Context The current state of palliative care in cancer centers is not known. Objective We conducted a survey to determine the availability and degree of integration of palliative care services, and to compare between National Cancer Institute (NCI) and non-NCI cancer centers in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants Between June and October 2009, we surveyed both executives and palliative care clinical program leaders, where applicable, of 71 NCI cancer centers and a random sample of 71 non-NCI centers regarding their palliative care services. Executives were also asked about their attitudes toward palliative care. Main Outcome Measure Availability of palliative care services in the cancer center, defined as the presence of at least one palliative care physician. Results We sent 142 and 120 surveys to executives and program leaders, with response rates of 71% and 82%, respectively. NCI cancer centers were significantly more likely to have a palliative care program (50/51 (98%) vs. 39/50 (78%), P=0.002), at least one palliative care physician (46/51 (90%) vs. 28/50 (56%), P=0.04), an inpatient palliative care consultation team (47/51 (92%) vs. 28/50 (56%), P<0.001), and an outpatient palliative care clinic (30/51 (59%) vs. 11/50 (22%), P<0.001). Few centers had dedicated palliative care beds (23/101 (23%)) or an institution-operated hospice (37/101 (36%)). The median reported durations from referral to death were 7 (Q1–Q3 4–16), 7 (Q1–Q3 5–10), and 90 (Q1–Q3 30–120) days for inpatient consultation teams, inpatient units, and outpatient clinics, respectively. Research programs, palliative care fellowships, and mandatory rotations for oncology fellows were uncommon. Executives were supportive of stronger integration and increasing palliative care resources. Conclusion Most cancer centers reported a palliative care program, although the scope of services and the degree of integration varied widely. Further efforts to consolidate existing infrastructure and to integrate palliative care in cancer centers are warranted.

The Ancillary Therapy and Supportive Care Working Group had 3 goals: (1) to establish guidelines for ancillary therapy and supportive care in chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), including treatment for symptoms and recommendations for patient education, preventive measures, and appropriate follow-up; (2) to provide guidelines for the prevention and management of infections and other common complications of treatment for chronic GVHD; and (3) to highlight the areas with the greatest need for clinical research. The definition of "ancillary therapy and supportive care" embraces the most frequent immunosuppressive or anti-inflammatory interventions used with topical intent and any other interventions directed at organ-specific control of symptoms or complications resulting from GVHD and its therapy. Also included in the definition are educational, preventive, and psychosocial interventions with this same objective. Recommendations are organized according to the strength and quality of evidence supporting them and cover the most commonly involved organs, including the skin, mouth, female genital tract, eyes, gastrointestinal tract, and lungs. Recommendations are provided for prevention of infections, osteoporosis, and steroid myopathy and management of neurocognitive and psychosocial adverse effects related to chronic GVHD. Optimal care of patients with chronic GVHD often requires a multidisciplinary approach.

The Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine, at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a symposium on "Acupuncture for Cancer Symptom Management" on June 16 and 17, 2016. Invited speakers included 19 scientists and scholars with expertise in acupuncture and cancer research from the United States, Europe, and China. The conference reviewed the NCI's grant funding on acupuncture, analyzed the needs of cancer patients, reviewed safety issues, and assessed both the current scientific evidence and research gaps of acupuncture in oncology care. Researchers and stakeholders presented and discussed basic mechanisms of acupuncture; clinical evidence for specific symptoms; and methodological challenges such as placebo effects, novel biostatistical methods, patient-reported outcomes, and comparative effectiveness research. This paper, resulting from the conference, summarizes both the current state of the science and clinical evidence of oncology acupuncture, identifies key scientific gaps, and makes recommendations for future research to increase understanding of both the mechanisms and effects of acupuncture for cancer symptom management.