Patients with advanced cancer experience steep declines in quality of life because of their physical and emotional symptoms.^1,2 Inadequate attention to symptom control and lack of emotional support within the standard oncological care contribute to morbidity in this population.^3-5 Early specialty palliative care (SPC) has been reported to improve patient outcomes in select randomized clinical trials.^6-10 In response to a growing evidence base, guidelines recommend SPC for all patients with an advanced cancer diagnosis.¹¹ However, workforce shortages make it impossible for palliative care specialists to care for more than a small percentage of these patients.^12-14 Innovative models are needed to improve the provision of primary palliative care, defined as basic symptom management and communication skills delivered by clinicians who are not palliative care specialists, within oncology practices.¹⁵ The evidence base for primary palliative care interventions is limited, with many trials showing a high risk of bias (as assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk-of-bias tool)^16,17 and primarily focusing on inpatient or home settings.¹⁶ Thus, rigorous evaluation of primary palliative care interventions in outpatient oncology settings is needed.

In critical care, the specific, structured approach to patient care known as a “time-limited trial” has been promoted in the literature to help patients, surrogate decision makers, and clinicians navigate consequential decisions about life-sustaining therapy in the face of uncertainty. Despite promotion of the time-limited trial approach, a lack of consensus about its definition and essential elements prevents optimal clinical use and rigorous evaluation of its impact. The objectives of this American Thoracic Society Workshop Committee were to establish a consensus definition of a time-limited trial in critical care, identify the essential elements for conducting a time-limited trial, and prioritize directions for future work. We achieved these objectives through a structured search of the literature, a modified Delphi process with 100 interdisciplinary and interprofessional stakeholders, and iterative committee discussions. We conclude that a time-limited trial for patients with critical illness is a collaborative plan among clinicians and a patient and/or their surrogate decision makers to use life-sustaining therapy for a defined duration, after which the patient’s response to therapy informs the decision to continue care directed toward recovery, transition to care focused exclusively on comfort, or extend the trial’s duration. The plan’s 16 essential elements follow four sequential phases: consider, plan, support, and reassess. We acknowledge considerable gaps in evidence about the impact of time-limited trials and highlight a concern that if inadequately implemented, time-limited trials may perpetuate unintended harm. Future work is needed to better implement this defined, specific approach to care in practice through a person-centered equity lens and to evaluate its impact on patients, surrogates, and clinicians.

This JAMA Viewpoint discusses trends towards implementing palliative care for patients with serious chronic illness earlier than end of life, and it highlights

Millions of patients with cancer pain are treated with prescription opioids each year. However, efforts to mitigate the ongoing opioid crisis result in unintended consequences with opioid pain management, including opioid stigma. Emerging research indicates that opioid stigma is problematic in patients with cancer, but few studies have examined contributors to and impacts of opioid stigma in this population. To guide future research in this area, we propose a conceptual framework—the opioid stigma framework (OSF)—with which to understand and improve opioid stigma in patients with cancer pain. Development of the OSF was guided by a literature review of stigma in health-related conditions, adaptation of the existing Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework, a topical review of challenges related to opioid cancer pain management, and author expertise in cancer, pain, and opioid prescribing. The proposed OSF highlights 5 domains: (1) contributors to opioid stigma, or factors that increase the likelihood that a patient will experience opioid stigma; (2) intersecting stigmas, or the convergence of multiple stigmatized identities within a patient; (3) stigma manifestations, or the ways opioid stigma is manifested in patients, clinicians, and the community; (4) proximal outcomes, or the immediate consequences of opioid stigma in patients; and (5) long-term impacts in patients. The OSF provides 2 main avenues to facilitate future research: (1) providing a framework to explore the mechanisms that underlie opioid stigma and its impact on cancer pain management and (2) supporting the development of targeted, tailored interventions to eliminate opioid stigma.

PURPOSE: Responses to the opioid epidemic in the United States, including efforts to monitor and limit prescriptions for noncancer pain, may be affecting patients with cancer. Oncologists' views on how the opioid epidemic may be influencing treatment of cancer-related pain are not well understood. METHODS: We conducted a multisite qualitative interview study with 26 oncologists from a mix of urban and rural practices in Western Pennsylvania. The interview guide asked about oncologists' views of and experiences in treating cancer-related pain in the context of the opioid epidemic. A multidisciplinary team conducted thematic analysis of interview transcripts to identify and refine themes related to challenges to safe and effective opioid prescribing for cancer-related pain and recommendations for improvement. RESULTS: Oncologists described three main challenges: (1) patients who receive opioids for cancer-related pain feel stigmatized by clinicians, pharmacists, and society; (2) patients with cancer-related pain fear becoming addicted, which affects their willingness to accept prescription opioids; and (3) guidelines for safe and effective opioid prescribing are often misinterpreted, leading to access issues. Suggested improvements included educational materials for patients and families, efforts to better inform prescribers and the public about safe and appropriate uses of opioids for cancer-related pain, and additional support from pain and/or palliative care specialists. CONCLUSION: Challenges to safe and effective opioid prescribing for cancer-related pain include opioid stigma and access barriers. Interventions that address opioid stigma and provide additional resources for clinicians navigating complex opioid prescribing guidelines may help to optimize cancer pain treatment.