JCO oncology practice最新文献

Purpose: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer.

Methods: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process.

Results: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations.

Conclusion: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Oncologists use molecular prediction/pharmacogenomics to improve Rx of cancer. Voltaire now wrong.

New study highlights critical gaps and opportunities to enhance equitable cancer care for sexual and gender minority patients.

Purpose: Early-phase clinical trials (EP-CTs) are designed to determine optimal dosing, tolerability, and preliminary activity of novel cancer therapeutics. Little is known about the time that patients spend interacting with the health care system (eg, time toxicity) while participating in these studies.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive patients enrolled in EP-CTs from 2017 to 2019 to obtain baseline characteristics and number of health care-associated days, defined as all inpatient and outpatient visits while on trial. We used univariable and multivariable analyses to identify predictors of increased time toxicity, defined as the proportion of health care-associated days among total days on trial. For ease of interpretation, we created a dichotomous variable, with high time toxicity defined as ≥20% health care-associated days during time on trial and used regression models to evaluate relationships between time toxicity and clinical outcomes.

Results: Among 408 EP-CT participants (mean age, 60.5 years [standard deviation, SD, 12.6]; 56.5% female; 88.2% White; 96.0% non-Hispanic), patients had an average of 22.5% health care-associated days while on trial (SD, 13.8%). Those with GI (B = 0.07; P = .002), head/neck (B = 0.09; P = .004), and breast (B = 0.06; P = .015) cancers and those with worse performance status (B = 0.04; P = .017) and those receiving targeted therapies (B = 0.04; P = .014) experienced higher time toxicity. High time toxicity was associated with decreased disease response rates (odds ratio, 0.07; P < .001), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.10; P < .001), and overall survival (HR, 2.16; P < .001).

Conclusion: In this cohort of EP-CT participants, patients spent more than one-fifth of days on trial with health care contact. We identified characteristics associated with higher time toxicity and found that high toxicity correlated with worse clinical outcomes. These data could help inform patient-clinician discussions about EP-CTs, guide future trial design, and identify at-risk patients.

Despite advances in clinical cancer care, cancer survivors frequently report a range of persisting issues, unmet needs, and concerns that limit their ability to participate in life roles and reduce quality of life. Needs assessment is recognized as an important component of cancer care delivery, ideally beginning during active treatment to connect patients with supportive services that address these issues in a timely manner. Despite the recognized importance of this process, many health care systems have struggled to implement a feasible and sustainable needs assessment and management system. This article uses an implementation science framework to guide pragmatic implementation of a needs assessment clinical system in cancer care. According to this framework, successful implementation requires four steps including (1) choosing a needs assessment tool; (2) carefully considering the provider level, clinic level, and health care system-level strengths and barriers to implementation and creating a pilot system that addresses these factors; (3) making the assessment system actionable by matching needs with clinical workflow; and (4) demonstrating the value of the system to support sustainability.

Purpose: The Accessible Cancer Care to Enable Support for Cancer Survivors (ACCESS) program adopts a multidisciplinary supportive care model with routine distress screening to triage newly diagnosed cancer survivors for additional support on the basis of distress levels. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of ACCESS over 1 year.

Methods: We performed cluster random assignment at the oncologist level in a 1:1 ratio to receive ACCESS or usual care. Participants 21 years and older, newly diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer, and receiving care at National Cancer Centre Singapore were included. Outcomes assessed every 3 months for 1 year included quality of life (QoL) (primary), functioning, physical and psychological symptom burden, and activity levels. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects models.

Results: Participants from 16 clusters (control = 90, intervention = 83) were analyzed. The ACCESS program did not significantly improve QoL (primary outcome). However, compared with usual care recipients, ACCESS recipients reported higher physical functioning (P = .017), role functioning (P = .001), and activity levels (P < .001) at 9 months and lower psychological distress (P = .025) at 12 months. ACCESS recipients screened with high distress had poorer QoL, lower role and social functioning, and higher physical symptom distress at 3 months but had comparable scores with ACCESS recipients without high distress after 12 months.

Conclusion: Compared with usual care, participation in the ACCESS program did not yield QoL improvement but showed earlier functioning recovery related to activities of daily living and reduced psychological distress. Routine distress screening is a promising mechanism to identify survivors with poorer health for more intensive supportive care.

Purpose: This study used willingness-to-pay (WTP) exercises to explore the relationships between race, financial toxicity, and treatment decision making among people with cancer.

Methods: A convenience sample of people with multiple myeloma who attended an academic medical center in 2022 was surveyed. Financial toxicity was assessed by the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity, with scores <26 indicating financial toxicity. WTP was assessed with (1) a discrete choice experiment (DCE), (2) fixed-choice tasks, and (3) a bidding game.

Results: In total, 156 people were approached, and 130 completed the survey. The majority of the sample was White (n = 99), whereas 24% (n = 31) was African American or Black. Forty-six percent (n = 60) of the sample were experiencing financial toxicity. In the DCE, the relative importance of cost was twice as high for those with financial toxicity (30% compared with 14%; P < .001). In the fixed-choice tasks, they were twice as likely to accept a treatment with shorter progression-free survival but lower costs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.47; P = .049). In the bidding game, the median monthly WTP of those with financial toxicity was half that of those without ($100 in US dollars [USD] compared with $200 USD; P < .001). Only in the bidding game was race statistically associated with WTP; after controlling for financial toxicity, African American or Black participants were three times as likely (aOR, 3.06; P = .007) to report a lower WTP.

Conclusion: Across all three exercises, participants with financial toxicity reported lower WTP than those without. As financial toxicity disproportionally affects some segments of patients, it is possible that financial toxicity contributes to cancer disparities.

Purpose: Community factors and structural barriers may contribute to disparities and underrepresentation in cancer clinical trials. We evaluate the influence of community-level social determinants of health, as measured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), on disparities in cancer clinical trial discussion and participation.

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the 2021 Health Information National Trends Survey-SEER, a representative survey of cancer survivors sampled from three SEER registries. The primary outcomes included patient-reported clinical trial discussion and participation. The primary exposure was county-level SVI, linked to each survey respondent by ZIP code of residence and categorized into quintiles. Survey-weighted bivariate comparisons and multivariable logistic regression were performed to evaluate the association between SVI and clinical trial discussion and participation, adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, education, income, and cancer stage.

Results: We identified 1,220 respondents residing in 153 counties with a median SVI of 0.41 (IQR, 0.27-0.62), representing a population of over 400,000 cancer survivors on weighted analysis. Of the cohort, 15.1% reported clinical trial discussion and 7.7% reported clinical trial participation. Patients who are most socially vulnerable (fifth quintile of SVI) had significantly lower odds of clinical trial discussion (odds ratio [OR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.87]; P = .02) and clinical trial participation (OR, 0.15 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.75]; P = .02) compared with patients who are least socially vulnerable (first quintile of SVI).

Conclusion: These findings suggest interventions to identify socially vulnerable communities for expansion of clinical trial opportunities and infrastructure may be an impactful strategy toward improving diversity and representation in cancer clinical trials.