring the collaboration of technological experts with a broad range of clinical leaders, users, patients, and families to achieve solutions that are both principled and practical. Our new Patient Values Tab represents a step forward in this important direction.

Risk Factors for Adverse Events in Patients With Breast, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify risk factors associated with medical errors and iatrogenic injuries during an initial course of cancer-directed treatment. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of 400 patients 18 years or older undergoing an initial course of treatment for breast, colorectal, or lung cancer at a comprehensive cancer center, we abstracted patient, disease, and treatment-related variables from the electronic medical record. We examined adverse events (AEs) and preventable AEs by risk factor using the χ2 or Fisher exact tests. We estimated the association between risk factors and the relative risk of an additional AE or preventable AE in multivariable negative binomial regression models with backwards selection (P < 0.1). RESULTS: There were 304 AEs affecting 136 patients (34%) and 97 preventable AEs affecting 53 patients (13%). In multivariable analyses, AEs were overrepresented in those with lung cancer compared with patients with breast cancer (incident rate ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval = 1.1-3.2). Nonwhite race (1.6, 1.0-2.6), Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (2.0, 0.9-4.1), advanced disease (1.7, 1.1-2.6), use of each additional class of high-risk nonchemotherapy medication (1.6, 1.3-1.9), and chemotherapy (2.1, 1.3-3.3) were all associated with risk of an additional AE. Preventable AEs were associated with lung cancer (7.4, 2.4-23.2), Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (5.5, 1.7-17.9), and high-risk nonchemotherapy medications (1.5, 1.2-2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors for AEs among patients with cancer reflected patients' underlying disease, cancer-directed therapy, and high-risk noncancer medications. The association of AEs with ethnicity merits further research. Risk factor models could be used prospectively to identify patients with cancer at increased risk of harm.

What if Acupuncture Were Covered by Insurance for Pain Management? A Cross-Sectional Study of Cancer Patients at One Academic Center and 11 Community Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: In response to the national opioid crisis, governmental and medical organizations have called for broader insurance coverage of acupuncture to improve access to nonpharmacologic pain therapies, especially in cancer populations, where undertreatment of pain is prevalent. We evaluated whether cancer patients would be willing to use insurance-covered acupuncture for pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of cancer patients with pain at one academic center and 11 community hospitals. METHODS: We used logistic regression models to examine factors associated with willingness to use insurance-covered acupuncture for pain. RESULTS: Among 634 cancer patients, 304 (47.9%) reported willingness to use insurance-covered acupuncture for pain. In univariate analyses, patients were more likely to report willingness if they had severe pain (odds ratio [OR] = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03-2.45) but were less likely if they were nonwhite (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.39-0.90) or had only received high school education or less (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.32-0.65). After adjusting for attitudes and beliefs in multivariable analyses, willingness was no longer significantly associated with education (adjusted OR [aOR] = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.50-1.21) and was more negatively associated with nonwhite race (aOR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.29-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in two cancer patients was willing to use insurance-covered acupuncture for pain. Willingness was influenced by patients' attitudes and beliefs, which are potentially modifiable through counseling and education. Further research on racial disparities is needed to close the gap in utilization as acupuncture is integrated into insurance plans in response to the opioid crisis.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Ethics Consultations on a Comprehensive Cancer Center's Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Service.

The goal of this paper is to review and describe the characteristics and outcomes of ethics consultations on a gastrointestinal oncology service and to identify areas for systems improvement and staff education. This is a retrospective case series derived from a prospectively-maintained database (which includes categorization of the primary issues, contextual ethical issues, and other case characteristics) of the ethics consultation service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The study analyzed all ethics consultations requested for patients on the gastrointestinal medical oncology service from September 2007 to January 2016. A total of 64 patients were identified. The most common primary ethical issue was the DNR order (39%), followed by medical futility (28%). The most common contextual issues were dispute/conflict between staff and family (48%), dispute/conflict intra-family (16%), and cultural/ethnic/religious issues (16%). The majority of ethical issues leading to consultation were resolved (84%); i.e., the patient, surrogate, and/or healthcare team followed the recommendation of the ethics consultant. 22% had a DNR order prior to the ethics consult and 69% had a DNR order after the consult. In this population of patients on a gastrointestinal oncology service, ethics consultations are most often called regarding patients with advanced cancers and the most common ethical conflicts arose between families and the health care team over goals of care at the end of life, specifically related to the DNR order and perceived futility of continued/escalation of treatment. Ethics consultations assisted with conflict resolution. Conflicts might be reduced with improved communication about prognosis and earlier end of life care planning.

A Randomized Trial of Acceptability and Effects of Values-Based Advance Care Planning in Outpatient Oncology: Person-Centered Oncologic Care and Choices.

