A Prospective Study Assessing the Efficacy and Toxicity of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Oligometastatic Bone Metastases.

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a promising treatment for oligometastatic disease in bone because of its delivery of high dose to target tissue and minimal dose to surrounding tissue. The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and toxicity of this treatment in patients with previously unirradiated oligometastatic bony disease. Methods and Materials: In this prospective phase II trial, patients with oligometastatic bone disease, defined as ≤3 active sites of disease, were treated with SBRT at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Center and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between December 2016 and May 2019. SBRT dose and fractionation regimen were not protocol mandated. Local progression-free survival, progression-free survival, prostatic specific antigen progression, and overall survival were reported. Treatment-related toxicity was also reported. Results: A total of 98 patients and 126 lesions arising from various tumor histologies were included in this study. The median age of patients enrolled was 72.8 years (80.6% male, 19.4% female). Median follow-up was 26.7 months. The most common histology was prostate cancer (68.4%, 67/98). The most common dose prescriptions were 27/30 Gy in 3 fractions (27.0%, 34/126), 30 Gy in 5 fractions (16.7%, 21/126), or 30/35 Gy in 5 fractions (16.7%, 21/126). Multiple doses per treatment regimen reflect dose painting employing the lower dose to the clinical target volume and higher dose to the gross tumor volume. Four patients (4.1%, 4/98) experienced local progression at 1 site for each patient (3.2%, 4/126). Among the entire cohort, 2-year local progression-free survival (including death without local progression) was 84.8%, 2-year progression-free survival (including deaths as well as local, distant, and prostatic specific antigen progression) was 47.5%, and 2-year overall survival was 87.3%. Twenty-six patients (26.5%, 26/98) developed treatment-related toxicities. Conclusions: Our study supports existing literature in showing that SBRT is effective and tolerable in patients with oligometastatic bone disease. Larger phase III trials are necessary and reasonable to determine long-term efficacy and toxicities.

Randomized, Controlled Trial of an Advance Care Planning Video Decision Support Tool for Patients With Advanced Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Conversations about goals of care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)/intubation for patients with advanced heart failure can be difficult. This study examined the impact of a video decision support tool and patient checklist on advance care planning for patients with heart failure. METHODS: This was a multisite, randomized, controlled trial of a video-assisted intervention and advance care planning checklist versus a verbal description in 246 patients ≥64 years of age with heart failure and an estimated likelihood of death of >50% within 2 years. Intervention participants received a verbal description for goals of care (life-prolonging care, limited care, and comfort care) and CPR/intubation plus a 6-minute video depicting the 3 levels of care, CPR/intubation, and an advance care planning checklist. Control subjects received only the verbal description. The primary analysis compared the proportion of patients preferring comfort care between study arms immediately after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were CPR/intubation preferences and knowledge (6-item test; range, 0-6) after intervention. RESULTS: In the intervention group, 27 (22%) chose life-prolonging care, 31 (25%) chose limited care, 63 (51%) selected comfort care, and 2 (2%) were uncertain. In the control group, 50 (41%) chose life-prolonging care, 27 (22%) selected limited care, 37 (30%) chose comfort care, and 8 (7%) were uncertain (P<0.001). Intervention participants (compared with control subjects) were more likely to forgo CPR (68% versus 35%; P<0.001) and intubation (77% versus 48%; P<0.001) and had higher mean knowledge scores (4.1 versus 3.0; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with heart failure who viewed a video were more informed, more likely to select a focus on comfort, and less likely to desire CPR/intubation compared with patients receiving verbal information only. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01589120.

Randomized controlled trial of a video decision support tool for cardiopulmonary resuscitation decision making in advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Decision making regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is challenging. This study examined the effect of a video decision support tool on CPR preferences among patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled trial of 150 patients with advanced cancer from four oncology centers. Participants in the control arm (n = 80) listened to a verbal narrative describing CPR and the likelihood of successful resuscitation. Participants in the intervention arm (n = 70) listened to the identical narrative and viewed a 3-minute video depicting a patient on a ventilator and CPR being performed on a simulated patient. The primary outcome was participants' preference for or against CPR measured immediately after exposure to either modality. Secondary outcomes were participants' knowledge of CPR (score range of 0 to 4, with higher score indicating more knowledge) and comfort with video. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 62 years (standard deviation, 11 years); 49% were women, 44% were African American or Latino, and 47% had lung or colon cancer. After the verbal narrative, in the control arm, 38 participants (48%) wanted CPR, 41 (51%) wanted no CPR, and one (1%) was uncertain. In contrast, in the intervention arm, 14 participants (20%) wanted CPR, 55 (79%) wanted no CPR, and 1 (1%) was uncertain (unadjusted odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.7 to 7.2; P < .001). Mean knowledge scores were higher in the intervention arm than in the control arm (3.3 ± 1.0 v 2.6 ± 1.3, respectively; P < .001), and 65 participants (93%) in the intervention arm were comfortable watching the video. CONCLUSION: Participants with advanced cancer who viewed a video of CPR were less likely to opt for CPR than those who listened to a verbal narrative.

