Understanding the Link between Sugar and Cancer: An Examination of the Preclinical and Clinical Evidence.

Per capita sugar consumption has increased in the United States to over 45 kg per year. The average person in the US currently consumes significantly more added sugar in their diet than the World Health Organization's, the American Cancer Society's, and the American Heart Association's recommendations for daily sugar consumption. Evidence from epidemiologic and preclinical studies demonstrates that excess sugar consumption can lead to development of cancer and progression of disease for those with cancer independent of the association between sugar and obesity. Human epidemiologic studies and mechanistic preclinical studies in multiple cancers support a causal link between excess sugar and cancer. Preclinical studies show that high-sucrose or high-fructose diets activate several mechanistic pathways, including inflammation, glucose, and lipid metabolic pathways. Although human studies are limited, compelling human and primate studies have explored the link between added sugar and metabolic syndrome (MetS), a risk factor for cancer. Substantial evidence suggests a causal link between MetS and added sugar, indicating important implications in the association between excess sugar consumption and cancer. Human clinical trials are needed to determine whether sugar increases cancer development and progression independently of its established role in causing obesity as well as for further exploration of the mechanisms involved.

Oncology patients' perception of physicians who use an integrated electronic health record (EHR) during clinic visits: PRIME-EHR double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer prefer and positively perceive physicians who communicate face-to-face without the use of a computer. However, the use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the examination room remains a practical necessity. On the basis of existing literature, the authors developed and tested an integration model, PRIME-EHR, that focuses on the best-practice guidelines. To their knowledge, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted to test the effectiveness of such models. METHODS: In this double-blind, crossover RCT, 120 eligible patients with cancer were enrolled between April 1, 2019 and February 15, 2020 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The objectives were to compare patients' perceptions of physicians' skills and their overall preference after they watched 2 standardized, scripted video vignettes of physicians: 1 portraying the use of a standard EHR and the other portraying the use of a PRIME-EHR. Actors and patients were blinded to the purpose of the study. Investigators were blinded to the sequence of videos watched by the patients. Validated questionnaires to rate physicians' compassion (0 = best, 50 = worst), communication skills (14 = poor, 70 = excellent), and professionalism (4 = poor, 20 = very good) were used. RESULTS: PRIME-EHR, compared with the standard EHR, resulted in better scores for physician compassion (median score, 5 [interquartile range, 0-10] vs 12 [interquartile range, 4-25]; P = .0009), communication skills (median score, 69 [interquartile range, 63-70] vs 61 [interquartile range, 50-69]; P = .0026), and professionalism (median score, 20 [interquartile range, 18-20] vs 18 [interquartile range, 14-20]; P = .0058). The majority of patients preferred physicians who used PRIME-EHR (n = 70 [77%] vs n = 21 [23%]; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The PRIME-EHR approach significantly improved patients' perceptions of and preference for the physicians. This integrated model of health care delivery has the potential to improve communication and compassion in cancer care.

Patients' Perspective of Timeliness and Usefulness of an Outpatient Supportive Care Referral at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

CONTEXT: Current guidelines recommend early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer; however, no studies have examined the optimal timing of referral from the patients' perspective. OBJECTIVES: To examine patients' perceptions of timeliness of referral and its association with survival among patients with advanced cancer referred to an outpatient supportive care (SC) clinic. METHODS: This cross-sectional prospective study in an SC clinic at a comprehensive cancer center included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic cancer. Patients were asked to complete an anonymous survey regarding the timeliness and perceived usefulness of SC referral within four weeks of their first SC consultation. RESULTS: Of 253 eligible patients, 209 (83%) enrolled in the study and 200 completed the survey. Median survival was 10.3 months. Most patients (72%) perceived that referral occurred "just in time," whereas 21% felt it was "late," and 7% felt "early." A majority (83%) found the referral useful, and 88% would recommend it to other patients with cancer. The perception of being referred early was associated with lower reported levels of pain (P = 0.043), fatigue (P = 0.004), drowsiness (P = 0.005), appetite loss (P = 0.041), poor well-being (P = 0.041), and lower physical (P = 0.001) and overall symptom distress (P = 0.001). No other associations were found between perceived timeliness and usefulness and patients' baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Most patients with a median survival of 10 months perceived that SC referral was timely and useful. Patient care needs rather than the timing of advanced cancer diagnosis drove this perception of referral timing. Lower symptom burden was associated with the perception of being referred to early.

