Search

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection increases the risk for several types of cancer, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as primary and second primary malignancies. HCV-infected patients with cancer, particularly those undergoing anticancer therapy, are at risk for development of enhanced HCV replication, which can lead to hepatitis flare and progression of liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. Risk factors for HCV infection include injection drug use, blood transfusion, or solid organ transplantation before 1992, receipt of clotting factor concentrates before 1987, long-term hemodialysis, chronic liver disease, HIV positivity, and occupational exposure. Widely available direct-acting antivirals are highly effective against HCV and well tolerated. Identification of HCV-infected individuals is the essential first step in treatment and eradication of the infection. One-time screening is recommended for persons born from 1945 to 1965; screening is also recommended for persons with risk factors. Recently, a public health recommendation has been drafted to screen all adults age 18 to 79 years. Two oncology organizations recommend screening all patients with hematologic malignancies and hematopoietic cell transplant recipients, and a recently published multicenter prospective study supports universal HCV screening for all patients with cancer. HCV screening entails testing for anti-HCV antibodies in serum and, when results are positive, HCV RNA quantitation to confirm infection. Direct-acting antiviral therapy eradicates HCV in almost all cases. Virologic cure of HCV prevents chronic hepatitis and progression to liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. HCV eradication also decreases the risk of developing HCV-associated primary and second primary malignancies, and it may allow HCV-infected patients access to important cancer clinical trials. Patients with HCV-related cirrhosis require lifelong surveillance for HCC, even after viral eradication.

1581 Background: Promoting NCCP implementation by low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is key to addressing inequities in cancer outcomes and the global burden of cancer. We explored contextual factors that may influence implementation of NCCP priorities in LMICs. Methods: Seven countries participated in the 2021 International Cancer Control Partnership ECHO (R) geared toward creating a community of practice to inform NCCP implementation. Using qualitative methods, we conducted focus group discussions (FGDs) with country teams who were asked to identify NCCP priorities and provide contextual considerations around implementing these in the 12-months program. FGDs were audio-recorded, transcribed, double-coded, and underwent thematic analysis. Results: Thirty-three participants from 6 Sub-Saharan African countries and 1 country in Asia took part in 7 FGDs, including 14 physicians, 9 non-governmental organizations, 6 Ministry of Health/NCCP and 4 cancer registry representatives. All seven country teams (100%) prioritized cancer early detection, especially for cervical (71%) and breast (57%) cancer, including by educating primary care clinicians (57%) and general population (43%) about cancer signs and symptoms. Related contextual factors included late-stage diagnosis of cancer (43%) and low knowledge about cancer among primary care clinicians and the general population (29% each), respectively. Finding resources for implementation of NCCP priorities was important given lack of funding (57% each). Harmonizing programs and building partnerships for implementation (57%) was prioritized given perceived fragmentation of efforts and benefit of leveraging limited resources (29% each). Improving access to treatment (43%) was a priority given a lack of oncology specialists (29%) and unaffordable treatment (14%). Improving access to palliative care (43%), including by writing guidelines (29%), was prioritized due to late-stage diagnosis and insufficient access to palliative care (14% each). Improving cancer registry data was essential for NCCP program planning (43% each), while cancer research (43%) was key to answering specific questions related to cancer registry data (14%) and program impact (29%). Additional contextual considerations for making progress on these priorities dicussed by country teams included leveraging existing programs (100%) and learning from other countries and ICCP technical experts (57% each). Conclusions: There were similarities in country NCCP priorities and contextual factors affecting implementation. These results allow for future exploration of how LMIC country teams implement NCCPs and examine the value of communities of practice promoted by ICCP and facilitated by ECHO, towards improving cancer outcomes.

The incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rising. It is one of the most common cancers worldwide and accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality. Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are the most important etiologies of HCC, and effective screening and management strategies are crucial to reduce the HCC risk. For HBV, which accounts for the majority of HCC cases, most infections were acquired via perinatal and early horizontal transmission. Universal vaccination of newborns has led to a decline in HCC incidence compared with the pre-vaccination era. Effective antiviral therapies with nucleos(t)ide analogues or pegylated interferon reduced the incidence of HCC. For HCV, the emergence of effective direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents has substantially improved cure rates; therefore all patients with HCV should be considered for DAA treatment. The most important obstacle in eliminating HCV is access to therapy. For NAFLD, the global incidence is increasing rapidly, thus its impact on HCC incidence may be explosive. Progression to HCC in NAFLD happens particularly in those with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and exacerbated by metabolic syndrome, or PNPLA3 gene polymorphism. Lifestyle changes are imperative while drug therapy has yet to demonstrate substantive protective effects on HCC prevention. For management of HCC, early diagnosis via imaging surveillance among persons with HCC risk factors remains the most important strategy to identify early-stage disease appropriate for resection or transplantation.

