Search

Early palliative care, palliative care integrated with oncology care early in the course of illness, has myriad benefits for patients and their caregivers, including improved quality of life, reduced physical and psychological symptom burden, enhanced prognostic awareness, and reduced health care utilization at the end of life. Although ASCO and others recommend early palliative care for all patients with advanced cancer, widespread implementation of early palliative care has not been realized because of barriers such as insufficient reimbursement and a palliative care workforce shortage. Investigators have recently tested several implementation strategies to overcome these barriers, including triggers for palliative care consultations, telehealth delivery, navigator-delivered interventions, and primary palliative care interventions. More research is needed to identify mechanisms to distribute palliative care optimally and equitably. Simultaneously, the transformation of the oncology treatment landscape has led to shifts in the supportive care needs of patients and caregivers, who may experience longer, uncertain trajectories of cancer. Now, palliative care also plays a clear role in the care of patients with hematologic malignancies and may be beneficial for patients undergoing phase I clinical trials and their caregivers. Further research and clinical guidance regarding how to balance the risks and benefits of opioid therapy and safely manage cancer-related pain across this wide range of settings are urgently needed. The strengths of early palliative care in supporting patients' and caregivers' coping and centering decisions on their goals and values remain valuable in the care of patients receiving cutting-edge personalized cancer care.

Purpose: To provide evidence-based recommendations to health care providers on integrative approaches to managing anxiety and depression symptoms in adults living with cancer., Methods: The Society for Integrative Oncology and ASCO convened an expert panel of integrative oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative oncology, social sciences, mind-body medicine, nursing, methodology, and patient advocacy representatives. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2023. Outcomes of interest included anxiety or depression symptoms as measured by validated psychometric tools, and adverse events. Expert panel members used this evidence and informal consensus with the Guidelines into Decision Support methodology to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations., Results: The literature search identified 110 relevant studies (30 systematic reviews and 80 randomized controlled trials) to inform the evidence base for this guideline., Recommendations: Recommendations were made for mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), yoga, relaxation, music therapy, reflexology, and aromatherapy (using inhalation) for treating symptoms of anxiety during active treatment; and MBIs, yoga, acupuncture, tai chi and/or qigong, and reflexology for treating anxiety symptoms after cancer treatment. For depression symptoms, MBIs, yoga, music therapy, relaxation, and reflexology were recommended during treatment, and MBIs, yoga, and tai chi and/or qigong were recommended post-treatment., Discussion: Issues of patient-health care provider communication, health disparities, comorbid medical conditions, cost implications, guideline implementation, provider training and credentialing, and quality assurance of natural health products are discussed. While several approaches such as MBIs and yoga appear effective, limitations of the evidence base including assessment of risk of bias, nonstandardization of therapies, lack of diversity in study samples, and lack of active control conditions as well as future research directions are discussed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Background: Many patients with advanced cancer have misperceptions of their prognosis, which may impact end-of-life decision-making. Data regarding associations between prognostic perceptions over time and end-of-life care outcomes are lacking., Aim: To describe patients' perceptions of their prognosis with advanced cancer and examine associations between these perceptions and end-of-life care outcomes., Design: Secondary analysis of longitudinal data from a randomized controlled trial of a palliative care intervention for patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancer., Setting/participants: Conducted at an outpatient cancer center in the northeastern United States and patients were within 8 weeks of a diagnosis with incurable lung or non-colorectal gastrointestinal cancer., Results: We enrolled 350 patients in the parent trial, of which 80.5% (281/350) died during the study period. Overall, 59.4% (164/276) of patients reported they were terminally ill, and 66.1% (154/233) reported that their cancer was likely curable at the assessment closest to death. Patient acknowledgment of terminal illness was only associated with lower risk of hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life (OR = 0.52, p  = 0.025). Patients who reported their cancer as likely curable were less likely to utilize hospice (OR = 0.25, p  = 0.002) or die at home (OR = 0.56, p  = 0.043), and they were more likely to be hospitalized in the last 30 days of life (OR = 2.28, p  = 0.011)., Conclusions: Patients' perceptions of their prognosis are associated with important end-of-life care outcomes. Interventions are needed to enhance patients' perceptions of their prognosis and optimize their end-of-life care.

