Feliciano, Josephine

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship offer guidance for health care providers who care for survivors of adult-onset cancer. These guidelines include screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for common physical and psychosocial problems resulting from cancer and its treatment and provide a framework for care coordination. They also present guidance for helping cancer survivors to enhance their wellness and maintain a healthy lifestyle. This article summarizes the panel’s current recommendations and recent updates regarding anxiety, depression, distress, and trauma in cancer survivors.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship include screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for common physical and psychosocial problems resulting from adult-onset cancer and its treatment and provide a framework for coordination of survivorship care. They also include recommendations to help cancer survivors enhance their wellness and maintain a healthy lifestyle. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s current recommendations and recent updates regarding physical activity, nutrition, and weight management for cancer survivors.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship include recommendations for screening, evaluation, and treatment of psychosocial and physical problems resulting from adult-onset cancer and its treatment. They also include recommendations to promote healthy behaviors and immunizations in survivors and provide a framework for care coordination. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s current recommendations regarding sexual health and fertility.

Importance Numerous studies show that early palliative care improves quality of life and other key outcomes in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, although most lack access to this evidence-based model of care. Objective To evaluate whether delivering early palliative care via secure video vs in-person visits has an equivalent effect on quality of life in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, multisite, comparative effectiveness trial from June 14, 2018, to May 4, 2023, at 22 US cancer centers among 1250 patients within 12 weeks of diagnosis of advanced NSCLC and 548 caregivers. Intervention Participants were randomized to meet with a specialty-trained palliative care clinician every 4 weeks either via video visit or in person in the outpatient clinic from the time of enrollment and throughout the course of disease. The video visit group had an initial in-person visit to establish rapport, followed by subsequent virtual visits. Main Outcomes and Measures Equivalence of the effect of video visit vs in-person early palliative care on quality of life at week 24 per the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung questionnaire (equivalence margin of ±4 points; score range: 0-136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life). Participants completed study questionnaires at enrollment and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48. Results By 24 weeks, participants (mean age, 65.5 years; 54.0% women; 82.7% White) had a mean of 4.7 (video) and 4.9 (in-person) early palliative care encounters. Patient-reported quality-of-life scores were equivalent between groups (video mean, 99.7 vs in-person mean, 97.7; difference, 2.0 [90% CI, 0.1-3.9]; P = .04 for equivalence). Rate of caregiver participation in visits was lower for video vs in-person early palliative care (36.6% vs 49.7%; P < .001). Study groups did not differ in caregiver quality of life, patient coping, or patient and caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, or prognostic perceptions. Conclusions and Relevance The delivery of early palliative care virtually vs in person demonstrated equivalent effects on quality of life in patients with advanced NSCLC, underscoring the considerable potential for improving access to this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03375489

LBA3 Background: National guidelines recommend the early integration of palliative and oncology care for patients with advanced cancer, given robust evidence showing that this care model improves quality of life (QOL) and other important outcomes. However, most patients do not receive early palliative care (EPC) in the outpatient setting due to limited access and resources. To overcome these barriers, we conducted a large-scale comparative effectiveness trial of EPC delivered via secure video versus in person among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and their caregivers. Methods: Between 6/14/2018 and 5/4/2023, we enrolled 1250 patients with advanced NSCLC, diagnosed in the past 12 weeks, into a randomized trial of telehealth versus in-person EPC across 22 cancer centers in the US. Patients were randomly assigned to meet with a palliative care clinician every four weeks from enrollment through the course of disease either via video or in the outpatient clinic. Participants completed self-report measures at baseline and weeks 12 and 24. The primary aim was to evaluate the equivalence of the effect of telehealth versus in-person EPC on QOL at week 24, using regression modeling with an equivalence margin of ±4 points on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L, range = 0-136). We also compared rates of caregiver participation in EPC visits and patient-reported depression and anxiety symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), coping (Brief COPE), and perceptions of prognosis (Perceptions of Treatment and Prognosis Questionnaire) between groups. Study recruitment ceased for two months at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Participants (mean age = 65.5 years; 54.0% female; 82.1% White) had a mean of 4.75 and 4.92 palliative care encounters by week 24 in the telehealth and in-person groups, respectively. Due to the pandemic, the in-person group had 3.9% of visits occur via video. QOL scores at week 24 for patients assigned to the telehealth group were equivalent to those receiving in-person EPC (adjusted means: 99.67 versus 97.67, p < 0.043 for equivalence). The rate of caregiver participation in EPC visits was lower in the telehealth versus in-person group (36.6% versus 49.7%, p < 0.0001). Study groups did not differ in depression and anxiety symptoms, use of coping skills, or perceptions of the goal of treatment and curability of their cancer. Conclusions: The delivery of EPC via video versus in-person visits demonstrated equivalent effects on QOL in patients with advanced NSCLC. The two modalities also did not differ across a range of patient-reported outcomes, though caregivers attended more in-person versus video visits. The findings underscore the considerable potential for improving access to and broader dissemination of this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Clinical trial information: NCT03375489 .

