Search

Background: Palliative care specialists are experts in conducting advance care planning (ACP) but are a limited resource. Oncology nurses often have special relationships with their patients and thus may be poised to provide primary palliative care. We sought to determine the impact of a nurse-led primary palliative care intervention on ACP uptake among patients with advanced cancer. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial examining the impact of nurse-based primary palliative care. In the parent trial, patients with advanced cancer received either monthly primary palliative care visits with trained nurses within their cancer center or standard care. Nurses in the intervention arm received special training in ACP. ACP uptake was assessed at enrollment and 3 months later evaluating (1) whether an end-of-life conversation (EOLC) occurred with one’s oncologist, and (2) completion of an advance directive (AD). Multivariable logistic regression tested differences in ACP uptake by treatment arm adjusted for age, religious importance, education, time with current oncologist, and performance status. Results: Of 672 patients enrolled, 182/336 (54%) patients in the intervention arm and 196/336 (58%) in the standard care arm lacked an EOLC at baseline and completed the 3-month assessment. Of those, 82/182 (45.1%) patients in the intervention arm and 29/196 (14.8%) in the standard care arm reported having an EOLC at 3 months (adjusted odds ratio, 5.28; 95% CI, 3.10–8.97; PPConclusions: Nurse-led primary palliative care increased ACP uptake among patients with advanced cancer. Training oncology nurses embedded within community cancer centers to provide primary palliative care may help improve ACP access.

Background: Given limited evidence on opioid prescribing among patients receiving treatment for cancer during the ongoing opioid epidemic, our objective was to assess predictors of and trends in opioid receipt during cancer treatment, including how patterns differ by type of cancer. Methods: Using cancer registry data, we identified patients with a first lifetime primary diagnosis of breast, colorectal, or lung cancer from 2013 to 2017 who underwent treatment within a large cancer center network. Cancer registry data were linked to electronic health record information on opioid prescriptions. We examined predictors of and trends in receipt of any opioid prescription within 12 months of cancer diagnosis. Results: The percentage of patients receiving opioids varied by cancer type: breast cancer, 35% (1,996/5,649); colorectal, 37% (776/2,083); lung, 47% (1,259/2,654). In multivariable analysis, opioid use in the year before cancer diagnosis was the factor most strongly associated with receipt of opioids after cancer diagnosis, with 4.90 (95% CI, 4.10–5.86), 5.09 (95% CI, 3.88–6.69), and 3.31 (95% CI, 2.68–4.10) higher odds for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, respectively. We did not observe a consistent decline in opioid prescribing over time, and trends differed by cancer type. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that prescription of opioids to patients with cancer varies by cancer type and other factors. In particular, patients are more likely to receive opioids after cancer diagnosis if they were previously exposed before diagnosis, suggesting that pain among patients with cancer may commonly include non–cancer-related pain. Heterogeneity and complexity among patients with cancer must be accounted for in developing policies and guidelines aimed at addressing pain management while minimizing the risk of opioid misuse.

