Utilisation of Medicare chronic disease management item numbers for people with cancer in Queensland, Australia.

ObjectiveChronic disease is common in people with cancer. However, the utilisation of Medicare chronic disease management (CDM) items for cancer patients in Australia remains unexplored. This study investigates Medicare CDM item numbers relating to people with cancer, including general practitioner (GP) and allied health CDM item numbers, and any associated sociodemographic factors.MethodsData from 86,571 people with cancer registered in the Queensland Cancer Registry between July 2011 and June 2015 and the CDM items codes from Medical Benefits Scheme records until 2018 were analysed. This includes utilisation of General Practitioner Management Plans (GPMP) and Team Care Arrangements (TCAs), reviews of GPMPs and TCAs, and engagement with allied health services until June 2018 following a cancer diagnosis.ResultsIn total 47,615 (55%) and 43,286 (50%) people with cancer initiated at least one GPMP and TCA, respectively, with 31,165 (36%) receiving at least one review, and 36,359 (42%) utilising at least one allied health service (e.g. physiotherapists (41%), podiatrists (27%), exercise physiologists (19%)) with variations by cancer type. While people with cancer from disadvantaged socioeconomic groups had a higher likelihood of receiving GPMP (odds ratio, OR: 1.16, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.11-1.21) and TCA (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.07-1.16), they were less likely to utilise allied health services (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.85-0.93). People with cancer living in remote areas were less likely to receive TCA (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.80-0.88) or utilise allied health services (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.60-0.67) than those in metropolitan areas.ConclusionOur findings underscore the need to examine uptake and implementation patterns of CDM items, especially in relation to clinical, social, and service provider-level factors and related potential barriers. Further exploration is warranted to understand whether people with cancer's care needs are being met and ways to optimise the supportive care of these people.

Vascular access devices for prolonged intravenous therapy regimens in people diagnosed with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the relative effectiveness and vascular access device (VAD)-related complications of VADs in people requiring prolonged systemic anti-cancer treatment.

Barrier films or dressings for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Barrier films or dressings were reported to be effective in preventing radiation dermatitis (RD) in breast cancer patients, but their comparative efficacy is unknown. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on Embase, MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL Registry of Clinical Trials from inception to October 20, 2023. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing barrier films or dressings to the standard of care (SOC) or other interventions were included. We estimated summary odds ratios and mean differences using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023475021). RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. Six interventions were analysed: 3M™ Moisturizing Double Barrier Cream (MDBC), 3M™ No Sting Barrier Film (BF), Hydrofilm® (HF), Mepitel® Film (MF), Silver Leaf Nylon Dressing and StrataXRT®. HF, MF and StrataXRT® reduced the incidence of moist desquamation compared to SOC (HF: OR = 0.08; p = 0.02; MF: OR = 0.31 p < 0.01; StrataXRT®: OR = 0.22, p = 0.04). The ranking of agents from most to least effective in preventing moist desquamation according to P-scores was HF (92.5%), MF (78.5%), StrataXRT® (70.1%), BF (46.4%), Silver Leaf Nylon Dressing (24.9%), MDBC (22.9%) and SOC (14.7%). Only four RCTs on HF and MF included patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments that allowed pooling for analysis. HF and MF were more effective in reducing pain, itchiness and burning sensation compared to SOC (p < 0.01 for all symptoms). CONCLUSION: HF and MF were effective in preventing RD in breast cancer. Future RCTs should compare these interventions to effective cream preparations, such as topical corticosteroids.

Cancer Survivors' Experience of Care and Financial Toxicity: Results From a National Survey.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity (FT) can adversely affect quality of life, treatment adherence, and clinical outcomes. Patient experience of care (PEC) captures patient's perspectives on interactions with health care providers (HCPs) and systems, but the impact of PEC on FT is unknown. This study examined the relationship between PEC and FT. METHODS: We used data from the 2016-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Experience with Cancer Survivorship Supplement. PEC was assessed by patient-reported frequencies of their HCPs providing explanations that were easy to understand, listening carefully, showing respect, and spending enough time with the patient. FT was assessed by nine items to measure material, psychological, and behavioral FT. Analyses were performed using multivariable logistic regression controlling for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and weighted to produce nationally representative estimates and account for survey nonresponse. RESULTS: Data from 1,068 individuals diagnosed with cancer at age >18 years were assessed. A total of 30% reported material FT, 35% reported psychological FT, and 27% reported behavioral FT. Examining PEC, 64% of respondents indicated that HCPs always explained things, 60% always listened, 66% always showed respect, and 57% always spent adequate time with them. Odds of psychological FT were significantly (P < .05) lower among patients reporting HCPs always (v never/sometimes) listened to them (odds ratio [OR], 0.37 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.70]), showed them respect (OR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.16 to 0.81]), and spent enough time with them (OR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.86]). Significant associations with PEC were also found with MEPS psychological FT items on worry about paying medical bills, family's financial stability, and keeping job/income because of cancer. CONCLUSION: Worry/anxiety regarding costs can be a major factor affecting individuals diagnosed with cancer. Improving patient-provider interactions to enhance patient experience of care may reduce psychological financial toxicity.

