The importance of facilitating goal-concordant care (GCC) in a pandemic: the MD Anderson Experience with hospitalized COVID-19-positive patients.

PURPOSE: Provider-patient communication (PPC) about goals of care (GOC) facilitates goal-concordant care (GCC) delivery. Hospital resource limitations imposed during the pandemic made it vital to deliver GCC to a patient cohort with COVID-19 and cancer. We aimed to evaluate the implementation of a real-time goals of care intervention and to make recommendations for future pandemics with similar clinical scenarios. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study, of all COVID-19 positive patients admitted to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between March of 2020 and January of 2021. The cohort included the following: (1) patients 18 years of age or older; (2) positive COVID-19 infection; (3) requiring hospitalization. Medical records were reviewed and all patient data including demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes were collected and analyzed in the Syntropy platform, Palantir Foundry, as part of the institutional Data-Driven Determinants of COVID-19 Oncology Discovery Effort (D3CODE) protocol. A multidisciplinary GOC task force developed processes for ease of conducting GOC-PPC and implemented structured documentation. We looked at ACP documentation pre- and post-implementation alongside demographics, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rate and mortality. RESULTS: There were 494 unique patients identified, 53% male, 61.5% Caucasian, 16.8% African American, and 3.2% Asian. Active cancer was identified in 84.6% patients, of which 65.6% were solid tumors and 34.4% hematologic malignancies. LOS was 9 days with a 30-day readmission rate of 15% and inpatient mortality of 14%. Inpatient ACP note documentation was significantly higher post-implementation as compared to pre-implementation (90% vs 8%, P<0.05). We saw sustained ACP documentation throughout the pandemic suggesting effective processes. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of institutional structured processes for GOC-PPC resulted in rapid sustainable adoption of ACP documentation for COVID-19-positive cancer patients. This was highly beneficial for this population during the pandemic, as it demonstrated the role of agile processes in care delivery models, which will be beneficial in the future when rapid implementation is needed.

Supportive care for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in a phase 1B study of selinexor in advanced cancer patients: an exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical observations of cancer patients treated with selinexor have reported high incidence of nausea and anorexia. The study objective was to investigate the adoption of prophylactic olanzapine for the prevention of nausea, vomiting and anorexia in cancer patients receiving selinexor and standard chemotherapy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed supportive care interventions in patients receiving selinexor and recorded frequency of adverse events (NCI-CTAE). Association between categorical variables were analyzed using Fisher's exact tests; repeated measures analysis was performed to assess weight changes over time. RESULTS: Of 124 evaluable patients, 83 (66.9%) were female, 93 were white (75.0%), and the most common cancer was ovarian (N = 30, 24.2%). One hundred and four patients (83.9%) received olanzapine, of which 93 (89.4%) were prophylactically treated, the majority (86.5%) receiving low 2.5 mg daily dose. Other anti-emetics included ondansetron in 90 patients (72.6%), dexamethasone prescribed in 50 patients (40.3%) and metoclopramide in 49 patients (39.5%), while aprepitant/fosaprepitant (N = 2, 1.6%) were prescribed infrequently. Cancer patients receiving prophylactic olanzapine (N = 93) compared to patients who never received olanzapine (N = 20) had more Grade 1 + anorexia (31.2% vs 20.0%), less nausea (53.8% vs 70.0%), less vomiting (33.3% vs 40.0%), and increased hyperglycemia (29.0% vs 10.0%), but differences were non-statistically significant. In addition, there was minimal weight loss over time in both groups and no statistically significant differences in weight loss between groups. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic olanzapine decreased nausea, vomiting and maintained weight over 3 months but did not prevent anorexia in patients receiving selinexor and chemotherapy. Low dose olanzapine was well tolerated but associated with hyperglycemia.

Random urine drug testing among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding the true frequency of nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain. Data to guide patient selection for urine drug testing (UDT) as well as the timing and frequency of ordering UDT are insufficient. This study examined the frequency of abnormal UDT among patients with cancer who underwent random UDT and their characteristics. METHODS: Demographic and clinical information for patients with cancer who underwent random UDT were retrospectively reviewed and compared with a historical cohort that underwent targeted UDT. Random UDT was ordered regardless of a patient's risk potential for NMOU. Targeted UDT was ordered on the basis of a physician's estimation of a patient's risk for NMOU. RESULTS: In all, 552 of 573 eligible patients (96%) underwent random UDT. Among these patients, 130 (24%) had 1 or more abnormal results; 38 of the 88 patients (43%) who underwent targeted UDT had 1 or more abnormal results. When marijuana was excluded, 15% of the random group and 37% of the targeted group had abnormal UDT findings (P < .001). It took a shorter time from the initial consultation to detect 1 or more abnormalities with the random test than the targeted test (median, 130 vs 274 days; P = .02). Abnormal random UDT was independently associated with younger age (P < .0001), male sex (P = .03), Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs positivity (P = .001), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System anxiety (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 1 in 4 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain at a supportive care clinic who underwent random UDT had 1 or more abnormalities. Random UDT detected abnormalities earlier than the targeted test. These findings suggest that random UDT is justified among patients with cancer pain.

