Search

Background There are limited data on breast surgery completion rates and prevalence of care-continuum delays in breast cancer treatment programs in low-income countries. Methods This study analyzes treatment data in a retrospective cohort of 312 female patients with non-metastatic breast cancer in Haiti. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics; treatments received; and treatment delays of > 12 weeks. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed to identify factors associated with receiving surgery and with treatment delays. Exploratory multivariate survival analysis examined the association between surgery delays and disease-free survival (DFS). Results Of 312 patients, 249 (80%) completed breast surgery. The odds ratio (OR) for surgery completion for urban vs. rural dwellers was 2.15 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19–3.88) and for those with locally advanced vs. early-stage disease was 0.34 (95%CI: 0.16–0.73). Among the 223 patients with evaluable surgery completion timelines, 96 (43%) experienced delays. Of the 221 patients eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy, 141 (64%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, 66 of whom (47%) experienced delays in chemotherapy initiation. Presentation in the later years of the cohort (2015–2016) was associated with lower rates of surgery completion (75% vs. 85%) and with delays in adjuvant chemotherapy initiation (OR [95%CI]: 3.25 [1.50–7.06]). Exploratory analysis revealed no association between surgical delays and DFS. Conclusion While majority of patients obtained curative-intent surgery, nearly half experienced delays in surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy initiation. Although our study was not powered to identify an association between surgical delays and DFS, these delays may negatively impact long-term outcomes.

PURPOSE: The Commission on Cancer seeks to promote robust survivorship programs among accredited cancer programs. In practice, cancer programs' survivorship programs range from cursory (eg, developing care plans without robust services) to robust (eg, facilitating follow-up care). To inform cancer programs' future efforts, in this study, we identified the implementation strategies that cancer programs used to achieve robust survivorship programs, distinguishing them from cursory programs. METHODS: We sampled 39 cancer programs across the United States with approaches to survivorship program implementation ranging from cursory to robust on the basis of LIVESTRONG survivorship care consensus elements. Within sampled cancer programs, we conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with a total of 42 health care professionals. We used template analysis to distinguish implementation strategies used in cancer programs with robust survivorship programs from strategies that yielded cursory survivorship programs. RESULTS: Cancer programs with robust survivorship programs established clear systems survivorship care and formal committees to improve the survivorship care processes. They sought buy-in from multiple stakeholders to leverage cancer program resources and defined clear roles with shared accountability among multidisciplinary groups. By contrast, cancer programs with cursory survivorship programs reported less consistency in survivorship care processes and lacked buy-in from key stakeholders. They had limited resources, faced persistent structural concerns, and had insufficient clarity in roles among team members. CONCLUSION: Accrediting bodies may consider incorporating the implementation strategies that robust survivorship programs have used as guidance for supporting cancer programs in operationalizing survivorship care and evaluating the use of these strategies during the accreditation and review process.

Most cervical cancer cases and deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, yet clinical research from these contexts is significantly underrepresented. We aimed to describe the treatment quality, resource-driven adaptations, and outcomes of cervical cancer patients in Rwanda.A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer enrolled between April 2016 and June 2018. Data were abstracted from medical records and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan Meier methods, and Cox proportional hazards regression.A total of 379 patients were included; median age 54 years, 21% HIV-infected. A majority (55%) had stage III or IV disease. Thirty-four early-stage patients underwent radical hysterectomy. Of 254 patients added to a waiting list for chemoradiation, 114 ultimately received chemoradiation. Of these, 30 (26%) received upfront chemoradiation after median 126 days from diagnosis, and 83 (73%) received carboplatin/paclitaxel while waiting, with a median 56 days from diagnosis to chemotherapy and 207 days to chemoradiation. There was no survival difference between the upfront chemoradiation and prior chemotherapy subgroups. Most chemotherapy recipients (77%) reported improvement in symptoms. Three-year event-free survival was 90% with radical hysterectomy (95% CI 72-97%), 66% with chemoradiation (95% CI 55-75%), and 12% with chemotherapy only (95% CI 6-20%).Multi-modality treatment of cervical cancer is effective in low resource settings through coordinated care and pragmatic approaches. Our data support a role for temporizing chemotherapy if delays to chemoradiation are anticipated. Sustainable access to gynecologic oncology surgery and expanded access to radiotherapy are urgently needed.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in patients seeking care for life-threatening conditions; however, its impact on treatment patterns for patients with metastatic cancer is unknown. We assessed the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on time to treatment initiation (TTI) and treatment selection for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer. Methods We used an electronic health record–derived longitudinal database curated via technology-enabled abstraction to identify 14 136 US patients newly diagnosed with de novo or recurrent metastatic solid cancer between January 1 and July 31 in 2019 or 2020. Patients received care at approximately 280 predominantly community-based oncology practices. Controlled interrupted time series analyses assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period (April-July 2020) on TTI, defined as the number of days from metastatic diagnosis to receipt of first-line systemic therapy, and use of myelosuppressive therapy. Results The adjusted probability of treatment within 30 days of diagnosis was similar across periods (January-March 2019 = 41.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 32.2% to 51.1%; April-July 2019 = 42.6%, 95% CI = 32.4% to 52.7%; January-March 2020 = 44.5%, 95% CI = 30.4% to 58.6%; April-July 2020 = 46.8%, 95% CI= 34.6% to 59.0%; adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences = 1.4%, 95% CI = −2.7% to 5.5%). Among 5962 patients who received first-line systemic therapy, there was no association between the pandemic period and use of myelosuppressive therapy (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences = 1.6%, 95% CI = −2.6% to 5.8%). There was no meaningful effect modification by cancer type, race, or age. Conclusions Despite known pandemic-related delays in surveillance and diagnosis, the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect TTI or treatment selection for patients with metastatic solid cancers.

PURPOSE There is limited evidence to guide incorporation of breast cancer early detection into resource-constrained health systems where mammography screening is not yet available. To inform such strategies, we sought to understand health care workers' perspectives on a breast cancer early detection initiative integrated into community, primary, and secondary levels of care in Rwanda. METHODS We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with 33 community health workers, clinicians, and administrators at health facilities participating in the Women's Cancer Early Detection Program (WCEDP), through which women received clinical breast examination if they were receiving cervical cancer screening, or had breast concerns. Through thematic analysis, we identified dynamics and patterns associated with successes and challenges of the program's breast health services. RESULTS Successes and challenges identified by participants corresponded with the community- and primary care–based steps of cancer early diagnosis identified by the WHO. Regarding step 1 (community awareness/access), participants noted increases in awareness and care-seeking. Challenges included difficulty overcoming stigma and engaging older women. Regarding step 2 (clinical evaluation), all participants described increased breast health knowledge, skills, and confidence. Integrating the WCEDP with other services was challenging because of inadequate staffing; offering WCEDP services on a designated day/week had advantages and disadvantages. Although participants appreciated WCEDP referral mechanisms, they desired more communication from referral facilities. Patients' poverty was the most consistently identified impediment to referral completion. CONCLUSION Rwandan health care workers identified real-world successes and challenges of implementing principles of early cancer diagnosis for breast cancer early detection. Future interventions should focus on engagement of older women, community awareness, patient socioeconomic support, and optimizing integration into primary care.

