Search

Improved rates of cancer control have increased the head and neck cancer survivor population. Cancer survivorship clinics are not widely available in the USA, and longitudinal supportive care for patients undergoing multimodal therapy has not advanced at a pace commensurate with improvements in cancer control. Consequently, a large head and neck cancer survivor population whose quality of life may be chronically and/or permanently diminished presently exists. This lack of awareness perpetuates under-recognition and under-investigation, leaving survivors’ (mostly detrimental) experiences largely uncharted. We conducted a qualitative exploration of survivors’ experiences, aiming to unpack the profound impact of late systemic symptoms on daily life, encompassing work, relationships, and self-identity in the head and neck cancer survivor community. The study included 15 remitted head and neck survivors, ≥12 months from their final treatment, who participated in semi-structured interviews conducted by a medical oncologist. Data analysis comprised qualitative thematic analysis, specifically inductive hierarchical linear modeling, enriched by a deductive approach of anecdotal clinical reporting. Results highlighted that 43.36% of all quotation material discussed in the interviews pertained to chronic emotion disturbance with significant implications for other domains of life. A central symptom cluster comprised impairments in mood/emotions, daily activity, and significant fatigue. Dysfunction in sleep, other medical conditions, and cognitive deficits comprised a secondary cluster. Physical dysfunctionality, encompassing pain, appetite, and eating, and alterations in experienced body temperature, constituted a tertiary cluster, and perhaps were surprisingly the least discussed symptom burden among head and neck cancer survivors. Symptoms causing heightened long-term survivor burden may be considered epiphenomenal to central physical dysfunctionality, albeit being presently the least represented in cancer survivor care programs. Moving forward, the development of targeted and multi-dimensional treatment programs that encompass physical, psychosocial, and spiritual domains are needed to increase clinical specificity and effective holistic long-term solutions that will foster a more compassionate and informed future of care for the cancer survivorship community.

Abstract Background Precision medicine holds enormous potential to improve outcomes for cancer patients, offering improved rates of cancer control and quality of life. Not all patients who could benefit from targeted cancer therapy receive it, and some who may not benefit do receive targeted therapy. We sought to comprehensively identify determinants of targeted therapy use among community oncology programs, where most cancer patients receive their care. Methods Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 community cancer care providers and mapped targeted therapy delivery across 11 cancer care delivery teams using a Rummler-Brache diagram. Transcripts were coded to the framework using template analysis, and inductive coding was used to identify key behaviors. Coding was revised until a consensus was reached. Results Intention to deliver precision medicine was high across all participants interviewed, who also reported untenable knowledge demands. We identified distinctly different teams, processes, and determinants for (1) genomic test ordering and (2) delivery of targeted therapies. A key determinant of molecular testing was role alignment. The dominant expectation for oncologists to order and interpret genomic tests is at odds with their role as treatment decision-makers’ and pathologists’ typical role to stage tumors. Programs in which pathologists considered genomic test ordering as part of their staging responsibilities reported high and timely testing rates. Determinants of treatment delivery were contingent on resources and ability to offset delivery costs, which low- volume programs could not do. Rural programs faced additional treatment delivery challenges. Conclusions We identified novel determinants of targeted therapy delivery that potentially could be addressed through role re-alignment. Standardized, pathology-initiated genomic testing may prove fruitful in ensuring patients eligible for targeted therapy are identified, even if the care they need cannot be delivered at small and rural sites which may have distinct challenges in treatment delivery. Incorporating behavior specification and Rummler-Brache process mapping with determinant analysis may extend its usefulness beyond the identification of the need for contextual adaptation.

Abstract Introduction COVID-19 particularly impacted patients with co-morbid conditions, including cancer. Patients with melanoma have not been specifically studied in large numbers. Here, we sought to identify factors that associated with COVID-19 severity among patients with melanoma, particularly assessing outcomes of patients on active targeted or immune therapy. Methods Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, we identified 307 patients with melanoma diagnosed with COVID-19. We used multivariable models to assess demographic, cancer-related, and treatment-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity on a 6-level ordinal severity scale. We assessed whether treatment was associated with increased cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction among hospitalized patients and assessed mortality among patients with a history of melanoma compared with other cancer survivors. Results Of 307 patients, 52 received immunotherapy (17%), and 32 targeted therapy (10%) in the previous 3 months. Using multivariable analyses, these treatments were not associated with COVID-19 severity (immunotherapy OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 – 1.39; targeted therapy OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.64 – 5.55). Among hospitalized patients, no signals of increased cardiac or pulmonary organ dysfunction, as measured by troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and oxygenation were noted. Patients with a history of melanoma had similar 90-day mortality compared with other cancer survivors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62 – 2.35). Conclusions Melanoma therapies did not appear to be associated with increased severity of COVID-19 or worsening organ dysfunction. Patients with history of melanoma had similar 90-day survival following COVID-19 compared with other cancer survivors.

