Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer.

Importance: Since 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability. Objective: To determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023. Exposure: CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Questions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category. Results: There were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.

Diagnostic and therapeutic delays in lung cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a single center experience at a German Cancer center.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had negative drawbacks on the healthcare system worldwide and on individuals other than those directly affected by the virus. Delays in cancer therapy and diagnosis have been reported in the literature. We hypothesized similar effects on patients with lung cancer at our center. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of patients referred to our center with newly diagnosed lung cancer from 2018 to 2022. We considered distribution of UICC Stages and time from case presentation in our multidisciplinary tumor board or from therapeutic indication from treating physician to therapy initiation (surgery, systemic therapies and radiation) to define delays in diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: 1020 patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer were referred to our center from 2018 to 2022, with a median of 206 cases yearly (range: 200-208). Cases with Stage IV in 2020-2022 were significantly higher than in 2018-2019 (57% vs. 46%, p = 0,001). 228 operative resections took place between 2018 and 2022, 100 from January 2018 to February 2020 and 128 from March 2020 to December 2022. Median time from presentation in our tumor board to resection was also significantly longer after the beginning of the pandemic than before (22 days vs. 15,5 days, p = 0,013). No significant delays were observed for administration of systemic treatment and initiation of radiation. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic higher disease stages were reported for patients with lung cancer, yet there were no clinically relevant delays in treatment. In the context of the post-covid era new diagnostic strategies are necessary to facilitate early diagnosis of lung cancer. Despite the pandemic, for patients with suspicious symptoms prompt access to healthcare facilities is essential for early diagnosis.

Evaluation of a deep image-to-image network (DI2IN) auto-segmentation algorithm across a network of cancer centers.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE S: Due to manual OAR contouring challenges, various automatic contouring solutions have been introduced. Historically, common clinical auto-segmentation algorithms used were atlas-based, which required maintaining a library of self-made contours. Searching the collection was computationally intensive and could take several minutes to complete. Deep learning approaches have shown significant benefits compared to atlas-based methods in improving segmentation accuracy and efficiency in auto-segmentation algorithms. This work represents the first multi-institutional study to describe and evaluate an AI algorithm for the auto-segmentation of organs at risk (OARs) based on a deep image-to-image network (DI2IN). MATERIALS/METHODS: The AI-Rad Companion Organs RT (AIRC) algorithm (Siemens Healthineers, Erlangen, Germany) uses a two-step approach for segmentation. In the first step, the target organ region in the optimal input image is extracted using a trained deep reinforcement learning network (DRL), which is then used as input to create the contours in the second step based on DI2IN. The study was initially designed as a prospective single-center evaluation. The automated contours generated by AIRC were evaluated by three experienced board-certified radiation oncologists using a four-point scale where 4 is clinically usable and 1 requires re-contouring. After seeing favorable results in a single-center pilot study, we decided to expand the study to six additional institutions, encompassing eight additional evaluators for a total of 11 physician evaluators across seven institutions. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-six patients and 1366 contours were prospectively evaluated. The five most commonly contoured organs were the lung (136 contours, average rating = 4.0), spinal cord (106 contours, average rating = 3.1), eye globe (80 contours, average rating = 3.9), lens (77 contours, average rating = 3.9), and optic nerve (75 contours, average rating = 4.0). The average rating per evaluator per contour was 3.6. On average, 124 contours were evaluated by each evaluator. 65% of the contours were rated as 4, and 31% were rated as 3. Only 4% of contours were rated as 1 or 2. Thirty-three organs were evaluated in the study, with 19 structures having a 3.5 or above average rating (ribs, abdominopelvic cavity, skeleton, larynx, lung, aorta, brachial plexus, lens, eye globe, glottis, heart, parotid glands, bladder, kidneys, supraglottic larynx, submandibular glands, esophagus, optic nerve, oral cavity) and the remaining organs having a rating of 3.0 or greater (female breast, proximal femur, seminal vesicles, rectum, sternum, brainstem, prostate, brain, lips, mandible, liver, optic chiasm, spinal cord, spleen). No organ had an average rating below 3. CONCLUSION: AIRC performed well with greater than 95% of contours accepted by treating physicians with no or minor edits. It supported a fully automated workflow with the potential for time savings and increased standardization with the use of AI-powered algorithms for high-quality OAR contouring.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors-Induced Endocrinopathies: Assessment, Management and Monitoring in a Comprehensive Cancer Centre.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence, presentation, frequency and management of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI)-related endocrinopathies in a comprehensive cancer centre in Oman, particularly with programme death 1/programme death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors. BACKGROUND: A high number of patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for the management of solid tumours developed endocrinopathies. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients admitted to Sultan Qaboos Comprehensive Cancer Care and Research Centre (SQCCCRC) from August 2021 to December 2022. All adults diagnosed with solid cancers and have received at least one dose of ICIs were included. Patients with incomplete data were excluded from the analysis. Data regarding the ICI-induced endocrinopathy were collected. RESULTS: A total of 139 patients were included in the study of which 58% were females. The median age of the cohort was 56 years. The incidence of endocrine-related adverse events was 28%. The mean time for the development of endocrine adverse events after treatment initiation was 4.1 ± 2.8 months. Of the patients who developed toxicity, 90% had hypothyroidism. Ten patients developed hyperthyroidism, two patients were diagnosed with secondary adrenal insufficiency/hypophysitis and one patient developed Type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM). Using univariable logistic regression weight and body mass index (BMI) significantly impacted the development of endocrine immune-related adverse events (irAEs). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study from the Sultanate of Oman to assess PD-1/PDL-1 ICI-induced endocrinopathies. The most common endocrine adverse event is thyroid dysfunction, mainly hypothyroidism followed by hyperthyroidism. Hypophysitis, primary adrenal insufficiency and CIADM occur less frequently, but have a more significant effect on the patient's health. The treating physician should be aware of ICI-induced endocrinopathies, screening and treatment. Furthermore, our study showed that patients with a higher BMI have a greater risk of developing irAES. Further studies are needed to establish the predictors of endocrine irAEs.

