Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Supportive and Palliative Care Referral Among Hematologic and Solid Tumor Oncology Specialists

Background.

Palliative care (PC) referrals are often delayed for patients with hematologic malignancies. We examined the differences in attitudes and beliefs toward PC referral between hematologic and solid tumor specialists and how their perception changed with use of the service name “supportive care” (SC).

Materials and Methods.

We randomly surveyed 120 hematologic and 120 solid tumor oncology specialists at our tertiary care cancer center to examine their attitudes and beliefs toward PC and SC referral.

Results.

Of the 240 specialists, 182 (76%) responded. Compared with solid tumor specialists, hematologic specialists were less likely to report that they would refer symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed cancer to PC (solid tumor, 43% vs. hematology, 21%; p = .002). A significantly greater proportion of specialists expressed that they would refer a patient with newly diagnosed cancer to SC than PC (solid tumor specialists: SC, 81% vs. PC, 43%; p < .001; hematology specialists: SC, 66% vs. PC, 21%; p < .001). The specialists perceived that PC was more likely than SC to be a barrier for referral (PC, 36% vs. SC, 3%; p < .001), to be synonymous with hospice (PC, 53% vs. SC, 6%; p < .001), to decrease hope (PC, 58% vs. SC, 8%; p < .001), and to be less appropriate for treatment of chemotherapy side effects (PC, 64% vs. SC, 19%; p < .001). On multivariate analysis, female clinicians (odds ratio [OR], 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-15.2; p = .02) and the perception that PC is a barrier for referral (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2-7.6; p = .02) were associated with PC referral if the service name “SC” was used.

Conclusion.

Hematologic specialists were less likely to refer patients early in the disease trajectory and were conducive to referral with the service name SC instead of PC.

Implications for Practice:

The present survey of oncology specialists found that hematologic specialists were less likely than solid tumor specialists to report that they would refer symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed cancer to palliative care. However, both groups were significantly more willing to refer patients early in the disease trajectory if the service name “supportive care” were used instead of “palliative care.” These findings suggest that rebranding might help to overcome the stigma associated with palliative care and improve patient access to palliative care services.     

Recommendations for Palliative and Hospice Care in NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer

BackgroundIntegration of specialist palliative care into routine oncologic care improves patients’ quality of life and survival. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer treatment guidelines are instrumental in standardizing cancer care, yet it is unclear how palliative and hospice care are integrated in these guidelines. In this study, we examined the frequency of occurrence of “palliative care” and “hospice care” in NCCN guidelines and compared between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines.Materials and MethodsWe reviewed all 53 updated NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer. We documented the frequency of occurrence of “palliative care” and “hospice care,” the definitions for these terms if available, and the recommended timing for these services.ResultsWe identified a total of 37 solid tumor and 16 hematologic malignancy guidelines. Palliative care was mentioned in 30 (57%) guidelines (24 solid tumor, 6 hematologic). Palliative care was mentioned more frequently in solid tumor than hematologic guidelines (median, 2 vs. 0; p = .04). Among the guidelines that included palliative care in the treatment recommendation, 25 (83%) only referred to NCCN palliative care guideline. Specialist palliative care referral was specifically mentioned in 5 of 30 (17%) guidelines. Only 14 of 24 (58%) solid tumor guidelines and 2 of 6 (33%) hematologic guidelines recommended palliative care in the front line setting for advanced malignancy. Few guidelines (n = 3/53, 6%) mentioned hospice care.Conclusion“Palliative care” was absent in almost half of NCCN cancer treatment guidelines and was rarely discussed in guidelines for hematologic malignancies. Our findings underscored opportunities to standardize timely palliative care access across NCCN guidelines.Implications for PracticeIntegration of specialist palliative care into routine oncologic care is associated with improved patient outcomes. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology have an important role to standardize palliative care involvement for cancer patients. It is unclear how often palliative care referral is recommended in these guidelines. In this study involving 53 NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer, the researchers found that palliative care was not mentioned in over 40% of NCCN guidelines and was rarely discussed in guidelines for hematologic malignancies. These findings underscored opportunities to standardize timely palliative care access across NCCN guidelines.     

