Search

PURPOSE Early integration of palliative care (PC) with standard oncology care is driving the development of innovative PC delivery models. METHODS This was a single-institution retrospective study of outpatient PC before and after the opening of an embedded thoracic oncology-palliative clinic at The Ohio State University. Patients included in the preintervention (October 2017-July 2018) and postintervention (October 2018-July 2019) cohorts had a diagnosis of any non-small-cell lung cancer (stages I-IV) or small-cell lung cancer (limited or extensive stage) and were newly established in the thoracic medical oncology clinic during the study time periods. All patients in the preintervention cohort had access to outpatient PC through a freestanding clinic, while the postintervention cohort had access to both freestanding and embedded clinics. Using time-to-event analyses, we evaluated differences in time intervals from first medical oncology visit to PC referral and first PC visit between cohorts. RESULTS Themajority of patients in both cohorts hadmetastatic disease at diagnosis. In the postintervention cohort, 20.9% of patients were referred to outpatient PC compared with 9.2%in the preintervention cohort (P < .01). PC referrals for patients outside of Franklin and adjacent counties increased from 4.0% to 14.2% after opening the embedded clinic (P < .01). Completion percentages of PC referrals increased from 57.6% to 76.0% in the preintervention versus postintervention cohorts (P 5 .048). Median time from palliative referral order to first PC visit decreased from 29 to 20 days (P 5 .047). Similarly, median time from the first oncology visit to PC referral completion decreased from 103 to 41 days (P 5 .08). CONCLUSION Implementation of an embedded PC model was associated with increased access to early PC among patients with thoracic malignancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Tumor genomic testing (TGT) has become increasingly adopted as part of standard cancer care for many cancers. Despite national guidelines around patient education before TGT, available evidence suggests that most patients’ understanding of genomics remains limited, particularly lower-income and minority patients, and most patients are not informed regarding potential incidental germline findings. METHODS To investigate and address limitations in patient understanding of TGT results, a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach is being used to assess needs, identify opportunities for improvement, and implement approaches to optimize patient education. We reviewed published guidelines related to pre-TGT provider-patient education and to identify key points (Plan). A provider quality improvement survey was completed (Do), which highlighted inconsistency in pre-TGT discussion practice across providers and minimal discussion with patients regarding the possibility of incidental germline findings. RESULTS Patient focus groups and interviews (N 5 12 patients) were completed with coding of each transcript (Study), which revealed themes including trouble differentiating TGT from other forms of testing, yet under)standing that results could tailor therapy. The integration of data across this initial PDSA cycle identified consistent themes and opportunities, which were incorporated into a patient-directed, concise animated video for pre-TGT education (Act), which will form the foundation of a subsequent PDSA cycle. The video addresses how TGT may/may not inform treatment, the process for TGT using existing tissue or liquid biopsy, insurance coverage, and the potential need for germline genetics follow-up because of incidental findings. CONCLUSION This PDSA cycle reveals key gaps and opportunities for improvement in patient education before TGT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE To determine patient and disease characteristics associated with functional disability among adults with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS In a prospective cohort of participants newly diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and beginning systemic treatment, functional disability in usual activities, mobility, and self-care was measured using the EuroQol-5D-5L at baseline. Demographics, comorbidities, brain metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and psychologic variables (depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9] and anxiety [Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale]) were captured. Patients were classified into two disability groups (none-slight or moderate-severe) on the basis of total functional status scores. Differences between disability groups were determined (chi-square and t tests). Associations between patient characteristics and baseline disability were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS Among 173 participants, mean age was 63.3 years, 56% were male, 83% had ECOG PS 0-1, and 41% had brain metastases. Baseline disability was present in 39% of participants, with patients having moderate to severe disability in usual activities (37.6%), mobility (26.6%), and self-care (5.2%). Depressive and/or anxiety symptoms ranged from none to severe (Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item scale M 5 6.5, SD 5 5.3). Depressive symptoms were the only characteristic associated with a higher odds of baseline disability (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.26; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.38; P, .001). Participants with poorer ECOG PS (aOR: 4.64; 95% CI, 1.84 to 11.68; P 5 .001) and depressive symptoms (aOR: 1.15; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.24; P, .001) had higher odds of moderate-severe mobility disability compared with the none-slight disability group. CONCLUSION More than one third of all adults with advanced NSCLC have moderate-severe functional disability at baseline. Psychologic symptoms were significantly associated with moderate-severe baseline disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE As immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the care of patients with cancer, it is unclear whether treatment at the end of life (EOL) has changed. Because aggressive therapy at the EOL is associated with increased costs and patient distress, we explored the association between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of ICIs and treatment patterns at the EOL. METHODS We conducted a retrospective, observational study using patient-level data from a nationwide electronic health record–derived database. Patients had advanced melanoma, non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; cancer types with an ICI indication), or microsatellite stable (MSS) colon cancer (a cancer type without an ICI indication) and died between 2013 and 2017. We calculated annual proportions of decedents who received systemic cancer therapy in the final 30 days of life, using logistic regression to model the association between the post-ICI FDA approval time and use of systemic therapy at the EOL, adjusting for patient characteristics. We assessed the use of chemotherapy or targeted/biologic therapies at the EOL, before and after FDA approval of ICIs using Pearson chi-square test. RESULTS There was an increase in use of EOL systemic cancer therapy in the post-ICI approval period for both melanoma (33.9% to 43.2%; P <.001) and NSCLC (37.4% to 40.3%; P <.001), with no significant change in use of systemic therapy in MSS colon cancer. After FDA approval of ICIs, patients with NSCLC and melanoma had a decrease in the use of chemotherapy, with a concomitant increase in use of ICIs at the EOL. CONCLUSION The adoption of ICIs was associated with a substantive increase in the use of systemic therapy at the EOL in melanoma and a smaller yet significant increase in NSCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To quantify the burden and complexity associated with treatment of Medicare beneficiaries with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods Using the SEER-Medicare database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who were diagnosed with stage I NSCLC from 2007 to 2011 and who were treated with surgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy, or external beam radiation therapy. Main outcome measures were the number of days a patient was in contact with the health care system (encounter days), the number of physicians involved in a patient's care, and the number of medications prescribed. Logistic regression modeled the association between patient characteristics, treatment type, and high treatment burden (defined as ≥ 66 encounter days). Results On average, 7,955 patients spent 1 in 3 days interacting with the health care system during the initial 60 days of treatment. Patients experienced a median of 44 encounter days with high variability (interquartile range [IQR], 29 to 66) in the 12 months after treatment initiation. The median number of physicians involved was 20 (IQR, 14 to 28), and the median number of medications prescribed was 12 (IQR, 8 to 17). Patients who were treated with surgery had high treatment burden (predicted probability, 21.6%; 95% CI, 20.2 to 23.1) compared with patients who were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (predicted probability, 16.1%; 95% CI, 12.9 to 19.3), whereas patients who were treated with external beam radiation therapy had the highest burden (predicted probability, 46.8%; 95% CI, 43.3 to 50.2). Conclusion The treatment burden imposed on patients with early-stage NSCLC was substantial in terms of the number of encounters, physicians involved, and medications prescribed. Because treatment burden varied markedly across patients and treatment types, future work should identify opportunities to understand and ameliorate this burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the study on the prioritization of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) by metastatic breast cancer patients. The study involved one-on-one interviews with patients at the Smillow Cancer Hospital of Yale New Haven Hospital's Breast Center. The results revealed that the prioritization of PRO domains was varied and unique with physical symptoms as the patients' top concern.