Pancreas Cancer-Associated Pain Management.

Pain is highly prevalent in patients with pancreas cancer and contributes to the morbidity of the disease. Pain may be due to pancreatic enzyme insufficiency, obstruction, and/or a direct mass effect on nerves in the celiac plexus. Proper supportive care to decrease pain is an important aspect of the overall management of these patients. There are limited data specific to the management of pain caused by pancreatic cancer. Here we review the literature and offer recommendations regarding multiple modalities available to treat pain in these patients. The dissemination and adoption of these best supportive care practices can improve quantity and quality of life for patients with pancreatic cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Pain management is important to improve the quality of life and survival of a patient with cancer. The pathophysiology of pain in pancreas cancer is complex and multifactorial. Despite tumor response to chemotherapy, a sizeable percentage of patients are at risk for ongoing cancer-related pain and its comorbid consequences. Accordingly, the management of pain in patients with pancreas cancer can be challenging and often requires a multifaceted approach.

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.

Acupuncture for Cancer-Related Anorexia: a Review of the Current Evidence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Loss of appetite/anorexia is extremely common among cancer patients, affecting as many as half of newly diagnosed patients and 70% of patients with advanced disease. Effective management of this disabling symptom of cancer remains a major challenge in the field of oncology. We conducted a systematic review of the current evidence on acupuncture and/or moxibustion as an intervention for cancer-related anorexia. RECENT FINDINGS: Acupuncture, as a part of traditional Chinese medicine practice, has demonstrated effectiveness in managing many cancer- and treatment-related symptoms, especially chemotherapy-induced or postoperative nausea. However, the efficacy of acupuncture in treating cancer-related anorexia/loss of appetite is not clear. The current level of evidence is insufficient to make a definitive conclusion on the benefit of acupuncture/moxibustion for treating chronic cancer-related anorexia/appetite problems. Future large randomized controlled trials of high methodological quality are needed.

Neuroleptic strategies for terminal agitation in patients with cancer and delirium at an acute palliative care unit: a single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of neuroleptics for terminal agitated delirium is controversial. We assessed the effect of three neuroleptic strategies on refractory agitation in patients with cancer with terminal delirium. METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial, patients with advanced cancer, aged at least 18 years, admitted to the palliative and supportive care unit at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), with refractory agitation, despite low-dose haloperidol, were randomly assigned to receive intravenous haloperidol dose escalation at 2 mg every 4 h, neuroleptic rotation with chlorpromazine at 25 mg every 4 h, or combined haloperidol at 1 mg and chlorpromazine at 12·5 mg every 4 h, until death or discharge. Rescue doses identical to the scheduled doses were administered at inception, and then hourly as needed. Permuted block randomisation (block size six; 1:1:1) was done, stratified by baseline Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores. Research staff, clinicians, patients, and caregivers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was change in RASS score from time 0 to 24 h. Comparisons among group were done by modified intention-to-treat analysis. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03021486. FINDINGS: Between July 5, 2017, and July 1, 2019, 998 patients were screened for eligibility, with 68 being enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment; 45 received the masked study interventions (escalation n=15, rotation n=16, combination n=14). RASS score decreased significantly within 30 min and remained low at 24 h in the escalation group (n=10, mean RASS score change between 0 h and 24 h -3·6 [95% CI -5·0 to -2·2]), rotation group (n=11, -3·3 [-4·4 to -2·2]), and combination group (n=10, -3·0 [-4·6 to -1·4]), with no difference among groups (p=0·71). The most common serious toxicity was hypotension (escalation n=6 [40%], rotation n=5 [31%], combination n=3 [21%]); there were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Our data provide preliminary evidence that the three strategies of neuroleptics might reduce agitation in patients with terminal agitation. These findings are in the context of the single-centre design, small sample size, and lack of a placebo-only group. FUNDING: National Institute of Nursing Research.

