Palliative Care for Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Development and perception of surgery-specific goals of care discussions in the preoperative setting: A learning pilot.

BACKGROUND: Goals of care discussions are infrequently documented in the preoperative period. Furthermore, documentation does not consistently address what matters most to patients, although patient values (PV) are central to person-centered care. METHODS: A multidisciplinary working group was formed. An electronic note comprised of (1) topics of discussion, (2) PV, and (3) advance care planning (ACP), was created and embedded into existing note templates for Gynecologic Surgical Oncology. Surgeons and advanced practice providers (APPs) were educated to conduct and document these conversations in preoperative clinic for patients undergoing cancer surgery for a pilot period. Data were collected regarding usage of the template. Focus groups with surgeons, APPs, and patients were conducted. Qualitative analysis was performed on transcripts. RESULTS: During the pilot, 7 surgeon/APP teams utilized the template on a total of 55 notes. Average number of notes completed per surgeon was 7.8 (SD 8.5). Forty-six notes (84%) included topics of discussion, 15 (27%) included PV, 4 (7%) included ACP. Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts revealed that clinicians and patients perceived the initiative to be useful and important, although implementation barriers were identified. CONCLUSION: Creating a surgery-specific GOC template is feasible. Iterative revisions are needed to increase utility in clinic workflows.

Beyond translation: Transcreation of a clinicians' guide to structure discussions about health-related values with Latinx patients throughout cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to ensure accurate translation and cultural appropriateness of a guide designed to help oncology clinicians provide person-centered care to Spanish-speaking Latinx patients with cancer. METHODS: Initial translation of a clinician-patient values discussion guide in open-ended question format ("Guide") was pretested in interviews with 27 Spanish-speaking individuals, followed by national expert panel review. At three sites, semi-structured, in-depth, audio-recorded interviews in the participant's preferred language (Spanish/English) were then conducted with Latinx patients receiving systemic treatment for a solid tumor malignancy and family joining them at clinic. RESULTS: Interviews of 43 patient/family participants representing diverse Latinx communities addressed the Guide's understandability, acceptability, relevance and responsiveness. Rapid analysis of interviews contributed to cultural adaptation/transcreation of the Guide for a pilot interventional trial. CONCLUSION: Moving beyond translation to transcreation can help promote inclusion, equity, and cultural sensitivity in oncologic care/communication. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians now have a linguistically- and culturally-adapted guide including questions and prompts to help structure discussions in Spanish or English of health-related values with Latinx patients receiving oncologic care.

Patient and Clinician Stakeholder Perspectives on a Patient Portal Questionnaire Eliciting Illness and Treatment Understanding and Core Health-Related Values.

Introduction: Person-centered communication is foundational to cancer care. In pilot research, a questionnaire eliciting patients' illness and treatment understanding (ITU) and core health-related values (HRV) through the electronic patient portal demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy. The aim of this study was to elicit stakeholder feedback to refine the design of the portal-based intervention, remain end-user centered, and optimize future system-wide integration. Methods: Between April and June 2023, we purposively sampled patients and clinicians from a previous pilot study to participate in a 20-30-minute semistructured interview about their opinions of and experiences with the portal questionnaire on ITU and HRV. An interdisciplinary coding team used a two-phase rapid analysis to identify themes, subthemes, and illustrative participant quotations. Results: Fourteen patients (mean age = 68 years) and 12 clinicians participated (total n = 26). Colorectal cancer was the commonest malignancy (64%) among patients. Clinicians were mostly physicians (50%), nurse practitioners (33%), and registered nurses (17%), with two-thirds having >15 years of experience in their specialty. Analysis generated four themes: (1) clinical utility of questionnaire, (2) barriers to questionnaire implementation, (3) considerations and strategies for modifying the questionnaire, and (4) considerations and strategies for questionnaire implementation. Themes captured key information about incorporating this questionnaire into clinical practice. Conclusion: Patients with cancer and their clinicians found a portal-based ITU and HRV questionnaire clinically useful to improve multiple aspects of person-centered communication. Participant recommendations about questionnaire timing and sharing of questionnaire responses with the clinical team will inform future questionnaire implementation and scaling in clinical settings.

