Toby C. Campbell

Management of Chronic Pain in Survivors of Adult Cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

PURPOSE To provide evidence-based guidance on the optimum management of chronic pain in adult cancer survivors. METHODS An ASCO-convened expert panel conducted a systematic literature search of studies investigating chronic pain management in cancer survivors. Outcomes of interest included symptom relief, pain intensity, quality of life, functional outcomes, adverse events, misuse or diversion, and risk assessment or mitigation. RESULTS A total of 63 studies met eligibility criteria and compose the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Studies tended to be heterogeneous in terms of quality, size, and populations. Primary outcomes also varied across the studies, and in most cases, were not directly comparable because of different outcomes, measurements, and instruments used at different time points. Because of a paucity of high-quality evidence, many recommendations are based on expert consensus. RECOMMENDATIONS Clinicians should screen for pain at each encounter. Recurrent disease, second malignancy, or late-onset treatment effects in any patient who reports new-onset pain should be evaluated, treated, and monitored. Clinicians should determine the need for other health professionals to provide comprehensive pain management care in patients with complex needs. Systemic nonopioid analgesics and adjuvant analgesics may be prescribed to relieve chronic pain and/or to improve function. Clinicians may prescribe a trial of opioids in carefully selected patients with cancer who do not respond to more conservative management and who continue to experience distress or functional impairment. Risks of adverse effects of opioids should be assessed. Clinicians should clearly understand terminology such as tolerance, dependence, abuse, and addiction as it relates to the use of opioids and should incorporate universal precautions to minimize abuse, addiction, and adverse consequences. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/chronic-pain-guideline and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki.

Inpatient Hospitalization of Oncology Patients: Are We Missing an Opportunity for End-of-Life Care?

INTRODUCTION Despite advances in the care of patients with cancer over the last 10 years, cancer remains the second leading cause of death in the United States. Many patients receive aggressive, in-hospital end-of-life care at high cost. There are few data on outcomes after unplanned hospitalization of patients with metastatic cancer. METHODS In 2000 and 2010, data were collected on admissions, interventions, and survival for patients admitted to an academic inpatient medical oncology service. RESULTS The 2000 survey included 191 admissions of 151 unique patients. The 2010 survey assessed 149 admissions of 119 patients. Lung, GI, and breast cancers were the most common cancer diagnoses. In the 2010 assessment, pain was the most common chief complaint, accounting for 28%. Although symptoms were the dominant reason for admission in 2010, procedures and imaging were common in both surveys. The median survival of patients after discharge was 4.7 months in 2000 and 3.4 months in 2010. Despite poor survival in this patient population, hospice was recommended in only 23% and 24% of patients in 2000 and 2010, respectively. Seventy percent of patients were discharged home without additional services. CONCLUSION On the basis of our data, an unscheduled hospitalization for a patient with advanced cancer strongly predicts a median survival of fewer than 6 months. We believe that hospital admission represents an opportunity to commence and/or consolidate appropriate palliative care services and end-of-life care.

An eHealth system supporting palliative care for patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized trial

In this study, the authors examined the effectiveness of an online support system (Comprehensive Health Enhancement Support System [CHESS]) versus the Internet in relieving physical symptom distress in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Nuclear EGFR protein expression predicts poor survival in early stage non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION Nuclear EGFR (nEGFR) has been identified in various human tumor tissues, including cancers of the breast, ovary, oropharynx, and esophagus, and has predicted poor patient outcomes. We sought to determine if protein expression of nEGFR is prognostic in early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Resected stages I and II NSCLC specimens were evaluated for nEGFR protein expression using immunohistochemistry (IHC). Cases with at least one replicate core containing ≥5% of tumor cells demonstrating strong dot-like nucleolar EGFR expression were scored as nEGFR positive. RESULTS Twenty-three (26.1% of the population) of 88 resected specimens stained positively for nEGFR. Nuclear EGFR protein expression was associated with higher disease stage (45.5% of stage II vs. 14.5% of stage I; p = 0.023), histology (41.7% in squamous cell carcinoma vs. 17.1% in adenocarcinoma; p = 0.028), shorter progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS 8.7 months [95% CI 5.1-10.7 mo] for nEGFR positive vs. 14.5 months [95% CI 9.5-17.4 mo] for nEGFR negative; hazard ratio (HR) of 1.89 [95% CI 1.15-3.10]; p = 0.011), and shorter overall survival (OS) (median OS 14.1 months [95% CI 10.3-22.7 mo] for nEGFR positive vs. 23.4 months [95% CI 20.1-29.4 mo] for nEGFR negative; HR of 1.83 [95% CI 1.12-2.99]; p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS Expression of nEGFR protein was associated with higher stage and squamous cell histology, and predicted shorter PFS and OS, in this patient cohort. Nuclear EGFR serves as a useful independent prognostic variable and as a potential therapeutic target in NSCLC.

