RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
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.â¯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.
Asunto(s)
Hospitalización , Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Anciano , Neoplasias/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias/mortalidad , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidad , Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Neoplasias Gastrointestinales/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias Gastrointestinales/mortalidadRESUMEN
PURPOSE: National estimates of cancer clinical trial participation are nearly two decades old and have focused solely on enrollment to treatment trials, which does not reflect the willingness of patients to contribute to other elements of clinical research. We determined inclusive, contemporary estimates of clinical trial participation for adults with cancer using a national sample of data from the Commission on Cancer (CoC). METHODS: The data were obtained from accreditation information submitted by the 1,200 CoC programs, which represent more than 70% of all cancer cases diagnosed in the United States each year. Deidentified, institution-level aggregate counts of annual enrollment to treatment, biorepository, diagnostic, economic, genetic, prevention, quality-of-life (QOL), and registry studies were examined. Overall, study-type estimates for the period 2013-2017 were estimated. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to account for missing data, with summary estimates calculated separately by type of program (eg, National Cancer Institute [NCI]-designated cancer centers) and pooled. RESULTS: The overall estimated patient participation rate to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%. Patients with cancer participated in a wide variety of other studies, including biorepository (12.9%), registry (7.3%), genetic (3.6%), QOL (2.8%), diagnostic (2.5%), and economic (2.4%) studies. Treatment trial enrollment was 21.6% at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers, 5.4% at academic (non-NCI-designated) comprehensive cancer programs, 5.7% at integrated network cancer programs, and 4.1% at community programs. One in five patients (21.9%) participated in one or more cancer clinical research studies. CONCLUSION: In a first-time use of national accreditation information from the CoC, enrollment to cancer treatment trials was 7.1%, higher than historical estimates of <5%. Patients participated in a diverse set of other study types. Contributions of adult patients with cancer to clinical research is more common than previously understood.
Asunto(s)
Acreditación , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Neoplasias , Participación del Paciente , Humanos , Neoplasias/terapia , Estados Unidos , Participación del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Selección de Paciente , Adulto , Investigación Biomédica , Femenino , Masculino , Sistema de Registros , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
Delivery of high-quality, evidence-based oral care for those living with and beyond cancer needed!
Asunto(s)
Atención Odontológica , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Neoplasias , Humanos , Neoplasias/terapia , Supervivientes de Cáncer , Salud BucalRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Capecitabine is an oral chemotherapy used to treat many gastrointestinal cancers. Its complex dosing and narrow therapeutic index make medication adherence and toxicity management crucial for quality care. METHODS: We conducted a pilot study of PENNY-GI, a mobile phone text messaging-based chatbot that leverages algorithmic surveys and natural language processing to promote medication adherence and toxicity management among patients with gastrointestinal cancers on capecitabine. Eligibility initially included all capecitabine-containing regimens but was subsequently restricted to capecitabine monotherapy because of challenges in integrating PENNY-GI with radiation and intravenous chemotherapy schedules. We used design thinking principles and real-time data on safety, accuracy, and usefulness to make iterative refinements to PENNY-GI with the goal of minimizing the proportion of text messaging exchanges with incorrect medication or symptom management recommendations. All patients were invited to participate in structured exit interviews to provide feedback on PENNY-GI. RESULTS: We enrolled 40 patients (median age 64.5 years, 52.5% male, 62.5% White, 55.0% with colorectal cancer, 50.0% on capecitabine monotherapy). We identified 284 of 3,895 (7.3%) medication-related and 13 of 527 (2.5%) symptom-related text messaging exchanges with incorrect recommendations. In exit interviews with 24 patients, participants reported finding the medication reminders reliable and user-friendly, but the symptom management tool was too simplistic to be helpful. CONCLUSION: Although PENNY-GI provided accurate recommendations in >90% of text messaging exchanges, we identified multiple limitations with respect to the intervention's generalizability, usefulness, and scalability. Lessons from this pilot study should inform future efforts to develop and implement digital health interventions in oncology.
