Scheduled and Breakthrough Opioid Use for Cancer Pain in an Inpatient Setting at a Tertiary Cancer Hospital.

Background: Our aim was to examine the frequency and prescription pattern of breakthrough (BTO) and scheduled (SCH) opioids and their ratio (BTO/SCH ratio) of use, prior to and after referral to an inpatient supportive care consult (SCC) for cancer pain management (CPM). Methods and Materials: Patients admitted at the MD Anderson Cancer Center and referred to a SCC were retrospectively reviewed. Cancer patients receiving SCH and BTO opioids for ≥24 h were eligible for inclusion. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics, including the type and route of SCH and BTO opioids, daily opioid doses (MEDDs) of SCH and BTO, and BTO/SCH ratios were reviewed in patients seen prior to a SCC (pre-SCC) and during a SCC. A normal BTO ratio was defined as 0.5-0.2. Results: A total of 665/728 (91%) patients were evaluable. Median pain scores (p < 0.001), BTO MEDDs (p < 0.001), scheduled opioid MEDDs (p < 0.0001), and total MEDDs (p < 0.0001) were higher, but the median number of BTO doses was fewer (2 vs. 4, p < 0.001), among patients seen at SCC compared to pre-SCC. A BTO/SCH ratio over the recommended ratio (>0.2) was seen in 37.5% of patients. The BTO/SCH ratios in the pre-SCC and SCC groups were 0.10 (0.04, 0.21) and 0.17 (0.10, 0.30), respectively, p < 0.001. Hydromorphone and Morphine were the most common BTO and SCH opioids prescribed, respectively. Patients in the early supportive care group had higher pain scores and MEDDs. Conclusions: BTO/SCH ratios are frequently prescribed higher than the recommended dose. Daily pain scores, BTO MEDDs, scheduled opioid MEDDs, and total MEDDs were higher among the SCC group than the pre-SCC group, but the number of BTO doses/day was lower.

Prospective, multi-site study of healthcare utilization after actionable monogenic findings from clinical sequencing.

As large-scale genomic screening becomes increasingly prevalent, understanding the influence of actionable results on healthcare utilization is key to estimating the potential long-term clinical impact. The eMERGE network sequenced individuals for actionable genes in multiple genetic conditions and returned results to individuals, providers, and the electronic health record. Differences in recommended health services (laboratory, imaging, and procedural testing) delivered within 12 months of return were compared among individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) findings to matched individuals with negative findings before and after return of results. Of 16,218 adults, 477 unselected individuals were found to have a monogenic risk for arrhythmia (n = 95), breast cancer (n = 96), cardiomyopathy (n = 95), colorectal cancer (n = 105), or familial hypercholesterolemia (n = 86). Individuals with P/LP results more frequently received services after return (43.8%) compared to before return (25.6%) of results and compared to individuals with negative findings (24.9%; p < 0.0001). The annual cost of qualifying healthcare services increased from an average of $162 before return to $343 after return of results among the P/LP group (p < 0.0001); differences in the negative group were non-significant. The mean difference-in-differences was $149 (p < 0.0001), which describes the increased cost within the P/LP group corrected for cost changes in the negative group. When stratified by individual conditions, significant cost differences were observed for arrhythmia, breast cancer, and cardiomyopathy. In conclusion, less than half of individuals received billed health services after monogenic return, which modestly increased healthcare costs for payors in the year following return.

Understanding the Patient Experience of Receiving Clinically Actionable Genetic Results from the MyCode Community Health Initiative, a Population-Based Genomic Screening Initiative.

Understanding unselected individuals' experiences receiving genetic results through population genomic screening is critical to advancing clinical utility and improving population health. We conducted qualitative interviews with individuals who received clinically actionable genetic results via the MyCode© Genomic Screening and Counseling program. We purposively sampled cohorts to seek diversity in result-related disease risk (e.g., cancer or cardiovascular) and in personal or family history of related diseases. Transcripts were analyzed using a two-step inductive coding process of broad thematic analysis followed by in-depth coding of each theme. Four thematic domains identified across all cohorts were examined: process assessment, psychosocial response, behavioral change due to the genetic result, and family communication. Coding of 63 interviews among 60 participants revealed that participants were satisfied with the results disclosure process, initially experienced a range of positive, neutral, and negative psychological reactions to results, adjusted positively to results over time, undertook clinically indicated actions in response to results, and communicated results with relatives to whom they felt emotionally close. Our findings of generally favorable responses to receiving clinically actionable genetic results via a genomic screening program may assuage fear of patient distress in such programs and guide additional biobanks, genomic screening programs, and research studies.