Comparison of weekly versus every 3 weeks paclitaxel in the treatment of advanced solid tumors: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Paclitaxel is commonly given as a 3-h infusion every 3 weeks for a variety of malignancies. Several randomized clinical trials comparing weekly paclitaxel with Q3-week (Q3W) have produced mixed results in terms of efficacy and toxicity creating controversy about the ideal dose and schedule. METHODS A literature search using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical oncology from 1995 to 2011 was performed. We included all published and registered RTCs for advanced solid tumors which compared weekly paclitaxel with Q3W. Primary dependent variables--grade 3, 4 neutropenia rates and grade 3 sensory neuropathy rates--were analyzed for all cancer types. Secondary dependent variables--hazard ratios for survival and response rates--were analyzed for each cancer type. Moderators of cancer types, ethnicity, and paclitaxel dose ratio were analyzed for primary dependent variables. RESULTS Ten trials were included. The summary effects of the meta-analysis revealed less grade 3, 4 neutropenia (odds ratio: 0.49, p=0.0023) and a trend towards less grade 3 sensory neuropathy (odds ratio: 0.54, p=0.092) with weekly paclitaxel compared with Q3W. Moderator analysis by meta-regression revealed that paclitaxel dose ratios have a significantly positive correlation with rates of G3/4 neutropenia and sensory neuropathy. In the five NSCLC (non small cell lung cancer) trials, the summary effect revealed a better response rate with weekly paclitaxel (odds ratio: 1.24, p=0.042). CONCLUSION Weekly paclitaxel has a favorable toxicity profile compared to the current standard of Q3W paclitaxel.

“Best Case/Worst Case”: Qualitative Evaluation of a Novel Communication Tool for Difficult in‐the‐Moment Surgical Decisions

To evaluate a communication tool called “Best Case/Worst Case” (BC/WC) based on an established conceptual model of shared decision‐making.

Constructing High-Stakes Surgical Decisions: It's Better to Die Trying

OBJECTIVE To explore high-stakes surgical decision making from the perspective of seniors and surgeons. BACKGROUND A majority of older chronically ill patients would decline a low-risk procedure if the outcome was severe functional impairment. However, 25% of Medicare beneficiaries have surgery in their last 3 months of life, which may be inconsistent with their preferences. How patients make decisions to have surgery may contribute to this problem of unwanted care. METHODS We convened 4 focus groups at senior centers and 2 groups of surgeons in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where we showed a video about a decision regarding a choice between surgery and palliative care. We used qualitative content analysis to identify themes about communication and explanatory models for end-of-life treatment decisions. RESULTS Seniors (n = 37) and surgeons (n = 17) agreed that maximizing quality of life should guide treatment decisions for older patients. However, when faced with an acute choice between surgery and palliative care, seniors viewed this either as a choice between life and death or a decision about how to die. Although surgeons agreed that very frail patients should not have surgery, they held conflicting views about presenting treatment options. CONCLUSIONS Seniors and surgeons highly value quality of life, but this notion is difficult to incorporate in acute surgical decisions. Some seniors use these values to consider a choice between surgery and palliative care, whereas others view this as a simple choice between life and death. Surgeons acknowledge challenges framing decisions and describe a clinical momentum that promotes surgical intervention.

