Would You Refer This Patient With Cancer to a Palliative Care Specialist?: Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

In 2016, the American Society of Clinical Oncology published a guideline recommending that all patients with advanced cancer be referred to palliative care providers. This recommendation was based on a series of trials showing that palliative care, when added to standard oncology treatment, improves outcomes, including quality of life. Here, 2 oncologists, 1 of whom is also a palliative care specialist, debate the guideline and discuss how best to care for a 71-year-old woman with metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma who has a short life expectancy but feels well and has no symptoms related to her cancer or chemotherapy.

Olaparib and α-specific PI3K inhibitor alpelisib for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer: a dose-escalation and dose-expansion phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on preclinical work, we found that combination of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors with drugs that inhibit the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway (such as PI3K inhibitors) might sensitise HRR-proficient epithelial ovarian cancers to PARP inhibitors. We aimed to assess the safety and identify the recommended phase 2 dose of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with the PI3K inhibitor alpelisib in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial following a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with the following key eligibility criteria: confirmed diagnosis of either recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer of high-grade serous histology; confirmed diagnosis of either recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer of any histology with known germline BRCA mutations; confirmed diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer of triple-negative histology; or confirmed diagnosis of recurrent breast cancer of any histology with known germline BRCA mutations. Additional patients with epithelial ovarian cancer were enrolled in a dose-expansion cohort. Four dose levels were planned: the starting dose level of alpelisib 250 mg once a day plus olaparib 100 mg twice a day (dose level 0); alpelisib 250 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 1); alpelisib 300 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 2); and alpelisib 200 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 3). Both drugs were administered orally, in tablet formulation. The primary objective was to identify the maximum tolerated dose and the recommended phase 2 dose of the combination of alpelisib and olaparib for patients with epithelial ovarian cancer and patients with breast cancer. Analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. The trial is active, but closed to enrolment; follow-up for patients who completed treatment is ongoing. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623349. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2014, and Dec 21, 2016, we enrolled 34 patients (28 in the dose-escalation cohort and six in the dose-expansion cohort); two in the dose-escalation cohort were ineligible at the day of scheduled study initiation. Maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose were identified as alpelisib 200 mg once a day plus olaparib 200 mg twice a day (dose level 3). Considering all dose levels, the most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hyperglycaemia (five [16%] of 32 patients), nausea (three [9%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase concentrations (three [9%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Dose-limiting toxic effects included hyperglycaemia and fever with decreased neutrophil count. Of the 28 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, ten (36%) achieved a partial response and 14 (50%) had stable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. INTERPRETATION: Combining alpelisib and olaparib is feasible with no unexpected toxic effects. The observed activity provides preliminary clinical evidence of synergism between olaparib and alpelisib, particularly in epithelial ovarian cancer, and warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Ovarian Cancer Dream Team (Stand Up To Cancer, Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance, National Ovarian Cancer Coalition), Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Novartis.

Financial toxicity in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVES: Financial toxicity is increasingly recognized as an adverse outcome of cancer treatment. Our objective was to measure financial toxicity among gynecologic oncology patients and its association with demographic and disease-related characteristics; self-reported overall health; and cost-coping strategies. METHODS: Follow-up patients at a gynecologic oncology practice completed a survey including the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) tool and a self-reported overall health assessment, the EQ-VAS. We abstracted disease and treatment characteristics from medical records. We dichotomized COST scores into low and high financial toxicity and assessed the correlation (r) between COST scores and self-reported health. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the associations of demographic and disease-related characteristics with high financial toxicity, as well as the associations between high financial toxicity and cost-coping strategies. RESULTS: Among 240 respondents, median COST score was 29. Greater financial toxicity was correlated with worse self-reported health (r = 0.47; p < 0.001). In the crude analysis, Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, unemployment, cervical cancer and treatment with chemotherapy were associated with high financial toxicity. In the multivariable analysis, only government-sponsored health insurance, lower income, and treatment with chemotherapy were significantly associated with high financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with all cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care (RR: 7.3; 95% CI: 2.8-19.1). CONCLUSIONS: Among highly-insured gynecologic oncology patients, many respondents reported high levels of financial toxicity. High financial toxicity was significantly associated with worse self-reported overall health and cost-coping strategies, including delaying or avoiding care.