Impact of returning unsolicited genomic results to nongenetic health care providers in the eMERGE III Network.

PURPOSE: As genomic sequencing becomes more common, medically actionable secondary findings will increasingly be returned to health care providers (HCPs), who will be faced with managing the resulting patient care. These findings are generally unsolicited, ie, unrelated to the sequencing indication and/or ordered by another clinician. METHODS: To understand the impact of receiving unsolicited results, we interviewed HCPs who received genomic results for patients enrolled in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Phase III Network, which returned results on >100 actionable genes to eMERGE participants and HCPs. RESULTS: In total, 16 HCPs across 3 eMERGE sites were interviewed about their experience of receiving a positive (likely pathogenic or pathogenic), negative, or variant of uncertain significance result for a patient enrolled in eMERGE Phase III and about managing their patient on the basis of the result. Although unsolicited, HCPs felt responsible for managing the patient's resulting medical care. HCPs indicated that clinical utility depended on the actionability of results, and whereas comfort levels varied, confidence was improved by the availability of subspecialist consults. HCPs were concerned about patient anxiety, insurability, and missing an actionable result in the electronic health record. CONCLUSION: Our findings help inform best practices for return of unsolicited genomic screening findings in the future.

Place-of-death preferences among patients with cancer and family caregivers in inpatient and outpatient palliative care.

OBJECTIVE: Meeting the preferences of patients is considered an important palliative care outcome. Prior studies reported that more than 80% of patients with terminally ill cancer prefer to die at home. The purpose of this study was to determine place-of-death preference among palliative care patients in the outpatient centre and the palliative care unit (PCU) of a comprehensive cancer centre. METHODS: A cross-sectional anonymous questionnaire was administered to patients with advanced cancer and caregivers (PCU and outpatient centre) between August 2012 and September 2014. PCU patients responded when there was no delirium and the primary caregiver responded when the patient was unable to respond. In the case of outpatients, dyads were assessed. The survey was repeated 1 month later. RESULTS: Overall, 65% preferred home death. There was less preference for home death among PCU patients (58%) than among outpatients (72%). Patient and caregiver agreement regarding preferred place of death for home was 86%. After 1 month, outpatients were significantly more likely than PCU patients to have the same preferred place of death as they had 1 month earlier (96% vs 83%; p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Although home was the preferred place of death in our group of patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, a substantial minority preferred hospital death or had no preference. We speculate that PCU patients' higher preference for hospital death is likely related to more severe distress because they had already tried home care. Personalised assessment of place of death preference for both patient and caregiver is needed.

Anamorelin combined with physical activity, and nutritional counseling for cancer-related fatigue: a preliminary study.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most frequent and debilitating symptom in patients with advanced cancer. There are limited effective treatments for CRF. The objective of this prospective longitudinal study was to evaluate the change in CRF at Day 43 after treatment with combination therapy of oral Anamorelin 100 mg daily with physical activity and nutrition counseling. METHODS: In this study, patients with CRF [≤ 34 Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue subscales(FACIT-F)] received Anamorelin 100 mg orally daily with standardized physical activity and nutrition counseling for 43 days. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Anorexia Cachexia(FAACT-ACS), Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-Short Form(MFSI-SF), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System(PROMIS-Fatigue), body composition, and physical performance tests were assessed at baseline, Day 15, 29, and 43. Frequency and type of side effects were determined by NCI CTAE 4.0.(NCT03035409). RESULTS: 28/45 (62%) of patients dosed were evaluable at Day 43. The mean, SD for FACIT-F subscale improvement from baseline was 4.89 (± 13.07), P = .058, MFSI-SF (G) - 3.46 (± 6.86), P = 0.013, PROMIS-fatigue - 4.14 (± 7.88), P = 0.010, FAACT ACS 3.48 (± 8.13), P = 0.035. Godin Liesure-Time physical activity questionnaire 7.41 (± 16.50), P = 0.038. Weight (kg) 1.81 (± 2.63), P = 0.005, and Lean Body Mass 1.54 (± 1.85), P = 0.001, IGF-1 36.50 (± 48.76), P = 0.015. There was no significant improvement in physical performance outcomes. No adverse events > grade 3 related to the study drug were reported. CONCLUSION: The use of the combination therapy was associated with improvement of CRF (FACIT-F fatigue, PROMIS-fatigue, MFSI-SF-general), activity (Godin-leisure time), anorexia (FAACT), body composition, and IGF-1 levels. Further studies using combination therapy for CRF are justified.

