Cancer-related fatigue is defined as a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of physical, emotional, and/or cognitive tiredness or exhaustion related to cancer or cancer treatment that is not proportional to recent activity and interferes with usual functioning. It is one of the most common side effects in patients with cancer. Fatigue has been shown to be a consequence of active treatment, but it may also persist into posttreatment periods. Furthermore, difficulties in end-of-life care can be compounded by fatigue. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cancer-Related Fatigue provide guidance on screening for fatigue and recommendations for interventions based on the stage of treatment. Interventions may include education and counseling, general strategies for the management of fatigue, and specific nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions. Fatigue is a frequently underreported complication in patients with cancer and, when reported, is responsible for reduced quality of life. Therefore, routine screening to identify fatigue is an important component in improving the quality of life for patients living with cancer.

Approximately 12 400 children are diagnosed with cancer each year in the United States.¹ Regardless of the outcome, cancer and its treatment often take a significant toll on the quality of life of pediatric oncology patients. While the need for palliative care (PC) in this patient population at the end of life, as well as its benefits, have been well established,^2,3 availability and utilization remain low.⁴ Experts in the field have made the recommendation that PC should be introduced at diagnosis and incorporated into care throughout the course of cancer care,^5-7 but in most practices, this does not occur. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends “an integrated model of PC ‘in which the components of PC are offered at diagnosis and continued throughout the course of illness, whether the outcome ends in cure or death’”^8(p352) for all children with life-limiting illness. Early integration of PC with oncology care for pediatric patients has the potential to improve patients’ physical and emotional well-being as well as their quality of life throughout the course of therapy and beyond.⁷

BACKGROUND: The incorporation of genomic testing to identify targetable somatic alterations and predisposing germline mutations into the clinical setting is becoming increasingly more common. Despite its potential usefulness, to the authors' knowledge physician confidence with regard to understanding and applying genomic testing remains unclear, particularly within the realm of pediatric oncology.METHODS: Before initiating an institutional feasibility study regarding the integration of clinical genomic testing, the authors surveyed pediatric oncologists regarding their confidence around understanding of genomic testing, perceived usefulness of test results, preferences around the disclosure of germline test results, and possible risks and benefits of testing.RESULTS: Among survey respondents (52 of 88 contacted; response rate of 59%), only a minority were confident in interpreting, using, and discussing somatic (35%) or germline (27%) genomic test results. Providers who were confident in interpreting somatic results were significantly more likely to anticipate using the results to plan the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory cancers (P = .009). Similarly, providers who reported confidence in interpreting germline results were significantly more likely to discuss and use these results as part of clinical care (P<.0001). The majority of physicians (93%), regardless of their level of confidence, wanted to speak to a genetic counselor before disclosing germline test results.CONCLUSIONS: Among physicians at a comprehensive pediatric cancer center, confidence in the interpretation, use, and discussion of oncology‐based genomic test results appears to be low, both in terms of somatic and germline testing. To optimize the integration of genomic sequencing into cancer care, methods must be developed to improve basic competencies around cancer‐based genomic testing. Given the complexities surrounding variant interpretation and genotype‐phenotype relationships, interdisciplinary collaborations are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:2352–2359. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

PURPOSE: Brentuximab vedotin, an effective anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate approved for use in adults with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), was introduced in this frontline trial to reduce prescribed radiation in children and adolescents with classical HL. METHODS: Open-label, single-arm, multicenter trial for patients (age ≤ 18 years) with stage IIB, IIIB, or IV classical HL was conducted. Brentuximab vedotin replaced each vincristine in the OEPA/COPDac (vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone, and dacarbazine) regimen according to GPOH-HD2002 treatment group 3 (TG3); two cycles of AEPA and four cycles of CAPDac. Residual node radiotherapy (25.5 Gy) was given at the end of all chemotherapy only to nodal sites that did not achieve a complete response (CR) at the early response assessment (ERA) after two cycles of therapy. Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and efficacy (complete remission at ERA) of this combination and the 3-year event-free (EFS) and overall survival (OS). The trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01920932 ). RESULTS: Of the 77 patients enrolled in the study, 27 (35%) achieved complete remission at ERA and were spared radiation. Patients who were irradiated received radiation to individual residual nodal tissue. At a median follow-up of 3.4 years, the 3-year EFS was 97.4% (SE 2.3%) and the OS was 98.7% (SE 1.6%). One irradiated patient experienced disease progression at the end of therapy and now remains disease free more than 6 years following salvage therapy, and one unexpected death occurred. Only 4% of patients experienced grade 3 neuropathy. CONCLUSION: The integration of brentuximab vedotin in the frontline treatment of pediatric high-risk HL is highly tolerable, facilitated significant reduction in radiation exposure, and yielded excellent outcomes.