PErspective and current status of Radiotherapy Service in IRan (PERSIR)-1 study: assessment of current external beam radiotherapy facilities, staff and techniques compared to the international guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy (RT) is an essential treatment modality against cancer and becoming even more in demand due to the anticipated increase in cancer incidence. Due to the rapid development of RT technologies amid financial challenges, we aimed to assess the available RT facilities and the issues with achieving health equity based on current equipment compared to the previous reports from Iran. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey arranged by the Iran Cancer Institute's Radiation Oncology Research Center (RORC) was sent to all of the country's radiotherapy centers in 2022. Four components were retrieved: the reimbursement type, equipment, human resources, and patient load. To calculate the radiotherapy utilization rate (RUR), the Lancet Commission was used. The findings were compared with the previous national data. RESULTS: Seventy-six active radiotherapy centers with 123 Linear accelerators (LINACs) were identified. The centers have been directed in three ways. 10 (20 LINACs), 36 (50 LINACs), and 30 centers (53 LINACs) were charity-, private-, and public-based, respectively. Four provinces had no centers. There was no active intraoperative radiotherapy machine despite its availability in 4 centers. One orthovoltage X-ray machine was active and 14 brachytherapy devices were treating patients. There were 344, 252, and 419 active radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and radiation therapy technologists, respectively. The ratio of LINAC and radiation oncologists to one million populations was 1.68 and 4.10, respectively. Since 2017, 35±5 radiation oncology residents have been trained each year. CONCLUSION: There has been a notable growth in RT facilities since the previous reports and Iran's situation is currently acceptable among LMICs. However, there is an urgent need to improve the distribution of the RT infrastructure and provide more facilities that can deliver advanced techniques.

Quality of life of patients undergoing chemotherapy: a tertiary care hospitalbased study from Karachi.

The quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients is of paramount concern due to the enduring effects of chemotherapy on the physical, emotional, spiritual, and social aspects of life. This study aims to examine the factors influencing QoL among cancer patients. A cross-sectional analysis encompassing 200 chemotherapy patients aged 18 and above was conducted, using self-reported surveys and clinical records. The results indicate higher social wellbeing and lower physical well-being scores. Significantly, patients in joint families, with income above Rs25,000, limited pre-diagnosis check-ups, over four chemotherapy cycles, showed better QoL. Engaging diversions like art and internet usage alleviated worries. Conversely, comorbidities correlated with lower FACT-G scores. QoL is still compromised, even with the developments of advanced cancer treatments. Managing mental, emotional, social, and physical health is vital. Future research should focus on evidence-based policies, innovative strategies, psychiatric assessments, mindfulness interventions, and exploring the impact of social interactions on QoL, aiming to enhance the wellbeing of newly diagnosed cancer patients.

An evidence-base for the implementation of hospital-based palliative care programs in routine cancer practice: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite global support, there remain gaps in the integration of early palliative care into cancer care. The methods of implementation whereby evidence of benefits of palliative care is translated into practice deserve attention. AIM: To identify implementation frameworks utilised in integrated palliative care in hospital-based oncology services and to describe the associated enablers and barriers to service integration. DESIGN: Systematic review with a narrative synthesis including qualitative, mixed methods, pre-post and quasi experimental designs following the guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO registration CRD42021252092). DATA SOURCES: Six databases searched in 2021: EMBASE, EMCARE, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Ovid MEDLINE searched in 2023. Included were qualitative or quantitative studies, in English language, involving adults >18 years, and implementing hospital-based palliative care into cancer care. Critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality and rigour. RESULTS: Seven of the 16 studies explicitly cited the use of frameworks including those based on RE-AIM, Medical Research Council evaluation of complex interventions and WHO constructs of health service evaluation. Enablers included an existing supportive culture, clear introduction to the programme across services, adequate funding, human resources and identification of advocates. Barriers included a lack of communication with the patients, caregivers, physicians and palliative care team about programme goals, stigma around the term 'palliative', a lack of robust training, or awareness of guidelines and undefined staff roles. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science frameworks provide a method to underpin programme development and evaluation as palliative care is integrated within the oncology setting.