Opioid use in gynecologic oncology in the age of the opioid epidemic: Part I - Effective opioid use across clinical settings, a society of gynecologic oncology evidence-based review.

As the only oncologists that provide both medical and surgical oncologic care, gynecologic oncologists encounter an exceptionally broad range of indications for prescribing opioids, from management of acute post-operative pain to chronic cancer-related pain to end-of-life care. If we are to balance opioid efficacy, safety and accessibility for our patients, we must be intimately familiar with appropriate clinical use of opioids in a range of settings, and engage in the national conversation around opioid misuse and how associated regulations and legislation may impact us and our patients. This article examines the appropriate use of opioids across the range of clinical settings encountered in gynecologic oncology.

Opioid use in gynecologic oncology in the age of the opioid epidemic: Part II - Balancing safety & accessibility.

As the only oncologists that provide both medical and surgical care, gynecologic oncologists encounter an exceptionally broad range of indications for prescribing opioids in clinical situations ranging from management of acute post-operative pain to chronic cancer-related pain to end-of-life care. While opioids are essential to the practice of gynecologic oncology, they can also have significant side effects and can be misused. Due to the explosive growth of opioid prescriptions and opioid-related overdoses and deaths during the first decade of the 21st century, there has been a recent concerted public health effort to prevent and treat opioid misuse through both legislation and education [1]. The first article in this two part series focused on appropriate use of opioids across clinical settings. This article addresses both the clinical and regulatory aspects of balancing opioid safety and accessibility for patients with gynecologic cancer.

Combination cediranib and olaparib versus olaparib alone for women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor and cediranib is an anti-angiogenic agent with activity against VEGF receptor (VEGFR) 1, VEGFR2, and VEGFR3. Both oral agents have antitumour activity in women with recurrent ovarian cancer, and their combination was active and had manageable toxicities in a phase 1 trial. We investigated whether this combination could improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with olaparib monotherapy in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. METHODS: In our randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, we recruited women (aged ≥18 years) who had measurable platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, or those with deleterious germline BRCA1/2 mutations from nine participating US academic medical centres. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to permuted blocks, stratified by germline BRCA status and previous anti-angiogenic therapy, to receive olaparib capsules 400 mg twice daily or the combination at the recommended phase 2 dose of cediranib 30 mg daily and olaparib capsules 200 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The phase 2 trial is no longer accruing patients. An interim analysis was conducted in November, 2013, after 50% of expected events had occurred and efficacy results were unmasked. The primary analysis was performed on March 31, 2014, after 47 events (66% of those expected). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01116648. FINDINGS: Between Oct 26, 2011, and June 3, 2013, we randomly allocated 46 women to receive olaparib alone and 44 to receive the combination of olaparib and cediranib. Median PFS was 17·7 months (95% CI 14·7-not reached) for the women treated with cediranib plus olaparib compared with 9·0 months (95% CI 5·7-16·5) for those treated with olaparib monotherapy (hazard ratio 0·42, 95% CI 0·23-0·76; p=0·005). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common with combination therapy than with monotherapy, including fatigue (12 patients in the cediranib plus olaparib group vs five patients in the olaparib monotherapy group), diarrhoea (ten vs none), and hypertension (18 vs none). INTERPRETATION: Cediranib plus olaparib seems to improve PFS in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive high-grade serous or endometrioid ovarian cancer, and warrants study in a phase 3 trial. The side-effect profile suggests such investigations should include assessments of quality of life and patient-reported outcomes to understand the effects of a continuing oral regimen with that of intermittent chemotherapy. FUNDING: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (3 U01 CA062490-16S2); Intramural Program of the Center for Cancer Research; and the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, NIH.

