Risk of Neutropenia-Related Hospitalization in Patients Who Received Colony-Stimulating Factors With Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.

Purpose To describe outcomes after granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy regimens with low-to-intermediate risk of induction of neutropenia-related hospitalization. Patients and Methods We identified 8,745 patients age ≥ 18 years from a medical and pharmacy claims database for 14 commercial US health plans. This retrospective analysis included patients with breast cancer who began first-cycle chemotherapy from 2008 to 2013 using docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC); docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH); or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (conventional-dose AC) regimens. Primary prophylaxis (PP) was defined as G-CSF administration within 5 days of beginning chemotherapy. Outcome was neutropenia, fever, or infection-related hospitalization within 21 days of initiating chemotherapy. Multivariable regressions and number-needed-to-treat analyses were used. Results A total of 4,815 patients received TC (2,849 PP; 1,966 no PP); 2,292 patients received TCH (1,444 PP; 848 no PP); and 1,638 patients received AC (857 PP; 781 no PP) regimen. PP was associated with reduced risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization for TC (2.0% PP; 7.1% no PP; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.39) and TCH (1.3% PP; 7.1% no PP; AOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.30), but not AC (4.7% PP; 3.8% no PP; AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.93) regimens. For the TC regimen, 20 patients (95% CI, 16 to 26) would have to be treated for 21 days to avoid one neutropenia-related hospitalization; with the TCH regimen, 18 patients (95% CI, 13 to 25) would have to be treated. Conclusion Primary G-CSF prophylaxis was associated with low-to-modest benefit in lowering neutropenia-related hospitalization in patients with breast cancer who received TC and TCH regimens. Further evaluation is needed to better understand which patients benefit most from G-CSF prophylaxis in this setting.

Defining High-Quality Palliative Care in Oncology Practice: An American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Guidance Statement.

PURPOSE: Integrated into routine oncology care, palliative care can improve symptom burden, quality of life, and patient and caregiver satisfaction. However, not all oncology practices have access to specialist palliative medicine. This project endeavored to define what constitutes high-quality primary palliative care as delivered by medical oncology practices. METHODS: An expert steering committee outlined 966 palliative care service items, in nine domains, each describing a candidate element of primary palliative care delivery for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden. Using modified Delphi methodology, 31 multidisciplinary panelists rated each service item on three constructs: importance, feasibility, and scope within medical oncology practice. RESULTS: Panelists endorsed the highest proportion of palliative care service items in the domains of End-of-Life Care (81%); Communication and Shared Decision Making (79%); and Advance Care Planning (78%). The lowest proportions were in Spiritual and Cultural Assessment and Management (35%) and Psychosocial Assessment and Management (39%). In the largest domain, Symptom Assessment and Management, there was consensus that all symptoms should be assessed and managed at a basic level, with more comprehensive management for common symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dyspnea, and pain. Within the Appropriate Palliative Care and Hospice Referral domain, there was consensus that oncology practices should be able to describe the difference between palliative care and hospice to patients and refer patients appropriately. CONCLUSION: This statement describes the elements comprising high-quality primary palliative care for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden, as delivered by oncology practices. Oncology providers wishing to enhance palliative care delivery may find this information useful to inform operational changes and quality improvement efforts.

Clinical oncology practice 2015: preparing for the future.

The clinical practice of oncology has become increasingly complex. An explosion of medical knowledge, increased demands on provider time, and involved patients have changed the way many oncologists practice. What was an acceptable practice model in the past may now be relatively inefficient. This review covers three areas that address these changes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) National Oncology Census defines who the U.S. oncology community is, and their perceptions of how practice patterns may be changing. The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-ASCO Teams in Cancer Care Project explores how best to employ team science to improve the efficiency and quality of cancer care in the United States. Finally, how physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) might be best integrated into team-based care in oncology and the barriers to integration are reviewed.

Results of the 2013 American Society of Clinical Oncology National Oncology Census.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) National Oncology Census (Census) provides a mechanism for ASCO to systematically gather and analyze information about current practice structures and potential changes at a time when practices are working to adapt to increasing administrative and financial pressures. The Census is conducted annually and reports on new and trending data. METHODS: The 2013 Census was launched on May 30, 2013, as a national survey of oncology practices. The survey required practices to answer 11 questions and provided additional optional questions. RESULTS: The Census collected 530 useable responses in 2013 compared with 632 respondents in 2012. Practices reporting in 2013, however, represented a total of 8,011 physicians compared with only 5,018 in 2012. CONCLUSION: The pace of policy change in oncology practice is changing the landscape of how practices are organized. A greater number of practices with more than seven physicians responded in 2013, which could indicate overall growth in the size of oncology practice. Practices reported increased affiliations with hospitals through a variety of contractual mechanisms. In subsequent census efforts, ASCO will have the capability to match 2013 respondents to future respondents, allowing for increased precision in comparison of longitudinal data.