CYP2D6-guided opioid therapy for adults with cancer pain: A randomized implementation clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The CYP2D6 enzyme metabolizes opioids commonly prescribed for cancer-related pain, and CYP2D6 polymorphisms may contribute to variability in opioid response. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing CYP2D6-guided opioid prescribing for patients with cancer and reported pilot outcome data. METHODS: Adult patients from two cancer centers were prospectively enrolled into a hybrid implementation-effectiveness clinical trial and randomized to CYP2D6-genotype-guided opioid selection, with clinical recommendations, or usual care. Implementation metrics, including provider response, medication changes consistent with recommendations, and patient-reported pain and symptom scores at baseline and up to 8 weeks, were assessed. RESULTS: Most (87/114, 76%) patients approached for the study agreed to participate. Of 85 patients randomized, 71% were prescribed oxycodone at baseline. The median (range) time to receive CYP2D6 test results was 10 (3-37) days; 24% of patients had physicians acknowledge genotype results in a clinic note. Among patients with CYP2D6-genotype-guided recommendations to change therapy (n = 11), 18% had a change congruent with recommendations. Among patients who completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires (n = 48), there was no difference in change in mean composite pain score (-1.01 ± 2.1 vs. -0.41 ± 2.5; p = 0.19) or symptom severity at last follow-up (3.96 ± 2.18 vs. 3.47 ± 1.78; p = 0.63) between the usual care arm (n = 26) and genotype-guided arm (n = 22), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed high acceptance of pharmacogenetic testing as part of a clinical trial among patients with cancer pain. However, provider response to genotype-guided recommendations was low, impacting assessment of pain-related outcomes. Addressing barriers to utility of pharmacogenetics results and clinical recommendations will be critical for implementation success.

Cannabis consumption in young adults with cancer: descriptive study.

OBJECTIVE: In the USA, the increase in state-sanctioned medical and recreational cannabis consumption means more young adults (YA) with cancer are using cannabis. Data and information are needed to characterise this use and frame much needed discussions about the role of cannabis in cancer care. To that end, this study's objective was to describe consumption of cannabis in YA with cancer. METHODS: Four hundred seventy-six patients with cancer ages 18-39 years at a large comprehensive cancer centre responded to a survey about their cannabis consumption. The survey was administered online between July 2019 and June 2020, and respondents were anonymous. RESULTS: Fifty-two per cent (n=247) of respondents endorsed use within the last year; of these, half reported using cannabis prior to their diagnosis. Consumption was about equally distributed between smoking/inhalation and eating/drinking cannabis products. Seventy-five per cent of consumers used cannabis at least weekly. Top five primary reasons for use were pain, anxiety, nausea, sleep and recreation. More frequent consumption was associated with greater perceived improvement in certain symptoms. Cannabis products tended to be sourced from friends and family and information from non-medical sources. Most YA reported being comfortable discussing their consumption with providers. CONCLUSIONS: Many YA are using cannabis frequently to manage their cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms. Findings support the need for providers to consider cannabis use in treatment planning and symptom management with YA. Findings should help frame patient and provider discussions and herald much needed research on the effect of cannabis consumption on patient outcomes.

Rate of cannabis use in older adults with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults with cancer are increasingly inquiring about and using cannabis. Despite this, few studies have examined cannabis use in patients with cancer aged 65 years and older as a separate group and identified characteristics associated with use. The current study sought to determine the rate of cannabis use in older adult patients with cancer and to identify demographic and clinical correlates of use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with cancer referred for specialised symptom management between January 2014 and May 2017 who underwent routine urine drug testing for tetrahydrocannabinol as part of their initial clinic visit. RESULTS: Approximately 8% (n=24) of patients with cancer aged 65 years and older tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol compared with 30% (n=51) of young adults and 21% (n=154) of adults. At the univariate level, more cannabis users had lower performance status than non-users (p=0.02, Fisher's exact test). There were no other demographic and clinical characteristics significantly associated with cannabis use in older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Older adult patients made up nearly 25% (n=301) of the total sample and had a rate of cannabis use of 8%. As one of the first studies to assess cannabis use via objective testing rather than self-report, this study adds significantly to the emerging literature on cannabis use in people aged 65 years and older. Findings suggest the rate of use in older adults living with cancer is higher than that among older adults in the general population.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2021.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members' clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

Virtual Teaming: Leveraging Team Science Sense-Making During COVID-19.

