Search

Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy (MCP) is a manualized, evidence-based intervention designed to help cancer patients to find meaning and alleviate distress. Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy Training (MCPT) is a multicomponent program for cancer care clinicians that consists of didactics, group experiential learning, and role-plays with simulated patients to learn MCP and acquire skills to deliver it in real-world oncology settings. The efficacy and impact of MCPT for multidisciplinary cancer care clinicians to learn and disseminate MCP is described and evaluated. A multilevel evaluation based on the RE-AIM framework was utilized to assess the efficacy of the MCPT program over the initial 5 years of the program. The outcomes of the evaluation supported MCPT goals. Three hundred forty-two participants attended MCPT. Overall satisfaction measured in the post-training assessment was high. Significant increases in MCP skills were demonstrated by participants over the course of the role-play sessions, and participants showed significant improvements in pre/post-training MCP knowledge assessment scores, as well as significant increases in self-reported overall MCP skills and core competencies. Follow-up survey responses indicate that MCP trainees were utilizing MCP, had made changes to their clinical practice, and progressed on individual implementation goals. During the first 5 years, the MCPT program was successfully developed, established, implemented, and shown to be effective in the dissemination of MCP across the RE-AIM domains. Future directions for training and implementation research include increasing diversity of providers and investigating the impact of the program on patient outcomes., (© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: We assessed patient costs associated with cannabis use during cancer treatment., Methods: Adults treated for cancer at a large, comprehensive center completed an anonymous survey regarding their thoughts and experiences with cannabis and cancer. Bivariate and weighted multivariable logistic regression assessed clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with patient-reported out-of-pocket costs for cannabis products., Results: Overall, 248 cannabis users provided data on cost and were analyzed. Median monthly out-of-pocket cost for cannabis was $80 (interquartile range = $25-$150). On regression analysis, male gender (odds ratio = 2.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.2 to 5.5, P = .026) and being 45 years of age or older (odds ratio = 7.5, 95% confidence interval = 1.9 to 30.0, P = .0042) were associated with spending $100 a month or more on cannabis. Of the 166 patients who stopped using cannabis early or used less than preferred, 28% attributed it to cost and 26% to lack of insurance coverage., Conclusion: Cannabis use during cancer treatment may contribute to significant out-of-pocket costs, with men and younger patients more likely to pay higher costs., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Cannabis use among individuals with cancer is best understood using survey self-report. As cannabis remains federally illegal, surveys could be subject to nonresponse and measurement issues impacting data quality. We surveyed individuals using medical cannabis for a cancer-related condition in the Minnesota Medical Cannabis Program (MCP). Although survey responders are older, there are no differences by race and ethnicity, gender, or receipt of reduced cannabis registry enrollment fee. Responders made a more recent purchase and more recently completed an independent symptom assessment for the registry than nonresponders, suggesting some opportunity for nonresponse error. Among responders, self-report and MCP administrative data with respect to age, race, gender, registry certification, and cannabis purchase history were similar. Responders were less likely to report receipt of Medicaid than would be expected based on registry low-income enrollment eligibility. Although attention should be paid to potential for nonresponse error, surveys are a reliable tool to ascertain cannabis behavior patterns in this population., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Cannabis use is prevalent among cancer patients and survivors and may provide some therapeutic benefits for this population. However, benefits may be attenuated when cannabis is co-used with tobacco, which is associated with more severe tobacco and cannabis use and adverse outcomes in noncancer populations. We compared cannabis use, primary mode of use, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use among 3 groups of patients and survivors based on cigarette smoking status., Methods: Survey data was collected from patients and survivors with cancer (n = 1732) at 2 US National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in states with varying cannabis regulatory policy. Prevalence of cannabis use (prior to diagnosis, after diagnosis, before treatment, after treatment), primary mode of use, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use were assessed by cigarette smoking status (current, former, never) within and across centers using weighted bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression, controlling for demographic and clinical variables., Results: Current cigarette use was associated with greater rates of cannabis use prior to diagnosis, after diagnosis, during treatment, and after treatment within each center (all P < .001) and in pooled analyses across centers (all P < .001). Primary mode of use, knowledge of cannabis products, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use also statistically differed by tobacco status and study site., Conclusions: Results illustrate the importance of conducting assessments for both tobacco and cannabis use among cancer patients during and after cancer treatment, regardless of the cannabis regulatory environment. Given previous data indicating harms from co-use and continued tobacco use during cancer treatment, this issue introduces new priorities for cancer care delivery and research., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: This study characterizes patient and health-care professional perspectives regarding medical cannabis use at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center. Data evaluated included the prevalence and patterns of and reasons for cannabis use., Methods: Patients with cancer undergoing treatment were recruited into a cross-sectional survey as part of a national National Cancer Institute-funded effort. Participants completed a survey about cannabis use, reasons for use, and types of cannabis. A health-care professional survey was also conducted to explore perspectives regarding patients' use of cannabis., Results: A total of 313 patients with cancer (mean [SD] age = 60.7 [12.8] years) completed the survey (43% response rate) between 2021 and 2022. Of the respondents, 58% were female; identified as White (61%) and Black (23%); and had diverse cancer diagnoses. Nearly half of respondents (43%) had previously used cannabis, one-quarter (26%) had used cannabis since their cancer diagnosis, and almost 1 in 6 (17%) were actively using cannabis at the time of survey completion. The most common modes of ingestion were gummies (33%) and smoking (30%). The most commonly reported reasons for use were insomnia (46%), pain (41%), and mood (39%). For the 164 health-care professionals who completed the survey (25% response rate), the majority agreed that cannabis use (72%) is safe and beneficial for patients (57%). Four in 10 (39%) health-care professionals felt comfortable providing guidance to patients about cannabis use; however, only 1 in 8 (13%) felt knowledgeable about the topic of cannabis., Conclusions: Approximately one-sixth of patients with cancer receiving treatment actively use cannabis for management of various cancer symptoms. Perceptions about cannabis use and education varied widely among health-care professionals., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Patients with cancer report increasing rates of cannabis use, often to manage symptoms and toxicities. The efficacy and safety of cannabis, however, for some use cases remains unclear. To better understand characteristics of patients with cancer who report using cannabis, we examined data from a cannabis use survey of among patients with cancer seen at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center., Methods: In late 2021, patients with cancer (N = 1608) treated between July 2017 and December 2019 provided cannabis use data. Additional data were obtained from medical records data and routine patient-reported outcomes collected for clinical purposes. Univariable analyses and multivariable regression analyses were conducted to identify correlates of cannabis use at different stages in the cancer care trajectory., Results: Rates of self-reported cannabis use by patients with cancer were 59% before cancer diagnosis and 47% after diagnosis. Longitudinal rates of cannabis use were 29% for no cannabis use, 23% before diagnosis, 12% after diagnosis, and 35% for both before and after diagnosis. Demographic factors associated with cannabis use included age, sex, race, and educational achievement. Tobacco use and binge drinking were associated with higher odds of cannabis use. Cannabis use was also associated with greater self-reported interference with physical functioning due to pain and interference with social functioning due to health problems., Conclusions: We found high rates of cannabis use among patients with cancer, both before and after their cancer diagnosis. Future studies should further investigate psychosocial factors associated with cannabis use among patients with cancer as well as psychosocial outcomes among patients with cancer using cannabis., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The legal climate for cannabis use has dramatically changed with an increasing number of states passing legislation legalizing access for medical and recreational use. Among cancer patients, cannabis is often used to ameliorate adverse effects of cancer treatment. Data are limited on the extent and type of use among cancer patients during treatment and the perceived benefits and harms. This multicenter survey was conducted to assess the use of cannabis among cancer patients residing in states with varied legal access to cannabis., Methods: A total of 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, across states with varied cannabis-access legal status, conducted surveys with a core questionnaire to assess cannabis use among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Data were collected between September 2021 and August 2023 and pooled across 12 cancer centers. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals for core survey measures were calculated, and weighted estimates are presented for the 10 sites that drew probability samples., Results: Overall reported cannabis use since cancer diagnosis among survey respondents was 32.9% (weighted), which varied slightly by state legalization status. The most common perceived benefits of use were for pain, sleep, stress and anxiety, and treatment side effects. Reported perceived risks were less common and included inability to drive, difficulty concentrating, lung damage, addiction, and impact on employment. A majority reported feeling comfortable speaking to health-care providers though, overall, only 21.5% reported having done so. Among those who used cannabis since diagnosis, the most common modes were eating in food, smoking, and pills or tinctures, and the most common reasons were for sleep disturbance, followed by pain and stress and anxiety with 60%-68% reporting improved symptoms with use., Conclusion: This geographically diverse survey demonstrates that patients use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Addressing knowledge gaps concerning benefits and harms of cannabis use during cancer treatment is critical to enhance patient-provider communication., (Published by Oxford University Press 2024.)