Implementation of supportive care and best supportive care interventions in clinical trials enrolling patients with cancer

BackgroundWith the growing and evolving role of palliative care in oncology, we examined how supportive care (SC) and best supportive care (BSC) are implemented in clinical trials when used as a comparison treatment arm.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of the literature for clinical trials published between 1980 and 2012 in which systemic anticancer therapy was compared with an SC-only arm and compared SC implementation with World Health Organization (WHO) published guidelines.ResultsOur search identified 189 articles, 73 of which met our inclusion criteria with the following cancer types: 29 lung, 7 colorectal, 6 pancreatic, 5 gastric and 26 others. Fifty-five studies (75%) provided some definition of SC, and 48 studies (66%) used the term BSC. Twenty-one of the 55 studies that provided a definition described the use of palliative therapies as being ‘at the discretion of the treating physician’ without standardization. Only two studies provided SC that incorporated routine physical, psychological and social assessments including rapid referral to SC specialists. SC interventions most commonly included analgesics (47%) and radiotherapy (44%). Trials using the term BSC versus SC were more likely to include blood transfusions (P = 0.002) and antibiotics (P = 0.033), but less likely to include steroids (P = 0.05) and palliative specialists (P = 0.047).ConclusionsThe implementation of SC in clinical trials in this systematic review is highly variable. The vast majority of the studies did not meet the WHO guidelines on SC because palliative care therapies were not recommended or integrated into care. Future clinical trials utilizing a SC intervention arm should define these interventions in a standardized approach that meets current guidelines such as the WHO recommendations.     

Impact of early access to a palliative/supportive care intervention on pain management in patients with cancer

BackgroundNo study has so far addressed whether differences do exist in the management of cancer pain between patients receiving usual care by primary specialists and those receiving early palliative/supportive intervention.Patients and methodsA multicentre cross-sectional study in 32 Italian Hospitals has included 1450 patients, receiving analgesic therapy for cancer pain: 602 with access to primary specialist alone (standard care, SC) and 848 with early access to a palliative/supportive care (ePSC) team, concomitant with primary oncology care.ResultsStatistically significant differences in the analgesic drug administration according to care model have been evident: non-opioids were more frequently used in SC (9.5 % versus 2 % ; P < 0.001), while strong opioids in ePSC group (80 % versus 63 % ; P < 0.001). The number of patients with severe pain was lower in ePSC compared with SC group (31 % versus 17 % ; P < 0.001). Results of multivariate analysis have shown that ePSC integrated with primary oncologic care (relative risk 0.69; 95 % confidence interval 0.48–0.99; P = 0.045) was an independent factor associated with a 31 % reduced risk of suffering from severe pain.ConclusionsAn ePSC team provides the most effective standard of analgesic therapy for cancer pain. A randomized clinical trial is needed to confirm these findings.     

Biomarker testing and time to treatment decision in patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer

BackgroundTesting for EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangement has become standard in managing advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, many institutions in Europe, North America and other world regions continue to face a common challenge of facilitating timely molecular testing with rapid result turnaround time. We assessed the prevalence of biomarker testing for advanced NSCLC patients and whether testing affected the timeliness of treatment decisions.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of a random sample of one-quarter of all patients with advanced NSCLC referred to the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2013.ResultsOf 300 patients reviewed, 175 seen by medical oncology had nonsquamous NSCLC, 72% of whom had biomarker testing carried out. Patients tested for biomarkers were more likely to be female (47% versus 21%, P = 0.002), Asian (27% versus 6%, P = 0.005) and never smokers (42% versus 8%, P < 0.0001). Only 21% of patients with biomarker testing had results available at their initial oncology consultation. This group had a shorter median time from consultation to treatment decision (0 versus 22 days, P = 0.0008) and time to treatment start (16 versus 29, P = 0.004). Thirteen percent underwent repeat biopsy for molecular testing after the initial consultation. Of those with positive EGFR or ALK results, 19% started chemotherapy before biomarker results became available.ConclusionsAwaiting biomarker testing results can delay treatment decisions and treatment initiation for patients with advanced NSCLC. This may be avoided by incorporating reflex biomarker testing into diagnostic algorithms for NSCLC at the level of the pathologist, and further education of specialists involved in obtaining diagnostic cancer specimens to ensure they are sufficient for molecular testing.     

Perspectives of hematology oncology clinicians about integrating palliative care in oncology

Patients with hematologic malignancies receive palliative care (pc) less frequently and later than patients with solid tumours. We compared survey responses of hematology oncology clinicians with other oncology clinicians to better understand their challenges with providing primary pc or using secondary pc. Patients’ negative perceptions of pc and limited time or competing priorities were challenges for all clinicians. Compared with other oncology clinicians, more hematology oncology clinicians perceived pc referral criteria as too restrictive (40% vs. 22%, p = 0.021) and anticipated that integrating pc supports into their practice would require substantial change (53% vs. 28%, p = 0.014). This study highlights barriers that may need targeted interventions to better integrate pc into the care of patients with hematologic malignancies.     