Do research participants share genomic screening results with family members?

The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network-3 (eMERGE-3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE-3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first-degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1-month and/or 6-month post-results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first-degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first-degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first-degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non-genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.

Combination Therapy of Physical Activity and Dexamethasone for Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Phase II Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high frequency of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and its debilitating effects on the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer, there are limited treatment options available. Treatments including physical activity (PA) or dexamethasone (Dex) improve CRF; however, they have lower adherence rates (PA) or long-term adverse effects (Dex). The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of and preliminary results for the combination of PA and Dex in improving CRF. METHODS: In this phase II randomized controlled trial, patients with advanced cancer and CRF scores of ≥4/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale were eligible. Patients were randomized to standardized PA for 4 weeks with either 4 mg of Dex (LoDex arm) or 8 mg of Dex (HiDex arm) twice a day for 7 days. Feasibility and change in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Illness Therapy-Fatigue subscale (FACIT-F) from baseline to day 8 and day 29 (primary outcome) were assessed. Secondary outcomes included changes in fatigue dimensions (FACIT-General, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]-Fatigue). RESULTS: A total of 60 of 67 (90%) patients were evaluable. All patients were adherent to study medication. We found that 84% and 65% of patients in the LoDex arm and 96% and 68% of patients in the HiDex arm were adherent to aerobic and resistance exercise, respectively. The FACIT-F effect size in the LoDex arm was 0.90 (P<.001) and 0.92 (P<.001) and the effect size in the HiDex arm was 0.86 and 1.03 (P<.001 for both) at days 8 and 29, respectively. We found significant improvements in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Physical (P≤.013) and the PROMIS-Fatigue (P≤.003) at days 8 and 29 in both arms. Mixed-model analysis showed a significant improvement in the FACIT-F scores at day 8 (P<.001), day 15 (P<.001), and day 29 (P=.002). Changes in the FACIT-F scores were not significantly different between patients in the 2 arms (P=.86). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that the combination therapy of PA with Dex was feasible and resulted in the improvement of CRF. The improvement was seen for up to 3 weeks after the discontinuation of Dex. Further larger studies are justified. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT02491632.

Economic Evaluation of Universal Lynch Syndrome Screening Protocols among Newly Diagnosed Patients with Colorectal Cancer.

We conducted an updated economic evaluation, from a healthcare system perspective, to compare the relative effectiveness and efficiency of eight Lynch syndrome (LS) screening protocols among newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We developed decision analytic models for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients. Model assumptions and parameter values were based on literature and expert opinion. All costs were in 2018 USD. For identifying LS cases, the direct germline sequencing (DGS) protocol provided the best performance (sensitivity 99.90%, 99.57-99.93%; specificity 99.50%, 97.28-99.85%), followed by the tumor sequencing to germline sequencing (TSGS) protocol (sensitivity, 99.42%, 96.55-99.63%; specificity, 96.58%, 96.46-96.60%). The immunohistochemistry (IHC) protocol was most efficient at $20,082 per LS case identified, compared to microsatellite instability (MSI) ($22,988), DGS ($31,365), and TSGS ($104,394) protocols. Adding double-somatic testing to IHC and MSI protocols did not change sensitivity and specificity, increased costs by 6% and 3.5%, respectively, but reduced unexplained cases by 70% and 50%, respectively. DGS would be as efficient as the IHC protocol when the cost of germline sequencing declines under $368 indicating DGS could be an efficient option in the near future. Until then, IHC and MSI protocols with double-somatic testing would be the optimal choices.

Penetrance of Breast Cancer Susceptibility Genes From the eMERGE III Network.