Expanding legal access to medical cannabis across the United States increases availability and use of cannabis products to manage cancer-related symptoms and treatment side effects despite the lack of research-based evidence on its potential benefits and harms. To address knowledge gaps in how cancer patients access and use cannabis, their perceived risks and benefits with its use, and whether cancer patients discuss cannabis use with their healthcare providers during treatment, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) supported 12 NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers to conduct surveys, which included NCI standardized core questions on cannabis use during treatment, among their cancer patient populations. This overview highlights key results from the articles contained in the monograph, which includes a summary of the results of core questions across all centers and reports from individual or groups of cancer centers on survey results related to the sourcing of cannabis, associated cost, behavioral factors associated with cannabis use (such as smoking, drinking, or using other substances), patient-provider communication on cannabis use during treatment, ethnic variations in patterns, sources, and reasons for cannabis use as well as methodologic concerns related to survey data analysis. The results of these surveys of cannabis use after the diagnosis of cancer lay the groundwork for much-needed research to answer the questions of benefits and harms, including potential interactions with cancer treatments for cancer patients., (Published by Oxford University Press 2024.)

Prescription opioids are used for managing pain in persons with cancer, however, there are socioeconomic and racial disparities in medication access. Cannabis is increasingly used for cancer symptom management and as an opioid alternative. Limited data are available about patterns of opioid and cannabis use among patients with cancer. We used survey data from 4 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in 3 states (n = 1220) to assess perceptions, use of cannabis and opioids for pain, their substitution, and racial and ethnic differences in each outcome. Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to use opioids for pain (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66; P = .035) and more likely to report that cannabis was more effective than opioids (OR = 2.46; P = .03). Race effects were mitigated (P > .05) after controlling for socioeconomic factors. Further research is needed to understand cannabis and opioid use patterns and how overlapping social determinants of health create a disadvantage in cancer symptom management for Black patients., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Medical cannabis with cancer as a qualifying condition has become legalized in more states, but currently there are no standardized measures of perceived benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer. This study surveyed a population-based sample of cancer survivors (n = 1539) with various types of cancer including breast (25%), prostate (17%), and gastrointestinal (11%) cancers. Item response theory analyses were used to evaluate the items for measuring perceived benefits and harms. Item response theory evaluates survey items by estimating the accuracy (analogous to reliability) and severity reflected by each item. Item response theory analyses showed all the items were accurate (reliable) measures of perceived benefits or harms. The perceived benefits items assessed beliefs well from low to high levels of perceived benefits. The perceived harms items assessed beliefs from moderate to high levels of perceived harms. The items can be used in future studies to standardize measurement while allowing some customization., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Considering the high rates of persistent tobacco use, effective cessation interventions are needed for cancer patients and caregivers. Despite the need, there is a significant lack of research on tobacco cessation, especially for non-respiratory cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, cervical, and bladder cancer)., Purpose: The objective was to evaluate tobacco use and tobacco cessation interventions among patients and caregivers for non-respiratory cancers., Methods: Randomized controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions were identified. Five electronic databases were searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines through July 2023. Studies exclusive to lung, oral, thoracic, and head and neck cancers were excluded. Effect sizes were estimated; risk of bias was assessed., Results: Of 3,304 studies, 17 were included. Interventions included behavioral (n = 6), pharmacotherapy (n = 2), and a combination (n = 9) treatment. Eight studies included a health behavior model; mean behavioral change techniques were 5.57. Pooled magnitude of the odds of cessation was positive and significant (odds ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval [Lower Limit 1.02, Upper Limit 1.51]) relative to usual care/placebo. Cumulative meta-analysis examined the accumulation of results over-time and demonstrated that studies have been significant since 2020. Two studies included caregivers' who were involved in the provision of social support., Conclusions: Current interventions have the potential to reduce tobacco use in non-respiratory cancers. Results may be beneficial for promoting tobacco cessation among non-respiratory cancers. There is a considerable lack of dyadic interventions for cancer survivors and caregivers; researchers are encouraged to explore dyadic approaches., (© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Although the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program has maintained high standards of quality and completeness, the traditional data captured through population-based cancer surveillance are no longer sufficient to understand the impact of cancer and its outcomes. Therefore, in recent years, the SEER Program has expanded the population it covers and enhanced the types of data that are being collected. Traditionally, surveillance systems collected data characterizing the patient and their cancer at the time of diagnosis, as well as limited information on the initial course of therapy. SEER performs active follow-up on cancer patients from diagnosis until death, ascertaining critical information on mortality and survival over time. With the growth of precision oncology and rapid development and dissemination of new diagnostics and treatments, the limited data that registries have traditionally captured around the time of diagnosis-although useful for characterizing the cancer-are insufficient for understanding why similar patients may have different outcomes. The molecular composition of the tumor and genetic factors such as BRCA status affect the patient's treatment response and outcomes. Capturing and stratifying by these critical risk factors are essential if we are to understand differences in outcomes among patients who may be demographically similar, have the same cancer, be diagnosed at the same stage, and receive the same treatment. In addition to the tumor characteristics, it is essential to understand all the therapies that a patient receives over time, not only for the initial treatment period but also if the cancer recurs or progresses. Capturing this subsequent therapy is critical not only for research but also to help patients understand their risk at the time of therapeutic decision making. This article serves as an introduction and foundation for a JNCI Monograph with specific articles focusing on innovative new methods and processes implemented or under development for the SEER Program. The following sections describe the need to evaluate the SEER Program and provide a summary or introduction of those key enhancements that have been or are in the process of being implemented for SEER., (Published by Oxford University Press 2024.)