Protocol for the Development and Initial Validation of the COG-IMPACT Tool: A Purpose-Built Unmet Needs Assessment for Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment.

(1) Background: A significant proportion of cancer survivors report experiencing a cognitive 'fog' that affects their ability to think coherently and quickly, and reason with clarity. This has been referred to as cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). CRCI has extensive impacts on the daily lives of people living with or beyond cancer, including occupational, social, and psychological functioning. Oncology health professionals report feeling under-resourced to effectively assess the needs of an individual with CRCI and then provide optimal care and referral. (2) Methods: The objective of this project is to develop and provide an initial validation of the first purpose-built unmet needs assessment for CRCI: the Unmet Needs Assessment of Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment Impact (COG-IMPACT). We will use a multiple-stage, co-design, mixed-methods approach to develop and provide an initial validation of the COG-IMPACT. (3) Results: The primary anticipated result of this research is the production of the COG-IMPACT, the first purpose-built unmet needs assessment for CRCI. The assessment could be used by health professionals to understand the unmet needs and facilitate optimal care and referral for cancer survivors, by survivors to elucidate their supportive needs and advocate for their care, and by researchers to examine the correlates of unmet needs relating to CRCI, as well as how best to support people with CRCI.

Adopting a systems-thinking approach to optimise dietary and exercise referral practices for cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Service referrals are required for cancer survivors to access specialist dietary and exercise support. Many system-level factors influence referral practices within the healthcare system. Hence, the aim of this study was to identify system-level factors and their interconnectedness, as well as strategies for optimising dietary and exercise referral practices in Australia. METHODS: A full-day workshop involving national multidisciplinary key stakeholders explored system-level factors impacting dietary and exercise referral practices. Facilitated group discussions using the nominal group technique identified barriers and facilitators to referral practices based on the six World Health Organisation (WHO) building blocks. The systems-thinking approach generated six cognitive maps, each representing a building block. A causal loop diagram was developed to visualise factors that influence referral practices. Additionally, each group identified their top five strategies by leveraging facilitators and addressing barriers relevant to their WHO building block. RESULTS: Twenty-seven stakeholders participated in the workshop, including consumers (n = 2), cancer specialists (n = 4), nursing (n = 6) and allied health professionals (n = 10), and researchers, representatives of peak bodies, not-for-profit organisations, and government agencies (n = 5). Common system-level factors impacting on referral practices included funding, accessibility, knowledge and education, workforce capacity, and infrastructure. Fifteen system-level strategies were identified to improve referral practices. CONCLUSION: This study identified system-level factors and strategies that can be applied to policy planning and practice in Australia.

Cancer survivor preferences for breast cancer follow-up care: a discrete choice experiment.

PURPOSE: To identify the key attributes of breast cancer follow-up care models preferred by cancer survivors in Australia. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit preferences for attributes of breast cancer follow-up care. Respondents were presented with two hypothetical scenarios, known as choice sets, and asked to select a preference. Respondents were individuals living in Australia who were diagnosed with breast cancer within the past five years prior to survey completion and were recruited through the Breast Cancer Network of Australia and other community or consumer networks. Latent class modelling (LCM) approach under a random utility framework was used for the analysis. RESULTS: 123 breast cancer survivors completed the DCE survey. LCA revealed two latent classes, those with older age and lower quality of life (class 1) and younger women with higher quality of life (class 2). Class 2 preferred a care team comprising specialists, nurses and GPs and emphasised the importance of shared survivorship care plans. Class 1 remained neutral regarding the team's composition but was notably concerned about the out-of-pocket costs per consultation, a finding not seen in Class 2. CONCLUSIONS: Age and quality of life status are associated with patient preference for types and attributes of breast cancer follow-up care. The health system can work towards enhancing flexibility of follow-up care delivery, ultimately achieving person-centred care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Efforts need to be made by policymakers to ensure consumer preferences are taken into consideration to implement tailored person-centred follow-up care pathways.