Concurrent use of opioids with benzodiazepines or nonbenzodiazepine sedatives among patients with cancer referred to an outpatient palliative care clinic.

BACKGROUND: The concurrent use of opioids with benzodiazepines (BZD) or nonbenzodiazepine sedatives (S) recently was found to be associated with an increased risk of overdose death compared with the use of opioids alone. In the current study, the authors examined the frequency and trend of concurrent opioid/BZD-S use and its associated risk factors among patients with cancer. METHODS: Data regarding the frequency and trend of concurrent opioid/BZD-S use were extracted for 1500 randomly selected patients referred to the outpatient palliative care clinic at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between the calendar years of 2011 and 2016. To explore associated risk factors, the authors compared the demographic and clinical predictors of 418 patients each in the concurrent opioid/BZD-S group and opioids-only group. RESULTS: In 2011, at the time of referral to the palliative care clinic, 96 of 221 patients with cancer (43%) were prescribed concurrent opioids/BZD-S. This rate progressively declined to 67 of 217 patients (31%) by 2016 (P = .0008). Patients in the concurrent opioid/BZD-S group had a higher percentage of females (233 individuals; 55% [P = .007]) and whites (323 individuals; 77% [P = .002]), and patients reported higher scores regarding depression (P = .0001), anxiety (P ≤ .0001), drowsiness (P = .048), and worst feeling of well-being (P = .001). The morphine equivalent daily dose was significantly higher in concurrent opioid/BZD-S group (median of 67.5 mg/day [interquartile range (IQR), 30-135 mg/day] vs 60 mg/day [IQR, 30-105 mg/day]; P = .034). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that anxiety (P ≤ .0001), white race (P = .0092), and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P = .0017) were significantly associated with concurrent use. CONCLUSIONS: The concurrent use of opioids with BZD-S has declined but continues to be frequent among patients with cancer. Anxiety, white race, and poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status were associated with its use. More research is needed to explore which medications can replace these agents.

The minimal clinically important difference of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale in patients with cancer with agitated delirium.

BACKGROUND: The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) is commonly used to assess psychomotor activity; however, to the authors' knowledge, its minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been determined to date. The objective of the current study was to identify the MCID for RASS using 2 anchor-based approaches. METHODS: The current study was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial to compare the effect of lorazepam versus placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium. The primary outcome was change in RASS (10-point numeric rating scale ranging from -5 [unarousable] to +4 [combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. The sensitivity-specificity and within-patient change methods were used to identify the MCID, with the anchor being patient comfort after the study intervention as perceived by caregivers and nurses. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were randomized and 58 (64%) received the study medication for restlessness/agitation (mean baseline RASS, 1.6). A total of 23 caregivers (61%) and 23 nurses (55%) perceived that the patient was more comfortable after treatment. Using the sensitivity-specificity method, the optimal RASS reduction was ≥4 points according to both caregivers (sensitivity of 61% and specificity of 80%; area under the curve, 0.71) and nurses (sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 84%; area under the curve, 0.78). The RASS cutoff value based on the within-patient change method was similar (-4.2 for caregivers and -4.0 for nurses). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with persistent restlessness/agitation, a reduction of ≥4 points in RASS was considered to be the MCID for both nurses and caregivers. These preliminary findings may have implications for sample size calculation and the interpretation of treatment effect in future delirium trials. Cancer 2018;124:2246-52. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2017.

The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize and provide context for the updated guidelines recommendations regarding hospice and end-of-life (EOL) care. Updates for 2017 include revisions to and restructuring of the algorithms that address important EOL concerns. These recommendations were revised to provide clearer guidance for oncologists as they care for patients with cancer who are approaching the transition to EOL care. Recommendations for interventions and reassessment based on estimated life expectancy were streamlined and reprioritized to promote hospice referrals and improved EOL care.

