Search

Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence-based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health-related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home-based or community-based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.

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

Observational evidence has established a relationship between obesity and cancer risk and outcomes. Interventional studies have demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of lifestyle change after cancer diagnosis, and guidelines recommend weight management and regular physical activity in cancer survivors; however, lifestyle interventions are not a routine part of cancer care. The ASCO Research Summit on Advancing Obesity Clinical Trials in Cancer Survivors sought to identify the knowledge gaps that clinical trials addressing energy balance factors in cancer survivors have not answered and to develop a roadmap for the design and implementation of studies with the potential to generate data that could lead to the evidence-based incorporation of weight management and physical activity programs into standard oncology practice. Recommendations highlight the need for large-scale trials evaluating the impact of energy balance interventions on cancer outcomes, as well as the concurrent conduct of studies focused on dissemination and implementation of interventions in diverse populations of cancer survivors, including answering critical questions about the degree of benefit in key subgroups of survivors. Other considerations include the importance of incorporating economic metrics into energy balance intervention trials, the need to establish intermediate biomarkers, and the importance of integrating traditional and nontraditional funding sources. Establishing lifestyle change after cancer diagnosis as a routine part of cancer care will require a multipronged effort to overcome barriers related to study development, funding, and stakeholder engagement. Given the prevalence of obesity and inactivity in cancer survivors in the United States and elsewhere, energy balance interventions hold the potential to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in millions of patients, and it is essential that we move forward in determining their role in cancer care with the same care and precision used to test pharmacologic and other interventions.

PurposeSurvivorship care planning should involve discussions between providers and cancer survivors to address survivors' needs and optimize adherence. We examined the frequency and factors associated with oncologists' and primary care physicians' (PCPs) reports of provision of written survivorship care plans (SCPs) and discussion of survivorship care recommendations with survivors.MethodsA nationally representative sample of 1,130 oncologists and 1,020 PCPs was surveyed about survivorship care practices with survivors. Logistic regression models predicted multilevel factors associated with providing SCPs or discussing recommendations with survivors.ResultsAlthough a majority of oncologists (64%) reported always/almost always discussing survivorship care recommendations with survivors, fewer also discussed who survivors should see for cancer-related and other follow-up care (32%); fewer still also provided a written SCP to the survivor (< 5%). Survivorship care recommendations and provider responsibility were not regularly discussed by PCPs and survivors (12%). Oncologists who reported detailed training about late and long-term effects of cancer were more likely to provide written SCPs (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.44) and discuss survivorship care planning with survivors (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.51 to 2.70). PCPs who received SCPs from oncologists were 9× more likely (95% CI, 5.74 to 14.82) to report survivorship discussions with survivors.ConclusionA minority of both PCPs and oncologists reported consistently discussing and providing SCPs to cancer survivors. Training and knowledge specific to survivorship care and coordinated care between PCPs and oncologists were associated with increased survivorship discussions with survivors. These nationally representative data provide a useful benchmark to assess implementation of new efforts to improve the follow-up care of survivors.

An evolved model of comprehensive cancer care is needed that begins at cancer diagnosis to proactively manage cancer treatment toxicities and optimize patient health, function, and well-being. Building new care models requires connecting oncology, primary care, and specialized clinicians from many disciplines including cancer rehabilitation. Having a vision for an evolved standard of comprehensive cancer care is a requirement, but it is not enough to bring an innovative clinical program to life and sustain it over the long term. To inform the development of new clinical programs, two example programs are presented that successfully integrate cancer rehabilitation services along with details of a three-step process these programs used to facilitate their success and build robust business models that ensure their sustainability. Following the roadmap for growth presented here, gaining input from stakeholders and ensuring their buy-in, leveraging existing programmatic priorities, as well as developing a strategic growth plan can help clinical innovators ensure that new programs anticipate and continually meet the needs of oncology, primary care, subspecialty care, and programs, while addressing the business needs of administrators and improving the experience for patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Bone mineral density (BMD) and lean mass (LM) may both decrease in breast cancer survivors, thereby increasing risk of falls and fractures. Research is needed to determine whether lean mass (LM) and fat mass (FM) independently relate to BMD in this patient group. Methods The Health, Eating, Activity, and Lifestyle Study participants included 599 women, ages 29–87 years, diagnosed from 1995–1999 with stage 0-IIIA breast cancer, who underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans approximately 6-months postdiagnosis. We calculated adjusted geometric means of total body BMD within quartiles (Q) of LM and FM. We also stratified LM-BMD associations by a fat mass index threshold that tracks with obesity (lower body fat: ≤12.9 kg/m2; higher body fat: >12.9 kg/m2) and stratified FM-BMD associations by appendicular lean mass index level corresponding with sarcopenia (non-sarcopenic: ≥ 5.45 kg/m2 and sarcopenic:

BackgroundSurvivorship care plans (SCPs), including a treatment summary and follow-up plan, intend to promote coordination of posttreatment cancer care; yet, little is known about the provision of these documents by oncologists to primary care physicians (PCPs). This study compared self-reported oncologist provision and PCP receipt of treatment summaries and follow-up plans, characterized oncologists who reported consistent provision of these documents to PCPs, and examined associations between PCP receipt of these documents and survivorship care.MethodsA nationally representative sample of medical oncologists (n = 1130) and PCPs (n = 1020) were surveyed regarding follow-up care for breast and colon cancer survivors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Multivariable regression models identified factors associated with oncologist provision of treatment summaries and SCPs to PCPs (always/almost always vs less frequent).ResultsNearly half of oncologists reported always/almost always providing treatment summaries, whereas 20.2% reported always/almost always providing SCPs (treatment summary + follow-up plan). Approximately one-third of PCPs indicated always/almost always receiving treatment summaries; 13.4% reported always/almost always receiving SCPs. Oncologists who reported training in late- and long-term effects of cancer and use of electronic medical records were more likely to report SCP provision (P < .05). PCP receipt of SCPs was associated with better PCP-reported care coordination, physician-physician communication, and confidence in survivorship care knowledge compared to receipt of neither treatment summaries nor SCPs (P < .05).ConclusionsProviding SCPs to PCPs may enhance survivorship care coordination, physician-physician communication, and PCP confidence. However, considerable progress will be necessary to achieve implementation of sharing SCPs among oncologists and PCPs.