Context: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recommends that outpatient specialty palliative care (OSPC) be offered within eight weeks of an advanced cancer diagnosis. To meet the rising demand, there has been an increase in the availability of OSPC services at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers; however, many OSPC referrals still occur late in the disease course., Objectives: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we evaluated facilitators and barriers to early OSPC implementation and associated clinic characteristics., Methods: We selected relevant CFIR constructs for inclusion in a survey that was distributed to the OSPC clinic leader at each NCI-designated cancer center. For each statement, respondents were instructed to rate the degree to which they agreed on a five-point Likert scale. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses to survey items and explore differences in barriers based on OSPC clinic size and maturity., Results: Of 60 eligible sites, 40 (67%) completed the survey. The most commonly agreed upon barriers to early OSPC included inadequate number of OSPC providers (73%), lack of performance metric goals (65%), insufficient space to deliver early OSPC (58%), logistical challenges created by early OSPC (55%), and absence of formal interdisciplinary communication systems (53%). The most frequently reported barriers differed according to clinic size and maturity., Conclusion: Most barriers were modifiable in nature and related to the "Inner Setting" domain of the CFIR, which highlights the need for careful strategic planning by leadership when implementing early OSPC., Competing Interests: Disclosures and Acknowledgments This project was supported, in part, by the National Institutes of Health (UL1-TR-001857), as well as the McElhattan Foundation (“Palliative Care Technological Extension and Assistance in the Community for Improved Healthcare Outcomes”). Y.S. is supported by the National Institute on Aging (K24AG07025). S.S.R. is supported, in part, by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K23DA048182), US Department of Veterans Affairs (PEC19-307), and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR001857). The opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not reflect those of the US Government. R.E.R. serves as an advisor for Allref. E.R.P. received royalties for editorial work from UpToDate. J.S.T. received research funding from BlueNote Therapeutics. R.M.A. is a VitalTalk board member, received royalties for editorial work from AAHPM PC-FACS and UpToDate, and received honoraria for presentations at University of Toronto and University of Texas at Austin. Y.S. received royalties for editorial work from UpToDate. The remaining authors (S.S.R., C.I., L.B.A., and P.J.G.) have no potential conflicts to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Background: Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) experience inequities in cancer care that contribute to increased cancer mortality. Involving mental health at the time of cancer diagnosis may improve cancer care delivery for patients with SMI yet access to care remains challenging. Collaborative care is a promising approach to integrate mental health and cancer care that has not yet been studied in this marginalized population., Methods/design: We describe a 24-week, two-arm, single-site randomized trial of person-centered collaborative care (Bridge) for patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression with psychiatric hospitalization) and their caregivers. 120 patients are randomized 1:1 to Bridge or Enhanced Usual Care (EUC) along with their caregivers. Researchers proactively identify individuals with SMI and a new breast, lung, gastrointestinal, or head and neck cancer that can be treated with curative intent. EUC includes informing oncologists about the patient's psychiatric diagnosis, notifying patients about available psychosocial services, and tracking patient and caregiver outcomes. Bridge includes a proactive assessment by psychiatry and social work, a person-centered, team approach including collaboration between mental health and oncology, and increased access to evidence-based psycho-oncology care. The primary outcome is cancer care disruptions evaluated by a blinded panel of oncologists. Secondary outcomes include patient and caregiver-reported outcomes and healthcare utilization. Barriers to Bridge implementation and dissemination are assessed using mixed methods., Discussion: This trial will inform efforts to systematically identify individuals with SMI and cancer and generate the first experimental evidence for the impact of person-centered collaborative care on cancer care for this underserved population., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Although most patients with cancer prefer to know their prognosis, prognostic communication between oncologists and patients is often insufficient. Targeted therapies for lung cancer improve survival yet are not curative and produce variable responses. This study sought to describe how oncologists communicate about prognosis with patients receiving targeted therapies for lung cancer., Methods: This qualitative study included 39 patients with advanced lung cancer with targetable mutations, 14 caregivers, and 10 oncologists. Semistructured interviews with patients and caregivers and focus groups or interviews with oncologists were conducted to explore their experiences with prognostic communication. One oncology follow-up visit was audio-recorded per patient. A framework approach was used to analyze interview transcripts, and a content analysis of patient-oncologist dialogue was conducted. Themes were identified within each source and then integrated across sources to create a multidimensional description of prognostic communication., Results: Six themes in prognostic communication were identified: Patients with targetable mutations develop a distinct identity in the lung cancer community that affects their information-seeking and self-advocacy; oncologists set high expectations for targeted therapy; the uncertain availability of new therapies complicates prognostic discussions; patients and caregivers have variable information preferences; patients raise questions about progression by asking about physical symptoms or scan results; and patients' expectations of targeted therapy influence their medical decision-making., Conclusions: Optimistic patient-oncologist communication shapes the expectations of patients receiving targeted therapy for lung cancer and affects their decision-making. Further research and clinical guidance are needed to help oncologists to communicate uncertain outcomes effectively., (© 2022 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Older adults with gastrointestinal cancers undergoing surgery often experience poor outcomes, such as prolonged postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) use, hospital readmissions, and complications. Involvement of geriatricians in the care of older adults with cancer can improve outcomes. We conducted a randomized trial of a perioperative geriatric intervention (PERI-OP) in older patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery., Methods: From 9/2016-4/2019, we randomly assigned patients age ≥ 65 with gastrointestinal cancer planning to undergo surgical resection to receive PERI-OP or usual care. Patients assigned to PERI-OP met with a geriatrician preoperatively in the outpatient setting and postoperatively as an inpatient consultant. The primary outcome was postoperative hospital LOS. Secondary outcomes included postoperative ICU use, 90-day hospital readmission rates, and complication rates. We conducted intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses., Results: ITT analyses included 137/160 patients who underwent surgery (usual care = 68/78, intervention = 69/82). PP analyses included the 68 usual care patients and the 30/69 intervention patients who received the preoperative and postoperative intervention components. ITT analyses demonstrated no significant differences between intervention and usual care in postoperative hospital LOS (7.23 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.374), ICU use (23.2% vs 32.4%, P = 0.257), 90-day hospital readmission rates (21.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.690), or complication rates (17.4% vs 20.6%, P = 0.668). In PP analyses, intervention patients had shorter postoperative hospital LOS (5.90 vs 8.21 days, P = 0.024), but differences in ICU use (13.3% vs 32.4%, P = 0.081), 90-day hospital readmission rates (16.7% vs 25.0%, P = 0.439), and complication rates (6.7% vs 20.6%, P = 0.137) remained non-significant., Conclusions: In this randomized trial, PERI-OP did not have a significant impact on postoperative hospital LOS, ICU use, hospital readmissions, or complications. However, the subgroup who received PERI-OP as planned experienced encouraging results. Future studies of PERI-OP should include efforts, such as telehealth, to ensure the intervention is delivered as planned., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Knight reports stock ownership in Illumina, Assembly Biosciences, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. No other authors have conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Little is known about non-tobacco substance use (SU) and its treatment in cancer patients. National guidelines address tobacco only, and assessment of SU in cancer patients is not standardized. It is not clear how oncology clinicians assess, document, and follow-up on SU., Methods: We conducted an electronic health record review of patients enrolled in a smoking cessation trial at one large hospital site (N = 176). Chart review of oncology treatment notes assessed whether SU assessment was documented, the content of the documentation/assessment (e.g., frequency of use), and details about documentation (e.g., where/who documented)., Results: Sixty-nine percent (121/176) of cancer patients had SU documented. Many patients (42%, 74/176) had only one substance documented; 66% (116/176) had alcohol use documented. For a substantial minority of patients (43/176; 24%), the provider did not specify the substance assessed (e.g., "drug use," "illicits"). SU was primarily documented by physicians (84%, 102/121), in routine progress notes (56%, 68/121), in the "social history" section of the note (84%, 102/121). Only 4 patients had a documented SU follow-up plan. When examining the subset of patients who reported problematic alcohol use (N = 27), the content of documentation was inconsistent (e.g., number of drinks/day vs. qualitative descriptors of use)., Conclusions: About 1/3 of oncology patients did not have SU assessment documented. SU other than alcohol use was infrequently documented, many clinicians documented SU but did not specify substance type, and few clinicians documented a follow-up plan for problematic SU. Oncology settings should utilize standardized assessment and referral for SU treatment., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Hospitalized patients with cancer often experience a high symptom burden, which may impact care satisfaction and healthcare utilization., Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with cancer and unplanned hospitalizations from September 2014 to April 2017. Upon admission, we assessed patients' care satisfaction (FAMCARE items: satisfaction with care coordination and speed with which symptoms are treated) and physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) and psychological (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]) symptoms. We used regression models to identify factors associated with care satisfaction and associations of satisfaction with symptom burden and hospital length of stay (LOS)., Results: Among 1,576 participants, most reported being "satisfied"/ "very satisfied" with care coordination (90%) and speed with which symptoms are treated (89%). Older age (coordination: B < 0.01, P = 0.02, speed: B = 0.01, P < 0.01) and admission to a dedicated oncology service (B = 0.20, P < 0.01 for each) were associated with higher satisfaction. Higher satisfaction with care coordination was associated with lower ESAS-physical (B =  - 1.28, P < 0.01), ESAS-total (B =  - 2.73, P < 0.01), PHQ4-depression (B =  - 0.14, P = 0.02), and PHQ4-anxiety (B =  - 0.16, P < 0.01) symptoms. Higher satisfaction with speed with which symptoms are treated was associated with lower ESAS-physical (B =  - 1.32, P < 0.01), ESAS-total (B =  - 2.46, P < 0.01), PHQ4-depression (B =  - 0.14, P = 0.01), and PHQ4-anxiety (B =  - 0.17, P < 0.01) symptoms. Satisfaction with care coordination (B =  - 0.48, P = 0.04) and speed with which symptoms are treated (B =  - 0.44, P = 0.04) correlated with shorter LOS., Conclusions: Hospitalized patients with cancer report high care satisfaction, which correlates with older age and admission to a dedicated oncology service. Significant associations among higher care satisfaction, lower symptom burden, and shorter hospital LOS highlight the importance of improving symptom management and care coordination in this population., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Importance: Symptom monitoring interventions are increasingly becoming the standard of care in oncology, but studies assessing these interventions in the hospital setting are lacking., Objective: To evaluate the effect of a symptom monitoring intervention on symptom burden and health care use among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonblinded randomized clinical trial conducted from February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, assessed 321 hospitalized adult patients with advanced cancer and admitted to the inpatient oncology services of an academic hospital. Data obtained through November 13, 2020, were included in analyses, and all analyses assessed the intent-to-treat population., Interventions: Patients in both the intervention and usual care groups reported their symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) daily via tablet computers. Patients assigned to the intervention had their symptom reports displayed during daily oncology rounds, with alerts for moderate, severe, or worsening symptoms. Patients assigned to usual care did not have their symptom reports displayed to their clinical teams., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of days with improved symptoms, and the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and readmission rates. Linear regression was used to evaluate differences in hospital length of stay. Competing-risk regression (with death treated as a competing event) was used to compare differences in time to first unplanned readmission within 30 days., Results: From February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, 390 patients (76.2% enrollment rate) were randomized. Study analyses to assess change in symptom burden included 321 of 390 patients (82.3%) who had 2 or more days of symptom reports completed (usual care, 161 of 193; intervention, 160 of 197). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 63.6 (12.8) years and were mostly male (180; 56.1%), self-reported as White (291; 90.7%), and married (230; 71.7%). The most common cancer type was gastrointestinal (118 patients; 36.8%), followed by lung (60 patients; 18.7%), genitourinary (39 patients; 12.1%), and breast (29 patients; 9.0%). No significant differences were detected between the intervention and usual care for the proportion of days with improved ESAS-physical (unstandardized coefficient [B] = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.05; P = .56), ESAS-total (B = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.02; P = .17), PHQ-4-depression (B = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.04; P = .55), and PHQ-4-anxiety (B = -0.04; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.03; P = .29) symptoms. Intervention patients also did not differ significantly from patients receiving usual care for the secondary end points of hospital length of stay (7.59 vs 7.47 days; B = 0.13; 95% CI, -1.04 to 1.29; P = .83) and 30-day readmission rates (26.5% vs 33.8%; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.09; P = .12)., Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, the assessed symptom monitoring intervention did not have a significant effect on patients' symptom burden or health care use. These findings do not support the routine integration of this type of symptom monitoring intervention for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03396510.

Background: No reliable instruments exist to measure prognostic awareness and its psychological and behavioral impacts for patients with advanced cancer. Methods: We developed the Prognostic Awareness Impact Scale (PAIS) using a qualitative approach. During phase 1, we convened a working group with a transdisciplinary team of clinicians from oncology ( n  = 2), psychology ( n  = 2), psychiatry ( n  = 1), palliative care ( n  = 3), and survey development ( n  = 1) to identify key domains of PAIS. Using a consensus-driven process, the team generated an item bank for each domain. During phase 2, we conducted cognitive interviews with 39 patients with advanced cancer to assess the understandability of the PAIS. Results: The working group developed a conceptual framework for PAIS, identifying three domains: (1) cognitive understanding of prognosis (capacity to understand intellectually one's prognosis), (2) emotional coping (capacity to process prognostic uncertainty and terminal prognosis), and (3) adaptive response (capacity to use prognostic awareness to inform life decisions). Cognitive interviews revealed that patients had an accurate understanding of most PAIS items. Patients reported difficulty with binary response options for questions pertaining to emotional coping. They expressed difficulty answering numerous questions regarding their cognitive understanding of their prognosis. We revised the PAIS by (1) replacing binary response options with ordinal agreement scales; and (2) reducing the number of items focused on cognitive understanding of prognosis. Conclusion: We developed a conceptual framework to capture prognostic awareness and its psychological and behavioral impacts for patients with advanced cancer using the PAIS. Future work should focus on validating the PAIS by testing its psychometric properties.

