Shared decision-making and disease management in advanced cancer and chronic kidney disease using patient-reported outcome dashboards.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the use of a co-designed patient-reported outcome (PRO) clinical dashboard and estimate its impact on shared decision-making (SDM) and symptomatology in adults with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease (CKD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a clinical PRO dashboard within the Northwestern Medicine Patient-Reported Outcomes system, enhanced through co-design involving 20 diverse constituents. Using a single-group, pretest-posttest design, we evaluated the dashboard's use among patients with advanced cancer or CKD between June 2020 and January 2022. Eligible patients had a visit with a participating clinician, completed at least two dashboard-eligible visits, and consented to follow-up surveys. PROs were collected 72 h prior to visits, including measures for chronic condition management self-efficacy, health-related quality of life (PROMIS measures), and SDM (collaboRATE). Responses were integrated into the EHR dashboard and accessible to clinicians and patients. RESULTS: We recruited 157 participants: 66 with advanced cancer and 91 with CKD. There were significant improvements in SDM from baseline, as assessed by collaboRATE scores. The proportion of participants reporting the highest level of SDM on every collaboRATE item increased by 15 percentage points from baseline to 3 months, and 17 points between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Additionally, there was a clinically meaningful decrease in anxiety levels over study period (T-score baseline: 53; 3-month: 52; 6-month: 50; P < .001), with a standardized response mean (SRM) of -0.38 at 6 months. DISCUSSION: PRO clinical dashboards, developed and shared with patients, may enhance SDM and reduce anxiety among patients with advanced cancer and CKD.

Development of an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported outcome-based shared decision-making dashboard in oncology.

Objectives: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) describe a patient's unique experiences with disease or treatment, yet effective use of this information during clinical encounters remains challenging. This project sought to build a PRO based dashboard within the electronic health record (EHR), prioritizing interpretability and utility of PROs for clinical decision-making. Materials and Methods: Codesign principles were used to define the goal, features, and visualization of the data elements on the dashboard. Codesign sessions occurred between February 2019 and May 2020 and involved a diverse group of stakeholders. Pilot evaluation of dashboard usability was performed with patients and clinicians not involved in the codesign process through qualitative interviews and the Systems Usability Scale. Results: The dashboard was placed into a single tab in the EHR and included select PROM scores, clinical data elements, and goals of care questions. Real-time data analytics and enhanced visualization of data was necessary for the dashboard to provide meaningful feedback to clinicians and patients for decision-making during clinic visits. During soft launch, the dashboard demonstrated "good" usability in patients and clinicians at 3 and 6 months (mean total SUS score >70). Discussion: The current dashboard had good usability and made PRO scores more clinically understandable to patients and clinicians. This paper highlights the development, necessary data elements, and workflow considerations to implement this dashboard at an academic cancer center. Conclusion: As the use of PROs in clinical care is increasing, patient- and clinician-centered tools are needed to ensure that this information is used in meaningful ways.

Implementation of a Co-Design Strategy to Develop a Dashboard to Support Shared Decision Making in Advanced Cancer and Chronic Kidney Disease.