Introduction Systemic treatment for breast cancer in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA) is cost effective. However, there are limited real‐world data on the translation of breast cancer treatment guidelines into clinical practice in SSA. The study aimed to identify provider factors associated with adherence to breast cancer guideline‐concordant care at Princess Marina Hospital (PMH) in Botswana. Materials and Methods The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to conduct one‐on‐one semistructured interviews with breast cancer providers at PMH. Purposive sampling was used, and sample size was determined by thematic saturation. Transcribed interviews were double‐coded and analyzed in NVivo using an integrated analysis approach. Results Forty‐one providers across eight departments were interviewed. There were variations in breast cancer guidelines used. Facilitators included a strong tension for change and a government‐funded comprehensive cancer care plan. Common provider and health system barriers were lack of available resources, staff shortages and poor skills retention, lack of relative priority compared with HIV/AIDS, suboptimal interdepartmental communication, and lack of a clearly defined national cancer control policy. Community‐level barriers included accessibility and associated transportation costs. Participants recommended the formal implementation of future guidelines that involved key stakeholders in all phases of planning and implementation, strategic government buy‐in, expansion of multidisciplinary tumor boards, leveraging nongovernmental and academic partnerships, and setting up monitoring, evaluation, and feedback processes. Discussion The study identified complex, multilevel factors affecting breast cancer treatment delivery in Botswana. These results and recommendations will inform strategies to overcome specific barriers in order to promote standardized breast cancer care delivery and improve survival outcomes. Implications for Practice To address the increasing cancer burden in low‐ and middle‐income countries, resource‐stratified guidelines have been developed by multiple international organizations to promote high‐quality guideline‐concordant care. However, these guidelines still require adaptation in order to be successfully translated into clinical practice in the countries where they are intended to be used. This study highlights a systematic approach of evaluating important contextual factors associated with the successful adaptation and implementation of resource‐stratified guidelines in sub‐Saharan Africa. In Botswana, there is a critical need for local stakeholder input to inform country‐level and facility‐level resources, cancer care accessibility, and community‐level barriers and facilitators., To address an increasing mortality burden, resource‐stratified guidelines have been developed to ensure that breast cancer care is matched to specific resources in low‐ and middle‐income countries. This article identifies facilitators and barriers to the use of breast cancer guidelines by oncology providers at Princess Marina Hospital in Botswana using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Summary Background Female breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the world, with wide variations in reported survival by country. Women in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in particular face several barriers to breast cancer services, including diagnostics and treatment. We aimed to estimate the potential impact of scaling up the availability of treatment and imaging modalities on breast cancer survival globally, together with improvements in quality of care. Methods For this simulation-based analysis, we used a microsimulation model of global cancer survival, which accounts for the availability and stage-specific survival impact of specific treatment modalities (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, and targeted therapy), imaging modalities (ultrasound, x-ray, CT, MRI, PET, and single-photon emission computed tomography [SPECT]), and quality of cancer care, to simulate 5-year net survival for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer in 200 countries and territories in 2018. We calibrated the model to empirical data on 5-year net breast cancer survival in 2010–14 from CONCORD-3. We evaluated the potential impact of scaling up specific imaging and treatment modalities and quality of care to the mean level of high-income countries, individually and in combination. We ran 1000 simulations for each policy intervention and report the means and 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for all model outcomes. Findings We estimate that global 5-year net survival for women diagnosed with breast cancer in 2018 was 67·9% (95% UI 62·9–73·4) overall, with an almost 25-times difference between low-income (3·5% [0·4–10·0]) and high-income (87·0% [85·6–88·4]) countries. Among individual treatment modalities, scaling up access to surgery alone was estimated to yield the largest survival gains globally (2·7% [95% UI 0·4–8·3]), and scaling up CT alone would have the largest global impact among imaging modalities (0·5% [0·0–2·0]). Scaling up a package of traditional modalities (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, ultrasound, and x-ray) could improve global 5-year net survival to 75·6% (95% UI 70·6–79·4), with survival in low-income countries improving from 3·5% (0·4–10·0) to 28·6% (4·9–60·1). Adding concurrent improvements in quality of care could further improve global 5-year net survival to 78·2% (95% UI 74·9–80·4), with a substantial impact in low-income countries, improving net survival to 55·3% (42·2–67·8). Comprehensive scale-up of access to all modalities and improvements in quality of care could improve global 5-year net survival to 82·3% (95% UI 79·3–85·0). Interpretation Comprehensive scale-up of treatment and imaging modalities, and improvements in quality of care could improve global 5-year net breast cancer survival by nearly 15 percentage points. Scale-up of traditional modalities and quality-of-care improvements could achieve 70% of these total potential gains, with substantial impact in LMICs, providing a more feasible pathway to improving breast cancer survival in these settings even without the benefits of future investments in targeted therapy and advanced imaging. Funding Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, National Cancer Institute P30 Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

Background Serious illness conversations (SICs) are an evidence-based approach to eliciting patients’ values, goals, and care preferences that improve patient outcomes. However, most patients with cancer die without a documented SIC. Clinician-directed implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics (“nudges”) that identify high-risk patients have shown promise in increasing SIC documentation among clinicians. It is unknown whether patient-directed nudges that normalize and prime patients towards SIC completion—either alone or in combination with clinician nudges that additionally compare performance relative to peers—may improve on this approach. Our objective is to test the effect of clinician- and patient-directed nudges as implementation strategies for increasing SIC completion among patients with cancer. Methods We will conduct a 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized pragmatic trial to test the effect of nudges to clinicians, patients, or both, compared to usual care, on SIC completion. Participants will include 166 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians practicing at ten sites within a large academic health system and their approximately 5500 patients at high risk of predicted 6-month mortality based on a validated machine-learning prognostic algorithm. Data will be obtained via the electronic medical record, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients. The primary outcome will be time to SIC documentation among high-risk patients. Secondary outcomes will include time to SIC documentation among all patients (assessing spillover effects), palliative care referral among high-risk patients, and aggressive end-of-life care utilization (composite of chemotherapy within 14 days before death, hospitalization within 30 days before death, or admission to hospice within 3 days before death) among high-risk decedents. We will assess moderators of the effect of implementation strategies and conduct semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients to assess contextual factors that shape the effectiveness of nudges with an eye towards health equity. Discussion This will be the first pragmatic trial to evaluate clinician- and patient-directed nudges to promote SIC completion for patients with cancer. We expect the study to yield insights into the effectiveness of clinician and patient nudges as implementation strategies to improve SIC rates, and to uncover multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04867850. Registered on April 30, 2021. Funding National Cancer Institute P50CA244690

Background Routine evidence-based tobacco use treatment minimizes cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, reduces treatment-related toxicity, and improves quality of life among patients receiving cancer care. Few cancer centers employ mechanisms to systematically refer patients to evidence-based tobacco cessation services. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics can increase tobacco use treatment engagement within oncology care. Methods A four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial will be conducted across nine clinical sites within the Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control Implementation Lab to compare the effect of behavioral economic implementation strategies delivered through embedded messages (or “nudges”) promoting patient engagement with the Tobacco Use Treatment Service (TUTS). Nudges are electronic medical record (EMR)-based messages delivered to patients, clinicians, or both, designed to counteract known patient and clinician biases that reduce treatment engagement. We used rapid cycle approaches (RCA) informed by relevant stakeholder experiences to refine and optimize our implementation strategies and methods prior to trial initiation. Data will be obtained via the EMR, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients. The primary measure of implementation is penetration, defined as the TUTS referral rate. Secondary outcome measures of implementation include patient treatment engagement (defined as the number of patients who receive FDA-approved medication or behavioral counseling), quit attempts, and abstinence rates. The semi-structured interviews, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, will assess contextual factors and patient and clinician experiences with the nudges. Discussion This study will be the first in the oncology setting to compare the effectiveness of nudges to clinicians and patients, both head-to-head and in combination, as implementation strategies to improve TUTS referral and engagement. We expect the study to (1) yield insights into the effectiveness of nudges as an implementation strategy to improve uptake of evidence-based tobacco use treatment within cancer care, and (2) advance our understanding of the multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. These results will lay the foundation for how patients with cancer who smoke are best engaged in tobacco use treatment and may lead to future research focused on scaling this approach across diverse centers. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04737031. Registered 3 February 2021.