Palliative Medicine Fellows' Discussions, Perceptions, and Training Regarding Medical Cannabis.

CONTEXT: Medical cannabis is increasingly considered for palliation of pain, nausea/vomiting, anorexia, and other symptoms. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether training in hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) adequately prepares fellows to counsel patients about medical cannabis. METHODS: A previously validated questionnaire was adapted for HPM fellows. Domains included fellows' practices recommending cannabis and their knowledge of its effectiveness and risks compared with standard treatments. U.S. HPM fellowships were sent surveys in 2022 and 2023. RESULTS: Forty six programs participated, 123 fellows responded (response rate of 42%) including 69% female; 55% White, and 28% Asian. Of respondents, 65% reported receiving formal training regarding medical cannabis; 57% reported discussing medical cannabis with over five patients; 23% recommended medical cannabis to more than five patients in the preceding year. Only 19%, however, felt sufficiently informed to issue cannabis-related recommendations. HPM fellows with prior training were not more likely to feel sufficiently informed to discuss cannabis (RR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.82-1.66) or to recommend cannabis to patients (RR: 2.05, 95% CI: 0.89-4.71). Fellows rate cannabis as equally or more effective than conventional treatments for the following symptoms: anorexia/cachexia (63%), nausea/vomiting (43%), pain (25%), and neuropathic pain (21%). CONCLUSION: Most HPM fellows report formal training in the use of medical cannabis. Over half of trainees reported discussing medical cannabis with patients, but few considered themselves sufficiently informed to make cannabis-related clinical recommendations. These results suggest both a need for expanded high-quality evidence for medical cannabis in palliative care and for improved formal education for HPM fellows.

Outpatient Training During Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellowship: A National Survey.

CONTEXT: Outpatient palliative care (PC) has strong evidence demonstrating impact across serious illnesses, resulting in growing demand for skilled outpatient PC clinicians. However, there is limited literature examining the existing state and quality of outpatient PC education during post-graduate training. OBJECTIVES: Characterize the current state of outpatient training in United States (US) Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) physician fellowships and elicit perceptions regarding quality of outpatient PC education. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of US adult HPM fellowship program directors (PDs) or their designee conducted between March-July 2023. RESULTS: Of 161 programs, 85 participated (53% response rate) with representation across all US regions. HPM fellows spend a median of 4.8 weeks in outpatient PC compared to 24 weeks inpatient PC and 10.5 weeks in hospice settings. Over half (51%) of fellows saw outpatients from primarily one disease type with limited exposure to patients with other serious illnesses. Across programs, fellows' clinic structure, interdisciplinary team composition, and didactic experiences varied. On a 5-point rating scale, PDs reported significantly lower quality outpatient versus inpatient training (mean rating: 3.58 vs. 4.62, p< 0.001) and perceived fellows as less prepared for independent outpatient practice upon graduation (mean: 4.06 vs. 4.73, p< 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our survey of US HPM fellowships identified multiple gaps between outpatient and inpatient PC education and training during fellowship and raises concern about the adequacy of outpatient PC training. To prepare the HPM workforce to meet the diverse needs of seriously ill populations and ensure adequate access, outpatient PC training requires reform.

An eHealth system supporting palliative care for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In this study, the authors examined the effectiveness of an online support system (Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System [CHESS]) versus the Internet in relieving physical symptom distress in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In total, 285 informal caregiver-patient dyads were assigned randomly to receive, for up to 25 months, standard care plus training on and access to either use of the Internet and a list of Internet sites about lung cancer (the Internet arm) or CHESS (the CHESS arm). Caregivers agreed to use CHESS or the Internet and to complete bimonthly surveys; for patients, these tasks were optional. The primary endpoint-patient symptom distress-was measured by caregiver reports using a modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. RESULTS: Caregivers in the CHESS arm consistently reported lower patient physical symptom distress than caregivers in the Internet arm. Significant differences were observed at 4 months (P = .031; Cohen d = .42) and at 6 months (P = .004; d = .61). Similar but marginally significant effects were observed at 2 months (P = .051; d = .39) and at 8 months (P = .061; d = .43). Exploratory analyses indicated that survival curves did not differ significantly between the arms (log-rank P = .172), although a survival difference in an exploratory subgroup analysis suggested an avenue for further study. CONCLUSIONS: The current results indicated that an online support system may reduce patient symptom distress. The effect on survival bears further investigation.

