Search

PURPOSE: In Israel, a public committee advises which new medications should be reimbursed subject to an annual budget allocation. The committee considers clinical trial outcomes, professional societies' preferences, projected budget impacts, and other social and ethical aspects. The Israeli oncologists' society places a strong emphasis on prioritizing adjuvant therapies because of their potential to advance cure. In 2023, several novel adjuvant therapies were suggested for national funding. Our objective was to ascertain whether Israeli decision makers have embraced the practice of prioritizing budgets for therapies with curative intent over late-disease therapy. METHODS: We collected data on all proposed cancer therapies for the 2023 update: indications, treatment settings, European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) score, and whether accepted for reimbursement. The rates of acceptance were compared between drugs in curative and noncurative settings. Data were extracted from the official Israeli Ministry of Health publications and ESMO-MCBS website. RESULTS: Seven of the eight proposed therapies with curative intent received reimbursement approval (88%), in contrast to 11 of the 55 therapies for advanced/metastatic stages (20%). Among all advanced disease therapies with a high ESMO-MCBS score of 4, only four of 16 (25%) secured reimbursement approval. CONCLUSION: Our analysis revealed that during the 2023 reimbursement deliberations, Israeli policymakers embraced the prioritization of potentially curative therapies over treatments for incurable cancers, including several interventions that have demonstrated significant improvements in overall survival and/or quality of life. Introducing objective cost-effectiveness measures as a guiding framework for comparing competing medications may offer some resolution to this complex challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) information has been routinely collected in Cancer Care Alberta (CCA) for years using the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) and Canadian Problem Checklist (CPC). There was interest in combining these into a more comprehensive single measure tailored to ambulatory cancer settings. The purpose of this study was to validate an expanded and redesigned ESAS-r called the ESAS-r Cancer. METHODS: Stakeholder engagement, a review of the literature, and 2 years of CPC data collected in the cancer program informed the addition of six symptoms to the ESAS-r. To assess and validate the measure, 1,600 randomly sampled patients were mailed paper copies of the ESAS-r Cancer, ESAS-r, and a validated, comprehensive PRO measure called the Memorial System Assessment Scale-Short Form (MSAS-SF), which is often used with patients with cancer. Canonical Correlation Analysis and exploratory factor analyses were performed to assess concurrent and construct validity of the ESAS-r Cancer against ESAS-r, using MSAS-SF as the reference measure for comparison. Cronbach α was calculated to assess reliability. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-one patients (29% response rate) completed all three questionnaires. ESAS-r Cancer showed higher numerical correlation than ESAS-r and accounted for more information included on MSAS-SF, explaining slightly more variance than ESAS-r (75.2% v 73.5%). The three-dimensional factor structure of ESAS-r Cancer outperformed the two-dimensional factor structure of ESAS-r. The reliability of ESAS-r Cancer was verified and found to be slightly higher than ESAS-r (Cronbach α =.903 v.884). CONCLUSION: ESAS-r Cancer is now in use with patients throughout CCA. This valid and reliable PRO measure can be used by other cancer or specialized health care programs who wish to routinely assess common symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: There is a lack of systematic solutions to manage supportive care issues in racial/ethnic minorities (REM) receiving treatment for cancer. We developed and implemented an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)–driven symptom management tool led by oncology pharmacists in a majority-minority cancer center located in Southern California. This study was designed to evaluate the implementation outcomes of our multilevel intervention. METHODS: This was a prospective, pragmatic, implementation study conducted between July 2021 and June 2023. Newly diagnosed adult patients with cancer receiving intravenous anticancer therapies completed symptom screening using ePRO that consists of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures at each infusion visit during the study. ePRO results were presented to an oncologist pharmacist for personalized symptom management and treatment counseling. The RE-AIM framework was used to guide implementation outcomes. Differences in symptom trajectories and clinical outcomes between groups were tested using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: We screened 388 patients of whom 250 were enrolled (acceptance rate: 64.4%), with 564 assessments being completed. The sample consisted of non-Hispanic White (NHW, 42.4%), Hispanic/Latinx (H/L, 30.8%), and non-Hispanic Asian (20.4%), with one (21.6%) of five participants preferring speaking Spanish. Compared with NHW, H/L participants had greater odds of reporting mild to severe pain interference (odds ratio [OR], 1.91 [95% CI, 1.18 to 3.08]; P =.008) and nausea and vomiting (OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.21 to 3.58]; P =.008), and higher rates of urgent care utilization (OR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.04 to 3.61]; P =.04) within 30 days. Nausea and vomiting (n = 131, 23.2%), pain (n = 91, 16.1%), and fatigue (n = 72, 12.8%) were most likely to be intervened, with 90% of the participants expressing satisfaction across all visits. CONCLUSION: Our multilevel ePRO-driven intervention led by oncology pharmacists helps facilitate symptom assessments and management and potentially reduce health disparities among REM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring may support the safe delivery of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). There is no consensus on which side effects should be monitored in routine care. We aimed to develop a prioritized list of ICI side effects to include in ePRO systems and compare this to existing ICI-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: We conducted a two-round modified Delphi survey. Participants were patients (or their carers) who had received/were receiving ICI or managing health care professionals (HCPs). Round 1 (R1) side effects were generated from a literature review and existing PROMs. In R1, participants rated the importance of 63 ICI side effects in an ePRO system on a five-point Likert scale. In round 2 (R2), participants ranked the 10 most important side effects from 36 side effects. Content mapping of the prioritized list against existing PROMs was conducted. RESULTS: In R1, 47 patients, nine carers, and 58 HCPs responded. Twenty-eight side effects were rated important (I)/very important (VI) by >75% of participants and included in R2. Ten were rated I/VI by <50% of participants and excluded. Twenty-five were rated I/VI by 50%-75% of participants and discussed at an HCP roundtable to determine inclusion in R2. In R2, 39 patients, 11 carers, and 42 HCPs ranked seizures, shortness of breath, chest pain, diarrhea, and rash as the most important side effects for monitoring. Content mapping showed significant differences between the prioritized list and existing PROMs. CONCLUSION: We developed a consumer- and clinician-driven prioritized list of 36 ICI side effects to include in future ePRO systems. This process highlights the importance of broad stakeholder engagement in side-effect selection and rigorously identifying clinically important side effects to ensure content validity and clinical utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides an updated guideline for managing cancer-related fatigue in adult survivors, emphasizing the need for comprehensive screening and evidence-based interventions. Topics include recommended therapies such as exercise, cognitive behavioral therapy, and mindfulness programs, the importance of individualized treatment plans, and recommendations against the use of certain medications like wakefulness agents and antidepressants.