Investigation of antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, risk factors and their impact on mortality in cancer patients at a tertiary care cancer hospital- A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are vulnerable to infections due to immunosuppression caused by cancer itself and its treatment. The emergence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria further complicates the treatment of infections and increases the mortality and hospital stays. This study aimed to investigate the microbial spectrum, antimicrobial resistance patterns, risk factors, and their impact on clinical outcomes in these patients. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted at a tertiary care cancer hospital in Patna, Bihar, India, which included cancer patients aged 18 years and older with positive microbial cultures. RESULTS: This study analysed 440 patients, 53% (234) of whom were females, with an average age of 49.27 (± 14.73) years. A total of 541 isolates were identified, among which 48.01% (242) were multidrug resistant (MDR), 29.76% (150) were extensively drug resistant (XDR), and 19.84% (112) were sensitive. This study revealed that patients who underwent surgery, chemotherapy, were hospitalized, had a history of antibiotic exposure, and had severe neutropenia were more susceptible to MDR and XDR infections. The average hospital stays were 16.90 (± 10.23), 18.30 (± 11.14), and 22.83 (± 13.22) days for patients with sensitive, MDR, and XDR infections, respectively. The study also revealed overall 30-day mortality rate of 31.81% (140), whereas the MDR and XDR group exhibited 38.92% and 50.29% rates of 30-day mortality respectively (P < 0.001). Possible risk factors identified that could lead to mortality, were cancer recurrence, sepsis, chemotherapy, indwelling invasive devices such as foley catheter, Central venous catheter and ryles tube, MASCC score (< 21) and pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the necessity for personalized interventions among cancer patients, such as identifying patients at risk of infection, judicious antibiotic use, infection control measures, and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs to reduce the rate of antimicrobial-resistant infection and associated mortality and hospital length of stay.

Maximizing the impact of community outreach and engagement at US cancer centers.