Early integrated palliative care (EIPC) significantly improves clinical outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. Telehealth may be a useful tool to deliver EIPC sustainably and equitably. Palliative care clinicians completed a survey regarding their perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, and benefits of using telehealth video visits for delivering EIPC for patients with advanced lung cancer. Forty-eight clinicians across 22 cancer centers completed the survey between May and July 2022. Most (91.7%) agreed that telehealth increases access to EIPC and simplifies the process for patients to receive EIPC (79.2%). Clinicians noted that the elderly, those in rural areas, and those with less-resourced backgrounds have greater difficulty using telehealth. Perceived barriers were largely patient-based factors, including technological literacy, internet and device availability, and patient preferences. Clinicians agreed that several organizational factors facilitated telehealth EIPC delivery, including technological infrastructure (85.4%), training (83.3%), and support from study coordinators (81.3%). Other barriers included systems-based factors, such as insurance reimbursement and out-of-state coverage restrictions. Patient-, organization-, and systems-based factors are all important to providing and improving access to telehealth EIPC services. Further research is needed to investigate the efficacy of telehealth EIPC and how policies and interventions may improve access to and dissemination of this care modality.

Abstract Background Prior comparisons of chemotherapy adverse events (AEs) by age and performance status (PS) are limited by the traditional maximum grade approach, which ignores low-grade AEs and longitudinal changes. Materials and Methods To compare fatigue and neuropathy longitudinally by age (&lt;65, ≥65 years) and PS (0–1, 2), we analyzed data from a large phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (CALGB 9730, n = 529). We performed multivariable (a) linear mixed models to estimate mean AE grade over time, (b) linear regression to estimate area under the curve (AUC), and (c) proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio of developing grade ≥2 AE, as well as traditional maximum grade analyses. Results Older patients had on average a 0.17-point (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00–0.34; p = .049) higher mean fatigue grade longitudinally compared with younger patients. PS 2 was associated with earlier development of grade ≥2 fatigue (hazard ratio [HR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.07–2.27; p = .02). For neuropathy, older age was associated with earlier development of grade ≥2 neuropathy (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.00–1.97; p = .049). Patients with PS 2 had a 1.30 point lower neuropathy AUC (95% CI, −2.36 to −0.25; p = .02) compared with PS 0–1. In contrast, maximum grade analyses only detected a higher percentage of older adults with grade ≥3 fatigue and neuropathy at some point during treatment. Conclusion Our comparison of complementary but distinct aspects of chemotherapy toxicity identified important longitudinal differences in fatigue and neuropathy by age and PS that are missed by the traditional maximum grade approach. Clinical trial identification number: NCT00003117 (CALGB 9730) Implications for Practice The traditional maximum grade approach ignores persistent low-grade adverse events (AEs) and changes over time. This toxicity over time analysis of fatigue and neuropathy during chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer demonstrates how to use longitudinal methods to comprehensively characterize AEs over time by age and performance status (PS). We identified important longitudinal differences in fatigue and neuropathy that are missed by the maximum grade approach. This new information about how older adults and patients with PS 2 experience these toxicities longitudinally may be used clinically to improve discussions about treatment options and what to expect to inform shared decision making and symptom management.

