JCO oncology practice最新文献

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.

Metastatic breast cancer (mBC) remains an incurable disease, and most patients will experience disease progression during their treatment course. Although endocrine therapy remains the mainstay of treatment for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative mBC, significant progress has been and continues to be made in the treatment of this BC subtype. The discovery of molecular markers, mutations in key cellular pathways, and genomic signatures have led to the development of novel and targeted agents, such as antibody-drug conjugates, oral selective estrogen receptor downregulators, and inhibitors of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. This has resulted in significant improvements in the survival and quality of life of patients. With the increasing number of treatment options for patients, appropriate drug sequencing remains a challenge. Treatment discussions should involve patient-physician shared decision making, with consideration of genomic data, previous lines of therapy, side effect profiles, and clinical trial enrollment.

The electronic health record has affected how physicians document patient care, and presents challenges.

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.

@ramsedhom and colleagues highlight the opportunity of palliative care to bend the cost (and value) curve in cancer. Enhanced, early, and expanded access to PC offers benefits to inpatients with cancer and cost savings to health systems and payors.

Patients, not physicians, should decide if DPYD screening is right for them before FU/Xeloda chemotherapy.

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.