Search

Abstract Background Neoadjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy are recommended for the treatment of nonmetastatic esophageal cancer. The benefit of neoadjuvant treatment is mostly limited to patients who exhibit pathologic complete response (pCR). Existing estimates of pCR rates among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy have not been synthesized and lack precision. Methods We conducted an independently funded systematic review and meta‐analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023397402) of pCR rates among patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radiation). Studies were identified from Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL database searches. Eligible studies included trials published from 1992 to 2022 that focused on nonmetastatic esophageal cancer, including the gastroesophageal junction. Histology‐specific pooled pCR prevalence was determined using the Freeman–Tukey transformation and a random effects model. Results After eligibility assessment, 84 studies with 6451 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in squamous cell carcinomas was 9% (95% CI: 6%–14%), ranging from 0% to 32%. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in squamous cell carcinomas was 32% (95% CI: 26%–39%), ranging from 8% to 66%. For adenocarcinoma, the pooled prevalence of pCR was 6% (95% CI: 1%–12%) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 22% (18%–26%) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Conclusions Under one‐third of patients with esophageal cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemo(radiation) experience pCR. Patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinomas had higher rates of pCR than those with adenocarcinomas. As pCR represents an increasingly utilized endpoint in neoadjuvant trials, these estimates of pooled pCR rates may serve as an important benchmark for future trial design.

Introduction Cancer clinical trials represent the “gold standard” for advancing novel cancer therapies. Optimizing trial participation is critical to ensuring the generalizability of findings across patients, yet trial enrollment rates, particularly among minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, remain suboptimal. Methods We conducted in-depth interviews with oncologists at a large academic medical center to explore their (1) attitudes and perceived barriers to offering clinical trials to minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, and (2) recommendations for improving the enrollment of minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients in cancer clinical trials. Results Of 23 medical oncologists approached, 17 enrolled (74% response rate; mean age = 47; female = 42%; White = 67%). Content analysis revealed several barriers to enrollment: (1) ethical dilemmas; (2) ambivalence about trial risks and benefits; and (3) concern about patient well-being. Concerns about the legitimacy of informed consent, perceived lack of equipoise, and fear of personal bias influenced clinicians’ decisions to recommend trials during treatment discussions. Concerns about creating an imbalance between trial risks and benefits among patients with high-level needs, including patients with literacy, psychiatric, and other socioeconomic vulnerabilities, impacted clinicians’ enthusiasm to engage in trial discussions. Clinicians identified patient, provider, and system-level solutions to address challenges, including increasing patient and clinician support as well as involving external personnel to support trial enrollment. Conclusion Findings reveal multi-level barriers to offering cancer clinical trials to underrepresented patients. Targeted solutions, including system level changes to support clinicians, patient financial support, and implementation of clinical trial navigation programs were recommended to help reduce access barriers and increase enrollment of underrepresented patients into cancer clinical trials.

Background: Gastrointestinal malignancies represent a particularly challenging condition, often requiring a multidisciplinary approach to management in order to meet the unique needs of these individuals and their caregivers. Purpose: In this literature review, we sought to describe care delivery interventions that strive to improve the quality of life and care for patients with a focus on gastrointestinal malignancies. Conclusion: We highlight patient-centered care delivery interventions, including patient-reported outcomes, hospital-at-home interventions, and other models of care for individuals with cancer. By demonstrating the relevance and utility of these different care models for patients with gastrointestinal malignancies, we hope to highlight the importance of developing and testing new interventions to address the unique needs of this population.