PURPOSE Nephroblastoma is a highly curable pediatric cancer that requires multidisciplinary care. Few reports have assessed long-term treatment outcomes in low-resource settings using a task-shifting model of care. We report outcomes of a large cohort and factors associated with survival. METHODS We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients with nephroblastoma presenting to the Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence in Rwanda between July 2012 and June 2018. RESULTS In total, 136 patients were identified and treated according to International Society of Pediatric Oncology guidelines for low-income settings. Median age at diagnosis was 39.7 months (interquartile range, 25.3-61.8 months); 56.6% were female. Sixty-one (44.9%) patients presented with stage I-III disease, 35 (25.7%) with stage IV disease, and 6 (4.4%) with stage V disease; the remainder were unstaged (n = 34; 25.0%). Most patients completed surgery (n = 97; 71.3%) and postoperative chemotherapy (n = 82; 60.2%); 17 patients received radiotherapy. With a median follow-up time of 18.1 months, 44.9% of patients were alive, 41.9% had died, 8.8% were lost to follow-up, and 4.4% were referred for palliative care or declined further care at the end of the study. Three-year overall survival was 57.5% (95% CI, 48.1 to 65.8) for the entire cohort, and 80.1% (95% CI, 66.8 to 88.5) and 44.0% (95% CI, 26.8 to 60.0) for stages I-III and IV-V, respectively. CONCLUSION We demonstrate that patients with nephroblastoma can be successfully treated in a low-resource setting. Survival remains lower than in high-income countries, in part due to early deaths, contributing to approximately 30% of patients not being medically able to receive surgical intervention. Next steps include the development of strategies that focus on earlier diagnosis, supportive care during the early phases of therapy, and efficient and timely transitions between specialties for multimodal care.

PURPOSE In describing our ten-year experience with treating chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) as part of the Glivec Patient Assistance Program (GIPAP) in rural Rwanda, we evaluate (1) patient characteristics and treatment outcomes, (2) resource-adapted management strategies, and (3) the impact of diagnostic capacity development. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed all patients with BCR-ABL–positive CML enrolled in this GIPAP program between 2009 and 2018. Clinical data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier methods, proportional hazards regression, and the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS One hundred twenty-four patients were included. The median age at diagnosis was 34 (range 8-81) years. On imatinib, 91% achieved complete hematologic response (CHR) after a median of 49 days. Seven (6%) and 12 (11%) patients had primary and secondary imatinib resistance, respectively. The 3-year overall survival was 80% (95% CI, 72 to 87) for the cohort, with superior survival in imatinib responders compared with those with primary and secondary resistance. The median time from imatinib initiation to CHR was 59 versus 38 days ( P = .040) before and after in-country diagnostic testing, whereas the median time to diagnosis ( P = .056) and imatinib initiation ( P = .170) was not significantly different. CONCLUSION Coupling molecular diagnostics with affordable access to imatinib within a comprehensive cancer care delivery program is a successful long-term strategy to treat CML in resource-constrained settings. Our patients are younger and have higher rates of imatinib resistance compared with historic cohorts in high-income countries. High imatinib resistance rates highlight the need for access to molecular monitoring, resistance testing, and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as systems to support drug adherence. Hematologic response is an accurate resource-adapted predictor of survival in this setting. Local diagnostic capacity development has allowed for continuous, timely CML care delivery in Rwanda.

PURPOSE: Routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for patients with advanced solid malignancies is an evidence-based practice and critical component of high-quality cancer care, but real-world adherence is poorly characterized. We sought to describe real-world adherence to PRO monitoring and its potential predictors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using deidentified electronic health record data from a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center, encompassing one academic and two community sites. Participants included individuals with lung cancer receiving systemic therapy from January 1 to December 31, 2019. The primary outcome was patient-level adherence, defined as the proportion of treatment visits during which a PRO questionnaire (spanning symptoms, functional status, and global quality-of-life domains) was completed within 30 days. Practice-level performance was calculated as unadjusted mean patient-level adherence. We modeled patient-level adherence using multivariable ordinary least squares regression and identified covariates associated with adherence using a significance threshold of P < .05. RESULTS: In 2019, there were 18,604 encounters for 1,105 patients with lung cancer (mean [standard deviation] age 65.8 [10.2] years; 621 [56.2%] female; 216 [19.6%] Black) receiving systemic therapy. The mean patient-level PRO adherence ranged from 27.2% to 70.0% across sites and was 49.4% overall. Advanced age (≥ 65 years) and Black or African American race were negatively associated with PRO adherence ( P < .01). CONCLUSION: Across this real-world cohort of patients undergoing treatment for lung cancer, adherence to PRO monitoring lagged that achieved in seminal clinical trials, with potential age- and race-based disparities, demonstrating an implementation gap that could be addressed with standardized reporting of an adherence-based quality metric.

Background Moral distress and burnout are highly prevalent among oncology clinicians. Research is needed to better understand how resource constraints and systemic inequalities contribute to moral distress in order to develop effective mitigation strategies. Oncology providers in low‐ and middle‐income countries are well positioned to provide insight into the moral experience of cancer care priority setting and expertise to guide solutions. Methods Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology physicians, nurses, program leaders, and clinical advisors at a cancer center in Rwanda. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the framework method. Results Participants identified sources of moral distress at three levels of engagement with resource prioritization: witnessing program‐level resource constraints drive cancer disparities, implementing priority setting decisions into care of individual patients, and communicating with patients directly about resource prioritization implications. They recommended individual and organizational‐level interventions to foster resilience, such as communication skills training and mental health support for clinicians, interdisciplinary team building, fair procedures for priority setting, and collective advocacy for resource expansion and equity. Conclusion This study adds to the current literature an in‐depth examination of the impact of resource constraints and inequities on clinicians in a low‐resource setting. Effective interventions are urgently needed to address moral distress, reduce clinician burnout, and promote well‐being among a critical but strained oncology workforce. Collective advocacy is concomitantly needed to address the structural forces that constrain resources unevenly and perpetuate disparities in cancer care and outcomes. Implications for Practice For many oncology clinicians worldwide, resource limitations constrain routine clinical practice and necessitate decisions about prioritizing cancer care. To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first in‐depth analysis of how resource constraints and priority setting lead to moral distress among oncology clinicians in a low‐resource setting. Effective individual and organizational interventions and collective advocacy for equity in cancer care are urgently needed to address moral distress and reduce clinician burnout among a strained global oncology workforce. Lessons from low‐resource settings can be gleaned as high‐income countries face growing needs to prioritize oncology resources., Oncology providers in low‐ and middle‐income countries face resource priority setting decisions on a routine basis. This article describes the moral experience and recommendations of oncology clinicians, advisors, and program leaders engaged in clinical priority setting at a cancer center in Rwanda.

BACKGROUND There has been a growing trend toward minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for colon cancer. Pathological analysis of a minimum of 12 lymph nodes (LNs) is a benchmark for adequate resection. Here, we present a comparison of surgical techniques in achieving a full oncologic resection. METHODS Patients undergoing surgery for Stage I-III colon cancer (2010-2016) were identified from the National Cancer Database. Cases were stratified by surgical approach. Trends in approach were assessed, including whether the 12-LN benchmark was met. Uni- and multivariate regression was used to assess overall survival (OS). RESULTS A total of 290,776 colectomies were analyzed. MIS increased from 32.8% to 57.2% from 2010 to 2016 (p

Objective To assess the effectiveness of diagnostic breast ultrasound training provided for general practitioners and nurses in Rwanda via intensive in-person and subsequent online supervision and mentorship. Methods Four breast radiologists from Brigham and Women’s Hospital trained two general practitioner physicians and five nurses in Rwanda over 9 total weeks of in-person training and 20 months of remote mentorship using electronic image review with emailed feedback. Independently recorded assessments were compared to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of trainee assessments, with radiologist assessments as the gold standard. We compared performance in the first versus second half of the training. Results Trainees’ performance on written knowledge assessments improved after training (57.7% versus 98.1% correct, P = .03). Mean sensitivity of trainee-performed ultrasound for identifying a solid breast mass was 90.6% (SD 4.2%) in the first half of the training (period 1) and 94.0% (SD 6.7%) in period 2 (P = .32). Mean specificity was 94.7% (SD 5.4%) in period 1 and 100.0% (SD 0) in period 2 (P = .10). Mean sensitivity for identifying a medium- or high-suspicion solid mass increased from 79.2% (SD 11.0%) in period 1 to 96.3% (SD 6.4%) in period 2 (P = .03). Specificity was 84.4% (SD 15.0%) in period 1 and 96.7% (SD 5.8%) in period 2 (P = .31). Discussion Nonradiologist clinicians (doctors and nurses) in a rural sub-Saharan African hospital built strong skills in diagnostic breast ultrasound over 23 months of combined in-person training and remote mentorship. The sensitivity of trainees’ assessments in identifying masses concerning for malignancy improved after sustained mentorship. Assessment of impact on patient care and outcomes is ongoing.