Acupuncture vs Massage for Pain in Patients Living With Advanced Cancer: The IMPACT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Pain is challenging for patients with advanced cancer. While recent guidelines recommend acupuncture and massage for cancer pain, their comparative effectiveness is unknown. Objective: To compare the effects of acupuncture and massage on musculoskeletal pain among patients with advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted at US cancer care centers consisting of a northeastern comprehensive cancer center and a southeastern cancer institute from September 19, 2019, through February 23, 2022. The principal investigator and study statisticians were blinded to treatment assignments. The duration of follow-up was 26 weeks. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed (linear mixed models). Participants included patients with advanced cancer with moderate to severe pain and clinician-estimated life expectancy of 6 months or more. Patient recruitment strategy was multipronged (eg, patient database queries, mailings, referrals, community outreach). Eligible patients had English or Spanish as their first language, were older than 18 years, and had a Karnofsky score greater than or equal to 60 (range, 0-100; higher scores indicating less functional impairment). Interventions: Weekly acupuncture or massage for 10 weeks with monthly booster sessions up to 26 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the change in worst pain intensity score from baseline to 26 weeks. The secondary outcomes included fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life. The Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0-10; higher numbers indicate worse pain intensity or interference) was used to measure the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life. Results: A total of 298 participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 58.7 [14.1] years, 200 [67.1%] were women, 33 [11.1%] Black, 220 [74.1%] White, 46 [15.4%] Hispanic, and 78.5% with solid tumors). The mean (SD) baseline worst pain score was 6.9 (1.5). During 26 weeks, acupuncture reduced the worst pain score, with a mean change of -2.53 (95% CI, -2.92 to -2.15) points, and massage reduced the Brief Pain Inventory worst pain score, with a mean change of -3.01 (95% CI, -3.38 to -2.63) points; the between-group difference was not significant (-0.48; 95% CI, -0.98 to 0.03; P = .07). Both treatments also improved fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life without significant between-group differences. Adverse events were mild and included bruising (6.5% of patients receiving acupuncture) and transient soreness (15.1% patients receiving massage). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial among patients with advanced cancer, both acupuncture and massage were associated with pain reduction and improved fatigue, insomnia, and quality of life over 26 weeks; however, there was no significant different between the treatments. More research is needed to evaluate how best to integrate these approaches into pain treatment to optimize symptom management for the growing population of people living with advanced cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04095234.

Patient Portals to Elicit Essential Patient-Reported Elements of Communication Supporting Person-Centered Oncologic Care: A Pilot Study of the PERSON Approach.

PURPOSE: Patient portal technology offers important new opportunities to support person-centered clinician-patient communication. METHODS: Questionnaires relating to understanding of illness and treatment intent were sent quarterly via portal to all patients scheduled for follow-up in GI medical oncology clinics. For patients in selected clinics, items eliciting health-related values were added. Patient responses were available to all oncology team members in the electronic health record. Workflow and content of clinician-patient discussions about illness, treatment, and care goals stayed within clinicians' discretion. Feasibility (patient response rate), patient understanding, acceptability (three-item patient questionnaire), and efficacy (quality of clinician communication) were evaluated. RESULTS: From May 2021 through December 2022, a total of 12,233 questionnaires about illness/treatment understanding were sent to 6,325 patients (one to six per patient), with 97% response, including 9,358 with both open- and closed-ended responses. Fewer than 0.1% of patients indicated distress related to the questionnaire/process. Open-ended responses complemented closed-ended answers by revealing prognostic awareness and illness concerns. Of 48 patients approached to complete the full questionnaire including values items via portal, 15 first received and completed them in clinic (5 on iPad, 10 on paper), while 33 received and 27 (82%) completed the portal questionnaire. Patients found the portal process acceptable, and ratings of clinician communication were higher after clinic visits informed by patients' questionnaire responses (average prescore 6.8 v 5.9 post; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Almost all patients in this large GI cancer cohort responded via the portal about their understanding of illness and treatment goals. Eliciting their personal values by portal was also feasible, accepted by patients, and improved patient ratings of clinicians' communication. Portals represent a promising tool for scaling assessment of essential patient-reported elements of person-centered communication.

Integrating evidence-based communication principles into routine cancer care.

