Healthcare providers' experiences of continuing care for older adults with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused great strain on older adults with cancer and their healthcare providers. This study explored healthcare providers' reported changes in cancer care, clinical barriers to care, patient questions, and the overall experiences of caring for older adults with cancer during the COVID-19 crisis. METHODS: The Advocacy Committee of the Cancer and Aging Research Group and the Association of Community Cancer Centers developed a survey for healthcare providers of adults with cancer, inquiring about their experiences during the pandemic. Responses from the survey's four open-ended items were analyzed by four independent coders for identification of common themes using deductive and inductive methods. RESULTS: Participants (n = 137) represented a variety of demographic and clinical experiences. Six overall themes emerged, including (1) telehealth use, (2) concerns for patient mental health, (3) patient physical and social isolation, (4) patient fear of contracting COVID-19, (5) continued disruptions to cancer care, and (6) patients seeking guidance, particularly regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Questions fielded by providers focused on the COVID-19 vaccination's safety and efficacy during older adults' cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Additional resources (e.g., technology support, established care guidelines, and sufficient staffing) are needed to support older adults with cancer and healthcare providers during the pandemic. Future research should explore universally effective in-person and virtual treatment strategies for older adults with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Persistence of telehealth barriers, particularly a lack of infrastructure to support telehealth visits, social isolation, and restrictive visitor policies as a result of COVID-19, negatively impacted the mental health of older adults with cancer.

Differences in urban and suburban/rural settings regarding care provision and barriers of cancer care for older adults during COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Care for older adults with cancer became more challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in urban hotspots. This study examined the potential differences in healthcare providers' provision of as well as barriers to cancer care for older adults with cancer between urban and suburban/rural settings. METHODS: Members of the Advocacy Committee of the Cancer and Aging Research Group, with the Association of Community Cancer Centers, surveyed multidisciplinary healthcare providers responsible for the direct care of patients with cancer. Respondents were recruited through organizational listservs, email blasts, and social media messages. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used. RESULTS: Complete data was available from 271 respondents (urban (n = 144), suburban/rural (n = 127)). Most respondents were social workers (42, 44%) or medical doctors/advanced practice providers (34, 13%) in urban and suburban/rural settings, respectively. Twenty-four percent and 32.4% of urban-based providers reported "strongly considering" treatment delays among adults aged 76-85 and > 85, respectively, compared to 13% and 15.4% of suburban/rural providers (Ps = 0.048, 0.013). More urban-based providers reported they were inclined to prioritize treatment for younger adults over older adults than suburban/rural providers (10.4% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.04) during the pandemic. The top concerns reported were similar between the groups and related to patient safety, treatment delays, personal safety, and healthcare provider mental health. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate location-based differences in providers' attitudes regarding care provision for older adults with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Improving Cancer Care Delivery: Learnings for Oncology Nurses and Patient Navigation From a National Quality Survey.

Background: Although implementation of patient navigation programs in clinical practice is widespread, heterogeneity exists in the design and delivery of these services. Greater clarity is required on competencies of personnel, delineation of their roles in multidisciplinary cancer care teams, navigation service components that positively impact patient outcomes, and associated metrics. Methods: A national, double-blind, online survey was implemented between January 24, 2019, and April 25, 2019, to investigate care coordination for advanced (stage III/IV) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Respondents included multidisciplinary team (MDT) members, such as oncologists, pathologists, oncology nurses, advanced practice nurses, and patient navigators, from US cancer programs. Customized questions covered NSCLC screening, diagnosis, treatment, and care coordination, with a focus on oncology nurses, advanced practice nurses, and patient navigation. Descriptive statistics were computed. Subanalyses examined relationships between care delivery and outcomes such as shared decision-making (SDM) through statistical testing. Results: Across programs, there was a lack of patient (nurse or lay) navigators (22.3%, 101/452) to assist patients with NSCLC. Most respondents (90.1%, 100/111) worked in programs with no formal health literacy assessments. Significantly higher mean SDM scores (p < .05) were observed in programs with patient navigators compared with programs without these specialists. Conclusion: Patient navigation is pivotal to enhancing the patient experience along the lung cancer care continuum and should be strategically integrated within lung cancer MDTs. These findings, along with survey inputs from other MDT disciplines, can help support process improvement plans for patient-centered advanced NSCLC care delivery.

Assessing Breast Cancer Risks to Improve Care for an Increased-Risk Population within Eastern North Carolina.