PURPOSE Geographic access to care is an important measure of health equity. In this study, we describe geographic access to cancer care centers (CCCs) in Rwanda with the current facilities providing care and examine how access could change with expanded care infrastructure. METHODS Health facilities included are public hospitals administered by the Rwanda Ministry of Health. The WorldPop Project was used to estimate population distribution, and OpenStreetMap was used to determine travel routes. On the basis of geolocations of the facilities, AccessMod 5 was used to estimate the percentage of the population that live within 1 hour, 2 hours, and 4 hours of CCCs under the current (two facilities) and expanded care (seven facilities) scenarios. Variations in access by region, poverty, and level of urbanization were described. RESULTS Currently, 13%, 41%, and 85% of Rwandans can access CCCs within one, two, and 4 hours of travel, respectively. With expansion of CCCs to seven facilities, access increases to 37%, 84%, and 99%, respectively. There is a substantial variation in current geographic access by province, with 1-hour access in Kigali at 98%, whereas access in the Western Province is 0%; care expansion could increase 2-hour access in the Western Province from 1% to 71%. Variation in access is also seen across the level of urbanization, with current 1-hour access in urban versus rural areas of 45% and 8%, respectively. Expanded care results in improvement of 1-hour access to 67% and 33%, respectively. Similar trends were also noted across poverty levels. CONCLUSION Geographical access to CCCs varies substantially by province, level of urbanization, and poverty. These disparities can be alleviated by strategic care expansion to other tertiary care facilities across Rwanda.

PURPOSE Patients who are HIV-positive and have breast cancer have worse overall survival (OS) compared with patients who are HIV-negative. Pathologic complete response (pCR) and relative dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy are associated with survival. We assessed whether pCR and RDI rates were lower for patients who are HIV-positive and received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). METHODS This was a prospective cohort analysis of patients initiating NACT in Botswana (February 2017 to September 2019). Primary outcomes were pCR and RDI; secondary outcomes were OS and toxicity. HIV status and zidovudine (ZDV) treatment were stratification factors. Multivariable analysis was used to control for confounding. RESULTS In total, 26 of 110 enrolled individuals were HIV-positive. In univariable analysis, HIV-positive (odds ratio [OR] = 0.2; P = .048) and RDI < 0.85 (OR = 0.30; P = .025) were associated with pCR. In multivariable analysis, the magnitude of association decreased for HIV-positive (OR = 0.28; P = .11), but RDI < 0.85 remained independently associated with pCR (OR = 0.32; P = .035). Patients who are HIV-positive had significantly lower mean RDI, and those on ZDV had significantly lower RDI. Ninety-one (83%) were stage III with 2-year OS significantly worse for patients who are HIV-positive (58% v 74%). Hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 2.68 (95% CI, 1.17 to 6.13; P = .028) in patients who are HIV-positive compared with patients who are HIV-negative. Toxicity rates were similar despite patients who are HIV-positive receiving significantly lower dose intensity chemotherapy. CONCLUSION Patients who are HIV-positive and have breast cancer in Botswana have lower pCR rates and also receive lower dose intensity therapy, which may contribute to worse OS. Patients who are HIV-positive on ZDV-containing regimens received even lower dose intensity of NACT. Administering optimal dose intensity in patients who are HIV-positive remains a challenge, and targeted interventions that address modifiable risk factors are needed to improve therapy delivery and outcomes.

IntroductionPatients with advanced cancers often face significant symptoms from their cancer and adverse effects from cancer-associated therapy. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) are routinely collected information about symptoms and activity levels that patients either directly report or passively record using devices such as wearable accelerometers. The objective of this study was to test the impact of an intervention integrating remote collection of PGHD with clinician and patient nudges to inform communication between patients with advanced cancer and their oncology team regarding symptom burden and functional status.Methods and analysisThis single-centre prospective randomised controlled trial randomises patients with metastatic gastrointestinal or lung cancers into one of three arms: (A) usual care, (B) an intervention that integrates PGHD (including weekly text-based symptom surveys and passively recorded step counts) into a dashboard delivered to oncology clinicians at each visit and (C) the same intervention as arm B but with an additional text-based active choice intervention to patients to encourage discussing their symptoms with their oncology team. The study will enrol approximately 125 participants. The coprimary outcomes are patient perceptions of their oncology team’s understanding of their symptoms and their functional status. Secondary outcomes are intervention utility and adherence.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the institutional review board at the University of Pennsylvania. Study results will be disseminated using methods that describe the results in ways that key stakeholders can best understand and implement.Trial registration numbersNCT04616768 and 843 616.

Background Cancer mortality is high in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), partly due to inadequate treatment access. We explored access to and affordability of cancer treatment regimens for the top 10 cancers utilizing examples from Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda. Materials and Methods Population, healthcare financing, minimum wage, and cancer incidence and mortality data were obtained from the WHO, World Bank, public sources, and GLOBOCAN. National Essential Medicines List (NEML) alignment with 2019 WHO EML was assessed as a proportion. Cancer regimen pricing was calculated using public and proprietary sources and methods from prior studies. Affordability through universal healthcare coverage (UHC) was assessed as 1-year cost Results A total of 93.4% of the WHO EML cancer medicines were listed on the 2019 Kenya NEML, and 70.5% and 41.1% on Uganda (2016) and Rwanda (2015) NEMLs, respectively. Generic chemotherapies were available and affordable to governments through UHC to treat non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, cervical, breast, prostate, colorectal, ovarian cancers, and select leukemias. Newer targeted agents were not affordable through government UHC purchasing, while some capecitabine-based regimens were not affordable in Uganda and Rwanda. All therapies were not affordable OOP. Conclusion All cancer treatment regimens were not affordable OOP and some were not covered by governments. Newer targeted drugs were not affordable to all 3 governments. UHC of cancer drugs and improving targeted therapy affordability to LMIC governments in SSA are key to improving treatment access and health outcomes.

PURPOSE: Hospice utilization metrics are essential for any serious effort to improve end-of-life care in oncology. However, oncologists do not routinely receive these personalized reports. We evaluated whether a behavioral science intervention, using peer comparisons coupled with social norms, was associated with improvements in hospice use. METHODS: Oncologists at two academic practices of Johns Hopkins Medicine were randomly assigned to receive a peer comparison report by e-mail displaying individual hospice utilization metrics compared with top-performing peers or to receive no report. The data accrued for the intervention represented hospice utilization for the previous calendar year. The intervention period was from June 1, 2020, to December 30, 2020, and included oncologists from both the solid and hematologic malignancies programs. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients between groups with short hospice length of stay (LOS; defined as ≤ 7 days) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included hospice referral rate, enrollment rate, and median LOS. RESULTS: Forty-seven oncologists participated. The percent of patients with a short hospice stay in the intervention group was lower (17.4%) compared with patients treated by physicians in the usual care group (46.3%, difference = 21.8%; 95% CI, 16.0 to 41.6; P < .001). Receipt of peer comparisons was associated with a greater likelihood of enrolling in hospice (73.7% v 42.8%; difference = 31.1%; 95% CI, 20.4 to 41.7; P < .001) and a longer hospice LOS (37.2 v 18.3 days; difference = 17.2; 95% CI, 8.8 to 25.7 days; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Peer comparisons improved hospice utilization metrics among a group of academic oncologists. Behavioral science offers one pragmatic strategy to overcome suboptimal oncologist decision-making biases related to hospice use.

PURPOSE Few studies have explored the relationship between body habitus and breast cancer outcomes in Caribbean women of African ancestry. This study evaluates the association between body mass index (BMI) and disease-free survival (DFS) in a retrospective cohort of 224 female Haitian patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS BMI was obtained from the medical records and categorized as normal weight (< 25 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (≥ 30 kg/m2). DFS was defined as time from surgical resection to disease recurrence, death, or censoring. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated, and the association between BMI and DFS was evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models to control for multiple confounders. Exploratory analyses were conducted on weight changes during adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS Eighty-three patients (37.1%) were normal weight, 66 (29.5%) were overweight, and 75 (33.5%) were obese. There were no statistical differences in baseline characteristics or treatments received by BMI group. Twenty-six patients died and 73 had disease recurrence. Median DFS was 41.1 months. Kaplan-Meier estimates showed no significant DFS differences by BMI categories. After controlling for confounders, normal weight patients, when compared with overweight and obese patients, had adjusted hazard ratios of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.49) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.52 to 1.55), respectively. Overall, mean weight loss of 2% of body weight was noted over the course of adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients who were postmenopausal ( P = .007) and obese ( P = .05) lost more weight than other groups. However, chemotherapy-related weight changes did not have an impact on DFS. CONCLUSION Baseline BMI and weight changes during adjuvant chemotherapy did not have an impact on DFS in this cohort. Future prospective studies in similar Caribbean breast cancer cohorts are needed to verify study findings.