PURPOSE: The global incidence of cancer and available cancer-directed therapy options is increasing rapidly, presenting patients and clinicians with more complex treatment decisions than ever before. Despite the dissemination of evidence-based communication training tools and programs, clinicians cite barriers to employing effective communication in cancer care (e.g., discomfort of sharing serious news, concern about resource constraints to meet stated needs). We present two composite cases with significant communication challenges to guide clinicians through an application of evidence-based approaches to achieve quality communication. METHODS: Composite cases, communication skills blueprint, and visual conceptualization. RESULTS: High-stakes circumstances in each case are described, including end-of-life planning, advanced pediatric illness, strong emotions, and health inequities. Three overarching communication approaches are discussed: (1) content selection and delivery; (2) rapport development; and (3) empathic connection. The key takeaways following each case provide succinct summaries of challenges encountered and approaches used. A communication blueprint from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Communication Skills Training Program and Research Laboratory has been adapted and is comprised of strategies, skills, process tasks, and sample talking points. A visually concise tool - the Communication Blueprint Traffic Circle - illustrates these concepts and demonstrates the iterative, holistic, and agile considerations inherent to effective communication. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based communication is foundational to person-centeredness, associated with improved clinician and patient/caregiver outcomes, and can be integrated throughout routine oncology care. When used by clinicians, evidence-based communication can improve patient and caregiver experiences and assist in ensuring goal-concordant cancer care delivery.

Giving information strategically and transparently: A pilot trial of the Oncolo-GIST intervention to promote patients' prognostic understanding.

PURPOSE: Most patients with cancer lack the prognostic understanding necessary to make informed decisions. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of the Oncolo-GIST ("Giving Information Strategically and Transparently, GIST") intervention and explored its associations with patients' improved prognostic understanding. METHODS: The Oncolo-GIST intervention distills prognostic discussions into easy-to-understand talking points. Patients with metastatic cancers that progressed on ≥1 line of chemotherapy and not expected to survive 12 months (n = 31) were recruited from October 2020 through November 2022. We compared patients who discussed their progressive scans with an oncologist trained in the GIST technique or not (i.e., usual care). A primary outcome was prognostic understanding (e.g., patients reporting a life-expectancy of months) assessed within a week of the scan discussion visit. RESULTS: Oncologists (n = 4) appeared receptive to the Oncolo-GIST intervention and scored nearly perfectly on post-training tests of material mastery after a < 2-h tutorial. Post-scan discussion visit, 100% of patients who met with an Oncolo-GIST-trained clinician understood that their cancer was considered incurable (a 31% improvement from pre-visit) compared with 91% of patients meeting with usual care oncologists (an 18% improvement); 33% of patients who met with an Oncolo-GIST-trained oncologist understood that they likely had months, not years, compared to 18% in the usual care group. No statistically significant differences emerged for these changes, nor for therapeutic alliance, anxiety, or depression scores between groups. CONCLUSION: Oncolo-GIST appears to be an easily learned approach to improve prognostic understanding that neither undermines therapeutic alliances nor increases patients' anxiety or depressive symptoms. Efficacy testing in a larger trial is warranted.

Feasibility and Acceptability of an Online Oncologist Training to Optimize Oncologist-Patient Communication and Value-Concordant Care in Advanced Cancer.

Introduction: This pilot study tested the feasibility and acceptability of a low-resource-intensive scalable online communication training designed to improve oncologists' skills in prognostic and value-concordant care discussions with advanced cancer patients. Methods: The training consisted of on-demand videos on how to convey prognostic information, manage patient emotions, and elicit patient values and incorporate these values into treatment decision making. Post-intervention, oncologists reported on their perceptions of the training. Results: Fifteen oncologists were enrolled, of whom, 13 completed the training, and 14 completed post-intervention interviews. Most oncologists reported the intervention was acceptable: 92.9% indicated the intervention was "moderately" to "very helpful"; 78.6% rated it as "somewhat" to "very much" impactful on their communication with patients. Conclusions: The present self-paced online communication training was acceptable to oncologists, supporting additional research, including evaluating intervention efficacy for improving oncologists' communication skills and value-concordant care in advanced cancer.

