Conclusion: Innovative Research

  • Andrea ChevilleEmail author


A convergence of economic, technological, policy, and scientific forces are driving changes in the nature and scope of cancer rehabilitation services, who receives and provides them, and where they are provided. The possibilities for cancer rehabilitation service provision created by shifts away from fee-for-service are profound. They open the door to a radical reconceptualization of healthcare delivery, and create a pressing need for evidence to inform strategies to render care delivery more patient-centric while simultaneously preserving effectiveness and enhancing value. Remote and hybrid (combination remote-center based) approaches have been validated that evaluate, educate, and treat patients with cancer to address diverse clinical targets. For example, two randomized controlled trials that provided collaborative telecare via phone calls and web-based interfaces noted clinically meaningfully benefits and were cost effective. “Big data,” or population-level aggregated data collected in the course of care delivery and billing, has held the attention of clinical researchers for over a decade, but that interest and related expectations have intensified. Current efforts to systematically collect functional and rehabilitation-related outcome data through the electronic health records will likely fuel future AI-based approaches. Multimodal pain management with an emphasis on nonpharmacological approaches has become a renewed topic of investigative attention. In addition to new analgesic molecule and device development, current research efforts are developing new approaches to care delivery that may prove highly relevant to cancer rehabilitation.


Telemedicine Cancer pain Artificial intelligence 


  1. 1.
    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Long-term survivorship care after cancer treatment: proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2018.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forum NQ. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) in performance measurement. Washington, DC: The National Quality Forum. 2013.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quality AfHRa. Total expenses and percent distribution for selected conditions by type of service: United States, 2014. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey Household Component Data. 3 Aug 2017 ed 2016.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lage DE, Nipp RD, D’Arpino SM, et al. Predictors of posthospital transitions of care in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choi Yoo SJ, Nyman JA, Cheville AL, Kroenke K. Cost effectiveness of telecare management for pain and depression in patients with cancer: results from a randomized trial. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2014;36:599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kroenke K, Theobald D, Wu J, et al. Effect of telecare management on pain and depression in patients with cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2010;304:163–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheville AL, Moynihan T, Herrin J, Loprinzi C, Kroenke K. Effect of collaborative telerehabilitation on functional impairment and pain among patients with advanced-stage cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5(5):644–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cella D, Choi S, Garcia S, et al. Setting standards for severity of common symptoms in oncology using the PROMIS item banks and expert judgment. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:2651–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cella D, Choi S, Rosenbloom S, et al. A novel IRT-based case-ranking approach to derive expert standards for symptom severity. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:A–32.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galiano-Castillo N, Cantarero-Villanueva I, Fernandez-Lao C, et al. Telehealth system: a randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of an internet-based exercise intervention on quality of life, pain, muscle strength, and fatigue in breast cancer survivors. Cancer. 2016;122:3166–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Atema V, van Leeuwen M, Kieffer JM, et al. Efficacy of internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy for treatment-induced menopausal symptoms in breast cancer survivors: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:809–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shah ND, Steyerberg EW, Kent DM. Big data and predictive analytics: recalibrating expectations. JAMA. 2018;320:27–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Afzal M, Hussain M, Ali Khan W, et al. Comprehensible knowledge model creation for cancer treatment decision making. Comput Biol Med. 2017;82:119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu P, Artz D, Warner J. Electronic health records (EHRs): supporting ASCO’s vision of cancer care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2014;1:225–31.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Herasevich V, Afessa B, Chute CG, Gajic O. Designing and testing computer based screening engine for severe sepsis/septic shock. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008;1:966.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galloway RV, Karmarkar AM, Graham JE, et al. Hospital readmission following discharge from inpatient rehabilitation for older adults with debility. Phys Ther. 2016;96:241–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Park SH, Han K. Methodologic guide for evaluating clinical performance and effect of artificial intelligence technology for medical diagnosis and prediction. Radiology. 