In recognition of the rising incidence and mortality of cancer in low- and middle-resource settings, as well as the increasingly international profile of its membership, ASCO has prioritized efforts to enhance its engagement at a global level. Among the recommendations included in the 2016 Global Oncology Leadership Task Force report to the ASCO Board of Directors was that ASCO should promote the recognition of global oncology as an academic field. The report suggested that ASCO could serve a role in transitioning global oncology from an informal field of largely voluntary activities to a more formal discipline with strong research and well-defined training components. As a result of this recommendation, in 2017, ASCO formed the Academic Global Oncology Task Force (AGOTF) to guide ASCO’s contributions toward formalizing the field of global oncology. The AGOTF was asked to collect and analyze key issues and barriers toward the recognition of global oncology as an academic discipline, with an emphasis on training, research, and career pathways, and produce a set of recommendations for ASCO action. The outcome of the AGOTF was the development of recommendations designed to advance the status of global oncology as an academic discipline.

PURPOSE Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is highly curable in high-income countries (HICs), yet many patients around the world do not have access to therapy. In 2012, cancer care was established at a rural district hospital in Rwanda through international collaboration, and a treatment protocol using doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) without radiotherapy was implemented. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients with confirmed HL seen at Butaro Hospital from 2012 to 2018 to evaluate quality indicators and clinical outcomes. RESULTS Eighty-five patients were included (median age, 16.8 years; interquartile range, 11.0-30.5 years). Ten (12%) were HIV positive. Most had B symptoms (70%) and advanced stage (56%) on examination and limited imaging. Of 21 specimens evaluated for Epstein-Barr virus, 14 (67%) were positive. Median time from biopsy to treatment was 6.0 weeks. Of 73 patients who started ABVD, 54 (74%) completed 6 cycles; the leading reasons for discontinuation were treatment abandonment and death. Median dose intensity of ABVD was 92%. Of 77 evaluable patients, 33 (43%) are in clinical remission, 27 (36%) are deceased, and 17 (22%) were lost to follow-up; 3-year survival estimate is 63% (95% CI, 50% to 74%). Poorer performance status, advanced stage, B symptoms, anemia, dose intensity < 85%, and treatment discontinuation were associated with worse survival. CONCLUSION Treating HL with standard chemotherapy in a low-resource setting is feasible. Most patients who completed treatment experienced a clinically significant remission with this approach. Late presentation, treatment abandonment, and loss to follow-up contribute to the discrepancy in survival compared with HICs. A strikingly younger age distribution in our cohort compared with HICs suggests biologic differences and warrants further investigation.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a devastating impact around the world. With high rates of transmission and no curative therapies or vaccine yet available, the current cornerstone of management focuses on prevention by social distancing. This includes decreased health care contact for patients. Patients with lung cancer are a particularly vulnerable population, where the risk of mortality from cancer must now be balanced by the potential risk of a life-threatening infection. In these unprecedented times, a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach is required to streamline but not compromise care. We have developed guidelines at our academic cancer center to standardize management of patients with lung cancer across our health care system and provide guidance to the larger oncology community. We recommend that general principles of lung cancer treatment continue to be followed in most cases where delays could result in rapid cancer progression. We recognize that our recommendations may change over time based on clinical resources and the evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. In principle, however, treatment paradigms must continue to be individualized, with careful consideration of risks and benefits of continuing or altering lung cancer–directed therapy.

Microtubule targeting agents (MTAs) are anticancer therapies commonly prescribed for breast cancer and other solid tumors. Sensory peripheral neuropathy (PN) is the major dose-limiting toxicity for MTAs and can limit clinical efficacy. The current pharmacogenomic study aimed to identify genetic variations that explain patient susceptibility and drive mechanisms underlying development of MTA-induced PN. A meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) from two clinical cohorts treated with MTAs (CALGB 40502 and CALGB 40101) was conducted using a Cox regression model with cumulative dose to first instance of grade 2 or higher PN. Summary statistics from a GWAS of European subjects (n = 469) in CALGB 40502 that estimated cause-specific risk of PN were meta-analyzed with those from a previously published GWAS of European ancestry (n = 855) from CALGB 40101 that estimated the risk of PN. Novel single nucleotide polymorphisms in an enhancer region downstream of sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1PR1 encoding S1PR1; e.g., rs74497159, βCALGB40101 per allele log hazard ratio (95% CI) = 0.591 (0.254 - 0.928), βCALGB40502 per allele log hazard ratio (95% CI) = 0.693 (0.334 - 1.053); PMETA = 3.62×10−7) were the most highly ranked associations based on P-values with risk of developing grade 2 and higher PN. In silico functional analysis identified multiple regulatory elements and potential enhancer activity for S1PR1 within this genomic region. Inhibition of S1PR1 function in iPSC-derived human sensory neurons shows partial protection against paclitaxel-induced neurite damage. These pharmacogenetic findings further support ongoing clinical evaluations to target S1PR1 as a therapeutic strategy for prevention and/or treatment of MTA-induced neuropathy.

The extraordinary demands of managing the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the world's ability to care for patients with thoracic malignancies. As a hospital's COVID-19 population increases and hospital resources are depleted, the ability to provide surgical care is progressively restricted, forcing surgeons to prioritize among their cancer populations. Representatives from multiple cancer, surgical, and research organizations have come together to provide a guide for triaging patients with thoracic malignancies as the impact of COVID-19 evolves as each hospital.

Purpose Misinformation and lack of information about cancer and its treatment pose significant challenges to delivering cancer care in resource-limited settings and may undermine patient engagement in care. We aimed to investigate patients’ knowledge and attitudes toward cancer and its treatment and to adapt, implement, and evaluate a low-literacy cancer patient education booklet at the Hôpital Universitaire de Mirebalais (HUM) in rural Haiti. Materials and Methods A low-literacy cancer patient education booklet was adapted into Haitian Creole in collaboration with clinicians at HUM. Patients were recruited for structured interviews (n = 20) and two focus groups (n = 13) designed to explore patients’ attitudes toward cancer and its treatment and to assess whether the booklet increased patients’ knowledge via an investigator-designed knowledge test. Results Participants reported a subjective lack of knowledge about cancer and its treatments and described views of cancer as deadly or incurable. Patients of varying education levels valued receiving written materials that set expectations about cancer treatment and expressed a desire to share the booklet with caregivers and others in their community. Participants across all levels of education significantly increased their performance on a knowledge test after counseling using the booklet (p < .001). Conclusion We found that an educational booklet about cancer developed in collaboration with local providers was well received by patients with variable literacy levels and improved their knowledge of cancer and its treatment in a resource-limited setting. Such educational materials have the potential to serve as tools to engage patients with cancer and their families in care. Implications for Practice Misinformation and lack of information pose significant challenges to delivering cancer care in resource-limited settings; however, there are often no culturally and literacy appropriate tools available to aid in patient education. This article shows that written educational materials are well received by patients of variable literacy levels and can be effective tools for increasing patients’ knowledge of cancer and its treatment in a limited-resource setting. Furthermore, the authors have made their educational booklet, Cancer and You, freely available online and welcome the opportunity to connect with readers of The Oncologist interested in implementing this educational booklet in clinical care.

