Search

Background: There is limited information regarding the true frequency of nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain. Data to guide patient selection for urine drug testing (UDT) as well as the timing and frequency of ordering UDT are insufficient. This study examined the frequency of abnormal UDT among patients with cancer who underwent random UDT and their characteristics. Methods: Demographic and clinical information for patients with cancer who underwent random UDT were retrospectively reviewed and compared with a historical cohort that underwent targeted UDT. Random UDT was ordered regardless of a patient's risk potential for NMOU. Targeted UDT was ordered on the basis of a physician's estimation of a patient's risk for NMOU. Results: In all, 552 of 573 eligible patients (96%) underwent random UDT. Among these patients, 130 (24%) had 1 or more abnormal results; 38 of the 88 patients (43%) who underwent targeted UDT had 1 or more abnormal results. When marijuana was excluded, 15% of the random group and 37% of the targeted group had abnormal UDT findings (P <.001). It took a shorter time from the initial consultation to detect 1 or more abnormalities with the random test than the targeted test (median, 130 vs 274 days; P =.02). Abnormal random UDT was independently associated with younger age (P <.0001), male sex (P =.03), Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener–Adapted to Include Drugs positivity (P =.001), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System anxiety (P =.01). Conclusions: Approximately 1 in 4 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain at a supportive care clinic who underwent random UDT had 1 or more abnormalities. Random UDT detected abnormalities earlier than the targeted test. These findings suggest that random UDT is justified among patients with cancer pain. Approximately 1 in 4 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain at a supportive care center who underwent random urine drug testing had 1 or more abnormalities. Random urine drug testing detected abnormalities earlier than the targeted test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: Understanding patients' decision control preferences is important in providing quality cancer care. Patients' decisional control preference can be either active (patients prefer to make decisions themselves), shared (collaborative between patient, their physician, and/or family), or passive (patients prefer that the decisions are made by either the physician and/or their family). Aim: To determine the frequency and predictors of passive decision control preferences among advanced cancer patients. We also determined the concordance between actual decision-making and decision control preferences and its association with patient satisfaction. Design: In this cross-sectional survey of advanced cancer patients referred to palliative care across 11 countries, we evaluated sociodemographic variables, Control Preference Scale, and satisfaction with the decisions and care. Results: A total of 1490 participants were evaluable. Shared, active, and passive decision control preferences were 33%, 44%, and 23%, respectively. Passive decision control preferences (odds ratio, p value) was more frequent in India (4.34, <0.001), Jordan (3.41, <0.001), and France (3.27, <0.001). Concordance between the actual decision-making and decision control preferences was highest in the United States (k = 0.74) and lowest in Brazil (0.34). Passive decision control preference was significantly associated with (odds ratio per point, p value) better performance status (0.99/point, 0.017), higher education (0.64, 0.001), and country of origin (Brazil (0.26, <0.0001), Singapore (0.25, 0.0003), South Africa (0.32, 0.0002), and Jordan (2.33, 0.0037)). Conclusion: Passive decision control preferences were less common (23%) than shared and active decision control preference even among developing countries. Significant predictors of passive decision control preferences were performance status, education, and country of origin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: There are limited data on illness understanding and perception of cure among advanced cancer patients around the world. The aim of the study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with inaccurate perception of curability among advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care across the globe. Materials and Methods: Secondary analysis of a study to understand the core concepts in end‐of‐life care among advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care from 11 countries across the world. Advanced cancer patients were surveyed using a Patient Illness Understanding survey and Control Preference Scale. Descriptive statistics and multicovariate logistic regression analysis were performed. Results: Fifty‐five percent (763/1,390) of patients receiving palliative care inaccurately reported that their cancer is curable. The median age was 58, 55% were female, 59% were married or had a partner, 48% were Catholic, and 35% were college educated. Sixty‐eight percent perceived that the goal of therapy was “to get rid of their cancer,” and 47% perceived themselves