Background: Studies show that early, integrated palliative care (PC) improves quality of life (QoL) and end-of-life (EoL) care for patients with poor-prognosis cancers. However, the optimal strategy for delivering PC for those with advanced cancers who have longer disease trajectories, such as metastatic breast cancer (MBC), remains unknown. We tested the effect of a PC intervention on the documentation of EoL care discussions, patient-reported outcomes, and hospice utilization in this population., Patients and Methods: Patients with MBC and clinical indicators of poor prognosis (n=120) were randomly assigned to receive an outpatient PC intervention (n=61) or usual care (n=59) between May 2, 2016, and December 26, 2018, at an academic cancer center. The intervention entailed 5 structured PC visits focusing on symptom management, coping, prognostic awareness, decision-making, and EoL planning. The primary outcome was documentation of EoL care discussions in the electronic health record (EHR). Secondary outcomes included patient-report of discussions with clinicians about EoL care, QoL, and mood symptoms at 6, 12, 18, and 24 weeks after baseline and hospice utilization., Results: The rate of EoL care discussions documented in the EHR was higher among intervention patients versus those receiving usual care (67.2% vs 40.7%; P=.006), including a higher completion rate of a Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment form (39.3% vs 13.6%; P=.002). Intervention patients were also more likely to report discussing their EoL care wishes with their doctor (odds ratio [OR], 3.10; 95% CI, 1.21-7.94; P=.019) and to receive hospice services (OR, 4.03; 95% CI, 1.10-14.73; P=.035) compared with usual care patients. Study groups did not differ in patient-reported QoL or mood symptoms., Conclusions: This PC intervention significantly improved rates of discussion and documentation regarding EoL care and delivery of hospice services among patients with MBC, demonstrating that PC can be tailored to address the supportive care needs of patients with longer disease trajectories. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02730858.

Background: Little is known about how patients with incurable cancer and caregivers differ in their prognostic awareness, and the relationship between caregiver prognostic awareness and their psychological distress. Objective: To investigate prognostic awareness in caregivers of patients with incurable cancer and prognostic discordance in patient-caregiver dyads and its association with psychological distress. Design: This is a cross-sectional study. Setting/Subjects: In total, subjects were 390 caregivers of adults with incurable lung, gastrointestinal, and brain cancers at a cancer center in the northeastern United States. Measurements: The Prognosis and Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire was used to assess prognostic awareness and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to assess psychological distress. Results: In total, 39.7% ( n  = 147/370) and 17.3% ( n  = 64/370) caregivers reported clinically significant anxiety and depression symptoms. And 53.7% of caregivers reported the patients' cancer as "curable" and 44.1% reported the cancer was "not terminal." Caregivers' report of curability was not associated with their anxiety (odds ratio [OR] = 0.99, p  = 0.93) or depression (OR = 1.05, p  = 0.32) symptoms. Among 42.5% (124/292) and 26.0% (76/292) of dyads ( n  = 292), both patients and their caregivers agreed in their perception of the cancer as curable and incurable, respectively. In 19.9% of dyads ( n  = 58), patients reported their cancer as curable, while their caregivers reported it as incurable. In 11.6% of dyads ( n  = 34), patients reported the cancer as incurable while caregivers reported it as curable. Conclusions: More than half of caregivers have misperceptions about the patients' likelihood of cure, and one-third of patient-caregiver dyads have discordant perceptions. Supportive care interventions may facilitate conversations and enhance prognostic understanding in patients with incurable cancer and their caregivers.

Context: Individuals caring for patients with advanced cancer (caregivers) experience psychological distress during the patient's illness course. However, data on the prevalence of bereaved caregivers' psychological distress and its relationship with the quality of patient's end of life (EOL) care are limited., Objectives: To describe rates of depression and anxiety symptoms in bereaved caregivers of patients with advanced cancer and to understand the relationship between these outcomes and patient distress at the EOL., Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of 168 caregivers enrolled in a supportive care trial for patients with incurable lung and gastrointestinal cancers and their caregivers. We used the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale to assess caregivers' depression and anxiety symptoms at three months after the patient's death. Caregivers also rated the patient's physical and psychological distress in the last week of life on a 10-point scale three months after the patient death. We used linear regression adjusting for caregiver age, sex, randomization, and cancer type to explore the relationship between bereaved caregivers' depression and anxiety symptoms and their ratings of physical and psychological distress in patients at the EOL., Results: Of the 168 bereaved caregivers, 30.4% (n = 51) and 43.4% (n = 73) reported clinically significant depression and anxiety symptoms, respectively. Caregiver ratings of worse physical (B = 0.32; P = 0.009) and psychological (B = 0.50; P < 0.001) distress experienced by the patient at the EOL were associated with worse depression symptoms in bereaved caregivers. Only caregiver rating of worse psychological distress experienced by the patient at the EOL (B = 0.42; P < 0.001) was associated with worse bereaved caregivers' anxiety symptoms., Conclusion: Many bereaved caregivers of patients with advanced cancer experience symptoms of depression and anxiety, which are associated with their perceptions of distress in their loved ones at the EOL., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Persistent smoking may cause adverse outcomes among patients with cancer. Many cancer centers have not fully implemented evidence-based tobacco treatment into routine care., Objective: To determine the effectiveness of sustained telephone counseling and medication (intensive treatment) compared with shorter-term telephone counseling and medication advice (standard treatment) to assist patients recently diagnosed with cancer to quit smoking., Design, Setting, and Participants: This unblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital/Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Adults who had smoked 1 cigarette or more within 30 days, spoke English or Spanish, and had recently diagnosed breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecological, head and neck, lung, lymphoma, or melanoma cancers were eligible. Enrollment occurred between November 2013 and July 2017; assessments were completed by the end of February 2018., Interventions: Participants randomized to the intensive treatment (n = 153) and the standard treatment (n = 150) received 4 weekly telephone counseling sessions and medication advice. The intensive treatment group also received 4 biweekly and 3 monthly telephone counseling sessions and choice of Food and Drug Administration-approved cessation medication (nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, or varenicline)., Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were treatment utilization rates., Results: Among 303 patients who were randomized (mean age, 58.3 years; 170 women [56.1%]), 221 (78.1%) completed the trial. Six-month biochemically confirmed quit rates were 34.5% (n = 51 in the intensive treatment group) vs 21.5% (n = 29 in the standard treatment group) (difference, 13.0% [95% CI, 3.0%-23.3%]; odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.13-3.27]; P < .02). The median number of counseling sessions completed was 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) in the intensive treatment group. A total of 97 intensive treatment participants (77.0%) vs 68 standard treatment participants (59.1%) reported cessation medication use (difference, 17.9% [95% CI, 6.3%-29.5%]; odds ratio, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.32-4.04]; P = .003). The most common adverse events in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively, were nausea (n = 13 and n = 6), rash (n = 4 and n = 1), hiccups (n = 4 and n = 1), mouth irritation (n = 4 and n = 0), difficulty sleeping (n = 3 and n = 2), and vivid dreams (n = 3 and n = 2)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among smokers recently diagnosed with cancer in 2 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, sustained counseling and provision of free cessation medication compared with 4-week counseling and medication advice resulted in higher 6-month biochemically confirmed quit rates. However, the generalizability of the study findings is uncertain and requires further research., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01871506.

Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that palliative care improves the quality of life of individuals with serious medical illness. Research also suggests that in patients with advanced cancer, palliative care's focus on symptom management, coping with illness, goals of care, and treatment decisions may be associated with improved patient quality of life in part by increasing patients' use of active (vs. passive) and approach-oriented (vs. avoidant) coping strategies. However, without a framework outlining the process that individuals with serious medical illness and their loved ones undergo, it is challenging to discern exactly where, how, and why palliative care may affect the serious medical illness experience. To address this gap, we propose a clinically applicable framework, derived from existing theory and research in the social and behavioral sciences. This framework, called the Integrative Framework of Appraisal and Adaptation in Serious Medical Illness, describes how patients and their loved ones cognitively and emotionally process the various events that may occur as they navigate serious medical illness and the end of life. The framework also describes how individuals and their loved ones use that event processing to determine next steps, while considering the impact of their surrounding external environment, their individual social roles, and their connections on this decision making. The framework presented in this article is intended to improve our ability to understand and care for individuals with serious medical illness and their loved ones, while stimulating further discussion and research to test and refine these ideas., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers have substantial misperceptions regarding hospice, which contributes to its underuse., Methods: The authors conducted a single-site randomized trial of a video educational tool versus a verbal description of hospice in 150 hospitalized patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Patients without a caregiver were eligible. Intervention participants (75 patients and 18 caregivers) viewed a 6-minute video depicting hospice. Control participants (75 patients and 26 caregivers) received a verbal description identical to the video narrative. The primary outcome was patient preference for hospice. Secondary outcomes included patient and/or caregiver knowledge and perceptions of hospice, and hospice use., Results: Between February 2017 and January 2019, approximately 55.7% of eligible patients (150 of 269 eligible patients) and 44 caregivers were enrolled. After the intervention, there was no difference noted with regard to patients' preferences for hospice (86.7% vs 82.7%; P = .651). Patients in the video group reported greater knowledge regarding hospice (9.0 vs 8.4; P = .049) and were less likely to endorse that hospice is only about death (6.7% vs 21.6%; P = .010). Among deceased patients, those assigned to the intervention were more likely to have used hospice (85.2% vs 63.6%; P = .01) and to have had a longer hospice length of stay (median, 12 days vs 3 days; P < .001). After the intervention, caregivers assigned to view the video were more likely to prefer hospice for their loved ones (94.4% vs 65.4%; P = .031), reported greater knowledge concerning hospice (9.7% vs 8.0%; P = .001), and were less likely to endorse that hospice is only about death (0.0% vs 23.1%; P = .066)., Conclusions: A hospice video did not significantly impact patients' preferences for hospice care. Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers who were assigned to view the video were more informed regarding hospice and reported more favorable perceptions of hospice. Patients were more likely to use hospice and to have a longer hospice length of stay., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Patient-reported medical status and treatment goal are measures of prognostic understanding with demonstrated relationships to important clinical and patient-reported outcomes in the general cancer population. Among older adults, relationships between these measures and other patient-reported (quality of life [QOL], symptoms, functional impairment) and clinical (hospitalization risk, survival) outcomes remains unclear., Methods: We enrolled patients ≥70 with advanced gastrointestinal cancers, collecting patient-reported medical status (terminally ill vs not), treatment goal (curative vs non-curative), QOL (EORTC-Elderly Cancer Patients), symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]), and functional impairment (activities of daily living [ADLs]). We also obtained information about hospitalizations and survival. To explore relationships between patient-reported medical status, treatment goal, QOL, symptoms, functional impairment, hospitalizations, and survival, we used regression models adjusted for age, sex, and education., Results: Of 103 patients, 49.5% reported terminally ill status and 64.0% a non-curative treatment goal. Terminally ill status was associated with worse QOL (EORTC illness burden: 53.59 vs 35.26, p = 0.001), higher symptom burden (ESAS: 28.15 vs 16.79, p = 0.002), more functional impairment (ADLs: 3.63 vs 5.24, p = 0.006), greater hospitalization risk (HR = 2.41, p = 0.020), and worse survival (HR = 1.93, p = 0.010). We did not find associations between patient-reported treatment goal and these outcomes., Conclusions: In older adults with advanced cancer, report of terminally ill status was associated with other important patient-reported and clinical outcomes, suggesting disease severity may inform illness perceptions. We did not find similar associations for patient-reported treatment goal, indicating that questions related to medical status and treatment goal measure different constructs and more nuanced measures are needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None of the authors have financial conflict of interest to report., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Inpatient supportive care programs often target patients with advanced solid tumors. To the authors' knowledge, few studies to date have characterized symptom burden in hospitalized patients with potentially curable cancers. The objective of the current study was to compare symptom burden, palliative care consultation, and readmission rates in hospitalized patients by cancer type and treatment intent., Methods: The authors conducted a single-center study of hospitalized patients with cancer between 2014 and 2017. They assessed physical symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and psychological distress using the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 and the Primary Care PTSD (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) Screen. Multivariate linear regression models were used to assess symptom burden, logistic regression was used to assess palliative care use, and competing risk regression was used to compare 90-day readmission risk., Results: A total of 1549 patients were enrolled and surveyed. The majority of patients reported moderate to severe fatigue, poor well-being, and drowsiness with no significant differences noted by cancer type and treatment intent. Compared with other groups, patients with incurable solid cancer reported higher physical symptoms (beta coefficient [B], 4.73; P < .01) and symptoms of depression (B, 0.44; P < .01) and anxiety (B, 0.39; P < .01), but no difference in posttraumatic stress disorder. Among patients in the top quartile symptom burden according to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, the palliative care service was consulted in 14.7%, 7.9%, 25.0%, and 49.6%, respectively, of patients with potentially curable hematologic, potentially curable solid, incurable hematologic, and incurable solid cancers (P < .001). Compared with patients with potentially curable solid cancer, patients in each group experienced a higher risk of readmission within 90 days., Conclusions: Hospitalized patients with cancer experience substantial physical and psychological symptoms. Palliative care rarely is consulted for highly symptomatic patients with potentially curable cancers. Supportive care interventions should target the needs of symptomatic patients regardless of treatment intent., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Background: National guidelines recommend regular measurement of functional status among patients with cancer, particularly those who are elderly or high-risk, but little is known about how functional status relates to clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. The goal of this study was to investigate how functional impairment is associated with symptom burden and healthcare utilization and clinical outcomes., Patients and Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of patients with advanced cancer with unplanned hospitalizations at Massachusetts General Hospital from September 2014 through March 2016. Upon admission, nurses assessed patients' activities of daily living (ADLs; mobility, feeding, bathing, dressing, and grooming). Patients with any ADL impairment on admission were classified as having functional impairment. We used the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) and Patient Health Questionnaire-4 to assess physical and psychological symptoms, respectively. Multivariable regression models were used to assess the relationships between functional impairment, hospital length of stay, and survival., Results: Among 971 patients, 390 (40.2%) had functional impairment. Those with functional impairment were older (mean age, 67.18 vs 60.81 years; P<.001) and had a higher physical symptom burden (mean ESAS physical score, 35.29 vs 30.85; P<.001) compared with those with no functional impairment. They were also more likely to report moderate-to-severe pain (74.9% vs 63.1%; P<.001) and symptoms of depression (38.3% vs 23.6%; P<.001) and anxiety (35.9% vs 22.4%; P<.001). Functional impairment was associated with longer hospital length of stay (β = 1.29; P<.001) and worse survival (hazard ratio, 1.73; P<.001)., Conclusions: Hospitalized patients with advanced cancer who had functional impairment experienced a significantly higher symptom burden and worse clinical outcomes compared with those without functional impairment. These findings provide evidence supporting the routine assessment of functional status on hospital admission and using this to inform discharge planning, discussions about prognosis, and the development of interventions addressing patients' symptoms and physical function.

Background: Oncologists often struggle with managing the unique care needs of older adults with cancer. This study sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a transdisciplinary intervention targeting the geriatric-specific (physical function and comorbidity) and palliative care (symptoms and prognostic understanding) needs of older adults with advanced cancer., Methods: Patients aged ≥65 years with incurable gastrointestinal or lung cancer were randomly assigned to a transdisciplinary intervention or usual care. Those in the intervention arm received 2 visits with a geriatrician, who addressed patients' palliative care needs and conducted a geriatric assessment. We predefined the intervention as feasible if >70% of eligible patients enrolled in the study and >75% of eligible patients completed study visits and surveys. At baseline and week 12, we assessed patients' quality of life (QoL), symptoms, and communication confidence. We calculated mean change scores in outcomes and estimated intervention effect sizes (ES; Cohen's d) for changes from baseline to week 12, with 0.2 indicating a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect., Results: From February 2017 through June 2018, we randomized 62 patients (55.9% enrollment rate [most common reason for refusal was feeling too ill]; median age, 72.3 years; cancer types: 56.5% gastrointestinal, 43.5% lung). Among intervention patients, 82.1% attended the first visit and 79.6% attended both. Overall, 89.7% completed all study surveys. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had less QoL decrement (-0.77 vs -3.84; ES = 0.21), reduced number of moderate/severe symptoms (-0.69 vs +1.04; ES = 0.58), and improved communication confidence (+1.06 vs -0.80; ES = 0.38)., Conclusions: In this pilot trial, enrollment exceeded 55%, and >75% of enrollees completed all study visits and surveys. The transdisciplinary intervention targeting older patients' unique care needs showed encouraging ES estimates for enhancing patients' QoL, symptom burden, and communication confidence.

Introduction: Survival prediction for patients with incurable malignancies is invaluable information during end-of-life discussions, as it helps the healthcare team to appropriately recommend treatment options and consider hospice enrolment. Assessment of performance status may differ between different healthcare professionals (HCPs), which could have implications in predicting prognosis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to update a prior systematic review with recent articles, as well as conduct a meta-analysis to quantitatively compare performance status scores., Methods: A literature search was carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from the earliest date until the first week of August 2019. Studies were included if they reported on (1) Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status, and/or Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) and (2) assessment of performance status by multiple HCPs for the same patient sets. The concordance statistics (Kappa, Krippendorff's alpha, Kendall correlation, Spearman rank correlation, Pearson correlation) were extracted into a summary table for narrative review, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for each study and meta-analyzed with a random effects analysis model. Analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 3) by Biostat., Results: Fourteen articles were included, with a cumulative sample size of 2808 patients. The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.787 (95% CI: 0.661, 0.870) for KPS, 0.749 (95% CI: 0.716, 0.779) for PPS, and 0.705 (95% CI: 0.536, 0.819) for ECOG. Four studies compared different tools head-to-head; KPS was favored in three studies. The quality of evidence was moderate, as determined by the GRADE tool., Conclusions: The meta-analysis's Pearson correlation coefficient ranged from 0.705 to 0.787; there is notable correlation of performance status scores, with no one tool statistically superior to others. KPS is, however, descriptively better and favored in head-to-head trials. Future studies could now examine the accuracy of KPS assessment in prognostication and focus on model-building around KPS.