Development of personalized, stratified follow-up care pathways where care intensity and setting vary with needs could improve cancer survivor outcomes and efficiency of health-care delivery. Advancing such an approach in the United States requires identification and prioritization of the most pressing research and data needed to create and implement personalized care pathway models. Cancer survivorship research and care experts (n = 39) participated in an in-person workshop on this topic in 2018. Using a modified Delphi technique—a structured, validated system for identifying consensus—an expert panel identified critical research questions related to operationalizing personalized, stratified follow-up care pathways for individuals diagnosed with cancer. Consensus for the top priority research questions was achieved iteratively through 3 rounds: item generation, item consolidation, and selection of the final list of priority research questions. From the 28 research questions that were generated, 11 research priority questions were identified. The questions were categorized into 4 priority themes: determining outcome measures for new care pathways, developing and evaluating new care pathways, incentivizing new care pathway delivery, and providing technology and infrastructure to support self-management. Existing data sources to begin answering questions were also identified. Although existing data sources, including cancer registry, electronic medical record, and health insurance claims data, can be enhanced to begin addressing some questions, additional research resources are needed to address these priority questions.

Advances in cancer care have led to improved survival, which, coupled with demographic trends, have contributed to rapid growth in the number of patients needing cancer care services. However, with increasing caseload, care complexity, and administrative burden, the current workforce is ill equipped to meet these burgeoning new demands. These trends have contributed to clinician burnout, compounding a widening workforce shortage. Moreover, family caregivers, who have unique knowledge of patient preferences, symptoms, and goals of care, are infrequently appreciated and supported as integral members of the oncology “careforce.” A crisis is looming, which will hinder access to timely, high-quality cancer care if left unchecked. Stemming from the proceedings of a 2019 workshop convened by the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, this commentary characterizes the factors contributing to an increasingly strained oncology careforce and presents multilevel strategies to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and resilience. Together, these will enable today’s oncology careforce to provide high-quality care to more patients while improving the patient, caregiver, and clinician experience.

Background We aim to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with early-stage HER2+ breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods Patients with non-metastatic HER2+ breast cancer treated from 2009 to 2018 at our institution comprised our study cohort (n = 1254). Pathologic complete response (pCR) was defined as the absence of invasive disease in the breast and axilla after NAC. Log-rank, Kaplan-Meier, and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to assess differences in disease-free and overall survival between groups stratified by AC vs. NAC and pCR vs. non-pCR. Results The majority received AC (n = 787 or 62.8%) while 467 (37.2%) patients received NAC. Median follow up for AC and NAC groups was 46 and 28 months, respectively. The crude disease-free survival and overall survival of our study cohort were 92.2% and 89.1% for AC, 89.1% and 82.2% for NAC pCR, and 68.1% and 60.0% for NAC non-pCR, respectively. For clinical stage ≥IIB patients, NAC conferred a positive but statistically nonsignificant treatment effect over AC in multivariate analysis. Conclusions After adjusting for imbalances in our subgroups, we found that, regardless of the sequence of chemotherapy (AC vs. NAC), patients with early-stage HER2+ breast cancer had excellent outcomes.

As cancer detection and treatment improve, the number of long-term survivors will continue to grow, as will the need to improve their survivorship experience and health outcomes. We need to better understand cancer and its treatment’s short- and long-term adverse consequences and to prevent, detect, and treat these consequences effectively. Delivering care through a collaborative care model; standardizing information offered to and collected from patients; standardizing approaches to documenting, treating, and reducing adverse effects; and creating a data infrastructure to make population-based information widely available are all actions that can improve survivors’ outcomes. National policies that address gaps in insurance coverage, the cost and value of treatment and survivorship care, and worker benefits such as paid sick leave can also concurrently reduce cancer burden. The National Cancer Policy Forum and the Forum on Aging, Disability, and Independence at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine sponsored a virtual workshop on “Addressing the Adverse Consequences of Cancer Treatment,” November 9-10, 2020, to examine long-term adverse consequences of cancer treatment and to identify practices and policies to reduce treatment’s negative impact on survivors. This commentary discusses high-priority issues raised during the workshop and offers a path forward.

To scale up early detection of breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries, research is needed to inform the role of diagnostic breast ultrasound performed by nonradiologists in resource-constrained settings. The authors examined 2-year clinical follow-up and outcomes among women who underwent diagnostic breast ultrasound performed by nonradiologist clinicians participating in a breast ultrasound training and mentorship program at a rural Rwandan hospital.Imaging findings, management plans, and pathologic results were prospectively collected during the training using a standardized form. Data on follow-up and outcomes for patients receiving breast ultrasound between January 2016 and March 2017 were retrospectively collected through medical record review.Two hundred twenty-nine breast palpable findings (199 patients) met the study's eligibility criteria. Of 104 lesions initially biopsied, 38 were malignant on initial biopsy; 3 lesions were identified as malignant on repeat biopsy. All 34 patients ultimately diagnosed with cancer received initial recommendations for either biopsy or aspiration by trainees. The positive predictive value of trainee biopsy recommendation was 34.8% (95% confidence interval, 24.8%-45.0%). The sensitivity of trainees' biopsy recommendation for identifying malignant lesions was 92.7% (95% confidence interval, 84.2%-100%). Of 46 patients who did not receive biopsy and were told to return for clinical or imaging follow-up, 37.0% did not return.Trained nonradiologist clinicians in Rwanda successfully identified suspicious breast lesions on diagnostic breast ultrasound. Loss to follow-up was common among patients instructed to return for surveillance, so lower biopsy thresholds, decentralized surveillance, or patient navigation should be considered for patients with low- or intermediate-suspicion lesions.

Digital health advances have transformed many clinical areas including psychiatric and cardiovascular care. However, digital health innovation is relatively nascent in cancer care, which represents the fastest growing area of health-care spending. Opportunities for digital health innovation in oncology include patient-facing technologies that improve patient experience, safety, and patient-clinician interactions; clinician-facing technologies that improve their ability to diagnose pathology and predict adverse events; and quality of care and research infrastructure to improve clinical workflows, documentation, decision support, and clinical trial monitoring. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated shifts of care to the home and community dramatically accelerated the integration of digital health technologies into virtually every aspect of oncology care. However, the pandemic has also exposed potential flaws in the digital health ecosystem, namely in clinical integration strategies; data access, quality, and security; and regulatory oversight and reimbursement for digital health technologies. Stemming from the proceedings of a 2020 workshop convened by the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, this article summarizes the current state of digital health technologies in medical practice and strategies to improve clinical utility and integration. These recommendations, with calls to action for clinicians, health systems, technology innovators, and policy makers, will facilitate efficient yet safe integration of digital health technologies into cancer care.

Background Ensuring timely and high-quality surgery must be a key element of breast cancer control efforts in sub-Saharan Africa. We investigated delays in preoperative care and the impact of on-site versus off-site operation on time to operative treatment of patients with breast cancer at Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence in Rwanda. Methods We used a standardized data abstraction form to collect demographic data, clinical characteristics, treatments received, and disease status as of November 2017 for all patients diagnosed with breast cancer at Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence in 2014 to 2015. Results From 2014 to 2015, 89 patients were diagnosed with stage I to III breast cancer and treated with curative intent. Of those, 68 (76%) underwent curative breast operations, 12 (14%) were lost to follow-up, 7 (8%) progressed, and 2 declined the recommended operation. Only 32% of patients who underwent operative treatment had the operation within 60 days from diagnosis or last neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Median time to operation was 122 days from biopsy if no neoadjuvant treatments were given and 51 days from last cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients who received no neoadjuvant chemotherapy experienced greater median times to operation at Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence (180 days) than at a referral hospital in Kigali (93 days, P = .04). Most patients (60%) experienced a disruption in preoperative care, frequently at the point of surgical referral. Documented reasons for disruptions and delays included patient factors, clinically indicated treatment modifications, and system factors. Conclusion We observed frequent delays to operative treatment, disruptions in preoperative care, and loss to follow-up, particularly at the point of surgical referral. There are opportunities to improve breast cancer survival in Rwanda and other low- and middle-income countries through interventions that facilitate more timely surgical care.