Use of Palliative Care Services in a Tertiary Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing prevalence of palliative care (PC) services in cancer centers, most referrals to the service occur exceedingly late in the illness trajectory. Over the years, we have made several attempts to promote earlier patient access to our PC program, such as changing the name of our service from PC to supportive care (SC). This study was conducted to determine the use of PC/SC service over the past 8 years. METHODS: We reviewed billing data for all PC/SC encounters. We examined five metrics for use: inpatient consultations as a percentage of hospital admissions, ratio of inpatient consultations to average number of operational beds, time from hospital registration to outpatient consultation, time from advanced cancer diagnosis to consultation, and time from first outpatient consultation to death/last follow-up. RESULTS: Over the years, we found a consistent increase in patient referrals to the PC/SC program. In the inpatient setting, we found approximate doubling of the inpatient consultations as a percentage of hospital admissions and the ratio of inpatient consultations to hospital beds (from 10% to 19% and from 2.4 to 4.9, respectively; p < .001). In the outpatient setting, we observed variations in referral pattern between oncology services, but, overall, the time from consultation to death/last follow-up increased from 4.8 months to 7.9 months (p = .001), which was accompanied by a significant decrease in the interval to consultation from hospital registration and advanced cancer diagnosis (p < .001). CONCLUSION: We have observed a consistent annual increase in new patient referrals as well as earlier access for outpatient referrals to our SC service, supporting increased use of palliative care at our cancer center. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In response to accumulating evidence on the benefits of palliative care (PC) referral to oncology patients, efforts are being made to increase PC use. This study, conducted at MD Anderson Cancer Center, demonstrates consistent annual growth in PC referrals, which was accompanied by a significant increase in the outpatient referral of patients with nonadvanced cancer and earlier referral of those with advanced cancer. However, significant variations in the referral patterns between oncology services were observed. These results have implications for other cancer centers looking to enhance use of PC services by having a business model that allows for appropriate space and staff expansion.

Palliative Care Version 1.2016.

The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. The NCCN Guidelines are intended to provide guidance to the primary oncology team on the integration of palliative care into oncology. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel's recommendations seek to ensure that each patient experiences the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory. Accordingly, the NCCN Guidelines outline best practices for screening, assessment, palliative care interventions, reassessment, and after-death care.

Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Supportive and Palliative Care Referral Among Hematologic and Solid Tumor Oncology Specialists.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) referrals are often delayed for patients with hematologic malignancies. We examined the differences in attitudes and beliefs toward PC referral between hematologic and solid tumor specialists and how their perception changed with use of the service name "supportive care" (SC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomly surveyed 120 hematologic and 120 solid tumor oncology specialists at our tertiary care cancer center to examine their attitudes and beliefs toward PC and SC referral. RESULTS: Of the 240 specialists, 182 (76%) responded. Compared with solid tumor specialists, hematologic specialists were less likely to report that they would refer symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed cancer to PC (solid tumor, 43% vs. hematology, 21%; p = .002). A significantly greater proportion of specialists expressed that they would refer a patient with newly diagnosed cancer to SC than PC (solid tumor specialists: SC, 81% vs. PC, 43%; p < .001; hematology specialists: SC, 66% vs. PC, 21%; p < .001). The specialists perceived that PC was more likely than SC to be a barrier for referral (PC, 36% vs. SC, 3%; p < .001), to be synonymous with hospice (PC, 53% vs. SC, 6%; p < .001), to decrease hope (PC, 58% vs. SC, 8%; p < .001), and to be less appropriate for treatment of chemotherapy side effects (PC, 64% vs. SC, 19%; p < .001). On multivariate analysis, female clinicians (odds ratio [OR], 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-15.2; p = .02) and the perception that PC is a barrier for referral (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2-7.6; p = .02) were associated with PC referral if the service name "SC" was used. CONCLUSION: Hematologic specialists were less likely to refer patients early in the disease trajectory and were conducive to referral with the service name SC instead of PC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The present survey of oncology specialists found that hematologic specialists were less likely than solid tumor specialists to report that they would refer symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed cancer to palliative care. However, both groups were significantly more willing to refer patients early in the disease trajectory if the service name "supportive care" were used instead of "palliative care." These findings suggest that rebranding might help to overcome the stigma associated with palliative care and improve patient access to palliative care services.