Health professionals' preferences with the use of pegfilgrastim on-body injector at oncology centers in 8 cities in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia associated with some chemotherapy regimens can lead to potentially fatal complications and high health care costs. Administration of pegfilgrastim using an On-Body Injector (OBI) may be more convenient for cancer patients and physicians in countries with limited access to high-complexity healthcare. This study aims to describe physician and nurse preferences regarding different options for administration of pegfilgrastim at cancer centers, the chemotherapy schemes for which pegfilgrastim is most frequently prescribed and how healthcare providers prioritize certain administration schemes according to patients' access to healthcare services. METHODS: Observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study and survey, conducted between 2019 and 2020, to describe physician and nurse preferences regarding options for administration of pegfilgrastim at cancer centers, the demographics of the study population and characteristics of participating cancer centers. It included 60 healthcare professionals practicing at oncology centers from 8 cities in Colombia who were contacted and surveyed via telephone. Quantitative continuous variables were summarized using central tendency and dispersion measures. RESULTS: It was found that 35% of participants are haemato-oncologists, oncologists or hematologists, 30% are general practitioners, and 35% are other healthcare professionals (i.e., nurse, oncology nurse and head nurse). Our study shows that 48% of physicians prefer the use of OBI, particularly in the scheme of 24 h after myelosuppressive chemotherapy administrations. Regardless of patient frailty and travel time to the clinic, over 90% of healthcare providers (HCPs) prefer to prioritize preventing the patient from having to return to the clinic for pegfilgrastim administration as well as to increase healthcare staff availability through the use of OBI. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first one in Colombia that sought the reasons behind HCPs' choice to use OBI pegfilgrastim. Our results indicate that most professionals prefer to avoid the patient having to re-enter the care center for pegfilgrastim administration to facilitate access to healthcare for patients; patient characteristics and ease of transport are determining factors for respondents when choosing an option for drug administration. We found OBI is the preferred alternative by most HCPs and a good resource optimization strategy in the context of cancer patients' health care in Colombia.

Surgical volume threshold to improve 3-year survival in designated cancer care hospitals in 2004-2012 in Japan.

In Japan, cancer care hospitals designated by the national government have a surgical volume requirement of 400 annually, which is not necessarily defined based on patient outcomes. This study aimed to estimate surgical volume thresholds that ensure optimal 3-year survival for three periods. In total, 186 965 patients who had undergone surgery for solid cancers in 66 designated cancer care hospitals in Osaka between 2004 and 2012 were examined using data from a population-based cancer registry. These hospitals were categorized by the annual surgical volume of each 50 surgeries (eg, 0-49, 50-99, and so on). Using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression, we estimated the adjusted 3-year survival probability per surgical volume category for 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012. Using the joinpoint regression model that computes inflection points in a linear relationship, we estimated the points at which the trend of the association between surgical volume and survival probability changes, defining them as surgical volume thresholds. The adjusted 3-year survival ranges were 71.7%-90.0%, 68.2%-90.0%, and 79.2%-90.3% in 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012, respectively. The surgical volume thresholds were identified at 100-149 in 2004-2006 and 2007-2009 and 200-249 in 2010-2012. The extents of change in the adjusted 3-year survival probability per increase of 50 surgical volumes were +4.00%, +6.88%, and +1.79% points until the threshold and +0.41%, +0.30%, and +0.11% points after the threshold in 2004-2006, 2007-2009, and 2010-2012, respectively. The existing surgical volume requirements met our estimated thresholds. Surgical volume thresholds based on the association with patient survival may be used as a reference to validate the surgical volume requirement.

Perceptions of oncology as a career choice among the early career doctors in Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Lack of oncologists is a growing global concern. With the rise in cancer burden across the world, the supply-demand mismatch of the oncology workforce is projected to increase. Furthermore, oncology is a low-ranked field of choice among medical students, and without understanding the perceptions and concerns of early-career doctors regarding oncology, any investments made in cancer care will be futile. This study aims to determine the opinions of young doctors and the factors most affecting their preferences in order to devise focused strategies to attract more doctors into oncology. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 300 early-career doctors across various public and private hospitals in Pakistan, from March to November 2019. A close-ended, self-administered questionnaire was used to assess their opinions in terms of the workplace environment, scope, and the emotional and financial aspects of oncology. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 23 and the influence (positive or negative) of the perceptions on the choice of oncology as a career was determined by binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Almost three-quarters of the participants did not want a career in oncology. The top positive perceptions about oncology in descending order were: progressive field, gender-neutral, stable working hours, financially healthy, and work-family balance. Top negative perceptions were: lack of oncologic facilities in hospitals, radiation exposure, need for private practice, poor patient prognosis, high patient load, and depressing environment. Participants who attended private medical school (p < 0.10), planned to live abroad (p < 0.10), had an oncologist (p < 0.05), cancer survivor or death due to cancer in the family (p < 0.05), were more likely to adopt oncology as a career. Those who believed that poor patient prognosis can have an impact on career choice were less likely to prefer oncology (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite the rising cancer burden, early career doctors are reluctant to join oncology. Curricular, infrastructural and policy changes are needed at the level of medical school, oncology training and practice to recruit more young doctors and minimize the existing paucity of the oncologic workforce.