In 2016, the National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers funding opportunity was expanded to require community outreach and engagement (COE), with explicit attention to cancer inequities, community engagement, and implementation science in the centers' catchment areas. Resource limitations constrain these activities, and we conducted a qualitative study to understand what COE leaders see as critical needs and supports to increase impact. In the spring of 2021, we interviewed leaders from 56 of 64 cancer centers with COE programs and analyzed the data using a reflexive, thematic approach. We identified 6 categories of needs: 1) centering community engagement among leadership and non-COE researchers, 2) increasing training on implementation science/practice, 3) improving integration into cross-center networks, 4) increasing funding for staffing and sustainment, 5) revising funder guidance and reporting, and 6) facilitating data utilization. COEs need long-term, systems-focused investments to engage communities, increase research translation, and advance health equity.

The WERA cancer center matrix: Strategic management of patient access to precision oncology in a large and mostly rural area of Germany.

PURPOSE: Providing patient access to precision oncology (PO) is a major challenge of clinical oncologists. Here, we provide an easily transferable model from strategic management science to assess the outreach of a cancer center. METHODS: As members of the German WERA alliance, the cancer centers in Würzburg, Erlangen, Regensburg and Augsburg merged care data regarding their geographical impact. Specifically, we examined the provenance of patients from WERA´s molecular tumor boards (MTBs) between 2020 and 2022 (n = 2243). As second dimension, we added the provenance of patients receiving general cancer care by WERA. Clustering our catchment area along these two dimensions set up a four-quadrant matrix consisting of postal code areas with referrals towards WERA. These areas were re-identified on a map of the Federal State of Bavaria. RESULTS: The WERA matrix overlooked an active screening area of 821 postal code areas - representing about 50 % of Bavaria´s spatial expansion and more than six million inhabitants. The WERA matrix identified regions successfully connected to our outreach structures in terms of subsidiarity - with general cancer care mainly performed locally but PO performed in collaboration with WERA. We also detected postal code areas with a potential PO backlog - characterized by high levels of cancer care performed by WERA and low levels or no MTB representation. CONCLUSIONS: The WERA matrix provided a transparent portfolio of postal code areas, which helped assessing the geographical impact of our PO program. We believe that its intuitive principle can easily be transferred to other cancer centers.

Travel-time barriers to specialized cancer care for adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies demonstrate that 20%-50% of adolescents and young adults (age 15-39 years) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) receive care at specialty cancer centers, yet a survival benefit has been observed for patients at these sites. Our objective was to identify patients at risk of severe geographic barriers to specialty cancer center-level care. METHODS: We used data from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries Cancer in North America database to identify adolescent and young adult ALL patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2016 across 43 US states. We calculated driving distance and travel time from counties where participants lived to the closest specialty cancer center sites. We then used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the relationship between sociodemographic characteristics of counties where adolescent and young adult ALL patients resided and the need to travel more than 1 hour to obtain care at a specialty cancer center. RESULTS: Among 11 813 adolescent and young adult ALL patients, 43.4% were aged 25-39 years, 65.5% were male, 32.9% were Hispanic, and 28.7% had public insurance. We found 23.6% of adolescent and young adult ALL patients from 60.8% of included US counties would be required to travel more than 1 hour one way to access a specialty cancer center. Multivariable models demonstrate that patients living in counties that are nonmetropolitan, with lower levels of educational attainment, with higher income inequality, with lower internet access, located in primary care physician shortage areas, and with fewer hospitals providing chemotherapy services are more likely to travel more than 1 hour to access a specialty cancer center. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial travel-related barriers exist to accessing care at specialty cancer centers across the United States, particularly for patients living in areas with greater concentrations of historically marginalized communities.

Analysis of travel burden and travel support among patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center in the Southeastern United States.