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is the process by which patients and clinicians exchange information and preferences to come to joint healthcare decisions. Clinical dashboards can support SDM by collecting, distilling, and presenting critical information, such as patient-reported outcomes (PROs), to be shared at points of care and in between appointments. We describe the implementation strategies and outcomes of a multistakeholder collaborative process known as "co-design" to develop a PRO-informed clinical dashboard to support SDM for patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: Across 14 sessions, two multidisciplinary teams comprising patients, care partners, clinicians, and other stakeholders iteratively co-designed an SDM dashboard for either advanced cancer (N = 25) or CKD (N = 24). Eligible patients, care partners, and frontline clinicians were identified by six physician champions. The co-design process included four key steps: (1) define "the problem", (2) establish context of use, (3) build a consensus on design, and (4) define and test specifications. We also evaluated our success in implementing the co-design strategy using measures of fidelity, acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and effectiveness which were collected throughout the process. Results: Mean (M) scores across implementation measures of the co-design process were high, including observer-rated fidelity and adoption of co-design practices (M = 19.1 on a 7-21 scale, N = 36 ratings across 9 sessions), as well as acceptability based on the perceived degree of SDM that occurred during the co-design process (M = 10.4 on a 0 to 12 adapted collaboRATE scale). Capturing the feasibility and adoption of convening multistakeholder co-design teams, min-max normalized scores (ranging from 0 to 1) of stakeholder representation demonstrated that, on average, 95% of stakeholder types were represented for cancer sessions (M = 0.95) and 85% for CKD sessions (M = 0.85). The co-design process was rated as either "fully" or "partially" effective by 100% of respondents, in creating a dashboard that met its intended objective. Conclusions: A co-design process was successfully implemented to develop SDM clinical dashboards for advanced cancer and CKD care. We discuss key strategies and learnings from this process that may aid others in the development and uptake of patient-centered healthcare innovations.

Cancer Surveillance in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With a Pretransplant History of Malignancy: Multidisciplinary Collaborative Expert Opinion.

With improved medical treatments, the prognosis for many malignancies has improved, and more patients are presenting for transplant evaluation with a history of treated cancer. Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients with a prior malignancy are at higher risk of posttransplant recurrence or de novo malignancy, and they may require a cancer surveillance program that is individualized to their specific needs. There is a dearth of literature on optimal surveillance strategies specific to SOT recipients. A working group of transplant physicians and cancer-specific specialists met to provide expert opinion recommendations on optimal cancer surveillance after transplantation for patients with a history of malignancy. Surveillance strategies provided are mainly based on general population recurrence risk data, immunosuppression effects, and limited transplant-specific data and should be considered expert opinion based on current knowledge. Prospective studies of cancer-specific surveillance models in SOT recipients should be supported to inform posttransplant management of this high-risk population.

Rapid identification of inflammatory arthritis and associated adverse events following immune checkpoint therapy: a machine learning approach.

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IA) poses a major clinical challenge to ICI therapy for cancer, with 13% of cases halting ICI therapy and ICI-IA being difficult to identify for timely referral to a rheumatologist. The objective of this study was to rapidly identify ICI-IA patients in clinical data and assess associated immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and risk factors. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of the electronic health records (EHRs) of 89 patients who developed ICI-IA out of 2451 cancer patients who received ICI therapy at Northwestern University between March 2011 to January 2021. Logistic regression and random forest machine learning models were trained on all EHR diagnoses, labs, medications, and procedures to identify ICI-IA patients and EHR codes indicating ICI-IA. Multivariate logistic regression was then used to test associations between ICI-IA and cancer type, ICI regimen, and comorbid irAEs. Results: Logistic regression and random forest models identified ICI-IA patients with accuracies of 0.79 and 0.80, respectively. Key EHR features from the random forest model included ICI-IA relevant features (joint pain, steroid prescription, rheumatoid factor tests) and features suggesting comorbid irAEs (thyroid function tests, pruritus, triamcinolone prescription). Compared to 871 adjudicated ICI patients who did not develop arthritis, ICI-IA patients had higher odds of developing cutaneous (odds ratio [OR]=2.66; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.63-4.35), endocrine (OR=2.09; 95% CI 1.15-3.80), or gastrointestinal (OR=2.88; 95% CI 1.76-4.72) irAEs adjusting for demographics, cancer type, and ICI regimen. Melanoma (OR=1.99; 95% CI 1.08-3.65) and renal cell carcinoma (OR=2.03; 95% CI 1.06-3.84) patients were more likely to develop ICI-IA compared to lung cancer patients. Patients on nivolumab+ipilimumab were more likely to develop ICI-IA compared to patients on pembrolizumab (OR=1.86; 95% CI 1.01-3.43). Discussion: Our machine learning models rapidly identified patients with ICI-IA in EHR data and elucidated clinical features indicative of comorbid irAEs. Patients with ICI-IA were significantly more likely to also develop cutaneous, endocrine, and gastrointestinal irAEs during their clinical course compared to ICI therapy patients without ICI-IA.

