Cancer-related fatigue among patients with advanced cancer receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with severity of cancer related fatigue (CRF) as assessed by Functional Assessment of Cancer Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), prior to, and during 12 weeks of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We also explored the effects of ICIs on fatigue dimensions and interference with daily activities (Multidimensional Functional Symptom Inventory, MFSI-SF, Patient-Related Outcome Symptom Measurement Information System Short form Fatigue 7a, PROMIS F-SF), QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, FACT-G), and cancer symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, ESAS). METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal observational study, patients with a diagnosis of advanced cancer receiving ICIs were evaluated. Patient demographics, FACT-G, FACIT-F, MFSI-SF, PROMIS F-SF, and ESAS were collected prior to, and during 12 weeks of ICIs. RESULTS: A total of 160 of the 212 enrolled patients were analyzed. The median age was 61 years, 60% were female, most common cancer was melanoma (73%), and most common ICI was nivolumab 46%. The frequency of clinically significant fatigue (defined as ≤ 34/52 on FACIT-F score) was 25.6% at baseline, 25.7% at week 8, and 19.5% at week 12. There was significant improvement in FACIT-F (P = 0.016), FACT-G physical well-being (P = 0.041), FACT-G emotional well-being (P = 0.011), ESAS anxiety (P = 0.045), and ESAS psychological distress (P = 0.03) scores from baseline to week 12 of ICIs. Multivariate analysis found significant association between clinically significant CRF and PROMIS F-SF (P < 0.001) and MFSI-SF global scores (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CRF is frequent prior to the initiation of ICI treatment. Over 12 weeks of ICI treatment, CRF significantly improved. FACT-G physical well-being, FACT-G emotional well-being, ESAS anxiety, and ESAS psychological distress scores improved overtime. Further studies are needed to validate these findings.

Telehealth Preferences Among Patients With Advanced Cancer in the Post COVID-19 Vaccine Era.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined patient preferences for telehealth in palliative care after the availability of COVID-19 vaccines. We examined patient preferences for video versus in-person visits and factors contributing to preferences in the postvaccine era. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey of patients who were seen at our palliative care clinic between April 2021 and March 2022. Patients were surveyed directly their preference for either video or in-person visits for outpatient palliative care (primary outcome). We also surveyed preferences including convenience, cost, wait time, and perceptions of COVID-19 safety regarding their palliative virtual-video visit. We examined clinical factors associated with preferences with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: About 200 patients completed the survey. 132 (67%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 60%, 74%) preferred virtual-video, while 16 (8%) preferred in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. About 120 (61%, 95%CI: 54%, 68%) preferred virtual-video after the pandemic. Patients perceived virtual-video favorably regarding travel and related costs (179 [91%]), convenience (175 [88%]), and wait time (136 [69%]). Multivariable analysis showed concerns for catching COVID-19 from healthcare providers (odds ratio [OR]: 4.20; 95%CI: 1.24-14.25; P = 0.02) and feeling comfortable with computers or mobile devices (OR: 4.59; 95%CI: 1.02, 20.60; P = 0.047) were significantly associated with preferring virtual-video. Patients who were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.09, 0.71) and had increased dypsnea (OR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.59, 0.93) were less likely to prefer video over in-person. CONCLUSION: Patients expressed strong preference for video over in-person visits in the outpatient palliative care setting.

Characterization of patients with brain metastases referred to palliative care.

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to assess the clinical characteristics, reasons for referral, and outcomes of patients with brain metastases (BM) referred to the supportive care center. METHODS: Equal numbers of patients with melanoma, breast cancer, and lung cancer with (N = 90) and without (N = 90) BM were retrospectively identified from the supportive care database for study. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic, disease, and clinical data. Kaplan Meier method was used to evaluate survival outcomes. RESULTS: While physical symptom management was the most common reason for referral to supportive care for both patients with and without BM, patients with BM had significantly lower pain scores on ESAS at time of referral (p = 0.002). They had greater interaction with acute care in the last weeks of life, with higher rates of ICU admission, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations after initial supportive care (SC) visit. The median survival time from referral to Supportive Care Center (SCC) was 0.90 years (95% CI 0.73, 1.40) for the brain metastasis group and 1.29 years (95% CI 0.91, 2.29) for the group without BM. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BM have shorter survival and greater interaction with acute care in the last weeks of life. This population also has distinct symptom burdens from patients without BM. Strategies to optimize integration of SC for patients with BM warrant ongoing study.

Postvaccine Era COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Distress in Palliative Care Patients With Advanced Cancer.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a source of distress in patients with advanced cancer; however, few studies have examined the extent of pandemic-related distress in the postvaccine era. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a cross-sectional survey to examine pandemic-related distress among patients seen by palliative care after vaccine availability. METHODS: Patients at our palliative care clinic were surveyed from April 2021 to March 2022 regarding 1) pandemic-related distress level, 2) potential contributors to pandemic-related distress, 3) coping strategies, 4) demographic factors and symptom burden. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified factors associated with pandemic-related distress. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients completed the survey. Of 79 (40%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 33%, 46%) reported worse pandemic-related distress. Patients who reported greater distress were more likely to report worse social isolation (67 [86%] vs. 52 [43%]), staying home more often (75 [95%] vs. 95 [79%]), more negative experience staying at home (26 [33%] vs. 11 [9%]), worse stress with child-care duties (14 [19%] vs. 4 [3%]), less seeing family/friends (63 [81%] vs. 72 [60%]), and more difficulty traveling to medical appointments (27 [35%] vs. 20 [17%]). Thirty-seven patients (19%) reported more difficulty getting medical appointments. In multivariable analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99; P = 0.01), worse isolation status (OR, 6.87; 95% CI, 2.76-17.12; P < 0.001), and more negative attitude towards staying home (OR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.6-12.57; P = 0.004) were associated with pandemic-related distress. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced cancer continued to experience pandemic-related distress in the postvaccine era. Our findings highlight potential opportunities to support patients.