INTRODUCTION: Travel burden leads to worse cancer outcomes. Understanding travel burden and the level and types of travel support provided at large cancer centers is critical for developing systematic programs to alleviate travel burden. This study analyzed patients who received travel assistance, including their travel burden, types and amount of travel support received, and factors that influenced these outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed 1063 patients who received travel support from 1/1/2021 to 5/1/2023 at Winship Cancer Institute, in which ~18,000 patients received cancer care annually. Travel burden was measured using distance and time to Winship sites from patients' residential address. Travel support was evaluated using the monetary value of total travel support and type of support received. Patients' sociodemographic and clinical factors were extracted from electronic medical records. Area-level socioeconomic disadvantage was coded by the Area Deprivation Index using patient ZIP codes. RESULTS: On average, patients traveled 57.2 miles and 67.3 min for care and received $74.1 in total for travel support. Most patients (88.3%) received travel-related funds (e.g., gas cards), 5% received direct rides (e.g., Uber), 3.8% received vouchers for taxi or public transportation, and 3% received combined travel support. Male and White had longer travel distance and higher travel time than female and other races, respectively. Patients residing in more disadvantaged neighborhoods had an increased travel distance and travel time. Other races and Hispanics received more travel support ($) than Black and White patients or non-Hispanics. Patients with higher travel distance and travel time were more like to receive travel-related financial support. CONCLUSION: Among patients who received travel support, those from socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods had greater travel burden. Patients with greater travel burden were more likely to receive travel funds versus other types of support. Further understanding of the impact of travel burden and travel support on cancer outcomes is needed.

[Community-Based Comprehensive Care System and Cancer Treatment Coordination System from the Viewpoint of Designated Cancer Hospitals].

In promoting the community-based comprehensive care system, designated cancer hospitals are required to provide decision- making support for treatment and care in the face of increasingly sophisticated and diverse treatments, to promote hospitalization and discharge support to shorten the length of hospital stay, and to implement multidisciplinary cooperation for coordination of treatment and care due to the increasing number of elderly and multi-morbidity cancer patients. However, it is difficult at present to link and integrate designated cancer hospitals, which are required to provide cancer treatment in each secondary medical care area, and community comprehensive care systems, which provide medical care and care to support daily life and autonomy and independence of patients and their families in the patients' living areas. In the future, through the promotion of networking and educational activities for healthcare professionals, as demonstrated in previous studies, it will be necessary to establish a system in which cancer treatment and community-based comprehensive care systems are linked to provide high-quality medical care and care to cancer patients.

Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

Real-World Impact of an In-House Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase (DPYD) Genotype Test on Fluoropyrimidine Dosing, Toxicities, and Hospitalizations at a Multisite Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: Fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity and mortality risk increases significantly in patients carrying certain DPYD genetic variants with standard dosing. We implemented DPYD genotyping at a multisite cancer center and evaluated its impact on dosing, toxicity, and hospitalization. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, patients receiving (reactive) or planning to receive (pretreatment) fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy were genotyped for five DPYD variants as standard practice per provider discretion. The primary end point was the proportion of variant carriers receiving fluoropyrimidine modifications. Secondary end points included mean relative dose intensity, fluoropyrimidine-related grade 3+ toxicities, and hospitalizations. Fisher's exact test compared toxicity and hospitalization rates between pretreatment carriers, reactive carriers, and wild-type patients. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with toxicity and hospitalization risk. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated time to event of first grade 3+ toxicity and hospitalization. RESULTS: Of the 757 patients who received DPYD genotyping (median age 63, 54% male, 74% White, 19% Black, 88% GI malignancy), 45 (5.9%) were heterozygous carriers. Fluoropyrimidine was modified in 93% of carriers who started treatment. In 442 patients with 3-month follow-up, 64%, 31%, and 30% of reactive carriers, pretreatment carriers, and wild-type patients had grade 3+ toxicity, respectively (P = .085); 64%, 25%, and 13% were hospitalized (P < .001). Reactive carriers had 10-fold higher odds of hospitalization compared with wild-type patients (P = .001), whereas no significant difference was noted between pretreatment carriers and wild-type patients. Time-to-event of toxicity and hospitalization were significantly different between genotype groups (P < .001), with reactive carriers having the earliest onset and highest incidence. CONCLUSION: DPYD genotyping prompted fluoropyrimidine modifications in most carriers. Pretreatment testing reduced toxicities and hospitalizations compared with reactive testing, thus normalizing the risk to that of wild-type patients, and should be considered standard practice.