Abstract Background Patients with cancer often endure substantial symptoms and treatment toxicities leading to high healthcare utilization, including hospitalizations and emergency department visits, throughout the continuum of their illness. Innovative oncology care models are needed to improve patient outcomes and reduce their healthcare utilization. Using a novel hospital at home care platform, we developed a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to address the needs of patients with cancer. Methods We are conducting three trials to delineate the role of Supportive Oncology Care at Home for patients with cancer. The Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention includes: (1) a hospital at home care model for symptom assessment and management; (2) remote monitoring of daily patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; and (3) structured communication with the oncology team. Our first study is a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of Supportive Oncology Care at Home versus standard oncology care for improving healthcare utilization, cancer treatment interruptions, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer receiving definitive treatment of their cancer. Participants include adult patients with gastrointestinal and head and neck cancer, as well as lymphoma, receiving definitive treatment (e.g., treatment with curative intent). The second study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Eligible participants include adult patients with incurable cancer who are admitted with an unplanned hospitalization. The third study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to enhance the end-of-life care for patients with advanced hematologic malignancies. Eligible participants include adult patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancy receiving palliative therapy or supportive care alone. Discussion These studies are approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and are being conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological trials. This work has the potential to transform the paradigm of care for patients with cancer by providing them with the necessary support at home to improve their health outcomes and care delivery. Trial registrations NCT04544046, NCT04637035, NCT04690205.

Abstract Background Skeletal muscle metrics on computed tomography (CT) correlate with clinical and patient‐reported outcomes. We hypothesize that aggregating skeletal muscle measurements from multiple vertebral levels and skeletal muscle gauge (SMG) better predict outcomes than skeletal muscle radioattenuation (SMRA) or ‐index (SMI) at a single vertebral level. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of prospectively collected clinical (overall survival, hospital readmission, time to unplanned hospital readmission or death, and readmission or death within 90 days) and patient‐reported outcomes (physical and psychological symptom burden captured as Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire) of patients with advanced cancer who experienced an unplanned admission to Massachusetts General Hospital from 2014 to 2016. First, we assessed the correlation of skeletal muscle cross‐sectional area, SMRA, SMI, and SMG at one or more of the following thoracic (T) or lumbar (L) vertebral levels: T5, T8, T10, and L3 on CT scans obtained ≤50 days before index assessment. Second, we aggregated measurements across all available vertebral levels using percentile‐based averaging (PBA) to create the average percentile. Third, we constructed one regression model adjusted for age, sex, sociodemographic factors, cancer type, body mass index, and intravenous contrast for each combination of (i) vertebral level and average percentile, (ii) muscle metrics (SMRA, SMI, & SMG), and (iii) clinical and patient‐reported outcomes. Fourth, we compared the performance of vertebral levels and muscle metrics by ranking otherwise identical models by concordance statistic, number of included patients, coefficient of determination, and significance of muscle metric. Results We included 846 patients (mean age: 63.5 ± 12.9 years, 50.5% males) with advanced cancer [predominantly gastrointestinal (32.9%) or lung (18.9%)]. The correlation of muscle measurements between vertebral levels ranged from 0.71 to 0.84 for SMRA and 0.67 to 0.81 for SMI. The correlation of individual levels with the average percentile was 0.90–0.93 for SMRA and 0.86–0.92 for SMI. The intrapatient correlation of SMRA with SMI was 0.21–0.40. PBA allowed for inclusion of 8–47% more patients than any single‐level analysis. PBA outperformed single‐level analyses across all comparisons with average ranks 2.6, 2.9, and 1.6 for concordance statistic, coefficient of determination, and significance (range 1–5, μ = 3), respectively. On average, SMG outperformed SMRA and SMI across outcomes and vertebral levels: the average rank of SMG was 1.4, 1.4, and 1.4 for concordance statistic, coefficient of determination, and significance (range 1–3, μ = 2), respectively. Conclusions Multivertebral level skeletal muscle analyses using PBA and SMG independently and additively outperform analyses using individual levels and SMRA or SMI.