PURPOSEPatients with cancer are at greater risk of developing severe symptoms from COVID-19 than the general population. We developed and tested an automated text-based remote symptom-monitoring program to facilitate early detection of worsening symptoms and rapid assessment for patients with cancer and suspected or confirmed COVID-19.METHODSWe conducted a feasibility study of Cancer COVID Watch, an automated COVID-19 symptom-monitoring program with oncology nurse practitioner (NP)-led triage among patients with cancer between April 23 and June 30, 2020. Twenty-six patients with cancer and suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled. Enrolled patients received twice daily automated text messages over 14 days that asked “How are you feeling compared to 12 hours ago? Better, worse, or the same?” and, if worse, “Is it harder than usual for you to breathe?” Patients who responded worse and yes were contacted within 1 hour by an oncology NP.RESULTSMean age of patients was 62.5 years. Seventeen (65%) were female, 10 (38%) Black, and 15 (58%) White. Twenty-five (96%) patients responded to ≥ 1 symptom check-in, and overall response rate was 78%. Four (15%) patients were escalated to the triage line: one was advised to present to the emergency department (ED), and three were managed in the outpatient setting. Median time from escalation to triage call was 11.5 minutes. Four (15%) patients presented to the ED without first escalating their care via our program. Participant satisfaction was high (Net Promoter Score: 100, n = 4).CONCLUSIONImplementation of an intensive remote symptom monitoring and rapid NP triage program for outpatients with cancer and suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection is possible. Similar tools may facilitate more rapid triage for patients with cancer in future pandemics.

Despite high curability, patients with metastatic germ cell tumors (GCT) in the United States general population persistently face inferior outcomes compared with those treated in specialty referral centers. We characterized guideline discordant management in patients with metastatic GCT who experienced relapse after first-line chemotherapy and compared those who were initially treated in community practices vs. academic referral centers.Retrospective analysis of 53 patients with relapsed GCT between 2005 and 2018. First-line GCT management was assessed against the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Guideline discordant management, predictors of discordance, and associations with outcomes were assessed.Of 53 patients with relapsed GCT, 34% received guideline discordant care in the first-line setting. Guideline discordant care was more prevalent in patients initially treated in community practices (12/30, 40%) vs. those initially treated in academic centers (3/22, 14%), though in multivariate logistic regression, this difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio: 4.07, P = 0.08). Most patients in community settings who received guideline discordant care were undertreated (10/12, 83%). There were 3 major reasons for guideline discordant care: (1) failure to resect residual masses after chemotherapy (27%, 4/15), (2) mismanagement of chemotherapy-related adverse events (27%, 4/15), and (3) under staging at diagnosis, resulting either insufficient chemotherapy regimen intensity (13%, 2/15) and/or inappropriately receiving primary surgical resection for metastatic disease (20%, 3/15).Under treatment was identified in nearly half of patients initially treated in a community setting who later developed relapsed GCT. Referral to specialized centers for a second opinion should be considered for all metastatic GCT patients in the first-line setting and all patients with post-chemotherapy residual disease. More effective methods should be developed to facilitate second opinions from expert centers in the United States.

Background While health systems have implemented multifaceted interventions to improve physician and patient communication in serious illnesses such as cancer, clinicians vary in their response to these initiatives. In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial, we identified phenotypes of oncology clinicians based on practice pattern and demographic data, then evaluated associations between such phenotypes and response to a machine learning (ML)-based intervention to prompt earlier advance care planning (ACP) for patients with cancer. Methods and findings Between June and November 2019, we conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial testing the impact of text message prompts to 78 oncology clinicians at 9 oncology practices to perform ACP conversations among patients with cancer at high risk of 180-day mortality, identified using a ML prognostic algorithm. All practices began in the pre-intervention group, which received weekly emails about ACP performance only; practices were sequentially randomized to receive the intervention at 4-week intervals in a stepped-wedge design. We used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify oncologist phenotypes based on 11 baseline demographic and practice pattern variables identified using EHR and internal administrative sources. Difference-in-differences analyses assessed associations between oncologist phenotype and the outcome of change in ACP conversation rate, before and during the intervention period. Primary analyses were adjusted for patients’ sex, age, race, insurance status, marital status, and Charlson comorbidity index. The sample consisted of 2695 patients with a mean age of 64.9 years, of whom 72% were White, 20% were Black, and 52% were male. 78 oncology clinicians (42 oncologists, 36 advanced practice providers) were included. Three oncologist phenotypes were identified: Class 1 (n = 9) composed primarily of high-volume generalist oncologists, Class 2 (n = 5) comprised primarily of low-volume specialist oncologists; and 3) Class 3 (n = 28), composed primarily of high-volume specialist oncologists. Compared with class 1 and class 3, class 2 had lower mean clinic days per week (1.6 vs 2.5 [class 3] vs 4.4 [class 1]) a higher percentage of new patients per week (35% vs 21% vs 18%), higher baseline ACP rates (3.9% vs 1.6% vs 0.8%), and lower baseline rates of chemotherapy within 14 days of death (1.4% vs 6.5% vs 7.1%). Overall, ACP rates were 3.6% in the pre-intervention wedges and 15.2% in intervention wedges (11.6 percentage-point difference). Compared to class 3, oncologists in class 1 (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences 3.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 6.1, p = 0.006) and class 2 (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences 12.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.3 to 20.3, p = 0.003) had greater response to the intervention. Conclusions Patient volume and time availability may be associated with oncologists’ response to interventions to increase ACP. Future interventions to prompt ACP should prioritize making time available for such conversations between oncologists and their patients.

ObjectiveCancer drug stockouts occur at high frequencies globally, however, their effects on treatment are understudied in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We aimed to determine whether causes of suboptimal cancer treatment prescriptions differed between periods of stockout and full treatment supply.DesignA retrospective cohort study of systemic therapy prescriptions for patients diagnosed with the twelve most common solid tumour cancers treated in 2016.SettingPrincess Marina Hospital in Gaborone, Botswana.ParticipantsPatients in the retrospective cohort who experienced any suboptimal treatment events, defined as ≥7 days delay or switch from guideline-concordant initiated therapy.Primary and secondary outcome measuresFrequency of delays and patterns of prescription changes for specific regimens and cancer types.Results167/378 patients contributed to 320 suboptimal events (115 therapy switches, 167 delays and 38 events with both), over 1452 total chemotherapy cycles received. Events during stockout were 43% delays, 43% switches and 14% both during stockout periods and 67.2% delays, 24.4% switches and 8.4% both during non-stockout periods (pConclusionsThe aetiology of suboptimal events differed during stockout and non-stockout periods. Prescription patterns that involved de-escalation of initiated therapy and substitution of paclitaxel with docetaxel occurred frequently during periods of drug stockout. Further research needs to be conducted to understand the impact of stockout on survival and barriers to maintaining essential cancer medicines supplies in SSA, and the factors driving frequent delays in therapy delivery.

This cross-sectional study uses data from the National Cancer Database to investigate trends in patient volume by hospital type and the association of patient volume with time to treatment initiation for patients with cancer by hospital type., Key Points Question Is the number of patients with cancer who are treated at referral centers increasing, and are more rapid increases in patient volume associated with treatment delays? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 4 218 577 patients treated for an incident cancer at 1351 hospitals from 2007 to 2016, patient volume increased more rapidly at National Cancer Institute and academic centers than at community hospitals, but this was not associated with clinically meaningful increases in time to treatment initiation. Meaning Faster patient volume growth at referral centers was not associated with clinically meaningful cancer treatment delays., Importance Increasing demand for cancer care may be outpacing the capacity of hospitals to provide timely treatment, particularly at referral centers such as National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated and academic centers. Whether the rate of patient volume growth has strained hospital capacity to provide timely treatment is unknown. Objective To evaluate trends in patient volume by hospital type and the association between a hospital’s annual patient volume growth and time to treatment initiation (TTI) for patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective, hospital-level, cross-sectional study used longitudinal data from the National Cancer Database from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. Adult patients older than 40 years who had received a diagnosis of 1 of the 10 most common incident cancers and initiated their treatment at a Commission on Cancer–accredited hospital were included. Data were analyzed between December 19, 2019, and March 27, 2020. Exposures The mean annual rate of patient volume growth at a hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was TTI, defined as the number of days between diagnosis and the first cancer treatment. The association between a hospital’s mean annual rate of patient volume growth and TTI was assessed using a linear mixed-effects model containing a patient volume × time interaction. The mean annual change in TTI over the study period by hospital type was estimated by including a hospital type × time interaction term. Results The study sample included 4 218 577 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.0 [11.4] years; 56.6% women) treated at 1351 hospitals. From 2007 to 2016, patient volume increased 40% at NCI centers, 25% at academic centers, and 8% at community hospitals. In 2007, the mean TTI was longer at NCI and academic centers than at community hospitals (NCI: 50 days [95% CI, 48-52 days]; academic: 43 days [95% CI, 42-44 days]; community: 37 days [95% CI, 36-37 days]); however, the mean annual increase in TTI was greater at community hospitals (0.56 days; 95% CI, 0.49-0.62 days) than at NCI centers (−0.73 days; 95% CI, −0.95 to −0.51 days) and academic centers (0.14 days; 95% CI, 0.03-0.26 days). An annual volume growth rate of 100 patients, a level observed at less than 1% of hospitals, was associated with a mean increase in TTI of 0.24 days (95% CI, 0.18-0.29 days). Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study, from 2007 to 2016, across the studied cancer types, patients increasingly initiated their cancer treatment at NCI and academic centers. Although increases in patient volume at these centers outpaced that at community hospitals, faster growth was not associated with clinically meaningful treatment delays.

