Cancer survivorship programs at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE: We sought to present the current status of survivorship programs at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute which include the David B. Perini, Jr. Quality of Life Clinic for survivors of childhood cancer, Stop and Shop Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Clinic for pediatric brain tumor survivors, and Adult Survivorship Program for adult cancer survivors including those diagnosed as adults (age 18 years and older) and adult survivors of childhood cancer, in an effort to share best practices as well as challenges. METHODS: Description of programs and discussion. RESULTS: Our institutional programs are detailed regarding their history and the multidisciplinary approach and both consultative and long-term care delivery models for pediatric and adult cancer survivors, with the goal of meeting the spectrum of survivorship care needs, from diagnosis and management of long-term effects of cancer-directed therapy and surveillance for subsequent cancer, to healthy lifestyle promotion and psychosocial support. Program investigators conduct research to understand the risks and unmet needs of cancer survivors, and to develop and test interventions to improve care delivery and medical and psychosocial outcomes. There are also educational initiatives detailed. CONCLUSIONS: Survivorship programs at Dana-Farber are designed to optimize care and outcomes for cancer survivors including conducting quality improvement initiatives and research to further understand and meet the clinical needs of the large, heterogenous, and growing population cancer survivors into the future. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Programs like ours as well as those ongoing and planned aim to improve the comprehensive care of diverse cancer survivors.

Survivorship Navigation for Young Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Young women treated for breast cancer experience unique concerns in follow-up. We developed a program to direct young breast cancer survivors to a dedicated survivorship visit and evaluated their experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Early-stage breast cancer patients diagnosed under age 45 within 1 year of completing breast surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy were systematically referred for a survivorship visit. Patients completed a one-time, post-visit survey about their experience. RESULTS: Sixty-nine out of 89 (78%) eligible patients attended a survivorship visit, and 40 of those 69 (58%) completed the post-visit survey. Most respondents learned about the survivorship clinic after completing treatment (30/40; 75%) and reported the survivorship visit occurred at an appropriate time in their follow-up care (26/40; 65%). Of the 34 respondents who reported receiving a treatment summary and survivorship care plan, 30 indicated it would be helpful when visiting their primary care provider (88.2%). Participants reported gaining valuable knowledge about cancer treatment (28/38; 73.7%), side effects (32/39; 82.1%), and cancer surveillance (30/40; 75%), and discussed emotional health (32/40; 80%), exercise (38/40; 95%), and ongoing cancer surveillance (32/37; 86.5%). Several reported intentions to make changes to their follow-up oncology care (8/20; 40%), exercise routines (16/30; 53.3%), and emotional health care (15/22; 68.2%). DISCUSSION: Survivorship visit navigation is feasible for young breast cancer patients. These visits can influence knowledge gained and intended future health plans and behaviors. Systematic approaches to survivorship care may improve the physical and mental health of cancer survivors. Future health care delivery research focused on survivorship is warranted.

Primary care providers' comfort in caring for cancer survivors: Implications for risk-stratified care.

Personalized, risk-stratified care aims to "right size" the involvement of primary care providers (PCPs), oncology and specialized practitioners in caring for cancer survivors. Our survey found limited comfort among PCPs in cancer surveillance and management of treatment-related effects. In hypothetical case scenarios, PCPs reported least comfort in caring for a survivor of childhood cancer, followed by young adult-onset cancer, and greater comfort in caring for a survivor of adult-onset breast cancer. While education and training of PCPs is essential, risk-stratification strategies need to identify patients who may transition to primary care and those who may require ongoing survivorship-focused follow-up.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Accrual: Perspectives of Community-Based Providers.

