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 .

PURPOSE: To provide guidance on the use of opioids to manage pain from cancer or cancer treatment in adults. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature identified systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials of the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in people with cancer, approaches to opioid initiation and titration, and the prevention and management of opioid adverse events. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2010, to February 17, 2022. American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The evidence base consisted of 31 systematic reviews and 16 randomized controlled trials. Opioids have primarily been evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain, and they effectively reduce pain in this population, with well-characterized adverse effects. Evidence was limited for several of the questions of interest, and the Expert Panel relied on consensus for these recommendations or noted that no recommendation could be made at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS: Opioids should be offered to patients with moderate-to-severe pain related to cancer or active cancer treatment unless contraindicated. Opioids should be initiated PRN (as needed) at the lowest possible dose to achieve acceptable analgesia and patient goals, with early assessment and frequent titration. For patients with a substance use disorder, clinicians should collaborate with a palliative care, pain, and/or substance use disorder specialist to determine the optimal approach to pain management. Opioid adverse effects should be monitored, and strategies are provided for prevention and management. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Palliative care has evolved over the past five decades as an interprofessional specialty to improve quality of life and quality of care for patients with cancer and their families. Existing evidence supports that timely involvement of specialist palliative care teams can enhance the care delivered by oncology teams. This review provides a state-of-the-science synopsis of the literature that supports each of the five clinical models of specialist palliative care delivery, including outpatient clinics, inpatient consultation teams, acute palliative care units, community-based palliative care, and hospice care. The roles of embedded clinics, nurse-led models, telehealth interventions, and primary palliative care also will be discussed. Outpatient clinics represent the key point of entry for timely access to palliative care. In this setting, patient care can be enhanced longitudinally through impeccable symptom management, monitoring, education, and advance care planning. Inpatient consultation teams provide expert symptom management and facilitate discharge planning for acutely symptomatic hospitalized patients. Patients with the highest level of distress and complexity may benefit from an admission to acute palliative care units. In contrast, community-based palliative care and hospice care are more appropriate for patients with a poor performance status and low to moderate symptom burden. Each of these five models of specialist palliative care serve a different patient population along the disease continuum and complement one another to provide comprehensive supportive care. Additional research is needed to define the standards for palliative care interventions and to refine the models to further improve access to quality palliative care.

PURPOSE: To examine patient preferences as well as physician perceptions of these preferences for decision making and communication in palliative care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical decision-making preferences (DMPs) were prospectively studied in 78 assessable cancer patients after initial assessment at a palliative care outpatient clinic. DMPs were assessed with a questionnaire using five possible choices ranging from 1 (patient prefers to make the treatment decision) to 5 (patient prefers the physician to make the decision). In addition, the physician’s perception of this preference was assessed. RESULTS: Full concordance between the physician and the patient was seen in 30 (38%) of 78 cases; when the five original categories were recombined to cover active, shared, and passive decision making, there was concordance in 35 (45%) of 78 cases. The kappa coefficient for agreement between physician and patient was poor at 0.14 (95% confidence limit, −0.01 to 0.30) for simple kappa and 0.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00 to 0.34) for weighted kappa (calculated on the three regrouped categories). Active, shared, and passive DMPs were chosen by 16 (20%) of 78, 49 (63%) of 78, and 13 (17%) of 78 patients, and by 23 (29%) of 78, 30 (39%) of 78, and 25 (32%) of 78 physicians, respectively. The majority of patients (49 [63%] of 78; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.74) preferred a shared approach with physicians. Physicians predicted that patients preferred a less shared approach than they in fact did. Patient age or sex did not significantly alter DMP. CONCLUSION: An individual approach is needed and each patient should be assessed prospectively for DMP.