The 2006 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus paper presented recommendations by the Ancillary Therapy and Supportive Care Working Group to support clinical research trials in chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Topics covered in that inaugural effort included the prevention and management of infections and common complications of chronic GVHD, as well as recommendations for patient education and appropriate follow-up. Given the new literature that has emerged during the past 8 years, we made further organ-specific refinements to these guidelines. Minimum frequencies are suggested for monitoring key parameters relevant to chronic GVHD during systemic immunosuppressive therapy and, thereafter, referral to existing late effects consensus guidelines is advised. Using the framework of the prior consensus, the 2014 NIH recommendations are organized by organ or other relevant systems and graded according to the strength and quality of supporting evidence.

No abstract

PURPOSE The aim of this work is to provide evidence-based guidance on the management of osteoporosis in survivors of adult cancer. METHODS ASCO convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel to develop guideline recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The literature search of the 2018 systematic review by the US Preventive Services Task Force in the noncancer population was used as the evidentiary base upon which the Expert Panel based many of its recommendations. A total of 61 additional studies on topics and populations not covered in the US Preventive Services Task Force review were also included. Patients with cancer with metastatic disease and cancer survival outcomes related to bone-modifying agents are not included in this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS Patients with nonmetastatic cancer may be at risk for osteoporotic fractures due to baseline risks or due to the added risks that are associated with their cancer therapy. Clinicians are advised to assess fracture risk using established tools. For those patients with substantial risk of osteoporotic fracture, the clinician should obtain a bone mineral density test. The bone health of all patients may benefit from optimizing nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle. When a pharmacologic agent is indicated, bisphosphonates or denosumab at osteoporosis-indicated dosages are the preferred interventions.

Palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are important collaborative referral sources for each other who can work together to improve the lives of cancer patients, survivors, and caregivers by improving both quality of care and quality of life. Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care involve the delivery of important but underutilized medical services to oncology patients by interdisciplinary teams. These subspecialties are similar in many respects, including their focus on improving cancer-related symptoms or cancer treatment-related side effects, improving health-related quality of life, lessening caregiver burden, and valuing patient-centered care and shared decision-making. They also aim to improve healthcare efficiencies and minimize costs by means such as reducing hospital lengths of stay and unanticipated readmissions. Although their goals are often aligned, different specialized skills and approaches are used in the delivery of care. For example, while each specialty prioritizes goal-concordant care through identification of patient and family preferences and values, palliative care teams typically focus extensively on using patient and family communication to determine their goals of care, while also tending to comfort issues such as symptom management and spiritual concerns. Rehabilitation clinicians may tend to focus more specifically on functional issues such as identifying and treating deficits in physical, psychological, or cognitive impairments and any resulting disability and negative impact on quality of life. Additionally, although palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are trained to diagnose and treat medically complex patients, rehabilitation clinicians also treat many patients with a single impairment and a low symptom burden. In these cases, the goal is often cure of the underlying neurologic or musculoskeletal condition. This report defines and describes cancer rehabilitation and palliative care, delineates their respective roles in comprehensive oncology care, and highlights how these services can contribute complementary components of essential quality care. An understanding of how cancer rehabilitation and palliative care are aligned in goal setting, but distinct in approach may help facilitate earlier integration of both into the oncology care continuum-supporting efforts to improve physical, psychological, cognitive, functional, and quality of life outcomes in patients and survivors.