as “seriously ill.” Multicovariate logistic regression analysis shows that accurate perception of curability was associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, p = .027), higher education (OR 0.37, p < .0001), unemployment status (OR 0.69, p = .02), and being from France (OR 0.26, p < .0001) and South Africa (OR 0.52, p = .034); inaccurate perception of curability was associated with better Karnofsky performance status (OR 1.02 per point, p = .0005), and being from Philippines (OR 15.49, p < .0001), Jordan (OR 8.43, p < .0001), Brazil (OR 2.17, p = .0037), and India (OR 2.47, p = .039). Conclusion: Inaccurate perception of curability in advanced cancer patients is 55% and significantly differs by gender, education, performance status, employment status, and country of origin. Further studies are needed to develop strategies to reduce this misperception of curability in advanced cancer patients. Implications for Practice: The findings of this study indicate that inaccurate perception of curability among advanced cancer patients is 55%. Inaccurate perception of curability significantly differs by gender, education, performance status, employment status, and country of origin. There is great need to facilitate improved patient–physician communication so as to improve health care outcomes and patient satisfaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: There is a limited number of pragmatic studies to evaluate the criteria for referral to outpatient palliative care. The aim of our study was to compare the characteristics, symptoms, and survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) referred (RF) versus not referred (NRF) to a novel embedded same-day rapid-access supportive care clinic (RASCC) and to compare the subgroups among referred patients.Method: We reviewed the medical records of all patients who received treatment at the thoracic oncology clinic for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer between August 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013, who were referred to the RASCC and those who were not referred. An oncology-estimated prognosis of ≤6 months and/or severe symptom distress was employed as criteria for referral to the RASCC.Results: Of 410 eligible patients, 155 (37.8%) were referred to the RASCC. RF patients had significantly higher patient-reported scores for pain, fatigue, lack of appetite, and symptom distress, as well as worse performance status and shorter survival than NRF patients. Among the RF patients, those who were referred early (≤3 months) had significantly worse symptom distress and shorter overall survival than patients who were referred later on. The patients treated by thoracic oncologists who referred a smaller proportion of their patients to the RASCC had significantly worse anxiety, well-being, spiritual pain, and symptom distress than patients treated by those who referred a larger proportion of their patients to the RASCC.Significance Of Results: We found that patients who were referred to the RASCC had higher reported symptom distress and worse survival ratings. Further studies are needed to evaluate the optimal criteria for timely integration of palliative care and oncology care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic placed the issue of resource utilization front and center. Our comprehensive cancer center developed a Goals of Care Rapid Response Team (GOC RRT) to optimize resource utilization balanced with goal-concordant patient care. Primary study objective was to evaluate feasibility of the GOC RRT by describing the frequency of consultations that occurred from those requested. Secondary objectives included adherence to consultation processes in terms of core team member participation and preliminary efficacy in limiting care escalation. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients referred to GOC RRT (3/23/2020–9/30/2020). Analysis was descriptive. Categorical variables were compared with Fisher's exact or Chi-Square tests and continuous variables with Mann-Whitney U tests. A total of 89 patients were referred. Eighty-five percent (76 of 89) underwent a total of 95 consultations. Median (range) patient age was 61 (49, 69) years, 54% (48 of 89) male, 19% (17 of 89) Hispanic, 48% (43/89) White, 73% (65 of 89) married/partnered and 66% (59 of 89) Christian. Hematologic malignancies and solid tumors were evenly balanced (53% [47/89] vs. 47% [42 of 89, P = 0.199]). Most patients (82%, 73 of 89) had metastatic disease or relapsed leukemia. Seven percent (6 of 89) had confirmed COVID-19. Sixty-nine percent (61 of 89) died during the index hospitalization. There was no statistically significant difference in demographic or clinical characteristics among groups (no consultation, 1 consultation, >1 consultation). Core team members were present at 64% (61 of 95) of consultations. Care limitation occurred in 74% (56 of 76) of patients. GOC RRT consultations were feasible and associated with care limitation. Adherence to core team participation was fair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Data indicates that clinicians might be under-prescribing opioids for patients with chronic cancer pain, and this could impact adequate