JCO oncology practice最新文献

Purpose: Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) is a life-saving medication for patients with hormone-sensitive breast cancer, yet many struggle with adherence, warranting behavioral intervention. In our recent trial, participation in a group cognitive behavioral intervention (STRIDE) for symptom management and adherence was associated with improvements in symptom distress, coping, quality of life, and mood. We now explore whether baseline patient- and medication-specific factors-which may be modifiable by clinician-led discussions-moderated the effect of STRIDE on adherence rates.

Methods: From October 2019 to June 2021, 100 patients with early-stage breast cancer reporting AET-related distress were enrolled and randomly assigned to STRIDE or a medication monitoring (MM) control group. All patients stored their AET in electronic pill bottles to track objective adherence. Patients also self-reported their adherence on the Medication Adherence Report Scale-5 and their perceptions of AET on the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire at baseline. We conducted hierarchical linear modeling to test moderators of intervention effects on objective adherence rates. We report the time × group × moderator effects.

Results: Among patients reporting greater perceived difficulties with AET adherence at baseline, STRIDE participants had higher adherence rates over time compared with MM (b = -13.80; SE = 4.56; P < .01). Patients with greater expectations of therapeutic benefit from AET also had improved adherence rates if they were assigned to STRIDE, versus MM (b = 0.25; SE = 0.10; P = .01). Patients who perceived taking AET as convenient and had been taking their AET for less time had higher adherence rates in STRIDE, versus MM.

Conclusion: The current study identified patient- and medication-specific factors that may augment AET adherence interventions and may be modifiable through clinician-led discussions, such as perceptions of adherence problems, therapeutic efficacy, and convenience of AET.

Oncology is a complex clinical specialty often requiring the close interaction of teams of different medical specialists for a successful outcome. The field is rapidly evolving scientifically, with successive discoveries of oncologic driver mutations soon followed by therapeutic agents able to interrupt the neoplastic process. Unfortunately, objective quality measurement demonstrates that many patients are not receiving optimal care, from diagnostic accuracy, therapeutic, or end-of-life perspectives. Quality measurement, reporting, and payment programs have the potential to focus attention on these care gaps and drive improvement. The federal government, as the largest single payer of health care services in the United States, has a compelling national interest to ensure that the medical care of Americans is at the highest level achievable. Accordingly, quality reporting and payment programs have been established in federal health care payment programs to drive improvements in care. This article reviews the science of quality measurement, documented gaps in oncology care, and ways to use new information technologies to decrease clinician burden associated with quality reporting. The article reviews how a measure is developed and incorporated into a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) program. It also summarizes federal programs relevant to oncology care and the individual measures used in these programs. CMS looks forward to working jointly with the oncology community to drive continuous improvements in care.

Routine symptom screening may identify unmet needs, but must consider patient engagement and clinician workloads.

Purpose: The enhanced, electronic health record (EHR)-facilitated cancer symptom control (E2C2) trial is a cohort cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge, hybrid type II trial that leverages EHR systems to facilitate a collaborative care model (CCM) approach with the goal of improving cancer symptom management. Understanding factors that influence care team adoption of EHR systems remains a critical understudied area of research. This study examines how oncology care teams' perceptions regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of E2C2 EHR systems preimplementation were associated with adoption 3 months after implementation and characterizes differences in adoption by individual- and system-level factors.

Methods: Care team members completed an electronic survey before and 3 months after implementation of E2C2 for their respective sequence. Adoption was defined as frequency of use to statements aligned with care team-directed EHR systems designed to facilitate CCM approaches. Chi-square tests assessed differences in adoption while logistic regression models estimated associations between baseline mean scores of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness on care team adoption at 3 months.

Results: Results from 94 care team members (37.2% oncologists, 72.6% female, 55.3% in their role for 6+ years) found that adoption rates ranged from 48.9% to 71.7%, with significant differences observed by location (community-based health care systems v tertiary medical center) and professional role. Adjusting for professional role, care team members reporting higher levels of perceived acceptability and appropriateness at baseline had greater odds of adopting EHR systems at 3 months.