Personalized RNA neoantigen vaccines stimulate T cells in pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is lethal in 88% of patients1, yet harbours mutation-derived T cell neoantigens that are suitable for vaccines 2,3. Here in a phase I trial of adjuvant autogene cevumeran, an individualized neoantigen vaccine based on uridine mRNA-lipoplex nanoparticles, we synthesized mRNA neoantigen vaccines in real time from surgically resected PDAC tumours. After surgery, we sequentially administered atezolizumab (an anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy), autogene cevumeran (a maximum of 20 neoantigens per patient) and a modified version of a four-drug chemotherapy regimen (mFOLFIRINOX, comprising folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin). The end points included vaccine-induced neoantigen-specific T cells by high-threshold assays, 18-month recurrence-free survival and oncologic feasibility. We treated 16 patients with atezolizumab and autogene cevumeran, then 15 patients with mFOLFIRINOX. Autogene cevumeran was administered within 3 days of benchmarked times, was tolerable and induced de novo high-magnitude neoantigen-specific T cells in 8 out of 16 patients, with half targeting more than one vaccine neoantigen. Using a new mathematical strategy to track T cell clones (CloneTrack) and functional assays, we found that vaccine-expanded T cells comprised up to 10% of all blood T cells, re-expanded with a vaccine booster and included long-lived polyfunctional neoantigen-specific effector CD8+ T cells. At 18-month median follow-up, patients with vaccine-expanded T cells (responders) had a longer median recurrence-free survival (not reached) compared with patients without vaccine-expanded T cells (non-responders; 13.4 months, P = 0.003). Differences in the immune fitness of the patients did not confound this correlation, as responders and non-responders mounted equivalent immunity to a concurrent unrelated mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Thus, adjuvant atezolizumab, autogene cevumeran and mFOLFIRINOX induces substantial T cell activity that may correlate with delayed PDAC recurrence.

The Third Annual US Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day: A virtual coming together to unify the global palliative care community.

OBJECTIVES: On 3-4 October 2022, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences hosted the Third Annual United States (US) Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD). The purpose of this article is to reflect on the event within the broader context of the international WHPCD theme: "healing hearts and communities." We describe lessons learned in anticipation of the fourth annual conference to be held on 3-4 October 2023. METHODS: Description of the third annual event, conference planning team reflection, and attendee evaluation responses. RESULTS: The Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care globally. Since 2020, the conference has attracted an increasing number of attendees from around the world. Two primary aims continue to guide the event: community building and wisdom sharing. Fifty-two interprofessional palliative care experts, advocates, patients, and caregivers provided 13 unique interactive sessions. Four hundred and fifty-eight multidisciplinary registrants from at least 17 countries joined the program. Free registration for colleagues in low- and middle-income countries, students and trainees, and individuals experiencing financial hardship remains a cornerstone of inclusion and equitable access to the event. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The US WHPCD celebration provides a virtual platform that offers opportunities for scientific dissemination and collective reflection on hospice and palliative care delivery amid significant local and global changes in clinical practice, research, policy and advocacy, and population health. We remain committed to ensuring an internationally relevant, culturally diverse, and multidisciplinary agenda that will continue to draw increased participation worldwide during future annual events.

Scanxiety among Adults with Cancer: A Scoping Review to Guide Research and Interventions.

Background: Scan-related anxiety ("scanxiety") is distressing to people living with and beyond cancer. We conducted a scoping review to promote conceptual clarity, identify research practices and gaps, and guide intervention strategies for adults with a current or prior cancer diagnosis. Methods: Following a systematic search, we screened 6820 titles and abstracts, evaluated 152 full-text articles, and selected 36 articles. Definitions, study designs, measurement methods, correlates, and consequences of scanxiety were extracted and summarized. Results: The reviewed articles included individuals living with current cancer (n = 17) and those in the post-treatment phase (n = 19), across a breadth of cancer types and disease stages. In five articles, authors explicitly defined scanxiety. Multiple components of scanxiety were described, including those related to scan procedures (e.g., claustrophobia, physical discomfort) and scan results (e.g., implications for disease status and treatment), suggesting varied intervention approaches may be needed. Twenty-two articles used quantitative methods, nine used qualitative methods, and five used mixed methods. In 17 articles, symptom measures specifically referenced cancer scans; 24 included general measures without reference to scans. Scanxiety tended to be higher among those with lower education levels, less time since diagnosis, and greater baseline anxiety levels (three articles each). Although scanxiety often decreased immediately pre- to post-scan (six articles), participants reported the waiting period between scan and results to be particularly stressful (six articles). Consequences of scanxiety included poorer quality of life and somatic symptoms. Scanxiety promoted follow-up care for some patients yet hindered it for others. Conclusions: Scanxiety is multi-faceted, heightened during the pre-scan and scan-to-results waiting periods, and associated with clinically meaningful outcomes. We discuss how these findings can inform future research directions and intervention approaches.