Palliative care training and associations with burnout in oncology fellows.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among physicians can lead to decreased career satisfaction, physical and emotional exhaustion, and increased medical errors. In oncologists, high exposure to fatal illness is associated with burnout. METHODS: The Maslach Burnout Inventory, measuring Emotional Exhaustion (EE), Depersonalization (DP), and Personal Accomplishment (PA), was administered to second-year US oncology fellows. Bivariate and multivariate analyses explored associations between burnout and fellow demographics, attitudes, and educational experiences. RESULTS: A total of 254 fellows out of 402 eligible US fellows responded (63.2%) and 24.2% reported high EE, 30.0% reported high DP, and 26.8% reported low PA. Over half of the fellows reported burnout in at least one domain. Lower EE scores were associated with the fellows' perceptions of having received better teaching, explicit teaching about certain end-of-life topics, and receipt of direct observation of goals-of-care discussions. Fellows who reported better overall teaching quality and more frequent observation of their skills had less depersonalization. Fellows who felt a responsibility to help patients at the end of life to prepare for death had higher PA. LIMITATIONS: This survey relies on the fellows' self-reported perceptions without an objective measure for validation. Factors associated with burnout may not be causal. The number of analyses performed raises the concern for Type I errors; therefore, a stringent P value (0.01) was used. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout is prevalent during oncology training. Higher-quality teaching is associated with less burnout among fellows. Fellowship programs should recognize the prevalence of burnout among oncology fellows as well as components of training that may protect against burnout.

Safety and outcome of patients treated with a modified outpatient intraperitoneal regimen for epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite the survival benefit of intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy observed in GOG172, significant toxicity and poor treatment completion rates have prevented the widespread acceptance of this regimen. Here, we report our experience with a modified outpatient GOG172 regimen. METHODS: Eligible patients had stage III, optimally debulked epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer that underwent IP port placement for administration of a modified GOG172 regimen consisting of: (i) intravenous paclitaxel 135 mg/m² on day 1 over 3 h; (ii) intraperitoneal cisplatin 75 mg/m² on day 2, and (iii) intraperitoneal paclitaxel 60 mg/m² on day 8. Day 8 IP paclitaxel was omitted until tolerance of the first cycle of IP cisplatin had been established. RESULTS: Four or more cycles of IP chemotherapy were completed by 72.5% (29) of 40 eligible patients; 20% of patients exhibited catheter-related complications requiring port removal and discontinuation of IP chemotherapy. Grade 3-4 hematologic, metabolic and gastrointestinal toxicities occurred in 36, 8 and 21% of the patients, respectively. With a median follow-up of 47.7 months, progression-free and overall survival was comparable to GOG172. CONCLUSIONS: This modified outpatient GOG172 regimen is associated with less toxicity and improved completion rates compared to the original GOG172 regimen.

Integrating palliative care into the evolving landscape of oncology.

Patients with cancer have many palliative care needs. Robust evidence supports the early integration of palliative care into the care of patients with advanced cancer. International organizations, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), have recommended early, longitudinal integration of palliative care into oncology care throughout the cancer trajectory. In this review, we pose a series of clinical questions related to the current state of early palliative care integration into oncology. We review the evidence to address each of these questions and highlight areas for further investigation. As cancer care continues to evolve, incorporating new treatment modalities and improving patient outcomes, we reflect on how to apply the existing evidence supporting early palliative care-oncology integration into this ever-changing therapeutic landscape and how specialty palliative care might adapt to meet the evolving needs of patients, caregivers, and the multidisciplinary oncology team.