Unmet needs in people with high-grade glioma: defining criteria for stepped care intervention.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to define levels of unmet supportive care needs in people with primary brain tumor and to reach expert consensus on feasibility of addressing patients' needs in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of people diagnosed with high-grade glioma (n = 116) who completed the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form during adjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Participants were allocated to 1 of 3 categories: no need ("no need" for help on all items), low need ("low need" for help on at least 1 item, but no "moderate" or "high" need), or moderate/high need (at least 1 "moderate" or "high" need indicated). Clinical capacity to respond to the proportion of patients needing to be prioritized was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 13% (n = 5) were categorized as no need, 23% (n = 27) low need, and 64% (n = 74) moderate/high need. At least 1 moderate/high need was reported in the physical and daily living domain (42%) and the psychological (34%) domain. In recognition of health system capacity, the moderate/high need category was modified to distinguish between moderate need ("moderate" need indicated for at least 1 item but "high" need was not selected for any item) and high need (at least 1 "high" need indicated). Results revealed 24% (n = 28) moderate need and 40% (n = 46) high need. Those categorized as high need indicated needing assistance navigating the health system and information. CONCLUSIONS: Using four step allocations resulted in 40% of patients indicating high need. Categories may facilitate appropriate triaging and guide stepped models of healthcare delivery.

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Cancer in general practice research priorities in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4) is funded by Cancer Australia to support the development of new cancer in primary care research. We undertook a research prioritisation exercise to identify cancer research priorities in Australian general practice. METHOD: We adapted the nominal group technique, including a literature search and stakeholder survey. An expert group from the Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group consolidated and ranked priorities. A second stakeholder survey reviewing the top 50 priorities informed a final prioritisation workshop. RESULTS: Overall, 311 priorities were identified across the cancer continuum. Nearly one-third of priorities were related to cancer survivorship and included strategies to detect recurrence, behavioural interventions and tools to assess physical and psychosocial aspects of survivorship. Prevention/early detection comprised 43.4% of priorities. Palliative care produced the least priorities (9.6%). Cross cutting research priorities (15.1%) included quality and models of care. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to identify cancer research priorities for general practice in Australia. It could be used to inform the development of targeted research and funding to improve the care and outcomes for Australians affected by cancer.

What are the mechanisms underlying the delivery of survivorship care information in Australia? A realist review.

OBJECTIVE: Quality survivorship information is an essential component of cancer care. However, survivors often report not receiving this information and healthcare professionals report limited practical guidance on how to effectively deliver survivorship information. Therefore, this study used realist review methods to identify mechanisms reported within the published literature for communicating survivorship information and to understand the contextual factors that make these mechanisms effective. METHODS: Full-text papers published in CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Academic Search Ultimate were included. Studies included in this review were conducted in Australia between January 2006 and December 2023, and reported on how information regarding survivorship care was communicated to adult cancer survivors living in the community. This review utilized realist methodologies: text extracts were converted to if-then statements used to generate context-mechanism-outcome theories. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included and six theories for mechanisms that underpin the effective delivery of survivorship information were formed. These include: (1) tailoring information based on the survivors' background, (2) enhancing communication among providers, (3) employing dedicated survivorship staff, (4) providing survivorship training, (5) reducing the burden on survivors to navigate their care, and (6) using multiple modalities to provide information. CONCLUSIONS: Findings can inform practical guidance for how survivorship care information is best delivered in practice. Clinicians can apply this guidance to improve their individual interactions with cancer survivors, as can policymakers to develop healthcare systems and procedures that support effective communication of cancer survivorship information.

Perceived Barriers Toward Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation in Cancer Care: An International Scoping Survey.

PURPOSE: Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables. RESULTS: Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P = .02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P = .06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P = .08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P < .001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P < .001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P < .001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams.

