Cancer-related fatigue is defined as a distressing, persistent, subjective sense of physical, emotional, and/or cognitive tiredness or exhaustion related to cancer or cancer treatment that is not proportional to recent activity and interferes with usual functioning. It is one of the most common side effects in patients with cancer. Fatigue has been shown to be a consequence of active treatment, but it may also persist into posttreatment periods. Furthermore, difficulties in end-of-life care can be compounded by fatigue. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cancer-Related Fatigue provide guidance on screening for fatigue and recommendations for interventions based on the stage of treatment. Interventions may include education and counseling, general strategies for the management of fatigue, and specific nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions. Fatigue is a frequently underreported complication in patients with cancer and, when reported, is responsible for reduced quality of life. Therefore, routine screening to identify fatigue is an important component in improving the quality of life for patients living with cancer.

Support of terminally ill patients' spiritual needs by the medical team is associated with greater hospice utilization and, among high religious copers, less aggressive care at EoL. Spiritual care is associated with better patient QoL near death.

BACKGROUNDPatients with metastatic sarcomas have poor outcomes and although the disease may be amenable to immunotherapies, information regarding the immunologic profiles of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) subtypes is limited.METHODSThe authors identified patients with the common STS subtypes: leiomyosarcoma, undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), synovial sarcoma (SS), well‐differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcoma, and myxoid/round cell liposarcoma. Gene expression, immunohistochemistry for programmed cell death protein (PD‐1) and programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1), and T‐cell receptor Vβ gene sequencing were performed on formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded tumors from 81 patients. Differences in liposarcoma subsets also were evaluated.RESULTSUPS and leiomyosarcoma had high expression levels of genes related to antigen presentation and T‐cell infiltration. UPS were found to have higher levels of PD‐L1 (P≤.001) and PD‐1 (P≤.05) on immunohistochemistry and had the highest T‐cell infiltration based on T‐cell receptor sequencing, significantly more than SS, which had the lowest (P≤.05). T‐cell infiltrates in UPS also were more oligoclonal compared with SS and liposarcoma (P≤.05). A model adjusted for STS histologic subtype found that for all sarcomas, T‐cell infiltration and clonality were highly correlated with PD‐1 and PD‐L1 expression levels (P≤.01).CONCLUSIONSIn the current study, the authors provide the most detailed overview of the immune microenvironment in sarcoma subtypes to date. UPS, which is a more highly mutated STS subtype, provokes a substantial immune response, suggesting that it may be well suited to treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. The SS and liposarcoma subsets are less mutated but do express immunogenic self‐antigens, and therefore strategies to improve antigen presentation and T‐cell infiltration may allow for successful immunotherapy in patients with these diagnoses. Cancer 2017;123:3291‐304. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.