Managing cancer symptoms while patients receive systemic treatment remains a challenge in oncology. The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches like virtual reality (VR) and neurofeedback (NF) in tandem with systemic treatment might reduce symptom burden for patients. The combination of VR + NF as a CAM intervention approach is novel and understudied, particularly as it relates to supportive cancer care. The purpose of this study is to summarize our VR + NF study protocol and share preliminary results regarding study retention (across 2 treatment sessions) and preliminary impact of VR or VR + NF on patient-reported outcomes such as anxiety and pain.

We utilized a parallel arm trial design to compare preliminary impact of VR only and VR + NF on cancer symptoms among patients who are actively receiving cancer treatment.

Sixty-seven percent (n = 20) of participants returned to participate in a second VR session, and the rates of return were the same between the VR groups. Patients in the VR + NF group showed improvements in anxiety after both sessions, while patients in the VR only group showed significant improvements in pain and depression after both sessions. Patients in the VR + NF group showed improved pain after session 1.

This study demonstrates that patients can be retained over multiple treatment sessions and that VR and NF remain promising treatment approaches with regard to impact on patient-reported outcomes like anxiety and pain.

A desire for hastened death is commonly expressed by cancer patients. Although efforts to define and explore this issue have been undertaken, no standardized approach exists to address these desires.

Ms. J expressed a wish for accelerated death and subsequently experienced unexpected clinical decline resulting in a quick, natural death. Our team experienced a mixture of both emotional distress and awe after witnessing the pragmatic approach our patient had to her impending decline, that we felt was worthy of further exploration.

Most clinicians lack formal training in communication, potentially making cases like Ms. J’s highly distressing. Clinicians should feel comfortable addressing and potentially inquiring about patients’ desire to hasten death. While our initial reaction might be to correct this desire, we propose reframing this expression as an opportunity to explore more about our patients.

The objective of this study was to compare the attitudes and beliefs of PCU physicians leaders in the United States versus Canada regarding the subcutaneous method in the administration of medications and hydration in order to gain a better understanding as to why variations in practice exist.

This survey trial took place from November 2022 to May 2023. The MD Anderson Cancer Center institutional review board in Houston, Texas, approved this study. The participants were the physician leaders of the acute palliative care units (PCUs) in the United States and Canada. The survey comprised questions formulated by the study investigators regarding the perceived comfort, efficiency, and preference of using the subcutaneous versus the intravenous method. The consent form and survey links were emailed to the participants.

Sixteen PCUs were identified in the United States and 15 PCUs in Canada. Nine US and 8 Canadian physicians completed the survey. Physicians in Canada were more likely to use the subcutaneous route for administering opioids, antiemetics, neuroleptics, and hydration. They preferred subcutaneous over intravenous or intramuscular routes (p = 0.017). Canadian physicians felt their nursing staff was more comfortable with subcutaneous administration (p = 0.022) and that it was easier to administer (p = 0.02). US physicians felt the intravenous route was more efficient (p = 0.013).

The study results suggest that exposure to the subcutaneous route influences a physician’s perception. Further research is needed to explore ways to incorporate its use to a greater degree in the US healthcare system.

Limited evidence investigates how knowledge, misconceptions, and beliefs about palliative care vary across patients with cancerous versus non-cancerous chronic disease. We examined the knowledge of and misconceptions about palliative care among these groups.

We used weighted data from the National Cancer Institute Health Information National Trends Survey 5 (Cycle 2) for nationally representative estimates and logistic regression to adjust for respondent characteristics. We identified respondents who reported having (1) cancer ([n = 585]; breast, lung, and colorectal), (2) chronic conditions ([n = 543]; heart failure, lung disease, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder), or (3) neither cancer nor other chronic conditions (n = 2,376).

Compared to cancer respondents, chronic condition respondents were more likely to report being Black or Hispanic, report a disability, and have lower socioeconomic status. In the sample, 65.6% of cancer respondents and 72.8% chronic conditions respondents reported they had never heard of palliative care. Chronic condition respondents were significantly (p < 0.05) less likely to report high palliative care knowledge than cancer respondents (9.1% vs. 16.6%, respectively). In adjusted analyses, cancer respondents had greater odds of high palliative care knowledge (odd ratio [OR] = 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01, 2.86) compared to respondents with neither cancer nor chronic disease; chronic condition respondents did not have increased odds (OR = 0.96; CI = 0.59, 1.54).

Disparities in palliative care knowledge exist among people with non-cancerous chronic disease compared to cancer. Supportive educational efforts to boost knowledge about palliative care remains urgent and is critical for promoting equity, particularly for underserved people with chronic illnesses.

Physical activity (PA) interventions help people with advanced incurable diseases to manage symptoms and improve their quality of life. However, little is known about the extent to which PA is currently delivered in hospice care in England.

To determine the extent of and intervention features of PA service provision in hospice care in England alongside barriers and facilitators to their delivery.

An embedded mixed-methods design using (1) a nationwide online survey of 70 adult hospices in England and (2) focus groups and individual interviews with health professionals from 18 hospices. Analysis of the data involved applying descriptive statistics to the numeric items and thematic analysis to the open-ended questions. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analyzed separately.

The majority of responding hospices (n = 47/70, 67%) promoted PA in routine care. Sessions were most often delivered by a physiotherapist (n = 40/47, 85%) using a personalized approach (n = 41/47, 87%) and included resistance/thera bands, Tai Chi/Chi Qong, circuit exercises, and yoga. The following qualitative findings were revealed: (1) variation among hospices in their capacity to deliver PA, (2) a desire to embed a hospice culture of PA, and (3) a need for an organizational commitment to PA service provision.