Implementing a Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboard in Oncology Telemedicine Encounters: Clinician and Patient Adoption and Acceptability.

PURPOSE: Telemedicine provides numerous benefits to patients, yet effective communication and symptom assessment remain a concern. The recent uptake of telemedicine provided an opportunity to use a newly developed dashboard with patient-reported outcome (PRO) information to enhance communication and shared decision making (SDM) during telemedicine appointments. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to using the dashboard during telemedicine, develop implementation strategies to address barriers, and pilot test use of this dashboard during telemedicine appointments in two practice settings to evaluate acceptability, adoption, fidelity, and effectiveness. METHODS: Patients and clinicians were interviewed to identify determinants to dashboard use in telemedicine. Implementation strategies were designed and refined through iterative feedback from stakeholders. A pilot study of dashboard use was conducted from March to September 2022. Acceptability, adoption, and fidelity were evaluated using mixed methods. SDM was evaluated using the collaboRATE measure. RESULTS: One hundred two patient encounters were evaluated. Most patients (62; 60%) had completed some PRO data at the time of their telemedicine encounter. Most (82; 80%) encounters had clinician confirmation that PRO data had been reviewed; however, collaborative review of the dashboard was documented in only 27%. Degree of SDM was high (mean collaboRATE score 3.40; SD, 0.11 [95% CI, 3.17 to 3.63] out of a maximum score of 4). Implementation strategies focused on patient engagement, education, and remote PRO completion. Clinician-facing strategies included education, practice facilitation, and small tests of change. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that implementation of a PRO-based dashboard into telemedicine appointments was feasible and had acceptable adoption and acceptability by patients and clinicians when several strategies were used to engage end users. Strategies targeting both patients and clinicians are needed to support routine and effective PRO integration in telemedicine.

Phase I/II Trial of Carboplatin, Nab-paclitaxel, and Pembrolizumab for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Hoosier Cancer Research Network LUN13-175.

BACKGROUND: Combination chemotherapy and immunotherapy regimens have significantly improved survival for patients with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Improvements in overall survival (OS) in two separate pembrolizumab trials have demonstrated survival improvements over chemotherapy alone, regardless of PD-L1 status. The optimal chemotherapy backbone for combination with immunotherapy is unknown. We hypothesized nab-paclitaxel may be a well-suited platinum partner to use in combination with checkpoint inhibitor therapy for both adenocarcinoma and squamous histology and conducted a phase I/II trial to assess the efficacy of this regimen in advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Adult patients with previously untreated, stage IIIB/IV NSCLC (any histology) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, any PD-L1 expression, and no EGFR mutations or ALK translocations, received carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 6 day 1, nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 15, and pembrolizumab 200 mg day 1 q21 days for 4 cycles followed by maintenance pembrolizumab q3w. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Forty-six evaluable patients enrolled, 14 in phase I and 32 in phase II, from June 2015 to July 2018 with a median duration of follow-up of 35.4 months. Median time from enrollment to data lock was 42 months. In the ITT population, the ORR was 35%, median PFS was 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6-8.2), and median OS was 15.4 months (CI, 12.4-28.1). There were no statistical differences in PFS or OS by PD-L1 status. The 2- and 3-year landmark OS rates were 33% and 24%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Carboplatin, nab-paclitaxel, and pembrolizumab are a safe and effective regimen for patients with both squamous and nonsquamous NSCLC. Although this study did not meet the prespecified endpoints, the median and landmark OS results are consistent with durable benefit of this regimen as seen in phase III trials for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.