Should Outpatient Palliative Care Clinics in Cancer Centers be Stand Alone or Embedded?

Outpatient palliative care facilitates timely symptom management, psychosocial care and care planning. A growing number of cancer centers have either stand-alone or embedded outpatient palliative care clinics. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, three groups of thought leaders independently answer this question. Specifically, each group provides a synopsis of the key studies that inform their thought processes, share practical advice on their clinical approach, and highlight the opportunities for future research. One group advocates for stand-alone clinics, another for embedded, and the third group tries to find a balance. In the absence of evidence that directly compares the two models, factors such as cancer center size, palliative care team composition, clinic space availability, and financial considerations may drive the decision-making process at each institution. Stand-alone clinics may be more appropriate for larger academic cancer centers or palliative care programs with a more comprehensive interdisciplinary team, while embedded clinics may be more suited for smaller palliative care programs or community oncology programs to stimulate referrals. As outpatient clinic models continue to evolve, investigators need to document the referral and patient outcomes to inform practice.

Delivering Palliative Care to Hospitalized Oncology Patients: A Scoping Review.

CONTEXT: Early, longitudinal integration of palliative care (PC) is recommended for patients with advanced cancer, in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Despite the growth of specialty PC teams in the last decade, the majority of PC is still delivered in the inpatient setting using a traditional referral-based consult delivery model. However, traditional consultation can lead to significant variation or delay in inpatient PC utilization. New care delivery models and strategies are emerging to deliver PC to hospitalized oncology patients who would most benefit from their services and to better align with professional society recommendations. OBJECTIVES: To identify different care models to deliver PC to ho`spitalized oncology patients and summarize their impact on patient and health system-related outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed articles from 2006 to 2021 evaluating delivery of PC to oncology patients in acute inpatient care. We abstracted study characteristics, the study's intervention and comparison arms, and outcomes related to specialty PC intervention. RESULTS: We identified four delivery models that have been reported to deliver PC: 1) traditional referral-based consultation, 2) criterion-based or "triggered" consultation, 3) co-rounding with primary inpatient team, and 4) PC clinicians serving as the primary team. We summarize the known outcomes data from each model, and compare the benefits and limitations of each model. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide guidance to health systems about care delivery models to deploy and implement inpatient PC resources to best serve their unique populations.

Pro-active Palliative Care for Hospitalized Primary Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Early integration of palliative care (PC) improves outcomes for patients with cancer and heart failure. Data on the role of PC in complex general medicine patients is scant. MEASURES: We identified high-mortality risk patients from our primary care practice by screening with mortality indices upon hospital admission. We measured documentation of advanced care planning (ACP), including health care proxy (HCP) and goals of care (GOC), at admission and discharge. INTERVENTION: We offered pro-active PC consultation to attending physicians of patients with high mortality risk. Patients who received pro-PC consultation were compared to patients whose attending physicians declined consultation (pro-PC declined) as well as patients who received usual care (UC). OUTCOMES: Compared to UC and pro-PC declined groups, the pro-active PC group demonstrated increased rates of HCP and GOC documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Our initiative identified hospitalized primary care patients with high-mortality risk, improved gaps in ACP, and was feasible to implement.

