Devon Check

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations for molecular testing irrespective of patient characteristics, differences exist in receipt of molecular testing for oncogenic drivers amongst metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) patients. Exploration into these differences and their effects on treatment is needed to identify opportunities for improvement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with mNSCLC between 2011 and 2018 using PCORnet's Rapid Cycle Research Project dataset (n = 3600). Log-binomial, Cox proportional hazards (PH), and time-varying Cox regression models were used to ascertain whether molecular testing was received, and time from diagnosis to molecular testing and/or initial systemic treatment in the context of patient age, sex, race/ethnicity, and multiple comorbidities status. RESULTS: The majority of patients in this cohort were ≤ 65 years of age (median [25th, 75th]: 64 [57, 71]), male (54.3%), non-Hispanic white individuals (81.6%), with > 2 comorbidities in addition to mNSCLC (54.1%). About half the cohort received molecular testing (49.9%). Patients who received molecular testing had a 59% higher probability of initial systemic treatment than patients who were yet to receive testing. Multiple comorbidity status was positively associated with receipt of molecular testing (RR, 1.27; 95% CI 1.08, 1.49). CONCLUSION: Receipt of molecular testing in academic centers was associated with earlier initiation of systemic treatment. This finding underscores the need to increase molecular testing rates amongst mNSCLC patients during a clinically relevant period. Further studies to validate these findings in community centers are warranted.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with advanced cancer, pain is a common and debilitating symptom that can negatively impact physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. This trial examined the feasibility and initial effects of Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training (MCPC), a cognitive-behavioral pain management intervention with an emphasis on enhancing meaning (i.e., a personal sense of purpose, worth, and significance) and peace. METHODS: We enrolled 60 adults with stage IV solid tumor cancers and moderate-severe pain between February 2021 and February 2022. Participants were randomized 1:1 to MCPC + usual care or usual care alone. Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training consisted of four weekly 60-min individual sessions via videoconference or telephone, delivered by a trained therapist using a manualized protocol. Participants completed validated measures of pain severity, pain interference, pain self-efficacy, spiritual well-being (i.e., meaning, peace, and faith), and psychological distress at baseline and 5-week and 10-week follow-ups. RESULTS: All feasibility metrics exceeded prespecified benchmarks. Fifty-eight percent of screened patients were eligible, and 69% of eligible patients consented. Of those assigned to MCPC, 93% completed all sessions and 100% of those who completed follow-ups reported using coping skills weekly. Retention was strong at 5-week (85%) and 10-week (78%) follow-ups. Meaning-Centered Pain Coping Skills Training participants reported better scores than control participants across outcome measures, including moderate-to-large sized differences at 10-week follow-up in pain severity (Cohen's d = -0.75 [95% confidence interval: -1.36, -0.14]), pain interference (d = -0.82 [-1.45, -0.20]), and pain self-efficacy (d = 0.74 [0.13, 1.35]). CONCLUSIONS: MCPC is a highly feasible, engaging, and promising approach for improving pain management in advanced cancer. Future efficacy testing is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04431830, registered 16 June 2020.

CONTEXT: While professional societies and expert panels have recommended quality indicators related to advance care planning (ACP) documentation, including using structured documentation templates, it is unclear how clinicians document these conversations. OBJECTIVE: To explore how clinicians document ACP, specifically, which components of these conversations are documented. METHODS: A codebook was developed based on existing frameworks for ACP conversations and documentation. ACP documentation from a hospital medicine quality improvement project conducted from November 2019 to April 2021 were included and assessed. Documentation was examined for the presence or absence of each component within the coding schema. Clinician documented ACP using three different note types: template (only template prompts were used), template plus (authors added additional text to the template), and free text only. ACP note components were analyzed by note type and author department. RESULTS: A total of 182 ACP notes were identified and reviewed. The most common note type was template plus (58%), followed by free text (28%) and template (14%). The most frequent components across all note types were: important relationships to patient (92%), and discussion of life-sustaining treatment preferences (87%). There was considerable heterogeneity in the components across note types. The presence of components focused on treatment decisions and legal paperwork differed significantly between note types (P < 0.05). Components on preference for medical information, emotional state, or spiritual support were rarely included across all note types. CONCLUSION: This study provides a preliminary exploration of ACP documentation and found that templates may influence what information is documented after an ACP conversation.

PURPOSE: Among cancer survivors who have completed curative-intent treatment, the high prevalence and adverse consequences of chronic pain are well documented. Yet, research on clinicians' experiences with and perspectives on managing chronic pain among cancer survivors is critically lacking. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 clinicians (six oncology, three palliative care, and eight primary care) affiliated with an academic medical center. Interview questions addressed clinicians' experiences with and perspectives on managing chronic pain (with or without opioid therapy) during the transition from active treatment to survivorship. A multidisciplinary team conducted content analysis of interview transcripts to identify and refine themes related to current practices and challenges in managing chronic pain in this context. RESULTS: Overall, clinicians perceived chronic pain to be relatively uncommon among cancer survivors. Identified challenges included a lack of clarity about which clinician (or clinicians) are best positioned to manage chronic pain among cancer survivors, and (relatedly) complexities introduced by long-term opioid management, with many clinicians describing this practice as outside their skill set. Additionally, although most clinicians recognized chronic pain as a biopsychosocial phenomenon, they described challenges with effectively managing psychosocial stressors, including difficulty accessing mental or behavioral health services for cancer survivors. CONCLUSION: Discovered challenges highlight unmet needs related to cancer survivor-clinician communication about chronic pain and the absence of a chronic pain management home for cancer survivors, including those requiring long-term opioid therapy. Research evaluating routine pain monitoring and accessible, tailored models of multimodal pain care in survivorship may help to address these challenges.

OBJECTIVES: Many cancer survivors experience chronic pain after completing curative-intent treatment. Based on available data, chronic pain may be undertreated in this context; however, little is known about cancer survivors' experiences with clinical management of chronic pain. The purpose of this study was to better understand cancer survivors' pain management experiences after curative-intent treatment. METHODS: We conducted 13 semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of cancer survivors who had completed treatment for stage I-III breast, head/neck, lung or colorectal cancer. We used a thematic approach to qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: Participants described that chronic pain often goes unrecognized by their providers, potentially due to limitations in how pain is assessed clinically and the tendency of both cancer survivors and providers to minimize or invalidate the pain experience. To improve communication, participants suggested that providers ask more open-ended questions about their pain, help them to establish functional goals, and provide patients with options for pain management. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study demonstrates the importance of provider-initiated communication around pain management for cancer survivors to make them feel more supported in their care. Communication and shared decision-making interventions may improve cancer survivor-provider communication around chronic pain management, addressing an important gap in survivorship care.