Oncology has lagged in realizing the time burdens of cancer care. Trials should report time toxicity

PURPOSE: To provide guidance on the clinical management of dyspnea in adult patients with advanced cancer.METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. An Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) systematic review provided the evidence base for nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions to alleviate dyspnea. The review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with a concurrent comparison group published through early May 2020. The ASCO Expert Panel also wished to address dyspnea assessment, management of underlying conditions, and palliative care referrals, and for these questions, an additional systematic review identified RCTs, systematic reviews, and guidelines published through July 2020.RESULTS: The AHRQ systematic review included 48 RCTs and two retrospective cohort studies. Lung cancer and mesothelioma were the most commonly addressed types of cancer. Nonpharmacologic interventions such as fans provided some relief from breathlessness. Support for pharmacologic interventions was limited. A meta-analysis of specialty breathlessness services reported improvements in distress because of dyspnea.RECOMMENDATIONS: A hierarchical approach to dyspnea management is recommended, beginning with dyspnea assessment, ascertainment and management of potentially reversible causes, and referral to an interdisciplinary palliative care team. Nonpharmacologic interventions that may be offered to relieve dyspnea include airflow interventions (eg, a fan directed at the cheek), standard supplemental oxygen for patients with hypoxemia, and other psychoeducational, self-management, or complementary approaches. For patients who derive inadequate relief from nonpharmacologic interventions, systemic opioids should be offered. Other pharmacologic interventions, such as corticosteroids and benzodiazepines, are also discussed. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

PURPOSE: To guide clinicians, adults with cancer, caregivers, researchers, and oncology institutions on the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids, including synthetic cannabinoids and herbal cannabis derivatives; single, purified cannabinoids; combinations of cannabis ingredients; and full-spectrum cannabis. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies on the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids when used by adults with cancer. Outcomes of interest included antineoplastic effects, cancer treatment toxicity, symptoms, and quality of life. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to January 27, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The evidence base consisted of 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies (four RCTs and one cohort study). The certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low. RECOMMENDATIONS: Cannabis and/or cannabinoid access and use by adults with cancer has outpaced the science supporting their clinical use. This guideline provides strategies for open, nonjudgmental communication between clinicians and adults with cancer about the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids. Clinicians should recommend against using cannabis or cannabinoids as a cancer-directed treatment unless within the context of a clinical trial. Cannabis and/or cannabinoids may improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens. Whether cannabis and/or cannabinoids can improve other supportive care outcomes remains uncertain. This guideline also highlights the critical need for more cannabis and/or cannabinoid research. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

PURPOSE: The time spent in pursuing treatments for advanced cancer can be substantial. We have previously proposed a pragmatic and patient-centered metric of these time costs—which we term time toxicity—as any day with physical health care system contact. This includes outpatient visits (eg, bloodwork, scans, etc), emergency department visits, and overnight stays in a health care facility. Herein, we sought to assess time toxicity in a completed randomized controlled trial (RCT).METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 RCT that evaluated weekly cetuximab infusions versus supportive care alone in 572 patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Initial results reported a 6-week improvement in median overall survival (OS) with cetuximab (6.1 v 4.6 months). Subsequent analyses reported that benefit was restricted to patients with K-ras wild-type tumors. We calculated patient-level time toxicity by analyzing trial forms. We considered days without health care contact as home days. We compared medians of time measures across arms and stratified results by K-ras status.RESULTS: In the overall population, median time toxic days were higher in the cetuximab arm (28 v 10, P < .001) although median home days were not statistically different between arms (140 v 121, P = .09). In patients with K-ras–mutated tumors, cetuximab was associated with almost numerically equal home days (114 days v 112 days, P = .571) and higher time toxicity (23 days v 11 days, P < .001). In patients with K-ras wild-type tumors, cetuximab was associated with more home days (186 v 132, P < .001).CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept feasibility study demonstrates that measures of time toxicity can be extracted through secondary analyses of RCTs. In CO.17, despite an overall OS benefit with cetuximab, home days were statistically similar across arms. Such data can supplement traditional survival end points in RCTs. Further work should refine and validate the measure prospectively. [Media: see text]