Abstract Background The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) Patient Registry is an online, pancreatic cancer‐specific, global registry enabling patients to self‐report sociodemographics, disease/management characteristics, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). We sought to describe the creation, user experience, and research potential of the PanCAN Registry. Methods We obtained data to describe (1) the creation of the Registry (questionnaire development, marketing efforts, and regulatory considerations); (2) the user experience (user characteristics and interactions with the registry following inception); and (3) the research potential of the registry (comparing PROs and treatment patterns by age [±65 years] and treatment site [community or academic] for users with de novo metastatic disease). Results The Registry was conceived as part of PanCAN’s strategic plan for a personalized therapy initiative. PanCAN staff and disease expert consultants developed questionnaires hosted on an electronic PRO platform. Users had the option to include their data in research efforts, and the Registry platform received institutional review board approval. From 7/2015 to 12/2020, 2187 patients visited the registry and 1697 (77.6%) completed at least one survey (median age = 64 years [range: 24–90], 47.9% women, 88.7% White, 34.0% metastatic disease). Among patients with metastatic disease (N = 567), 46.0% were ≥65 years old and 67.5% received treatment at community sites. Patients ≥65 years reported feeling less hopeful about the treatment plan (12.4% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.003), and patients treated at community sites reported more frequent treatment breaks of >2 weeks (58.2% vs. 28.1%, p

Abstract Background Burdens related to time spent receiving cancer care may be substantial for patients with incurable, life‐limiting cancers such as metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Estimates of time spent on health care are needed to inform treatment‐related decision‐making. Methods Estimates of time spent receiving cancer‐related health care in the initial 3 months of treatment for patients with MBC were calculated using the following data sources: (a) direct observations from a time‐in‐motion quality improvement evaluation (process mapping); (b) cross‐sectional patient surveys; and (c) administrative claims. Average ambulatory, inpatient, and total health care time were calculated for specific treatments which differed by antineoplastic type and administration method, including fulvestrant (injection, hormonal), letrozole (oral, hormonal), capecitabine (oral, chemotherapy), and paclitaxel (infusion, chemotherapy). Results Average total time spent on health care ranged from 7% to 10% of all days included within the initial 3 months of treatment, depending on treatment. The greatest time contributions were time spent traveling for care and on inpatient services. Time with providers contributed modestly to total care time. Patients receiving infusion/injection treatments, compared with those receiving oral therapy, spent more time in ambulatory care. Health care time was higher for patients receiving chemotherapeutic agents compared to those receiving hormonal agents. Conclusion Time spent traveling and receiving inpatient care represented a substantial burden to patients with MBC, with variation in time by treatment type and administration method.

Abstract Recent reports demonstrate inferior outcomes associated with primary right‐sided vs left‐sided colorectal tumors in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We sought to describe our experience with mCRC patients on whom we have molecular data to determine whether primary tumor sidedness was an independent prognostic marker for overall survival (OS). mCRC patients with documented primary tumor sidedness who received mutational profiling between 2009 and 2014 were identified (n = 367, median follow‐up 30.4 months). Mutational profiling for >150 mutations across commonly mutated cancer genes including RAS, PIK3CA, BRAF, and PTEN as well as treatment data, including receipt of a biologic agent, were collected. Univariable/multivariable models were used to analyze relationships between collected data and OS. Among 367 patients, sidedness breakdown was as follows: 234 left (64%), 133 right (36%). 56% were male, with a median age at diagnosis of 57 (range 24‐89). A total of 143 patients had RAS mutations. Five‐year OS was 41%, median OS was 54 months (range 1‐149). Five‐year OS for left‐ vs right‐sided tumors was 46% vs 24% (P

Purpose The early integration of oncology and palliative care (EIPC) improves quality of life (QOL) and mood for patients with advanced cancer. However, the mechanisms by which EIPC benefits these outcomes remain unclear. We therefore examined whether EIPC improved patients' coping strategies and if changes in coping accounted for intervention effects on QOL and depressive symptoms. Patients and Methods For this secondary analysis of an EIPC trial, we examined data from 350 patients with newly diagnosed incurable lung or GI cancer. Participants completed assessments of QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), and coping (Brief COPE) at baseline and 24 weeks. We used linear regression to test intervention effects on use of coping strategies and mediation regression models with bias-corrected bootstrapping to examine whether improvements in coping mediated the effects of early palliative care on patient-reported outcomes. Results Compared with usual oncology care, EIPC significantly increased patient use of approach-oriented coping strategies ( B = 1.09; SE = 0.44; P = .01) and slightly reduced use of avoidant strategies ( B = -0.44; SE = 0.23; P = .06) from baseline to 24 weeks. Also, the increased use of approach-oriented coping and reduction in avoidant coping were associated with higher QOL and lower depressive symptoms at 24 weeks. The positive changes in approach-oriented coping, but not avoidant coping, significantly mediated the effects of EIPC on QOL (indirect effect, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.33 to 2.86) and depressive symptoms (indirect effect, -0.39; 95% CI, -0.87 to -0.08). Conclusion Patients with incurable cancer who received EIPC showed increased use of approach-oriented coping, which was associated with higher QOL and reduced depressive symptoms. Palliative care may improve these outcomes by providing patients with the skills to cope effectively with life-threatening illness.