Palliative sedation in patients with advanced cancer in a specialized unit in a middle-income country: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the 5-year practice on palliative sedation in a specialized palliative care unit in a deprived region in Brazil, and to compare survival of patients with advanced cancer who were and were not sedated during their end-of-life care. METHOD: Retrospective cohort study in a tertiary teaching hospital. We described the practice of palliative sedation and compared the survival time between patients who were and were not sedated in their last days of life. RESULTS: We included 906 patients who were admitted to the palliative care unit during the study period, of whom, 92 (10.2%) received palliative sedation. Patients who were sedated were younger, presented with higher rates of delirium, and reported more pain, suffering, and dyspnea than those who were not sedated. Median hospital survival of patients who received palliative sedation was 9.30 (CI 95%, 7.51-11.81) days and of patients who were not sedated was 8.2 (CI 95%, 7.3-9.0) days (P = 0.31). Adjusted for age and sex, palliative sedation was not significantly associated with hospital survival (hazard ratio = 0.93; CI 95%, 0.74-1.15). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Palliative sedation can be accomplished even in a deprived area. Delirium, dyspnea, and pain were more common in patients who were sedated. Median survival was not reduced in patients who were sedated.

Palliative care education and research at US cancer centers: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) education and research are essential to developing a skilled workforce and evidence base to support the delivery of quality cancer care. The current state of PC education and research at US cancer centers is unclear. In this national survey, the education and research programs of the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated and nondesignated cancer centers and the changes between 2009 and 2018 are compared. METHODS: Between April and August 2018, PC program leaders at all NCI-designated cancer centers and a random sample of nondesignated centers were sent a survey to examine the structure, processes, and outcomes of their programs on the basis of questions from a 2009 national survey. This preplanned analysis focused on education and research. RESULTS: There were 52 of 61 (85%) NCI-designated and 27 of 38 (71%) nondesignated cancer centers that responded. NCI-designated centers were more likely than nondesignated centers to have a PC fellowship program (87% vs 30%; P < .001), training for advanced practice providers (71% vs 44%; P = .03), PC research program (58% vs 15%; P < .001), peer-reviewed funding (43% vs 11%; P = .005), and philanthropic grants (41% vs 7%; P = .002). There were few significant improvements in PC education or research between 2009 and 2018 for both groups, notable exceptions include an increase in PC fellowships (38% vs 87%; P < .001) and mandatory PC rotations for medical oncology fellows (29% vs 55%; P = .02) at NCI-designated cancer centers. CONCLUSIONS: PC education and research are more developed at NCI-designated cancer centers. Despite some progress over the past decade, it is relatively slow and suboptimal.

Views from Multidisciplinary Oncology Clinicians on Strengthening Cancer Care Delivery Systems in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: In response to the increasing burden of cancer in Tanzania, the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children launched National Cancer Treatment Guidelines (TNCTG) in February 2020. The guidelines aimed to improve and standardize oncology care in the country. At Ocean Road Cancer Institute (ORCI), we developed a theory-informed implementation strategy to promote guideline-concordant care. As part of the situation analysis for implementation strategy development, we conducted focus group discussions to evaluate clinical systems and contextual factors that influence guideline-based practice prior to the launch of the TNCTG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In June 2019, three focus group discussions were conducted with a total of 21 oncology clinicians at ORCI, stratified by profession. A discussion guide was used to stimulate dialogue about facilitators and barriers to delivery of guideline-concordant care. Discussions were audio recorded, transcribed, translated, and analyzed using thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified factors both within the inner context of ORCI clinical systems and outside of ORCI. Themes within the clinical systems included capacity and infrastructure, information technology, communication, efficiency, and quality of services provided. Contextual factors external to ORCI included interinstitutional coordination, oncology capacity in peripheral hospitals, public awareness and beliefs, and financial barriers. Participants provided pragmatic suggestions for strengthening cancer care delivery in Tanzania. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight several barriers and facilitators within and outside of the clinical systems at ORCI that may affect uptake of the TNCTG. Our findings were used to inform a broader guideline implementation strategy, in an effort to improve uptake of the TNCTGs at ORCI. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study provides an assessment of cancer care delivery systems in a low resource setting from the unique perspectives of local multidisciplinary oncology clinicians. Situational analysis of contextual factors that are likely to influence guideline implementation outcomes is the first step of developing an implementation strategy for cancer treatment guidelines. Many of the barriers identified in this study represent actionable targets that will inform the next phases of our implementation strategy for guideline-concordant cancer care in Tanzania and comparable settings.