Background: Patient/clinician communication is critical to quality cancer care at the end-of-life (EOL). Yet discussions about systemic therapy discontinuation or hospice as a care option are commonly deferred. Real-time communication about these complex topics has not been evaluated. Palliative care visits may provide useful insight into how communication about EOL care occurs over time. Objective: To explore the nature of discussions about systemic therapy discontinuation and hospice among patients, families, and palliative care clinicians during care for incurable cancer. Design: Qualitative study of palliative care visits. Setting/Subjects: We audiorecorded visits of patients and families who participated in a palliative care trial from diagnosis of incurable lung or noncolorectal gastrointestinal cancer through the course of cancer care ( n  = 30). Measurements: We used thematic analysis to characterize communication patterns in the context of clinical events. Results: Content and tenor of discussions shifted in relation to patient health status. In the absence of acute medical deterioration, discussions addressed hospice broadly as an EOL care option. Candid exchanges between patients and families and their clinicians supported increasing depth and specificity of EOL care communication. As clinicians identified that patients were not tolerating treatment, the clinicians encouraged contemplation about quality-of-life implications of continuing treatment or the possibility that treatment might harm more than help, in anticipation of change in health status. Conclusions: Longitudinal relationships with palliative care clinicians functioned through multiple pathways to support patients and families in making complex EOL care decisions. Results inform models and interventions of communication at the EOL.

Advanced cancer, with its considerable physical symptoms and psychosocial burdens, represents an existential threat and major stressor to patients and their caregivers. In response to such stress, patients and their caregivers use a variety of strategies to manage the disease and related symptoms, such as problem-focused, emotion-focused, meaning-focused, and spiritual/religious coping. The use of such coping strategies is associated with multiple outcomes, including quality of life, symptoms of depression and anxiety, illness understanding, and end-of-life care. Accumulating data demonstrate that early palliative care, integrated with oncology care, not only improves these key outcomes but also enhances coping in patients with advanced cancer. In addition, trials of home-based palliative care interventions have shown promise for improving the ways that patients and family caregivers cope together and manage problems as a dyad. In this article, we describe the nature and correlates of coping in this population, highlight the role of palliative care to promote effective coping strategies in patients and caregivers, and review evidence supporting the beneficial effects of palliative care on patient coping as well as the mechanisms by which improved coping is associated with better outcomes. We conclude with a discussion of the limitations of the state of science, future directions, and best practices on the basis of available evidence.

Background: This study examined factors associated with potentially burdensome end-of-life (EOL) transitions between care settings among older adults with advanced cancer in nursing homes (NHs)., Methods: A retrospective analysis of deceased older NH residents with poor-prognosis solid tumors was conducted with Medicare claims and the Minimum Data Set. A potentially burdensome transition was defined as 2 or more hospitalizations or an intensive care unit admission in the last 90 days of life., Results: Among 34,670 subjects, many had moderate to severe cognitive impairment (53.8%), full dependence in activities of daily living (ADLs; 66.5%), and comorbidities such as congestive heart failure (CHF; 29.3%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (34.1%). Only 56.3% of the patients used hospice at any time in the 90 days before death; 36.0% of the patients experienced a potentially burdensome EOL transition, and this was higher among patients who did not receive hospice (45.4% vs 28.7%; P < .01). In multivariable analyses, full dependence in ADLs (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; P < .01), CHF (OR, 1.48; P < .01), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.28; P < .01) were associated with a higher risk of burdensome EOL transitions. Those with do-not-resuscitate directives (OR, 0.60; P < .01) and impaired cognition (OR, 0.89; P < .01) had lower odds of burdensome EOL transitions., Conclusions: NH residents with advanced cancer have substantial comorbidities and functional impairment, yet more than a third experience potentially burdensome EOL transitions. These findings help to identify a population at risk for poor EOL outcomes in order to target interventions, and they point to the importance of advanced care planning in this population., (© 2019 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Oncologists often struggle with managing the complex issues unique to older adults with cancer, and research is needed to identify patients at risk for poor outcomes., Methods: This study enrolled patients aged ≥70 years within 8 weeks of a diagnosis of incurable gastrointestinal cancer. Patient-reported surveys were used to assess vulnerability (Vulnerable Elders Survey [scores ≥3 indicate a positive screen for vulnerability]), quality of life (QoL; EORTC Quality of Life of Cancer Patients questionnaire [higher scores indicate better QoL]), and symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS; higher scores indicate greater symptom burden] and Geriatric Depression Scale [higher scores indicate greater depression symptoms]). Unplanned hospital visits within 90 days of enrollment and overall survival were evaluated. We used regression models to examine associations among vulnerability, QoL, symptom burden, hospitalizations, and overall survival., Results: Of 132 patients approached, 102 (77.3%) were enrolled (mean [M] ± SD age, 77.25 ± 5.75 years). Nearly half (45.1%) screened positive for vulnerability, and these patients were older (M, 79.45 vs 75.44 years; P=.001) and had more comorbid conditions (M, 2.13 vs 1.34; P=.017) compared with nonvulnerable patients. Vulnerable patients reported worse QoL across all domains (global QoL: M, 53.26 vs 66.82; P=.041; physical QoL: M, 58.95 vs 88.24; P<.001; role QoL: M, 53.99 vs 82.12; P=.001; emotional QoL: M, 73.19 vs 85.76; P=.007; cognitive QoL: M, 79.35 vs 92.73; P=.011; social QoL: M, 59.42 vs 82.42; P<.001), higher symptom burden (ESAS total: M, 31.05 vs 15.00; P<.001), and worse depression score (M, 4.74 vs 2.25; P<.001). Vulnerable patients had a higher risk of unplanned hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.08-5.27; P=.032) and worse overall survival (hazard ratio, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.14-4.48; P=.020)., Conclusions: Older adults with cancer who screen positive as vulnerable experience a higher symptom burden, greater healthcare use, and worse survival. Screening tools to identify vulnerable patients should be integrated into practice to guide clinical care.

Background: Patients with cancer are increasingly prescribed oral therapies, bearing greater responsibility for self-management of treatment adherence and adverse events. We conducted a randomized trial to test the use of a smartphone mobile app to improve symptoms and adherence to oral cancer therapy., Materials and Methods: From February 18, 2015, through December 31, 2016, 181 patients with diverse cancers who were prescribed oral therapy were randomized to receive either the smartphone mobile app or standard care. The mobile app included a medication plan with reminders, a symptom-reporting module, and patient education. Primary outcomes were adherence (per electronic pill caps), symptom burden (per MD Anderson Symptom Inventory), and quality of life (per the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General). Participants also completed self-report measures of medication adherence, anxiety and depression symptoms, social support, quality of care, and healthcare utilization. Linear regression was used to assess intervention effects on adherence and change in self-report outcomes from baseline to week 12, controlling for baseline scores and social support., Results: Study groups did not differ across any outcome measure, with an overall mean adherence of 78.81% (SD, 26.66%) per electronic pill caps. However, moderation analyses showed that intervention effects on the primary adherence measure varied by baseline self-reported adherence and anxiety symptoms. Specifically, adherence rates per electronic pill caps were higher in patients randomized to the mobile app versus standard care within the subsamples of patients who reported baseline adherence problems (mean difference, -22.30%; 95% CI, -42.82 to -1.78; P=.034) and elevated anxiety (mean difference, -16.08%; 95% CI, -31.74 to -0.41; P=.044)., Conclusions: Although the mobile app may not improve outcomes for all patients prescribed oral cancer therapy, the intervention may be beneficial for those with certain risk factors, such as difficulties with adherence or anxiety.