General population reference values for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung and PROMIS-29.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic advances in lung cancer have turned attention toward patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as important clinical outcomes. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) is a common endpoint in lung cancer trials. This study calculated FACT-L reference values for the United States (US) general population. METHODS: Adults from the US general population (N = 2001) were surveyed between September 2020 and November 2020. Surveys contained 126 questions, including the FACT-L [36 items; FACT-G and four subscales (Physical Well-Being [PWB], Social Well-Being [SWB], Emotional Well-Being [EWB], and Functional Well-Being [FWB]) and the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS), and a Trial Outcome Index (TOI)]. Reference values for each FACT-L scale were calculated with means for the total sample and separately for participants with: no comorbidities, COVID-19 as only comorbidity, no COVID-19. RESULTS: In the total sample, the reference scores were as follows: PWB = 23.1; SWB = 16.8; EWB = 18.5; FWB = 17.6; FACT-G = 76.0; LCS = 23.0, TOI = 63.7, and FACT-L Total = 99.0. Scores were lower for those reporting a prior diagnosis of COVID-19, especially for SWB (15.7) and FWB (15.3). SWB scores were lower than previous references values. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide US general adult population reference value set for FACT-L. While some of the subscale results were lower than those found in the reference data for other PROMs, these data were obtained in a more contemporaneous time frame juxtaposed with the COVID-19 pandemic and may represent a new peri-pandemic norm. Thus, these reference values will be useful for future clinical research.

How do patients interpret and respond to a single-item global indicator of cancer treatment tolerability?

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in patient-reported measures of cancer treatment tolerability. A global measure of bother, the FACT GP5 item ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment") is potentially useful for regulatory, research, and clinical use. To understand this item's appropriateness for capturing treatment tolerability, we conducted cognitive interviews on this item with 3 samples of cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with ovarian cancer (Study 1: N = 21; on treatment), lymphoma (Study 2: N = 14; on treatment), and colorectal or lung cancer (Study 3: N = 16; treatment naïve) were interviewed about GP5's understandability and relevance to their treatment side effects. What patients think about when answering GP5 was also assessed. In all studies, the interview included both structured and open-ended questions. Qualitative data were coded to extract themes and responses to structured questions were tallied. RESULTS: Most patients on treatment (Studies 1 and 2) reported that the GP5 item wording is appropriate (88%) and its meaning is clear (97%). They were very confident or confident in their response (97%) and stated that GP5 was relevant to their cancer experience (97%). When answering GP5, patients considered their treatment and specific side effects. A large proportion (40%) of the treatment-naïve (Study 3) patients reported that GP5 was not relevant to their cancer treatment, and the largest proportion responded to GP5 thinking of negative side effect expectancies. CONCLUSION: This study provides assurance that GP5 is a useful indicator of treatment tolerability, and is meaningful to people with cancer, especially once they have started treatment.

Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboards Within the Electronic Health Record to Support Shared Decision-making: Protocol for Co-design and Clinical Evaluation With Patients With Advanced Cancer and Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes-symptoms, treatment side effects, and health-related quality of life-are important to consider in chronic illness care. The increasing availability of health IT to collect patient-reported outcomes and integrate results within the electronic health record provides an unprecedented opportunity to support patients' symptom monitoring, shared decision-making, and effective use of the health care system. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to co-design a dashboard that displays patient-reported outcomes along with other clinical data (eg, laboratory tests, medications, and appointments) within an electronic health record and conduct a longitudinal demonstration trial to evaluate whether the dashboard is associated with improved shared decision-making and disease management outcomes. METHODS: Co-design teams comprising study investigators, patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease, their care partners, and their clinicians will collaborate to develop the dashboard. Investigators will work with clinic staff to implement the co-designed dashboard for clinical testing during a demonstration trial. The primary outcome of the demonstration trial is whether the quality of shared decision-making increases from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal changes in satisfaction with care, self-efficacy in managing treatments and symptoms, health-related quality of life, and use of costly and potentially avoidable health care services. Implementation outcomes (ie, fidelity, appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, reach, adoption, and sustainability) during the co-design process and demonstration trial will also be collected and summarized. RESULTS: The dashboard co-design process was completed in May 2020, and data collection for the demonstration trial is anticipated to be completed by the end of July 2022. The results will be disseminated in at least one manuscript per study objective. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol combines stakeholder engagement, health care coproduction frameworks, and health IT to develop a clinically feasible model of person-centered care delivery. The results will inform our current understanding of how best to integrate patient-reported outcome measures into clinical workflows to improve outcomes and reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and health care systems. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38461.