Accuracy of curability expectations in patients with gastrointestinal cancers.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of illness and treatment understanding among cancer patients has largely focused on those with advanced disease. Less is known about patient expectations at earlier stages of cancer and potential modifiers of accurate understanding. METHODS: We assessed accuracy of cure expectations in patients across all stages with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Accuracy was determined by independent reviews of patient health records by oncologists on the investigative team. Impact on cure accuracy of selected clinical variables and health-information preferences was analyzed. RESULTS: Hundred and thirty five patients were included for analysis, with 100% interrater agreement for accuracy between oncologist reviewers. Sixety five patients (48%) had accurate cure expectations from their cancer treatment. Accuracy was lower in Stage IV versus Stage I-III disease (35% vs. 63%, p < 0.01), lower in unresectable versus resectable disease (35% vs. 67%, p < 0.01), and higher in patients with early-stage disease who received adjuvant chemotherapy versus those who did not (78% vs. 53%, p = 0.04). Accuracy did not differ by health-information preferences and remained stable over time. Of 63 patients who died, baseline accuracy differed by location of death (p = 0.03), with greater accuracy in those who died with home hospice (56%). Accuracy was lower in those who were hospitalized in the last 30 days of life versus those who were not (25% vs. 59%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Inaccurate cure expectations are prevalent across all stages of GI cancers, but particularly among those with metastatic or unresectable disease. High-quality, iterative communication strategies may facilitate patient illness and treatment understanding throughout the disease course.

Advance Care Planning in Serious Illness: A Narrative Review.

CONTEXT: Advance care planning (ACP) intends to support person-centered medical decision-making by eliciting patient preferences. Research has not identified significant associations between ACP and goal-concordant end-of-life care, leading to justified scientific debate regarding ACP utility. OBJECTIVE: To delineate ACP's potential benefits and missed opportunities and identify an evidence-informed, clinically relevant path ahead for ACP in serious illness. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review merging the best available ACP empirical data, grey literature, and emergent scholarly discourse using a snowball search of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar (2000-2022). Findings were informed by our team's interprofessional clinical and research expertise in serious illness care. RESULTS: Early ACP practices were largely tied to mandated document completion, potentially failing to capture the holistic preferences of patients and surrogates. ACP models focused on serious illness communication rather than documentation show promising patient and clinician results. Ideally, ACP would lead to goal-concordant care even amid the unpredictability of serious illness trajectories. But ACP might also provide a false sense of security that patients' wishes will be honored and revisited at end-of-life. An iterative, 'building block' framework to integrate ACP throughout serious illness is provided alongside clinical practice, research, and policy recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: We advocate a balanced approach to ACP, recognizing empirical deficits while acknowledging potential benefits and ethical imperatives (e.g., fostering clinician-patient trust and shared decision-making). We support prioritizing patient/surrogate-centered outcomes with more robust measures to account for interpersonal clinician-patient variables that likely inform ACP efficacy and may better evaluate information gleaned during serious illness encounters.

