ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases, or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Background: High-quality care for seriously ill patients aligns treatment with their goals and values. Failure to achieve “goal-concordant” care is a medical error that can harm patients and families. Because communication between clinicians and patients enables goal concordance and also affects the illness experience in its own right, healthcare systems should endeavor to measure communication and its outcomes as a quality assessment. Yet, little consensus exists on what should be measured and by which methods. Objectives: To propose measurement priorities for serious illness communication and its anticipated outcomes, including goal-concordant care. Methods: We completed a narrative review of the literature to identify links between serious illness communication, goal-concordant care, and other outcomes. We used this review to identify gaps and opportunities for quality measurement in serious illness communication. Results: Our conceptual model describes the relationship between communication, goal-concordant care, and other relevant outcomes. Implementation-ready measures to assess the quality of serious illness communication and care include (1) the timing and setting of serious illness communication, (2) patient experience of communication and care, and (3) caregiver bereavement surveys that include assessment of perceived goal concordance of care. Future measurement priorities include direct assessment of communication quality, prospective patient or family assessment of care concordance with goals, and assessment of the bereaved caregiver experience. Conclusion: Improving serious illness care necessitates ensuring that high-quality communication has occurred and measuring its impact. Measuring patient experience and receipt of goal-concordant care should be our highest priority. We have the tools to measure both.

Background: African Americans (AA) are more likely to receive worse end-of-life (EOL) care and are less likely to participate in advance care planning (ACP) than white Americans. Objective: Our goal was to understand factors impacting ACP among AA and explore their interactions, in order to guide further research and intervention development. Methods: We systematically identified, using Medline, Embase, and World of Science databases, the quantitative and qualitative ACP literature in which AA were included. We assessed the quality of these studies and evaluated the literature in an iterative and integrative fashion, using themes developed from the qualitative literature to understand and categorize findings from the quantitative literature. Results: Thirty-eight mostly moderate and low quality quantitative studies focused largely on advance directive (AD) completion. Whereas most conclude that AA, when compared with white Americans, prefer more aggressive care, participate less in ACP, and are more likely to informally discuss EOL care than to formally document wishes, study findings were contradictory in a number of domains. Fourteen qualitative studies revealed a number of themes that informed the development of an empirically derived model to explain the relationship of factors impacting ACP for AA along historical and structural axes. Conclusions: The multiple factors that impact ACP for AA are inter-related and may result in part from historical realities that shape contemporary experience. We know little from the data about how best to improve ACP in AA. That AA appear to prefer informal discussions about ACP to formal documentation of preferences suggests that future research should focus on improving ACP conversations among clinicians, patients, and their families in order to improve the receipt of goal-concordant care at EOL.

Background : Communication between clinicians and patients fundamentally shapes the experience of serious illness. There is increasing recognition that health systems should routinely implement structures and processes to assure high-quality serious illness communication (SIC) and measure the effectiveness of their efforts on key outcomes. The absence, underdevelopment, or limited applicability of quality measures related specifically to SIC, and their limited application only to those seen by specialist palliative and hospice care teams, hinder efforts to improve care planning, service delivery, and health outcomes for all seriously ill patients. Objective : We convened an expert stakeholder symposium and subsequently surveyed participants to consider challenges, opportunities, priorities, and strategies to improve quality measurement specific to SIC. Results : We identified several barriers and opportunities to improving quality measurement of SIC. These include issues related to the definition of SIC, methodological challenges related to measuring SIC and related outcomes, underutilization of technologies that can facilitate measurement, and measurement development, and dissemination. Conclusions : Patients, clinicians, and health systems increasingly align around the importance of high-quality communication in serious illness. We offer recommendations for various stakeholder groups to advance SIC quality measurement. Enthusiasm and a sense of urgency among health systems to drive and measure communication improvements inform our proposal for a set of example measures for implementation now.

Objective: We aimed to explore multiple perspectives regarding barriers to and facilitators of advance care planning (ACP) among African Americans to identify similarities or differences that might have clinical implications.Method: Qualitative study with health disparities experts (n = 5), community members (n = 9), and seriously ill African American patients and caregivers (n = 11). Using template analysis, interviews were coded to identify intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systems-level themes in accordance with a social ecological framework.Result: Participants identified seven primary factors that influence ACP for African Americans: religion and spirituality; trust and mistrust; family relationships and experiences; patient-clinician relationships; prognostic communication, care preferences, and preparation and control. These influences echo those described in the existing literature; however, our data highlight consistent differences by group in the degree to which these factors positively or negatively affect ACP. Expert participants reinforced common themes from the literature, for example, that African Americans were not interested in prognostic information because of mistrust and religion. Seriously ill patients were more likely to express trust in their clinicians and to desire prognostic communication; they and community members expressed a desire to prepare for and control the end of life. Religious belief did not appear to negate these desires.Significance of results: The literature on ACP in African Americans may not accurately reflect the experience of seriously ill African Americans. What are commonly understood as barriers to ACP may in fact not be. We propose reframing stereotypical barriers to ACP, such as religion and spirituality, or family, as cultural assets that should be engaged to enhance ACP. Although further research can inform best practices for engaging African American patients in ACP, findings suggest that respectful, rapport-building communication may facilitate ACP. Clinicians are encouraged to engage in early ACP using respectful and rapport building communication practices, including open-ended questions.