PURPOSE: Fertility preservation was designed to help young patients overcome complications of cancer treatments, but its effectiveness is unknown. We sought to investigate how often patients with cancer are offered fertility preservation and if patients offered fertility preservation are more likely to have offspring. METHODS: We searched Embase (through 2022) and PubMed (through 2022). Our broad computerized search strategy was built upon using the keywords "chemotherapy," "radiation," and "fertility." The search took place on December 1, 2022. We included randomized and observational studies and excluded reviews and case reports/series. RESULTS: Eighty-five articles that answered at least one of the research questions were included. Studies assessing fertoprotective therapies often rely on surrogate markers for fertility. Multiple factors affect these markers of fertility. The median premature ovarian failure rate among the intervention group was 18% (IQR, 12%-20%), and among the control group, it was 25% (IQR, 19%-33%). Five of 11 studies reported a significant benefit from fertoprotective therapy. Pregnancies occurred in a median of 21% (IQR, 6%-52%) of patients in the intervention group and 11% (IQR, 7-44) of patients in the control group, with three of seven studies reporting a higher percentage of pregnancies among the intervention group. CONCLUSION: We reviewed the literature on several questions surrounding fertility preservation and found that there is limited and low-quality research on these therapies in cancer. Hence, there is a strong need for studies, especially randomized studies, that follow patients with cancer who undergo fertility preservation and assess outcomes in which patients are most interested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oncology is a complex clinical specialty often requiring the close interaction of teams of different medical specialists for a successful outcome. The field is rapidly evolving scientifically, with successive discoveries of oncologic driver mutations soon followed by therapeutic agents able to interrupt the neoplastic process. Unfortunately, objective quality measurement demonstrates that many patients are not receiving optimal care, from diagnostic accuracy, therapeutic, or end-of-life perspectives. Quality measurement, reporting, and payment programs have the potential to focus attention on these care gaps and drive improvement. The federal government, as the largest single payer of health care services in the United States, has a compelling national interest to ensure that the medical care of Americans is at the highest level achievable. Accordingly, quality reporting and payment programs have been established in federal health care payment programs to drive improvements in care. This article reviews the science of quality measurement, documented gaps in oncology care, and ways to use new information technologies to decrease clinician burden associated with quality reporting. The article reviews how a measure is developed and incorporated into a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) program. It also summarizes federal programs relevant to oncology care and the individual measures used in these programs. CMS looks forward to working jointly with the oncology community to drive continuous improvements in care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the pervasive issue of ageism in healthcare, particularly in oncology, and its harmful effects on older adults' treatment and research opportunities. Topics include the prevalence of ageism in clinical practice, the underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials, and the role of geriatric assessment in improving care and reducing bias in treatment decisions.

PURPOSE: Precision therapies and immunotherapies have revolutionized cancer care, with novel genomic biomarker-associated therapies being introduced into clinical practice rapidly, resulting in notable gains in patient survival. Despite this, there is significant variability in the utilization of tumor molecular profiling that spans the timing of test ordering, comprehensiveness of gene panels, and clinical decision support through therapy and trial recommendations. METHODS: To standardize testing, we designed a pathologist-directed test ordering system at the time of diagnosis using a 523-gene DNA/RNA hybrid comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) panel and extensive clinical decision support tools. To comprehensively characterize the clinical impact of this protocol, we developed a novel natural language processing (NLP)–based approach to extract clinical features from physician chart notes. We assessed test actionability rates, therapy choice, and outcomes across a set of 3,216 patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: We observed 49% of patients had at least one actionable genomic biomarker-driven–approved and/or guideline-recommended targeted or immunotherapy (IO) and 53% of patients would have been eligible for a precision therapy clinical trial from three large basket trials. When assessing CGP versus an in silico 50-gene panel, 67% of tumors compared with 33% harbored actionable alterations including clinical trials. Among patients with 6 months or more of follow-up, over 52% received a targeted therapy (TT) or IO, versus 32% who received conventional chemotherapy alone. Furthermore, patients receiving TT had significantly improved overall survival compared with patients receiving chemotherapy alone (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Overall, these data represent a major shift in standard clinical practice toward molecularly guided treatments (targeted and immunotherapies) over conventional systemic chemotherapy. As guidelines continue to evolve and more precision therapeutics gain approval, we expect this gap to continue to widen. Current utilization patterns for tumor genomic testing are highly variable because of a variety of factors including lack of access and socioeconomic barriers. Here, we developed a program to attempt to remove many of these barriers and provide genomic testing rapidly as possible. Evaluating results over a multiyear period, we found around half of the patients tested with comprehensive genomic profiling had an actionable biomarker. Tested patients also received precision therapies at a higher rate than conventional chemotherapy alone, which was associated with higher overall survival across the real-world cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the ethical, clinical, and regulatory challenges of using molecular diagnostic tests, such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), in cancer care. Topics include the evolving role of ctDNA testing in detecting minimal residual disease, the ethical considerations surrounding early adoption of tests with uncertain clinical benefits, and the responsibility of oncologists in guiding patients through emerging technologies.