Background: The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of a tailored cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) mobile application (app) to treat anxiety in patients with incurable cancer., Materials and Methods: Patients with incurable cancers ( n = 145) who reported elevated anxiety symptoms at two cancer centers were randomized to receive either the CBT mobile app for anxiety or a mobile health education program (control) delivered via tablet computers, which patients self-administered over 12 weeks. To assess anxiety, depression symptoms, and quality of life (QOL), we used the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A, primary outcome), Clinical Global Impression Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General at baseline and 12 weeks. Analysis of covariance models were calculated to assess intervention effects on patient outcomes., Results: Patients (73.8% female; 91.0% white; mean age = 56.45 years, SD = 11.30) in both study groups reported improvements in anxiety, depression symptoms, and QOL from baseline to postassessment, with no significant differences in any outcome measure between groups. Secondary analyses showed that, among the subgroup of patients with severe baseline anxiety, those randomized to the CBT app had greater improvements on the HAM-A (Mean Difference = 7.44, standard error [SE] = 3.35, p = .037) and HADS-Anxiety Subscale (Mean Difference = 4.44, SE = 1.60, p = .010) compared with the control group., Conclusion: Both the tailored CBT app for anxiety and the health education program were associated with improvements in anxiety, mood, and QOL, but these outcomes did not differ between study groups. The CBT app was more beneficial than health education for patients with severe baseline anxiety., Implications for Practice: A cognitive-behavioral therapy mobile application tailored to treat anxiety in patients with advanced cancer helps improve access to evidence-based supportive care in a convenient, private, and timely manner., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Background: Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) experience increased cancer mortality due to inequities in cancer treatment. Psychiatric care at cancer diagnosis may improve care delivery, yet models for integrating psychiatry and cancer care are lacking. We assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a person-centered collaborative care trial for SMI and cancer., Subjects, Materials, and Methods: We developed the Bridge intervention for patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severe major depression) and cancer. Bridge includes proactive identification of SMI, person-centered care from a psychiatrist and case manager, and collaboration with oncology. We conducted a 12-week, single-group trial in patients with SMI and a new breast, gastrointestinal, lung, or head/neck cancer. We assessed the feasibility of patient identification, enrollment and study completion; evaluated acceptability and perceived benefit with exit interviews with patients, caregivers, and oncology clinicians; and examined change in psychiatric symptoms with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS)., Results: From November 2015 to April 2016, 30/33 eligible patients (90.9%) enrolled, and 25/29 (86.2%) completed assessments at all timepoints, meeting feasibility criteria. Of 24 patients, 23 (95.8%) found meeting with the psychiatrist helpful; 16/19 caregivers (84.2%) shared that Bridge addressed key caregiving challenges. Oncology clinicians evaluated Bridge as "very" or "most" useful for 94.3% of patients. Exit interviews with all participant groups suggested that Bridge fostered patient-clinician trust, increased access to psychiatric treatment, and enabled patients to initiate and complete cancer treatment. Psychiatric symptoms on the BPRS improved from baseline to 12 weeks., Conclusion: Bridge is a feasible and acceptable care delivery model for patients with SMI, their caregivers, and oncology clinicians. Randomized trials are warranted to assess the efficacy of improving cancer outcomes in this underserved population., Implications for Practice: Serious mental illness affects 13 million U.S. adults who experience increased cancer mortality. To improve outcomes, new models of integrated oncology and mental health care are urgently needed. This study found that it was feasible to identify, enroll, and retain patients with serious mental illness and a new cancer in a trial of integrated mental health and cancer care (Bridge). Patients, caregivers, and oncologists reported that Bridge facilitated the initiation and completion of cancer care. Randomized trials are warranted to investigate the impact on cancer outcomes. Trial procedures may inform consent, engagement, and trial retention for patients with mental illness., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Purpose: Patients with cancer often prefer to avoid time in the hospital; however, data are lacking on the prevalence and predictors of potentially avoidable readmissions (PARs) among those with advanced cancer., Methods: We enrolled patients with advanced cancer from September 2, 2014, to November 21, 2014, who had an unplanned hospitalization and assessed their patient-reported symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) at the time of admission. For 1 year after enrollment, we reviewed patients' health records to determine the primary reason for every hospital readmission and we classified readmissions as PARs using adapted Graham's criteria. We examined predictors of PARs using nonlinear mixed-effects models with binomial distribution., Results: We enrolled 200 (86.2%) of 232 patients who were approached. For these 200 patients, we reviewed 277 total hospital readmissions and identified 108 (39.0%) of these as PARs. The most common reasons for PARs were premature discharge from a prior hospitalization (30.6%) and failure of timely follow-up (28.7%). PAR hospitalizations were more likely than non-PAR hospitalizations to experience symptoms as the primary reason for admission (28.7% v 13.0%; P = .001). We found that married patients were less likely to experience PARs (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.57; P < .001) and that those with a higher physical symptom burden were more likely to experience PARs (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.05; P = .012)., Conclusion: We observed that a substantial proportion of hospital readmissions are potentially avoidable and found that patients' symptom burdens predict PARs. These findings underscore the need to assess and address the symptom burden of hospitalized patients with advanced cancer in this highly symptomatic population.

Background: Oral therapies are increasingly common in oncology care. However, data are lacking regarding the physical and psychologic symptoms patients experience, or how these factors relate to medication adherence and quality of life (QoL)., Materials and Methods: From December 2014 through August 2016, a total of 181 adult patients who were prescribed oral targeted therapy or chemotherapy enrolled in a randomized study of adherence and symptom management at Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center. Patients completed baseline assessments of adherence with electronic pill cap, QoL, symptom severity, mood, social support, fatigue, and satisfaction with clinicians and treatment. Relationships among these factors were examined using Pearson product-moment correlations and multivariable linear regression., Results: At baseline, the mean electronic pill cap adherence rate showed that patients took 85.57% of their oral therapy. The most commonly reported cancer-related symptoms were fatigue (88.60%), drowsiness (76.50%), disturbed sleep (68.20%), memory problems (63.10%), and emotional distress (60.80%). Patients who reported greater cancer-related symptom severity had lower adherence (r= -0.20). In a multivariable regression, greater depressive and anxiety symptoms, worse fatigue, less social support, lower satisfaction with clinicians and treatment, and higher symptom burden were associated with worse QoL (F[10, 146]=50.53; adjusted R2=0.77). Anxiety symptoms were most strongly associated with clinically meaningful decrements in QoL (β= -7.10; SE=0.22)., Conclusions: Patients prescribed oral therapies struggle with adherence, and cancer-related symptom burden is high and related to worse adherence and QoL. Given perceptions that oral therapies are less impairing, these data underscore the strong need to address adherence issues, symptom burden, and QoL for these patients.

Background: Oncology clinicians often struggle with managing medications and vaccinations in older adults with cancer. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of integrating pharmacists into the care of older adults with cancer to enhance medication management and vaccination administration., Methods: We randomly assigned patients aged ≥65 years with breast, gastrointestinal, or lung cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy to the pharmacy intervention or usual care. Patients assigned to the intervention met with a pharmacist once during their second or third chemotherapy infusion. We obtained information about patients' medications and vaccinations via patient report and from the electronic health record (EHR) at baseline and week 4. We determined the number of discrepant (difference between patient report and EHR) and potentially inappropriate (Beers Criteria assessed by nonintervention pharmacists blinded to group assignment) medications. We defined the intervention as feasible if >75% of patients enrolled in the study and received the pharmacist visit., Results: From January 17, 2017, to October 27, 2017, we enrolled and randomized 60 patients (80.1% of patients approached). Among those assigned to the intervention, 96.6% received the pharmacist visit. At week 4, intervention patients had higher rates of acquiring vaccinations for pneumonia (27.6% vs. 0.0%, p = .002) and influenza (27.6% vs. 0.0%, p = .002) compared with usual care. Intervention patients had fewer discrepant (5.82 vs. 8.07, p = .094) and potentially inappropriate (3.46 vs. 4.80, p = .069) medications at week 4, although differences were not significant., Conclusion: Integrating pharmacists into the care of older adults with cancer is feasible with encouraging preliminary efficacy for enhancing medication management and improving vaccination rates., Implications for Practice: Results of this study showed the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of an intervention integrating pharmacists into the care of older adults with cancer. Notably, patients assigned to the intervention had fewer discrepant medications and were more likely to acquire vaccinations for pneumonia and influenza. Importantly, this work represents the first randomized controlled trial involving the integration of pharmacists into the outpatient oncologic care of older adults with cancer. In the future, a larger randomized trial is needed to demonstrate the efficacy of this care model to enhance medication management and improve vaccination outcomes for older patients with cancer., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Background: Among patients with cancer, depressive symptoms are associated with worse clinical outcomes, including greater health care utilization. As use of antidepressant medications can improve depressive symptoms, we sought to examine relationships among depressive symptoms, antidepressant medications, and hospital length of stay (LOS) in patients with advanced cancer., Materials and Methods: From September 2014 to May 2016, we prospectively enrolled patients with advanced cancer who had an unplanned hospitalization. We performed chart review to obtain information regarding documented depressive symptoms in the 3 months prior to admission and use of antidepressant medications at the time of admission. We compared differences in hospital LOS by presence or absence of depressive symptoms and used adjusted linear regression to examine if antidepressant medications moderated these outcomes., Results: Of 1,036 patients, 126 (12.2%) had depressive symptoms documented prior to admission, and 288 (27.8%) were taking antidepressant medications at the time of admission. Patients with depressive symptoms experienced longer hospital LOS (7.25 vs. 6.13 days; p = .036). Use of antidepressant medications moderated this relationship; among patients not on antidepressant medications, depressive symptoms were associated with longer hospital LOS (7.88 vs. 6.11 days; p = .025), but among those on antidepressant medications, depressive symptoms were not associated with hospital LOS (6.57 vs. 6.17 days; p = .578)., Conclusion: Documented depressive symptoms prior to hospital admission were associated with longer hospital LOS. This effect was restricted to patients not on antidepressant medications. Future studies are needed to investigate if use of antidepressant medications decreases LOS for patients hospitalized with advanced cancer and the mechanisms by which this may occur., Implications for Practice: This study investigated the prevalence of documented depressive symptoms in patients with advanced cancer in the 3 months prior to an unplanned hospitalization and the prevalence of use of antidepressant medications at time of hospital admission. The relationship of these variables with hospital length of stay was also examined, and it was found that documented depressive symptoms were associated with prolonged hospital length of stay. Interestingly, antidepressant medications moderated the relationship between depressive symptoms and hospital length of stay. These findings support the need to recognize and address depressive symptoms among patients with advanced cancer, with potential implications for optimizing health care utilization., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