Background: Unbiased estimates of penetrance are challenging but critically important to make informed choices about strategies for risk management through increased surveillance and risk-reducing interventions. Methods: We studied the penetrance and clinical outcomes of 7 breast cancer susceptibility genes (BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53, CHEK2, ATM, PALB2, and PTEN) in almost 13 458 participants unselected for personal or family history of breast cancer. We identified 242 female participants with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 1 of the 7 genes for penetrance analyses, and 147 women did not previously know their genetic results. Results: Out of the 147 women, 32 women were diagnosed with breast cancer at an average age of 52.8 years. Estimated penetrance by age 60 years ranged from 17.8% to 43.8%, depending on the gene. In clinical-impact analysis, 42.3% (95% confidence interval = 31.3% to 53.3%) of women had taken actions related to their genetic results, and 2 new breast cancer cases were identified within the first 12 months after genetic results disclosure. Conclusions: Our study provides population-based penetrance estimates for the understudied genes CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2 and highlights the importance of using unselected populations for penetrance studies. It also demonstrates the potential clinical impact of genetic testing to improve health care through early diagnosis and preventative screening.

Genetic Factors Associated With Pain Severity, Daily Opioid Dose Requirement, and Pain Response Among Advanced Cancer Patients Receiving Supportive Care.

BACKGROUND: Current understanding of genetic factors associated with pain severity, and improvement of pain with opioids in advanced cancer patients (AC) is inadequate for delivery of personalized pain therapy (PPT). Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the genetic factors associated with pain severity, daily opioid dose, and pain response in AC patients receiving supportive care. METHODS: In this prospective study, AC patients were eligible if they had cancer pain ≥4/10 on Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) - Pain Item and needed opioid rotation for pain control by specialist at the outpatient supportive care center. Association of genetic factors with pain phenotype was assessed using logistic regression models and SKATO (Gene-block) analysis. RESULTS: About 174/178 (98%) patient samples were analyzed. After adjustment for demographic and clinical variables, pain severity was negatively associated with intron variant alleles in OPRM1 rs9322446, P = 0.02; rs2270459, P = 0.038; rs62052210, P = 0.038. Opioid daily dose was positively associated NFKBIA rs2233419, P = 0.008; rs2233417, P = 0.007; rs3138054, P = 0.008; rs1050851, P = 0.015; ORPM1 rs9479759, P = 0.046; rs2003185, P = 0.047; rs636433, P = 0.044; COMT (rs9306234, P = 0.014; rs165728, P = 0.014; rs2020917, P = 0.036; rs165728, P = 0.034); ARRB2 (rs1045280, P = 0.045); and pain response to opioids was negatively associated OPRM1 rs1319339, P = 0.024; rs34427887, P = 0.048; and COMT rs4646316, P = 0.03; rs35478083, P = 0.028, respectively. SKATO analysis showed association between pain severity and CXCL8 (P = 0.0056), and STAT6 (P = 0.0297) genes respectively, and pain response with IL-6 (P = 0.00499). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that SNPs of OPRM1, COMT, NFKBIA, CXCL8, IL-6, STAT6, and ARRB2 genes were associated with pain severity, opioid daily dose, and pain response in AC receiving supportive care. Additional studies are needed to validate our findings for PPT.

Exercise Barriers and Adherence to Recommendations in Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The American College of Sports Medicine exercise guidelines for cancer survivors encourage a combination of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity and 2-3 weekly sessions of strength training. Cancer survivors often experience more barriers to meeting recommended guidelines because of side effects from cancer treatments. Our aim was to measure the cancer survivors' adherence and barriers with these recommendations. METHODS: Two hundred adult cancer survivors completed surveys (Stanford Patient Education Research Center Exercise Behaviors Survey and an exercise barrier scale) reporting their physical activity, barriers to physical activity, and symptom assessment. RESULTS: A total of 68/200 participants (34%) reported adhering to the recommended physical activity guidelines of 150 minutes or more per week. Those who adhered to the guidelines reported fewer barriers to exercise (mean of 2.44 compared with 4.15 barriers, P < .0001). Female participants (P = .01), higher number of barriers, and feeling of poor well-being were less likely to report at least 60 or 150 minutes of exercise time. Lack of interest (P = .003) and self-discipline (P = .001) were reported as barriers. These participants were more likely to report high symptom burden of pain (P = .007) and fatigue (P = .005). Participants who reported < 60 minutes of exercise reported lack of enjoyment (P = .03), lack of equipment (P = .01), and symptoms of poor appetite, poor well-being, and increased dyspnea. CONCLUSION: Although recommendations are given for exercise, adherence to recommendations is low. Issues of motivation, including lack of interest and self-discipline, and symptoms of pain and fatigue were some of the main reported barriers to adhering to the recommended exercise guidelines. Therefore, interventions aimed at increasing motivation and treating symptoms could improve cancer survivor adherence to recommended exercise guidelines.