Individuals with cancer anorexia cachexia syndrome (CACS) experience multifaceted distress. To address CACS patient concerns regarding their experience of care, our cancer center established a specialized CACS clinic in 2016. We applied the team science principle of the team mental model (TMM) to support development of an effective interprofessional collaborative CACS care team. In 2020, cessation of CACS clinic in-person visits during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) threatened the viability of the entrenched TMM and once again jeopardized the patient experience of care. We present a case-based vignette as a representative composite of patient experiences to illustrate the challenges. A 48-year-old female was referred to our CACS clinic for pancreatic cancer-associated appetite and weight loss during COVID-19. To reduce risk of infection, in-person clinic visits were curtailed. When informed about the resulting need to defer the CACS assessment, the patient and her spouse expressed concern that postponement would adversely affect her ability to undergo anticancer treatments or achieve beneficial outcomes. To minimize delays in CACS treatment and optimize the patient experience of care, we applied the team science principle of sense-making to help the team rapidly reformulate the TMM to provide interprofessional collaborative CACS care via telemedicine. The sense-making initiative highlights opportunities to examine sense-making within health care teams more broadly during and after the pandemic. The application of sense-making within interprofessional cancer care teams has not been described previously.

Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cannabis Use in Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Medical and other cannabis use by cancer patients continues to increase. Reasons for use include management of psychosocial stressors, physical and psychological symptoms. We explored the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on on patients' cannabis use, hypothesizing that users would be increasing their use due to heightened stress and increased uncertainty. METHODS: Participants were part of an anonymous online survey of cannabis use in cancer. Items specific to COVID-19 were administered between April and June 2020. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of respondents (n = 26) confirmed they used cannabis during COVID-19. The top 5 reasons for use were sleep, anxiety, nausea, pain, and appetite. Ninety-two percent denied they were using cannabis for new or different symptoms. Eighty-one percent were using about the same amount as before, 11.5% were using less, and 8% more. Only 12% reported that product cost affected their use and that they had changed the way in which they used cannabis. Eight percent were stockpiling product so that they did not run out during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The percentages of those reporting a change in cannabis use were modest. Increased use may reflect efforts to relieve stress. Decreased use may reflect barriers to securing unregulated products and perceived vulnerability to the effects of infection on the respiratory system. As the pandemic continues to evolve, it will be important to monitor its effects on cancer patients as it relates to psychosocial stressors, psychological symptoms, and cannabis use.

Cannabis Use in Young Adult Cancer Patients.

Background: The use of cannabis by young adult (YA) cancer patients is likely to increase as medical cannabis becomes more available. Clinically relevant data on cannabis use are needed to establish benchmarks for use, to identify patients who are more likely to use cannabis, and to assess outcomes associated with use. Objective: The current study sought to determine the rate of cannabis use in YA cancer patients ages 18 to 39, identify demographic and clinical correlates of use, and examine differences in moderate-to-severe symptoms between users and nonusers. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of objectively measured tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), self-reported cannabis use, and cancer-related symptomatology in YA cancer patients in active treatment referred for comprehensive supportive care. Results: Approximately 30% of YA cancer patients tested positive for THC on urine drug testing. At the univariate level, cannabis users were more likely to be male, to have a lifetime history of smoking at least 100 cigarettes, and to be more recently diagnosed. Cannabis use was associated with moderate-to-severe symptomatology, including pain, nausea, lack of appetite, constipation, difficulty sleeping, and poorer overall well-being. Conclusions: YAs referred for comprehensive supportive care may be managing their cancer-related symptoms with cannabis. Further research is needed to better understand patients' perceptions of cannabis's therapeutic and adverse effects, in patients who used cannabis before diagnosis, and in patients who commenced use in response to a cancer diagnosis.