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, an authoritative source of cancer statistics in the United States, has been funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) since 1973. The goals of SEER include measuring the cancer burden in the United States, making the results available, and supporting cancer research. These goals render products that serve as resources for different audiences, such as cancer registrars, researchers, and the public. Cancer registrars have access to a dedicated tab on the SEER website for questions, assistance with cancer coding, and training and technical resources such as SEER*Rx and SEER Data Management System (SEER*DMS). For researchers, SEER provides access to databases and software such as SEER*Stat and other linked databases such as SEER-Medicare that may offer answers to emerging issues in the field of cancer outcomes, cancer burden, health disparities, healthcare access, diagnosis, and prevention. The public can access cancer materials such as the SEER Cancer Stat Facts sheets, SEER*Explorer, and Did You Know? video series to learn more about cancer. SEER continues to update its resources with and ahead of legislation such as the Plain Writing Act and 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act (IDEA) to improve both clarity and user experience. Moving forward, SEER continues to promote awareness of SEER resources, remains accessible and understandable across all audiences, and standardizes how new resources are shared with these groups. The longstanding commitment to making cancer resources available is fundamental to the value of SEER, as evidenced by testimonials from members of various audience types., (Published by Oxford University Press 2024.)

Background: Communities and researchers have called for a paradigm shift from describing health disparities to a health equity research agenda that addresses structural drivers. Therefore, we examined whether the cancer survivorship research portfolio has made this shift., Methods: We identified grants focused on populations experiencing health disparities from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Cancer Survivorship Research Portfolio (N = 724), Fiscal Years 2017-2022. Grant characteristics were abstracted, drivers of health disparities were mapped onto the levels and domains of influence, and opportunities for future research were identified., Results: A total of 147 survivorship grants focused on health disparities were identified, of which 73.5% of grants focused on survivors from racial and ethnic minoritized groups, 25.9% living in rural areas, 24.5% socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 2.7% sexual and gender minority groups. Study designs were 51.0% observational; 82.3% of grants measured or intervened on at least 1 individual-level of influence compared to higher levels of influence (32.7% interpersonal, 41.5% institutional and community, and 12.2% societal). Behavioral and health care system domains of influence were commonly represented, especially at the individual level (47.6% and 36.1%, respectively). Less frequently represented was the physical and built environment (12.2%)., Conclusions: NIH-funded cancer survivorship research on health disparities is still focused on individual level of influence. However, the proportion of grants examining structural and social drivers as well as the mechanisms that drive disparities in health care and health outcomes among cancer survivors have increased over time. Gaps in funded research on specific populations, cancer types, and focus areas of survivorship science were identified and warrant priority., (Published by Oxford University Press 2024.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized cancer treatment; yet their efficacy remains variable across patients. This review delves into the intricate interplay of tumour characteristics contributing to resistance against ICI therapy and suggests that combining with radiotherapy holds promise. Radiation, known for its ability to trigger immunogenic cell death and foster an in situ vaccination effect, may counteract these resistance mechanisms, enhancing ICI response and patient outcomes. However, particularly when delivered at high-dose, it may trigger immunosuppressive mechanism and consequent side-effects. Notably, low-dose radiotherapy (LDRT), with its capacity for tumour reprogramming and reduced side effects, offers the potential for widespread application. Preclinical and clinical studies have shown encouraging results in this regard., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Institute of Radiology.)

Background: Lack of stable, affordable housing is an important social determinant of health. Federal housing assistance may buffer against housing vulnerabilities among low-income households, but research examining the association of housing assistance and cancer care has been limited. We introduce a new linkage of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program-Medicare and US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administrative data., Methods: Individuals enrolled in HUD public and assisted housing programs between 2006 and 2021 were linked with cancer diagnoses between 2006 and 2019 identified in the SEER-Medicare data from 16 states using Match*Pro (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) probabilistic linkage software. HUD administrative data include timing and type of housing assistance as well as verified household income. Medicare administrative data are available through 2020., Results: A total of 335 490 unique individuals who received housing assistance at any time point, including 156 794 who received housing assistance around the time of their diagnosis (at least 6 months before diagnosis until 6 months after diagnosis or death), were matched to SEER-Medicare data. A total of 63 251 individuals receiving housing assistance at the time of their diagnosis were aged 66 years and older and continuously enrolled in Medicare parts A and B fee for service; 12 035 had a diagnosis of lung cancer, 8866 of breast cancer, 7261 of colorectal cancer, and 4703 of prostate cancer., Conclusions: This novel data linkage will be available through the National Cancer Institute and can be used to explore the ways in which housing assistance is associated with cancer diagnosis, care, and outcomes, including the role of housing assistance status in potentially reducing or contributing to inequities across racialized and ethnic groups., (Published by Oxford University Press 2024.)