Molecular prognostic and diagnostic tools allow for targeted cancer surveillance, prognostication, and treatment, and these assays have the potential to improve the lives of patients and their relatives. The impact of these advances, however, is not uniform across populations. Underserved communities frequently do not have the same level of access to novel assays, and the clinical application of these tools is often limited by disproportionate representation of White and European ancestry populations in foundational data, as well as limited diversity in clinical trials. In this review, we highlight major advances in clinical molecular assays, key areas of disparity, and contributing factors. We then list ongoing and future areas of intervention to improve access to and efficacy of molecular assays across populations, so that we as a community may work to improve equity at this critical area of cancer care. Molecular testing disparities deprive patients of life-saving treatment—need equitable access to these technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the administrative aspects of molecular diagnostics in oncology, including US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight, the regulatory approval process, clinical, and operational workflows, and payment models. Comprehensive molecular testing is important to deliver optimal oncology care and improve patient outcomes. Despite the potential benefits of testing, utilization remains low. The FDA regulatory approval process is reviewed for in vitro diagnostic products, which includes classification into three regulatory classes on the basis of risk. Companion diagnostic devices are used to guide treatment decisions. The clinical and operational challenges associated with molecular testing in oncology are also discussed, including the rapidly evolving landscape of precision oncology, the wide range of biomarker testing options, and complexities of test ordering, interpretation, and result delivery. There is a need for a multifaceted support approach involving education, technology enhancements, and workflow support to overcome these challenges. In terms of payment models, coverage policies between Medicare and commercial payers are compared with differences in coverage criteria, with Medicare focusing on FDA approval or clearance, whereas commercial payers consider additional factors such as National Comprehensive Cancer Network and ASCO guidelines. Commercial payers tend to cover smaller panels on the basis of guideline-recommended biomarkers, whereas coverage for broad tumor profiling is limited. Several strategies can increase the utilization of molecular testing, including integrating test results into electronic medical record platforms, standardizing billing practices, increasing clinical trials, and primary literature supporting the use of molecular testing, educating physicians, and using tumor boards for result interpretation and treatment discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on evidence-based recommendations for integrating palliative care into oncology, emphasizing its importance for patients with cancer, particularly those with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies. It discusses the necessity of specialized palliative care teams and highlights the challenges faced by patients with hematologic malignancies, who often experience greater suffering and require comprehensive palliative services throughout their treatment.

ASCO Standards are evidence-based standards to provide frameworks for best practices in cancer care, following the standards development process as outlined in the ASCO Standards Policies and Procedures Manual. ASCO Standards follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Standards and other guidance ("Guidance") provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 (online only) for more. PURPOSE: To update the ASCO-Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) standards for antineoplastic therapy administration safety in adult and pediatric oncology and highlight current standards for antineoplastic therapy for adult and pediatric populations with various routes of administration and location. METHODS: ASCO and ONS convened a multidisciplinary Expert Panel with representation of multiple organizations to conduct literature reviews and add to the standards as needed. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO-ONS Expert Panel to develop antineoplastic safety standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The standards presented here include clarification and expansion of existing standards to include home administration and other changes in processes of ordering, preparing, and administering antineoplastic therapy; the advent of immune effector cellular therapy; the importance of social determinants of health; fertility preservation; and pregnancy avoidance. In addition, the standards have added a fourth verification. STANDARDS: Standards are provided for which health care organizations and those involved in all aspects of patient care can safely deliver antineoplastic therapy, increase the quality of care, and reduce medical errors. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards and www.ons.org/onf. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Early-phase clinical trials (EP-CTs) are designed to determine optimal dosing, tolerability, and preliminary activity of novel cancer therapeutics. Little is known about the time that patients spend interacting with the health care system (eg, time toxicity) while participating in these studies. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive patients enrolled in EP-CTs from 2017 to 2019 to obtain baseline characteristics and number of health care–associated days, defined as all inpatient and outpatient visits while on trial. We used univariable and multivariable analyses to identify predictors of increased time toxicity, defined as the proportion of health care–associated days among total days on trial. For ease of interpretation, we created a dichotomous variable, with high time toxicity defined as ≥20% health care–associated days during time on trial and used regression models to evaluate relationships between time toxicity and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 408 EP-CT participants (mean age, 60.5 years [standard deviation, SD, 12.6]; 56.5% female; 88.2% White; 96.0% non-Hispanic), patients had an average of 22.5% health care–associated days while on trial (SD, 13.8%). Those with GI (B = 0.07; P =.002), head/neck (B = 0.09; P =.004), and breast (B = 0.06; P =.015) cancers and those with worse performance status (B = 0.04; P =.017) and those receiving targeted therapies (B = 0.04; P =.014) experienced higher time toxicity. High time toxicity was associated with decreased disease response rates (odds ratio, 0.07; P <.001), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.10; P <.001), and overall survival (HR, 2.16; P <.001). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of EP-CT participants, patients spent more than one-fifth of days on trial with health care contact. We identified characteristics associated with higher time toxicity and found that high toxicity correlated with worse clinical outcomes. These data could help inform patient-clinician discussions about EP-CTs, guide future trial design, and identify at-risk patients. EP-CT patients spent 20% of days on trial with health care contact. High time toxicity correlated with worse outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts. Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Routine collection of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI; collectively SOGI) in cancer clinics advances cancer care equity. METHODS: In 2022, NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practice groups were asked about routine collection of SOGI data in the electronic health record. The proportions of practice groups reporting collection of SO and/or GI data were calculated, and practice group characteristics were assessed for associations. RESULTS: Of 271 practice groups nationwide, 42% (n = 112) collect SO data, 58% (n = 157) collect GI data, and 35% (n = 96) collect both. In multivariate analyses, SO data collection was associated with practice groups having minority outreach staff (odds ratio [OR], 2.07 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.81]; P =.02); GI data collection was associated with practice groups located in the Northeastern United States (OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 0.73 to 5.91]; P =.045), and those with a higher proportion of new patients who were White (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04]; P <.001). Practice groups in the South were least likely to collect SOGI data (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.94]; P =.004). There were no statistically significant differences in SO and/or GI collection on the basis of the practice group's proportion of Medicaid/Medicare patients, number of new patients with cancer per year, or practice ownership. CONCLUSION: Slightly over one third of NCORP practice groups report routinely collecting SOGI data. There are regional differences in data collection, underscoring the need to craft targeted, region-specific interventions focused on boosting the capture and recording of SOGI data in an affirming manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite advances in clinical cancer care, cancer survivors frequently report a range of persisting issues, unmet needs, and concerns that limit their ability to participate in life roles and reduce quality of life. Needs assessment is recognized as an important component of cancer care delivery, ideally beginning during active treatment to connect patients with supportive services that address these issues in a timely manner. Despite the recognized importance of this process, many health care systems have struggled to implement a feasible and sustainable needs assessment and management system. This article uses an implementation science framework to guide pragmatic implementation of a needs assessment clinical system in cancer care. According to this framework, successful implementation requires four steps including (1) choosing a needs assessment tool; (2) carefully considering the provider level, clinic level, and health care system–level strengths and barriers to implementation and creating a pilot system that addresses these factors; (3) making the assessment system actionable by matching needs with clinical workflow; and (4) demonstrating the value of the system to support sustainability. A guide to implementing Needs Assessment in cancer care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the financial toxicities (FT) of cancer care, particularly focusing on the indirect costs that affect patients' mental health and dental care. Topics include the financial burden on mental health services, the delay in dental care for cancer patients, and the need for holistic support systems in oncology care.

The article highlights the guidelines from the Anerican Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) for the systematic management of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Topics mentioned include the role of systematic therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitor in the peritransplant setting, the factors that need to consider when choosing between atezolizumab and bevacizumab or durvalumab and tremelimumab and the effectiveness of combined local and systemic therapy.

In this editorial accompanying manuscript the by Klatte and colleagues, Drs Singh, and Nipp review the data behind universal germline testing in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and review possible reasons for and solutions continued inadequate rates of germline testing in our community. Making germline testing for all patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma is critical and will require cross-disciplinary collaboration and innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between guideline-concordant care (GCC) on the basis of national clinical practice guidelines and survival in children (0-14 years), adolescents and young adults (AYAs, 15-39 years), and adults (40 years and older) with osteosarcoma, and to identify sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with receipt of GCC and survival. METHODS: We used data from the California Cancer Registry (CCR) on patients diagnosed with osteosarcoma during 2004-2019, with detailed treatment information extracted from the CCR text fields, including chemotherapy regimens. Multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazard regression were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Of 1,716 patients, only 47% received GCC, with variation by age at diagnosis: 67% of children, 43% of AYAs, and 30% of adults. In multivariable models, patients who received part or all care (v none) at specialized cancer centers were more likely to receive GCC. AYAs and adults were less likely to receive GCC than children (odds ratio [OR], 0.38 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.50] and OR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.56], respectively). In a model excluding adults, patients treated by pediatric (v medical) oncologists were more likely to receive GCC (OR, 3.44 [95% CI, 2.40 to 4.94]). Patients with metastatic osteosarcoma at diagnosis who did not receive GCC had a greater hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.55 to 2.63]) but no statistical differences were found in those diagnosed at earlier stages (HR, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.43]). CONCLUSION: GCC was associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic osteosarcoma in California. However, we found disparities in the delivery of GCC, highlighting the need for target interventions to improve delivery of GCC in this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we defined comprehensive recommendations for the clinical follow-up of pregnant women with a malignancy-suspicious NIPT result, on the basis of the vast experience with population-based NIPT screening programs in two European countries complemented with published large data sets. These recommendations provide a tool for classifying NIPT results as malignancy-suspicious, and guide health care professionals in structured clinical decision making for the diagnostic process of pregnant women who receive such a malignancy-suspicious NIPT result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Patients living in rural communities have greater barriers to cancer care and poorer outcomes. We hypothesized that rural patients with prostate cancer have less access and receive different treatments compared with urban patients. METHODS: We used a population-based prospective cohort, the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness and Survivorship Study, to compare differences in prostate cancer diagnosis, access to care, and treatment in patients by geographic residence. The 2013 rural-urban continuum code (RUCC) was used to determine urban (RUCC 1-3) versus rural (RUCC 4-9) location of residence. RESULTS: Patients with rural residence comprised 25% of the cohort (364 of 1,444); they were less likely to be White race and had lower income and educational attainment. Rural patients were more likely to have <12 cores on biopsy (47.1% v 35.7%; P <.001) and less likely (40.8% v 47.6%; P =.04) to receive multidisciplinary consultation. We observed significant differences in treatment between urban and rural patients, including rural patients receiving less active surveillance or observation (22.6% v 28.7%), especially in low-risk cancer (33.2% v 40.7%). On multivariable analysis that adjusted for patient and diagnostic factors, rural residence was associated with less use of active surveillance or observation over radical treatment (ie, surgery or radiation therapy; odds ratio, 0.49 v urban; P <.001) in patients with low-risk cancer. CONCLUSION: Patients with prostate cancer who live in rural versus urban areas experience several differences in care that are likely clinically meaningful, including fewer cores in the diagnostic biopsy, less utilization of multidisciplinary consultation, less use of active surveillance, or observation for low-risk disease. Future studies are needed to assess the efficacy of interventions in mitigating these disparities. We observed meaningful disparities in rural versus urban prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how forming partnerships with social media influencers offers a novel strategy for supporting cancer care delivery, with the potential for equitable improving adolescents and young adult (AYA) cancer outcomes. Topics include cancer care delivery needs and prior social media approaches for AYAs with cancer, how forming partnerships with cancer influencers has implications for improving AYA cancer care, and examples of social media approaches for addressing AYA disparities.

