Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles. RESULTS: Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

Association of Remote Patient-Reported Outcomes and Step Counts With Hospitalization or Death Among Patients With Advanced Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy: Secondary Analysis of the PROStep Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer undergoing chemotherapy experience significant symptoms and declines in functional status, which are associated with poor outcomes. Remote monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs; symptoms) and step counts (functional status) may proactively identify patients at risk of hospitalization or death. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the association of (1) longitudinal PROs with step counts and (2) PROs and step counts with hospitalization or death. METHODS: The PROStep randomized trial enrolled 108 patients with advanced gastrointestinal or lung cancers undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy at a large academic cancer center. Patients were randomized to weekly text-based monitoring of 8 PROs plus continuous step count monitoring via Fitbit (Google) versus usual care. This preplanned secondary analysis included 57 of 75 patients randomized to the intervention who had PRO and step count data. We analyzed the associations between PROs and mean daily step counts and the associations of PROs and step counts with the composite outcome of hospitalization or death using bootstrapped generalized linear models to account for longitudinal data. RESULTS: Among 57 patients, the mean age was 57 (SD 10.9) years, 24 (42%) were female, 43 (75%) had advanced gastrointestinal cancer, 14 (25%) had advanced lung cancer, and 25 (44%) were hospitalized or died during follow-up. A 1-point weekly increase (on a 32-point scale) in aggregate PRO score was associated with 247 fewer mean daily steps (95% CI -277 to -213; P<.001). PROs most strongly associated with step count decline were patient-reported activity (daily step change -892), nausea score (-677), and constipation score (524). A 1-point weekly increase in aggregate PRO score was associated with 20% greater odds of hospitalization or death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4; P=.01). PROs most strongly associated with hospitalization or death were pain (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.6-6.5; P<.001), decreased activity (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.4-7.1; P=.01), dyspnea (aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.2-5.5; P=.02), and sadness (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.3; P=.03). A decrease in 1000 steps was associated with 16% greater odds of hospitalization or death (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.3; P=.03). Compared with baseline, mean daily step count decreased 7% (n=274 steps), 9% (n=351 steps), and 16% (n=667 steps) in the 3, 2, and 1 weeks before hospitalization or death, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a randomized trial among patients with advanced cancer, higher symptom burden and decreased step count were independently associated with and predictably worsened close to hospitalization or death. Future interventions should leverage longitudinal PRO and step count data to target interventions toward patients at risk for poor outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04616768; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04616768. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054675.

Patients' experiences undergoing breast evaluation in Rwanda's Women's Cancer Early Detection Program.

PURPOSE: There is urgent need for interventions to facilitate earlier diagnosis of breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries where mammography screening is not widely available. Understanding patients' experiences with early detection efforts, whether they are ultimately diagnosed with cancer or benign disease, is critical to optimize interventions and maximize community engagement. We sought to understand the experiences of patients undergoing breast evaluation in Rwanda's Women's Cancer Early Detection Program (WCEDP). METHODS: We conducted in-person semi-structured interviews with 30 patients in two districts of Rwanda participating in the WCEDP. Patients represented a range of ages and both benign and malignant diagnoses. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, translated, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Participants identified facilitators and barriers of timely care along the breast evaluation pathway. Community awareness initiatives were facilitators to care-seeking, while persistent myths and stigma about cancer were barriers. Participants valued clear clinician-patient communication and emotional support from clinicians and peers. Poverty was a major barrier for participants who described difficulty paying for transport, insurance premiums, and other direct and indirect costs of hospital referrals in particular. COVID-19 lockdowns caused delays for referred patients. Although false-positive clinical breast exams conferred financial and emotional burdens, participants nonetheless voiced appreciation for their experience and felt empowered to monitor their own breast health and share knowledge with others. CONCLUSION: Rwandan women experienced both benefits and burdens as they underwent breast evaluation. Enthusiasm for participation was not reduced by the experience of a false-positive result. Reducing financial, logistical and emotional burdens of the breast diagnostic pathway through patient navigation, peer support and decentralization of diagnostic services could improve patients' experience.

Breast cancer molecular diagnostics in Rwanda: a cost-minimization study of immunohistochemistry versus a novel GeneXpert® mRNA expression assay.

