JCO oncology practice最新文献

Purpose: Oncology treatment pathways provide decision support and encourage guideline adherence. Pathway data combined with electronic health record (EHR) data can identify patient populations with poor prognoses, low serious illness conversation (SIC) rates, and high acute care utilization that may benefit from targeted interventions.

Patients and methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis among adults with cancer treated at seven affiliated sites of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) who had navigations within 21 treatment pathways between July 29, 2019, and March 8, 2023. DFCI clinicians previously identified pathway nodes with an estimated survival less than 1 year, termed poor prognosis (PP) nodes. We combined pathway data with EHR data to calculate the median overall survival (OS) and proportion of patients with SICs, acute care utilization (hospitalizations and emergency department visits), and outpatient palliative care 6 months after treatment node navigation for all, PP, and nonpoor prognosis (nPP) nodes. SICs were identified using the EHR advanced care planning (ACP) tab.

Results: There were 15,261 navigations for 10,203 patients (median age 66 years, 55% female, 85% White). The median OS was 13.8 months for all nodes, 7.8 months for PP nodes, and 21.0 months for nPP nodes. The ACP section of the EHR rate 6 months after navigation was 19.6% for PP nodes versus 11.0% for nPP nodes. There was substantial intragroup variability in OS and SIC rates among all nodes. SICs were recorded in the ACP tab for only 34.3% of decedents. Patients who navigated to PP nodes had higher levels of acute care utilization and palliative care encounters.

Conclusion: Treatment pathway data enabled identification of patient populations with poor prognoses, low SIC rates, and high acute care utilization.

Purpose: The past decade has seen an increase in oral anticancer drug (OACD) approvals. Polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) likely contribute to OACD toxicity. We assessed a one-time pharmacist-led video consultation to identify DDIs.

Methods: We conducted a single-arm telehealth intervention of a one-time 30-minute pharmacist-led video consultation among patients initiating OACDs. The visit focused on identifying polypharmacy and DDIs. Feasibility was defined as ≥50% completion of all study interventions. We determined the prevalence, characteristics, and severity of OACD-related potential DDIs. We also assessed the prevalence of medication list inaccuracies, polypharmacy, patient satisfaction, and patient perception of intervention acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility.

Results: Of 58 eligible patients, 43 (74%) completed the intervention and 33 (57%) completed all evaluations. Median medication per patient was nine (range 4-21), and 98% of patients had at least five prescriptions. The median number of medication list errors was two (range 0-16), with at least one error for 76% and >1 for 52%. Pharmacists identified OACD-related interactions in 18 cases (42%), including change in drug metabolism (eight), elimination (one), and absorption (three). Interactions were classified as Lexicomp categories C (13), D (five), or X (one) requiring close monitoring or a change in treatment. All patients expressed high satisfaction with the intervention and agreed or completely agreed that it was acceptable, appropriate, and feasible.

Conclusion: Polypharmacy, medication list errors, and DDIs are prevalent among patients initiating OACDs. A one-time remote pharmacist-led video consultation can address OACD-related DDIs, which may decrease medication complexity and improve adherence.

Purpose: Many patients with cancer do not gain Medicaid coverage until a cancer diagnosis, which can reduce access to early cancer detection and timely treatment, potentially driving inferior survival. Little is known about whether continuous Medicaid coverage prediagnosis through postdiagnosis (v gaining Medicaid at/after diagnosis) provides survival benefits for pediatric/adolescent oncology patients.

Materials and methods: We identified patients newly diagnosed with cancer at age 21 years or younger in a large pediatric health system between 2007 and 2016. Electronic medical records (EMRs) were linked to Medicaid administrative data to differentiate insurance continuity patterns during the 6 months preceding through the 6 months after cancer diagnosis (assessment window): continuous Medicaid, newly gained Medicaid (at or after diagnosis), and other Medicaid enrollment patterns. For patients not linked to Medicaid data, we used EMR-reported insurance types at diagnosis. We followed patients from 6 months postdiagnosis up to 5 years, death, or December 2020, whichever came first. Multivariable regressions estimated all-cause and cancer-specific survival, controlling for sociodemographic and cancer-related factors.

Results: Among 1,800 patients included in the analysis, 1,293 (71.8%) had some Medicaid enrollment during the assessment window; among them, 47.6% had continuous Medicaid and 36.3% had newly gained Medicaid. Patients not linked with Medicaid data had private (26.9%) or other/no insurance (1.2%) at diagnosis. Compared with patients with continuous Medicaid, those with newly gained Medicaid had higher risks of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.81]; P = .008) and cancer-specific death (HR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.90]; P = .005).

Conclusion: Continuous Medicaid coverage throughout cancer diagnosis is associated with survival benefits for pediatric/adolescent patients. This finding has critical implications as millions of American individuals have been losing coverage since the unwinding of the Medicaid Continuous Enrollment Provision.

Purpose: Unanticipated health care resource utilization, in the form of either emergency department utilization (EDU) or hospital admission (HA), may be an indicator of lower-quality cancer care. The objective of this study was to develop a predictive model for EDU and HAs within 14 days of receipt of systemic therapy for patients with solid tumors.

Methods: We abstracted electronic health data on oncology encounters from all patients receiving systemic therapy for solid tumors from March 1, 2015, to August 21, 2020, in the Duke University Health System. We defined a primary composite outcome of an EDU or HA within 14 days after the encounter and then developed a predictive model for the primary outcome using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression. To evaluate the model, we calculated the area under the receiver operator curve and the calibration slope.