Background: Precision medicine represents a paradigm shift in health systems, moving from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more individualized form of care, spanning multiple scientific disciplines including drug discovery, genomics, and health communication. This study aims to explore the contextual factors influencing the equitable implementation of precision medicine in Belgium for incorporating precision medicine into routine cancer care within the Belgian health system., Methods: As part of a foresight study, our approach evaluates critical factors affecting the implementation of precision oncology. The study scrutinizes contextual, i.e. demographic, economic, societal, technological, environmental, and political/policy-related (DESTEP) factors, identified through a comprehensive literature review and validated by a multidisciplinary group at the Belgian Cancer Center, Sciensano. An expert survey further assesses the importance and likelihood of these factors, illuminating potential barriers and facilitators to implementation., Results: Based on the expert survey, five key elements (rising cancer rates, dedicated healthcare reimbursement budgets, increasing healthcare expenditures, advanced information technology solutions for data transfer, and demand for high-quality data) are expected to influence the equitable implementation of precision medicine in routine cancer care in Belgium in the future., Conclusions: This work contributes to the knowledge base on precision medicine in Belgium and public health foresight, exploring the implementation challenges and suggesting solutions with an emphasis on the importance of comparative analyses of health systems, evaluation of health technology assessment methods, and the exploration of ethical issues in data privacy and equity., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)

Adolescents and young adults (ie, individuals aged 15-39 years, known as AYAs) with cancer face unique vulnerabilities yet remain underrepresented in clinical trials, including adult registries of COVID-19 in cancer (AYAs: 8%-12%). We used the Pediatric Oncology COVID-19 Case Report to examine the clinical course of COVID-19 among AYAs with cancer. The Pediatric Oncology COVID-19 Case Report collects deidentified clinical and sociodemographic data regarding individuals aged from birth to 39 years with cancer (37%) and COVID-19 from more than 100 institutions. Between April 1, 2020, and November 28, 2023, 191 older AYAs (individuals 22-39 years of age) and 640 younger AYAs (individuals 15-21 years of age) were captured. Older AYAs were less often hospitalized (P < .001), admitted to the intensive care unit (P = .02), and required respiratory support (P = .057). In multivariable analyses, older AYAs faced 80% lower odds of intensive care unit admission but 2.3-times greater odds of changes to cancer-directed therapy. Unvaccinated patients had 5.4-times higher odds of intensive care unit admission. Among AYAs with cancer, the COVID-19 course varies by age. These findings can inform oncology teams directing COVID-19 management and prevention in AYA patients with cancer., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Physical activity improves physical and psychological health in cancer survivors. This study evaluated Active Living After Cancer (ALAC), a community-based program to improve physical activity, physical function, and quality of life (QOL) in minority and medically underserved cancer survivors and their caregivers., Methods: Participants completed 12 weekly ALAC sessions and assessments of physical activity, physical functioning, and QOL at baseline and follow-up (week 12). Paired samples t tests were used to assess changes in outcomes over time., Results: A total of 540 cancer survivors (mean age = 61.1 [SD = 11.3] years) and 87 caregivers (mean age = 62.3 [SD = 13.1] years) were enrolled. Most were women (91.4%), Hispanic (61.1%) or non-Hispanic Black (19.3%), and medically underserved (86.4%). The percent of cancer survivors meeting physical activity recommendations increased from 28.9% to 60.2% (d = 0.75), and the number of sit-to-stand repetitions in a 30-second period increased from 12.3 to 14.3 (d = 0.39) from 0-12 weeks. Cancer survivors reported statistically significant improvements in physical (t score Δ = 1.7, d = 0.06) and mental (t score Δ = 2.3, d = 0.31) health-related QOL. Caregivers also improved their physical activity, physical function, and QOL, and there were no statistically significant differences between breast and other cancer survivors and between cancer survivors and caregivers., Conclusions: The ALAC program demonstrated increased physical activity, physical function, and QOL in medically underserved cancer survivors and their caregivers. Furthermore, ALAC was successfully implemented by community partners and serves as a good model for reaching medically underserved cancer survivors and improving survivorship. Additional efforts are warranted to further extend reach, improve cancer survivorship, and reduce cancer health disparities among underserved cancer survivors., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Despite major biomedical advancements in various realms of oncology, the benefits of these developments are not equitably distributed, particularly in underresourced settings. Although much work has described the challenges and systemic barriers in global cancer control, in this article we focus on success stories. This article describes clinical care delivered at Rwanda's Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence, the cancer research collaborations under India's National Cancer Grid, and the efforts of Latin America's Institute of Cancer of São Paulo in advancing cancer care and training. These examples highlight the potential of strategic collaborations and resource allocation strategies in improving cancer care globally. We emphasize the critical role of partnerships between physicians and allied health professionals, funders, and policy makers in enhancing access to treatment and infrastructure, advancing contextualized research and national guidelines, and establishing regional and global collaborations. We also draw attention to challenges faced in diverse global settings and outline benchmarks to measure success in the fight against cancer., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Systematic investigation of tumor-infiltrating immune (TII) cells is important to the development of immunotherapies, and the clinical response prediction in cancers. There exists complex transcriptional regulation within TII cells, and different immune cell types display specific regulation patterns. To dissect transcriptional regulation in TII cells, we first integrated the gene expression profiles from single-cell datasets, and proposed a computational pipeline to identify TII cell type-specific transcription factor (TF) mediated activity immune modules (TF-AIMs). Our analysis revealed key TFs, such as BACH2 and NFKB1 play important roles in B and NK cells, respectively. We also found some of these TF-AIMs may contribute to tumor pathogenesis. Based on TII cell type-specific TF-AIMs, we identified eight CD8+ T cell subtypes. In particular, we found the PD1 + CD8+ T cell subset and its specific TF-AIMs associated with immunotherapy response. Furthermore, the TII cell type-specific TF-AIMs displayed the potential to be used as predictive markers for immunotherapy response of cancer patients. At the pan-cancer level, we also identified and characterized six molecular subtypes across 9680 samples based on the activation status of TII cell type-specific TF-AIMs. Finally, we constructed a user-friendly web interface CellTF-AIMs (http://bio-bigdata.hrbmu.edu.cn/CellTF-AIMs/) for exploring transcriptional regulatory pattern in various TII cell types. Our study provides valuable implications and a rich resource for understanding the mechanisms involved in cancer microenvironment and immunotherapy., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: To summarize the pharmacology, efficacy, safety, dosing, administration, and pharmacist perspectives related to operationalization of new and emerging bispecific therapies indicated for the treatment of various cancers., Summary: In recent years, there have been significant advancements in the expansion of immunotherapeutics in the treatment of various malignancies. Bispecific T cell-engaging therapies represent an emerging therapeutic drug class for the treatment of cancer. These therapies are unique antibody constructs that bind simultaneously to 2 targets, a tumor-specific antigen and CD3 on T cells, to elicit an immune response. Recently, several bispecific therapies have been approved, including epcoritamab, glofitamab, mosunetuzumab, tebentafusp, and teclistamab. Epcoritamab and glofitamab have been approved for diffuse large B cell lymphoma, while mosunetuzumab, tebentafusp, and teclistamab have been approved for follicular lymphoma, uveal melanoma, and multiple myeloma, respectively. As a result of their mechanism of action, the approved bispecific therapies have the potential to cause cytokine release syndrome, and, along with this, they all have unique and specific monitoring parameters and operational considerations that require clinician awareness when administering these therapies. Such operational challenges include within-patient dose escalations at therapy initiation, hospitalization for monitoring, and various pharmacological strategies for prophylaxis of cytokine release syndrome., Conclusion: Bispecific therapies have continued to evolve the therapeutic landscape of cancer, primarily in hematological malignancies. Health-system pharmacists have the opportunity to play a key role in the operationalization and management of this new and emerging drug class., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: large-scale multicentre clinical trials conducted by cooperative groups have generated a lot of evidence to establish better standard treatments. The Clinical Trials Act was enforced on 1 April 2018, in Japan, and it has remarkably increased the operational burden on investigators, but its long-term impact on cancer cooperative groups is unknown., Methods: a survey was conducted across the nine major cooperative groups that constitute the Japan Cancer Trials Network to assess the impact