Objective: To compare the financial and time cost of breast cancer biomarker analysis by immunohistochemistry with that by the Xpert® STRAT4 assay. Methods: We estimated costs (personnel, location, consumables and indirect) and time involved in breast cancer diagnosis at the Butaro Cancer Centre of Excellence, Rwanda, using time-driven activity-based costing. We performed a cost-minimization analysis to compare the cost of biomarker analysis for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 status with immunohistochemistry versus STRAT4. We performed sensitivity analyses by altering laboratory-specific parameters for the two methods. Findings: We estimated that breast cancer diagnosis in Rwanda costs 138.29 United States dollars (US$) per patient when conducting biomarker analysis by immunohistochemistry. At a realistic immunohistochemistry antibody utilization efficiency of 70%, biomarker analysis comprises 48.7% (US$ 67.33) of diagnostic costs and takes 33 min. We determined that biomarker analysis with STRAT4 yields a reduction in diagnosis cost of US$ 7.33 (10.9%; 7.33/67.33), and in pathologist and technician time of 20 min (60.6%; 20/33), per patient. Our sensitivity analysis revealed that no cost savings would be made in laboratories with antibody utilization efficiencies over 90%, or where only estrogen and/or progesterone receptor status are assessed; however, such operational efficiencies are unlikely, and more laboratories are pursuing human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 analysis as targeted therapies become increasingly available. Conclusion: Breast cancer biomarker analysis with STRAT4 has the potential to reduce the required human and capital resources in sub-Saharan African laboratories, leading to improved treatment selection and better clinical outcomes.

Implementation research: including breast examinations in a cervical cancer screening programme, Rwanda.

Objective: To evaluate whether integrating breast and cervical cancer screening in Rwanda's Women's Cancer Early Detection Program led to early breast cancer diagnoses in asymptomatic women. Methods: Launched in three districts in 2018-2019, the early detection programme offered clinical breast examination screening for all women receiving cervical cancer screening, and diagnostic breast examination for women with breast cancer symptoms. Women with abnormal breast examinations were referred to district hospitals and then to referral hospitals if needed. We examined how often clinics were held, patient volumes and number of referrals. We also examined intervals between referrals and visits to the next care level and, among women diagnosed with cancer, their initial reasons for seeking care. Findings: Health centres held clinics > 68% of the weeks. Overall, 9763 women received cervical cancer screening and clinical breast examination and 7616 received breast examination alone. Of 585 women referred from health centres, 436 (74.5%) visited the district hospital after a median of 9 days (interquartile range, IQR: 3-19). Of 200 women referred to referral hospitals, 179 (89.5%) attended after a median of 11 days (IQR: 4-18). Of 29 women diagnosed with breast cancer, 19 were ≥ 50 years and 23 had stage III or stage IV disease. All women with breast cancer whose reasons for seeking care were known (23 women) had experienced breast cancer symptoms. Conclusion: In the short-term, integrating clinical breast examination with cervical cancer screening was not associated with detection of early-stage breast cancer among asymptomatic women. Priority should be given to encouraging women to seek timely care for symptoms.

A Survey of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network on Approaches Toward Addressing Patients' Transportation Insecurity.

BACKGROUND: Addressing patients' social determinants of health is a national priority for cancer treatment centers. Transportation insecurity is one major challenge for patients undergoing active cancer treatment, and missing treatments can result in worse cancer treatment outcomes, including worse morbidity and mortality. How cancer treatment centers are addressing transportation insecurity is understudied. METHODS: In January and February 2022, the NCCN Best Practices Committee conducted a survey of NCCN's 31 Member Institutions (currently 32 member institutions as of April 2022) to assess how centers were addressing patient transportation insecurity: how they screen for transportation insecurity, coordinate transportation, and fund transportation initiatives, and their plans to address transportation insecurity in the future. RESULTS: A total of 25 of 31 (81%) NCCN Member Institutions responded to the survey, of which 24 (96%) reported supporting the transportation needs of their patients through screening, coordinating, and/or funding transportation. Patients' transportation needs were most often identified by social workers (96%), clinicians (83%), or patients self-declaring their needs (79%). Few centers (33%) used routine screening approaches (eg, universal screening of social risk factors) to systematically identify transportation needs, and 54% used the support of technology platforms or a vendor to coordinate transportation. Transportation was predominantly funded via some combination of philanthropy (88%), grants (63%), internal dollars (63%), and reimbursement from insurance companies (58%). Over the next 12 months, many centers were either going to continue their current transportation programs in their current state (60%) or expand existing programs (32%). CONCLUSIONS: Many NCCN Member Institutions are addressing the transportation needs of their patients. Current efforts are heterogeneous. Few centers have systematic, routine screening approaches, and funding relies on philanthropy more so than institutional dollars or reimbursement from insurers. Opportunities exist to establish more structured, scalable, and sustainable programs for patients' transportation needs.