Designing a resource-stratified, phased implementation strategy for breast health care services in India.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in India. Jhpiego, a not-for-profit health organization, is providing technical assistance for developing an evidence-based model of breast health care in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand in India. METHODS: A situational assessment of breast health care services using validated tools was conducted in the 2 states. RESULTS: Findings of the assessment were presented to the Breast Health Technical Advisory Committee comprised of subject experts and government functionaries. The committee, guided by Breast Health Global Initiative resource-stratified guidelines, developed a conceptual framework for integration of breast health services into the existing health system. This conceptual framework was presented to the Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) of the respective state governments. Each TAG then developed an operationally feasible, contextually appropriate implementation plan in alignment with the national guidelines for noncommunicable diseases. This implementation plan guided the rollout of the breast health care program in the Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) districts. CONCLUSIONS: Early results from the implementation suggest that it is feasible to integrate the breast health care pathway with the ongoing National Cancer Control Program of India.

Does multicenter care impact the outcomes of surgical patients with gastrointestinal malignancies requiring complex multimodality therapy?

BACKGROUND: Regionalization of oncologic care has increased, but less is known whether patient outcomes are influenced by receipt of multimodality care through multicenter care (MCC) or single-center care (SCC). METHODS: Patients from 2004 to 2015 National Cancer Data Base diagnosed with stage II-III esophageal (EA), stage II-III pancreatic (PA), and stage II-IV rectal (RA) adenocarcinoma who underwent resection at a high volume center (HVC) and required radiation and/or chemotherapy were included. MCC (care at 2+ facilities) and SCC patients were propensity-score matched 1:2 and Cox proportional hazards regression used to analyze survival. RESULTS: On multivariable regression analysis, MCC in RA patients (N = 325/2097, 15.5%) was more associated with residing ≥40 miles from the HVC (odds ratio [OR] = 2.37; P = .044) and receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (1.42, P = .040). In PA patients (N = 75/380, 19.7%), residing ≥40 miles from the HVC (OR = 3.22; P = .001), and in EA patients (N = 88/534, 16.5%), younger patients (<50 years: OR = 2.96; P = .011) were associated with MCC. Following propensity score matching, EA (N = 147), PA (N = 133), and RA (N = 661) patients had no difference in 1-year and 3-year overall survival when comparing MCC to SCC. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MCC appears safe without a difference in survival and may offer significant advantages in convenience to patients as they undergo their complex oncologic care.

A health care professionals training needs assessment for oncology in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence and mortality in sub-Saharan Africa are increasing and do account for significant premature death. The expertise of health care providers is critical to downstaging cancer at diagnosis and improving survival in low- and middle-income countries. We set out to determine the training needs of health care providers for a comprehensive oncology services package in selected hospitals in Uganda, in order to inform capacity development intervention to improve cancer outcomes in the East African region. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey using the WHO Hennessey-Hicks questionnaire to identify the training needs of health workers involved in cancer care, across 22 hospitals in Uganda. Data were captured in real time using the Open Data Kit platform from which the data was exported to Stata version 15 for analysis using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Somers-Delta. RESULTS: There were 199 respondent health professionals who were predominately female (146/199, 73.37%), with an average age of 38.97 years. There were 158/199 (79.40%) nurses, 24/199 (12.06%) medical doctors and 17/199 (8.54%) allied health professionals. Overall, the research and audit domain had the highest ranking for all the health workers (Somers-D = 0.60). The respondent's level of education had a significant effect on the observed ranking (P value = 0.03). Most of the continuing medical education (CME) topics suggested by the participants were in the clinical task-related category. CONCLUSION: The "research and audit" domain was identified as the priority area for training interventions to improve oncology services in Uganda. There are opportunities for addressing the identified training needs with an expanded cancer CME programme content, peer support networks and tailored training for the individual health care provider.