Background: Growing evidence demonstrates the benefits of early, integrated palliative care (PC) for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. Yet, data are lacking on the communication patterns within this model of care., Objective: The goals of this study were to describe the content of patient-clinician discussions among patients receiving PC and to compare differences in discussion content between oncologists and PC clinicians., Design: We conducted a qualitative observational analysis., Setting/subjects: We included patients with incurable lung and esophageal cancer enrolled in a randomized trial of early, integrated PC versus usual oncology care. We analyzed 68 audio-recorded clinic visits (34 oncologist visits; 34 PC clinician visits) immediately after patients' (N = 19) first and second cancer progressions. We examined themes of clinician communication, comparing the content and frequency of discussions between oncologists and PC clinicians., Results: Although both oncology and PC clinicians discussed symptom management, medical understanding, and treatment decision making with patients at nearly all postprogression visits, PC clinicians tended to assess patient understanding of the treatment process and prognosis more often than oncologists. PC clinicians addressed patient coping, caregiver experiences and needs, and advance care planning more frequently than oncologists., Conclusion: PC clinicians play a distinct, complementary role to oncologists in providing care for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. PC clinicians tend to assess and elaborate on patient understanding of prognosis and treatment and emphasize effective coping, caregiver needs, and advance care planning. These results illuminate the communication elements by which early, integrated PC may improve patient and caregiver outcomes.

Background: Patients with cancer experience many stressors placing them at risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, yet little is known about factors associated with PTSD symptoms in this population. This study explored relationships among patients' PTSD symptoms, physical and psychological symptom burden, and risk for hospital readmissions., Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with cancer admitted for an unplanned hospitalization from August 2015-April 2017. Upon admission, we assessed patients' PTSD symptoms (Primary Care PTSD Screen), as well as physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) and psychological (Patient Health Questionnaire 4 [PHQ-4]) symptoms. We examined associations between PTSD symptoms and patients' physical and psychological symptom burden using linear regression. We evaluated relationships between PTSD symptoms and unplanned hospital readmissions within 90-days using Cox regression., Results: We enrolled 954 of 1,087 (87.8%) patients approached, and 127 (13.3%) screened positive for PTSD symptoms. The 90-day hospital readmission rate was 38.9%. Younger age, female sex, greater comorbidities, and genitourinary cancer type were associated with higher PTSD scores. Patients' PTSD symptoms were associated with physical symptoms (ESAS physical: B = 3.41; P < .001), the total symptom burden (ESAS total: B = 5.97; P < .001), depression (PHQ-4 depression: B = 0.67; P < .001), and anxiety symptoms (PHQ-4 anxiety: B = 0.71; P < .001). Patients' PTSD symptoms were associated with a lower risk of hospital readmissions (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .001)., Conclusions: A high proportion of hospitalized patients with cancer experience PTSD symptoms, which are associated with a greater physical and psychological symptom burden and a lower risk of hospital readmissions. Interventions to address patients' PTSD symptoms are needed and should account for their physical and psychological symptom burden. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society., (© 2018 American Cancer Society.)

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) represent an increasingly important mechanism for incorporating patients' experiences and perspectives into their care to enhance cancer care delivery and outcomes. In this article, we discuss the importance of integrating PROs into both the clinical and research settings in oncology and highlight potential challenges. Clin Cancer Res; 24(8); 1777-9. ©2018 AACR See related article by Kim et al., p. 1780 ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Prognostic uncertainty is common in advanced cancer and frequently addressed during palliative care consultation, yet we know little about its impact on quality of life (QOL)., Objective: We describe the prevalence and distribution of distress due to prognostic uncertainty among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer before palliative care consultation. We evaluate the association between this type of distress and overall QOL before and after palliative care consultation., Design: Observational cohort study., Setting & Participants: Hospitalized patients with advanced cancer who receive a palliative care consultation at two geographically distant academic medical centers., Measurements: At the time of enrollment, before palliative care consultation, we asked participants: "Over the past two days, how much have you been bothered by uncertainty about what to expect from the course of your illness?" (Not at all/Slightly/Moderately/Quite a Bit/Extremely). We defined responses of "Quite a bit" and "Extremely" to be indicative of substantial distress., Results: Two hundred thirty-six participants completed the baseline assessment. Seventy-seven percent reported being at least moderately bothered by prognostic uncertainty and half reported substantial distress. Compared with others, those who were distressed by prognostic uncertainty (118/236) reported poorer overall QOL before palliative care consultation (mean QOL 3.8 out of 10 vs. 5.3 out of 10, p = < 0.001) and greater improvement in QOL following consultation (Adjusted difference in mean QOL change = 1.1; 95% confidence interval = 0.2, 2.0)., Conclusions: Prognostic uncertainty is a prevalent source of distress among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer at the time of initial palliative care consultation. Distress from prognostic uncertainty is associated with lower levels of preconsultation QOL and with greater pre-post consultation improvement in the QOL.

Purpose Patients with advanced cancer experience potentially burdensome transitions of care after hospitalizations. We examined predictors of discharge location and assessed the relationship between discharge location and survival in this population. Methods We conducted a prospective study of 932 patients with advanced cancer who experienced an unplanned hospitalization between September 2014 and March 2016. Upon admission, we assessed patients' physical symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4). The primary outcome was discharge location (home without hospice, postacute care [PAC], or hospice [any setting]). The secondary outcome was survival. Results Of 932 patients, 726 (77.9%) were discharged home without hospice, 118 (12.7%) were discharged to PAC, and 88 (9.4%) to hospice. Those discharged to PAC and hospice reported high rates of severe symptoms, including dyspnea, constipation, low appetite, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. Using logistic regression, patients discharged to PAC or hospice versus home without hospice were more likely to be older (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.05; P < .001), live alone (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.02; P < .003), have impaired mobility (OR, 5.08; 95% CI, 3.46 to 7.45; P < .001), longer hospital stays (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.20; P < .001), higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System physical symptoms (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.003 to 1.032; P < .017), and higher Patient Health Questionnaire-4 depression symptoms (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.25; P < .027). Patients discharged to hospice rather than PAC were more likely to receive palliative care consultation (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 2.12 to 9.29; P < .001) and have shorter hospital stays (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.91; P < .001). Patients discharged to PAC versus home had lower survival (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.93; P < .001). Conclusion Patients with advanced cancer who were discharged to PAC facilities and hospice had substantial physical and psychological symptom burden, impaired physical function, and inferior survival compared with those discharged to home. These patients may benefit from interventions to enhance their quality of life and care.