BACKGROUND The average lifetime risk of breast cancer for an American woman is 12.5%, but individual risks vary significantly. Risk modeling is a standard of care for breast cancer screening and prevention with recommended tools to stratify individual risks based on age, family history, breast density, and a host of other known risk factors. Because of a lack of resources rurally, we have not consistently met this standard of care within all of North Carolina.METHODS We implemented a quality improvement project to assess the risk for breast cancer by gathering data on community risks. We implemented an evidence-based tool (Tyrer-Cuzick) for quantifying risk within a mostly rural population of Eastern North Carolina and developed customized services for women meeting elevated-risk definition. These services included additional imaging for elevated-risk women and a risk-reduction program. We also assessed genetic risks for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in our at-risk population using National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines based on family history and added local genetics extenders to help test more women. We analyzed data regularly using Plan-Do-Study-Act methods to improve outcomes over 1 year.RESULTS We screened a population of 4500 women at a community hospital over a 1-year period for their individual lifetime cancer risk and genetic risk. Breast cancer risk was quantitated at the time of mammography, and women were stratified into 3 groups for risk management. Within our screening population, 6.3% of women were at high risk (defined by a lifetime breast cancer risk greater than or equal to 20%) and another 8.1% were above-average risk (defined by a lifetime breast cancer risk of 15%-20%). These women (14.4%) could potentially benefit from additional risk-management strategies. Additionally, 20% of all unaffected women within a typical screening population of Eastern North Carolina met NCCN guidelines for hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer testing independent of their cancer risk score. Using a model of targeted intervention within a population with elevated risks can be helpful in improving outcomes.LIMITATIONS This population within Eastern North Carolina is mostly rural and represents a potentially biased population, as it involves older women undergoing annual mammography. It may not be broadly applicable to the entire population based on age, geography, and other risks.CONCLUSIONS This model for improving cancer risk assessment and testing at a small community hospital in Eastern North Carolina was successful and addressed a community need. We discovered a high rate of increased-risk women who can benefit from individualized risk management, and a higher percentage of women who potentially benefit from genetic testing. These higher cumulative risks may in part explain some of the disparities seen for breast-cancer-specific outcomes in some parts of the state.

Role of Oncology Advanced Practitioners to Enhance Clinical Research.

Background: Oncology advanced practitioners (APs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Advanced practitioners enhance value across the spectrum of cancer care. Research is an underdeveloped component of quality care, as well as an underdeveloped component of AP practice. Understanding research-related attitudes and roles of APs could lead to enhanced clinical trial accrual, conduct, and protocol development. Methods: A nationwide survey addressing attitudes, beliefs, and roles of APs regarding clinical research was distributed by the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) and Harborside in early 2020. Results: 408 oncology APs completed the survey. Thirty-five percent practice in an academic setting and 62% in the community. Nearly all respondents believe clinical trials are important to improve care, and over 90% report clinical trials are available at their practice. About 80% report being comfortable discussing the topic of clinical trials with patients and are involved in the care of trial participants. Sixty percent are comfortable discussing available trials, and 38% routinely explore available trials with patients. While 70% report approaching eligible patients about trials, only 20% report doing so "a great deal" or "a lot." Ninety percent report that APs should play a role in clinical research, and 73% want to be more involved. Barriers identified to greater AP clinical trial involvement include lack of time, inadequate awareness of trial specifics, and a lack of a formal role in protocol development and leadership. Conclusions: Advanced practitioners are engaged and interested in clinical trials and believe clinical research is important to improve cancer care. Multidisciplinary team integration, trials-related education, and policy change are needed to employ APs to their full potential within cancer clinical trials.

Improving the quality of care for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: Program components, implementation barriers, and recommendations.

The high lethality of ovarian cancer in the United States and associated complexities of the patient journey across the cancer care continuum warrant an assessment of current practices and barriers to quality care in the United States. The objectives of this study were to identify and assess key components in the provision of high-quality care delivery for patients with ovarian cancer, identify challenges in the implementation of best practices, and develop corresponding quality-related recommendations to guide multidisciplinary ovarian cancer programs and practices. This multiphase ovarian cancer quality-care initiative was guided by a multidisciplinary expert steering committee, including gynecologic oncologists, pathologists, a genetic counselor, a nurse navigator, social workers, and cancer center administrators. Key partnerships were also established. A collaborative approach was adopted to develop comprehensive recommendations by identifying ideal quality-of-care program components in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer management. The core program components included: care coordination and patient education, prevention and screening, diagnosis and initial management, treatment planning, disease surveillance, equity in care, and quality of life. Quality-directed recommendations were developed across 7 core program components, with a focus on ensuring high-quality ovarian cancer care delivery for patients through improved patient education and engagement by addressing unmet medical and supportive care needs. Implementation challenges were described, and key recommendations to overcome barriers were provided. The recommendations emerging from this initiative can serve as a comprehensive resource guide for multidisciplinary cancer practices, providers, and other stakeholders working to provide quality-directed cancer care for patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer and their families.

Improving Care for Patients With Stage III or IV NSCLC: Learnings for Multidisciplinary Teams From the ACCC National Quality Survey.

PURPOSE: Insufficient characterization of the optimal multidisciplinary team and lack of understanding of barriers to quality care are unmet needs in the management of stage III or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A national survey was conducted to inform the design and execution of process improvement plans and address identified barriers. METHODS: A steering committee of multidisciplinary specialists and representation from patient advocacy collaborated for a comprehensive, double-blind, web-based survey (January-April 2019) to obtain insights on care delivery for patients with advanced NSCLC in a diverse set of US community cancer programs. RESULTS: Overall, 639 responses (160 unique cancer programs across 44 US states) were included; 41% (n = 261) of respondents indicated an absence of a thoracic multidisciplinary clinic in their cancer program. Engagement in shared decision making was significantly associated with the presence of navigation and radiation oncology disciplines (P ≤ .04); 19.2% and 33.3% of respondents belonged to cancer programs with no lung cancer screening and no protocol for biomarker testing, respectively. The frequency of tumor board meetings negatively correlated with time to complete disease staging (P = .03); the average time to first therapeutic intervention in newly diagnosed patients was 4 weeks. The most challenging barriers to quality care included insufficient quantity of biopsy material for biomarker testing, lack of primary care provider referrals, and diagnostic costs. CONCLUSION: Improving the quality of advanced NSCLC care, including optimization of a multidisciplinary team framework, may surmount barriers to care coordination, diagnosis and staging, and treatment planning, consequently improving adherence to evolving standards of care.