Conclusion: EHR systems perceived as acceptable and appropriate are more likely to be adopted by oncology care teams in our sample. Future implementation efforts should consider tailored strategies to facilitate adoption of EHR systems designed to promote CCM-based approaches to improve cancer symptom management.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are a significant advancement over paper records. However, the full potential of EHRs for improving care quality, patient outcomes, surveillance, and research in cancer care is yet to be realized. The organic evolution of EHRs has resulted in a number of unanticipated consequences including increased time spent by clinicians interfacing with the EHR for daily workflows. Patient access to clinicians and their records has been an important advancement in patient-centered care; however, this has brought to light additional gaps and challenges in EHRs meeting these needs. A significant challenge for EHR design and physician workflows is how best to meet the complex goals and priorities of various stakeholders including providers, researchers, patients, health systems, payors, and regulatory agencies. The National Cancer Policy Forum convened a 2022 workshop, "Innovations in Electronic Health Records for Oncology Care, Research and Surveillance," to address these challenges and to facilitate collaboration across all user groups with the goal of re-envisioning EHRs that will better support shared goals of improving patient outcomes and advancing cancer care and research without overburdening clinicians with administrative tasks. Here, we summarize the current EHR ecosystem as discussed at the workshop and highlight opportunities to improve EHR contributions to oncology evidence and care.

Purpose: Globally, cancer drug expenditure exceeds $185 in US dollars (USD) billion, with the United States contributing $75 (USD) billion. Many cancer drug doses are calculated on the basis of body weight or body surface area, which often results in leftover drug in partially used single-dose vials (SDVs). The cost of wasted drug is a huge financial burden on the US health care system. We evaluated the cost savings resulting from the reduction of SDV wastage, achieved through the implementation of automated dose rounding rules in electronic health records (EHRs).

Methods: Mayo Clinic implemented automated dose rounding rules within the EHR. These rules were designed to round calculated doses to the nearest SDV if the vial size closely matched the original calculated dose, within a 10% threshold. We assessed doses administered between January 2019 and December 2021, and computed cost-savings, waste reduction, and cost of waste for chemotherapy drugs.

Results: In 3 years, 36.1% of doses were rounded down, 35.8% were rounded up, and 28.1% were exact doses. By rounding doses down to a vial size, we achieved cost-savings of $39.75 (USD) million and prevented 62,065 SDV of cancer drugs from going to waste. By rounding doses up, we avoided wasting $9.95 (USD) million worth of drugs. However, there were still instances where the rounding fell outside of the 10%, resulting in wasted drugs worth $25 (USD) million.

Conclusion: The substantial burden imposed on patients and the US health care system because of cancer drug wastage is of significant concern. Although the automated dose rounding system represents a partial solution for this issue, a comprehensive approach involves the imperative development of policy and legislative solutions to effectively mitigate the challenges associated with cancer drug waste.

Time and other considerations when evaluating a switch to newer drug formulations (eg, subQ vs IV).

Purpose: Early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC), defined as CRC diagnosed before age 50 years, has increased significantly worldwide. The majority of EOCRCs do not appear to be driven by genetic factors and may be influenced by environmental factors. We hypothesized that sociodemographic disparities exist in EOCRC. The purpose was of the study was to examine the geographic disparities in patients with EOCRC.

Methods: We retrospectively examined the SEER database from 1976 to 2016 to examine the geographic disparities in EOCRC. A total of 73,378 patients with EOCRC were included in the analysis. We performed univariate and multivariable analyses to evaluate overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). Sociodemographic factors, including the location of residence (metropolitan areas [MA] or rural areas [RA]), sex, race, insurance status, and marital status, were included in the statistical analysis.

Results: The incidence and mortality rates were consistently higher in RA versus MA during the study period. Multivariable analysis showed that patients living in RA had worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; P < .01) and DSS (HR, 1.15; P < .001) compared with those living in MA. Similarly, non-Hispanic Black ethnicity and uninsured patients had significantly worse survival when compared with non-Hispanic White and insured patients, respectively. Married status showed better survival outcomes.

Conclusion: Patients with EOCRC living in RA have worse outcomes. Understanding the mechanisms behind such socioeconomic disparities is important so that future studies can reduce these disparities.