2018;286:800–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wright A, Sittig DF, Ash JS, Sharma S, Pang JE, Middleton B. Clinical decision support capabilities of commercially-available clinical information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:637–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miner D. Building clinical programs around patient-entered data. Epic Users Group Meeting; Verona, WI; 2016.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cheville AL, Mustian K, Winters-Stone K, Zucker DS, Gamble GL, Alfano CM. Cancer rehabilitation: an overview of current need, delivery models, and levels of care. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2017;28:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Collins FS, Varmus H. A new initiative on precision medicine. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:793–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ashcraft KA, Warner AB, Jones LW, Dewhirst MW. Exercise as adjunct therapy in cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2019;29:16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lu M, Sanderson SM, Zessin A, et al. Exercise inhibits tumor growth and central carbon metabolism in patient-derived xenograft models of colorectal cancer. Cancer Metab. 2018;6:14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koelwyn GJ, Quail DF, Zhang X, White RM, Jones LW. Exercise-dependent regulation of the tumour microenvironment. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17:620–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmitz KH, Williams NI, Kontos D, et al. Dose-response effects of aerobic exercise on estrogen among women at high risk for breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;154:309–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brown JC, Troxel AB, Ky B, et al. Dose-response effects of aerobic exercise among colon cancer survivors: a randomized phase II trial. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2018;17:32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yamamoto T, Yamamoto N, Doi K, et al. Indocyanine green-enhanced lymphography for upper extremity lymphedema: a novel severity staging system using dermal backflow patterns. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:941–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hara H, Mihara M. Indocyanine green lymphographic and lymphoscintigraphic findings in genital lymphedema-genital pathway score. Lymphat Res Biol. 2017;15:356–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jiang X, Nicolls MR, Tian W, Rockson SG. Lymphatic dysfunction, leukotrienes, and lymphedema. Annu Rev Physiol. 2018;80:49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rockson SG, Tian W, Jiang X, et al. Pilot studies demonstrate the potential benefits of antiinflammatory therapy in human lymphedema. JCI Insight. 2018;3:20.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fredheim OM, Skurtveit S, Handal M, Hjellvik V. A complete national cohort study of prescriptions of analgesics and benzodiazepines to cancer survivors in Norway 10 years after diagnosis. Pain. 2019;160:852–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Salz T, Lavery JA, Lipitz-Snyderman AN, et al. Trends in opioid use among older survivors of colorectal, lung, and breast cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1001–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barbera L, Sutradhar R, Howell D, et al. Factors associated with opioid use in long-term cancer survivors. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2019;58(1):100–107.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Matthias MS, Daggy J, Adams J, et al. Evaluation of a peer coach-led intervention to improve pain symptoms (ECLIPSE): rationale, study design, methods, and sample characteristics. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019;81:71–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Benzo RP, Kramer KM, Hoult JP, Anderson PM, Begue IM, Seifert SJ. Development and feasibility of a home pulmonary rehabilitation program with health coaching. Respir Care. 2018;63:131–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Benzo RP, Kirsch JL, Hathaway JC, McEvoy CE, Vickers KS. Health coaching in severe COPD after a hospitalization: a qualitative analysis of a large randomized study. Respir Care. 2017;62:1403–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marineo G, Iorno V, Gandini C, Moschini V, Smith TJ. Scrambler therapy may relieve chronic neuropathic pain more effectively than guideline-based drug management: results of a pilot, randomized, controlled trial. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2012;43:87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smith T, Cheville AL, Loprinzi CL, Longo-Schoberlein D. Scrambler therapy for the treatment of chronic post-mastectomy pain (cPMP). Cureus. 2017;9:e1378.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pachman DR, Weisbrod BL, Seisler DK, et al. Pilot evaluation of Scrambler therapy for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Support Care Cancer. 2015;23:943–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smith TJ, Razzak AR, Blackford AL, et al. A pilot randomized sham-controlled trial of MC5-A scrambler therapy in the treatment of chronic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). J Palliat Care. 2019;35(1):53–8. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations