Purpose: In this study we aimed to estimate the effectiveness of pharmacological, nutraceutical, and phytopharmaceutical treatments on CRF. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Psych info, CINHAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 30 September 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, nutraceutical and phytopharmaceutical interventions for treatment of CRF for at least one week duration and have used valid tool to assess severity of CRF as a primary or secondary outcome were considered. Results: 32 eligible studies (4896 patients) were reviewed. For the overall meta-analysis, the random effect models yielded the treatment effect (95% CI) of −0.29 (−0.48,−0.09), p < 0.001. The meta-analysis did not show significant reduction of CRF with treatment with ginseng (n = 6), guarana (n = 3), megestrol (n = 2), mistletoe (n = 3), psychostimulants (n = 14), SSRI/antidepressants (n = 2). Corticosteroids (n = 2) showed significant reduction in CRF with treatment effects of 0.94 (−1.21, −0.67), p <0.0001, respectively. Conclusions: In this study, overall meta-analysis of all studies demonstrates significant reduction of CRF using Pharmacological, Nutraceutical and Phytopharmaceutical interventions with a pooled standardized treatment effect of −0.29. Metanalysis of Corticosteroids studies showed significant reduction in CRF. Further studies are needed.

PURPOSE: Increasing opioid regulations have resulted in reduced opioid prescriptions, including for cancer pain, despite guideline exemptions. Data after 2017 following the Centers for Disease Control's 2016 pain management guidelines are limited on opioid prescribing practices of oncologists. The purpose of this study was to examine the trend in dose of opioids prescribed by oncologists to patients with cancer pain referred to outpatient palliative care between 2016 and 2021. METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional, retrospective study was conducted at a tertiary cancer center's outpatient palliative care clinic including 375 adult patients referred for initial consultation for cancer pain between 2016 and 2021. The main outcome was the trend in prescribed opioid doses, expressed as morphine-equivalent daily dose in mg/day. Additional analyses were conducted to identify predictors of opioid prescriptions. RESULTS: The median age (range) was 61 (19-85), 50% were women, 67% were non-Hispanic White, 80% had advanced cancer, and 91% reported proficiency in English. Ninety-five percent had solid tumors, predominantly GI (22%), breast (15%), and genitourinary (14%). From 2016 to 2021, the median dose of opioids decreased from 37.5 to 7.5 ( P < .001). The proportion of patients on long-acting opioid decreased from 26% to 12% ( P = .019), whereas that of patients without opioids increased from 28% to 41% ( P = .008). CAGE-AID score (reflecting potential for substance abuse; β Coefficient, 43.2 [95% CI, 23.3 to 63.2], P < .001) and pain on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (5.77 [95% CI, 2.6 to 8.9], P < .001) predicted higher opioid dose, whereas non-English language predicted lower dose (–26.9 [95% CI, –53.1 to –0.8], P = .043). CONCLUSION: During the study period, we observed a five-fold decline in opioid dose prescribed by oncologists for cancer pain. This raises concerns for undertreatment of pain in patients with cancer.

Background/Objectives: Insomnia is a frequent and distressing symptom with limited treatment in patients with cancer. Among the available treatments for insomnia, psychological interventions are some of the most assessed. While studies and reviews show promise of interventions improving insomnia in patients with cancer, inconsistent approaches to operationalizing and measuring insomnia combined with the heterogeneity of available treatments render comparisons and synthetization difficult. This review sought to rigorously synthesize psychological interventions for patients with cancer and insomnia by describing current therapies, identifying gaps in the literature, and offering supportive interventions. Methods: A comprehensive search of five databases—Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycInfo, EBSCO CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and Cochrane Library—was conducted through 1 August 2024. The review included randomized trials and non-inferiority trials evaluating psychological interventions for patients with various types of cancers. Twenty-one studies were included, and study quality ranged from good to excellent, according to the PEDro scale. Results: The current evidence supports the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to treat insomnia over and above psychoeducation alone, mindfulness-based stress reduction, Brief Behavioral Therapy, the Benson Relaxation Technique, progressive muscle relaxation, mindfulness meditation, mind-body bridging, and home-based psychological nursing. Digital, minimal, and internet-based intervention modalities are effective, though professional-delivered CBT proved most effective. Conclusions: CBT remains the most effective psychological intervention for insomnia in this population. Challenges exist regarding the implementation of CBT, so further research is warranted to identify the best psychological interventions for specific settings and subsets of patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Falls in the hospital can lead to adverse events, including injuries. Studies have shown that patients with cancer and those undergoing inpatient rehabilitation (IPR) are at higher risk for falls. Therefore, we measured the frequency, degree of harm, and characteristics of patients who fell in an inpatient cancer rehabilitation unit. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on inpatient cancer rehabilitation patients admitted from January 2012 to February 2016. Fall frequency, degree of harm, fall circumstances, cancer type, patient's fall risk score on the basis of the MD Anderson Cancer Center Adult Inpatient Fall Risk Assessment Tool (MAIFRAT), length of stay, and risk factors were evaluated for patients. RESULTS: There were 72 out of 1,571 unique individual falls (4.6%), with a falls incidence of 3.76 falls per 1,000 patient-days. Most fallers (86%) suffered no harm. Risk factors for falls included presence of patient-controlled analgesia pump ( P = .03), pump such as insulin or wound vacuum-assisted closure ( P < .01), nasogastric, gastric, or chest tube ( P = .05), and higher MAIFRAT score ( P < .01). The fallers were younger (62 v 66; P = .04), had a longer IPR stay (13 v 9; P = .03), and had a lower Charlson comorbidity index (6 v 8; P < .01). CONCLUSION: The frequency and degree of harm for falls in the IPR unit were less than previous studies, which suggests that mobilization for these patients with cancer is safe. The presence of certain medical devices may contribute to fall risk, and more research is needed to better prevent falls in this higher-risk subgroup.

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between the Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes-Palliative Care (ECHO-PC; ECHO Model–Based comprehensive educational and telementoring intervention) for health care professionals (HCPs) and change in patient-reported quality-of-life (QOL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G]) among patients with advanced cancer. We also examined the association between ECHO-PC and changes in symptom distress (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS]), patient experience and satisfaction, and caregiver distress scores. METHODS: ECHO-PC Clinic sessions were conducted twice a month for 1 year by an interdisciplinary team of PC clinicians at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, with participation of experts in PC in sub-Saharan Africa, using standardized curriculum on the basis of PC needs in the region. Study participants included palliative HCPs from ECHO participating programs in Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, and South Africa. HCPs, their patients, and caregivers were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of the study for QOL (FACT-G), ESAS-Symptom Distress Score (prorated) (SDS), patient experience, satisfaction (FAMCARE-P-16-patient), and caregiver distress (FAMCARE-caregiver). RESULTS: Two hundred seventy patients completed the assessments. Fifty-eight percent was female, the mean age was 56 years, and most common cancer type was breast cancer (24.3%). Multivariate generalized linear mixed model analysis found that ECHO-PC intervention was associated with significant improvement in QOL and symptom distress (FACT-G total score, P = .0433; FACT-G physical well-being, P < .013; FACT-G emotional well-being, P = .0232, and ESAS-SDS, P < .0001). No significant changes were found in patient experience, satisfaction, and caregiver distress scores. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary study found that the ECHO-PC intervention was significantly associated with improvement in patient outcomes including QOL and symptom distress scores. Further studies are needed.