ES is a 41-year-old transgender male who presented to medical oncology as a referral from surgical oncology for T2N0M0 right breast cancer. At that time, he was receiving weekly testosterone injections intramuscularly at 0.25 mg, and had been on this regimen for 7 months. He was planning bilateral mastectomies in the spring. That winter, he palpated a mass in his right breast, and imaging revealed a 2.5-cm hypoechoic mass. A biopsy of the mass revealed invasive ductal carcinoma, with a nuclear grade of 3. His tumor was estrogen receptor positive (H-score of 180), progesterone receptor positive (H-score of 90), androgen receptor positive (H-score of 220), and HER-2/neu positive by FISH, with a Ki-67 of 90%. The clinical experience of ES illustrates challenges common to the sexual and gender minority population. ES presented to the clinic with a female friend. At that time, his name and gender in the electronic medical record (EMR) matched his driver’s license, and not his preferred name or gender. Consequently, when he was called from the waiting room, he was called by his former name. The staff had not been notified of the appropriate name or pronoun to use prior to ES’s arrival, and consequently was associating ES with a female gender, as indicated in the EMR. When the question about menstrual status was addressed, he stated that he had not had a period in 7 months since beginning testosterone treatment. The medical assistant questioned the use of testosterone, and ES had to explain his gender reassignment journey. By the time the physician assistant (PA) entered the room to perform the first part of the shared visit, ES was visibly upset, expressing anger with nonverbal cues. During the conversation, the PA did not acknowledge or establish the relationship of ES’s female friend. The PA did not address the issue of gender identity, the use of testosterone, or plans for reassignment surgery. The physician also deferred discussion of gender reassignment during his portion of the visit and, without asking about gender reassignment, recommended cessation of testosterone therapy. Neoadjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide/trastuzumab/pertuzumab was ordered, and ES agreed to treatment, but declined following the suggestion to stop testosterone. At each treatment visit, ES had to check in at the desk with his former name, resulting in confusion from the staff. With each lab draw, his name and birthdate were confirmed using the former name. With every administration of chemotherapy, double-nurse verification at the chairside was performed by reading his arm band and comparing it to the drug label. For each visit, ES had to use his old name six times. With new staff assigned to him each week, he felt pressured to explain his gender identity to several new people at each visit. At one particular visit, a patient’s family in the next cubicle overheard this conversation, and ES overheard them discussing and laughing about his gender identity. ES dreaded his chemotherapy appointments not just due to the expected toxicity, but also because of the insensitivity toward his chosen gender. ES tolerated chemotherapy and proceeded to surgery. He underwent bilateral mastectomies by the surgical oncologist, who had discussed his gender reassignment with him and had referred him to plastic surgery for co-management of the surgical intervention. The plastic surgery team planned for reconstruction to include skin and soft-tissue rearrangement to give an incision line along the lower border of the pectoralis for better male cosmetic outcomes. Together, they performed bilateral mastectomies with right sentinel lymph node biopsy, horizontal mastopexy, and nipple-areolar grafting. Ultimately, the pathology revealed a complete response, and ES was pleased with the cosmetic outcome. ES was then started on tamoxifen. Again it was suggested that he discontinue testosterone therapy. He determined that he was more comfortable with an increased risk of recurrence than he was with feminine physical characteristics and chose to continue testosterone. After 6 weeks of tamoxifen, his menses resumed. He elected to discontinue tamoxifen. He had no more vaginal bleeding after that episode. He was referred for bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy (BSO), with the intent to treat with an aromatase inhibitor. He proceeded with BSO and opted against the aromatase inhibitor, citing concerns about unknown interactions with gender-affirming medication. He completed 1 year of trastuzumab (Herceptin) and continued surveillance visits.

The nurse practitioner (NP) new to an advanced role in a specialty practice may find the orientation period challenging while expanding his or her professional knowledge base. The Oncology Nurse Practitioner Web Education Resource (ONc-PoWER), a web-enhanced continuing education program, provides training for both the oncology NP (ONP) new to cancer care (i.e., within the first year) and his or her on-site mentor. The Oncology Nurse Practitioner Web Education Resource promotes essential didactic and skills development via five modules. A total of 103 dyads (i.e., a new ONP and his or her mentor) were recruited from 27 states to participate in ONc-PoWER, and 79 dyads completed surveys to evaluate the program. Data were collected between April 2012 and October 2016. We observed statistical significance (p = .000) between pre- and post-program self-assessment of cancer care knowledge and confidence in delivering cancer care among ONPs. Moreover, mentors rated the program favorably. Mentor agreement concerning whether or not the ONPs were able to successfully perform 30 core clinical skills ranged from a low of 93% to a high of 100%. Furthermore, mean scores of the course satisfaction survey demonstrate that each ONc-PoWER objective either met or exceeded learner expectations.