Supporting Cancer Survivors Following Treatment for Non-Hodgkin's and Hodgkin's Lymphoma: A Pilot Study Assessing the Feasibility and Process Outcomes of a Nurse-Led Intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Lymphoma is the sixth most common cancer in Australia and comprises 2.8% of worldwide cancer diagnoses. Research targeting development and evaluation of post-treatment care for debilitating complications resulting from the disease and its treatment is limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led survivorship intervention, post-treatment in Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, 3-arm, pilot, randomized controlled, parallel-group trial was used. People with lymphoma were recruited and randomized to the intervention (ENGAGE), education booklet only, or usual care arm. Participants receiving ENGAGE received an educational booklet and were offered 3 consultations (via various modes) with a cancer nurse to develop a survivorship care plan and healthcare goals. Participant distress and intervention acceptability was measured at baseline and 12-wk. Acceptability was measured via a satisfaction survey using a 11-point scale. Feasibility was measured using participation, retention rates, and process outcomes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-four participants with HL and NHL were recruited to the study (11 = intervention, 11 = information only, 12 = usual care). Twenty-seven participants (79%) completed all time points from baseline to 12 wk. Seven (88%) of the 8 participants receiving ENGAGE completed all consultations using various modes to communicate with the nurse (videoconference 14/23, 61%; phone 5/23, 22%; face-to-face 4/23, 17%). Participants who completed the intervention were highly satisfied with ENGAGE. CONCLUSION: The ENGAGE intervention is feasible and highly acceptable for lymphoma survivors. These findings will inform a larger trial assessing effectiveness and cost effectiveness of ENGAGE.

Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) clinical practice guidance for the prevention of breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL): international Delphi consensus-based recommendations.

Background: Developing strategies to prevent breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema (BCRAL) is a critical unmet need because there are no effective interventions to eradicate it once it reaches a chronic state. Certain strategies such as prospective surveillance programs and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction have been reported to be effective in clinical trials. However, a large variation exists in practice based on clinician preference, organizational standards, and local resources. Methods: A two-round international Delphi consensus process was performed from February 27, 2023 to May 25, 2023 to compile opinions of 55 experts involved in the care and research of breast cancer and lymphoedema on such interventions. Findings: Axillary lymph node dissection, use of post-operative radiotherapy, relative within-arm volume increase one month after surgery, greater number of lymph nodes dissected, and high body mass index were recommended as the most important risk factors to guide selection of patients for interventions to prevent BCRAL. The panel recommended that prospective surveillance programs should be implemented to screen for and reduce risks of BCRAL where feasible and resources allow. Prophylactic compression sleeves, axillary reverse mapping and prophylactic lymphatic reconstruction should be offered for patients who are at risk for developing BCRAL as options where expertise is available and resources allow. Recommendations on axillary management in clinical T1-2, node negative breast cancer patients with 1-2 positive sentinel lymph nodes were also provided by the expert panel. Routine axillary lymph node dissection should not be offered in these patients who receive breast conservation therapy. Axillary radiation instead of axillary lymph node dissection should be considered in the same group of patients undergoing mastectomy. Interpretation: An individualised approach based on patients' preferences, risk factors for BCRAL, availability of treatment options and expertise of the healthcare team is paramount to ensure patients at risk receive preventive interventions for BCRAL, regardless of where they are receiving care. Funding: This study was not supported by any funding. RJC received investigator grant support from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1194051).

StrataXRT for the prevention and treatment of radiation dermatitis: a critical review.

PURPOSE: The primary objective is to systematically review primary studies, such as randomized control trials (RCTs), feasibility, exploratory, and case studies; and the secondary objective is to evaluate all secondary articles, such as reviews, guidelines, and editorials, relevant to the use of StrataXRT for the prevention and/or management of radiation dermatitis (RD) in cancer patients. METHODS: A literature search was conducted up to February 26, 2023, for articles investigating the use of StrataXRT for the prevention and treatment of RD, in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar. The keywords "StrataXRT", "dermatitis", "radiotherapy", and "radiation" were used to identify relevant articles. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles from 2018 to 2022 were identified to fulfill the inclusion criteria of this review, of which nine are primary studies and 18 are secondary papers. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the current literature studying the effects of StrataXRT, making it difficult to make cross-trial comparisons. There is a suggestion of the efficacy of StrataXRT in the prevention and treatment of RD. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review recommend further adequately powered RCTs with robust methodology including patient and clinician assessments to determine the efficacy of StrataXRT in preventing and treating RD. This is essential to improve the quality of life of patients and identify which groups of patients would benefit most from StrataXRT.