National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Symptom management in cancer: pain, depression, and fatigue, July 15-17, 2002.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in early detection and effective treatment, cancer remains one of the most feared diseases. Among the most common side effects of cancer and treatments for cancer are pain, depression, and fatigue. Although research is producing increasingly hopeful insights into the causes and cures for cancer, efforts to manage the side effects of the disease and its treatments have not kept pace. The challenge that faces us is how to increase awareness of the importance of recognizing and actively addressing cancer-related distress. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a State-of-the-Science Conference on Symptom Management in Cancer: Pain, Depression, and Fatigue to examine the current state of knowledge regarding the management of pain, depression, and fatigue in individuals with cancer and to identify directions for future research. Specifically, the conference examined how to identify individuals who are at risk for cancer-related pain, depression, and/or fatigue; what treatments work best to address these symptoms when they occur; and what is the best way to deliver interventions across the continuum of care. STATE-OF-THE-SCIENCE PROCESS: A non-advocate, non-Federal, 14-member panel of experts representing the fields of oncology, radiology, psychology, nursing, public health, social work, and epidemiology prepared the statement. In addition, 24 experts in medical oncology, geriatrics, pharmacology, psychology, and neurology presented data to the panel and to the conference audience during the first 1.5 days of the conference. The panel then prepared its statement, addressing the five predetermined questions and drawing on submitted literature, the speakers' presentations, and discussions held at the conference. The statement was presented to the conference audience, followed by a press conference to allow the panel to respond to questions from the media. After its release at the conference, the draft statement was made available on the Internet. The panel's final statement is available at http://consensus.nih.gov. CONCLUSIONS: The panel concluded that the available evidence supports a variety of interventions for treating cancer patients' pain, depression, and fatigue. Clinicians should routinely use brief assessment tools to ask patients about pain, depression, and fatigue and to initiate evidence-based treatments. Assessment should include discussion about common symptoms experienced by cancer patients, and these discussions should continue over the duration of the illness. Impediments to effective symptom management in cancer patients can arise from different sources and interactions among providers, patients and their families, and the health care system. Numerous factors could interfere with adequate symptom management. Among these factors are incomplete effectiveness of some treatments, a lack of sufficient knowledge regarding effective treatment strategies, patient reluctance to report symptoms to caregivers, a belief that such symptoms are simply a part of the cancer experience that must be tolerated, and inadequate coverage and reimbursement for some treatments. Additional research is needed on the definition, occurrence, the treatment of pain, depression, and fatigue, alone and in combination, in adequately funded prospective studies. The panel also concluded that the state of the science in cancer symptom management should be reassessed periodically.

Health plan policies and programs for colorectal cancer screening: a national profile.

BACKGROUND: A consensus has emerged that average-risk adults 50 years of age or older should be screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). OBJECTIVES: To describe health plans' coverage policies, guidelines, and organized programs to promote CRC screening. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Review of data from the National Cancer Institute Survey of Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices, administered to a national sample of health plans in 1999-2000. The survey inquired about coverage policies for fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema; the nature of any guidelines the plan had issued to its providers on CRC screening; and systems for recruiting patients into screening and for tracking and reporting the results of screening and follow-up procedures. RESULTS: Of 346 eligible health plans, 180 (52%) responded. Nearly all health plans covered at least 1 CRC screening modality. Plans were most likely to cover fecal occult blood testing (97%) and least likely to cover colonoscopy (57%). Sixty-five percent had issued guidelines on CRC screening to providers. One quarter had a mechanism to remind patients that they are due for CRC screening, but fewer had systems for prompting providers, contacting noncompliant patients, or tracking completion of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Health plans have the ability to provide organizational infrastructure for a broad range of preventive services to well-defined populations. However, few health plans had all 3 essential CRC screening delivery components--coverage, guidelines, and tracking systems--in place in 1999-2000.

Physicians' roles in preventing dental caries in preschool children: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

CONTEXT: Almost 20% of children aged 2 to 5 years have untreated dental caries. Physician interventions to prevent and manage dental caries in preschool children could help address this common problem. OBJECTIVE: To review the evidence for effectiveness of five possible physician interventions- (1) screening and risk assessment, (2) referral, (3) provision of dietary supplemental fluoride, (4) application of fluoride varnish, and (5) counseling-for the prevention of dental caries for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. DATA SOURCES: Articles from 1966 to 2001 addressing the effectiveness of primary care clinicians' interventions to prevent or manage dental caries were identified in MEDLINE. The evidence for effectiveness of supplemental fluorides, fluoride varnish, and counseling for caries prevention performed by dental personnel was also examined through existing and new systematic reviews. DATA SYNTHESIS: For most key questions related to the five interventions, the evidence for primary care clinician effectiveness was rated as poor owing to the scarcity of studies. Ten surveys of physicians' knowledge and behavior about fluoride supplementation provided fair evidence, suggesting that supplementation decisions were often made without consideration of other fluoride exposures. Reviews of the dental literature identified fair evidence supporting the effectiveness of both fluoride supplements and varnish, although information describing effectiveness and adverse outcomes of supplementation with the most recent dosage schedule is not available. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the effectiveness of traditionally recommended primary care clinician interventions (screening, referral, counseling) to prevent dental caries in preschool children is lacking. There is fair evidence for the effectiveness of two fluoride-based interventions (fluoride supplementation and varnish) applicable in primary care practice. However, there is also fair evidence indicating that physicians' consideration of fluoride exposure is incomplete, thus increasing the risk for fluorosis among those prescribed supplements.