Top advances in lung cancer, 2021.

Despite a global pandemic that continued to inflict chaos and confusion on the world, resulting in fewer cancer screenings and delayed surgeries, remarkable lung cancer treatment advancements were made in 2021. From immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting to the approval of the first-in-class, highly selective inhibitor of KRAS G12C, these treatment advances have significant clinical impact in patients with lung cancer. LAY SUMMARY: There has been tremendous innovation in the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer. The year 2021 was marked by new approaches to adjuvant therapy and the availability of agents to target new subsets of nonsmall cell lung cancer.

Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities, Version 1.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The aim of the NCCN Guidelines for Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities is to provide guidance on the management of immune-related adverse events resulting from cancer immunotherapy. The NCCN Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities Panel is an interdisciplinary group of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions, consisting of medical and hematologic oncologists with expertise across a wide range of disease sites, and experts from the areas of dermatology, gastroenterology, endocrinology, neurooncology, nephrology, cardio-oncology, ophthalmology, pulmonary medicine, and oncology nursing. The content featured in this issue is an excerpt of the recommendations for managing toxicities related to CAR T-cell therapies and a review of existing evidence. For the full version of the NCCN Guidelines, including recommendations for managing toxicities related to immune checkpoint inhibitors, visit NCCN.org.

Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Small Cell Lung Cancer (SCLC) provide recommended management for patients with SCLC, including diagnosis, primary treatment, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. This selection for the journal focuses on metastatic (known as extensive-stage) SCLC, which is more common than limited-stage SCLC. Systemic therapy alone can palliate symptoms and prolong survival in most patients with extensive-stage disease. Smoking cessation counseling and intervention should be strongly promoted in patients with SCLC and other high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas. The "Summary of the Guidelines Updates" section in the SCLC algorithm outlines the most recent revisions for the 2022 update, which are described in greater detail in this revised Discussion text.

Regulatory T-Cells as an Emerging Barrier to Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Lung Cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment paradigm for lung cancer in recent years. These strategies consist of neutralizing antibodies against negative regulators of immune function, most notably cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1), thereby impeding the ability of tumor cells to escape immune surveillance. Though ICIs have proven a significant advance in lung cancer therapy, overall survival rates remain low, and lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. It is therefore imperative to better understand the barriers to the efficacy of ICIs, particularly additional mechanisms of immunosuppression within the lung cancer microenvironment. Recent evidence suggests that regulatory T-lymphocytes (Tregs) serve as a central mediator of immune function in lung cancer, suppressing sterilizing immunity and contributing to the clinical failure of ICIs. Here, we provide a comprehensive summary of the roles of Tregs in lung cancer pathobiology and therapy, as well as the potential means through which these immunosuppressive mechanisms can be overcome.

Phase II study of pazopanib with oral topotecan in patients with metastatic and non-resectable soft tissue and bone sarcomas.

