Citations

This study was undertaken to determine the impact of shared decision-making when selecting a sedation option, from no sedation (local anesthetic), minimal sedation (anxiolysis with a benzodiazepine) or moderate sedation (benzodiazepine and opiate), for venous access device placement (port-a-cath and tunneled catheters) on patient choice, satisfaction and recovery time. This is an IRB-approved, HIPPA-compliant, retrospective study of 198 patients (18–85 years old, 60% female) presenting to an ambulatory vascular interventional radiology department for venous access device placement between 22 October 2014 and 7 October 2015. Patients were educated about sedation options and given the choice of undergoing the procedure with no sedation (local anesthetic only), or minimal or moderate sedation. Satisfaction was assessed through three survey questions. No sedation was selected by 53/198 (27%), minimal sedation by 71/198 (36%) and moderate sedation by 74/198 (37%). All subjects would recommend the option to another patient and valued the opportunity to select a sedation option. Post-procedure recovery time differences were statistically significant ( p<0.0001) with median recovery times of 0 minutes for no sedation, 38 minutes for minimal sedation and 64 minutes for moderate sedation. In conclusion, patient sedation preference for venous access device placement is variable, signifying there is a role for shared decision-making as it empowers the patient to select the option most aligned with his or her goals. The procedure is well-tolerated, associated with high satisfaction, and the impact on departmental flow is notable because patients choosing no or minimal sedation results in a decreased post-procedure recovery time burden.

Purpose There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited. Methods We randomly assigned patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival. Results Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P < .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P < .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts. Conclusion Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care.

Purpose To assist in determining barriers to an oncology career incorporating cancer prevention, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Cancer Prevention Workforce Pipeline Work Group sponsored surveys of training program directors and oncology fellows. Methods Separate surveys with parallel questions were administered to training program directors at their fall 2013 retreat and to oncology fellows as part of their February 2014 in-training examination survey. Forty-seven (67%) of 70 training directors and 1,306 (80%) of 1,634 oncology fellows taking the in-training examination survey answered questions. Results Training directors estimated that ≤ 10% of fellows starting an academic career or entering private practice would have a career focus in cancer prevention. Only 15% of fellows indicated they would likely be interested in cancer prevention as a career focus, although only 12% thought prevention was unimportant relative to treatment. Top fellow-listed barriers to an academic career were difficulty in obtaining funding and lower compensation. Additional barriers to an academic career with a prevention focus included unclear career model, lack of clinical mentors, lack of clinical training opportunities, and concerns about reimbursement. Conclusion Reluctance to incorporate cancer prevention into an oncology career seems to stem from lack of mentors and exposure during training, unclear career path, and uncertainty regarding reimbursement. Suggested approaches to begin to remedy this problem include: 1) more ASCO-led and other prevention educational resources for fellows, training directors, and practicing oncologists; 2) an increase in funded training and clinical research opportunities, including reintroduction of the R25T award; 3) an increase in the prevention content of accrediting examinations for clinical oncologists; and 4) interaction with policymakers to broaden the scope and depth of reimbursement for prevention counseling and intervention services.