Purpose Patients with advanced cancer experience potentially burdensome transitions of care after hospitalizations. We examined predictors of discharge location and assessed the relationship between discharge location and survival in this population. Methods We conducted a prospective study of 932 patients with advanced cancer who experienced an unplanned hospitalization between September 2014 and March 2016. Upon admission, we assessed patients' physical symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) and psychological distress (Patient Health Questionnaire-4). The primary outcome was discharge location (home without hospice, postacute care [PAC], or hospice [any setting]). The secondary outcome was survival. Results Of 932 patients, 726 (77.9%) were discharged home without hospice, 118 (12.7%) were discharged to PAC, and 88 (9.4%) to hospice. Those discharged to PAC and hospice reported high rates of severe symptoms, including dyspnea, constipation, low appetite, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. Using logistic regression, patients discharged to PAC or hospice versus home without hospice were more likely to be older (odds ratio [OR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.05; P < .001), live alone (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.02; P < .003), have impaired mobility (OR, 5.08; 95% CI, 3.46 to 7.45; P < .001), longer hospital stays (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.20; P < .001), higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System physical symptoms (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.003 to 1.032; P < .017), and higher Patient Health Questionnaire-4 depression symptoms (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.25; P < .027). Patients discharged to hospice rather than PAC were more likely to receive palliative care consultation (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 2.12 to 9.29; P < .001) and have shorter hospital stays (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.91; P < .001). Patients discharged to PAC versus home had lower survival (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22 to 1.93; P < .001). Conclusion Patients with advanced cancer who were discharged to PAC facilities and hospice had substantial physical and psychological symptom burden, impaired physical function, and inferior survival compared with those discharged to home. These patients may benefit from interventions to enhance their quality of life and care.

Purpose Survivors of childhood cancer may experience financial burden as a result of health care costs, particularly because these patients often require long-term medical care. We sought to evaluate the prevalence of financial burden and identify associations between a higher percentage of income spent on out-of-pocket medical costs (≥ 10% of annual income) and issues related to financial burden (jeopardizing care or changing lifestyle) among survivors of childhood cancer and a sibling comparison group. Methods Between May 2011 and April 2012, we surveyed an age-stratified, random sample of survivors of childhood cancer and a sibling comparison group who were enrolled in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Participants reported their household income, out-of-pocket medical costs, and issues related to financial burden (questions were adapted from national surveys on financial burden). Logistic regression identified associations between participant characteristics, a higher percentage of income spent on out-of-pocket medical costs, and financial burden, adjusting for potential confounders. Results Among 580 survivors of childhood cancer and 173 siblings, survivors of childhood cancer were more likely to have out-of-pocket medical costs ≥ 10% of annual income (10.0% v 2.9%; P < .001). Characteristics of the survivors of childhood cancer that were associated with a higher percentage of income spent on out-of-pocket costs included hospitalization in the past year (odds ratio [OR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.9) and household income < $50,000 (OR, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.4 to 12.8). Among survivors of childhood cancer, a higher percentage of income spent on out-of-pocket medical costs was significantly associated with problems paying medical bills (OR, 8.9; 95% CI, 4.4 to 18.0); deferring care for a medical problem (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.6 to 5.9); skipping a test, treatment, or follow-up (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.0); and thoughts of filing for bankruptcy (OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 3.0 to 14.3). Conclusion Survivors of childhood cancer are more likely to report spending a higher percentage of their income on out-of-pocket medical costs, which may influence their health-seeking behavior and potentially affect health outcomes. Our findings highlight the need to address financial burden in this population with long-term health care needs.