Experiences of healthcare providers of older adults with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Care for older adults with cancer became more challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to examine healthcare providers' clinical barriers, patient questions, and overall experiences related to care delivery for these patients during the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Members of the Advocacy Committee of the Cancer and Aging Research Group along with the Association of Community Cancer Centers developed a 20-question survey for healthcare providers of older adults with cancer. Eligible participants were recruited by email sent through professional organizations' listservs, email blasts, and social media. This manuscript reports the qualitative data from the survey's three open-ended questions. Free text, open-ended survey items were analyzed by two independent coders for identification of common themes using NVivo software. Theme agreement was reached through consensus and count comparisons of participant responses were made. RESULTS: Healthcare system organizational challenges and meeting basic needs and support were commonly reported themes among respondents (n = 274). Barriers to care delivery included organizational challenges, patients' access to resources and support, concerns for patients' mental and physical health, and telehealth challenges. Respondents reported older adults were asking about their health and cancer care as well as access to basic needs and supports. Providers described worrying about patients' mental health, fear of personal safety, frustration in multi-level institutions, as well as experiencing positive leadership and communication. CONCLUSION: Providers are faced with balancing their concerns for personal and patient safety. These findings demand resources and support allocation for older adults with cancer and healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Survey of cancer care providers' attitude toward care for older adults with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: Care for older adults with cancer became more challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to examine cancer care providers' attitudes toward the barriers and facilitators related to the care for these patients during the pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Members of the Advocacy Committee of the Cancer and Aging Research Group, along with the Association of Community Cancer Centers, developed the survey distributed to multidisciplinary healthcare providers responsible for the direct care of patients with cancer. Participants were recruited by email sent through four professional organizations' listservs, email blasts, and messages through social media. RESULTS: Complete data was available from 274 respondents. Only 15.4% had access to written guidelines that specifically address the management of older adults with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. Age was ranked fifth as the reason for postponing treatment following comorbid conditions, cancer stage, frailty, and performance status. Barriers to the transition to telehealth were found at the patient-, healthcare worker-, and institutional-levels. Providers reported increased barriers in accessing basic needs among older adults with cancer. Most respondents agreed (86.3%) that decision making about Do Not Resuscitate orders should be the result of discussion with the patient and the healthcare proxy in all situations. The top five concerns reported were related to patient safety, treatment delays, healthcare worker mental health and burnout, and personal safety for family and self. CONCLUSION: These findings demand resources and support allocation for older adults with cancer and healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cardiotoxic effects of chemotherapy: A review of both cytotoxic and molecular targeted oncology therapies and their effect on the cardiovascular system.

Cardiotoxic effects of chemotherapy and targeted drugs are ubiquitous and challenging in the field of oncology therapeutics. The broad spectrum of toxicities ranging from ischemic, hypertensive, cardiomyopathic, and arrhythmic complications can present as a significant challenge for clinicians treating cancer patients. If early diagnosis and intervention of cardiotoxic complications is missed, this can lead to delay or abrogation of planned treatment, which can potentially culminate to significant morbidity due to not only the cardiotoxic complications but also the progression of cancer. Hence, full knowledge of cardiovascular complications of chemotherapeutic agents, essential diagnostics tests to order, and appropriate management is paramount to oncologist, oncology pharmacists, and scientific clinical investigators. The aforementioned is particularly true in the current oncology era of plenteous early clinical trials studying several pathway/molecular-targeting agents with an increased cardiotoxic potential and the rapid expedited approval of those drugs by the FDA. Herein, we present a review discussing cardiotoxic effects of drugs and guidelines for management of the toxicities to assist the medical field in general managing patients with cancer.

Influenza vaccination in patients with cancer: an overview.

Influenza infection is a potential cause of additional morbidity and mortality in patients who are immunocompromised because of cancer or its treatment. Of particular note, influenza infection may delay or interrupt chemotherapy and necessitate hospitalization. Successful immunization depends on an intact immune system that can produce antibodies in response to antigen exposure. Patients with cancer often have a suppressed immune system, resulting from their disease and/or immunosuppressive therapies, and as a consequence they may have a suboptimal serologic response to influenza vaccination. Since vaccination is the only proven method for preventing influenza infection, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends seasonal influenza vaccination for adults without contraindications who have disease- or medication-related immunosuppression. Patients with cancer should be given the trivalent inactivated vaccine. Preliminary data suggest that administering the vaccine between cycles of chemotherapy may yield the best results.