Background: Although hospitalized patients with advanced cancer have a low chance of surviving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the processes by which they change their code status from full code to do not resuscitate (DNR) are unknown., Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study on a prospective cohort of hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Two physicians used a consensus-driven medical record review to characterize processes that led to code status order transitions from full code to DNR., Results: In total, 1047 hospitalizations were reviewed among 728 patients. Admitting clinicians did not address code status in 53% of hospitalizations, resulting in code status orders of "presumed full." In total, 275 patients (26.3%) transitioned from full code to DNR, and 48.7% (134 of 275 patients) of those had an order of "presumed full" at admission; however, upon further clarification, the patients expressed that they had wished to be DNR before the hospitalization. We identified 3 additional processes leading to order transition from full code to DNR acute clinical deterioration (15.3%), discontinuation of cancer-directed therapy (17.1%), and education about the potential harms/futility of CPR (15.3%). Compared with discontinuing therapy and education, transitions because of acute clinical deterioration were associated with less patient involvement (P = .002), a shorter time to death (P < .001), and a greater likelihood of inpatient death (P = .005)., Conclusions: One-half of code status order changes among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer were because of full code orders in patients who had a preference for DNR before hospitalization. Transitions due of acute clinical deterioration were associated with less patient engagement and a higher likelihood of inpatient death. Cancer 2017;123:4895-902. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Patients with advanced cancer often experience frequent and prolonged hospitalizations; however, the factors associated with greater health care utilization have not been described. We sought to investigate the relation between patients' physical and psychological symptom burden and health care utilization., Methods: We enrolled patients with advanced cancer and unplanned hospitalizations from September 2014-May 2016. Upon admission, we assessed physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) and psychological symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire 4 [PHQ-4]). We examined the relationship between symptom burden and healthcare utilization using linear regression for hospital length of stay (LOS) and Cox regression for time to first unplanned readmission within 90 days. We adjusted all models for age, sex, marital status, comorbidity, education, time since advanced cancer diagnosis, and cancer type., Results: We enrolled 1,036 of 1,152 (89.9%) consecutive patients approached. Over one-half reported moderate/severe fatigue, poor well being, drowsiness, pain, and lack of appetite. PHQ-4 scores indicated that 28.8% and 28.0% of patients had depression and anxiety symptoms, respectively. The mean hospital LOS was 6.3 days, and the 90-day readmission rate was 43.1%. Physical symptoms (ESAS: unstandardized coefficient [B], 0.06; P < .001), psychological distress (PHQ-4 total: B, 0.11; P = .040), and depression symptoms (PHQ-4 depression: B, 0.22; P = .017) were associated with longer hospital LOS. Physical (ESAS: hazard ratio, 1.01; P < .001), and anxiety symptoms (PHQ-4 anxiety: hazard ratio, 1.06; P = .045) were associated with a higher likelihood for readmission., Conclusions: Hospitalized patients with advanced cancer experience a high symptom burden, which is significantly associated with prolonged hospitalizations and readmissions. Interventions are needed to address the symptom burden of this population to improve health care delivery and utilization. Cancer 2017;123:4720-4727. © 2017 American Cancer Society., (© 2017 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Anxiety and depression are common among patients with acute illness and their families. In oncology, psychosocial services addressing these symptoms are increasingly part of regular practice. Less is known about psychiatric distress among patients with acute neurological injury (ANI) and their family caregivers. To highlight this inequity in psychosocial intervention across medical services, we compared anxiety and depressive symptomatology shortly following diagnosis among patients facing incurable cancer or ANI and their family caregivers., Methods: Recruited from the same hospital, participants were patients within 8 weeks of receiving a diagnosis of incurable cancer (N = 350) and their family caregivers (N = 275; total patient/caregiver dyads = 275) and patients hospitalized in the Neuroscience ICU in the past 2 weeks (N = 81) and their family caregivers (N = 95; total dyads = 75). Participants reported anxiety and depressive symptoms using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Symptomatology was compared across illnesses using independent samples t-tests and multiple regressions controlling for differences in sample demographics., Results: Patients with ANI (M = 6.90) reported greater anxiety symptoms than those with cancer (M = 5.31, p < .001), while caregivers for patients with ANI (M = 5.45) reported greater depressive symptoms than caregivers for patients with cancer (M = 3.81, p < .001). Results remained when controlling for demographic differences between samples., Conclusion: This is the first cross-comparison of psychiatric distress in patients and family caregivers affected by two distinct, life-threatening illnesses early in the illness trajectory. Findings support the priority of addressing psychiatric distress among patients with ANI and their family caregivers, as has been emphasized in the psychosocial oncology field.

Palliative care (PC) concurrent with usual oncology care is now the standard of care that is recommended for any patient with advanced cancer to begin within 8 weeks of diagnosis on the basis of evidence-driven national clinical practice guidelines; however, there are not enough interdisciplinary palliative care teams to provide such care. How and what can an oncology office incorporate into usual care, borrowing the tools used in PC randomized clinical trials (RCTs), to improve care for patients and their caregivers? We reviewed the multiple RCTs for common practical elements and identified methods and techniques that oncologists can use to deliver some parts of concurrent interdisciplinary PC. We recommend the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcomes, including the evaluation of symptoms with such tools as the Edmonton or Memorial Symptom Assessment Scales, spirituality with the FICA Spiritual History Tool or similar questions, and psychosocial distress with the Distress Thermometer. All patients should be assessed for how they prefer to receive information, their current understanding of their situation, and if they have considered some advance care planning. Approximately 1 hour of additional time with the patient is required each month. If the oncologist does not have established ties with spiritual care and social work, he or she should establish these relationships for counseling as required. Caregivers should be asked about coping and support needs. Oncologists can adapt PC techniques to achieve results that are similar to those in the RCTs of PC plus usual care compared with usual care alone. This is comparable to using data from RCTs of trastuzamab or placebo, adopting what was used in the RCTs without modification or dilution.

Purpose Patients' understanding of their illness is key for making informed treatment decisions, yet studies suggest an association between prognostic awareness and worse quality of life (QOL) and mood among patients with advanced cancer. We sought to explore the relationships among prognostic awareness, coping, QOL, and mood in patients with newly diagnosed, incurable cancer. Methods We assessed patients' self-reported health status and treatment goal (Prognosis and Treatment Perceptions Questionnaire), coping (Brief COPE), QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General), and mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) within 8 weeks of incurable lung or GI cancer diagnosis. We used linear regression to examine associations and interaction effects among patients' health status and treatment goal, coping strategies, QOL, and mood. Results Patients who reported a terminally ill health status had worse QOL (unstandardized coefficient [B] = -6.88; P < .001), depression (B = 1.60; P < .001), and anxiety (B = 1.17; P = .007). Patients who reported their oncologist's treatment goal was "to cure my cancer" had better QOL (B = 4.33; P = .03) and less anxiety (B = -1.39; P = .007). We observed interaction effects between self-reported health status and treatment goal and certain coping strategies. Specifically, subgroup analyses showed that greater use of positive reframing was related to better QOL (B = 2.61; P < .001) and less depression (B = -0.78; P < .001) among patients who reported a terminally ill health status. Active coping was associated with better QOL (B = 3.50; P < .001) and less depression (B = -1.01; P < .001) among patients who acknowledged their oncologist's treatment goal was not "to cure my cancer." Conclusion Prognostic awareness is related to worse QOL and mood in patients with newly diagnosed, incurable cancer; however, the use of certain coping strategies may buffer these relationships. Interventions to improve patients' prognostic awareness should seek to cultivate more adaptive coping strategies in order to enhance QOL and mood.

Purpose: Although patients with cancer overwhelming prefer oral to intravenous chemotherapy, little is known about adherence to oral agents. We aimed to identify the rates and correlates of adherence in patients with diverse malignancies., Materials and Methods: Ninety patients with chronic myeloid leukemia or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, or breast cancer enrolled in this prospective, single-group, observational study of medication-taking behaviors. Adherence was measured via self-report and with an electronic pill cap (Medication Event Monitoring System cap). Patients completed surveys regarding symptom distress, mood, quality of life, cancer-specific distress, and satisfaction with clinician communication and treatment at baseline and 12-week follow-up., Results: As measured by the Medication Event Monitoring System, patients took, on average, 89.3% of their prescribed oral chemotherapy over the 12 weeks. One quarter of the sample was less than 90% adherent, and women were more adherent than men (mean difference, 9.59%; SE difference, 4.50%; 95% CI, -18.65 to -0.52; P = .039). Improvements in patient symptom distress (B = -0.79; 95% CI, -1.41 to -0.18), depressive symptoms (B = -1.57; 95% CI, -2.86 to -0.29), quality of life (B = 0.38; 95% CI ,0.07 to 0.68), satisfaction with clinician communication and treatment (B = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.98), and perceived burden to others (B = -1.28; 95% CI, -2.20 to -0.37) were associated with better adherence. In a multivariate model, improved treatment satisfaction (B = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.94) and reduced perceived burden (B = -0.92; 95% CI, -1.76 to -0.09) were the strongest indicators of better adherence., Conclusion: Women and patients who reported increased treatment satisfaction and reduced burden to others were more adherent to oral chemotherapy. Interventions that help patients improve communication with clinicians and reduce burden may optimize oral chemotherapy adherence.

Purpose To determine whether hospice use by patients with cancer is associated with their families' perceptions of patients' symptoms, goal attainment, and quality of end-of-life (EOL) care. Methods We interviewed 2,307 families of deceased patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer who were enrolled in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance study (a multiregional, prospective, observational study) and died by 2011. We used propensity-score matching to compare family-reported outcomes for patients who did and did not receive hospice care, including the presence and relief of common symptoms (ie, pain, dyspnea), concordance with patients' wishes for EOL care and place of death, and quality of EOL care. We also examined associations between hospice length of stay and these outcomes among hospice enrollees. Results In a propensity-score-matched sample of 1,970 individuals, families of patients enrolled in hospice reported more pain in their patient compared with those not enrolled in hospice. However, families of patients enrolled in hospice more often reported that patients received "just the right amount" of pain medicine (80% v 73%; adjusted difference, 7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1 to 12 percentage points) and help with dyspnea (78% v 70%; adjusted difference, 8 percentage points; 95% CI, 2 to 13 percentage points). Families of patients enrolled in hospice also more often reported that patients' EOL wishes were followed (80% v 74%; adjusted difference, 6 percentage points; 95% CI, 2 to 11 percentage points) and "excellent" quality EOL care (57% v 42%; adjusted difference, 15 percentage points; 95% CI, 11 to 20). Families of patients who received > 30 days of hospice care reported the highest quality EOL outcomes. Conclusion Hospice care is associated with better symptom relief, patient-goal attainment, and quality of EOL care. Encouraging earlier and increased hospice enrollment may improve EOL experiences for patients with cancer and their families.