People with advanced lung cancer represent a distinct group whose needs remain understudied, especially compared with people diagnosed with limited-stage disease. Fortunately, novel treatments such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors are leading to significant advances in prognosis and survival, even among those with advanced disease at the time of diagnosis. However, there are known gaps in symptom management, psychosocial and nutritional support, complex care coordination, health behavior coaching, and health care delivery efforts among patients living with advanced lung cancer. Many of these patients would benefit from survivorship and palliative care approaches. In particular, survivorship care may include health care maintenance, treatment of immune-related adverse events and late- or long-term effects, frailty assessment and rehabilitation, and care coordination. Palliative care may be best suited to discuss ongoing symptom management, advanced care planning, and end-of-life considerations, as well as psychosocial well-being. To this end, we share a review of the current status of the palliative and survivorship care infrastructure for patients with advanced lung cancer and provide suggestions across the care continuum for this diverse group of patients and families.

Older adults comprise a considerable proportion of patients with cancer in the world. Across multiple cancer types, cancer treatment outcomes among older age groups are often inferior to those among younger adults. Cancer care for older individuals is complicated by the need to adapt treatment to baseline health, fitness, and frailty, all of which vary widely within this age group. Rates of social deprivation and socioeconomic disparities are also higher in older adults, with many living on reduced incomes, further compounding health inequality. It is important to recognize and avoid undertreatment and overtreatment of cancer in this age group; however, simply addressing this problem by mandating standard treatment of all would lead to harms resulting from treatment toxicity and futility. However, there is little high-quality evidence on which to base these decisions, because older adults are poorly represented in clinical trials. Clinicians must recognize that simple extrapolation of outcomes from younger age cohorts may not be appropriate because of variance in disease stage and biology, variation in fitness and treatment tolerance, and reduced life expectancy. Older patients may also have different life goals and priorities, with a greater focus on quality of life and less on length of life at any cost. Health care professionals struggle with treatment of older adults with cancer, with high rates of variability in practice between and within countries. This suggests that better national and international recommendations that more fully address the needs of this special patient population are required and that primary research focused on the older age group is urgently required to inform these guidelines.

Registration of new anticancer drugs is decided too often not by their clinical value but by a p value. Approval is granted if the difference in an acceptable time-to-event outcome measure differs between experimental and control arms of a randomized controlled trial, such that the null hypothesis can be rejected based on a statistical test that meets the arbitrary criterion of p < .05. However, as stated by the American Statistical Association, a p value does not measure the size of an effect or the importance of a result; it does not provide a good measure of evidence related to a hypothesis, and policy decisions should not be made on the basis of whether a p value passes a specific threshold. Unfortunately, this statement is ignored by most journals, which emphasize p values in reporting results of clinical trials, and by regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency; a significant p value is often a necessary and sufficient criterion for granting marketing approval. As a result, pharmaceutical companies often design large trials to increase the probability that a small difference in the primary outcome measure will be "significant." Moreover, the market price set for such drugs bears no relationship to the level of their benefit; drugs with small effects on outcome are sold at roughly the same price as "good drugs" that convey substantial benefit.

The management of advanced lung cancer is changing rapidly, with new drug approvals occurring almost monthly. The average age of a newly diagnosed patient with advanced lung cancer remains around age 70. Caring for the older adult with advanced cancer differs from the care of younger adults. Chronologic age often does not accurately reflect the physiologic and functional status of older adults. Selecting treatment based on age alone results in undertreatment and overtreatment of many older adults. Addressing issues such as multiple chronic conditions, polypharmacy, geriatric syndromes, and heterogeneity in functional status among an expanding menu of treatment options for advanced disease is increasingly difficult, particularly among older adults historically underrepresented in clinical trials. In this article, we highlight key issues in caring for the older adult with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and the continued need for data supporting current and emerging treatment options. Key issues include the unique challenges of managing advanced lung cancer and a summary of the current treatment evidence as they apply to the elderly lung cancer population including supportive care strategies, risk stratification, and patient-reported outcomes.