Asunto(s)
Teléfono Celular , Neoplasias Gastrointestinales , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Femenino , Capecitabina/farmacología , Capecitabina/uso terapéutico , Proyectos Piloto , Cumplimiento de la MedicaciónRESUMEN
Recognizing the rising incidence, prevalence, and mortality of cancer in low- and middle-resource settings, as well as the increasingly international profile of its membership, ASCO has committed to expanding its engagement at a global level. In 2017, the ASCO Academic Global Oncology Task Force sought to define the potential role for ASCO in supporting global oncology as an academic field. A set of recommendations to advance the status of global oncology as an academic discipline were created through a consensus-based process involving participation by a diverse group of global oncology and global health practitioners; these recommendations were then published. The recommendations included developing a set of global oncology competencies for trainees and faculty interested in a career in academic global oncology. Here, we describe the global oncology competencies developed by this task force. These competencies consist of knowledge and skills needed in general global health as well as cancer-specific care and research, including understanding global cancer health disparities, defining unique resources and needs in low- and middle-resource settings, and promoting international collaboration. Although the competencies were originally developed for US training programs, they are intended to be widely applicable globally. By formalizing the training of oncologists and supporting career pathways in the field of global oncology, we can make progress in achieving global equity in cancer care and control.
Asunto(s)
Oncología Médica , Neoplasias , Humanos , Neoplasias/terapiaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Narrative communication has demonstrated effectiveness in promoting positive health behaviours, delivering support and coping with complex decision-making. Formal research evaluating this intervention for cancer treatment in Africa is lacking. We aimed to develop, and assess acceptability and usability of survivor video narrative interventions for breast cancer treatment in Botswana. DESIGN: A pilot study design. SETTING: Single-centre, tertiary hospital, sub-Saharan Africa. PARTICIPANTS: Eight women, ≥18 years old, with stages I-III breast cancer were enrolled for the video intervention. 106 women, ≥18 years old, with stages I-IV breast cancer viewed the narrative videos and 98 completed the acceptability and usability surveys. INTERVENTION: Survivor narrative videos were developed using the theory of planned behaviour and using a purposive sample of Batswana, Setswana-speaking, breast cancer survivors, who had completed systemic treatment and surgery with high rates of adherence to the prescribed treatment plan. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: We assessed acceptability and usability among prospectively enrolled patients presenting for routine breast cancer care at Princess Marina Hospital in Botswana, using a 13-item survey. RESULTS: Participants expressed high acceptability and usability of the videos, including 99% (97/98) who strongly agreed/agreed that the video presentations were easy to understand, 92% (90/98) who would recommend to other survivors and 94% (92/98) who wished there were more videos. Additionally, 89% (87/98) agreed or strongly agreed that the one-on-one instruction on how to use the tablet was helpful and 87% (85/98) that the video player was easy to use. CONCLUSION: Culturally appropriate survivor video narratives have high acceptability and usability among patients with breast cancer in Botswana. There is an opportunity to leverage this intervention in routine breast cancer care for treatment support. Future studies will test the implementation and effectiveness of narrative videos on a wider scale, including for patients being treated for other cancers.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias de la Mama , Humanos , Femenino , Adolescente , Neoplasias de la Mama/terapia , Proyectos Piloto , Botswana , Narración , SobrevivientesRESUMEN
Electronic health records (EHRs) are a significant advancement over paper records. However, the full potential of EHRs for improving care quality, patient outcomes, surveillance, and research in cancer care is yet to be realized. The organic evolution of EHRs has resulted in a number of unanticipated consequences including increased time spent by clinicians interfacing with the EHR for daily workflows. Patient access to clinicians and their records has been an important advancement in patient-centered care; however, this has brought to light additional gaps and challenges in EHRs meeting these needs. A significant challenge for EHR design and physician workflows is how best to meet the complex goals and priorities of various stakeholders including providers, researchers, patients, health systems, payors, and regulatory agencies. The National Cancer Policy Forum convened a 2022 workshop, "Innovations in Electronic Health Records for Oncology Care, Research and Surveillance," to address these challenges and to facilitate collaboration across all user groups with the goal of re-envisioning EHRs that will better support shared goals of improving patient outcomes and advancing cancer care and research without overburdening clinicians with administrative tasks. Here, we summarize the current EHR ecosystem as discussed at the workshop and highlight opportunities to improve EHR contributions to oncology evidence and care.