Background: Globally, tobacco can be attributed to more than 7 million deaths each year. To address this potentially avoidable mortality, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center has engaged its Global Academic Program´s (GAP) sister institutions (SI) by conducting an inaugural tobacco control assessment survey. A similar survey was done with our University of Texas academic and health science center affiliates that led to improved adoption of tobacco control policies as well as prevention and cessation services on all campuses. The baseline data collected will serve as a mechanism to develop a tobacco prevention and control strategy within a global cancer center network. Aim: To assess SI laws and policies regarding tobacco use, existing screening and cessation services. Strategy/Tactics: Qualtrics was used to administer a 27-item survey to our GAP SI from April-October 2017. Survey questions focused on key areas of tobacco prevention and control: policy, tobacco use screening, and cessation services. A survey link was emailed to 34 institutions in 23 countries. Program/Policy process: Survey GAP SI to determine current tobacco prevention and control measures being implemented. Convene GAP SI in May 2018 to share tobacco control best practices across the network and identify resources and supports to strengthen tobacco control efforts at each institution. Build collaborations aimed at progressive actions in tobacco control policies, educational programs and cessation services culturally appropriate to the needs and resources of the GAP network. Outcomes: Of the 34 GAP SI, 26 responded to the survey (76% response rate). Key findings among the 26 responding institutions: policy - 96% are located in cities with laws regulating the sale and/or use of tobacco products by minors and 77% of the cities have laws regulating the use of tobacco in the workplace; 42% of the campuses have designated smoking areas; tobacco use screening - 65% screen for and document patients´ tobacco status, however only 27% screen “all the time”; cessation services - 19% offer telephone counseling as a cessation service; 38% offer cessation services to the community; 46% offer cessation services to employees. What was learned: The baseline assessment identified areas of institutional needs: cessation services and campus policies. Further discussion with the SI will help engage them in further efforts to address gaps in tobacco control. Collectively, we aim to develop action steps to collaborate and enhance existing services by creating a global platform in which tobacco control best practices and resources can be shared.

16 Background: Opportunities for medical students and primary care providers to learn about evidence-based cancer survivorship care remains limited. To fill this void, we created an innovative curriculum using ECHO, a tele-mentoring approach, to teach faculty and residents in family medicine programs about the core principles and skills of survivorship care. Our objective was to explore participants' perceptions about their self-efficacy to deliver high quality care to survivors. Methods: Subjects were recruited from 3 academic centers with medical residency programs collaborating with our cancer center in a state-funded education grant to develop a tele-mentoring training program. The survey, which was developed by the research team, measured self-efficacy and satisfaction. Subjects were asked to rate their confidence in their abilities to offer evidence-based care after completing the program. Descriptive statistics were used to report results. REDCap, a web-based application, was used to manage the development and distribution of the survey. Results: A total of 116 surveys were sent out electronically with 59 returned (50.9%). Table 1 indicates most participants reported the ECHO program increased their knowledge, clinical skills, and expertise to provide comprehensive survivorship care. Conclusions: Overall, the participants’ perceptions of their expertise to offer optimal survivorship care were positive. There is room for improvement to maximize the learning experience for all participants.[Table: see text]