Olanzapine for cachexia in patients with advanced cancer: an exploratory study of effects on weight and metabolic cytokines.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is used for treatment of psychiatric conditions but causes substantial weight gain. This study assessed safety, efficacy, and changes in metabolic cytokines associated with olanzapine administration in patients with cachexia due to advanced cancer. METHODS: Patients with cancer-related cachexia were treated with olanzapine (doses ranging from 2.5 to 20 mg daily by mouth). Patients also received anti-neoplastic treatments. Serum samples were collected at baseline and after weeks 1, 2, 4, and 8 for analysis of levels of leptin, growth hormone, ghrelin, and interleukin-6 (IL-6). RESULTS: Of the 39 participants, 31 were evaluable for weight change (N = 6 excluded for new ascites; N = 2, incomplete body weight of data). Toxicities related to olanzapine were somnolence (n = 1), pancreatitis (n = 1), extrapyramidal symptoms (n = 1), and nausea/vomiting (n = 1) (all grade 2). The recommended dose of Olanzapine is 20 mg PO daily for cancer patients (same as FDA approved dose for psychiatric conditions). Samples from 29 patients were eligible for analysis of serum cytokine levels. Mean values of leptin, ghrelin, and growth hormone did not change on treatment, though IL-6 levels increased, perhaps due to tumor progression. There was no association between changes in cytokines and weight. The mean change in slope of weight loss before versus after therapy was 0.24 (95 % CI, -0.08, 0.56; p = 0.13) indicating a trend, albeit not reaching statistical significance, toward attenuation of weight loss. CONCLUSION: Changes in metabolic cytokines and body weight did not correlate. Treatment with olanzapine had only a modest effect in altering the trajectory of weight loss.

Acute symptomatic complications among patients with advanced cancer admitted to acute palliative care units: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on the symptomatic complications that occur in the last days of life. AIM: We documented the frequency, clinical course, and survival for 25 symptomatic complications among patients admitted to acute palliative care units. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal observational study. MEASUREMENTS: Their attending physician completed a daily structured assessment of symptomatic complications from admission to discharge or death. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled consecutive advanced cancer patients admitted to acute palliative care units at MD Anderson Cancer Center, USA, and Barretos Cancer Hospital, Brazil. RESULTS: A total of 352 patients were enrolled (MD Anderson Cancer Center = 151, Barretos Cancer Hospital = 201). Delirium, pneumonia, and bowel obstruction were the most common complications, occurring in 43%, 20%, and 16% of patients on admission, and 70%, 46%, and 35% during the entire acute palliative care unit stay, respectively. Symptomatic improvement for delirium (36/246, 15%), pneumonia (52/161, 32%), and bowel obstruction (41/124, 33%) was low. Survival analysis revealed that delirium (p < 0.001), pneumonia (p = 0.003), peritonitis (p = 0.03), metabolic acidosis (p < 0.001), and upper gastrointestinal bleed (p = 0.03) were associated with worse survival. Greater number of symptomatic complications on admission was also associated with poorer survival (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Symptomatic complications were common in cancer patients admitted to acute palliative care units, often do not resolve completely, and were associated with a poor prognosis despite active medical management.

Association between hypogonadism, symptom burden, and survival in male patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: A high frequency of hypogonadism has been reported in male patients with advanced cancer. The current study was performed to evaluate the association between low testosterone levels, symptom burden, and survival in male patients with cancer. METHODS: Of 131 consecutive male patients with cancer, 119 (91%) had an endocrine evaluation of total (TT), free (FT), and bioavailable testosterone (BT); high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP); vitamin B12; thyroid-stimulating hormone; 25-hydroxy vitamin D; and cortisol levels when presenting with symptoms of fatigue and/or anorexia-cachexia. Symptoms were evaluated by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. The authors examined the correlation using the Spearman test and survival with the log-rank test and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 64 years; the majority of patients were white (85 patients; 71%). The median TT level was 209 ng/dL (normal: ≥ 200 ng/dL), the median FT was 4.4 ng/dL (normal: ≥ 9 ng/dL), and the median BT was 22.0 ng/dL (normal: ≥ 61 ng/dL). Low TT, FT, and BT values were all associated with worse fatigue (P ≤ .04), poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (P ≤ .05), weight loss (P ≤ .01), and opioid use (P ≤ .005). Low TT and FT were associated with increased anxiety (P ≤ .04), a decreased feeling of well-being (P ≤ .04), and increased dyspnea (P ≤ .05), whereas low BT was only found to be associated with anorexia (P = .05). Decreased TT, FT, and BT values were all found to be significantly associated with elevated CRP and low albumin and hemoglobin. On multivariate analysis, decreased survival was associated with low TT (hazards ratio [HR], 1.66; P = .034), declining Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (HR, 1.55; P = .004), high CRP (HR, 3.28; P < .001), and decreased albumin (HR, 2.52; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In male patients with cancer, low testosterone levels were associated with systemic inflammation, weight loss, increased symptom burden, and decreased survival. A high frequency of hypogonadism has been reported in male patients with advanced cancer. In the current study, an increased symptom burden, systemic inflammation, weight loss, opioid use, and poor survival were found to be associated with decreased testosterone levels in male patients with cancer. Cancer 2014;120:1586-1593. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