of Clinical Trials Act on the number of newly initiated trials from fiscal year (from 1 April to 31 March) 2017 to 2022 and that of ongoing trials on 1 April in each year from 2018 to 2023., Results: the number of newly initiated trials dropped from 38 trials in fiscal year 2017 to 26 trials in fiscal year 2018, surged to 50 trials in fiscal year 2019, but then gradually decreased to 25 trials by fiscal year 2022. Specified clinical trials decreased from 32 trials in fiscal year 2019 to 12 trials in fiscal year 2022. The number of ongoing trials was 220 trials in 2018, peaked at 245 trials in 2020, but then gradually decreased to 219 trials by 2023. The number of specified clinical trials has been in consistent decline. By April 2023, of the 20 ongoing non-specified clinical trials, nine adhered to Clinical Trials Act and 11 followed the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects., Conclusion: the number of multicentre clinical trials in oncology gradually decreased after the Clinical Trials Act's enforcement, which underscores the need for comprehensive amendment of the Clinical Trials Act to streamline the operational process., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: This study aimed to clarify the situation and evaluate the communication on anticancer treatment discontinuation from the viewpoint of a bereaved family, in reference to the concept of nudges., Methods: A multi-center questionnaire survey was conducted involving 350 bereaved families of patients with cancer admitted to palliative care units in Japan., Results: The following explanations were rated as essential or very useful: (i) treatment would be a physical burden to the patient (42.9%), (ii) providing anticancer treatment was impossible (40.5%), (iii) specific disadvantages of receiving treatment (40.5%), (iv) not receiving treatment would be better for the patient (39.9%) and (v) specific advantages of not receiving treatment (39.6%). The factors associated with a high need for improvement of the physician's explanation included lack of explanation on specific advantages of not receiving treatment (β = 0.228, P = 0.001), and lack of explanation of 'If the patient's condition improves, you may consider receiving the treatment again at that time.' (β = 0.189, P = 0.008)., Conclusions: Explaining the disadvantages of receiving treatment and the advantages of not receiving treatment, and presenting treatment discontinuation as the default option were effective in helping patients' families in making the decision to discontinue treatment. In particular, explanation regarding specific advantages of not receiving treatment was considered useful, as they caused a lower need for improvement of the physicians' explanation., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Although biobanks have become fundamental to many research centers and contribute to medical development, they generate many ethical and legal issues that may discourage patients from donating., Materials and Methods: To understand patients' perception of ethical and legal issues related to biobanks we conducted a survey among 548 Polish patients with cancer., Results: While 93.1% of patients with cancer declared themselves willing to donate biospecimens left over after a medical procedure to a biobank, most opted for one-time consent or study-specific consent, blanket consent being less frequently preferred. Many patients believed that future use of previously collected tissues require second contact. Most patients preferred pseudonymization over anonymization of the data, and supported donors' right to withdraw informed consent at any given moment. Finally, while personal health information was the most expected form of compensation for donation, most patients suggested that all parties, including the biobank concerned, the sponsors of the research, and the donors, should own the rights to cancer tissues donated and profit from the biobank research. Patients' opinions on the ethical and legal issues related to biobank research were associated with age, sex, religiosity, education level, and place of residence., Conclusions: Since biobanks generate ethical and legal issues related to informed consent, data protection and storage, as well as the sharing of biosamples, tissue ownership, and profit sharing, that may discourage patients from donation, when asking a patient for a donation, healthcare professionals should communicate in a donor-centered manner and address patients' ethical and moral concerns related to donation and offer resources to help manage these concerns., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Genomic profiling and other new technologies have increased the volume and complexity of information available for guiding clinical decision-making in precision oncology. Consequently, there is a need for multidisciplinary expert teams, in the form of molecular tumor boards (MTBs), who can translate this information into a therapeutic plan, including matching patients to suitable clinical trials. Virtual MTBs (vMTBs) can help to overcome many of the challenges associated with in-person MTBs, such as limited time availability, access to appropriate experts or datasets, or interactions between institutions. However, real-world experience from vMTBs is lacking. Here, we describe oncologists' vMTB experiences and the value of working with multicenter and/or multinational vMTBs. We also address knowledge gaps and barriers that could affect the implementation of vMTBs in routine clinical practice. Case studies from Argentina, Turkey, and Portugal illustrate the value of informed clinical decision-making by vMTBs, including expansion of therapeutic options for patients, faster time to treatment, and the resulting improvement in patient outcomes or impact of vMTB discussions on patients. With the uptake of comprehensive genomic profiling and the evolution of some cancers now being conceptualized as a collection of rare diseases with small patient populations based on molecular profiling, the importance of MTBs has increased in modern cancer management. However, an adjustment in clinical decision-making by healthcare professionals is required and evidence of the added value of vMTBs is lacking. Existing vMTBs and recommendations from participating oncologists could point toward a structured evaluation and analysis of this new platform., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Missing visual elements (MVE) in Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves can misrepresent data, preclude curve reconstruction, and hamper transparency. This study evaluated KM plots of phase III oncology trials. MVE were defined as an incomplete y-axis range or missing number at risk table in a KM curve. Surrogate endpoint KM curves were additionally evaluated for complete interpretability, defined by (1) reporting the number of censored patients and (2) correspondence of the disease assessment interval with the number at risk interval. Among 641 trials enrolling 518 235 patients, 116 trials (18%) had MVE in KM curves. Industry sponsorship, larger trials, and more recently published trials were correlated with lower odds of MVE. Only 3% of trials (15 of 574) published surrogate endpoint KM plots with complete interpretability. Improvements in the quality of KM curves of phase III oncology trials, particularly for surrogate endpoints, are needed for greater interpretability, reproducibility, and transparency in oncology research., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Receipt of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy at an institution different from the primary oncologist's institution is a complex, multistep process. Referral by oncologists plays an important role in the process but may be susceptible to bias., Methods: Oncologists who previously referred patients for CAR-T therapy at 5 pediatric hospitals were sent surveys by email exploring their CAR-T referral practices. Descriptive statistics were generated, and multivariate analyses examined associations among oncologist characteristics, familiarity with CAR-T therapy, and referral practices. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subset of participants and used thematic analysis to code transcripts., Results: Sixty-eight oncologists completed the survey; 77% expressed being "very familiar" with CAR-T therapy. Hispanic oncologists and oncologists at institutions with 50 or fewer new diagnoses per year were more likely to identify as less familiar with CAR-T therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 64.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45 to 10 452.50, P = .04 and OR = 24.5, 95% CI = 3.3 to 317.3, P = .005, respectively). In total, 38% of respondents considered nonclinical features (compliance, social support, resources, insurance, language, education, and race or ethnicity) influential in referral decisions. Oncologists who were Hispanic and oncologists who had been practicing for 20 or more years were more likely to consider these features significantly influential (OR = 14.52, 95% CI = 1.49 to 358.66, P = .04 and OR = 6.76, 95% CI = 1.18 to 50.5, P = .04). Nine oncologists completed in-depth interviews; common themes included barriers and concerns regarding CAR-T therapy referral, the value of an established relationship with a CAR-T therapy center, and poor communication after CAR-T therapy., Conclusions: Nearly 40% of oncologists consider nonclinical features significantly influential when deciding to refer patients for CAR-T therapy, raising concern for bias in the referral process. Establishing formal partnerships with CAR-T therapy centers may help address physician barriers in referral., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Expanding access to clinical trials in community settings is a potential approach to addressing disparities in accrual of historically underrepresented populations. However, little is known about the characteristics of practices that do not participate in research. We investigated differences in patient and practice characteristics of US community oncology practices with high vs low engagement in clinical research., Methods: We included patients from a real-world, nationwide electronic health record-derived, de-identified database who received active treatment for cancer at community oncology practices between November 1, 