JCO oncology practice最新文献

Purpose: Immunotherapy has improved survival for patients with melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Yet, as responses vary widely, immunotherapy also introduces challenges in prognostic communication. In this study, we sought to explore how patients and caregivers learned about the goal of immunotherapy and their experience of living with uncertainty.

Materials and methods: We conducted a qualitative study of patients with stage III or IV melanoma or stage IV NSCLC within 12 weeks of initiating or 12 months of discontinuing immunotherapy, and their caregivers. We conducted in-depth interviews with participants to explore how they learned about immunotherapy from oncology clinicians and how they experienced uncertainty. We used a framework approach to analyze interview transcripts and synthesized concepts into themes.

Results: Forty-two patients and 10 caregivers participated; median age was 67 years and most were male (68%), white (95%), married (61%), and had melanoma (62%). We identified four themes: (1) the oncology team shaped participants' hopeful expectations of immunotherapy, including as a potential cure among those with melanoma; (2) distress related to prognostic uncertainty particularly affected patients who experienced toxicity or progressive disease; (3) patients who did not have long-term responses experienced overwhelming disappointment; and (4) some patients and caregivers had conflicting preferences for prognostic information. Participants provided suggestions to improve education and underscored unmet psychosocial needs.

Conclusion: Patients and caregivers held optimistic expectations of immunotherapy, which resulted in heightened disappointment among the subset with progression or toxicity. Clinicians should elicit information preferences of both patients and caregivers, as these may be disparate. Our results highlight the need to optimize prognostic communication and support for living with uncertainty among patients receiving immunotherapy.

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.

Purpose: Germline genetic testing (GT) is recommended for all patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but the traditional clinical genetics infrastructure is limited in addressing the unique needs of this population. We describe the integration of point of care (POC) GT into routine clinical practice for all patients with PDAC at an academic medical center.

Methods: We developed a clinical POC workflow that leverages electronic health record (EHR) tools and behavioral nudges to enhance the sustainability and scalability of our previously described research-based POC model. For each of the research and clinical POC cohorts, we calculated the percentage of eligible patients who underwent GT. We used Wilcoxon rank-sum and Pearson's chi-squared tests to compare patients who did and did not undergo GT. We conducted surveys among oncology clinicians to evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the clinical POC model.

Results: The research POC cohort included 905 patients, of whom 694 (76.7%) underwent GT. The clinical POC cohort included 148 patients, of whom 126 (85.1%) underwent GT. Patients who underwent GT in the research POC cohort were significantly younger (median age, 67.0 v 70.9 years; P = .031) and more likely to be White (82.1% v 68.7%; P < .001) and commercially insured (41.8% v 28.0%; P < .001) compared with those who did not; there were no significant differences between GT groups in the clinical POC cohort. Oncology clinicians found the clinical POC model to be acceptable (mean 4.4/5), appropriate (4.6/5), feasible (4.0/5), and have a positive impact on their patients (4.9/5).

Conclusion: A clinical POC model leveraging EHR tools and behavioral nudges is acceptable, appropriate, feasible, and associated with a >85% GT rate among patients with PDAC.

Purpose: Sepsis is the leading cause of mortality in patients with childhood cancer receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Pediatric hematology/oncology and transplant (PHOT) providers must counsel their patients on the safety of public activities and weigh the risk of infection exposure with the social and developmental benefits of in-person school and social outings. We hypothesize that there is significant variability in recommendations given by PHOT providers.

Methods: An electronic anonymous survey was developed and piloted by a group of PHOT providers to assess current methods for educating patients and families on limiting infectious exposures. Five clinical vignettes were created by the study team to explore how providers balance the competing priorities of safety and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The electronic survey was institutional review board-approved and disseminated via email to all PHOT providers affiliated with the Children's Oncology Group across the United States.