The opioid rotation ratio of hydrocodone to strong opioids in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Cancer pain management guidelines recommend initial treatment with intermediate-strength analgesics such as hydrocodone and subsequent escalation to stronger opioids such as morphine. There are no published studies on the process of opioid rotation (OR) from hydrocodone to strong opioids in cancer patients. Our aim was to determine the opioid rotation ratio (ORR) of hydrocodone to morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) in cancer outpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of consecutive patient visits at our supportive care center in 2011-2012 for OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioids. Data regarding demographics, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and MEDD were collected from patients who returned for follow-up within 6 weeks. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the ORR between hydrocodone and MEDD. Successful OR was defined as 2-point or 30% reduction in the pain score and continuation of the new opioid at follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 170 patients underwent OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioid. The median age was 59 years, and 81% had advanced cancer. The median time between OR and follow-up was 21 days. We found 53% had a successful OR with significant improvement in the ESAS pain and symptom distress scores. In 100 patients with complete OR and no worsening of pain at follow-up, the median ORR from hydrocodone to MEDD was 1.5 (quintiles 1-3: 0.9-2). The ORR was associated with hydrocodone dose (r = -.52; p < .0001) and was lower in patients receiving ≥40 mg of hydrocodone per day (p < .0001). The median ORR of hydrocodone to morphine was 1.5 (n = 44) and hydrocodone to oxycodone was 0.9 (n = 24). CONCLUSION: The median ORR from hydrocodone to MEDD was 1.5 and varied according to hydrocodone dose.

Palliative care, Version 1.2014. Featured updates to the NCCN Guidelines.

The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN panel's discussions and guideline updates from 2013 and 2014. These include modifications/additions to palliative care screening and assessment protocols, new considerations for discussing the benefits and risks of anticancer therapy, and approaches to advance care planning. Recent updates focus on enhanced patient-centered care and seek to promote earlier integration of palliative care and advance care planning in oncology.

Patient-physician communication about code status preferences: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Code status discussions are important in cancer care, but the best modality for such discussions has not been established. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of a physician ending a code status discussion with a question (autonomy approach) versus a recommendation (beneficence approach) on patients' do-not-resuscitate (DNR) preference. METHODS: Patients in a supportive care clinic watched 2 videos showing a physician-patient discussion regarding code status. Both videos were identical except for the ending: one ended with the physician asking for the patient's code status preference and the other with the physician recommending DNR. Patients were randomly assigned to watch the videos in different sequences. The main outcome was the proportion of patients choosing DNR for the video patient. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients completed the study, and 74% chose DNR after the question video, whereas 73% chose DNR after the recommendation video. Median physician compassion score was very high and not different for both videos. All 30 of 30 patients who had chosen DNR for themselves and 30 of 48 patients who had not chosen DNR for themselves chose DNR for the video patient (100% versus 62%). Age (odds ratio = 1.1/year) and white ethnicity (odds ratio = 9.43) predicted DNR choice for the video patient. CONCLUSIONS: Ending DNR discussions with a question or a recommendation did not impact DNR choice or perception of physician compassion. Therefore, both approaches are clinically appropriate. All patients who chose DNR for themselves and most patients who did not choose DNR for themselves chose DNR for the video patient. Age and race predicted DNR choice.

Medical oncologists' perception of palliative care programs and the impact of name change to supportive care on communication with patients during the referral process. A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: In a simultaneous care model, patients have concurrent access to both cancer-directed therapies and palliative care. As oncologists play a critical role in determining the need/timing of referral to palliative care programs, their understanding of the service and ability to communicate this with patients is of paramount importance. Our study aimed to examine oncologists' perceptions of the supportive care program at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, and to determine whether renaming "palliative care" to "supportive care" influenced communication regarding referrals. METHOD: This qualitative study used semi-directed interviews, and we analyzed data using grounded theory and qualitative methods. RESULTS: We interviewed 17 oncologists. Supportive care was perceived as an important time-saving application, and symptom control, transitioning to end-of-life care, family counseling, and improving patients' ability to tolerate cancer therapies were cited as important functions. Although most claimed that early referrals to the service are preferable, oncologists identified several challenges, related to the timing and communication with patients regarding the referral, as well as with the supportive care team after the referral was made. Whereas oncologists stated that the name change had no impact on their referral patterns, the majority supported it, as they perceived their patients preferred it. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Although the majority of oncologists favorably viewed supportive care, communication barriers were identified, which need further confirmation. Simultaneous care models that effectively incorporate palliative care with cancer treatments need further development.