PURPOSE: Health care consolidation has significantly affected cancer care delivery, with oncology practices undergoing substantial consolidation over the past two decades. This study investigates practice consolidation trends among medical oncologists (MOs), factors associated with consolidation, and changes in MO geographic distribution. METHODS: Medicare data from 2015 to 2022 were used to assess MO practice consolidation in hospital referral regions (HRRs), linked with regional health care market data and physician demographics. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) was used to measure consolidation, and the Gini coefficient was used to measure MO distribution across counties. Multivariable linear regression explored factors associated with MO practice consolidation. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2022, the number of MOs increased by 14.5% (11,727-13,433), whereas the number of MO practices decreased by 18.0% (2,774-2,276). The mean number of MOs per practice increased by 40% (4.26-5.95; P <.001). The percentage of MOs in small practices decreased, whereas larger practices saw an increase. MO consolidation, as indicated by the HHI, increased by 9% (median HHI, 0.3204-0.3480). HRRs with higher baseline hospital consolidation and more hospital beds per capita were more likely to have MO practice consolidation. Despite MO practice consolidation, the county-level distribution of MOs did not change substantially. CONCLUSION: On the basis of Federal Trade Commission classifications, MO practices were highly concentrated in 2015 and consolidated even further by 2022. While distribution of MOs at the county level remained stable, further research is needed to assess the effects of rapid consolidation on cancer care cost, quality, and access. These data have important implications for policymakers and payers as they design programs that ensure high-quality, affordable cancer care. Medical oncology practices were highly concentrated in 2015 and consolidated even further by 2022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables. RESULTS: Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P =.02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P =.06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P =.08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P <.001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P <.001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P <.001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams. Admins perceive different barriers to PRO implementation vs nonadmins; those at centers with PRO infrastructure perceived less barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the gaps affecting the implementation of personalized medicine in cancer care and illustrates the relative importance of each potential gap. Topics discussed include factors contributing to the challenge and the gaps in clinical practice, key strategies to address clinical practice gaps for advanced non-small cell lung cancer, and the need to develop process reforms and strategies to improve the clinical practice of precision oncology.

Dr Kaufmann and Dr Rocque envision how #ePRO symptom monitoring can link patients to supportive care services. #pallonc #supponc #patientreportedoutcomes #PROS #cancer #oncology [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New study highlights critical gaps and opportunities to enhance equitable cancer care for sexual and gender minority patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

LLMs can rewrite oncologic notes as plain-language summaries, which may aid communication and comprehension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Little data exist regarding approaches to support oncology professionals who deliver cancer care for underserved populations. In response, ASCO developed the Serving the Underserved Task Force to learn from and support oncology professionals serving underserved populations. METHODS The Task Force developed a 28-question survey to assess oncology professionals' experiences and strategies to support their work caring for underserved populations. The survey was deployed via an online link to 600 oncology professionals and assessed respondent and patient demographic characteristics, clinic-based processes to coordinate health-related social services, and strategies for professional society support and engagement.We used chi-square tests to evaluate whether there were associations between percent full-time equivalent (FTE) effort serving underserved populations (<50% FTE v ≥50% FTE) with responses. RESULTS Of 462 respondents who completed the survey (77% response rate), 79 (17.1%) were Asian; 30 (6.5%) Black; 43 (9.3%) Hispanic or Latino/Latina; and 277 (60%) White. The majority (n = 366, 79.2%) had amedical doctor degree (MD). A total of 174 (37.7%) had <25% FTE, 151 (32.7%) had 25%-50% FTE, and 121 (26.2%) had ≥50% FTE effort serving underserved populations. Most best guessed patients' sociodemographic characteristics (n = 388; 84%), while 42 (9.2%) used data collected by the clinic. Social workers coordinated most health-related social services. However, in clinical settings with high proportions of underserved patients, there was greater reliance on nonclinical personnel, such as navigators (odds ratio [OR], 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.33]) or no individual (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.14 to 5.72]) for addressing mental health needs and greater reliance on physicians or advance practice practitioners (OR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.11 to 5.81]) or no individual (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.09 to 3.35]) for addressing childcare or eldercare needs compared with social workers. Prioritization of solutions, which did not differ by FTE effort serving underserved populations, included a return-on-investment model to support personnel, integrated health-related social needs screening, and collaboration with the professional society on advocacy and policy. CONCLUSION The findings highlight crucial strategies that professional societies can implement to support oncology clinicians serving underserved populations with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Improving care transitions for patients with cancer discharged from the hospital is considered an important component of quality care. Digital monitoring has the potential to better the delivery of transitional care through improved patientprovider communication and enhanced symptom management. However, remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions have not been widely implemented for oncology patients after discharge, an innovative setting in which to apply this technology. METHODS We implemented a RPM intervention which identifies medical oncology patients at discharge, monitors their symptoms for 10 days, and intervenes as necessary to manage symptoms. We evaluated the feasibility (>50% patient engagement with symptom assessment), appropriateness (symptom alerts), and acceptability (net promoter score >0.7) of the intervention and the initial effect on acute care visits and return on