Interconversion of three measures of performance status: An empirical analysis

PurposeTo construct empirically a conversion table to convert performance status scores among the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) measures, using a large sample of patients with advanced cancer.MethodsSeven physicians completed assessments on 1385 consecutive patients attending an oncology palliative care clinic, or admitted to an acute cancer palliative care unit. The three measures were distributed as a questionnaire package; the order in which they were presented was randomly assigned for each week. Scales were compared using the hit rate and the weighted kappa coefficient (κ_w). The KPS and PPS were compared directly; for comparisons of either scale with the ECOG, all 70 possible categorisations of KPS and PPS were computed. An ‘ideal’ categorisation was selected based on maximisation of both statistical methods.ResultsThe KPS and PPS matched in 1209 out of 1385 assessments (hit rate 87%; κ_w 0.97). For both the KPS and the PPS, the categorisation of 100 (ECOG 0), 80–90 (1), 60–70 (2), 40–50 (3), 10–30 (4) had the highest hit rate (75%), and the second highest κ_w (0.84, p < 0.0001). One other combination had a slightly higher κ_w (0.85 for both KPS and PPS), but a lower hit rate (73% for KPS, 72% for PPS).ConclusionsWe have derived empirically a conversion scale among the ECOG, KPS and PPS scales. The proposed scale provides a means of translating amongst these measures, which may improve accuracy of communication about performance status amongst oncology clinicians and researchers.     

Development of criteria for identifying potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults with cancer receiving palliative care (PIP-CPC)

ObjectivesTo develop criteria for identifying potentially inappropriate prescribing of medications for symptomatic relief in older adults (≥65 years) with cancer who are receiving palliative care and have an estimated life expectancy of <1 year.Materials and methodsA two-round Delphi exercise was conducted using web-based questionnaires. A panel of 18 expert stakeholders with expertise in palliative care, oncology and/or geriatric medicine across Ireland and the United Kingdom rated their level of agreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale and had the option of adding free-text comments throughout the questionnaire. A priori decision rules were used to accept or reject criteria.ResultsTwenty-eight criteria were presented in Round 1. Group consensus was achieved for 15 criteria which were included in the final set of criteria. Following a review of the panel's ratings and additional comments for the remaining 13 criteria, four criteria were removed from Round 2. Group consensus was achieved for all nine criteria included in Round 2. The final set comprised 24 criteria relating to: anorexia-cachexia (n = 1); anxiety (n = 2); constipation (n = 5); delirium (n = 1); depression (n = 3); diarrhoea (n = 1); dyspnoea/breathlessness (n = 1); fatigue (n = 2); insomnia (n = 2); nausea and vomiting (n = 2); pain (n = 3); duplicate drug classes (n = 1).ConclusionA consensus-agreed set of prescribing criteria has been developed for identifying potentially inappropriate prescribing of medications for symptomatic relief in older adults with cancer who are receiving palliative care and have an estimated life expectancy of less than one year. Future studies should examine the application and validity of these criteria.     

Timing of Palliative Care Referral Before and After Evidence from Trials Supporting Early Palliative Care

BackgroundEvidence from randomized controlled trials has demonstrated benefits in quality of life outcomes from early palliative care concurrent with standard oncology care in patients with advanced cancer. We hypothesized that there would be earlier referral to outpatient palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center following this evidence.Materials and MethodsAdministrative databases were reviewed for two cohorts of patients: the pre‐evidence cohort was seen in outpatient palliative care between June and November 2006, and the post‐evidence cohort was seen between June and November 2015. Timing of referral was categorized, according to time from referral to death, as early (>12 months), intermediate (>6 months to 12 months), and late (≤6 months from referral to death). Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were used to determine demographic and medical factors associated with timing of referral.ResultsLate referrals decreased from 68.8% pre‐evidence to 44.8% post‐evidence; early referrals increased from 13.4% to 31.1% (p < .0001). The median time from palliative care referral to death increased from 3.5 to 7.0 months (p < .0001); time from diagnosis to referral was also reduced (p < .05). On multivariable regression analysis, earlier referral to palliative care was associated with post‐evidence group (p < .0001), adjusting for shorter time since diagnosis (p < .0001), referral for pain and symptom management (p = .002), and patient sex (p = .04). Late referrals were reduced to <50% in the breast, gynecological, genitourinary, lung, and gastrointestinal tumor sites.ConclusionsFollowing robust evidence from trials supporting early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer, patients were referred substantially earlier to outpatient palliative care.Implications for PracticeFollowing published evidence demonstrating the benefit of early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer, there was a substantial increase in early referrals to outpatient palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center. The increase in early referrals occurred mainly in tumor sites that have been included in trials of early palliative care. These results indicate that oncologists’ referral practices can change if positive consequences of earlier referral are demonstrated. Future research should focus on demonstrating benefits of early palliative care for tumor sites that have tended to be omitted from early palliative care trials.     