Infectious disease specialist consultations in a Japanese cancer center: a retrospective review of 776 cases.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of infectious disease (ID) consultations on the management of patients with cancer. This study aimed to describe the consultation services provided by ID specialists to all departments in a comprehensive cancer center in Japan. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of ID consultations with adult patients at a comprehensive cancer center in Japan from April 2017 to March 2018. RESULTS: During the study period, 776 patients with cancer had an ID consultation. Of these, 414 (53.4%) were hospital inpatients. Reasons for the ID consultation comprised clinical management (n = 481, 62.0%), immunization (n = 272, 35.1%), and infection control (n = 23, 3.0%). Of the 474 ID consultations for diagnostic purposes, the most frequent condition was fever or elevated inflammatory markers of unknown origin (n = 125, 26.4%). The most frequent diagnoses after the diagnostic ID consultation were hepatobiliary infections (n = 97, 22.4%), respiratory infections (n = 89, 20.618.8%), and intra-abdominal infections (n = 71, 16.4%). The commonest reasons for immunization consultations were to prevent seasonal influenza (n = 193, 71.0%) and post-splenectomy vaccination (n = 58, 21.3%). The commonest reasons for infection control consultations were suspected tuberculosis or contact with tuberculosis (n = 11, 47.8%) and herpes zoster infection (shingles) (n = 7, 30.4%). CONCLUSIONS: ID specialists play an important role in the clinical management of patients with cancer. ID physicians who work in cancer centers need to be specialized in treating IDs, diagnosing the causes of fevers of unknown origin, and controlling infection.

Evaluating cancer patient-reported outcome measures: Readability and implications for clinical use.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are well known; however, their readability has come into question because multiple PROMs have been found to be incomprehensible to patients. This is a critical safety and equity consideration because PROMs are increasingly being integrated into routine clinical practice. A key strategy for promoting patient comprehension is the use of plain language. The aim of this study was to determine whether PROMs routinely used in the cancer setting meet plain-language best practices. METHODS: To report the plain-language level of each PROM, readability (Fry Readability Graph, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Flesch Reading Ease, and FORCAST) and understandability assessments (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool [PEMAT] for Printable Materials) were performed. PROMs at grade level 6 or lower and with PEMAT scores greater than 80% were considered to meet plain-language best practices. PROMs were divided into 4 domains (physical, emotional, social, and quality of life) and 17 dimensions (eg, pain was a dimension of the physical domain). A subanalysis was conducted to determine whether specific domains and dimensions were more likely to adhere to plain-language best practices. RESULTS: More than half of the 45 PROMs evaluated (n = 33 [73%]) had a grade level higher than 6. Understandability scores ranged from 29% to 100%. The majority of the PROMs that did not meet plain-language best practices were within the physical and emotional domains and focused on the patient's symptom experience. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation shows that more than half of the most commonly used cancer PROMs do not meet plain-language best practices. Practice implications include the necessity for plain-language assessment during the PROM validation process, the consideration of plain language in PROM selection, and plain-language review and editing of low-scoring PROMs.

Patient Navigation to Enhance Access to Care for Underserved Patients with a Suspicion or Diagnosis of Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Interventions aimed at improving access to timely cancer care for patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are urgently needed. We aimed to evaluate a patient navigation (PN) program to reduce referral time to cancer centers for underserved patients with a suspicion or diagnosis of cancer at a public general hospital in Mexico City. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2016 to March 2017, consecutive patients aged >18 years with a suspicion or diagnosis of cancer seen at Ajusco Medio General Hospital in Mexico City who required referral to a specialized center for diagnosis or treatment were enrolled. A patient navigator assisted patients with scheduling, completing paperwork, obtaining results in a timely manner, transportation, and addressing other barriers to care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who obtained a specialized consultation at a cancer center within the first 3 months after enrollment. RESULTS: Seventy patients (median age 54, range 19-85) participated in this study. Ninety-six percent (n = 67) identified >1 barrier to cancer care access. The most commonly reported barriers to health care access were financial burden (n = 50) and fear (n = 37). Median time to referral was 7 days (range 0-49), and time to specialist appointment was 27 days (range 1-97). Ninety-one percent of patients successfully obtained appointments at cancer centers in <3 months. CONCLUSION: Implementing PN in LMIC is feasible, and may lead to shortened referral times for specialized cancer care by helping overcome barriers to health care access among underserved patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A patient navigation program for patients with suspicion or diagnosis of cancer in a second-level hospital was feasible and acceptable. It reduced patient-reported barriers, and referral time to specialized appointments and treatment initiation were within international recommended limits. Patient navigation may improve access to care for underserved patients in developing countries.