Access to and Affordability of World Health Organization Essential Medicines for Cancer in Sub-Saharan Africa: Examples from Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda.

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 <3× gross national income per capita; and to patients out-of-pocket (OOP), as 30-day treatment course cost <1 day of minimum wage work. 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.

Gaps in completion and timeliness of breast surgery and adjuvant therapy: a retrospective cohort of Haitian patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer.

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.

New Operative Reporting Standards: Where We Stand Now and Opportunities for Innovation.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer's (CoC) new operative standards for breast cancer, melanoma, and colon cancer surgeries will require that surgeons provide synoptic documentation of essential oncologic elements within operative reports. Prior to designing and implementing an electronic tool to support synoptic reporting, we evaluated current documentation practices at our institution to understand baseline concordance with these standards. METHODS: Applicable procedures performed between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018 were included. Two independent reviewers evaluated sequential operative notes, up to a total of 100 notes, for documentation of required elements. Complete concordance (CC) was defined as explicit documentation of all required CoC elements. Mean percentage CC and surgeon-specific CC were calculated for each procedure. Interrater reliability was assessed via Cohen's kappa statistic. RESULTS: For sentinel lymph node biopsy, mean CC was 66% (n = 100), with surgeon-specific CC ranging from 6 to 100%, and for axillary dissection, mean CC was 12% (n = 89) and surgeon-specific CC ranged from 0 to 47%. The single surgeon performing melanoma wide local excision had a mean CC of 98% (n = 100). For colon resections, mean CC was 69% (n = 96) and surgeon-specific CC ranged from 39 to 94%. Kappa scores were 0.77, 0.78, -0.15, and 0.78, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified heterogeneity in current documentation practices. In our cohort, rates of baseline concordance varied across surgeons and procedures. Currently, documentation elements are interspersed within the operative report, posing challenges to chart abstraction with resulting imperfect interrater reliability. This presents an exciting opportunity to innovate and improve compliance by introducing an electronic synoptic documentation tool.

Cervical cancer treatment in Rwanda: Resource-driven adaptations, quality indicators, and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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%). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

COVID-19 and Cancer Center Operations: Lessons Learned From the NCCN Best Practices Committee.

The NCCN Best Practices Committee, which is composed of senior physician, nursing, and administrative leaders from NCCN Member Institutions, evaluated the status of cancer center operations after 1 year of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two major initiatives stood out: the increase in the utilization of network sites, and the gains made in telemedicine operations and reimbursement. Experts from NCCN Member Institutions participated in a webinar series in June 2021 to share their experiences, knowledge, and thoughts on these topics and discuss the impact on the future of cancer care.

Clinician perspectives on machine learning prognostic algorithms in the routine care of patients with cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Oncologists may overestimate prognosis for patients with cancer, leading to delayed or missed conversations about patients' goals and subsequent low-quality end-of-life care. Machine learning algorithms may accurately predict mortality risk in cancer, but it is unclear how oncology clinicians would use such algorithms in practice. METHODS: The purpose of this qualitative study was to assess oncology clinicians' perceptions on the utility and barriers of machine learning prognostic algorithms to prompt advance care planning. Participants included medical oncology physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) practicing in tertiary and community practices within a large academic healthcare system. Transcripts were coded and analyzed inductively using NVivo software. RESULTS: The study included 29 oncology clinicians (19 physicians, 10 APPs) across 6 practice sites (1 tertiary, 5 community) in the USA. Fourteen participants had previously had exposure to an automated machine learning-based prognostic algorithm as part of a pragmatic randomized trial. Clinicians believed that there was utility for algorithms in validating their own intuition about prognosis and prompting conversations about patient goals and preferences. However, this enthusiasm was tempered by concerns about algorithm accuracy, over-reliance on algorithm predictions, and the ethical implications around disclosure of an algorithm prediction. There was significant variation in tolerance for false positive vs. false negative predictions. CONCLUSION: While oncologists believe there are applications for advanced prognostic algorithms in routine care of patients with cancer, they are concerned about algorithm accuracy, confirmation and automation biases, and ethical issues of prognostic disclosure.

The impact of scaling up access to treatment and imaging modalities on global disparities in breast cancer survival: a simulation-based analysis.

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, and National Cancer Institute P30 Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally.

Moral Distress and Resilience Associated with Cancer Care Priority Setting in a Resource-Limited Context.

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.

Provider Barriers and Facilitators of Breast Cancer Guideline-Concordant Therapy Delivery in Botswana: A Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research Analysis.