investment. RESULTS During the study period, January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, we evaluated 2,257 medical oncology discharges representing 1,857 unique patients. We found that 65.9% of patients discharged (N = 1,489) completed at least one symptom assessment postdischarge and of them, 45.5% (n = 678) generated a severe symptom alert that we helped to manage. Patients expressed high satisfaction with the interventionwith a net promoter score of 84%. In preliminary analysis of patients with GI malignancies (n = 449), we found a nonsignificant decrease in 30-day readmissions for the intervention cohort (n = 269) by 5.8%as compared with the control (n = 180; from 33.3% to 27.5%; P = .22). CONCLUSION Digital transitional care management was feasible and demonstrated that patients transitioning from the hospital to home have a substantial symptom burden. The intervention was associated with high patient satisfaction but will require further refinement and evaluation to increase its impact on 30-day readmission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE COVID-19 catalyzed rapid implementation of virtual cancer care (VC); however, work is needed to inform long-term adoption. We evaluated patient and staff experiences with VC at a large urban, tertiary cancer center to inform recommendations for postpandemic sustainment. METHODS All physicians who had provided VC during the pandemic and all patients who had a valid e-mail address on file and at least one visit to the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, in the preceding year were invited to complete a survey. Interviews and focus groups with patients and staff across the cancer center were analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis and triangulated with survey findings. RESULTS Response rates for patients and physicians were 15% (2,343 of 15,169) and 41% (100 of 246), respectively. A greater proportion of patients than physicians were satisfied with VC (80.1 v 53.4%; P < .01). In addition, fewer patients than physicians felt that virtual visits were worse than those conducted in person (28.0 v 43.4%; P < .01) and that telephone and video visits negatively affected the human interaction that they valued (59.8% v 82.0%; P < .01). Major barriers to VC for patients were respect for care preferences and personal boundaries, accessibility, and equitable access. For staff, major barriers included a lack of role clarity, dedicated resources (space and technology), integration of nursing and allied health, support (administrative, clinical, and technical), and guidance on appropriateness of use. CONCLUSION Patient and staff perceptions and barriers to virtual care are different. Moving forward, we need to pay attention to both staff and patient experiences with virtual care since this will have major implications for long-term adoption into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on addressing the need for increased diversity in oncology to better serve the growing diverse and underserved populations in the U.S. Topics include disparities among graduates from different medical schools, urging fellowship programs to play a role in improving workforce diversity; and impact of workforce diversity on oncology care outcomes and strategies to address disparities in match outcomes and patient-provider concurrence.

The article presents the discussion on persistence of health disparities despite efforts to expand access to healthcare, attributing this to underlying social, economic, and environmental conditions known as social determinants of health (SDOH). Topics include ASCO's commitment to addressing SDOH in cancer care, the formation of a task force to articulate recommendations, and the policy framework guiding ASCO's advocacy efforts.

The article presents the discussion on initiates a discussion on patient safety in cancer care, emphasizing the need for oncologists to acknowledge and address risks faced by patients. Topics include highlights the distinction between treatment-related risks and those arising from flaws in care delivery, advocating for a more comprehensive approach to risk assessment and mitigation in oncology.

PURPOSE: We previously implemented paper-based screening for health-related social resource needs (HRSN) in our gynecologic oncology clinic and found that 36% of patients who completed the screening reported HRSN. We identified two primary deficiencies with our process. First, only 52% of patients completed the screening. Second, 37% of patients with needs failed to indicate if they desired resource referral or not. Therefore, we conducted a quality improvement project to integrate screening and referral processes into the electronic medical record (EMR) and routine clinic workflow to achieve at least 90% screening compliance and 90% elicited referral preference. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team consisting of physicians, a health outcomes researcher, a computer programmer, project assistants, and the staff of a partner community organization designed and implemented an intervention that screened for HRSN online via the EMR patient platform or in person during visits. The primary outcome was the percentage of eligible patients who completed the HRSN screening (ie, reach). Outcomes were reviewed weekly, and feedback was provided to stakeholders monthly. Iterative changes were incorporated into five successive Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles completed from January 2021 to March 2023. RESULTS: Screening compliance increased from the baseline of 52% (paper-based) to 97% in PDSA 4. Completion via the online patient portal increased from 17% in prelaunch to 49% in PDSA 4. Of patients who reported needs, 100% had a documented referral preference. CONCLUSION: Compared with paper-based screening, an EMR-integrated HRSN screening and referral system significantly improved reach to patients at a gynecologic oncology clinic. Implementation efforts to expand to other ambulatory clinic settings are in process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Individuals diagnosed with cancer between 15 and 39 years (adolescent and young adult [AYA]) face unique vulnerability. Detail is lacking about care delivery for these patients, especially those with ALL. We address these knowledge gaps by describing AYA ALL care delivery details at National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) (sub)affiliates by model of care. METHODS: Participating institutions treated at least one AYA with ALL from 2012 to 2016. Study-specific criteria were used to determine the number of unique clinical facilities (CFs) per NCORP and their model of care (adult/internal medicine [IM], pediatric, mixed [both]). Surveys completed by NCORPs for each CF by model of care captured size, resources, services, and communication. RESULTS: Among 84 participating CFs (adult/IM, n=47; pediatric, n=15; mixed, n=24), 34% treated 5-10 AYAs with ALL annually; adult/IM CFs more often treated <5 (adult/IM, 60%; pediatric, 40%; mixed, 29%). Referral decisions were commonly driven by an age/diagnosis combination (58%), with frequent ALL-specific age minimums (87%) or maximums (80%). Medical, navigational, and social work services were similar across models while psychology was available at more pediatric CFs (pediatric, 80%; adult/IM, 40%; mixed, 46%-54%). More pediatric or mixed CFs reported oncologists interacting with pediatric/adult counterparts via tumor boards (pediatric, 93%; adult/IM, 26%; mixed, 96%) or initiating contact (pediatric, 100%; adult/IM, 77%; mixed 96%); more pediatric CFs reported an affiliated counterpart (pediatric, 53%; adult, 19%). Most CFs reported no AYA-specific resources (79%) or meetings (83%-98%). CONCLUSION: System-level aspects of AYA ALL care delivery have not been examined previously. At NCORPs, these characteristics differ by models of care. Additional work is ongoing to investigate the impact of these facility-level factors on guideline-concordant care in this population. Together, these findings can inform a system-level intervention for diverse practice settings. Many community sites treat <5 AYAs with acute lymphoblastic #leukemia each year. #concerning [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate the impact of medication reconciliation (MR) conducted by pharmacists before patient enrollment and the initiation of investigational treatments. By implementing MR, the primary objective is to evaluate the extent to which the inclusion of patients with prohibited or not recommended concomitant medications in clinical trials can be significantly reduced. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included all patients who participated in clinical trials and underwent MR between September 1, 2015, and September 1, 2020. To identify prohibited or monitored drugs, protocols and investigator's brochures provided by the sponsor were meticulously reviewed and taken into consideration. RESULTS: MR was performed for 501 patients, uncovering 35% of the medications they were currently taking. Through the pharmaceutical analysis, a total of 346 drug-drug interactions (DDIs) were identified, of which 188 required monitoring and 158 were strictly prohibited. More than half of the prohibited medications were herbal drugs. A significant portion of these prohibited drugs were discontinued, with only 6% being replaced by suitable alternatives. The implementation of MR played a crucial role in the identification of 51% of the prohibited or monitored drugs that were initially overlooked by oncologists. CONCLUSION: MR is a highly effective measure aimed at reducing the risk of DDIs with investigational drugs, thereby minimizing protocol deviations and enhancing patient care. Sponsors of clinical trials value its implementation and recognize the substantial benefits it brings to the entire trial process. Consequently, many sponsors willingly provide funding to investigational sites that adopt MR as part of their standard practice, acknowledging its critical role in ensuring patient safety and maintaining data integrity throughout the course of clinical research studies. First study demonstrating the crucial impact of medication reconciliation performed by pharmacist in cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ten years ago we charted a course for oncology payment reform. We summarize what went wrong and propose ways to fix it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The negative impact and management of disruptive behavior are discussed in the article by Monika Kumar, et al. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Telemedicine provides numerous benefits to patients, yet effective communication and symptom assessment remain a concern. The recent uptake of telemedicine provided an opportunity to use a newly developed dashboard with patient-reported outcome (PRO) information to enhance communication and shared decision making (SDM) during telemedicine appointments. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to using the dashboard during telemedicine, develop implementation strategies to address barriers, and pilot test use of this dashboard during telemedicine appointments in two practice settings to evaluate acceptability, adoption, fidelity, and effectiveness. METHODS: Patients and clinicians were interviewed to identify determinants to dashboard use in telemedicine. Implementation strategies were designed and refined through iterative feedback from stakeholders. A pilot study of dashboard use was conducted from March to September 2022. Acceptability, adoption, and fidelity were evaluated using mixed methods. SDM was evaluated using the collaboRATE measure. RESULTS: One hundred two patient encounters were evaluated. Most patients (62; 60%) had completed some PRO data at the time of their telemedicine encounter. Most (82; 80%) encounters had clinician confirmation that PRO data had been reviewed; however, collaborative review of the dashboard was documented in only 27%. Degree of SDM was high (mean collaboRATE score 3.40; SD, 0.11 [95% CI, 3.17 to 3.63] out of a maximum score of 4). Implementation strategies focused on patient engagement, education, and remote PRO completion. Clinician-facing strategies included education, practice facilitation, and small tests of change. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that implementation of a PRO-based dashboard into telemedicine appointments was feasible and had acceptable adoption and acceptability by patients and clinicians when several strategies were used to engage end users. Strategies targeting both patients and clinicians are needed to support routine and effective PRO integration in telemedicine. As telemedicine is increasing in oncology, we need to understand ways to bring patient-reported outcomes into that setting. This study found that engaging end users and presenting PROs in an interpretable and meaningful way through use of dashboard can help align clinicians with patient preferences and health status when they are not in clinic together. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are an evidence-based means of detecting symptoms earlier and improving patient outcomes. However, there are few examples of successful implementation in routine cancer care. We conducted a qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS: Participants were adult patients with cancer, their caregivers, or health care professionals involved in ePRO monitoring or processes. Focus groups or individual interviews were conducted using a semistructured approach informed by the CFIR. Data were analyzed deductively using the CFIR. Barriers were matched to theory-informed implementation strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) matching tool. RESULTS: Thirty participants were interviewed: 22 females (73%), aged 31-70 years (28, 94%), comprising patients (n = 8), caregivers (n = 2), medical oncologists (n = 4), nurses (n = 4), hospital leaders (n = 6), clinic administrators (n = 2), pharmacists (n = 2), and information technology specialists (n = 2). Barriers pertaining to four CFIR domains were identified and several were novel, including the challenge of adapting ePROs for different anticancer treatments. Facilitators pertaining to all CFIR domains were identified, such as leveraging acceptability of remote care post–COVID-19 to drive