BACKGROUND: Only a small proportion of patients with cancer enroll onto clinical trials. Previous studies have explored patient-related barriers to trial participation; however, few studies have focused on the provider perspective. We aimed to describe referral practices and barriers to referrals of patients with breast cancer for clinical trials, including the utilization of web-based trial-matching tools. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2016, we distributed 120 surveys to attendees of a breast oncology continuing medical education course. The survey addressed referral patterns, trial knowledge, and perceptions of web-based trial-matching tools. After survey completion, participants were provided a link to the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute trial-matching tool. Three months later, a follow-up survey was sent to assess their use of this tool. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey data. RESULTS: Ninety-six (80%) participants completed the first survey; 5 respondents did not actively treat patients with breast cancer and were excluded. Respondents included medical (30%) and surgical (22%) oncologists, nurse practitioners/physician assistants (26%), and other (22%). Neoadjuvant and metastatic trials were deemed the highest priority. The primary reported barriers included perceived lack of patient interest, lack of trial awareness, and logistical barriers. Emailing trial investigators directly was the preferred method of trial referral. Although 80% indicated that web-based tools would increase trial referrals, our follow-up survey revealed that only 18% of respondents used our web-based tool. CONCLUSION: Our respondents valued trial participation for their patients but found it difficult to manage. Further research is needed regarding how to increase the likelihood that patients are presented with appropriate trial options.

Enhanced disinfection leads to reduction of microbial contamination and a decrease in patient colonization and infection.

In this prospective study, we monitored 4 epidemiologically important pathogens (EIPs): methicillin-resistane Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), Clostridium difficile, and multidrug-resistant (MDR) Acinetobacter to assess the effectiveness of 3 enhanced disinfection strategies for terminal room disinfection against standard practice. Our data demonstrated that a decrease in room contamination with EIPs of 94% was associated with a 35% decrease in subsequent patient colonization and/or infection.

Effectiveness of targeted enhanced terminal room disinfection on hospital-wide acquisition and infection with multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile: a secondary analysis of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial with crossover design (BETR Disinfection).

BACKGROUND: The hospital environment is a source of pathogen transmission. The effect of enhanced disinfection strategies on the hospital-wide incidence of infection has not been investigated in a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of four disinfection strategies on hospital-wide incidence of multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile in the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room (BETR) Disinfection study. METHODS: We did a prespecified secondary analysis of the results from the BETR Disinfection study, a pragmatic, multicentre, crossover cluster-randomised trial that assessed four different strategies for terminal room disinfection in nine hospitals in the southeastern USA. Rooms from which a patient with a specific infection or colonisation (due to the target organisms C difficile, meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), or multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter spp) was discharged were terminally disinfected with one of four strategies: standard disinfection (quaternary ammonium disinfectant, except for C difficile, for which 10% hypochlorite [bleach] was used; reference); standard disinfection and disinfecting ultraviolet light (UV-C), except for C difficile, for which bleach and UV-C was used (UV strategy); 10% hypochlorite (bleach strategy); and bleach and UV-C (bleach and UV strategy). We randomly assigned the sequence of strategies for each hospital (1:1:1:1), and each strategy was used for 7 months, including a 1-month wash-in period and 6 months of data collection. The prespecified secondary outcomes were hospital-wide, hospital-acquired incidence of all target organisms (calculated as number of patients with hospital-acquired infection with a target organism per 10 000 patient days), and hospital-wide, hospital-acquired incidence of each target organism separately. BETR Disinfection is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01579370. FINDINGS: Between April, 2012, and July, 2014, there were 271 740 unique patients with 375 918 admissions. 314 610 admissions met all inclusion criteria (n=73 071 in the reference study period, n=81 621 in the UV study period, n=78 760 in the bleach study period, and n=81 158 in the bleach and UV study period). 2681 incidenct cases of hospital-acquired infection or colonisation occurred during the study. There was no significant difference in the hospital-wide risk of target organism acquisition between standard disinfection and the three enhanced terminal disinfection strategies for all target multidrug-resistant organisms (UV study period relative risk [RR] 0·89, 95% CI 0·79-1·00; p=0·052; bleach study period 0·92, 0·79-1·08; p=0·32; bleach and UV study period 0·99, 0·89-1·11; p=0·89). The decrease in risk in the UV study period was driven by decreases in risk of acquisition of C difficile (RR 0·89, 95% CI 0·80-0·99; p=0·031) and VRE (0·56, 0·31-0·996; p=0·048). INTERPRETATION: Enhanced terminal room disinfection with UV in a targeted subset of high-risk rooms led to a decrease in hospital-wide incidence of C difficile and VRE. Enhanced disinfection overcomes limitations of standard disinfection strategies and is a potential strategy to reduce the risk of acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms and C difficile. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Implementation Lessons Learned From the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room (BETR) Disinfection Study: Process and Perceptions of Enhanced Disinfection with Ultraviolet Disinfection Devices.