Efforts to Improve Naloxone Co-Prescription for Patients With Cancer Pain at Risk of Opioid Overdose.

Importance: Naloxone can be lifesaving in an opioid-related overdose (OD). However, the co-prescription of take-home naloxone (THN) is not widely adopted in routine clinical practice. We implemented a pilot program focused on increasing clinicians' awareness of THN and observed if this impacts THN prescriptions for our patients with cancer pain receiving opioids. Intervention: In January 2020, we initiated an educational program by twice-weekly video presentations and installed pamphlets in all clinic workstations highlighting the risk factors for ODs. We retrospectively reviewed electronic health records (EHR) of randomly selected patient visits, 200 each from eight weeks before intervention (BI) and eight weeks after the intervention (AI). Data on patient characteristics, risk factors for ODs, and THN prescriptions were collected. Results: In all, 380 unique patients were eligible for analysis. The median age was 60, 53% female, and 70% Caucasian. Eighty-two percent (152) BI and 73% (142) AI carried risk factors for ODs (p = 0.13). THN was prescribed to 21% (32/152) BI and 26% (37/142) AI (p = 0.53). Morphine-equivalent daily dose (MEDD) ≥100 mg (30%) and pulmonary disease (25%) were the most prevalent risk factors. The patient's likelihood of receiving a THN prescription increased by 0.9% for every 1-milligram increase in MEDD (p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval: 1.006-1.011). Conclusion: The educational intervention did not significantly increase the frequency of THN prescriptions. More direct interventions, including automatic EHR triggers, may need to be tested in future trials.

Levorphanol as a Second Line Opioid in Cancer Patients Presenting to an Outpatient Supportive Care Center: An Open-label Study.

CONTEXT: Levorphanol is a potent opioid agonist and NMDA receptor blocker with minimal drug interactions, and there are few reports of its use in cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the frequency of successful opioid rotation (OR) to levorphanol and the median opioid rotation ratio (ORR) from Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD). METHODS: This is a prospective, single-group, interventional study. Cancer outpatients requiring an OR and receiving a MEDD of 60-300 mg were rotated to levorphanol using a ratio of 10:1 and assessed daily for 10-day. Successful OR was defined as a 2-point improvement in the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) pain score on day 10 or achieving the personalized pain goal between days 3-10 in patients with uncontrolled pain or resolution of opioid side effects (OSE) in those undergoing OR for OSE alone. The ORR to levorphanol was calculated using net-MEDD (MEDD before OR minus the MEDD of the breakthrough opioid used along with levorphanol after OR). RESULTS: Forty patients underwent OR to levorphanol, and uncontrolled pain 35/40 (87.5%) was the most common indication. The median net-MEDD and levorphanol doses were 95 and 10 mg, respectively, and 33/40 (82.5%) had a successful OR with a median (IQR) ORR of 8.56 (7.5-10). Successful OR was associated with significant improvement in ESAS and OSE scale scores. There was a strong association between MEDD and levorphanol dose. CONCLUSION: This study provided preliminary data that cancer patients could be successfully rotated to levorphanol using an ORR of 8.5. Levorphanol was associated with improved pain and symptom control and was well- tolerated.

Rapid Transition to Virtual Care during the COVID-19 Epidemic: Experience of a Supportive Care Clinic at a Tertiary Care Cancer Center.

Background: COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid adoption of telemedicine at our supportive care center (SCC) to ensure continuity of care while maintaining social distancing. Objective: To document the process of transition from in-person to virtual care. Design: The charts of 1744 consecutive patients in our SCC located in the United States were retrospectively reviewed during the four weeks before transition (February 14-March 12), four weeks after transition (March 20-April 16), and transition week (March 13-March 19). Patient demographics, vital aspects of a supportive care visit such as assessments (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-Financial and Spiritual [ESAS-FS], Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener Screen-Adapted to Include Drugs [CAGE-AID], and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale [MDAS]), interdisciplinary team involvement, and visit type were recorded. Results: In total 763 patients were seen before transition, 168 during the transition week, and 813 after transitioning to virtual care. Patient characteristics, ESAS-FS, CAGE-AID, and nurse assessment did not significantly differ among the three groups. The after-transition group had a small reduction in counseling intervention compared with before (20.2% vs. 26.2%; p = 0.0068). MDAS completion was higher after transition (99.6% vs. 98%; p = 0.007). In-person visits decreased from 100% before to 12.7% after transition (p < 0.0001) and virtual visits increased to 49.3% (video) and 38% (telephone). In-person visits decreased to 49% in the week one, 3% in week two, and <2% in week four after transition (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Our supportive care team transitioned from in-person care to virtual visits within weeks while maintaining a high patient volume, continuity of care, and adherence to social distancing. Our transition can serve as a model for other centers.