implementation. Conducting consensus discussions with stakeholders to tailor ePROs to the local setting, identifying/preparing individual and group-level champions, and assessing readiness for change (including leveraging technological advances and increased confidence in using remote monitoring post–COVID-19) were the most frequently recommended implementation strategies. CONCLUSION: The CFIR facilitated identification of known and novel barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care. Implementation strategies summarized in a conceptual framework will be used to codesign an ePRO symptom monitoring system for immunotherapy side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This provocative editorial proposes four steps that can be immediately implemented to reduce the impact of financial conflicts of interest in oncology without stifling collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) includes provisions for price negotiations of certain high-spending drugs in Medicare Parts B and D. This provision received considerable attention from those interested in the costs of cancer care since Medicare covers most patients with cancer and many cancer drugs are expensive. We simulate how many cancer drugs may be eligible for IRA price negotiations and examine the reasons that many are likely to be excluded from negotiation. METHODS This study uses 2021 Medicare Fee-for-Service Part B and Part D prescription drugs expenditure data. Cancer drugs were identified using the SEER Program list of cancer medications. Our measures included total spending, beneficiary users, and spending-per-beneficiary for all cancer drugs covered under Medicare. Each drug was evaluated for eligibility on the basis of IRA negotiation provisions, including estimated loss of patent exclusivity, current competitors, and orphan drug designation. RESULTS Wefound that very few cancer drugs will meet the IRA eligibility thresholds to be included in negotiations. We estimate that only 2.2% of beneficiaries with cancer will see lower costs because of the IRA negotiations. The main reason for this is that although novel cancer drug treatments are priced high, they generally treat relatively few beneficiaries and thus do not meet negotiation eligibility criteria, which are primarily based on a ranking of total spending. CONCLUSION The IRA negotiation provisions will have limited impact on cancer drug prices and will likely leave most patients with cancer exposed to high drug costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Persistent smoking is associated with poor outcomes in cancer care. It is strongly recommended that oncology care providers provide cessation support; however, there is limited information about smoking cessation assessment and treatment patterns in routine oncology practice. METHODS Leaders of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) and National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (National Accredited Program for Breast Cancer) elected to participate in a national quality improvement initiative (Just ASK) focused on smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care. Online baseline survey responses were received from 762 accredited programs. RESULTS Most programs reported regularly asking about smoking (89.9%), documenting smoking history and current use (85.8%), and advising patients to quit (71.2%). However, less than half of programs reported documenting a smoking cessation treatment plan (41.7%). Even fewer programs reported regularly assisting patients with quitting (41.3%), providing self-help information (27.2%), providing individual counseling (18.2%), and referring patients to an affiliated tobacco treatment program (26.1%) or external Quitline (28.5%). Very few programs reported regularly prescribing medications (17.6%). Principal barriers to tobacco treatment delivery were lack of staff training (68.8%), lack of designated specialists (61.9%), perceived patient resistance (58.3%), lack of available resources (53.3%), competing clinical priorities (50.9%), inadequate program funding (40.6%), insufficient staff time (42.4%), and inadequate reimbursement (31.0%). CONCLUSION Although programs reported a high rate of smoking assessment, critical gaps in advising and assisting patients with cessation were found. Improving equitable delivery of smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care will require addressing key organizational and provider barriers for implementation of best practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Patients with well-differentiated, low-grade metastatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) usually have a longmedian survival and require complex, expensive care over many years atmultidisciplinary centers. The cost burden for patients and institutions serves as a barrier to care. Understanding the drivers of these costs and whether intense monitoring adds value will help to optimize value-based care. METHODS We adapted the cost of care per patient per day (CCPD) validated methodology to measure cost while accounting for varying follow-up duration. We queried the Stanford NEN Database, which aggregates data from the electronic health record and other electronic sources, to study patients with metastatic NENs receiving regular care at Stanford. Current Procedural Terminology codes for services incurred during the monitoring period for each patient were mapped to the corresponding cost conversion factor and date in the Medicare fee schedule. RESULTS Two hundred two patients between 2010 and 2017 were studied with a mean CCPD of $119.11 in US dollars (USD); NEN-specific systemic therapy made up 55% of this cost. Somatostatin analogs were the costliest systemic therapy. Systemic therapy was the driver of cost differences among patients with various primary tumor types, stage of disease, tumor differentiation and grade, and functional hormone status. Patients in the most expensive CCPD group did not have a significant survival benefit (P 5 .66). CONCLUSION The CCPD methodology was effective in studying cancer care value in NENs. Systemic therapy, specifically somatostatin analogs, was the primary driver of cost, and intense monitoring and higher-cost care did not improve survival outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on ASCO's commitment to addressing the impact of climate change on cancer, emphasizing specific actions guided by its mission pillars of research, education, and quality. Topics include ASCO's endorsement of climate change as a public health crisis, its support for evidence-based policies to reduce the health burden from climate change, and its collaboration with the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health.

The article focuses on the significant impact of infusion drug costs, particularly drug waste, on oncology care costs in the U.S. Topics include the role of single-use vials in contributing to drug waste, the historical lack of incentives for manufacturers and healthcare systems to address this issue, and six strategies to reduce cancer drug dosing and waste, taking advantage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) incentives.