A multicenter DeCOG study on predictors of vemurafenib therapy outcome in melanoma: pretreatment impacts survival

This multicenter retrospective study investigated clinical characteristics as predictors of the outcome of treatment with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib in metastatic melanoma. Besides patient's overall performance status, serum LDH, age, and gender, the type of pretreatment was found to strongly impact therapy outcome.BackgroundKinase inhibitors targeting the BRAF V600 mutation have become standard in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. Albeit in wide clinical use, the patterns associated with therapy outcome are not fully elucidated. The present study was aimed to identify predictive factors of therapy response and survival under the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib.Patients and methodsThis multicenter retrospective study analyzed patient, tumor, and pretreatment characteristics collected in BRAF V600-mutated stage IV melanoma patients before single-agent therapy with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib.ResultsA total of 300 patients from 14 centers were included into this study with a median follow-up time of 13.0 months. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.1 months; median overall survival (OS) was 7.6 months. Best response under vemurafenib was associated with serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH; ≤ versus >upper normal limit;P = 0.0000001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) overall performance status (OPS) (0 versus ≥1;P = 0.00089), and BRAF mutation subtype (V600E versus V600K;P = 0.016). Multivariate analysis identified ECOG OPS ≥1 [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.88;P = 0.00005], immunotherapy pretreatment (HR = 0.53;P = 0.0067), elevated serum LDH (HR = 1.45;P = 0.012), age >55 years (HR = 0.72;P = 0.019), and chemotherapy pretreatment (HR = 1.39;P = 0.036) as independent predictors of PFS. For OS, elevated serum LDH (HR = 1.99;P = 0.00012), ECOG OPS ≥1 (HR = 1.90;P = 0.00063), age >55 years (HR = 0.65;P = 0.011), kinase inhibitor pretreatment (HR = 1.86;P = 0.014), immunotherapy pretreatment (HR = 0.57;P = 0.025), chemotherapy pretreatment (HR = 2.17;P = 0.039), and male gender (HR = 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.50–0.98;P = 0.039) were found as predictors.ConclusionOur data demonstrate that the type of pretreatment strongly influences the outcome of vemurafenib therapy, with a precedent immunotherapy showing a positive, and a prior chemotherapy and kinase inhibitors showing a negative impact on survival, respectively. Moreover, we show that the patient's OPS, serum LDH, age, and gender independently impact vemurafenib therapy outcome. These findings should be taken into account for the future design of therapy sequencing in BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma patients.     

The ‘critical mass’ survey of palliative care programme at ESMO designated centres of integrated oncology and palliative care

BackgroundThe ESMO Designated Centres (ESMO-DCs) of Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care (PC) Incentive Programme has grown steadily. We aimed to characterise the level of PC clinical services, education and research at ESMO-DCs.MethodsWe sent all 184 ESMO-DCs an electronic survey consisting of 78 questions examining the DC characteristics, palliative care clinical programme (structure, processes, and outcomes), primary PC delivery by oncologists, education, research and attitudes and beliefs towards the ESMO-DC programme.ResultsThe response rate was 83% (152/184). 115 (76%) ESMO-DCs were from Europe, 87 (57%) were tertiary care centres. 136 (90%) had inpatient consultation teams, 135 (89%) had outpatient PC clinics, 107 (71%) had dedicated acute care beds, and 75 (50%) offered community-based PC. An estimated 70% (interquartile range [IQR] 28–80%) of patients with advanced cancer had a PC consultation before death, occurring 90 days before death (median, IQR 40–150 days) for outpatients and 21 days (IQR 14–45 days) for inpatients. 59 (39%) offered PC fellowship programme; 47 (32%) had mandatory PC rotations for oncology fellows. Ninety-nine (65%) had double-boarded palliative oncologists. 118 (78%) of the ESMO-DCs reported that routine symptom screening was offered in the oncology clinic and 30% of patients had documented end-of-life discussions by their oncologists. Most centres (>80%) perceived the ESMO-DC programme to increase their status.ConclusionsThe ESMO-DCs had a high level of PC infrastructure and provided access to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The survey supports that the 13 criteria required for ESMO designation set a robust framework for integration, stimulated investment of resources into some palliative care programmes prior to accreditation, and raised the interest about palliative care among clinicians, trainees and patients.     