A randomized controlled trial of a goals-of-care video for elderly patients admitted to skilled nursing facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a video on preferences for the primary goal of care. DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND INTERVENTION: Consecutive subjects 65 years of age or older (n=101) admitted to two skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) were randomized to a verbal narrative (control) or a video (intervention) describing goals-of-care options. Options included: life-prolonging (i.e., cardiopulmonary resuscitation), limited (i.e., hospitalization but no cardiopulmonary resuscitation), or comfort care (i.e., symptom relief). MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was patients' preferences for comfort versus other options. Concordance of preferences with documentation in the medical record was also examined. RESULTS: Fifty-one subjects were randomized to the verbal arm and 50 to the video arm. In the verbal arm, preferences were: comfort, n=29 (57%); limited, n=4 (8%); life-prolonging, n=17 (33%); and uncertain, n=1 (2%). In the video arm, preferences were: comfort, n=40 (80%); limited, n=4 (8%); and life-prolonging, n=6 (12%). Randomization to the video was associated with greater likelihood of opting for comfort (unadjusted rate ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.9, p=0.02). Among subjects in the verbal arm who chose comfort, 29% had a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order (κ statistic 0.18; 95% CI-0.02 to 0.37); 33% of subjects in the video arm choosing comfort had a DNR order (κ statistic 0.06; 95% CI-0.09 to 0.22). CONCLUSION: Subjects admitted to SNFs who viewed a video were more likely than those exposed to a verbal narrative to opt for comfort. Concordance between a preference for comfort and a DNR order was low. These findings suggest a need to improve ascertainment of patients' preferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01233973.

Neuropathic pain: could nurses become more involved?

Neuropathic pain can take a heavy toll on quality of life, impacting negatively on emotions, disrupting sleep, and impairing energy and mobility. It can destroy the enjoyment of life and the opportunity to continue in employment. In some cases, it can lead to suicidal thoughts and intentions. Nurses are well placed to become more effective in identifying and treating this challenging condition. This article outlines what we currently understand are the causes or 'generators' of neuropathic pain and the mechanisms that maintain pain. It explores strategies for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain and reviews a couple of typical case studies from clinical practice. Using these case studies, this article discusses assessment, patient expectation, treatment options and realistic outcomes. Finally, it is intended to stimulate debate as to why, when, how and where nurses could become key practitioners in identifying the development of neuropathic pain, assessing its impact on patients and encouraging the initiation of treatment.

"You feel so hopeless": a qualitative study of GP management of acute back pain.

BACKGROUND: Biopsychosocial management of non-specific back pain in general practice has been problematical, with frequent inappropriate referral for imaging and secondary care interventions and lack of self-confidence in the ability to provide evidence-based care. AIMS: To examine GP attitudes to managing back pain as a biopsychosocial problem in order to inform future educational strategies that may improve practice. METHODS: Twenty-one GPs from separate practices within the Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority area (UK) participated in telephone interviews leading to the development of vignettes to refine the theoretical framework for subsequent focus group interviews about evidence-based back pain management. Transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: There were 5 main emergent themes. These were generally negative and dominated by concerns about doctor-patient interaction. They included feelings of frustration, mismatches of perceptions in the doctor-patient relationship, problems in relation to time, challenges and discord between stakeholders in the process (for example, over sickness certification) and a lack of resources for education, awareness and local services to refer to. Psychosocial aspects of the actual care process were rarely raised. Participants favoured education that is multidisciplinary, in small group format and involves the participation of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the difficulties that GPs may have in applying the relevant evidence for the successful management of back pain. A desire to avoid conflict in the relationship with patients explained much of the problem of implementing evidence in general practice. This indicates a need for insightful educational strategies that involve active GP participation.

Acute back pain management in primary care: a qualitative pilot study of the feasibility of a nurse-led service in general practice.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the acceptability of the Royal College of General Practitioner Guidelines to small samples of nurses, General Practitioners and acute back pain patients, (2) to determine what additional roles for nurses in the management of acute back pain in primary care might be acceptable to these samples, (3) to evaluate the responses of General Practitioners, nurses and patients to a suggested service model based on the RCGP Guidelines, (4) to identify opportunities for and barriers to the further development of such models and to obtain the appraisal of the above by an external group of assessors. METHODOLOGY: Using a qualitative design the pilot study included Primary Care (General Practitioners, Practice Nurses and Patients) with the main outcome measures as: appraisal questionnaires (for RCGP Guideline), qualitative content analysis of focus group narratives, and appraisal of process and outcomes by an external panel. RESULTS: Attitudes towards the RCGP guidelines were positive, but professionals and patients alike did not think their recommendations could be implemented with the current service provision in primary care. There was criticism by professionals of the capacity for a nurse-led service within practices. Access to chiropractors, osteopaths and/or specialist physiotherapists in National Health Service primary care was raised as a need by both groups. All members of the Advisory Panel approved the processes for the recruitment of participants, focus group questions and analysis. DISCUSSION: Barriers to implementation of the RCGP Guideline and to a nurse-led acute back pain service in general practice, were illustrated. These mainly relate to grossly inadequate capacity to deal with multidimensional patient needs, allowing progression to chronic pain states and much higher health care costs. There was a strong desire to include a different group of professionals in primary care. We recommend a local needs assessment and consideration of a national strategy for the implementation of the RCGP Guideline in primary care.

Chronic pain and opioids: dispelling myths and exploring the facts.

Opioid use for chronic non-malignant pain remains controversial and is surrounded by myths and misconceptions. As new research emphasises the importance of early effective pain management, comprehensive, well-researched guidelines may help the care of patients with chronic non-malignant pain.