While many hospices in England deliver PA, there is considerable variation in its delivery across sites. Funding and policy action may be needed to support hospices to initiate or scale up services and address inequity in access to high-quality interventions.

It is widely acknowledged that co-occurring symptoms in patients with a psychosocial and spiritual aspects should also be considered. However, this multidimensional approach is difficult to integrate into daily practice, especially for generalist clinicians not specialized in palliative care. We aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to multidimensional symptom management.

Focus group meetings were conducted with the following stakeholders: (1) patient representatives, (2) generalist community nurses, (3) generalist hospital nurses, (4) general practitioners, (5) generalist hospital physicians, and (6) palliative care specialists. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed.

Fifty-one participants (6–12 per group) reported barriers and facilitators with 3 main themes: multidimensional symptom assessment, initiating management of nonphysical problems, and multidisciplinary collaboration. As barriers, generalist clinicians and palliative care specialists reported that generalist clinicians often lack the communication skills to address nonphysical problems and are unaware of available resources for multidimensional symptom management. Palliative care specialists felt that generalist clinicians may be unaware that assessing nonphysical problems is important and focus on pharmacological interventions. Generalist nurses and palliative care specialists indicated that hierarchical difficulties between them and generalist physicians are barriers to multidisciplinary collaboration. Reported facilitators included using symptom assessment scales and standardized questions on nonphysical problems.

Generalist clinicians can be supported by improving their communication skills, increasing their awareness of available resources for multidimensional symptom management, and by using a standardized approach to assess all 4 dimensions of palliative care.

Early palliative care integration into the oncologic treatment pattern is recognized and strongly recommended to anticipate end-of-life issues and avoid disproportionate care. Targeted therapies (TTs), with their very rapid onset of action and relatively good tolerance, may have an effect on cancer-related symptoms, which could be beneficial in the context of palliative care.

Data were extracted from a cohort of all patients hospitalized in an acute palliative care unit between 03.04.2019 and 07.04.2020. Data for all consecutive patients for which a decision on a TT was made during hospitalization were retrospectively analyzed.

Forty-two patients were identified. Thirty-one patients were currently receiving TT on admission. For 19/31 (61.3%) patients, the treatment was discontinued. The remaining 12 patients had TT after discharge from the palliative care unit (continuation of the same TT or modification of the TT during the stay), with an average duration of 208 days and an average of 46 days between the last TT and death. TT was introduced or reintroduced in 7 patients of the 11 patients hospitalized without treatment at admission. In this group, the average duration of treatment was 28 days, with an average of 28 days between the last TT and death. Five of the patients who received re-challenged TT experienced a subjective improvement of their symptom.

TT was discontinued in the majority of our patients. However, in some cases, the treatment was maintained because it was effective on cancer-related symptoms even at the end of life. However, this should not overshadow the palliative process. The continuation or introduction of a specific oncological treatment requires close cooperation between oncologists and palliative care physicians and an honest and clear explanation to patients and their families.

Palliative care (PC) is patient and family-centered supportive care intended to improve symptom management, reduce caregiver burden, coordinate care, and improve quality of life for patients diagnosed with serious illness. Optimally, PC is begun close to initial diagnosis and delivered in synchrony with disease-specific treatment until symptom relief or patient death. The purpose of this study was to examine cancer survivors’ knowledge and perceptions of PC using a nationally representative sample of US adults from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).

A total of 593 HINTS respondents reported a personal history of cancer and were included in the sample (55.56% female; mean age of 65.88 years, SD = 18.21; mean time from diagnosis 13.83 years, SD = 18.21). Weighted logistic regression models were conducted to identify correlates of PC knowledge.

Of the 593 cancer survivors in the sample, 66% (N = 378) reported that they had never heard of PC, 18% (N = 112) reported knowing a little bit about PC, and 17% (N = 95) reported knowing what PC is and could explain it to someone else. In multivariable analysis, survivors of color (Hispanic/Latino, Black, Asian, American Indian, and Pacific Islander), males, and those less educated were significantly less likely to report knowledge of PC. Among survivors who did report knowledge of PC, a lack of distinction between differing modes of supportive care exists.

These findings suggest a need to increase PC knowledge among cancer survivors with the ultimate goal of addressing disparities in PC acceptance and utilization.

The purpose was to describe the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual needs of patients with non-cancer serious illness diagnoses compared to those of patients with cancer.

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients with a non-cancer diagnosis admitted to a tertiary palliative care unit between January 2008 and December 2017 and compared their needs to those of a matched cohort of patients with cancer diagnoses. The prevalence of needs within the following four main concerns was recorded and the data analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis:

• • Physical: pain, dyspnea, fatigue, anorexia, edema, and delirium

• • Psychological: depression, anxiety, prognosis, and dignity

• • Social: caregiver burden, isolation, and financial

• • Spiritual: spiritual distress

The prevalence of the four main concerns was similar among patients with non-cancer and cancer diagnoses. Pain, nausea/vomiting, fatigue, and anorexia were more prevalent among patients with cancer. Dyspnea was more commonly the primary concern in patients with non-cancer diagnoses (39%), who also had a higher prevalence of anxiety and concerns about dignity. Spirituality was addressed more often in patients with cancer.

The majority of patients admitted to tertiary palliative care settings have historically been those with cancer. The tertiary palliative care needs of patients with non-cancer diagnoses have not been well described, despite the increasing prevalence of this population. Our description of the palliative care needs of patients with non-cancer diagnoses will help guide future palliative care for the increasing population of patients with non-cancer serious illness diagnoses.