OBJECTIVE To summarize and discuss logistic and administrative challenges we encountered during the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room (BETR) Disinfection Study and lessons learned that are pertinent to future utilization of ultraviolet (UV) disinfection devices in other hospitals DESIGN Multicenter cluster randomized trial SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Nine hospitals in the southeastern United States METHODS All participating hospitals developed systems to implement 4 different strategies for terminal room disinfection. We measured compliance with disinfection strategy, barriers to implementation, and perceptions from nurse managers and environmental services (EVS) supervisors throughout the 28-month trial. RESULTS Implementation of enhanced terminal disinfection with UV disinfection devices provides unique challenges, including time pressures from bed control personnel, efficient room identification, negative perceptions from nurse managers, and discharge volume. In the course of the BETR Disinfection Study, we utilized several strategies to overcome these barriers: (1) establishing safety as the priority; (2) improving communication between EVS, bed control, and hospital administration; (3) ensuring availability of necessary resources; and (4) tracking and providing feedback on compliance. Using these strategies, we deployed ultraviolet (UV) disinfection devices in 16,220 (88%) of 18,411 eligible rooms during our trial (median per hospital, 89%; IQR, 86%-92%). CONCLUSIONS Implementation of enhanced terminal room disinfection strategies using UV devices requires recognition and mitigation of 2 key barriers: (1) timely and accurate identification of rooms that would benefit from enhanced terminal disinfection and (2) overcoming time constraints to allow EVS cleaning staff sufficient time to properly employ enhanced terminal disinfection methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinical trials identifier: NCT01579370 Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:157-163.

Enhanced terminal room disinfection and acquisition and infection caused by multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile (the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room Disinfection study): a cluster-randomised, multicentre, crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to hospital can acquire multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile from inadequately disinfected environmental surfaces. We determined the effect of three enhanced strategies for terminal room disinfection (disinfection of a room between occupying patients) on acquisition and infection due to meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, C difficile, and multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, crossover trial at nine hospitals in the southeastern USA. Rooms from which a patient with infection or colonisation with a target organism was discharged were terminally disinfected with one of four strategies: reference (quaternary ammonium disinfectant except for C difficile, for which bleach was used); UV (quaternary ammonium disinfectant and disinfecting ultraviolet [UV-C] light except for C difficile, for which bleach and UV-C were used); bleach; and bleach and UV-C. The next patient admitted to the targeted room was considered exposed. Every strategy was used at each hospital in four consecutive 7-month periods. We randomly assigned the sequence of strategies for each hospital (1:1:1:1). The primary outcomes were the incidence of infection or colonisation with all target organisms among exposed patients and the incidence of C difficile infection among exposed patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01579370. FINDINGS: 31 226 patients were exposed; 21 395 (69%) met all inclusion criteria, including 4916 in the reference group, 5178 in the UV group, 5438 in the bleach group, and 5863 in the bleach and UV group. 115 patients had the primary outcome during 22 426 exposure days in the reference group (51·3 per 10 000 exposure days). The incidence of target organisms among exposed patients was significantly lower after adding UV to standard cleaning strategies (n=76; 33·9 cases per 10 000 exposure days; relative risk [RR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·50-0·98; p=0·036). The primary outcome was not statistically lower with bleach (n=101; 41·6 cases per 10 000 exposure days; RR 0·85, 95% CI 0·69-1·04; p=0·116), or bleach and UV (n=131; 45·6 cases per 10 000 exposure days; RR 0·91, 95% CI 0·76-1·09; p=0·303) among exposed patients. Similarly, the incidence of C difficile infection among exposed patients was not changed after adding UV to cleaning with bleach (n=38 vs 36; 30·4 cases vs 31·6 cases per 10 000 exposure days; RR 1·0, 95% CI 0·57-1·75; p=0·997). INTERPRETATION: A contaminated health-care environment is an important source for acquisition of pathogens; enhanced terminal room disinfection decreases this risk. FUNDING: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.