Throughput efficiency and service quality after process redesign at a cancer day care unit: Two sides of the coin?

This study was designed to focus on the patient perspective in a reorganisation of care processes at a cancer day care unit (CDU). The effects of dose banding and of taking blood samples one day (or more) before the day care treatment (on Day -1) are investigated in terms of throughput efficiency and perceived service quality. Data were collected by mapping patient processes in detail and surveying patients in two CDUs at a university hospital (n = 308). A univariate model was used to investigate the effect of these factors on patient throughput time, and perceived service quality was examined with multiple linear regression. Taking blood samples on Day -1 decreases patient throughput time and increases the perceived service quality by improving the patient's perception of technical expertise and the outcome. This has a globally positive effect on patients' perceived service quality. Dose banding affected neither patient throughput time nor perceived service quality. Taking the pretreatment blood sample on Day -1 can be considered an important process design characteristic, as it increases both efficiency and service quality.

Multicentre analysis of intensity of care at the end-of-life in patients with advanced cancer, combining health administrative data with hospital records: variations in practice call for routine quality evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Accessible indicators of aggressiveness of care at the end-of-life are useful to monitor implementation of early integrated palliative care practice. To determine the intensity of end-of-life care from exhaustive data combining administrative databases and hospital clinical records, to evaluate its variability across hospital facilities and associations with timely introduction of palliative care (PC). METHODS: For this study designed as a decedent series nested in multicentre cohort of advanced cancer patients, we selected 997 decedents from a cohort of patients hospitalised in 2009-2010, with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer in 3 academic medical centres and 2 comprehensive cancer centres in the Paris area. Hospital data was combined with nationwide mortality databases. Complete data were collected and checked from clinical records, including first referral to PC, chemotherapy within 14 days of death, ≥1 intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ≥2 emergency department visits (ED), and ≥ 2 hospitalizations, all within 30 days of death. RESULTS: Overall (min-max) indicator values as reported by facility providing care rather than the place of death, were: 16% (8-25%) patients received chemotherapy within 14 days of death, 16% (6-32%) had ≥2 admissions to acute care, 6% (0-15%) had ≥2 emergency visits and 18% (4-35%) had ≥1 intensive care unit admission(s). Only 53% of these patients met the PC team, and the median (min-max) time between the first intervention of the PC team and death was 41 (17-112) days. The introduction of PC > 30 days before death was independently associated with lower intensity of care. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressiveness of end-of-life cancer care is highly variable across centres. This validates the use of indicators to monitor integrated PC in oncology. Disseminating a quality audit-feedback cycle should contribute to a shared view of appropriate end-of-life care objectives, and foster action for improvement among care providers.

Reassessing the value of high-volume cancer care in the era of precision medicine.

The ethical and economic discussions regarding the extreme costs of many new cancer therapies are familiar. The authors have long held that changes in cancer care delivery also are an important strategy, yielding large benefits at potentially far lower costs. To put this into context, the authors performed an analysis to compare the overall survival of patients receiving a complex oncologic surgery, radical cystectomy, at high-volume and low-volume centers. Propensity score weighting was performed to simulate random allocation into high-volume versus low-volume centers, as would be the case in a prospective trial. On average, patients undergoing surgery at high-volume centers survived 15 months longer than those treated at low-volume centers (57.0 months vs 41.8 months). Although there certainly are caveats in contrasting the survival benefit of different care settings with anticancer agents, this differential clearly rivals or exceeds the benefit of many expensive, recently approved agents. As the debate regarding the costs of cancer therapies continues, it is worth remembering that investments in simple systems-based changes to improve cancer care delivery remain an important and likely cost-effective strategy with which to improve the survival of patients with cancer. Cancer 2018;124:1319-21. © 2018 American Cancer Society.