Introduction The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has accelerated the growth of telemedicine services across the United States. In this study, we examined cancer rehabilitation patient and physician satisfaction with telemedicine visits. We also sought to evaluate the types of provider services that are given during telemedicine visits. Objective To assess overall patient and provider satisfaction with telemedicine visits and explore whether satisfaction varied by contact method (phone or video) and encounter type (new problem, worsening problem, stable/improving problem). Design Prospective survey study. Setting Cancer rehabilitation program at an academic medical center. Participants Three cancer rehabilitation providers and 155 unique patients participated in the study. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Provider and patient satisfaction measured by customized surveys. Results One hundred eighty‐four encounters with 169 unique patients were scheduled. Of these, 14 were new visits and 170 were follow‐up visits. Eighteen encounters (9.8%) were either no shows or rescheduled, making for 166 encounters with 155 unique patients. Patient and provider responses comprised the following: 94.8% of patient responses reported “quite a bit” or “very much” for the telemedicine visit being a good experience; 63.1% of patient responses reported “quite a bit” or “very much” for interest in using telemedicine visits in the future; and 83.9% of provider responses reported “quite a bit” or “very much” for the patient's main problem being addressed by the visit. Providers were more likely to prefer an in‐person visit for a new or worsening problem versus a stable/improving problem. The most common services provided were medication prescription/titration and education/counseling. The least common services provided were making of new diagnoses, ordering interventional procedures, and making referrals. Conclusion Telemedicine visits were well received by both patients and providers in a cancer rehabilitation medicine clinic setting. However, in the case of a new or worsening problem, satisfaction declined. These data support that telemedicine visits should be considered essential as part of comprehensive cancer rehabilitation care, especially during a public health crisis.

Health related quality of life (HRQOL) measures have become increasingly important in the management of glioma patients in both research and clinical practice settings. Functional impairment is common in low-grade and high-grade glioma patients as the disease has both oncological and neurological manifestations. Natural disease history as well as medical or surgical treatment can negatively influence HRQOL. There are no universal standards for HRQOL assessment in glioma patients. In this study, we examine patient perspectives on functional outcome domains and report the prevalence of impairments rates using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Neuro-QOL item banks as measures of HRQOL. Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected dataset involving 79 glioma patients reveals that quality of life concerns are the most important consideration behind making decisions about treatment in 80.7% of patients. The prevalence of functional impairment by PROMIS and NEURO-QOL assessment is high, ranging from 28.6% in the physical function domain to 43.9% in the cognitive function domain. Pain and anxiety related to physical decline is higher in LGG patients compared to HGG patients. Aphasia severity also impacts HRQOL. The results of this study suggest that the PROMIS and NEURO-QOL assessments may be important HRQOL metrics for future use in larger clinical research and clinical trial settings.

All 4 measurement techniques demonstrated a good to moderately high degree of intra- and interobserver reliability. Highest reliability was noted in the assessment of T2-weighted sequences and axial MRI. Our results show that the measurements of MCC, MSCC, and CR are sufficiently reliable and correlate well with clinical severity of cervical myelopathy.

The growing acceptance of palliative care has created opportunities to increase the use of rehabilitation services among populations with advanced disease, particularly those with cancer. Broader delivery has been impeded by the lack of a shared definition for palliative rehabilitation and a mismatch between patient needs and established rehabilitation service delivery models. We propose the definition that, in the advanced cancer population, palliative rehabilitation is function-directed care delivered in partnership with other clinical disciplines and aligned with the values of patients who have serious and often incurable illnesses in contexts marked by intense and dynamic symptoms, psychological stress, and medical morbidity to realize potentially time-limited goals. Although palliative rehabilitation is most often delivered by inpatient physical medicine and rehabilitation consultation/liaison services and by physical therapists in skilled nursing facilities, outcomes in these settings have received little scrutiny. In contrast, outpatient cancer rehabilitation programs have gained robust evidentiary support attesting to their benefits across diverse settings. Advancing palliative rehabilitation will require attention to historical barriers to the uptake of cancer rehabilitation services, which include the following: patient and referring physicians' expectation that effective cancer treatment will reverse disablement; breakdown of linear models of disablement due to presence of concurrent symptoms and psychological distress; tension between reflexive palliation and impairment-directed treatment; palliative clinicians' limited familiarity with manual interventions and rehabilitation services; and challenges in identifying receptive patients with the capacity to benefit from rehabilitation services. The effort to address these admittedly complex issues is warranted, as consideration of function in efforts to control symptoms and mood is vital to optimize patients' autonomy and quality of life. In addition, manual rehabilitation modalities are effective and drug sparing in the alleviation of adverse symptoms but are markedly underused. Realizing the potential synergism of integrating rehabilitation services in palliative care will require intensification of interdisciplinary dialogue.