Sleep disturbance in patients with cancer: a feasibility study of multimodal therapy.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine feasibility and effect sizes of bright light therapy (BLT), melatonin (MLT), methylphenidate (MP) and eight combinations (BLT+MLT+MP, BLT+MLT, BLT+MP, BLT alone, MLT+MP, MLT alone, MP alone, placebo for BLT, MLT and MP) defined as multimodal therapy (MMT), to improve sleep quality (SQ) (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)) from baseline to day 15. We also examined the effects of MMT on insomnia, fatigue, depression, quality of life and actigraphy. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer with poor SQ (PSQI ≥5) were eligible. Using a double-blind randomised factorial study design, patients were randomised into 1 of the 8 arms for 2 weeks. Feasibility and effect sizes were assessed. RESULTS: 81% (54/67) of randomised patients completed the study. There were no differences in the demographics and SQ between groups. The adherence rates for BLT, MLT and MP were 93%, 100% and 100%, respectively. BLT+MLT+placebo of MP; BLT+placebo of MLT+placebo of MP; BLT+MLT+MP showed an effect size (Cohen's d) for change in PSQI scores of 0.64, 0.57 and 0.63, respectively. PSQI change using linear regression showed BLT (n=29) has effect size of 0.46, p=0.017; MLT (n=26), 0.24, p=0.20; MP (n=26), 0.06, p=0.46. No significant differences were observed in scores for insomnia, fatigue, depression, quality of life and actigraphy. There were no differences in adverse events by groups(p=0.80). CONCLUSIONS: The use of MMT to treat SQ disturbance was feasible. BLT+MLT showed the most promising effect size in improvement in SQ, and additional larger studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01628029.

Cancer Patients' Perception of Usefulness of Wearable Exercise Trackers.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility and perception of usefulness of wearable trackers in inpatient and outpatient cancer rehabilitation patients. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Acute inpatient rehabilitation and outpatient clinic at a tertiary cancer center. PARTICIPANTS: Adult cancer patients (N = 100). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were provided with wearable trackers for the duration of the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survey regarding feasibility (as defined as equal or more than two-thirds of participants reporting use of the wearable tracker) and usefulness of the wearable tracker and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS-FS) in both inpatient and outpatient populations. Activity minutes, number of steps, heart rate, and sleep data were collected from the wearable tracker. RESULTS: Patients reported the use of a wearable tracker is feasible, with 48/50 (96%) outpatients and 47/50 (94%) inpatients reported wearing the wearable tracker daily and 37/49 (76%) outpatients and 29/50 (58%) inpatients reported that they would continue to wear the wearable tracker after this study. The majority of cancer patients (41/49 [84%] of outpatient and 33/50 [66%] of inpatient patients) reported that the wearable tracker was useful and 41/49 (84%) outpatients and 27/50 (54%) inpatients perceived the wearable tracker as helping to increase physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: The use of wearable trackers in cancer patients is feasible and patients perceive wearable trackers as useful in both the inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation setting. Physical activity in these patients was better in the outpatient population, as expected because of less medical acuity.

Empowering the Health and Well-Being of the Palliative Care Workforce: Evaluation of a Weekly Self-Care Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Workplace interventions are needed to prevent burnout and support the well-being of the palliative care workforce. MEASURES: We conducted a survey of all palliative care clinical staff to evaluate the usefulness and feasibility of checklist items and the checklist itself. We collected demographics, perceptions of professional satisfaction and burnout, and qualitative feedback aimed at improving the checklist. INTERVENTION: We implemented a 13-item self-care checklist, included in a handbook on palliative care carried in the laboratory coat of all clinical personnel, to remind them to care of their own well-being. OUTCOMES: Of 39 personnel contacted, 32 (82%) responded. Most (20; 62%) found the checklist useful. Exercise was the most highly ranked item, whereas watching visual arts was the lowest ranked item. CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: Numerous opportunities were identified to improve the checklist and facilitate achievement of checklist items. Survey data will be used in the next checklist version.

