JCO oncology practice最新文献

Purpose: Medication nonadherence is common among patients with breast cancer (BC) and increases BC mortality and complications from comorbidities. There is growing interest in mobile health interventions such as smartphone applications (apps) to promote adherence.

Methods: Use of Medisafe, a medication reminder and tracking app, was tested over 12 weeks among patients on BC treatment and at least one oral medication. Study participants were instructed to generate adherence reports every 4 weeks through Medisafe and were deemed to have completed the intervention if >50% of reports were generated. The primary end point was feasibility of the intervention, defined as a completion rate of ≥75% of consented patients. Secondary end points included changes in self-reported nonadherence from baseline to 12 weeks and patient-reported outcomes including reasons for nonadherence and satisfaction with Medisafe. We conducted univariable and multivariable analyses to evaluate demographic and clinical factors associated with intervention completion.

Results: Among 100 patients enrolled, 78 (78.0%) completed the intervention. Age, race, ethnicity, clinical stage, and type of medication were not associated with odds of intervention completion. Self-reported nonadherence rates did not improve from baseline to postintervention in the overall study population. However, among patients with self-reported nonadherence at baseline, 26.3% reported adherence postintervention; these patients frequently reported logistical barriers to adherence. Study participants reported high levels of satisfaction with Medisafe, noting that the app was highly functional and provided high-quality information.

Conclusion: Smartphone apps such as Medisafe are feasible and associated with high patient satisfaction. They may improve adherence in nonadherent patients and those who face logistical challenges interfering with medication-taking. Future trials of mobile health interventions should target patients at high risk for medication nonadherence.

Purpose: Many cancer survivors have ongoing follow-up with their oncologist(s), despite evidence that this care can be competently managed by primary care and transitioning well survivors could relieve growing pressure on cancer care systems. We analyzed population-based administrative data from Ontario, Canada, to examine rates of transition to primary care-led follow-up care during the survivorship phase, including clinical and demographic predictors associated with being transitioned.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to describe the patterns of survivorship follow-up care among all patients with breast cancer in Ontario from 2006 to 2016. Data were derived from the Ontario Cancer Registry and other linked data sets. We defined the survivorship phase of care beginning at 2 years after initial diagnosis. Logistic regression was used to explore factors potentially prognostic of no oncology visits in each of the years after survivorship.

Results: Our survivorship cohort was composed of 71,719 patients with breast cancer, 42% of whom were considered to have transitioned from oncology to primary care 2 years after diagnosis. Although the number of patients having oncology visits diminished over time, a quarter of the cohort continued being seen in year 5 of survivorship. Regression analysis found older age, early cancer stage, living farther from a cancer center, not receiving radiation or chemotherapy, and high well-being to be associated with transitioning to primary care.

Conclusion: Our findings contribute to the development of low-risk profiles among survivors to inform optimal transition from oncology to primary care. Further research examining qualitative perspectives from oncologists, cancer survivors, and primary care is also required to illuminate other sentinel factors to be considered when transitioning during follow-up.

Purpose: Melanoma brain metastases (BMs) are associated with poor survival. Combination immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA-4 are the international standard-of-care treatment. Most landmark clinical trials excluded real-world patients with symptomatic disease, poor performance status (PS), and steroid use. Despite the high incidence of melanoma in New Zealand (NZ), the only publicly funded systemic treatment is anti-PD1 monotherapy. The real-world outcomes for BMs after ICIs in NZ are unknown.

Methodology: Medical records of patients with melanoma BMs in seven cancer centers across NZ between September 1, 2016, and September 1, 2020, were evaluated. Clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment, intracranial (IC) tumor response rates, IC progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) are reported.

Results: One hundred and forty-four patients received at least one dose of ICI. One hundred and thirty-three (93%) patients received anti-PD1 monotherapy. Almost a quarter of patients had poor baseline PS, 56% were symptomatic, and 33% had corticosteroids. Patients also received local therapies: 61 (42%) patients underwent surgery, 42 (29%) received whole brain radiation, and 47 (33%) received stereotactic radiation. The median OS was 15 months, and a third of patients were alive at 2 years. The toxicity of ICIs was at 28% and 15% for Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 1-2 and 3-4 events, respectively. Of the patients who are still alive, 76% of patients remained symptomatic neurologically at last follow-up.

Conclusion: Most patients in this NZ real-world study were symptomatic and received anti-PD1 monotherapy. Approximately one-third of treated patients are alive at 2 years, but most patients remained symptomatic. This highlights the need for more effective treatment and prospective management of their neurologic rehabilitation needs.

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.

Purpose: Rising rates of early-onset colon cancer (EOCC) present challenges in deciding how to optimally treat patients. Although standard of care for stage II CC is surgical resection, adding chemotherapy for high-risk disease, evidence suggests treatment selection may differ by age. We investigated whether adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) administration rates differ between patients with early- and later-onset stage II CC.

