Richard Tsong Lee

Background: This study characterizes patient and health-care professional perspectives regarding medical cannabis use at a National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Center. Data evaluated included the prevalence and patterns of and reasons for cannabis use. Methods: Patients with cancer undergoing treatment were recruited into a cross-sectional survey as part of a national National Cancer Institute–funded effort. Participants completed a survey about cannabis use, reasons for use, and types of cannabis. A health-care professional survey was also conducted to explore perspectives regarding patients’ use of cannabis. Results: A total of 313 patients with cancer (mean [SD] age = 60.7 [12.8] years) completed the survey (43% response rate) between 2021 and 2022. Of the respondents, 58% were female; identified as White (61%) and Black (23%); and had diverse cancer diagnoses. Nearly half of respondents (43%) had previously used cannabis, one-quarter (26%) had used cannabis since their cancer diagnosis, and almost 1 in 6 (17%) were actively using cannabis at the time of survey completion. The most common modes of ingestion were gummies (33%) and smoking (30%). The most commonly reported reasons for use were insomnia (46%), pain (41%), and mood (39%). For the 164 health-care professionals who completed the survey (25% response rate), the majority agreed that cannabis use (72%) is safe and beneficial for patients (57%). Four in 10 (39%) health-care professionals felt comfortable providing guidance to patients about cannabis use; however, only 1 in 8 (13%) felt knowledgeable about the topic of cannabis. Conclusions: Approximately one-sixth of patients with cancer receiving treatment actively use cannabis for management of various cancer symptoms. Perceptions about cannabis use and education varied widely among health-care professionals.

Introduction: Among cancer centers, patients' interest in acupuncture is growing, in addition to clinical research in the intervention. Their National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center piloted an acupuncture service. Their aim was to assess whether acupuncture impacted patient self-reported symptoms as delivered clinically and discuss their implementation strategy. Methods: Patients undergoing acupuncture at a comprehensive cancer center from June 2019 to March 2020 were asked to complete a modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) before and after each session. The authors evaluated symptom changes after acupuncture in both outpatient and inpatient settings. A change of ≥1 U, on the 0-10 scale, was considered clinically significant. Results: Three hundred and nine outpatient and 394 inpatient acupuncture sessions were provided to patients at the comprehensive cancer center during this period, of which surveys from 186 outpatient (34 patients) and 124 inpatient (57 patients) sessions were available for analysis. The highest pretreatment symptoms reported by outpatients were neuropathy (5.78), pain (5.58), and tiredness (5.59). Outpatients receiving acupuncture reported clinically significant improvements in pain (ESAS score change of -2.97), neuropathy (-2.68), decreased lack of well-being (-2.60), tiredness (-1.85), nausea (-1.83), anxiety (-1.56), activities of daily living issues (-1.32), depression (-1.23), anorexia (-1.19), insomnia (-1.14), and shortness of breath (-1.14). The most severe pretreatment symptoms reported by inpatients were pain (6.90), insomnia (6.16), and constipation (5.44). Inpatients receiving acupuncture reported clinically significant improvements in anxiety (-3.69), nausea (-3.61), insomnia (-3.26), depression (-2.98), pain (-2.77), neuropathy (-2.68), anorexia (-2.20), constipation (-1.95), and diarrhea (-1.26). Conclusion: Both outpatient and inpatient participants in this pilot acupuncture program reported clinically significant improvements in symptoms after a single acupuncture treatment. Some differences between the outpatient and inpatient settings warrant further investigation.

Integrative oncology is a new and growing field of cancer care. Integrative oncology is a patient-centered, evidence-based field of comprehensive cancer care that utilizes integrative therapies such as mind-body practices, acupuncture, massage, music therapy, nutrition, and exercise in collaboration with conventional cancer treatments. Patient interest and utilization has been growing over the past two decades. Clinical research has shown the benefits of these approaches to improving symptom management and quality of life, and is now being incorporated into national guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The availability of these services at cancer centers is growing, although the structure and implementation of integrative oncology remains highly variable. This article discusses the benefits of integrative oncology and provides an overview of the current state of integrative oncology programs nationwide. Current challenges and opportunities for cancer centers to provide integrative services is reviewed in the areas of programmatic structure, clinical service, education, and research.

Introduction: There is limited data about assessments that are associated with increased utilization of medical services among advanced oncology patients (AOPs). We aimed to identify factors related to healthcare utilization and death in AOP. Methods: AOPs at a comprehensive cancer center were enrolled in a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation program. Participants completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (FACT-G) scale. We examined factors associated with palliative care (PC), acute care (AC), emergency room (ER), hospital admissions (HA), and death. Results: In all, 817 AOPs were included in these analyses with a median age of 69. They were generally female (58.7%), white (61.4%), stage IV (51.6%), and represented common cancers (31.5% GI, 25.2% thoracic, 14.3% gynecologic). ESAS pain, anxiety, and total score were related to more PC visits (B=0.31, 95% CI [0.21, 0.40], ppp=0.001, respectively). Total FACT-G score and physical subscale were related to total PC visits (B=−0.021 [−0.037, −0.006], p=0.008 and B=−0.181 [−0.246, −0.117], pp=0.024), while increased tiredness was associated with fewer AC visits (B=−0.039 [−0.073, −0.006], p=0.023). Higher total ESAS scores were related to death within 30 days (OR=0.87 [0.76, 0.98], p=0.027). Conclusions: The ESAS and FACT-G assessments were linked to PC and AC visits and death. These assessments may be useful for identifying AOPs that would benefit from routine PC.

