Citations

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases, or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Abstract Technological advances have made diagnosis of heart rhythm disturbances much easier, with a wide variety of options, including single-lead portable devices, smartphones/watches to sophisticated implantable cardiac monitors, allowing accurate data to be collected over different time periods depending on symptoms frequency. This review provides an overview of the novel and existing heart rhythm testing options, including a description of the supporting evidence for their use. A description of each of the tests is provided, along with discussion of their advantages and limitations. This is intended to help clinicians towards choosing the most appropriate test, thus improving diagnostic yield management of patients with suspected arrhythmias.

Abstract Recent technological advances have facilitated and diversified the options available for the diagnosis of cardiac arrhythmias. Ranging from simple resting or exercise electrocardiograms to more sophisticated and expensive smartphones and implantable cardiac monitors. These tests and devices may be used for varying periods of time depending on symptom frequency. The choice of the most appropriate heart rhythm test should be guided by clinical evaluation and optimized following accurate characterization of underlying symptoms, ‘red flags’, risk factors, and consideration of cost-effectiveness of the different tests. This review provides evidence-based guidance for assessing suspected arrhythmia in patients who present with symptoms or in the context of screening, such as atrial fibrillation or advanced conduction disturbances following transcatheter aortic valve implantation in high-risk groups. This is intended to help clinicians choose the most appropriate diagnostic tool to facilitate the management of patients with suspected arrhythmias.

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.

Knowledge of major adverse clinical events (MACE) associated with ICD and pacemaker (PM) pulse generator (PG) and lead performance may be important for managing patients who have these devices. The aim of our study was to assess MACE in our Multicenter Registry. Participating centers prospectively reported ICD and PM PG and lead failures, and PG replaced for normal battery depletion (NBD). Data included dates of implant and removal, failure signs including the elective replacement indicator (ERI), clinical consequences, and reason for removal. MACE were death, inappropriate shocks (IAS), syncope, heart failure, ischemia, sustained tachyarrhythmias, and replacement of a normally functioning PG or lead due to a manufacturers recall. Since 1998, 6,291 ICD and PM PG and leads were removed from service. Of 5,212 ICD and PM PGs, 4,562 (88%) were removed for NBD, 346 (7%) for a recall, and 304 (5%) for component defects. MACE are shown in the Table . The deaths (n=2) were due to component defects causing an ICD PG to short-circuit and a PM PG to deliver high rate pacing. Thus, of the 304 component defects in our database, 2 resulted in death (0.7%). No deaths were associated with ICD or PM lead failure, but 2 deaths occurred following PM lead extraction. The ERI, signifying NBD, resulted in 48 MACE, primarily syncope (67%). Most MACE are due to replacement of normally functioning recalled devices. However, our experience suggests that death due to ICD and PM PG component or lead failure is rare; this finding may be important for managing patients who have recalled devices. Overall, MACE may be substantially reduced by improving high voltage lead reliability, and by providing physiologic ERIs.