Abstract Background The 21st Century Cures Act Interoperability and Information Blocking Rule was created to increase patient access to health information. This federally mandated policy has been met with praise and concern. However, little is known about patient and clinician opinions of this policy within cancer care. Methods We conducted a convergent parallel mixed methods study to understand patient and clinician reactions to the Information Blocking Rule in cancer care and what they would like policy makers to consider. Twenty-nine patients and 29 clinicians completed interviews and surveys. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Interview and survey data were analyzed separately, then linked to generate a full interpretation of the results. Results Overall, patients felt more positive about the policy than clinicians. Patients wanted policy makers to understand that patients are unique, and they want to individualize their preferences for receiving health information with their clinicians. Clinicians highlighted the uniqueness of cancer care, due to the highly sensitive information that is shared. Both patients and clinicians were concerned about the impact on clinician workload and stress. Both expressed an urgent need for tailoring implementation of the policy to avoid unintended harm and distress for patients. Conclusions Our findings provide suggestions for optimizing the implementation of this policy in cancer care. Dissemination strategies to better inform the public about the policy and improve clinician understanding and support are recommended. Patients who have serious illness or diagnoses such as cancer and their clinicians should be included when developing and enacting policies that could have a significant impact on their well-being. Patients with cancer and their cancer care teams want the ability to tailor information release based on individual preferences and goals. Understanding how to tailor implementation of the Information Blocking Rule is essential for retaining its benefits and minimizing unintended harm for patients with cancer.

Abstract Background Precision medicine has enormous potential to improve cancer outcomes. Over one third of the 1.5 million Americans diagnosed with cancer each year have genetic mutations that could be targeted with an FDA-approved drug to treat their disease more effectively. However, the current uptake of targeted cancer therapy in clinical practice is suboptimal. Tumor testing is not widely used, and treatments based on molecular and genomic profiling are often not prescribed when indicated. Challenges with the uptake of precision medicine may disproportionately impact cancer patients in rural communities and other underserved populations. The objective of this study is to identify the determinants of adoption and implementation of precision cancer therapy to design an implementation strategy for community oncology practices, including those in rural areas. Methods This study is an explanatory sequential mixed methods study to identify factors associated with the use of targeted cancer therapy. Levels of targeted therapy use will be ascertained by secondary analysis of medical records to identify concordance with 18 national guideline recommendations for use of precision medicine in the treatment of breast, colorectal, lung, and melanoma skin cancer. Concurrently, facilitators and barriers associated with the use of precision cancer therapy will be elicited from interviews with up to a total of 40 oncologists, administrators, pathology, and pharmacy staff across the participating sites. Qualitative analysis will be a template analysis based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Quantitative data aggregated at the practice level will be used to rank oncology practices’ adherence to targeted cancer therapy guidelines. Determinants will be compared among high and low users to isolate factors likely to facilitate targeted therapy use. The study will be conducted in eight community oncology practices, with an estimated 4121 targeted therapy treatment decision-making opportunities over a 3-year period. Discussion Despite unprecedented investment in precision medicine, translation into practice is suboptimal. Our study will identify factors associated with the uptake of precision medicine in community settings. These findings will inform future interventions to increase equitable uptake of evidence-based targeted cancer treatment.

Background: Patients with sarcoma often require individualized treatment strategies and are likely to receive aggressive immunosuppressive therapies, which may place them at higher risk for severe COVID-19. We aimed to describe demographics, risk factors, and outcomes for patients with sarcoma and COVID-19. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with sarcoma and COVID-19 reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry (NCT04354701) from 17 March 2020 to 30 September 2021. Demographics, sarcoma histologic type, treatments, and COVID-19 outcomes were analyzed. Results: of 281 patients, 49% (n = 139) were hospitalized, 33% (n = 93) received supplemental oxygen, 11% (n = 31) were admitted to the ICU, and 6% (n = 16) received mechanical ventilation. A total of 23 (8%) died within 30 days of COVID-19 diagnosis and 44 (16%) died overall at the time of analysis. When evaluated by sarcoma subtype, patients with bone sarcoma and COVID-19 had a higher mortality rate than patients from a matched SEER cohort (13.5% vs 4.4%). Older age, poor performance status, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy, and lung metastases all contributed to higher COVID-19 severity. Conclusions: Patients with sarcoma have high rates of severe COVID-19 and those with bone sarcoma may have the greatest risk of death.

Background: Whether there is sex-bias within the adverse outcomes associated with COVID-19 in the cancer population is unknown. In this regard, several published studies have examined this question, but the results are inconclusive and inconsistent. To evaluate the sex-difference in the risk of adverse outcomes associated with COVID-19 in the cancer population, we have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Published articles evaluating adverse outcomes associated with COVID-19 in the cancer population from inception to June 2020 were identified by searching PubMed and EMBASE, ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Conference, AACR 2020 COVID-19 and Cancer, ESMO conferences held from January to June 2020, and medRxiv and bioRxiv. Prospective or retrospective analyses in English, providing outcomes data with sex differences in the cancer population were included. The primary outcomes of interest were pooled ORs of severe illness, all-cause death, and the composite of severe illness and death attributable to COVID-19 in males versus females in cancer patients. Findings: Overall, 3968 patients (17 studies) were analyzed in retrospective study settings. Overall, pooled ORs of the composite of severe illness and all-cause death in the setting of COVID-19 in males versus females was 1.60 (95% CI, 1.38–1.85). The risk of severe illness or death were both independently increased in males versus females. Interpretation: Male sex was associated with a higher risk of severe illness and death attributable to COVID-19. This finding has implications in informing the clinical prognosis and decision making in the care of cancer patients. Funding: This study received no funding.