Does Use of Information Sources Outside the Treating Oncologist Influence Patient Decision-Making in Patients Receiving Non-Curative Intent Therapy for Advanced Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients' decision-making and perceptions of outcomes may be impacted by information sources. We investigated use of information by patients and tested the association with patients' perception of treatment outcomes. METHODS: We prospectively surveyed patients with advanced solid cancers and their oncologists regarding benefits/risks of non-curative cancer therapies. We previously reported misperception comparing patients' perceptions of treatment outcomes to those of their oncologist. We report external information use as proportions with binomial confidence intervals (CI) and examined correlations with misperception levels using Spearman's correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Of 125 participants, 70% (95% CI: 61-78) stated that they wanted as much information as possible from their oncologist, and nearly all (95%, 95% CI: 90-98) felt the amount of information provided by their clinician was "just right." Over half (60%, 95% CI: 51-69) wanted at least "a moderate amount" of information from sources outside their oncologist, and 58% (95% CI: 49-67) reported obtaining information from sources outside their oncologist. Over two-thirds (69%, 95% CI: 57-79) of participants felt the information from external sources influenced their decisions "a small amount" or less. There was no correlation between information use and misperception regarding tumor response (r: -.04; P = .60) or treatment toxicity (r: .05; P = .60). CONCLUSION: Many patients sought information from sources outside their oncologist; few felt it substantially influenced treatment choices. External information use was not associated with greater misperception of treatment outcomes. These data suggest sources of information outside the treating oncologists did not substantially influence patient's decision making.

Perceptions and Reality of Antimicrobial Prescribing During the Transition to Comfort Measures Only at an Academic Medical Center.

Background: Little is known about antimicrobial prescribing when patient care is transitioned to comfort measures only (CMO). We used a multidisciplinary survey and retrospective cohort study to gain insight into antimicrobial prescribing in this population at an academic medical center to inform future antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Methods: A survey focusing on antimicrobial prescribing during the transition to CMO was electronically distributed to providers in medical subspecialities and responses were compared across specialties. A retrospective chart review was performed of patients admitted to an academic medical center in 2020 who were on antimicrobials in the 48 hours prior to CMO. We investigated the percentage of patients who remained on antimicrobials after the transition to CMO and rationale for continuing antimicrobials. Results: We received 113 survey responses (35% response rate). Forty-one percent of respondents indicated that they "sometimes" or "often" continued antimicrobials during the transition to CMO. Patient/family preference and symptom palliation were the most common factors cited by respondents when deciding whether to continue antimicrobials in this population. Of the 546 patient charts reviewed, 140 (26%) patients were alive 48 hours after CMO order, and 19 (14%) of those patients remained on antimicrobials. Five of 19 (26%) patients had documentation that antimicrobials were continued due to patient/family preference and 5 of 19 (26%) patients had documentation that antimicrobials were continued for palliation of symptoms. Conclusions: Patient/family preference and symptom palliation are important factors in prescribing antimicrobials when patient care is transitioned to CMO. More evidence is needed regarding palliative benefits of antibiotics to inform provider discussions of benefits and harms of antimicrobial use in this setting.

Death by Chocolate: The Palliative Management of Dysphagia.

Background: Among patients seen by palliative care, dysphagia is prevalent and can lead to disturbing symptoms and challenges in medical decisions for patients and families. Case: Our patient, AP, an 88-year-old woman with a history of thyroid cancer and esophageal dysmotility, was nearing end of life. She wanted nothing more than to eat her chocolate cake in peace. This shocked her family and also presented multiple ethical and logistical issues for the medical team caring for her during an acute admission for hypoxia. Discussion: This case presents an opportunity to: review strategies for evaluating and diagnosing dysphagia; appraise evidenced based approach to the palliative management of dysphagia; and promote the education of families and staff regarding palliative options for care. Conclusion: Palliative care professionals can be instrumental in educating patients, families, other clinicians, including swallowing therapists, on how to enhance comfort and quality of life among patients with dysphagia.

Palliative Care Education for Surgical Residents: Current Practices and Future Directions.

Despite the benefits and increased clinical application of primary palliative care principles within surgery, palliative care education among surgical trainees remains varied and poorly defined. Through a survey of general surgery program directors, this perspective highlights current palliative care educational practices of general surgery residencies and existing curricula. Although program directors deemed palliative care education important to surgical training, barriers to improving resident education included limited overall educational time, few available palliative care experts, and the lack of a dedicated curriculum. There is a need for a surgical palliative care educational toolkit that is validated, easily available, incorporates local experts, and adjustable to the variety of educational practices of surgical programs and their residents.