2017, and October 31, 2022. We assessed patient and practice characteristics and their associations with high vs low research engagement using descriptive analyses and logistic regression models., Results: Of the 178 practices, 70 (39.3%) events had high research engagement, treated 57.8% of the overall 568 540 patient cohort, and enrolled 3.25% of their patients on cancer treatment trials during the 5-year observation period (vs 0.27% enrollment among low engagement practices). Practices with low vs high research engagement treated higher proportions of the following patient groups: ages 75 years and older (24.2% vs 21.8%), non-Latinx Black (12.6% vs 10.3%) or Latinx (11.6% vs 6.1%), were within the lowest socioeconomic status quintile (21.9% vs16.5%), and were uninsured or had no documented insurance (22.2% vs 13.6%)., Conclusions: Patient groups historically underrepresented in oncology clinical trials are more likely to be treated at community practices with limited or no access to trials. These results suggest that investments to expand the clinical research footprint among practices with low research engagement could help address persistent inequities in trial representation., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Innovative strategies to increase clinical trial accessibility and equity are needed. We conducted a retrospective review of a phase II investigator-initiated trial to determine whether the modification of clinical trial design to decentralize study treatment can improve trial accessibility among underrepresented groups. Sociodemographic characteristics, including area deprivation indices, as well as study site travel distance, time, and costs were compared between enrolled participants who received chemotherapy locally and participants who did not. Participants who received chemotherapy locally lived substantially farther from the study site (median = 95.90 vs 25.20 miles, P = .004), faced a greater time burden traveling to the study site (median = 115.00 vs 34.00 minutes, P = .002), and had higher travel-related costs for a single trip to the study site (median = $62.81 vs $16.51, P = .004). This study highlights opportunities for alleviating financial and time burdens associated with clinical trial participation, promoting equity in clinical research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04380337., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Prior systematic reviews addressing the impact of diet on cancer outcomes have focused on specific dietary interventions. In this systematic review, we assessed all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating dietary interventions for cancer patients, examining the range of interventions, endpoints, patient populations, and results., Methods: This systematic review identified all RCTs conducted before January 2023 testing dietary interventions in patients with cancer. Assessed outcomes included quality of life, functional outcomes, clinical cancer measurements (eg, progression-free survival, response rates), overall survival, and translational endpoints (eg, inflammatory markers)., Results: In total, 252 RCTs were identified involving 31 067 patients. The median sample size was 71 (interquartile range 41 to 118), and 80 (32%) studies had a sample size greater than 100. Most trials (n = 184, 73%) were conducted in the adjuvant setting. Weight or body composition and translational endpoints were the most common primary endpoints (n = 64, 25%; n = 52, 21%, respectively). Direct cancer measurements and overall survival were primary endpoints in 20 (8%) and 7 (3%) studies, respectively. Eight trials with a primary endpoint of cancer measurement (40%) met their endpoint. Large trials in colon (n = 1429), breast (n = 3088), and prostate cancer (n = 478) each showed no effect of dietary interventions on endpoints measuring cancer., Conclusion: Most RCTs of dietary interventions in cancer are small and measure nonclinical endpoints. Although only a small number of large RCTs have been conducted to date, these trials have not shown an improvement in cancer outcomes. Currently, there is limited evidence to support dietary interventions as a therapeutic tool in cancer care., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Optimal methods for deploying electronic patient-reported outcomes to manage symptoms in routine oncologic practice remain uncertain. The electronic symptom management (eSyM) program asks chemotherapy and surgery patients to self-report 12 common symptoms regularly. Feedback from nurses and patients led to changing the recall period from the past 7 days to the past 24 hours., Methods: Using questionnaires submitted during the 16 weeks surrounding the recall period change, we assessed the likelihood of reporting severe or moderate and severe symptoms across 12 common symptoms and separately for the 5 most prevalent symptoms. Interrupted time-series analyses modeled the effects of the change using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Surgery and chemotherapy cohorts were analyzed separately. Study-wide effects were estimated using a meta-analysis method., Results: In total, 1692 patients from 6 institutions submitted 7823 eSyM assessments during the 16 weeks surrounding the recall period change. Shortening the recall period was associated with lower odds of severe symptom reporting in the surgery cohort (odds ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval = 0.46 to 0.93; P = .02) and lower odds of moderate and severe symptom reporting in the chemotherapy cohort (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.71 to 0.97; P = .02). Among the most prevalent symptoms, 24-hour recall was associated with a lower rate of reporting postoperative constipation but no differences in reporting rates for other symptoms., Conclusion: A shorter recall period was associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients reporting moderate-severe symptoms. The optimal recall period may vary depending on whether electronic patient-reported outcomes are collected for active symptom management, as a clinical trial endpoint, or another purpose. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03850912., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Persons who speak languages other than English are underrepresented in clinical trials, likely in part because of inadequate multilevel resources. We conducted a survey of institutions affiliated with the Children's Oncology Group (COG) to characterize current research recruitment practices and resources regarding translation and interpretation services., Methods: In October 2022, a 20-item survey was distributed electronically to institutions affiliated with COG to assess consent practices and resources for recruiting participants who speak languages other than English to COG trials. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses; responses were compared by institution size and type as well as respondent role., Results: The survey was sent to 230 institutions, and the response rate was 60% (n = 139). In total, 60% (n = 83) of those respondents had access to short-form consent forms. Full consent form translation was required at 50% of institutions, and 12% of institutional review boards restricted use of centrally translated consent forms. Forty-six percent (n = 64) of institutions reported insufficient funding to support translation costs; 19% (n = 26) had access to no-cost translation services. Forty-four percent (n = 61) were required to use in-person interpreters for consent discussions; the most frequently cited barrier (56%) to obtaining consent was lack of available in-person interpreters. Forty-seven percent (n = 65) reported that recruiting persons who speak languages other than English to clinical trials was somewhat or very difficult., Conclusions: Institutions affiliated with COG face resource-specific challenges that impede recruitment of participants who speak languages other than English for clinical trials. These findings indicate an urgent need to identify strategies aimed at reducing recruitment barriers to ensure equitable access to clinical trials., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objective: Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy., Methods: A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology., Results: A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%)., Conclusions: There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Adolescents and young adults frequently receive chemotherapy near death. We know less about the use of targeted agents and immunotherapy or trends over time., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 1836 adolescents and young adults with cancer who died between 2009 and 2019 after receiving care at 1 of 3 sites (Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, and Kaiser Permanente Southern California). We reviewed electronic health data and medical records to examine use of cancer-directed therapy in the last 90 days of life, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and investigational drugs., Results: Over the study period, 35% of adolescents and young adults received chemotherapy in the last 90 days of life; 24% received targeted therapy, 7% immunotherapy, and 5% investigational drugs. Additionally, 56% received at least 1 form of systemic cancer-directed therapy in the last 90 days of life. After adjustment for patient sex, race, ethnicity, age, site of care, diagnosis, and years from diagnosis to death, the proportion of adolescents and young adults receiving targeted therapy (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05 per year of death, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02 to 1.10; P = .006), immunotherapy (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.18 to 1.38; P < .0001), and any cancer-directed therapy (OR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.08; P = .01) in the last 90 days of life increased over time., Conclusions: More than half of adolescents and young adults receive cancer therapy in the last 90 days of life, and use of novel agents such as targeted therapy and immunotherapy is increasing over time. Although some adolescents and young adults may wish to continue cancer therapy while living with advanced disease, efforts are needed to ensure that use of cancer-directed therapy meets