National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Symptom Management in Cancer: Pain, Depression, and Fatigue, July 15-17, 2002.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in early detection and effective treatment, cancer remains one of the most feared diseases. Among the most common side effects of cancer and treatments for cancer are pain, depression, and fatigue. Although research is producing increasingly hopeful insights into the causes and cures for cancer, efforts to manage the side effects of the disease and its treatments have not kept pace. The challenge that faces us is how to increase awareness of the importance of recognizing and actively addressing cancer-related distress. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a State-of-the-Science Conference on Symptom Management in Cancer: Pain, Depression, and Fatigue to examine the current state of knowledge regarding the management of pain, depression, and fatigue in individuals with cancer and to identify directions for future research. Specifically, the conference examined how to identify individuals who are at risk for cancer-related pain, depression, and/or fatigue; what treatments work best to address these symptoms when they occur; and what is the best way to deliver interventions across the continuum of care. State-of-the-Science Process: A non-advocate, non-Federal, 14-member panel of experts representing the fields of oncology, radiology, psychology, nursing, public health, social work, and epidemiology prepared the statement. In addition, 24 experts in medical oncology, geriatrics, pharmacology, psychology, and neurology presented data to the panel and to the conference audience during the first 1.5 days of the conference. The panel then prepared its statement, addressing the five predetermined questions and drawing on submitted literature, the speakers' presentations, and discussions held at the conference. The statement was presented to the conference audience, followed by a press conference to allow the panel to respond to questions from the media. After its release at the conference, the draft statement was made available on the Internet. The panel's final statement is available at http://consensus.nih.gov. CONCLUSIONS: The panel concluded that the available evidence supports a variety of interventions for treating cancer patients' pain, depression, and fatigue. Clinicians should routinely use brief assessment tools to ask patients about pain, depression, and fatigue and to initiate evidence-based treatments. Assessment should include discussion about common symptoms experienced by cancer patients, and these discussions should continue over the duration of the illness. Impediments to effective symptom management in cancer patients can arise from different sources and interactions among providers, patients and their families, and the health care system. Numerous factors could interfere with adequate symptom management. Among these factors are incomplete effectiveness of some treatments, a lack of sufficient knowledge regarding effective treatment strategies, patient reluctance to report symptoms to caregivers, a belief that such symptoms are simply a part of the cancer experience that must be tolerated, and inadequate coverage and reimbursement for some treatments. Additional research is needed on the definition, occurrence, the treatment of pain, depression, and fatigue, alone and in combination, in adequately funded prospective studies. The panel also concluded that the state of the science in cancer symptom management should be reassessed periodically.

A national survey of primary care physicians' colorectal cancer screening recommendations and practices.

BACKGROUND: National data on providers' colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, attitudes, and practices are sparse. This study assessed primary care physicians' (PCPs') beliefs about the effectiveness of CRC screening, their recommendations for screening, their perceptions of the influence of published guidelines on their CRC screening recommendations, and how they conduct CRC screening in their clinical practices. METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to a nationally representative sample of practicing PCPs. Of 1718 eligible physicians, 1235 (72%) responded. RESULTS: Only 2% of PCPs said they did not recommend CRC screening. Over 80% indicated that they most often recommend CRC screening with fecal occult blood testing and/or flexible sigmoidoscopy, although colonoscopy was perceived as the more effective screening modality. Nearly two-thirds of obstetrician/gynecologists and one-fourth of other practitioners reported conducting fecal occult blood testing exclusively by digital rectal exam. Only 29% of PCPs said they perform sigmoidoscopy. Estimated volumes of ordering, performing, or referring for CRC screening were low, and <20% reported that three-fourths or more of their older patients were up to date with CRC screening as recommended by the physician. Many PCPs reported recommending CRC screening at nonstandard starting ages or too-frequent intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of CRC screening among PCPs in the United States is high. However, knowledge gaps about the timing and frequency of screening and suboptimal screening delivery were evident.