chronic pain management. Few studies have sought to understand healthcare provider (HCP) perceptions and practices regarding the prescription of opioids for chronic pain. We assessed HCP perceptions and practices regarding opioid prescription for patients with chronic pain since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted among 186 HCPs who attended an opioid educational event in April 2021 and 2022., Results: 61/143(44%) opioid prescribers reported reluctance to prescribe opioids for chronic pain. In a multivariate logistic model, younger participants (log OR -0.04, 95% CI: -0.085, -0.004; p = 0.033) and pain medicine clinicians (log OR -1.89, CI: -3.931, -0.286; p = 0.034) were less reluctant, whereas providers who worry about non-medical opioid use (NMOU) were more reluctant to prescribe opioids (log OR 1.58 95% CI: 0.77-2.43; p < 0.001). 53/143(37%) respondents had experienced increased challenges regarding opioid dispensing at pharmacies, and 84/179(47%) reported similar experience by their patients. 54/178(30%) HCPs were aware of opioid-related harmful incidents to patients or their families, including incidents attributed to opioid misuse by a household or family member., Conclusion: A significant number of opioid prescribers were reluctant to prescribe opioids for patients with chronic pain. Many reported challenges regarding dispensing of opioids at the pharmacies. These may be unintended consequences of policies to address the opioid crisis. Future measures should focus on addressing regulatory barriers without undermining the gains already made to combat the opioid crisis., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: None

Objectives: The Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye opener- Adapted to Include Drugs (CAGE-AID) questionnaire (CA) is a validated screening tool used to assess risk for nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) in patients receiving opioids for cancer pain. Data on consistencies and variations in responses to the CA between different clinical settings are lacking. We evaluated the frequency and consistency in scoring of the CA among patients seen between the first inpatient consult (T1) and the first outpatient follow-up (T2) visits., Methods: A retrospective chart review of 333 consecutive patients seen at both T1 and T2 within 3 months between August 2016 and March 2017 was reviewed., Results: Median age was 58 years (range, 18-87 years); 53% were female. CA was completed for 88% of patients at T1 and 94% at T2. Of these, 10% and 13% were CAGE-AID positive, respectively. CA score changed from negative to positive in 4% and from positive to negative in 1% of patients between T1 and T2. Kappa coefficient for agreement of CA between T1 and T2 was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.62-0.86, p  = 0.02)., Significant of Results: Completion rate and consistency of patient responses to the CA were high irrespective of clinical setting. Of these patients, 10% and 13% were CA positive which is suggestive of high risk for NMOU. Further studies are needed to evaluate ways to ensure more consistency in the completion of the CA and enhance its utilization in routine clinical practice.

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

Background: Despite the high frequency, severity, and effects of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer, limited treatment options are available. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of oral Panax ginseng extract (PG) and placebo on CRF. Secondary objectives were to determine the effects of PG on QoL, mood, and function. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CRF ≥4/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were eligible. Based on a pilot study, we randomized patients to receive either 400 mg of standardized PG twice daily or a matching placebo for 28 days. The primary end point was change in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) subscale from baseline to day 29. Results: Of 127 patients, 112 (88.2%) were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F subscale scores at baseline, day 15, and day 29 were 22.4 (10.1), 29.9 (10.6), and 30.1 (11.6) for PG ( P <.001), and 24.0 (9.4), 30.0 (10.1), and 30.4 (11.5) for placebo ( P <.001). Mean (SD) improvement in the FACIT-F subscale at day 29 was not significantly different in the PG than in the placebo group (7.5 [12.7] vs 6.5 [9.9]; P =.67). QoL, anxiety, depression, symptoms, and functional scores were not significantly different between the PG and placebo groups. Improvement in the FACIT-F subscale correlated with baseline scores ( P =.0005), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale results ( P =.032), and sex ( P =.023). There were fewer any-grade toxicities in the PG versus placebo group (28/63 vs 33/64; P =.024). Conclusions: Both PG and placebo result in significant improvement in CRF. PG was not significantly superior to placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. There is no justification to recommend the use of PG for CRF. Further studies are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375114., (Copyright © 2017 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network.)