The development of a nomogram to determine the frequency of elevated risk for non-medical opioid use in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Non-medical opioid use (NMOU) is a growing crisis. Cancer patients at elevated risk of NMOU (+risk) are frequently underdiagnosed. The aim of this paper was to develop a nomogram to predict the probability of +risk among cancer patients receiving outpatient supportive care consultation at a comprehensive cancer center. METHOD: 3,588 consecutive patients referred to a supportive care clinic were reviewed. All patients had a diagnosis of cancer and were on opioids for pain. All patients were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP-14), and CAGE-AID (Cut Down-Annoyed-Guilty-Eye Opener) questionnaires. "+risk" was defined as an SOAPP-14 score of ≥7. A nomogram was devised based on the risk factors determined by the multivariate logistic regression model to estimate the probability of +risk. RESULTS: 731/3,588 consults were +risk. +risk was significantly associated with gender, race, marital status, smoking status, depression, anxiety, financial distress, MEDD (morphine equivalent daily dose), and CAGE-AID score. The C-index was 0.8. A nomogram was developed and can be accessed at https://is.gd/soappnomogram. For example, for a male Hispanic patient, married, never smoked, with ESAS scores for depression = 3, anxiety = 3, financial distress = 7, a CAGE score of 0, and an MEDD score of 20, the total score is 9 + 9+0 + 0+6 + 10 + 23 + 0+1 = 58. A nomogram score of 58 indicates the probability of +risk of 0.1. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: We established a practical nomogram to assess the +risk. The application of a nomogram based on routinely collected clinical data can help clinicians establish patients with +risk and positively impact care planning.

An Integrated Approach to Selecting a Prepared Medical Decision-Maker.

BACKGROUND: We implemented a systematic multidisciplinary process to engage new outpatients with cancer in selecting and preparing a medical decision-maker. MEASURES: Templated advance care planning notes and medical power of attorney documents were used in the electronic health record by the third office visit. INTERVENTION: Patients were coached to meet with social work from a "culture of yes," viewed a video about the importance of selecting a prepared medical a decision-maker in English or in Spanish, and referenced cards containing simple explanations of advance directives when responding to advance directive questions. OUTCOMES: A total of 351 patients were evaluated. By visit 3, there was no increase in documented social work advance care planning notes in intervention or scanned medical power of attorney documents in the electronic health record. CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: This systematic multidisciplinary approach did not engage new outpatients with cancer in preparing a medical decision-maker. More active physician involvement and varied ways of engagement are needed.

Effects of Center-Based Delivery of Tai Chi and Qi Gong Group Classes on Self-Reported Symptoms in Cancer Patients and Caregivers.

Background: There is increasing interest in complementary approaches such as Tai Chi (TC) and Qi Gong (QG) in oncology settings. We explored the effects of TC/QG delivered in group classes at a comprehensive cancer center. Methods: Patients and caregivers who participated in TC or QG completed assessments before and after an in-person group class. Assessments included questions about expectancy/satisfaction and common cancer symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS]). ESAS distress subscales analyzed included global (GDS), physical (PHS), and psychosocial (PSS). Results: Three hundred four participants (184 patients, 120 caregivers) were included in the analysis. At baseline, caregivers had a greater expectancy for change in energy level as a result of class participation compared with patients (22.9% vs 9.9%). No significant difference was observed between baseline patient and caregiver PSS. Clinically significant improvement in well-being was observed among patients in TC classes (1.0) and caregivers in QG classes (1.2). For fatigue, patients (1.4) and caregivers (1.0) participating in QG experienced clinically significant improvement. Both TC and QG classes were associated with clinically significant improvements (ESAS GDS decrease ≥3) in global distress for patients (TC = 4.52, SD= 7.6; QG = 6.05, SD = 7.9) and caregivers (TC = 3.73, SD = 6.3; QG = 4.02, SD = 7.8). Eighty-nine percent of participants responded that their expectations were met. Conclusions: Patients and caregivers participating in TC or QG group classes were satisfied overall and experienced significant improvement in global distress. Additional research is warranted to explore the integration of TC and QG in the delivery of supportive cancer care.