Devon Check

PURPOSE: Reports suggest that up to 50% of women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC) do not complete the recommended 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET). We examined the impact of an outreach program at Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) on adherence and discontinuation of AET among patients who initiated AET. METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort of all KPNC patients diagnosed with HR+, stage I-III BC initiating AET before (n = 4287) and after (n = 3580) implementation of the outreach program. We compared adherence proportions and discontinuation rates before and after program implementation, both crude and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, education, income, and stage. We conducted a pooled analysis of data from six Cancer Research Network (CRN) sites that had not implemented programs for improving AET adherence, using identical methods and time periods, to assess possible secular trends. RESULTS: In the pre-outreach period, estimated adherence in years 1, 2, and 3 following AET initiation was 75.2%, 71.0%, and 67.3%; following the outreach program, the estimates were 79.4%, 75.6%, and 72.2% (p-values < .0001 for pairwise comparisons). Results were comparable after adjusting for clinical and demographic factors. The estimated cumulative incidence of discontinuation was 0.22 (0.21-0.24) and 0.18 (0.17-0.19) at 3 years for pre- and post-outreach groups (p-value < .0001). We found no evidence of an increase in adherence between the study periods at the CRN sites with no AET adherence program. CONCLUSION: Adherence and discontinuation after AET initiation improved modestly following implementation of the outreach program.

PURPOSE: Cancer is a major reason for concurrent prescription of opioids with other sedating medications-particularly benzodiazepines and gabapentinoids-yet population-based assessments of the extent and predictors of concurrent prescribing among clinically and demographically diverse patients with cancer are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with non-metastatic cancer using North Carolina cancer registry data linked with Medicare and private insurance claims (2013-2016). We used modified Poisson regression to assess associations of patient characteristic with adjusted relative risk (aRR) of new concurrent prescribing of opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids after diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, 15% of patients were concurrently prescribed opioids with benzodiazepines or gabapentinoids. Characteristics independently associated with an increased risk of concurrent prescribing included cancer type (e.g., aRR cervical vs. colorectal cancer: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.12-2.14); prior use of opioids (aRR: 2.43, 95% CI:2.21-2.67), benzodiazepines (aRR: 4.08, 95% CI: 3.72-4.48), or gabapentinoids (3.82, 95% CI: 3.31-4.39), and premorbid mental health conditions, including substance use disorder (aRR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.05-1.54). Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to experience concurrent prescribing (aRR, Black vs. White: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.15-0.83; aRR, Hispanic vs. White: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.85). CONCLUSION: Approximately 1 in 7 patients with cancer was concurrently prescribed opioids with other sedating medications. Associations between patient characteristics and risk of concurrent prescribing highlight predictors of concurrent prescribing and suggest a rationale for systematic assessment of substance use history at diagnosis. Future research could explore inequitable pain and symptom management and investigate risk of adverse medication-related events.

BACKGROUND: For patients and their intimate partners, advanced cancer poses significant challenges that can negatively impact both individuals and their relationship. Prior studies have found evidence that couple-based communication skills interventions can to be beneficial for patients and partners. However, these studies have been limited by reliance on in-person treatment delivery and have not targeted couples at high risk for poor outcomes. This study tests the efficacy of a Couples Communication Skills Training (CCST) intervention delivered via videoconference for couples reporting high levels of holding back from discussing cancer-related concerns, a variable associated with poorer psychological and relationship functioning. METHODS: This RCT is designed to evaluate the efficacy of CCST in improving patient and partner relationship functioning (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include patient and partner psychological functioning and patient symptoms and health care use. We also examine the role of objective and self-reported communication behaviors as mediators of treatment effects. Two hundred thirty patients with advanced lung, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and breast cancer and their partners will be randomized to CCST or an education control intervention. Participants in both conditions complete self-reported outcome measures at baseline, mid-treatment, post-treatment, and 3 months post-treatment. Objective measures of communication are derived from video-recorded couple conversations collected at baseline and post-treatment. An implementation-related process evaluation (assessing implementation outcomes and potential barriers to/facilitators of implementation) will be conducted to inform future efforts to implement CCST in real-world settings. DISCUSSION: This trial can yield important new knowledge about effective ways to improve patient and partner adjustment to advanced cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Trial # NCT04590885); registration date: October 19, 2020.

CONTEXT: Recent years show a sharp increase in research on opioid use among cancer survivors, but evidence syntheses are lacking, leaving knowledge gaps. Corresponding research needs are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To provide an evidence synthesis. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase, identifying articles related to cancer, and opioid prescribing/use published through September 2020. We screened resulting titles/abstracts. Relevant studies underwent full-text review. Inclusion criteria were quantitative examination of and primary focus on opioid prescribing or use, and explicit inclusion of cancer survivors. Exclusion criteria included end-of-life opioid use and opioid use as a secondary or downstream outcome (for intervention studies). We extracted information on the opioid-related outcome(s) examined (including definitions and terminology used), study design, and methods. RESULTS: Research returned 16,591 articles; 296 were included. Only 22 of 296 studies evaluated an intervention. There were 105 studies evaluating outcomes indicative of potentially high-risk, nonrecommended, or avoidable opioid use, e.g., continuous use-described as chronic use, prolonged use, and persistent use (n = 17); use after completion of curative-intent treatment-described as chronic opioid use, long-term opioid use, persistent opioid use, prolonged opioid use, continued opioid use, late opioid use, post-treatment opioid use (n = 27); use of opioids concurrent with other potentially high-risk medications (n = 13), and opioid misuse (n = 14). CONCLUSIONS: We found lack of consistency in the measurement of and terms used to describe similar opioid use outcomes, and a lack of interventional research targeting well-documented patterns of potentially nonrecommended, potentially avoidable, or potentially high-risk opioid prescribing or use.

How do we build on the proven successes of hospice and palliative care and build clinical programs to serve those who need it in the context of real-world health care? Experiences with glide pathways have clearly shown that changes in financial incentives must always be implemented with counterbalancing measures that ensure that seriously ill patients are getting high-quality care consistent with their goals and values. There are quality measures for quality improvement and there are quality measures for accountability or transparency. We must balance any financial incentives with concrete quality measures that act as a check and balance to the care that is being provided. This area of investigation is rich in opportunity. Much research is needed to advance the craft of hospice and palliative care if the field is to move forward at scale in a timely manner. We need to democratize research and engage both "small r" and a "big R" researchers in the manner of other subspecialties such as oncology and cardiology. Future research should focus on building innovative systems and models of care to uncover needs of seriously ill patients and their caregivers and effectively cater to those needs.