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.

Impact of telemedicine adoption on accessibility and time to treatment in patients with thoracic malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: To ensure safe delivery of oncologic care during the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has been rapidly adopted. However, little data exist on the impact of telemedicine on quality and accessibility of oncologic care. This study assessed whether conducting an office visit for thoracic oncology patients via telemedicine affected time to treatment initiation and accessibility. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with thoracic malignancies seen by a multidisciplinary team during the first surge of COVID-19 cases in Philadelphia (March 1 to June 30, 2020). Patients with an index visit for a new phase of care, defined as a new diagnosis, local recurrence, or newly discovered metastatic disease, were included. RESULTS: 240 distinct patients with thoracic malignancies were seen: 132 patients (55.0%) were seen initially in-person vs 108 (45.0%) via telemedicine. The majority of visits were for a diagnosis of a new thoracic cancer (87.5%). Among newly diagnosed patients referred to the thoracic oncology team, the median time from referral to initial visit was significantly shorter amongst the patients seen via telemedicine vs. in-person (median 5.0 vs. 6.5 days, p < 0.001). Patients received surgery (32.5%), radiation (24.2%), or systemic therapy (30.4%). Time from initial visit to treatment initiation by modality did not differ by telemedicine vs in-person: surgery (22 vs 16 days, p = 0.47), radiation (27.5 vs 27.5 days, p = 0.86, systemic therapy (15 vs 13 days, p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid adoption of telemedicine allowed timely delivery of oncologic care during the initial surge of the COVID19 pandemic by a thoracic oncology multi-disciplinary clinic.

Comparison of open and minimally invasive approaches to colon cancer resection in compliance with 12 regional lymph node harvest quality measure.

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 < .001). An overall median of 18 LNs were harvested and compliance with the 12-LN benchmark increased (84.6%-91.6%, p < .001); there were no difference between open and MIS. A subset analysis comparing hospital type revealed that regardless of approach, compliance was lower at community hospitals (p < .001). OS was better for patients treated at academic or National Cancer Institute centers, underwent MIS, and in those meeting the 12-LN benchmark (all p ≤ .002). CONCLUSION: As MIS colon resections continue to increase, we demonstrate that there is no difference in the ability to achieve the 12-LN benchmark with open and MIS approaches.

Patient Characteristics and Outcomes of Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer in Haiti: Results from a Retrospective Cohort.

BACKGROUND: There are few studies on breast cancer outcomes in the Caribbean region. This study identified a retrospective cohort of female patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer in Haiti and conducted survival analyses to identify prognostic factors that may affect patient outcomes. METHODS: The cohort included 341 patients presenting between June 2012 and December 2016. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS), defined as time to disease progression, recurrence, or death. Descriptive summaries of patient characteristics and treatments were reported. Survival curves were plotted using Kaplan-Meier estimation. Multivariate survival analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Median age at diagnosis was 49 years, with 64.2% being premenopausal. Most patients (55.1%) were staged as locally advanced. One hundred and sixty patients received neoadjuvant therapy: 33.3% of patients with early stage disease and 61.2% of those with locally advanced stage disease. Curative-intent surgery was performed in 278 (81.5%) patients, and 225 patients received adjuvant therapy. Adjuvant endocrine therapy was used in 82.0% of patients with estrogen receptor-positive disease. During the follow-up period, 28 patients died, 77 had disease recurrence, and 10 had progressive disease. EFS rates at 2 years and 3 years were 80.9% and 63.4%, respectively. After controlling for multiple confounders, the locally advanced stage group had a statistically significant adjusted hazard ratio for EFS of 3.27 compared with early stage. CONCLUSION: Patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer in Haiti have more advanced disease, poorer prognostic factors, and worse outcomes compared with patients in high-income countries. Despite several limitations, curative treatment is possible in Haiti. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with breast cancer in Haiti have poor outcomes. Prior studies show that most Haitian patients are diagnosed at later stages. However, there are no rigorous studies describing how late-stage diagnosis and other prognostic factors affect outcomes in this population. This study presents a detailed analysis of survival outcomes and assessment of prognostic factors in patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer treated in Haiti. In addition to late-stage diagnosis, other unfavorable prognostic factors identified were young age and estrogen receptor-negative disease. The study also highlights that the availability of basic breast cancer treatment in Haiti can lead to promising early patient outcomes.

Assessing and Addressing the Need for Cancer Patient Education in a Resource-Limited Setting in Haiti.

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.