Addressing the Palliative Setting in Advanced Lung Cancer Should Not Remain a Barrier: A Multicenter Study

Background

Implementation of early palliative care (EPC) into daily oncology practice remains difficult. One of the barriers preventing oncologists from starting EPC is open communication about the palliative setting. The aim of this study was to investigate the relevance of this communication barrier.

A randomized study of KRAS-guided maintenance therapy with bevacizumab,erlotinib or metronomic capecitabine after first-line induction treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the Nordic ACT2 trial

BackgroundMaintenance treatment (mt) with bevacizumab (bev) ± erlotinib (erlo) has modest effect after induction chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We hypothesized the efficacy of erlo to be dependent on KRAS mutational status and investigated this by exploring mt strategies with bev ± erlo and low-dose capecitabine (cap).Patients and methodsIncluded patients had mCRC scheduled for first-line therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0–1 and no major comorbidities. Treatment with XELOX/FOLFOX or XELIRI/FOLFIRI + bev was given for 18 weeks. After induction, patients without progression were eligible for randomization to mt; KRAS wild-type (wt) patients were randomized to bev ± erlo (arms wt-BE, N = 36 versus wt-B, N = 35), KRAS mutated (mut) patients were randomized to bev or metronomic cap (arms mut-B, N = 34 versus mut-C, N = 33). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) rate (PFSr) at 3 months after start of mt. A pooled analysis of KRAS wt patients from the previous ACT study was performed.ResultsWe included 233 patients. Median age was 64 years, 62% male, 68% ECOG 0, 52% with primary tumor in situ. A total of 138 patients started mt after randomization. PFSr was 64.7% versus 63.6% in wt-B versus wt-BE, P = 1.000; and 75% versus 66.7% in mut-B versus mut-C, P = 0.579, with no significant difference in median PFS and overall survival (OS). In the pooled cohort, median PFS was 3.7 months in wt-B (N = 64) and 5.7 months in wt-BE (N = 62) (hazard ratios 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.70–1.50, P = 0.867). The frequency of any grade 3/4 toxicities during mt was: 28%/58%/18%/15% (wt-B/wt-BE/mut-B/mut-C).ConclusionsAddition of erlo to bev as mt in KRAS wt mCRC did not significantly improve PFS or OS, but it did increase toxicity. KRAS status does not seem to influence the outcome of treatment with erlotinib. Metronomic cap warrants further investigation in mt strategies, given our explorative results.ClinicalTrials.govNCT01229813.     

End-of-Life Management in Pediatric Cancer

Pediatric palliative care at the end-of-life is focused on ensuring the best possible quality of life for patients with life-threatening illness and their families. To achieve this goal, important needs include: engaging with patients and families; improving communication and relationships; relieving pain and other symptoms, whether physical, psychosocial, or spiritual; establishing continuity and consistency of care across different settings; considering patients and families in the decision-making process about services and treatment choices to the fullest possible and desired degree; being sensitive to culturally diverse beliefs and values about death and dying; and responding to suffering, bereavement, and providing staff support. Any effort to improve quality of palliative and end-of-life care in pediatric oncology must be accompanied by an educational strategy to enhance the level of competence among health care professionals with regard to palliative care and end-of-life management skills as well as understanding of individualized care planning and coordination processes.     

RET fusions in a small subset of advanced colorectal cancers at risk of being neglected