Changes in New Patient Consultations During the COVID-19 Pandemic at a Canadian Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 pandemic-related disruptions on cancer services is emerging. We evaluated the impact of the first 2 years of the pandemic on new patient consultations for all cancers at a comprehensive cancer center within a publicly funded health care system and assessed whether there was evidence of stage shift. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using the Princess Margaret Cancer Registry. New consultations with medical, radiation, or surgical oncology were categorized by year and quarter. Logistic regression was used to assess the effect of period before and during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer stage at consultation, adjusting for age, sex, and diagnosis location (our hospital network vs elsewhere). RESULTS: In all, 53,759 new patient consultations occurred from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022. After the pandemic was declared, there was a decrease in all types of consultations by 43.3% in the second quarter of 2020, and referral volumes did not recover during the first year. There was no evidence of stage shift for all cancer types during the later quarters of the pandemic for the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: New patient consultations decreased across cancer stages, referral type, and most disease sites at our tertiary cancer center. We did not observe evidence of stage shift in this population. Further research is needed to determine whether this reflects the resilience of our health care system in maintaining cancer services or a delay in the presentation of advanced cancer cases. These data are important for shaping future cancer care delivery and recovery strategies.

INCA DE PORTAS ABERTAS 2023: Enfermagem, Fisioterapia e Nutricionista

O INCA de Portas Abertas irá apresentar o Instituto, a atuação de profissionais de diferentes áreas do INCA e de seus alunos dos cursos técnicos, programas de residência, mestrado e doutorado, divulgando relevantes informações sobre saúde e oncologia para profissionais e estudantes que possuem interesse nos programas de ensino da instituição.

Evolution of community outreach and engagement at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers, an evolving journey.

Cancer mortality rates have declined during the last 28 years, but that process is not equitably shared. Disparities in cancer outcomes by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation and gender identity, and geographic location persist across the cancer care continuum. Consequently, community outreach and engagement (COE) efforts within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center (NCI-DCC) catchment areas have intensified during the last 10 years as has the emphasis on COE and catchment areas in NCI's Cancer Center Support Grant applications. This review article attempts to provide a historic perspective of COE within NCI-DCCs. Improving COE has long been an important initiative for the NCI, but it was not until 2012 and 2016 that NCI-DCCs were required to define their catchment areas rigorously and to provide specific descriptions of COE interventions, respectively. NCI-DCCs had previously lacked adequate focus on the inclusion of historically marginalized patients in cancer innovation efforts. Integrating COE efforts throughout the research and operational aspects of the cancer centers, at both the patient and community levels, will expand the footprint of COE efforts within NCI-DCCs. Achieving this change requires sustained commitment by the centers to adjust their activities and improve access and outcomes for historically marginalized communities.

Advantages and Challenges of Total-Body PET/CT at a Tertiary Cancer Center: Insights from Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center.

In recent decades, researchers worldwide have directed their efforts toward enhancing the quality of PET imaging. The detection sensitivity and image resolution of conventional PET scanners with a short axial field of view have been constrained, leading to a suboptimal signal-to-noise ratio. The advent of long-axial-field-of-view PET scanners, exemplified by the uEXPLORER system, marked a significant advancement. Total-body PET imaging possesses an extensive scan range of 194 cm and an ultrahigh detection sensitivity, and it has emerged as a promising avenue for improving image quality while reducing the administered radioactivity dose and shortening acquisition times. In this review, we elucidate the application of the uEXPLORER system at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, including the disease distribution, patient selection workflow, scanning protocol, and several enhanced clinical applications, along with encountered challenges. We anticipate that this review will provide insights into routine clinical practice and ultimately improve patient care.

Implementation of quality indicators for vulvar cancer in gynaecological cancer centres certified by the German Cancer Society (DKG).

