Nurse-guided patient self-treatment in integrative oncology: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Nurses are increasingly becoming involved in integrative oncology (IO) programs. This study examined the additive effect of nurse-provided guidance for self-administered IO therapies on cancer-related fatigue and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: The study was randomized and controlled, enrolling patients undergoing active oncology treatment with IO interventions for fatigue and other QoL-related outcomes. IO practitioner guidance on self-treatment with manual, relaxation, and/or traditional herbal therapies was provided to patients in both the intervention and control arms. However, patients in the intervention arms also received additional guidance on self-treatment by IO-trained palliative care nurses. All participants were assessed for fatigue and QoL at baseline and at 24-h follow-up, using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCAW) questionnaire tools. RESULTS: Of 353 patients recruited, 187 were randomized to the intervention and 166 to the control group. Both groups had similar demographic and oncology-related characteristics. Patients in the intervention arm reported significantly greater improvement in ESAS scores for fatigue (p = 0.026) and appetite (p = 0.003) when compared to controls. CONCLUSION: The addition of nurse-provided guidance on self-administration of IO treatments to that provided by IO practitioners further reduced short-term scores for fatigue and improved appetite. The relationship between palliative and IO-supportive cancer care requires further study.

Integrative Oncology in Young Women With Breast Cancer.

Small studies have demonstrated the benefit of integrative oncology (IO) therapies in patients with breast cancer; however, referral patterns and timing of therapies are unknown. This study describes the referral pattern and utilization of IO services by young women with breast cancer. A retrospective review identified female patients, 40 years or younger, with a breast cancer diagnosis between 2014 and 2019, and a documented IO consultation. Patient demographics, cancer characteristics, treatments, reasons for seeking and timing of IO consultation, and IO treatment modalities were analyzed. The IO program treated 64 young women with a median age of 38.6 years. Clinical staging was primarily IA (27%), IIA (34%), or IIB (27%), and 64% of patients were clinically node negative with no evidence of metastasis. Women utilized the IO program for recurrence risk reduction and for treatment-related adverse effects (TRAEs), most commonly vasomotor complaints (44%). Therapies utilized were acupuncture (36%), healing touch (28%), oncology massage (30%), and other (75%; music therapy, therapeutic art, spiritual care, meditation, t'ai chi, yoga, and nutrition), which were commonly initiated during treatment (69%). Our data suggest that young women utilize IO services to reduce their future cancer risk and TRAEs, but they are often referred after standard cancer care treatments have begun. Future studies could examine the optimal timing for IO intervention.

Pain Improvement After Healing Touch and Massage in Breast Cancer: an Observational Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Healing Touch (HT) and Oncology Massage (OM) are nonpharmacologic pain interventions, yet a comparative effectiveness study has not been conducted for pain in breast cancer. PURPOSE: This breast cancer subgroup analysis compared the effectiveness of HT vs. OM on pain. SETTING: The research occurred at an outpatient setting at an academic hybrid, multi-site, community-based cancer institute and Department of Supportive Oncology across four regional locations. PARTICIPANTS: Breast cancer outpatients along the cancer continuum who experienced routine clinical, nonexperimentally manipulated HT or OM. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study was an observational, retrospective, comparative effectiveness post hoc subanalysis of a larger dataset. Patients reporting pain < 2 were excluded. Pre- and posttherapy pain scores and differences were calculated. Logistic regression modeled posttherapy pain by modality, adjusting for pretherapy pain. The proportions experiencing ≥ 2-point (clinically significant) pain reduction were compared with chi-square tests. INTERVENTION: The study focused on the first session of either HT or OM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre- and posttherapy pain (range: 0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain). RESULTS: A total of 407 patients reported pre- and posttherapy pain scores, comprised of 233 (57.3%) who received HT and 174 (42.8%) who received OM. Pretherapy mean pain was higher in HT (M=5.1, ± 2.3) than OM (M=4.3, ± 2.1) (p < .001); posttherapy mean pain remained higher in HT (M=2.7, ± 2.2) than OM (M=1.9, ± 1.7) (p < .001). Mean difference in pain reduction was 2.4 for both HT and OM. Both HT (p < .001) and OM (p < .001) were associated with reduced pain. Proportions of clinically significant pain reduction were similar (65.7% HT and 69.0% OM, p = .483). Modality was not associated with pain improvement (p = .072). CONCLUSIONS: Both HT and OM were associated with clinically significant pain improvement. Future research should explore attitudes toward the modalities and potential influence of cancer stage and treatment status on modality self-selection.

The Who, What, Why, When, Where, and How of Team-Based Interdisciplinary Cancer Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To review the key components necessary for successful application of rehabilitation principles to oncology survivors. DATA SOURCES: Validated databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus. CONCLUSION: Rehabilitation is an essential component of cancer care that addresses functional needs for oncology survivors and is best accomplished via an interdisciplinary team. Interdisciplinary care, provided by nursing, physiatry, rehabilitation therapy, and exercise physiology, are critical components for comprehensive intervention. Challenges exist in implementing services, but opportunity also exists within the post-acute care sector. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses play an important role in the screening, assessment, and treatment of cancer-related functional impairments.

Group Acupuncture Model in a Cancer Institute: Improved Access and Affordability.

Cancer patients may experience significant symptom mitigation from acupuncture. However, this service may not be easily accessible or affordable at all cancer institutions. The development of a group acupuncture program provided one institution with improved availability, lower cost to patients, and a foundation for oncology acupuncture research. This care delivery model was deployed at a large southeastern cancer institution within a multistate academic-community hybrid hospital system. The cancer institute serves >15,000 patients annually. Acupuncture is provided through the institute's Integrative Medicine section of the Department of Supportive Oncology. The purpose of this commentary is to describe the successful transition from an individual to group acupuncture model at this cancer institute. With the implementation of group acupuncture, patient visits increased 275% from individual care delivery. Although successful implementation of a group acupuncture model may be affordable and clinically positive, the authors also share unique challenges learned through the development and expansion of this program.

Cancer Pain Relief After Healing Touch and Massage.

OBJECTIVES: To establish and compare the effectiveness of Healing Touch (HT) and Oncology Massage (OM) therapies on cancer patients' pain. DESIGN: pretest/post-test, observational, retrospective study. SETTINGS/LOCATION: Outpatient oncology setting at an academic hybrid, multisite, community-based cancer institute. SUBJECTS: n = 572 cancer outpatients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients reported pain before and after receiving a single session of either HT or OM from a certified practitioner. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain scores from 0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-one patients (50.9%) receiving HT and 281 (49.1%) receiving OM reported pretherapy and post-therapy pain. Pretherapy mean pain was higher in HT patients (M = 5.1, ±2.2) than OM (M = 4.4, ±2.2), p < 0.001; post-therapy mean pain remained higher in HT patients (M = 2.6, ±2.1) than OM (M = 2.0, ±1.8), p < 0.001. Both HT (p < 0.01) and OM (p < 0.01) significantly reduced pain. Unadjusted rates of clinically significant pain improvement (defined as ≥2-point reduction in pain score) were 0.68 HT and 0.71 OM. Adjusted for pretherapy pain, OM was associated with increased odds of pain improvement (odds ratio [OR] 1.49 95% confidence interval (1.02-2.19); p = 0.041). For patients with severe pretherapy pain, OM was not more effective in yielding clinically significant pain reduction (p = 0.236) when adjusting for pretherapy pain score. CONCLUSIONS: Both HT and OM provided immediate pain relief. Future research should explore the duration of pain relief, patient attitudes about HT compared with OM, and how this may differ among patients with varied pretherapy pain levels.