BACKGROUND: Pazopanib is active in refractory soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) and significantly prolongs PFS. Prior studies of combinations of metronomic topotecan with pazopanib have indicated preclinical evidence of response in patients with sarcoma. METHODS: This prospective, single arm, phase II study evaluated the efficacy of the combination of pazopanib with topotecan in patients with metastatic or unresectable non-adipocytic STS. Furthermore, it incorporated exploratory arms for osteosarcoma and liposarcoma. The primary endpoint was progression-free rate at 12 weeks in the non-adipocytic STS cohort. RESULTS: 57.5% of patients in the non-adipocytic STS cohort were progression free at 12 weeks, which did not meet the primary endpoint of the study (66%). The exploratory osteosarcoma cohort exceeded previously established phase II trial comparator data benchmark of 12% with a PFR at 12 weeks of 69.55%. Treatment with the combination of pazopanib and topotecan was accompanied by a grade 3 or 4 toxicities in most patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective trial in refractory metastatic or unresectable STS and osteosarcoma, the combination of pazopanib with topotecan did not meet its primary endpoint of progression-free rate at 12 weeks. The combination of pazopanib with topotecan was associated with a high degree of toxicity.

The Impact of Beta Blockers on Survival Outcomes in Patients With Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Beta blockers have been associated with anti-tumorigenic effects, potentially by reducing adrenergic-mediated stress responses. Preclinical studies have additionally shown that beta blockade may enhance the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy. We investigated patients with lung cancer who concomitantly used beta blockers and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), with the hypothesis that beta blockade would positively impact clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the health records of 109 patients who were treated at Northwestern University from January 2014 through August 2018 with ICIs for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Comparisons of overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) were performed using Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test, and a univariate regression analysis was performed with a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Among 109 patients treated with ICIs for NSCLC, 28 of them were concomitantly prescribed beta blockers. Use of beta blockers was associated with increased PFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.58 and 95% confidence interval of 0.36 to 0.93. There was not a significant increase in overall survival among patients who took beta blockers (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-1.17). In a regression model, beta blockers were identified as predictive of PFS, as were non-squamous histology, tumor programmed death-ligand 1 positivity, and lower line of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggests beta blocker use may be associated with improved PFS among patients treated with ICIs for NSCLC. This was a small study, and these findings should be further validated in prospective clinical studies.

Preexisting melanoma and hematological malignancies, prognosis, and timing to solid organ transplantation: A consensus expert opinion statement.

Patients undergoing evaluation for solid organ transplantation (SOT) frequently have a history of malignancy. Only patients with treated cancer are considered for SOT but the benefits of transplantation need to be balanced against the risk of tumor recurrence, taking into consideration the potential effects of immunosuppression. Prior guidelines on timing to transplant in patients with a prior treated malignancy do not account for current staging, disease biology, or advances in cancer treatments. To update these recommendations, the American Society of Transplantation (AST) facilitated a consensus workshop to comprehensively review contemporary literature regarding cancer therapies, cancer stage specific prognosis, the kinetics of cancer recurrence, as well as the limited data on the effects of immunosuppression on cancer-specific outcomes. This document contains prognosis, treatment, and transplant recommendations for melanoma and hematological malignancies. Given the limited data regarding the risk of cancer recurrence in transplant recipients, the goal of the AST-sponsored conference and the consensus documents produced are to provide expert opinion recommendations that help in the evaluation of patients with a history of a pretransplant malignancy for transplant candidacy.

Pretransplant solid organ malignancy and organ transplant candidacy: A consensus expert opinion statement.

Patients undergoing evaluation for solid organ transplantation (SOT) often have a history of malignancy. Although the cancer has been treated in these patients, the benefits of transplantation need to be balanced against the risk of tumor recurrence, especially in the setting of immunosuppression. Prior guidelines of when to transplant patients with a prior treated malignancy do not take in to account current staging, disease biology, or advances in cancer treatments. To develop contemporary recommendations, the American Society of Transplantation held a consensus workshop to perform a comprehensive review of current literature regarding cancer therapies, cancer stage-specific prognosis, the kinetics of cancer recurrence, and the limited data on the effects of immunosuppression on cancer-specific outcomes. This document contains prognosis based on contemporary treatment and transplant recommendations for breast, colorectal, anal, urological, gynecological, and nonsmall cell lung cancers. This conference and consensus documents aim to provide recommendations to assist in the evaluation of patients for SOT given a history of a pretransplant malignancy.