Response to Oral Immediate-Release Opioids for Breakthrough Pain in Patients with Advanced Cancer with Adequately Controlled Background Pain.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence about the response of breakthrough pain (BTP) to the most commonly used oral immediate-release (IR) opioids. Our aim was to determine response rate to oral IR opioids for BTP control in patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, palliative care outpatients, with advanced cancer and adequately managed background pain, were asked to complete a self-administered survey. We assessed patients' baseline demographics, pain characteristics, alcoholism (CAGE questionnaire), tobacco and substance abuse, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scores (ESAS). We determined the effectiveness of oral IR BTP opioids by using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "very ineffective" to "very effective." "Effective" and "very effective" were defined a priori as a good response to IR opioids for BTP. RESULTS: Of 592 evaluable patients, 192 (32%) had background pain of ≤3 (ESAS pain scale 0-10). Among these 192 patients, 152 (79%) reported BTP, 143/152 (94%) took oral IR opioids for BTP, and 127/143 (89%) responded to a median dose of 10% of the total morphine equivalent daily dose. In univariate logistic regression analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 per year; p = .008), higher ESAS scores for pain (OR, 1.32; p = .012), anxiety (OR, 1.24; p = .017), and dyspnea (OR, 1.31; p = .007) had statistically significant association with poor response to IR opioids for BTP. In multicovariate logistic regression, adjusted for age, a higher ESAS dyspnea score was significantly associated with poor response to oral IR opioids (OR, 1.44; p = .002). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients with advanced cancer with adequately controlled background pain reported a good response to oral IR opioids for BTP, supporting their use in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oral immediate-release opioids are standard treatment for cancer breakthrough pain. However, information regarding treatment response to these commonly used opioids is limited. This study provides information that the vast majority of patients with advanced cancer, with adequately controlled background pain, reported good response to oral immediate release opioids for managing their breakthrough pain episodes. Results of this study support the use of conventional oral immediate release opioids that are relatively inexpensive and readily available for management of breakthrough pain in patients with advanced cancer.

The Impact of an Educational Program on Patient Practices for Safe Use, Storage, and Disposal of Opioids at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Improper use, storage, and disposal of prescribed opioids can lead to diversion or accidental poisoning. Our previous study showed a large proportion of cancer patients have unsafe opioid practices. Our objective was to determine whether an improvement occurred in the patterns of use, storage, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients after the implementation of a patient educational program. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our palliative care (PC) clinic provides every patient with educational material (EM) on safe opioid use, storage, and disposal every time they receive an opioid prescription. We prospectively assessed 300 adult cancer outpatients receiving opioids in our PC clinic, who had received the EM, and compared them with 300 patients who had not received the EM. The previously used surveys pertaining to opioid use, storage, and disposal were administered, and demographic information was collected. Sharing or losing their opioids was defined as unsafe use. RESULTS: Patients who received EM were more aware of the proper opioid disposal methods (76% vs. 28%; p ≤ .0001), less likely to share their opioids with someone else (3% vs. 8%; p = .0311), less likely to practice unsafe use of opioids (18% vs. 25%; p = .0344), and more likely to be aware the danger of their opioids when taken by others (p = .0099). Patients who received the EM were less likely to have unused medication at home (38% vs. 47%; p = .0497) and more likely to keep their medications in a safe place (hidden, 75% vs. 70%; locked, 14% vs. 10%; p = .0025). CONCLUSION: The use of EM on opioid safety for patients with advanced cancer was associated with improved patient-reported safe opioid use, storage, and disposal. The Oncologist 2017;22:115-121Implications for Practice: Prescription opioid abuse is a fast-growing epidemic that has become more prominent recently, even in the cancer pain population. A previous study reported that 26% of cancer outpatients seen in the supportive care center either lose their pain medications or share their pain medications with someone else. This study demonstrates that the implementation of an opioid educational program and distribution of educational material on opioid safety brings about an improvement in opioid storage, use, and disposal practices in patients being prescribed opioids for cancer-related pain. Our study highlights the importance of consistent and thorough opioid education at every instance in which opioids are prescribed.