A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions best case/worst case

Importance Although many older adults prefer to avoid burdensome interventions with limited ability to preserve their functional status, aggressive treatments, including surgery, are common near the end of life. Shared decision making is critical to achieve value-concordant treatment decisions and minimize unwanted care. However, communication in the acute inpatient setting is challenging. Objective To evaluate the proof of concept of an intervention to teach surgeons to use the Best Case/Worst Case framework as a strategy to change surgeon communication and promote shared decision making during high-stakes surgical decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants Our prospective pre-post study was conducted from June 2014 to August 2015, and data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach. The data were drawn from decision-making conversations between 32 older inpatients with an acute nonemergent surgical problem, 30 family members, and 25 surgeons at 1 tertiary care hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. Interventions A 2-hour training session to teach each study-enrolled surgeon to use the Best Case/Worst Case communication framework. Main Outcomes and Measures We scored conversation transcripts using OPTION 5, an observer measure of shared decision making, and used qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns in conversation structure, description of outcomes, and deliberation over treatment alternatives. Results The study participants were patients aged 68 to 95 years (n = 32), 44% of whom had 5 or more comorbid conditions; family members of patients (n = 30); and surgeons (n = 17). The median OPTION 5 score improved from 41 preintervention (interquartile range, 26-66) to 74 after Best Case/Worst Case training (interquartile range, 60-81). Before training, surgeons described the patient’s problem in conjunction with an operative solution, directed deliberation over options, listed discrete procedural risks, and did not integrate preferences into a treatment recommendation. After training, surgeons using Best Case/Worst Case clearly presented a choice between treatments, described a range of postoperative trajectories including functional decline, and involved patients and families in deliberation. Conclusions and Relevance Using the Best Case/Worst Case framework changed surgeon communication by shifting the focus of decision-making conversations from an isolated surgical problem to a discussion about treatment alternatives and outcomes. This intervention can help surgeons structure challenging conversations to promote shared decision making in the acute setting.

Reirradiation for Locoregionally Recurrent Lung Cancer Outcomes in Small Cell and Non–Small Cell Lung Carcinoma

Objectives:To our knowledge this is the largest report analyzing outcomes for reirradiation (reRT) for locoregionally recurrent lung cancer, and the first to assess thoracic reRT outcomes in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Methods:Forty-eight patients (11 SCLC, 37 non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC]) receiving reRT to the thorax were identified; 44 (92%) received reRT by intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Palliative responses, survival outcomes, and prognostic factors were analyzed. Results:NSCLC patients received a median of 30 Gy in a median of 10 fractions, whereas SCLC patients received a median of 37.5 Gy in a median of 15 fractions. Median survival for the entire cohort from reRT was 4.2 months. Median survival for NSCLC patients was 5.1 months, versus 3.1 months for the SCLC patients (P=0.15). In NSCLC patients, multivariate analysis demonstrated that Karnofsky performance status≥80 and higher radiation dose were associated with improved survival following reRT, and 75% of patients with symptoms experienced palliative benefit. In SCLC, 4 patients treated with the intent of life prolongation for radiographic recurrence had a median survival of 11.7 months. However, acute toxicities and new disease symptoms limited the duration of palliative benefit in the 7 symptomatic SCLC patients to 0.5 months. Conclusions:ReRT to the thorax for locoregionally recurrent NSCLC can provide palliative benefit, and a small subset of patients may experience long-term survival. Select SCLC patients may experience meaningful survival prolongation after reRT, but reRT for patients with symptomatic recurrence and/or extrathoracic disease did not offer meaningful survival or durable symptom benefit.

Palliative care, version 2.2017: Featured updates to the NCCN guidelines

The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize and provide context for the updated guidelines recommendations regarding hospice and end-of-life (EOL) care. Updates for 2017 include revisions to and restructuring of the algorithms that address important EOL concerns. These recommendations were revised to provide clearer guidance for oncologists as they care for patients with cancer who are approaching the transition to EOL care. Recommendations for interventions and reassessment based on estimated life expectancy were streamlined and reprioritized to promote hospice referrals and improved EOL care.