Neuroendocrine tumors are a rare type of cancer found in hormone-producing cells throughout the body. Research on disease-specific patient education assessments in this population is lacking. We previously demonstrated the feasibility and validity of NET VITALS, a patient-centered self-assessment designed to improve patients’ knowledge of their neuroendocrine tumor diagnosis/treatment and facilitate communication with their physician. In this report, we provide a brief overview of patient assessments that have been used for patients with neuroendocrine tumors. We summarize NET VITALS and present a proposed infrastructure for its implementation into standard clinical care in both academic and community practice settings at City of Hope. Incorporating NET VITALS into standard of care treatment for patients with neuroendocrine tumors may improve patients’ overall clinical care experience.

PURPOSE: The aim of this joint guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and other health care providers on integrative approaches to managing pain in patients with cancer. METHODS: The Society for Integrative Oncology and ASCO convened an expert panel of integrative oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative oncology, social sciences, mind-body medicine, nursing, and patient advocacy representatives. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2021. Outcomes of interest included pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. Expert panel members used this evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 227 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Among adult patients, acupuncture should be recommended for aromatase inhibitor–related joint pain. Acupuncture or reflexology or acupressure may be recommended for general cancer pain or musculoskeletal pain. Hypnosis may be recommended to patients who experience procedural pain. Massage may be recommended to patients experiencing pain during palliative or hospice care. These recommendations are based on an intermediate level of evidence, benefit outweighing risk, and with moderate strength of recommendation. The quality of evidence for other mind-body interventions or natural products for pain is either low or inconclusive. There is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients. More research is needed to better characterize the role of integrative medicine interventions in the care of patients with cancer. Additional information is available at https://integrativeonc.org/practice-guidelines/guidelines and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Background: Palliative care (PC) is an essential part of oncologic care, but its optimal role within a cancer center remains unclear. This study examines oncology healthcare providers’ perspectives about the role of PC at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC). Methods: Physicians, nurses, and other oncology healthcare providers at a CCC were surveyed for their opinions about the role of inpatient and outpatient PC, preferences for PC services, and barriers to referral. Chi-squared tests and multiple regression analyses were performed to explore associations. Results: We received 137/221 completed questionnaires (61% response rate). Respondents were generally female (78%), had ≤ 10 years of service (69%), and included physicians (32%), nurses (32%), and advanced practice providers (17%). Most respondents (82%) agreed that more patients could benefit from PC. They also agreed that PC is beneficial for both outpatient and inpatient management of complex pain (96 and 88%), complex symptoms (84 and 74%), and advanced cancer patients (80 and 64%). Transition to hospice (64 vs. 42%, p = 0.007) and goals of care (62 vs. 49%, p = 0.011) provided by PC services were more valued by respondents for the inpatient than for the outpatient setting. Barriers to utilizing PC included lack of availability, unsure of when to refer, and poor communication. The majority of respondents (83%) preferred a cancer focused PC team to provide high-quality care. Conclusions: Overall, the majority of oncology health care providers believe that more patients could benefit from PC, but opinions vary regarding the roles of inpatient and outpatient PC. Barriers and areas for improvement include availability, referral process, and improved communication.

Reiki is a form of energy healing that has gained popularity in the United States, but there remains skepticism about its scientific validity. This study examines the ability of Reiki practitioners (RP) to detect human energy fields (HEF). Volunteer RP were asked to identify the location of a human hand under blinded conditions for a total of 20 trials. Four potential options existed for subjects (right, left, both, or neither); thus, random chance would predict a success rate of 25%. A success rate of >40% was considered significant, and these individuals would be asked to conduct another 40 trials. A control group of non-energy trained volunteers were also asked to complete the same task. A total of 67, mainly female (91%), RP participated in this study. The majority were Reiki Masters (90%) and practiced Reiki an average of 11.4 years (±6.2, 1.5-24). They had a mean success rate of detecting HEF of 25.4%, (median 5 ± 1.8, 1-10), while the control group (n = 25) had an average success rate of 24.2% (median 5 ± 1.6, 2-8). One subject met criteria for repeat testing for a final 42% accuracy rate. Level of training (masters versus level II), years of experience (>10), age (>60), female sex, handedness, or time to detect HEF (average >20 sec) did not correlate to an increase in accuracy for RP. RPs’ ability to HEF was equivalent to chance and similar to the control group of non-energy trained volunteers. The mechanism by which reiki provides benefits to patients is still unknown, and while this study indicates that it may not be through the manipulation of energy fields, alternate explanations include physical touch and healing touch, both of which should be explored in future research.