Methods: Data originated from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived deidentified database spanning January 1, 2003, to August 1, 2021. Adults with stage II CC were grouped as age 18-49 years (EOCC) and those age 50 years or older (later-onset colon cancer [LOCC]). Demographics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, tumor stage and site, and chemotherapy were included. Primary outcomes included rates of AC administration by age and ethnicity; secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and time to metastatic disease (TTMD). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models evaluated relationships between chemotherapy administration, age, and ethnicity, adjusting for significant covariates.

Results: One thousand sixty-five patients were included. Median age of patients with EOCC was 45.0 years versus 69.0 years for patients with LOCC. Adjusted multivariate analysis showed patients with EOCC received AC significantly more often than patients with LOCC. Non-Hispanic patients received AC at significantly lower rates than Hispanic patients in both cohorts. Subanalysis of stage IIA patients showed that patients with EOCC were more likely to receive AC than patients with LOCC. No significant differences in OS or TTMD were observed by age regardless of AC administration in stage II overall; however, patients with stage IIA EOCC receiving AC had significantly longer TTMD than those not receiving AC.

Conclusion: AC was given preferentially in stage II EOCC, even in stage IIA, despite deviation from guidelines. This may expose low-risk patients to unnecessary toxicities and suggests bias toward treating younger patients more aggressively, despite unclear evidence for better outcomes.

Purpose: The management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) requires multidisciplinary boards to handle complex cases. This study aimed to examine the evolving practices of the IMMUCARE board and to evaluate its impact on clinical practices.

Materials and methods: The IMMUCARE board gathers oncologists and organ specialists from the Cancerology Institute of the Lyon University Hospital since 2018. We conducted a retrospective analysis of its activity (participants' specialty, referred cases, and recommendations) from 2018 to 2021, coupled with a survey among the physicians who participated.

Results: Across 68 board meetings, 245 cases from 195 patients were discussed. Each board had a median of six participants (IQR, 5-8). Participation rates varied across specialties and also over time (participation of nephrologists and rheumatologists significantly increased over time, whereas it decreased for endocrinologists). Most of the referred patients (89%) were treated at our center. Only 4% of referrals concerned eligibility for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), whereas the majority pertained to irAEs. The board recommended ICI interruption for 56% and steroids for 41% of them. Immunosuppressants were recommended in 17% of cases, with a notable increase over time. ICI reintroduction was debated in 50% of cases, and the board identified a definitive contraindication in 26% of them. The survey of 49 of 98 physicians showed that the board significantly affected immunosuppressant introduction and ICI rechallenge decisions. The board's educational and collaborative benefits were highlighted, but time constraints posed challenges.

Conclusion: Our 4-year analysis of irAE management practices reveals changing patterns in the distribution of cases presented and in specialists' involvement. Dedicated multidisciplinary boards remain essential, particularly for intricate cases. Expanding access to these boards is crucial to ensure comprehensive care for all patients.

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 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented chemotherapy measures (OP-35) to reduce potentially preventable emergency department visits (PPEDVs) and hospitalizations. This study evaluated the validity of the OP-35 measure in identifying PPEDVs among patients with cancer.

Methods: This is a cross-sectional study, which used data from the 2012-2022 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. ED visits are assessed and compared on the basis of three measures: immediacy using Emergency Severity Index (ESI), disposition (discharge v hospitalization), and OP-35 criteria.

Results: Between 2012 and 2022, a weighted sample of 46,723,524 ED visits were made by patients with cancer. Among reported ESI cases, 25.2% (8,346,443) was high urgency. In addition, 30.3% (14,135,496) of ED visits among patients with cancer led to hospitalizations. Using the OP-35 measure, it was found that 20.85% (9,743,977) was PPEDVs. A 21.9% (10,232,102) discrepancy between discharge diagnosis (CMS billing codes) and chief complaints was identified. Further analysis showed that 19.2% (1,872,556) of potentially preventable ED visits (CMS OP-35) were high urgency and 32.6% (3,181,280) resulted in hospitalization.

Conclusion: The CMS approach to identifying PPEDVs has limitations. First, it may overcount preventable visits by including high-urgency or hospitalization-requiring cases. Second, relying on final diagnoses for retrospective preventability judgment can be misleading as they may not reflect the initial reason for the visit. In addition, differentiating causes for ED visits in patients with cancer undergoing various treatments is challenging as the approach does not distinguish between chemotherapy-related complications and others. Identification inconsistencies arise because of varying coding practices and chosen preventable conditions, lacking consensus and alignment with specific hospital or patient needs. Finally, the model fails to consider crucial nonclinical factors like social support, economic barriers, and alternative care access, potentially unfairly penalizing hospitals serving underserved populations.