PURPOSE: In 2018, the first guideline-based quality indicators (QI) for vulvar cancer were implemented in the data-sheets of certified gynaecological cancer centres. The certification process includes guideline-based QIs as a fundamental component. These indicators are specifically designed to evaluate the level of care provided within the centres. This article aims to give an overview of the developing process of guideline based-QIs for women with vulvar cancer and presents the QIs results from the certified gynaecological cancer centres. METHODS: The QIs were derived in a standardized multiple step process during the update of the 2015 S2k guideline "Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-Up Care of Vulvar Cancer and its Precursors" (registry-number: no. 015/059) and are based on strong recommendations. RESULTS: In total, there are eight guideline-based QIs for vulvar cancer. Four QIs are part of the certification process. In the treatment year 2021, 2.466 cases of vulvar cancer were treated in 177 centres. The target values in the centres for pathology reports on tumour resection and lymphadenectomy as well as sentinel lymph nodes have increased since the beginning of the certification process and have been above 90% over the past three treatment years (2019-2021). DISCUSSION: QIs based on strong guideline recommendations, play a crucial role in measuring and allowing to quantify essential aspects of patient care. By utilizing QIs, centres are able to identify areas for process optimization and draw informed conclusions. Over the years the quality of treatment of vulvar cancer patients measured by the QIs was improved. The certification system is continuously reviewed to enhance patient care even further by using the outcomes from QIs revaluation.

Changing patterns of bacterial profile and antimicrobial resistance in high-risk patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at a tertiary oncology hospital.

The widespread evolution of phenotypic resistance in clinical isolates over the years, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic onset, has exacerbated the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance. This study aimed to explore changes in bacterial infection patterns and antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study involved the periods before and during COVID-19: the pre-pandemic and pandemic eras. The surveillance results of bacterial isolates causing infections in cancer patients at an Egyptian tertiary oncology hospital were retrieved. The Vitek®2 or Phoenix systems were utilized for species identification and susceptibility testing. Statistical analyses were performed comparing microbiological trends before and during the pandemic. Out of 2856 bacterial isolates, Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) predominated (69.7%), and Gram-positive bacteria (GPB) comprised 30.3% of isolates. No significant change was found in GNB prevalence during the pandemic (P = 0.159). Elevated rates of Klebsiella and Pseudomonas species were demonstrated during the pandemic, as was a decrease in E. coli and Acinetobacter species (P < 0.001, 0.018, < 0.001, and 0.046, respectively) in hematological patients. In surgical patients, Enterobacteriaceae significantly increased (P = 0.012), while non-fermenters significantly decreased (P = 0.007). GPB species from either hematological or surgical wards exhibited no notable changes during the pandemic. GNB resistance increased in hematological patients to carbapenems, amikacin, and tigecycline and decreased in surgical patients to amikacin and cefoxitin (P < 0.001, 0.010, < 0.001, < 0.001, and 0.016, respectively). The study highlights notable shifts in the microbial landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the prevalence and resistance patterns of GNB in hematological and surgical wards.

Why location matters: associations between county-level characteristics and availability of National Cancer Oncology Research Program and National Cancer Institute sites.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with cancer seek care at community oncology sites; however, most clinical trials are available at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated sites. Although the NCI National Cancer Oncology Research Program (NCORP) was designed to address this problem, little is known about the county-level characteristics of NCORP site locations. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis determined the association between availability of NCORP or NCI sites and county-level characteristic theme percentile scores from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index themes. Health Resources and Services Administration's Area Health Resource Files were used to determine contiguous counties. We estimated risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using modified Poisson regression models to evaluate the association between county-level characteristics and site availability within singular and singular and contiguous counties. RESULTS: Of 3141 included counties, 14% had an NCORP, 2% had an NCI, and 1% had both sites. Among singular counties, for a standard deviation increase in the racial and ethnic theme score, there was a 22% higher likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 1.10 to 1.36); for a standard deviation increase in the socioeconomic status theme score, there was a 24% lower likelihood of NCORP site availability (95% CI = 0.67 to 0.87). Associations were of smaller magnitude when including contiguous counties. NCI sites were located in more vulnerable counties. CONCLUSIONS: NCORP sites were more often in racially diverse counties and less often in socioeconomically vulnerable counties. Research is needed to understand how clinical trial representation will increase if NCORP sites strategically increase their locations in more vulnerable counties.