Relationship of Cannabis Use to Patient-Reported Symptoms in Cancer Patients Seeking Supportive/Palliative Care.

Background: The use of cannabis by cancer patients has become increasingly common. With expanding access to medical cannabis, unsanctioned cannabis use is likely to increase. Despite this, the extent to which patients seeking specialized palliative or supportive care for cancer-related symptoms are actively using cannabis has not been well established. Objective: We sought to determine the extent to which patients seeking specialized symptom management were using cannabis and to compare the severity of cancer-related symptoms between users and nonusers. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of objectively measured tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and subjectively reported cannabis use, its demographic and clinical correlates, and patient-reported symptoms in 816 cancer patients in active treatment referred to a supportive/palliative care outpatient clinic for specialized symptom management between January 2014 and May 2017. Results: Nearly one-fifth (19.12%) tested positive for THC on urine drug testing. Users were younger, more likely to be men, single, and to have a history of cigarette smoking. Users also were likely to be more recently diagnosed and to have received radiotherapy. Certain moderate-to-severe symptoms, such as lack of appetite, shortness of breath, tiredness, difficulty sleeping, anxiety, and depression, were associated with use after accounting for sociodemographic and clinical differences between cannabis users and nonusers. Conclusions: Findings suggest patients seeking specialized symptom management are self-treating with cannabis, despite the lack of high-quality evidence for its use in palliative care. Unsanctioned use is likely to increase in cancer patients. Accurate information is urgently needed to help manage patient expectations for its use and increase understanding of risks and benefits.

Design and rational for the precision medicine guided treatment for cancer pain pragmatic clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is one of the most burdensome symptoms associated with cancer and its treatment, and opioids are the cornerstone of pain management. Opioid therapy is empirically selected, and patients often require adjustments in therapy to effectively alleviate pain or ameliorate adverse drug effects that interfere with quality of life. There are data suggesting CYP2D6 genotype may contribute to inter-patient variability in response to opioids through its effects on opioid metabolism. Therefore, we aim to determine if CYP2D6 genotype-guided opioid prescribing results in greater reductions in pain and symptom severity and interference with daily living compared to a conventional prescribing approach in patients with cancer. METHODS: Patients with solid tumors with metastasis and a self-reported pain score ≥ 4/10 are eligible for enrollment and randomized to a genotype-guided or conventional pain management strategy. For patients in the genotype-guided arm, CYP2D6 genotype information is integrated into opioid prescribing decisions. Patients are asked to complete questionnaires regarding their pain, symptoms, and quality of life at baseline and 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks after enrollment. The primary endpoint is differential change in pain severity by treatment strategy (genotype-guided versus conventional pain management). Secondary endpoints include change in pain and symptom interference with daily living. CONCLUSION: Pharmacogenetic-guided opioid selection for cancer pain management has potential clinical utility, but current evidence is limited to retrospective and observational studies. Precision Medicine Guided Treatment for Cancer Pain is a pragmatic clinical trial that seeks to determine the utility of CYP2D6 genotype-guided opioid prescribing in patients with cancer.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2017.

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.

Leveraging a Team Mental Model to Develop a Cancer Anorexia-Cachexia Syndrome Team.

This article discusses the care of a 62-year-old man with non-small-cell lung cancer and associated cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (CACS), and demonstrates common challenges faced by such patients and their family caregivers. The case description illustrates the fragmented approach of various disciplines to the patient's CACS care, resulting in undertreatment, delayed and burdensome visits, and patient and caregiver frustration and emotional distress. The mounting problems that arise for the patient over time exemplify the absence of a shared mental model among the various providers, patient, and caregiver for the care of CACS. Shared knowledge among providers regarding the tasks to be performed, the other clinicians' functions, and optimal processes for CACS care was limited. Each provider was responsive to individual symptoms, rather than conceptualizing the constellation of symptoms as a syndrome that warrants coordinated care among clinicians. This resulted in the patient and the family caregiver being at odds with their various providers instead of working in partnership with a shared understanding toward common goals. Team mental models have the potential to enhance development and implementation of care plans and improve patient care and satisfaction by helping clinical care teams establish team membership, identify shared tasks, and facilitate interactions. To help inform ongoing clinical practice and research, this article demonstrates how clinicians at one cancer center are leveraging a team mental model to form and support an interdisciplinary CACS team that provides coordinated patient-centered care.