Goals of care documentation by medical oncologists and oncology patient end-of-life care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Goals of care (GOC) documentation is important but underused. We aimed to improve oncologist GOC documentation and end-of-life (EOL) care. METHODS: In April 2020, our cancer center launched a GOC note template, including optional fields for documenting discussion with the patient about: cancer natural history, goals, and/or EOL (resuscitation preferences, hospice receptivity). Associations between GOC notes and EOL care were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 1721 patients dying between June 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021, median days from first GOC note (± with documentation of EOL discussion) to death was 92, whereas a GOC note including EOL discussion ("GOC EOL note"), specifically, was 31. Patients with a first GOC note >60 days before death spent fewer days inpatient (6.7 vs 10.6 days, p < .001). Among patients with GOC EOL notes, those with such documentation >30 days before death had fewer inpatient (5 vs 11, p < .001) and intensive care unit days (0.5 vs 1.5, p < .001), more hospice referrals (57% vs 44%, p = .003), and less chemotherapy ≤14 days before death (6% vs 11%, p = .010). Of 925 admissions of patients dying within ≤30 days, those with GOC EOL notes were shorter (7 vs 9 days, p = .013) but not associated with more hospice discharge (30% vs 25%, p = .163). Oncologist (vs nononcologist) GOC documentation and earlier documentation of EOL discussion were associated in subset analyses with less inpatient care and more hospice referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of GOC, including EOL discussions, is associated with favorable performance on accepted indicators of quality EOL care.

Circulating tumor and invasive cell expression profiling predicts effective therapy in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a refractory disease; however, modern cytotoxic chemotherapeutics can induce tumor regression and extend life. A blood-based, pharmacogenomic, chemosensitivity assay using gene expression profiling of circulating tumor and invasive cells (CTICs) to predict treatment response was previously developed. The combination regimen of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (G/nab-P) are established frontline approaches for treating advanced PDAC; however, there are no validated biomarkers for treatment selection. A similar unmet need exists for choosing second-line therapy. METHODS: The chemosensitivity assay was evaluated in metastatic PDAC patients presenting for frontline treatment. A prospective study enrolled patients (n = 70) before receiving either FOLFIRINOX or G/nab-P at a 1:1 ratio. Six milliliters of peripheral blood was collected at baseline and at time of disease progression. CTICs were isolated, gene-expression profiling was performed, and the assay was used to predict effective and ineffective chemotherapeutic agents. Treating physicians were blinded to the assay prediction results. RESULTS: Patients receiving an effective regimen as predicted by the chemosensitivity assay experienced significantly longer median progression-free survival (mPFS; 7.8 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.35; p = .0002) and median overall survival (mOS; 21.0 months vs. 9.7 months; HR, 0.40; p = .005), compared with an ineffective regimen. Assay prediction for effective second-line therapy was explored. The entire study cohort experienced favorable outcomes compared with historical controls, 7.1-month mPFS and 12.3-month mOS. CONCLUSIONS: Chemosensitivity assay profiling is a promising tool for guiding therapy in advanced PDAC. Further prospective validation is under way (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03033927).

Advance care planning imperative: High-quality patient-centred goals of care.

Advance care planning (ACP) discussions aim to ensure goal-concordant care for patients with serious illness, throughout treatment and especially at the end of life. But recent literature has forced the field of palliative care to wrestle with the definition and impact of ACP. Are ACP discussions worthwhile? Is there a difference between ACP discussions early in a patient's illness versus discussions occurring later when a concrete medical care decision must be made? Here, we identify elements needed to answer these questions and describe how a multisite initiative will elucidate the value of discussing and documenting what matters most to patients.

The 2nd Annual US Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day: A virtual coming together to support equity in palliative care access.

OBJECTIVE: On October 5-6, 2021, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences hosted the 2nd Annual United States (US) Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD). The purpose of this article is to describe the event within the broader context of the international WHPCD theme: "Leave No One Behind - Equity in Access to Palliative Care." We reflect on lessons learned in anticipation of the 3rd annual conference to be held October 3-4, 2022. METHODS: Description of the 2nd annual event, conference planning team reflection, and attendee evaluation responses. RESULTS: The Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care around the world. The 2021 US-based innovative virtual conference featured 37 interprofessional hospice and palliative care specialists and patient and family caregiver speakers across 11 diverse sessions with a focus on health equity and COVID-19 considerations. Two primary aims continue to guide the event: community building and wisdom sharing at the intersection of art and science. 278 registrants from at least 14 countries and 21 different states across the US joined the program, which served as a global debriefing for hospice and palliative care workers from diverse settings, contexts, and disciplines. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The US WHPCD Celebration creates a virtual coming together for collective reflection on hospice and palliative care delivery amid vast changes in clinical practice, research, and policy, both locally and globally. In addition, our goal to ensure an internationally relevant, culturally inclusive, and multidisciplinary agenda will continue to draw increased participation worldwide during future annual events.