52 Background: An estimated 14 million cancer survivors live in the U.S., with up to 18 million expected by 2020. Methods: We established a partnership with three Texas family medicine training programs to provide interactive educational sessions focused on survivors’ needs for primary prevention and lifestyle counseling, surveillance and screening, and prevention of psychosocial and long-term effects. Surveys assessing resident and PCP knowledge, self-efficacy, and practices regarding survivorship care management were administered through REDCap in July 2016 and 2017. Results: Baseline response rates were 64% (60/94) and 59% (55/93) at follow-up. Compared to baseline, providers at follow-up were significantly more likely to report being “very confident” in their knowledge about: appropriate surveillance to detect recurrent breast cancer (5% vs 24%; p = 0.01); long-term physical effects of colon cancer and its treatment (8% vs 18%; p = 0.04); potential adverse psychosocial outcomes of colon cancer treatment (24% vs 44%; p = 0.01); appropriate screening for new primary breast (29% vs 61%; p < 0.001) and colon cancers (27% vs 51%; p = 0.01); and preventive lifestyle/behavioral counseling for breast (39% vs 59%; p = 0.03) and colon cancers (37% vs 59%; p = 0.01). Participants were also more likely to “strongly agree” that they have the skills necessary to: provide follow-up care related to the colon cancer and its treatment (10% vs 28%; p = 0.02); initiate appropriate screening for other new primary cancers for breast (28% vs 56%; p < 0.01) and colon cancer survivors (28% vs 58%; p < 0.01); and conduct lifestyle/behavioral counseling to prevent cancer for breast (33% vs 53%; p = 0.03) and colon cancer survivors (34% vs 55%; p = 0.02). Conclusions: Preliminary results suggest our project has improved provider knowledge, self-efficacy, and practices regarding survivorship care management, with the highest levels in areas pertaining to screening and prevention. We aim to continue this trajectory of improvement in subsequent project years and disseminate the project to other primary care training sites in Texas and beyond.

e19629 Background: Multidisciplinary care models provide a comprehensive approach to improve the care of long-term cancer survivors as recommended by the Institute of Medicine report.. Here we describe a Multidisciplinary Survivorship Care Model and the metrics used to evaluate the delivery of personalized care to long-term survivors. Methods: Critical components used to develop survivorship services included: 1) engaging clinical and administrative leadership; 2) conducting extensive reviews/syntheses of published literature including health promotion, prevention and risk reduction, late treatment effects, and rehabilitative services for each disease-site; 3) determining eligibility criteria to transition patients from active-disease care to survivorship care; 4) developing, implementing, and evaluating algorithms by involving a multidisciplinary team expert-consensus; 5) obtaining approval for integration of algorithms into practice by institutional credentialing and regulatory committees; 6) identifying appropriate survivorship clinics to pilot the feasibility of algorithms in routine clinical operations; 7) performing improvement checks of the clinic operations; and 8) revising operations and scheduling as needed. Metrics used to evaluate the progress of the clinical activity of each multidisciplinary survivorship care clinic (MSCC) included number of unique patients transitioned, number seen, number of arrived appointments, number of summary care plans issued, and survivors’ satisfaction. Results: The MSCCs included gynecology, thyroid, genitourinary, stem cell transplant, breast, head and neck, colorectal, lymphoma, and melanoma, with varied launch dates for each clinic. Between 09/01/2008 and 12/31/2011, there were a total of 7396 unique survivors, 12,741 arrived appointments, and 10,016 summary care plans completed within 30 days from appointment. Conclusions: Dedicated multidisciplinary survivorship care models are a comprehensive approach to deliver long-term survivorship care. Comparative effectiveness and other health outcomes research examining the feasibility, usability, acceptance, and effectiveness of the MSCC by providers and survivors is warranted.

e19625 Background: Clinical practice algorithms provide a framework to guide providers’ practice in delivering care to long-term cancer survivors. Here we describe how algorithms were developed in a comprehensive cancer center and types of metrics used to evaluate their feasibility. Methods: Survivorship practice algorithms were based on a multidisciplinary care approach successfully used to build screening and treatment algorithms. This model consisted of four phases: development, adoption, implementation, and evaluation of algorithms. Phase 1, expert clinicians and researchers identified and agreed upon a specific cancer site. Group-consensus and literature reviews/syntheses were used to determine eligibility criteria to transition patients to survivorship care. Phase 2, reviews and approval processes were conducted by credentialing and regulatory committees to ensure adoption of the algorithms into clinical practice. Phase 3, pilot programs were conducted to implement the algorithm(s) in disease-specific survivorship clinics. Phase 4, metrics to evaluate progress included the number of algorithms and providers’ use of and adherence to the algorithms. Results: Between 09/2008 – 12/2011, nine multidisciplinary disease-specific survivorship clinics were operationalized. Thirty-seven practice algorithms were developed to provide survivorship care based on each survivor’s specific needs. The algorithms’ framework included: 1) surveillance for recurrent or new primary malignancies; 2) primary and secondary cancer prevention recommendations; 3) management of toxicities and latent treatment effects; and 4) assessment of psychosocial functioning. Conclusions: Practice algorithms provide an organized plan to deliver comprehensive and holistic care to long-term survivors. Given the projected increase in cancer survivors, further research is needed to determine how practice algorithms impact providers’ practice and survivors’ outcomes.