BackgroundRecognition of rare molecular subgroups is a challenge for precision oncology and may lead to tissue-agnostic approval of targeted agents. Here we aimed to comprehensively characterize the clinical, pathological and molecular landscape of RET rearranged metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Patients and methodsIn this case series, we compared clinical, pathological and molecular characteristics of 24 RET rearranged mCRC patients with those of a control group of 291 patients with RET negative tumors. RET rearranged and RET negative mCRCs were retrieved by systematic literature review and by taking advantage of three screening sources: (i) Ignyta’s phase 1/1b study on RXDX-105 (NCT01877811), (ii) cohorts screened at two Italian and one South Korean Institutions and (iii) Foundation Medicine Inc. database. Next-generation sequencing data were analyzed for RET rearranged cases.ResultsRET fusions were more frequent in older patients (median age of 66 versus 60 years, P = 0.052), with ECOG PS 1–2 (90% versus 50%, P = 0.02), right-sided (55% versus 32%, P = 0.013), previously unresected primary tumors (58% versus 21%, P < 0.001), RAS and BRAF wild-type (100% versus 40%, P < 0.001) and MSI-high (48% versus 7%, P < 0.001). Notably, 11 (26%) out of 43 patients with right-sided, RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors harbored a RET rearrangement. At a median follow-up of 45.8 months, patients with RET fusion-positive tumors showed a significantly worse OS when compared with RET-negative ones (median OS 14.0 versus 38.0 months, HR: 4.59; 95% CI, 3.64–32.66; P < 0.001). In the multivariable model, RET rearrangements were still associated with shorter OS (HR: 2.97; 95% CI, 1.25–7.07; P = 0.014), while primary tumor location, RAS and BRAF mutations and MSI status were not.ConclusionsThough very rare, RET rearrangements define a new subtype of mCRC that shows poor prognosis with conventional treatments and is therefore worth of a specific management.     

Radium-223 (Xofigo) with concurrent abiraterone or enzalutamide: predictive biomarkers of improved overall survival in a clinically advanced cohort

PurposeRadium-223 (Xofigo) is the first therapy with bone tropism for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that has been shown to improve overall survival (OS). Although radium-223 has a positive effect on OS in men with mCRPC, there has been a paucity of reports from community practitioners, especially with regard to concurrent abiraterone and enzalutamide therapy. Significant differences in patient characteristics encountered may exist.Patients and methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of men with mCRPC who received at least 1 cycle of radium-223 (n = 35). Baseline pain and ECOG PS as well as concurrent usage of abiraterone or enzalutamide were recorded. Side effect profiles for each patient throughout treatment were noted.ResultsBaseline cohort characteristics include a median age of 75 years. 37% had an ECOG PS ≥ 2 and 23% reported severe pain at baseline. 31% received concomitant enzalutamide 31% concomitant abiraterone. Patients treated concurrently with either abiraterone or enzalutamide did not display additional toxicity. Median cohort OS was 10 months. Patients with no or mild pain had longer median OS than those with moderate or severe pain, 14 versus 7 months (P = 0.028). Patients with ECOG PS < 2 had longer median OS than those with ECOG PS ≥ 2, 13 versus 10 months (P = 0.0233).ConclusionThis study highlights key differences in patient characteristics encountered by community practitioners. In this population, which presented with clinically advanced disease, there was an improved survival benefit for those treated earlier in their disease. Radium-223 was well tolerated and concurrent treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide did not add additional toxicity. These 2 points seem to advocate for aggressive and early treatment of patients with radium-223 in the community.     

To be in pain (or not): a computer enables outpatients to inform their physician

BackgroundIn the outpatient oncology clinic, pain management is often inadequate. Incorporating a systematic pain management program into visits is likely to improve this. We implemented an integrated program, including a structured pain assessment, pain treatment protocol and patient education module. In the present study, we investigated whether this intervention improved pain control.Patients and methodsAt seven oncology outpatient clinics, patients were asked to register their pain intensity on a touch screen computer. These scores were made available into their electronic medical records. Additionally, a hospital-wide treatment protocol for cancer-related pain and a patient education module were developed. A data warehouse system enabled us to extract patient data from the electronic medical record anonymously and to use them for analysis. The primary outcome of the study was the percentage of patients with moderate to severe pain [current pain (CPI), NRS > 4] measured during 2 weeks at the start and 6 months after implementation. As secondary outcomes, we studied the percentage of pain registrations in specific patient groups and the percentage of patients treated with a curative and a palliative intention with (moderate–severe) pain. Differences were tested with the χ² test.ResultsDuring the first 6 months, 3407 of the 4345 patients (78%) registered their pain intensity on the touch screen computer. The percentage of patients with moderate to severe CPI decreased 32% (P = 0.021): from 12.5% at start to 8.5% after 6 months. More patients in the palliative phase than in the curative phase of their disease registered their pain intensity (82% versus 75%, respectively, P < 0.005), and more patients in the palliative phase experienced moderate to severe pain (23% versus 14%, respectively, P < 0.001).ConclusionPain registration by patients themselves is feasible, provides insight into patients' pain intensity and may improve pain control in outpatients with cancer-related pain.Clinical trial numberBecause this is an innovation project and not a primary research project, it has no clinical trial number. The protocol and all materials involved were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Erasmus MC (MEC-2009-324).