Abstract Introduction: Early palliative care (PC) integrated with oncology care improves quality of life (QOL), depression symptoms, illness understanding, and end-of-life (EOL) care for patients with advanced lung cancer. The aims of this trial are to compare the effect of delivering early integrated PC through telehealth versus in-person on patient and caregiver outcomes. We hypothesize that both modalities for delivering early PC would be equivalent for improving patient QOL, communication about EOL care preferences with their oncologist, and length of stay in hospice. Methods: For this comparative effectiveness trial, we will enroll and randomize 1250 adult patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who are not being treated with curative intent, to receive either early integrated telehealth or in-person PC at 20 cancer centers throughout the United States. Patients may also invite a family caregiver to participate in the study. Patients and their caregivers in both study groups meet at least every four weeks with a PC clinician from within 12 weeks of patient diagnosis of advanced NSCLC until death. Participants complete measures of QOL, mood, and quality of communication with oncologists at baseline before randomization and at 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Information on health care utilization, including length of stay in hospice, will be collected from patients' health records. To test equivalence in outcomes between study groups, we will compute analysis of covariance and mixed linear models, controlling for baseline scores and study site. Study Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement: To ensure that this comparative effectiveness trial and findings are as patient centered and meaningful as possible, we have incorporated a robust patient and stakeholder engagement plan. Our stakeholder partners include (1) patients/families, (2) PC clinicians, (3) telehealth experts and clinician users, (4) representatives from health care systems and medical insurance providers, and (5) health care policy makers and advocates. These stakeholders will inform and provide feedback about every phase of study implementation.

e21545 Background: A nocebo is an inert substance that causes adverse events. Although previous studies have examined the favorably positive (placebo) effects of an inert substance, few studies have examined negative (nocebo) effects, particularly in older patients who sometimes experience frequent and severe adverse events from cancer therapy. Methods: This study focused on placebo/nocebo-exposed patients who participated in two double-blind, placebo-controlled, cancer therapeutic studies, namely, North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) 97-24-51 and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z9001, with the goal of reporting comparative, age-based adverse event rates. Results: Among the 446 patients who received placebo/nocebo exclusively, 161 were 65 years of age or older at the time of respective trial entry; 5234 adverse events occurred. Unadjusted adverse event rates did not differ significantly between patients 65 years of age or older and those younger: rate ratio (99% confidence intervals (CI): 1.01 (0.47, 2.02) with similar findings for grade 2 or worse adverse events and for all symptom-driven adverse events (for example, pain, loss of appetite, anxiety). Adjustment for sex, ethnicity, baseline performance score, and trial resulted in no significant age-based rate differences in adverse event rates. Similar findings were observed with an age threshold of 70. Conclusions: A nocebo effect appears to occur irrespective of age. This observation suggests that adverse events should be taken no less seriously in older than in younger cancer patients and that education to manage patients’ expectations from cancer therapy might improve tolerability. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND A nocebo is an inert substance associated with adverse events. Although previous studies have examined the positive (placebo) effects of such inert substances, few have examined negative (nocebo) adverse event profiles, particularly in older patients who have higher morbidity and can experience frequent and severe adverse events from cancer therapy. METHODS This study focused on placebo/nocebo‐exposed patients who participated in 2 double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, cancer therapeutic studies, namely, North Central Cancer Therapy Group trial NCCTG 97‐24‐51 and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group trial Z9001, with the goal of reporting the comparative, age‐based adverse event rates, as reported during the conduct of these trials. RESULTS Among the 446 patients who received only placebo/nocebo and who were the focus of the current report, 161 were aged ≥65 years at the time of respective trial entry, and 5234 adverse events occurred. Unadjusted adverse event rates did not differ significantly between patients aged ≥65 years and younger patients (rate ratio, 1.01; 99% confidence interval, 0.47‐2.02), and the findings were similar findings for grade 2 or worse adverse events and for all symptom‐driven adverse events (for example, pain, loss of appetite, anxiety). Adjustment for sex, ethnicity, baseline performance score, and individual trial resulted in no significant age‐based differences in adverse event rates. Similar findings were observed with an age threshold of 70 years. CONCLUSIONS Adverse events are equally common in older and younger cancer patients who are exposed to nocebo and thus require the same degree of clinical consideration regardless of age. Cancer 2017;123:4193–4198. © 2017 American Cancer Society .