Background and aim This study quantifies how changes in healthcare utilization and delivery during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic have altered the presentation, treatment, and management of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies within an academic health system. Methods and results Patients diagnosed with a GI malignancy (ICD10: C15-C26) who received medical care within the health system during the observation period (first 44 weeks of 2019 and 2020) were identified for a retrospective cohort study. Deidentified patient encounter parameters were collected for this observation period and separated into pre-pandemic (weeks 1-10) and early pandemic (weeks 11-20) study periods. Difference-in-difference analyses adjusted for week-specific and year-specific effects quantified the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on care delivery between pre-pandemic and early pandemic study periods in 2020. Across all GI malignancies, the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a significant decline in the number of patients with new patient visits (NPVs) (p = 1.2 × 10-4 ), Radiology encounters (p = 1.9 × 10-7 ), Surgery encounters (p = 1.6 × 10-3 ), Radiation Oncology encounters (p = 4.1 × 10-3 ), and infusion visits (6.1 × 10-5 ). Subgroup analyses revealed cancer-specific variations in changes to delivery. Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) had the most significant decrease in NPVs (p = 7.1 × 10-5 ), which was significantly associated with a concomitant decrease in colonoscopies performed during the early pandemic period (r2 = 0.722, p = 2.1 × 10-10 ). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with significant disruptions to care delivery. While these effects were appreciated broadly across GI malignancies, CRC, diagnosed and managed by periodic screening, has been affected most acutely.

PURPOSE: Patient navigation (PN) is an increasingly recognized element of high-quality, patient-centered cancer care, yet PN in many cancer programs is absent or limited, often because of concerns of extra cost without tangible financial benefits. METHODS: Five real-world examples of PN programs are used to demonstrate that in the pure fee-for-service and the alternative payment model worlds of reimbursement, strong cases can be made to support the benefits of PN. RESULTS: In three large programs, PN resulted in increased patient retention and increased physician loyalty within the cancer programs, leading to increased revenue. In addition, in two programs, PN was associated with a reduction in unnecessary resource utilization, such as emergency department visits and hospitalizations. PN also reduces burdens on oncology providers, potentially reducing burnout, errors, and costly staff turnover. CONCLUSION: PN has resulted in improved patient outcomes and patient satisfaction and has important financial benefits for cancer programs in the fee-for-service and the alternative payment model worlds, lending support for more robust staffing of PN programs.

PURPOSE Feasible and effective strategies are needed to facilitate earlier diagnosis of breast cancer in low-income countries. The goal of this study was to examine the impact of health worker breast health training on health care utilization, patient diagnoses, and cancer stage in a rural Rwandan district. METHODS We conducted a cluster randomized trial of a training intervention at 12 of the 19 health centers (HCs) in Burera District, Rwanda, in 2 phases. We evaluated the trainings’ impact on the volume of patient visits for breast concerns using difference-in-difference models. We used generalized estimating equations to evaluate incidence of HC and hospital visits for breast concerns, biopsies, benign breast diagnoses, breast cancer, and early-stage disease in catchment areas served by intervention versus control HCs. RESULTS From April 2015 to April 2017, 1,484 patients visited intervention HCs, and 308 visited control HCs for breast concerns. The intervention led to an increase of 4.7 visits/month for phase 1 HCs ( P = .001) and 7.9 visits/month for phase 2 HCs ( P = .007) compared with control HCs. The population served by intervention HCs had more hospital visits (115.1 v 20.5/100,000 person-years, P < .001) and biopsies (36.6 v 8.9/100,000 person-years, P < .001) and higher breast cancer incidence (6.9 v 3.3/100,000 person-years; P = .28). The incidence of early-stage breast cancer was 3.3 per 100,000 in intervention areas and 0.7 per 100,000 in control areas ( P = .048). CONCLUSION In this cluster randomized trial in rural Rwanda, the training of health workers and establishment of regular breast clinics were associated with increased numbers of patients who presented with breast concerns at health facilities, more breast biopsies, and a higher incidence of benign breast diagnoses and early-stage breast cancers.

Although image-guided biopsies of bone and soft tissue lesions have a low complication rate, there is limited data evaluating use of preprocedural laboratory tests. To address this issue, patients were not required to stop non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin or to obtain preprocedural laboratory tests [complete blood count (CBC) and international normalized ratio (INR)], except in special circumstances. The bleeding complication rate, rate of same day biopsies, and the time from when the biopsy was ordered to when it was performed were obtained. A total of 332 patients who underwent bone or soft tissue biopsies performed at our institution between 9/1/2017 and 1/9/2019 were prospectively analyzed. These data were compared to a retrospective biopsy cohort of 323 patients between 7/1/2015 and 7/1/2017. Data collected included method of image guidance and bleeding complication rate. The number of days from ordering to performing a biopsy and number of same day biopsies were recorded. There were no bleeding complications in either cohort (OR 1.00, P = 1). The mean time from ordering to performing a bone biopsy was significantly decreased in the prospective group (6.6 days) compared to the retrospective group (8.1 days) (P = 0.012). There were more same day biopsies in the prospective cohort (11.4% vs. 3.4%) (P

ObjectivesThis study aimed to quantify the health system cost of the first 2 years of a Breast Cancer Early Detection (BCED) programme in a rural district in Rwanda. We also aimed to estimate the cost of implementing the programme in other districts with different referral pathways and identify opportunities for enhanced cost efficiency.DesignRetrospective, cross-sectional analysis using time-driven activity-based costing, based on timed patient clinical encounters, retrospective patient data and unit costs of resources abstracted from administrative and finance records.SettingThe BCED programme focused on timely evaluation of individuals with breast symptoms. The study evaluated the health system cost of the BCED programme at seven health centres (HCs) in Burera district and Butaro Cancer Centre of Excellence (BCCOE) at Butaro District Hospital.Outcome measuresHealth system costs per patient visit and cost per cancer diagnosed were quantified. Total start-up and recurring operational costs were also estimated, as well as health system costs of different scale-up adaptations in other districts.ResultsOne-time start-up costswere US$36 917, recurring operational costswere US$67 711 and clinical costswere US$14 824 over 2 years. Clinical breast examinations (CBE) at HCs cost US$3.27/visit. At BCCOE, CBE-only visits cost US$13.47/visit, CBE/ultrasound US$14.79/visit and CBE/ultrasound/biopsy/pathology US$147.81/visit. Overall, clinical cost per breast cancer diagnosed was US$1482. Clinicalcost drivers were personnel at HCs (55%) and biopsy/pathology supplies at BCCOE (46%). In other districts, patients experience a longer breast evaluation pathway, adding about US$14.00/patient; this could be decreased if ultrasound services were decentralised.ConclusionClinical costs associated with BCED services at HCs were modest, similar to other general outpatient services. The BCED programme’s start-up and operational costs were high but could be reduced by using local trainers and virtual mentorship. In other districts, decentralising ultrasound and/or biopsies to district hospitals could reduce costs.