Results: In total, 545 clinicians completed the survey. Most respondents were attending physicians (393, 72%), followed by fellows (61, 11%), advanced practice providers (APPs; 38, 7%), and nurses (37, 7%). On average, nurses and fellows made more conservative recommendations for avoiding infectious exposures compared with the recommendations from attending physicians and APPs (P < .0001). On average, providers with more years of clinical experience expressed less cautious recommendations, whereas those with less years of experience provided more cautious recommendations for avoiding infectious exposures (P = .0072).

Conclusion: This survey demonstrates the importance of collaboration between all members of the care team in defining priorities for balancing safety risk and HRQoL to provide consistent messaging to patients. The variations in survey responses highlight the need for universal guidelines to standardize physician recommendations for limiting infectious exposures in pediatric patients on chemotherapy.

To break the cycle of "rehabbed to death" in oncology, we must focus on improving communication and care coordination.

Purpose: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that palliative care (PC) can improve quality of life and survival for outpatients with advanced cancer, but there are limited population-based data on the value of inpatient PC. We assessed PC as a component of high-value care among a nationally representative sample of inpatients with metastatic cancer and identified hospitalization characteristics significantly associated with high costs.

Methods: Hospitalizations of patients 18 years and older with a primary diagnosis of metastatic cancer from the National Inpatient Sample from 2010 to 2019 were analyzed. We used multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to assess medical services, patient demographics, and hospital characteristics associated with higher charges billed to insurance and hospital costs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to determine cost savings associated with provision of PC.

Results: Among 397,691 hospitalizations from 2010 to 2019, the median charge per admission increased by 24.9%, from $44,904 in US dollars (USD) to $56,098 USD, whereas the median hospital cost remained stable at $14,300 USD. Receipt of inpatient PC was associated with significantly lower charges (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.61 to 0.64]; P < .001) and costs (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.61]; P < .001). Factors associated with high charges were receipt of invasive medical ventilation (P < .001) or systemic therapy (P < .001), Hispanic patients (P < .001), young age (18-49 years, P < .001), and for-profit hospitals (P < .001). PC provision was associated with a $1,310 USD (-13.6%, P < .001) reduction in costs per hospitalization compared with no PC, independent of the receipt of invasive care and age.

Conclusion: Inpatient PC is associated with reduced hospital costs for patients with metastatic cancer, irrespective of age and receipt of aggressive interventions. Integration of inpatient PC may de-escalate costs incurred through low-value inpatient interventions.

Purpose: Although multiple filgrastim biosimilars are now available in the United States, no studies comparing clinical outcomes between products have been reported. This analysis evaluated real-world outcomes of filgrastim-aafi and filgrastim-sndz in patients with select solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy to compare the two filgrastim biosimilars.

Methods: This was an observational, noninferiority, cohort study of patients from three integrated health care systems who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy and were prophylactically initiated on filgrastim-sndz between January and November 2021 or filgrastim-aafi between June and November 2022. Patients were followed from filgrastim biosimilar initiation until the start of their next chemotherapy cycle. The primary outcome of severe neutropenia was analyzed using a binary noninferiority test with a 5% upper margin. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of emergency department or hospital encounters due to febrile neutropenia and systemic antibiotic/antifungal medication use. If noninferiority was met, adjusted logistic regression modeling was conducted.

Results: A total of 2,730 patients who initiated filgrastim-aafi (n = 880) or filgrastim-sndz (n = 1,850) during the study period were included. The overall mean age was 55 years, 87.4% were female, 42.3% were White, and 76.6% had breast cancer. Severe neutropenia occurred in 1.8% and 1.7% of patients initiated on filgrastim-aafi and filgrastim-sndz, respectively (P < .01 for noninferiority). The adjusted odds ratio for severe neutropenia with filgrastim-aafi compared with filgrastim-sndz was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.68; P = .76). Noninferiority was met for all secondary outcomes (P < .01), and there were no adjusted statistically significant differences between the groups (all P > .05).

Conclusion: Among patients with select solid tumors receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, severe neutropenia outcomes were comparable between filgrastim-aafi and filgrastim-sndz biosimilars. Findings from this study may support utilization of different filgrastim biosimilars in clinical practice.