The Current State of Palliative Care for Patients Cared for at Leading US Cancer Centers: The 2015 NCCN Palliative Care Survey.

BACKGROUND: ASCO and IOM recommend palliative care (PC) across health care settings for patients with serious illnesses, including cancer. This study provides an overview of the current availability, structure, and basic quality of PC services within NCCN Member Institutions. METHODS: A PC survey was developed by NCCN staff and a working group of PC experts from 11 NCCN Member Institutions under the auspices of the NCCN Best Practices Committee. The survey was piloted and refined by 3 working group members and sent electronically to all 26 NCCN Member Institutions. NCCN staff and working group leaders analyzed the survey data. RESULTS: A total of 22 of 26 institutions responded (85%). All respondents (100%) reported an inpatient PC consult service (staffed by an average of 6.8 full-time equivalents [FTEs], seeing 1,031 consults/year with an average length of stay [LOS] of 10 days). A total of 91% of respondents had clinic-based PC (with an average of 469 consults/year, staffed by an average of 6.8 FTEs, and a 17-day wait time). For clinics, a comanagement care delivery model was more common than strict consultation. Home-based PC (23%) and inpatient PC units (32%) were less prevalent. Notably, 80% of institutions reported insufficient PC capacity compared with demand. Across PC settings, referrals for patients with solid tumors were more common than for hematologic malignancies. Automatic or "triggered" referrals were rare. The most common services provided were symptom management (100%) and advance care planning (96%). Most programs were funded through fee-for-service billing and institutional support. Partnerships with accountable care organizations and bundled payment arrangements were infrequent. PC program data collection and institutional funding for PC research were variable across institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the prevalence of PC inpatient and clinic services among participating NCCN Member Institutions, PC demand still exceeds capacity. Opportunities exist for expansion of home-based PC and inpatient PC units, optimizing referrals, research, and payer collaborations.

Palliative Care Version 1.2016.

The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide interdisciplinary recommendations on palliative care for patients with cancer. The NCCN Guidelines are intended to provide guidance to the primary oncology team on the integration of palliative care into oncology. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel's recommendations seek to ensure that each patient experiences the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory. Accordingly, the NCCN Guidelines outline best practices for screening, assessment, palliative care interventions, reassessment, and after-death care.

Implementation of NCCN Palliative Care Guidelines by member institutions.

Increasingly, evidence suggests the integration of palliative care (PC) with standard oncologic care can yield substantial benefits. As part of an effort to improve the PC of cancer patients, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has developed clinical practice guidelines for PC that promote access to quality, evidence-based PC. This study sought to characterize current implementation of the guidelines by NCCN member institutions. Institutional representatives appointed to the NCCN Palliative Care Guidelines Panel were asked to complete an online survey in the spring of 2014. The survey focused on availability of PC services, screening and referral practices for PC, PC education, and quality improvement programs. The survey was completed by representatives from 21 of 25 NCCN member institutions (84 %). A majority routinely provides PC services via interdisciplinary teams; 52 % routinely inform patients of the availability, elements, and benefits of PC. The guidelines are most often used to guide clinical practice; only 10 % reported using the guidelines to formally screen for PC needs and/or make referrals to PC specialists. Among the 62 % of institutions that screen any patients using any available criteria, when a patient screens positive for PC needs, a referral to a PC specialist is made less than half the time. Implementation of PC Guidelines is incomplete and various aspects of the guidelines, such as the recommendation to screen all patients for PC needs, are applied inconsistently. Despite this, most institutions provide PC services in a manner consistent with the guidelines. Greater implementation of the guidelines' recommendations is needed.