Portman, Diane

Abstract 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.

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.

91 Background: Formal mechanisms to share data on quality remain immature in specialty palliative care. As the field grows, infrastructure that promotes collaboration among academic and community-based practice will be required to foster comparisons and benchmarking of data to inform areas for quality improvement. Further, such relationships will create a palliative care “quality improvement laboratory”, where proposed guidelines and best practices can be developed, implemented, and tested. Methods: We set out to bring together specialty palliative care practices with a shared vision for collaborative quality improvement. We modeled our approach after the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough Series alongside our Rapid Learning Quality Improvement paradigm. We use a set of common data collection procedures, across an electronic point-of-care platform called Quality Data Collection Tool (QDACT), alongside a centralized data registry. Further, we meet and discuss challenges and issues, compare best practices, and brainstorm new projects through biweekly conference calls. Results: We have created a multi-institutional collaboration for quality assessment and improvement in specialty palliative care. Termed the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance, we have brought together 11 academic and community organizations, both general and oncology-specific, across six states to study various areas of quality practice. Short-term, we will conduct rapid-cycling quality improvement projects addressing National Quality Forum domains for quality palliative care, including documentation of spiritual assessment and timely advance care planning. Long-term, we aim to study the link between quality measure adherence and outcomes and further align our initiatives with those of other large consortia, like the Palliative Care Research Cooperative and Palliative Care Quality Network. Conclusions: Collaborative quality improvement is needed in specialty palliative care across a national platform. Developing the infrastructure to perform standardized quality improvement is achievable across multiple palliative care settings.

Context: Differences among patient populations that present to consultative palliative care are not known. Such an appreciation would inform health-care delivery tailored to unique populations. Objectives: We aimed to compare characteristics and palliative care needs of African Americans (AAs) and whites during initial palliative care consultation. Methods: We analyzed patient-reported, clinician-entered clinical encounter data from a large, multisite community-based, nonhospice palliative care collaborative. We included first specialty palliative care consultations from January 1, 2014, to July 2, 2015, across 15 sites within the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance registry. Demographics, disease, performance status, advance care planning, and symptom prevalence/severity were compared. Results: Of 775 patients, 12.9% (N = 100) were AA. African Americans were younger (63 vs 75.4 years, P < .0001). A larger proportion of AAs had a diagnosis of cancer (45.0% vs 36.3%, P = .09) and in the hospital (71% vs 61.8%, P = .07). African Americans were more likely to have a Palliative Performance Score of 0 to 30 (35.6% vs 23.7%, P = .049). Around 50% in both racial groups were full code; slightly more than 40% had an advance directive. Nearly two-thirds in both racial groups reported 3 or more symptoms of any severity; one-third reported 3 or more moderate or severe symptoms. A larger proportion of Africans than whites reported pain of any severity (66.0% vs 56.1%, P = .06). Conclusion: All patients present to palliative care consultations with significant symptom and advance care planning needs. Further research is needed to identify how to deliver palliative care: earlier, in noncancer conditions, and improve pain management in AA populations.