preferences of adolescents and young adults approaching death., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: We described participant demographics for National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical trials at the clinical center (NCI-CC participants) of the National Institutes of Health to identify enrollment disparities., Methods: We analyzed NCI-CC data from 2005 to 2020, calculated enrollment fractions, compared with the US cancer population represented by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer incidence data (2018) and the Cancer in North America database (2018), and compared further with clinical trial disparities data from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program and National Clinical Trials Network (2005-2019), and from ClinicalTrials.gov (2003-2016)., Results: NCI-CC (38 531 participants) had higher enrollment fractions for older adults (8.5%), male (5.6%), non-Hispanic (5.1%), and Black or African American (5.3%) participants; lower women proportion across race and ethnicity; and fewer female sex-specific cancer (6.8%) than male sex-specific cancer (11.7%) participants. NCI-CC had lower median age than Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (54.0 vs 65.4); more Black or African American participants (12.0% vs 11.1%); and fewer women (41.7% vs 49.5%), White (76.1% vs 80.5%), Asian or Pacific Islander (4.6% vs 6.0%), American Indian or Alaska Native (0.3% vs 0.5%), and Hispanic participants (7.1% vs 13%). NCI-CC had more Black or African American and Asian or Pacific Islander participants; fewer Hispanic participants than the NCI Community Oncology Research Program and National Clinical Trials Network; more Black or African American and Hispanic participants; fewer Asian or Pacific Islander participants than ClinicalTrials.gov data. Improvement was noted for NCI-CC (older adults, Black or African American, Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic participants)., Conclusion: We found lower representation of older adults, women, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Hispanic participants vs the US cancer population and higher representation of Black or African American vs US cancer population and oncology clinical trials. Multifaceted efforts are underway to reduce disparities in cancer clinical trials at the NCI-CC., (Published by Oxford University Press 2024.)

Northwestern University's Center for Scalable Telehealth Cancer Care (STELLAR) is 1 of 4 Cancer Moonshot Telehealth Research Centers of Excellence programs funded by the National Cancer Institute to establish an evidence base for telehealth in cancer care. STELLAR is grounded in the Institute of Medicine's vision that quality cancer care includes not only disease treatment but also promotion of long-term health and quality of life (QOL). Cigarette smoking, insufficient physical activity, and overweight and obesity often co-occur and are associated with poorer treatment response, heightened recurrence risk, decreased longevity, diminished QOL, and increased treatment cost for many cancers. These risk behaviors are prevalent in cancer survivors, but their treatment is not routinely integrated into oncology care. STELLAR aims to foster patients' long-term health and QOL by designing, implementing, and sustaining a novel telehealth treatment program for multiple risk behaviors to be integrated into standard cancer care. Telehealth delivery is evidence-based for health behavior change treatment and is well suited to overcome access and workflow barriers that can otherwise impede treatment receipt. This paper describes STELLAR's 2-arm randomized parallel group pragmatic clinical trial comparing telehealth-delivered, coach-facilitated multiple risk behavior treatment vs self-guided usual care for the outcomes of reach, effectiveness, and cost among 3000 cancer survivors who have completed curative intent treatment. This paper also discusses several challenges encountered by the STELLAR investigative team and the adaptations developed to move the research forward., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Telemedicine has routinely been used in cancer care delivery for the past 3 years. The current state of digital health provides convenience and efficiency for both health-care professional and patient, but challenges exist in equitable access to virtual services. As increasingly newer technologies are added to telehealth platforms, it is essential to eliminate barriers to access through technical, procedural, and legislative improvements. Moving forward, implementation of new strategies can help eliminate disparities in virtual cancer care, facilitate delivery of treatment in the home, and improve real-time data collection for patient safety and clinical trial participation. The ultimate goal will be to extend high-quality survival for all patients with cancer through improved digital delivery of cancer care., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: In recent years the US health-care system has witnessed a substantial increase in telehealth use. Telehealth enhances health-care access and quality and may reduce costs. However, there is a concern that the shift from in-person to telehealth care delivery may differentially improve cancer care access and quality in certain clinical settings and for specific patient populations while potentially exacerbating disparities in care for others. Our National Cancer Institute-funded center, called Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer (THRIVE), is focused on health equity for telehealth-delivered cancer care. We seek to understand how social determinants of telehealth-particularly race and ethnicity, poverty, and rurality-affect the use of telehealth., Methods: THRIVE draws from the Health Disparities Research Framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. THRIVE consists of multiple cores that work synergistically to assess and understand health equity for telehealth-delivered cancer care. These include the Administrative Core, Research and Methods Core, Clinical Practice Network, and Pragmatic Trial., Results: As of October 2023, we identified and trained 5 THRIVE scholars, who are junior faculty beginning a research career. We have reviewed 20 potential pilot studies, funding 6. Additionally, in communication with our funders and advisory boards, we have adjusted our study design and analytic approach, ensuring feasibility while addressing our operational partners' needs., Conclusions: THRIVE has several key strengths. First, the Veterans Health Administration's health-care system is large and diverse regarding health-care setting type and patient population. Second, we have access to longitudinal data, predating the COVID-19 pandemic, about telehealth use. Finally, equitable access to high-quality care for all veterans is a major tenet of the Veterans Health Administration health-care mission. As a result of these advantages, THRIVE can focus on isolating and evaluating the impact of social determinants of telehealth on equity in cancer care., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The COVID-19 pandemic placed a spotlight on the potential to dramatically increase the use of telehealth across the cancer care continuum, but whether and how telehealth can be implemented in practice in ways that reduce, rather than exacerbate, inequities are largely unknown. To help fill this critical gap in research and practice, we developed the Framework for Integrating Telehealth Equitably (FITE), a process and evaluation model designed to help guide equitable integration of telehealth into practice. In this manuscript, we present FITE and showcase how investigators across the National Cancer Institute's Telehealth Research Centers of Excellence are applying the framework in different ways to advance digital and health equity. By highlighting multilevel determinants of digital equity that span further than access alone, FITE highlights the complex and differential ways structural determinants restrict or enable digital equity at the individual and community level. As such, achieving digital equity will require strategies designed to not only support individual behavior but also change the broader context to ensure all patients and communities have the choice, opportunity, and resources to use telehealth across the cancer care continuum., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Telehealth use increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and remains a complementary source of cancer care delivery. Understanding research funding trends in cancer-related telehealth can highlight developments in this area of science and identify future opportunities., Methods: Applications funded by the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) between fiscal years 2016 and 2022 and focused on synchronous patient-provider telehealth were analyzed for grant characteristics (eg, funding mechanism), cancer focus (eg, cancer type), and study features (eg, type of telehealth service). Of 106 grants identified initially, 60 were retained for coding after applying exclusion criteria., Results: Almost three-quarters (73%) of telehealth grants were funded during fiscal years 2020-2022. Approximately 67% were funded through R01 or R37 mechanism and implemented as randomized controlled trials (63%). Overall, telehealth grants commonly focused on treatment (30%) and survivorship (43%); breast cancer (12%), hematologic malignancies (10%), and multiple cancer sites (27%); and health disparity populations (ie, minorities, rural residents) (73%). Both audio and video telehealth were common (65%), as well as accompanying mHealth apps (20%). Telehealth services centered on psychosocial care, self-management, and supportive care (88%); interventions were commonly delivered by mental health professionals (30%)., Conclusion: NCI has observed an increase in funded synchronous patient-provider telehealth grants. Trends indicate an evolution of awards that have expanded across the cancer control continuum, applied rigorous study designs, incorporated additional digital technologies, and focused on populations recognized for disparate cancer outcomes. As telehealth is integrated into routine cancer care delivery, additional research evidence will be needed to inform clinical practice., (Published by Oxford University Press 2024.)

