Associations between symptoms with healthcare utilization and death in advanced cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited data about assessments that are associated with increased utilization of medical services among advanced oncology patients (AOPs). We aimed to identify factors related to healthcare utilization and death in AOP. METHODS: AOPs at a comprehensive cancer center were enrolled in a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation program. Participants completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale. We examined factors associated with palliative care (PC), acute care (AC), emergency room (ER), hospital admissions (HA), and death. RESULTS: In all, 817 AOPs were included in these analyses with a median age of 69. They were generally female (58.7%), white (61.4%), stage IV (51.6%), and represented common cancers (31.5% GI, 25.2% thoracic, 14.3% gynecologic). ESAS pain, anxiety, and total score were related to more PC visits (B=0.31, 95% CI [0.21, 0.40], p<0.001; B=0.24 [0.12, 0.36], p<0.001; and B=0.038 [0.02, 0.06], p=0.001, respectively). Total FACT-G score and physical subscale were related to total PC visits (B=-0.021 [-0.037, -0.006], p=0.008 and B=-0.181 [-0.246, -0.117], p<0.001, respectively). Lower FACT-G social subscale scores were related to more ER visits (B=-0.03 [-0.53, -0.004], p=0.024), while increased tiredness was associated with fewer AC visits (B=-0.039 [-0.073, -0.006], p=0.023). Higher total ESAS scores were related to death within 30 days (OR=0.87 [0.76, 0.98], p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: The ESAS and FACT-G assessments were linked to PC and AC visits and death. These assessments may be useful for identifying AOPs that would benefit from routine PC.

The perspectives of oncology healthcare providers on the role of palliative care in a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) is an essential part of oncologic care, but its optimal role within a cancer center remains unclear. This study examines oncology healthcare providers' perspectives about the role of PC at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC). METHODS: Physicians, nurses, and other oncology healthcare providers at a CCC were surveyed for their opinions about the role of inpatient and outpatient PC, preferences for PC services, and barriers to referral. Chi-squared tests and multiple regression analyses were performed to explore associations. RESULTS: We received 137/221 completed questionnaires (61% response rate). Respondents were generally female (78%), had ≤ 10 years of service (69%), and included physicians (32%), nurses (32%), and advanced practice providers (17%). Most respondents (82%) agreed that more patients could benefit from PC. They also agreed that PC is beneficial for both outpatient and inpatient management of complex pain (96 and 88%), complex symptoms (84 and 74%), and advanced cancer patients (80 and 64%). Transition to hospice (64 vs. 42%, p = 0.007) and goals of care (62 vs. 49%, p = 0.011) provided by PC services were more valued by respondents for the inpatient than for the outpatient setting. Barriers to utilizing PC included lack of availability, unsure of when to refer, and poor communication. The majority of respondents (83%) preferred a cancer focused PC team to provide high-quality care. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of oncology health care providers believe that more patients could benefit from PC, but opinions vary regarding the roles of inpatient and outpatient PC. Barriers and areas for improvement include availability, referral process, and improved communication.

Retrospective Outcomes of a New Acupuncture Service at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Introduction: Among cancer centers, patients' interest in acupuncture is growing, in addition to clinical research in the intervention. Their National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center piloted an acupuncture service. Their aim was to assess whether acupuncture impacted patient self-reported symptoms as delivered clinically and discuss their implementation strategy. Methods: Patients undergoing acupuncture at a comprehensive cancer center from June 2019 to March 2020 were asked to complete a modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) before and after each session. The authors evaluated symptom changes after acupuncture in both outpatient and inpatient settings. A change of ≥1 U, on the 0-10 scale, was considered clinically significant. Results: Three hundred and nine outpatient and 394 inpatient acupuncture sessions were provided to patients at the comprehensive cancer center during this period, of which surveys from 186 outpatient (34 patients) and 124 inpatient (57 patients) sessions were available for analysis. The highest pretreatment symptoms reported by outpatients were neuropathy (5.78), pain (5.58), and tiredness (5.59). Outpatients receiving acupuncture reported clinically significant improvements in pain (ESAS score change of -2.97), neuropathy (-2.68), decreased lack of well-being (-2.60), tiredness (-1.85), nausea (-1.83), anxiety (-1.56), activities of daily living issues (-1.32), depression (-1.23), anorexia (-1.19), insomnia (-1.14), and shortness of breath (-1.14). The most severe pretreatment symptoms reported by inpatients were pain (6.90), insomnia (6.16), and constipation (5.44). Inpatients receiving acupuncture reported clinically significant improvements in anxiety (-3.69), nausea (-3.61), insomnia (-3.26), depression (-2.98), pain (-2.77), neuropathy (-2.68), anorexia (-2.20), constipation (-1.95), and diarrhea (-1.26). Conclusion: Both outpatient and inpatient participants in this pilot acupuncture program reported clinically significant improvements in symptoms after a single acupuncture treatment. Some differences between the outpatient and inpatient settings warrant further investigation.

Loss to Follow-up in Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting and rates of loss to follow-up (LTFU) in head and neck cancer (HNC) randomized controlled trials based in the United States. DATA SOURCES: Pubmed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus databases. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of titles in Pubmed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was performed. Inclusion criteria were US-based randomized controlled trials focused on the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of HNC. Retrospective analyses and pilot studies were excluded. The mean age, patients randomized, publication details, trial sites, funding, and LTFU data were recorded. Reporting of participants through each stage of the trial was documented. Binary logistic regression was performed to evaluate associations between study characteristics and reporting LTFU. RESULTS: A total of 3255 titles were reviewed. Of these, 128 studies met the inclusion criteria for analysis. A total of 22,016 patients were randomized. The mean age of participants was 58.6 years. Overall, 35 studies (27.3%) reported LTFU, and the mean LTFU rate was 4.37%. With the exception of 2 statistical outliers, study characteristics including publication year, number of trial sites, journal discipline, funding source, and intervention type did not predict the odds of reporting LTFU. Compared to 95% of trials reporting participants at eligibility and 100% reporting randomization, only 47% and 57% reported on withdrawal and details of the analysis, respectively. CONCLUSION: The majority of clinical trials in HNC in the United States do not report LTFU, which inhibits the evaluation of attrition bias that may impact the interpretation of significant findings. Standardized reporting is needed to evaluate the generalizability of trial results to clinical practice.