RESUMEN
Drawing from insights from communication science and behavioral economics, the University of Pennsylvania Telehealth Research Center of Excellence (Penn TRACE) is designing and testing telehealth strategies with the potential to transform access to care, care quality, outcomes, health equity, and health-care efficiency across the cancer care continuum, with an emphasis on understanding mechanisms of action. Penn TRACE uses lung cancer care as an exemplar model for telehealth across the care continuum, from screening to treatment to survivorship. We bring together a diverse and interdisciplinary team of international experts and incorporate rapid-cycle approaches and mixed methods evaluation in all center projects. Our initiatives include a pragmatic sequential multiple assignment randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of telehealth strategies to increase shared decision-making for lung cancer screening and 2 pilot projects to test the effectiveness of telehealth to improve cancer care, identify multilevel mechanisms of action, and lay the foundation for future pragmatic trials. Penn TRACE aims to produce new fundamental knowledge and advance telehealth science in cancer care at Penn and nationally.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pulmonares , Telemedicina , Humanos , Pennsylvania , Neoplasias Pulmonares/terapia , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Universidades , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Proyectos PilotoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Less than half of the patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergo comprehensive molecular testing. We designed an electronic medical record (EMR)-based "nudge intervention" to prompt plasma-based molecular testing at the time of initial medical oncology consultation. METHODS: A nonrandomized prospective trial was conducted at the University of Pennsylvania's academic practice and two affiliated community practices. Molecular genotyping was performed by tissue- and/or plasma-based next generation sequencing methods. Comprehensive testing was defined as testing for EGFR, ALK, BRAF, ROS1, MET, RET, KRAS, and NTRK. Guideline-concordant treatment was defined as the use of the appropriate first-line (1L) therapy as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Proportion of patients with comprehensive molecular genotyping results available at any time, molecular results available before 1L therapy, and guideline-concordant 1L treatment were compared between the preintervention and postintervention cohorts using Fisher's exact test or Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty-three patients were included, 376 in the preintervention cohort and 157 in the postintervention cohort. After implementation of the EMR-based nudge, a higher proportion of patients underwent comprehensive molecular testing in the postintervention versus the preintervention cohort (100% v 88%, P = <.001), had results of comprehensive molecular testing available before initiating 1L treatment (97.3% v 91.6%, P = .026), and received NCCN guideline-concordant care (89.8% v 78.2%, P = .035). CONCLUSION: Across three practice sites in a large health system, implementation of a provider team-focused EMR-based nudge intervention was feasible, and led to a higher number of patients with NSCLC undergoing comprehensive molecular genotyping. These findings demonstrate that behavioral nudges can promote molecular testing and should be studied further as a tool to improve guideline-concordant care in both community and academic sites.
RESUMEN
Importance: Serious illness conversations (SICs) that elicit patients' values, goals, and care preferences reduce anxiety and depression and improve quality of life, but occur infrequently for patients with cancer. Behavioral economic implementation strategies (nudges) directed at clinicians and/or patients may increase SIC completion. Objective: To test the independent and combined effects of clinician and patient nudges on SIC completion. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized trial was conducted from September 7, 2021, to March 11, 2022, at oncology clinics across 4 hospitals and 6 community sites within a large academic health system in Pennsylvania and New Jersey among 163 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians and 4450 patients with cancer at high risk of mortality (≥10% risk of 180-day mortality). Interventions: Clinician clusters and patients were independently randomized to receive usual care vs nudges, resulting in 4 arms: (1) active control, operating for 2 years prior to trial start, consisting of clinician text message reminders to complete SICs for patients at high mortality risk; (2) clinician nudge only, consisting of active control plus weekly peer comparisons of clinician-level SIC completion rates; (3) patient nudge only, consisting of active control plus a preclinic electronic communication designed to prime patients for SICs; and (4) combined clinician and patient nudges. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a documented SIC in the electronic health record within 6 months of a participant's first clinic visit after randomization. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis at the patient level. Results: The study accrued 4450 patients (median age, 67 years [IQR, 59-75 years]; 2352 women [52.9%]) seen by 163 clinicians, randomized to active control (n = 1004), clinician nudge (n = 1179), patient nudge (n = 997), or combined nudges (n = 1270). Overall patient-level rates of 6-month SIC completion were 11.2% for the active control arm (112 of 1004), 11.5% for the clinician nudge arm (136 of 1179), 11.5% for the patient nudge arm (115 of 997), and 14.1% for the combined nudge arm (179 of 1270). Compared with active control, the combined nudges were associated with an increase in SIC rates (ratio of hazard ratios [rHR], 1.55 [95% CI, 1.00-2.40]; P = .049), whereas the clinician nudge (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.64-1.41; P = .79) and patient nudge (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.73-1.33]; P = .93) were not. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized trial, nudges combining clinician peer comparisons with patient priming questionnaires were associated with a marginal increase in documented SICs compared with an active control. Combining clinician- and patient-directed nudges may help to promote SICs in routine cancer care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04867850.