Modern cancer care is costly and logistically burdensome for patients and their families despite an expansion of technology and medical advances that create the opportunity for novel approaches to care. Therefore, there is a growing appreciation for the need to leverage these innovations to make cancer care more patient centered and convenient. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Making Telehealth Delivery of Cancer Care at Home Efficient and Safe Telehealth Research Center is a National Cancer Institute-designated and funded Telehealth Research Center of Excellence poised to generate the evidence necessary to inform the appropriate use of telehealth as a strategy to improve access to cancer services that are convenient for patients. The center will evaluate telehealth as a strategy to personalize cancer care delivery to ensure that it is not only safe and effective but also convenient and efficient. In this article, we outline this new center's research strategy, as well as highlight challenges that exist in further integrating telehealth into standard oncology practice based on early experiences., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs) are the most common toxicities to occur in the setting of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Identifying patients who are at increased risk of developing cirAEs may improve quality of life and outcomes., Objectives: To investigate the influence of cancer type and histology on the development of cirAEs in the setting of ICI therapy and survival outcomes., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients recruited between 1 December 2011 and 30 October 2020. They received ICI from 2011 to 2020 with follow-up of outcomes through October 2021. We identified 3668 recipients of ICI therapy who were seen at Massachusetts General Brigham and Dana-Farber. Of these, 669 developed cirAEs. Records that were incomplete or categories of insufficient sample size were excluded from the study cohort. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate the impact of cancer organ system and histology on cirAE development, after adjusting for demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index, ICI type, cancer stage at ICI initiation, and year of ICI initiation. Time-varying Cox proportional hazards modelling was used to examine the impact of cirAE development on mortality., Results: Compared with other nonepithelial cancers (neuroendocrine, leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma, sarcoma and central nervous system malignancies), cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma [cSCC; hazard ratio (HR) 3.57, P < 0.001], melanoma (HR 2.09, P < 0.001), head and neck adenocarcinoma (HR 2.13, P = 0.009), genitourinary transitional cell carcinoma (HR 2.15, P < 0.001) and genitourinary adenocarcinoma (HR 1.53, P = 0.037) were at significantly higher risk of cirAEs in multivariate analyses. The increased risk of cirAEs translated into an adjusted survival benefit for melanoma (HR 0.37, P < 0.001) and cSCC (HR 0.51, P = 0.011)., Conclusions: The highest rate of cirAEs and subsequent survival benefits were observed in cutaneous malignancies treated with ICI therapies. This study improves our understanding of patients who are at highest risk of developing cirAEs and would, therefore, benefit from appropriate counselling and closer monitoring by their oncologists and dermatologists throughout their ICI therapy. Limitations include its retrospective nature and cohort from one geography., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest S.G.K. is an advisory board member/consultant for AbbVie, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi, and has served as an investigator for Galderma, Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc. and Sanofi. N.R.L. is a consultant and has received honoraria from Bayer, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Silverback and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Y.R.S. is an advisory board member/consultant and has received honoraria from Castle Biosciences, Galderma, Incyte Corporation and Sanofi outside the submitted work., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Inter-individual variation largely influences disease susceptibility, as well as response to therapy. In a clinical context, the optimal treatment of a disease should consider inter-individual variation and formulate tailored decisions at an individual level. In recent years, emerging organoid technologies promise to capture part of an individual's phenotypic variability and prove helpful in providing clinically relevant molecular insights. Organoids are stem cell-derived 3-dimensional models that contain multiple cell types that can self-organize and give rise to complex structures mimicking the organization and functionality of the tissue of origin. Organoids therefore represent a more faithful recapitulation of the dynamics of the tissues of interest, compared to conventional monolayer cultures, thus supporting their use in evaluating disease prognosis, or as a tool to predict treatment outcomes. Additionally, the individualized nature of patient-derived organoids enables the use of autologous organoids as a source of transplantable material not limited by histocompatibility. An increasing amount of preclinical evidence has paved the way for clinical trials exploring the applications of organoid-based technologies, some of which are in phase I/II. This review focuses on the recent progress concerning the use of patient-derived organoids in personalized medicine, including (1) diagnostics and disease prognosis, (2) treatment outcome prediction to guide therapeutic advice, and (3) organoid transplantation or cell-based therapies. We discuss examples of these potential applications and the challenges associated with their future implementation., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Differential censoring, which refers to censoring imbalance between treatment arms, may bias the interpretation of survival outcomes in clinical trials. In 146 phase III oncology trials with statistically significant time-to-event surrogate primary endpoints, we evaluated the association between differential censoring in the surrogate primary endpoints, control arm adequacy, and the subsequent statistical significance of overall survival results. Twenty-four (16%) trials exhibited differential censoring that favored the control arm, whereas 15 (10%) exhibited differential censoring that favored the experimental arm. Positive overall survival was more common in control arm differential censoring trials (63%) than in trials without differential censoring (37%) or with experimental arm differential censoring (47%; odds ratio = 2.64, 95% confidence interval = 1.10 to 7.20; P = .04). Control arm differential censoring trials more frequently used suboptimal control arms at 46% compared with 20% without differential censoring and 13% with experimental arm differential censoring (odds ratio = 3.60, 95% confidence interval = 1.29 to 10.0; P = .007). The presence of control arm differential censoring in trials with surrogate primary endpoints, especially in those with overall survival conversion, may indicate an inadequate control arm and should be examined and explained., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)