CASE STUDY DE, a 31-year-old premenopausal woman with a nonsignificant medical history, noticed a right breast mass after playing basketball in September 2011. She initially attributed the mass to slight trauma, but after 2 weeks, she realized the mass was increasing in size. Her primary care physician ordered a bilateral screening mammogram and ultrasound. Mammography revealed no evidence of malignancy in the left breast. In the right breast, at the 7 o'clock position, a loose cluster of faint calcifications spanned a 2.2-cm area. Ultrasound confirmed an irregular hypoechoic mass in the right breast measuring 3.5 × 2.7 × 2.8 cm. Ultrasound of the right axilla identified two enlarged right axillary lymph nodes. Ultrasound core-needle biopsy of the suspicious right breast mass confirmed invasive ductal carcinoma, nuclear grade 2, Ki67 index of 55%, estrogen receptor-positive (H score of 180), progesterone receptor-positive (H score of 135), HER2-positive (3+ on immunohistochemistry). Utilizing the TNM (tumor, node, metastasis) staging system, she was clinically staged with a stage IIB (cT2, cN1, M0) invasive breast tumor. The computerized axial tomography (CT) scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis demonstrated the known right breast mass and two enlarged right axillary lymph nodes; however, no metastatic disease was noted. Nuclear bone scan revealed no bone metastases. Her medical oncologist recommended she receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The patient was treated with 6 cycles of neoadjuvant docetaxel at 75 mg/m², carboplatin at an AUC (area under the curve) of 6, and trastuzumab (Herceptin) at 6 mg/kg (TCH), which she tolerated well. She then underwent a right segmental mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection and was found to have a residual 1.0-cm invasive ductal carcinoma, representing a 60% tumor volume reduction. None of 13 axillary lymph nodes were positive for disease. Pathologic staging confirmed a stage IA (ypT1, ypN0, M0) tumor. DE completed 33 fractions of radiation therapy to the right breast. She initiated endocrine therapy with tamoxifen at 20 mg daily and received 1 year of maintenance trastuzumab (6 mg/kg). Due to vaginal discharge and weight gain, endocrine therapy was switched from tamoxifen to toremifene (Fareston), which she tolerated relatively well. She continued routine follow-up, with no evidence of disease. In September 2014, DE presented to her primary care physician complaining of left hip pain. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the left hip revealed T2 hyperintense masses within the right anterior superior iliac crest, right sacrum, and left iliac body consistent with skeletal metastases. She was referred back to her medical oncologist, and per National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, a biopsy of the suspicious lesion was obtained. The bone biopsy of the lytic lesion was consistent with metastatic breast cancer, which was estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-positive, and HER2-positive (3+ on immunohistochemistry). Restaging CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis revealed new 4- to 6-mm pulmonary nodules, hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathy, new liver lesions, and bone lesions. Nuclear bone scan confirmed multiple bone metastases of the right and left iliac bones and sternum. Complete blood cell count with differential and complete metabolic panel were within normal ranges. The CA 27-29 tumor marker for breast cancer was elevated at 495 U/mL (normal range, < 37 U/mL). DE was understandably devastated by the new diagnosis. She questioned how the treatment plan was to be established. Her medical oncologist struck a somewhat optimistic tone. He explained that metastatic breast cancer was not yet considered to be curable, but periods of disease stability and chronicity were possible. He explained that the HER2 positivity was perhaps the most important factor in delineating her treatment options. He told her that current treatment options were numerous and increasing in number.

To provide the best available evidence-based care to their patients, advanced practitioners (APs) must become proficient in genomic competencies and remain informed regarding the availability of pharmacogenomic tests. Databases, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's "Genomic Testing," provide guidance about pharmacogenomic testing, but many APs are not aware of these resources. This study employed a quasi-experimental pretest/posttest design using a convenience sample of APs in a large clinical outpatient breast cancer clinic to assess the knowledge base, beliefs, attitudes, and barriers regarding pharmacogenomic testing among front-line APs and increase knowledge through a targeted educational intervention. The objectives of the educational intervention were to (1) increase knowledge of the clinical indication for testing; (2) increase collaboration among the interprofessional team; and (3) identify correctly when the plan of care should be modified based on pharmacogenomic test results to optimize patient outcomes. Responses showed that these oncology APs possess a strong foundation in genetics and support the addition of new pharmacogenomic tests to their practice.

Advanced practitioners (APs) specializing in cancer care will most likely need to perform or participate in obtaining the history and physical (H & P) of a new patient. The core infrastructure of the history-taking and physical examination process remains the same across all patients regardless of diagnosis. There are, however, important distinctions in the H & P of the patient with cancer. These distinctions can be challenging for the student or novice oncology AP, leading to frustration and potentially poor patient satisfaction and outcomes. In each component of the patient history, certain considerations related to the cancer and its diagnosis and/or treatment to date must be included; these elements are different from those in the general medical H & P. This article focuses mainly on the structure and elements of the history of the present illness phase of the H & P. The similarities and differences between taking a cancer-focused H & P vs. a traditional medical one are discussed as well.

Case Study A.K. is a 50-year-old Caucasian female who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer and is presenting for an opinion regarding adjuvant therapy following a right segmental mastectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy. The advanced practitioner (AP) in the outpatient oncology treatment center will be expected to participate in the discussion regarding the patient's care plan. In her review of the final pathology, the AP notes that the breast tumor is infiltrating ductal carcinoma, the most common type of invasive breast cancer. It starts in the cells that line the milk ducts in the breast, grows outside the ducts, and often spreads to the lymph nodes. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma represents 65% to 85% of all breast cancer cases (College of American Pathologists, 2011). The breast tumor measures 1.2 × 0.9 × 1.0 cm(3) (T1), is estrogen receptor positive with an H score of 280, is progesterone receptor negative with an H score of 0, and is HER2 equivocal 2+ by immunohistochemistry with a fluorescence in situ hybridization ratio of 1.9 with a copy number of 5. The Ki-67 proliferation rate is 60%, and the nuclear grade is 2/3, with a Nottingham score of 5/9. The surgical margins from the segmental mastectomy are clear by 0.4 mm. There is lymphovascular invasion present. Of two sentinel lymph nodes, none is positive (N0). There has been no workup for metastatic disease. Additionally, the AP notes that the patient is premenopausal and that A.K.'s family history is positive for a maternal aunt diagnosed with a stage I breast cancer at age 75. What is the recommended plan of care for A.K.?