Results: Twelve thousand eight hundred ninety unique patients with 134,641 oncology encounters were included. Five thousand one hundred fifty of these patients (40.0%) had at least one EDU or HA within 14 days of at least one treatment. Forty-six variables were incorporated into the final model. The top predictors, in order of absolute value of the predictive coefficients, were temperature, systolic blood pressure, cancer group, and marital status. The model's AUC was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.722 to 0.732), indicating good sensitivity and specificity to outcome.

Conclusion: The model developed in this study demonstrated good sensitivity in identifying patients with solid tumors who are at highest risk for EDU or HA and could be implemented in clinical practice to allow for preventive outpatient interventions.

Purpose: Brentuximab vedotin (BV) incorporation into frontline chemotherapy regimens improved outcomes for classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). The shared mechanism of action of BV and vinca alkaloids as microtubulin inhibitors increased the potential risk of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Rates of CIPN and use of protocol-stipulated dose modifications of a microtubulin inhibitor were examined on the Children's Oncology Group AHOD1331 study, which compared BV, doxorubicin, vincristine (VCR), etoposide, prednisone, cyclophosphamide (BV-AVE-PC; BV arm) with bleomycin containing doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, cyclophosphamide (ABVE-PC; standard arm) in patients with high-risk cHL ages 2-21 years.

Methods: AHOD1331 required clinician grading and reporting of ≥grade 2 CIPN. Protocol-stipulated dose modifications of VCR preceded modification of BV for ≥grade 2 CIPN in the BV arm, but only required modification of VCR for ≥grade 3 in the standard arm. Outcomes included CIPN rates, dose modification of microtubulin inhibitors by study arm, clinical factors associated with dose modifications, and event-free survival (EFS) by the presence of dose modification.

Results: Among the 582 patients who began protocol therapy, 112 developed ≥grade 2 CIPN. Cumulative incidence of CIPN did not differ by study arm (19.2 v 19.8%, P = .91). CIPN dose modifications occurred more frequently in the BV arm (9.5% v 2.8%, P = .001); however, most patients with CIPN on the BV arm received full-dose BV. EFS did not differ by the presence of dose modifications after accounting for study arm, age, sex, and stage, although older age was significantly associated with the risk of VCR dose modifications for CIPN.

Conclusion: A staged dose modification plan for vinca alkaloids and BV as administered in AHOD1331 minimized the effect of incorporating a second microtubulin inhibitor on CIPN without compromising treatment efficacy in the BV arm.

Purpose: As metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treatment evolves, there is a need to understand how clinical meaningfulness, or a meaningful change in a patient's daily life, and clinically meaningful outcomes inform patient-centered care. Partnering with key stakeholders ensures patient-centered research incorporates the knowledge and expertise of advisors with lived experience. We describe a multistakeholder engagement approach to examine how people living with mBC (PLWmBC), caregivers, and health care providers interpret clinical meaningfulness and clinically meaningful outcomes and their influence on mBC treatment decision making and care.

Methods: Qualitative focus groups with PLWmBC, caregivers, and health care providers were conducted and analyzed along three overarching themes: interpretations of clinical meaningfulness and clinically meaningful outcomes; treatment recommendations, preferences, and decisions; and implications for clinical practice. Patient-led and professional organizations served as research partners in study design, implementation, and interpretation of findings.

Results: Partnerships were established with four patient-led and three professional organizations representing diverse constituencies throughout the United States. Twenty-two focus groups were conducted with 50 PLWmBC, 24 caregivers, and 41 health care providers (oncologists, n = 11; advanced practice providers, n = 13; oncology nurses, n = 17) between March and June 2023. PLWmBC and caregivers were unfamiliar with the concepts of clinical meaningfulness and clinically meaningful outcomes. Although health care providers were familiar, they did not use the terms when discussing treatment with PLWmBC. Across groups, participants emphasized the importance of meaningful outcomes beyond overall survival, including quality of life and improvement in symptoms and functioning. Participants noted that outcomes considered meaningful are individualized and dynamic.

Conclusion: This study offers insight into how partnering with patient advocacy and professional organizations can enhance research quality and aid translation of findings to clinical practice, thereby supporting patient-centered care.

Purpose: Financial toxicity is an important issue in cancer that affects quality of life and treatment adherence. Screening can identify patients at risk but consensus on appropriate timing or methods is lacking.

Methods: We sent an anonymous survey to e-mail subscribers of a nationwide breast cancer-specific philanthropic organization in July 2023 asking about financial toxicity screening preferences. Frequencies, percentages, and medians were calculated for categorical and continuous variables.

Results: Of 5,774 potential participants, 738 respondents with a confirmed cancer diagnosis participated (12.7% response rate). Participants were 93% female (n = 690), had a median age of 50 years (IQR, 44-57), were 57% non-Hispanic White (n = 418), 20% Black/African-American (n = 149), 9.2% Hispanic (n = 68). 93% confirmed a breast cancer diagnosis (n = 689), and 54% were currently undergoing treatment (n = 400). Most indicated not being asked about financial stressors by (58%, n = 425) and not receiving assistance from their care team (68%, n = 498). Most preferred for providers to reach out regarding financial needs (83%, n = 615). Most wished for these discussions to take place early (when first diagnosed [45%, n = 334] or when treatment selected [37%, n = 275]) and to be asked frequently (each appointment [42%, n = 312] or once per month [36%, n = 268]). Participants felt most comfortable discussing financial needs with a social worker or patient/financial navigator (92%, n = 679), in person (75%, n = 553), or via telephone (65%, n = 479).

Conclusion: Patients in this sample primarily consisting of women with breast cancer desired financial screening to occur early, often, and to be initiated by their providers. Patient preferences can inform optimal implementation of financial toxicity screening practices. Continued work refining best practices for financial toxicity screening should incorporate these patient preferences.