CONTEXT: No standard advance care planning (ACP) process exists in oncology. We previously developed and validated the values questions for Person-Centered Oncologic Care and Choices (P-COCC), a novel ACP intervention combining a patient values interview with an informational care goals video. OBJECTIVES: To pilot-study acceptability and, using randomization, explore potential utility of P-COCC. METHODS: Eligibility included patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer cared for at a comprehensive cancer center. Participants were randomized 2:2:1 to P-COCC vs. video alone vs. usual care, respectively. Validated assessments of well-being and decisional conflict were completed. Participants in the P-COCC arm also completed three Likert scales (was the intervention helpful, comfortable, and recommended to others); a positive score of at least 1 of 3 indicated acceptability. RESULTS: Patients were screened from 9/2014 to 11/2016; 151 were consented and randomized, 99 whom completed study measures (most common attrition reason: disease progression or death). The primary aim was met: Among 33 participants, P-COCC was acceptable to 32 (97%, 95% CI: 0.84-0.99, P < 0.001). Mean distress scores (0-10) increased (0.43) in the P-COCC arm but decreased in the video-alone (-0.04) and usual-care (-0.21) arms (P = 0.03 and 0.04, P-COCC vs. video-alone and usual-care arms, respectively). There were no significant pre-post change scores on other measures of well-being (e.g., anxiety, depression, stress) or intergroup differences in decisional conflict. CONCLUSION: Our values-based ACP paradigm is acceptable but may increase distress in cancer outpatients. Further studies are investigating the underpinnings of these effects and ways to best support cancer patients in ACP.

Preventable and mitigable adverse events in cancer care: Measuring risk and harm across the continuum.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety is a critical concern in clinical oncology, but the ability to measure adverse events (AEs) across cancer care is limited by a narrow focus on treatment-related toxicities. The objective of this study was to assess the nature and extent of AEs among cancer patients across inpatient and outpatient settings. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 400 adult patients selected by stratified random sampling who had breast (n = 128), colorectal (n = 136), or lung cancer (n = 136) treated at a comprehensive cancer center in 2012. Candidate AEs, or injuries due to medical care, were identified by trained nurse reviewers over the course of 1 year from medical records and safety-reporting databases. Physicians determined the AE harm severity and the likelihood of preventability and harm mitigation. RESULTS: The 400-patient sample represented 133,358 days of follow-up. Three hundred four AEs were identified for an overall rate of 2.3 events per 1000 patient days (91.2 per 1000 inpatient days and 0.9 per 1000 outpatient days). Thirty-four percent of the patients had 1 or more AEs (95% confidence interval, 29%-39%), and 16% of the patients had 1 or more preventable or mitigable AEs (95% confidence interval, 13%-20%). The AE rate for patients with breast cancer was lower than the rate for patients with colorectal or lung cancer (P ≤ .001). The preventable or mitigable AE rate was 0.9 per 1000 patient days. Six percent of AEs and 4% of preventable AEs resulted in serious harm. Examples included lymphedema, abscess, and renal failure. CONCLUSIONS: A heavy burden of AEs, including preventable or mitigable events, has been identified. Future research should examine risk factors and improvement strategies for reducing their burden. Cancer 2017;123:4728-4736. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Performance of a Trigger Tool for Identifying Adverse Events in Oncology.

PURPOSE: Although patient safety is a priority in oncology, few tools measure adverse events (AEs) beyond treatment-related toxicities. The study objective was to assemble a set of clinical triggers in the medical record and assess the extent to which triggered events identified AEs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study to assess the performance of an oncology medical record screening tool at a comprehensive cancer center. The study cohort included 400 patients age 18 years or older diagnosed with breast (n = 128), colorectal (n = 136), or lung cancer (n = 136), observed as in- and outpatients for up to 1 year. RESULTS: We identified 790 triggers, or 1.98 triggers per patient (range, zero to 18 triggers). Three hundred four unique AEs were identified from medical record reviews and existing AE databases. The overall positive predictive value (PPV) of the original tool was 0.40 for total AEs and 0.15 for preventable or mitigable AEs. Examples of high-performing triggers included return to the operating room or interventional radiology within 30 days of surgery (PPV, 0.88 and 0.38 for total and preventable or mitigable AEs, respectively) and elevated blood glucose (> 250 mg/dL; PPV, 0.47 and 0.40 for total and preventable or mitigable AEs, respectively). The final modified tool included 49 triggers, with an overall PPV of 0.48 for total AEs and 0.18 for preventable or mitigable AEs. CONCLUSION: A valid medical record screening tool for AEs in oncology could offer a powerful new method for measuring and improving cancer care quality. Future improvements could optimize the tool's efficiency and create automated electronic triggers for use in real-time AE detection and mitigation algorithms.

Study using the NCCN guidelines for palliative care to screen patients for palliative care needs and referral to palliative care specialists.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Palliative Care recommend screening all patients for palliative care (PC) needs and to call a PC consult when referral criteria are met. The goal of this pilot project was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing the screening and referral components of the NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care in patients admitted to the Gastrointestinal Oncology Service (GIOS) at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC). Floor nurses performed the initial screening of all patients admitted to the 2 teams-Team A and Team B-of the GIOS on one floor of Memorial Hospital for 3 months. In addition, only the patients admitted to Team A were evaluated according to the referral criteria, triggering a PC consult if results were positive. Nurses were surveyed regarding satisfaction with and the acceptability of screening. During the study period, 229 (90%) total admissions were screened, with 169 (73%) having positive results. Of the Team A admissions, 72 (64%) met the referral criteria. More consults occurred for patients in Team A (47 vs 15; P=.001). In 30% of the referral criteria-triggered consults, the PC needs were manageable by the primary team. Nurses reported screening to be easy and quick (<5 minutes per patient) but only somewhat helpful. Being unfamiliar with many patients and families, floor nurses often felt unable to screen them accurately for some issues. In conclusion, screening was feasible, increasing access to PC, but accuracy and usefulness are concerns. With a consult indicated in 64% patients, yet with 30% being manageable by the primary team, the current criteria may be too sensitive for the inpatient environment of a CCC. More evaluation is needed before widespread implementation can be recommended.