Clinician perspectives on delivering primary and specialty palliative care in community oncology practices.

PURPOSE: Clinical guidelines recommend early palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer. In rural and underserved community oncology practices with limited resources, both primary palliative care from an oncologist and specialty palliative care are needed to address patients' palliative care needs. The aim of this study is to describe community oncology clinicians' primary palliative care practices and perspectives on integrating specialty palliative care into routine advanced lung cancer treatment in rural and underserved communities. METHODS: Participants were clinicians recruited from 15 predominantly rural community oncology practices in Kentucky. Participants completed a one-time survey regarding their primary palliative care practices and knowledge, barriers, and facilitators to integrating specialty palliative care into advanced-stage lung cancer treatment. RESULTS: Forty-seven clinicians (30% oncologists) participated. The majority (72.3%) of clinicians worked in a rural county. Over 70% reported routinely asking patients about symptom and physical function concerns, whereas less than half reported routinely asking about key prognostic concerns. Roughly 30% held at least one palliative care misconception (e.g., palliative care is for only those who are stopping cancer treatment). Clinician-reported barriers to specialty palliative care referrals included fear a referral would send the wrong message to patients (77%) and concern about burdening patients with appointments (53%). Notably, the most common clinician-reported facilitator was a patient asking for a referral (93.6%). CONCLUSION: Educational programs and outreach efforts are needed to inform community oncology clinicians about palliative care, empower patients to request referrals, and facilitate patients' palliative care needs assessment, documentation, and standardized referral templates.

Quality indicators for integrating oncology and home palliative care in Japan: modified Delphi study.

CONTEXT: Home palliative care service increases the chance of dying at home, particularly for patients with advanced cancer, but late referrals to home palliative care services still exist. Indicators for evaluating programs that can facilitate the integration of oncology and home palliative care have not been defined. OBJECTIVES: This study developed quality indicators for the integration of oncology and home palliative care in Japan. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review (Databases included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Emcare) and a modified Delphi study to develop the quality indicators. Panelists rated a potential list of indicators using a 9-point scale over three rounds according to two criteria: appropriateness and feasibility. The criterion for the adoption of candidate indicators was set at a total mean score of 7 or more. Final quality indicators with no disagreement were included. RESULTS: Of the 973 publications in our initial search, 12 studies were included. The preliminary list of quality indicators by systematic literature review comprised 50 items. In total, 37 panelists participated in the modified Delphi study. Ultimately, 18 indicators were identified from the following domains: structure in cancer hospitals, structure in home palliative care services, the process of home palliative care service delivery, less aggressive end-of-life care, patient's psychological comfort, caregiver's psychological comfort, and patient's satisfaction with home palliative care service. CONCLUSION: Comprehensive quality indicators for the integration of oncology and home palliative care were identified. These indicators may facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration between professional healthcare providers in both cancer hospitals and home palliative care services.

Pioneering the implementation of a precision oncology strategy in Portugal: the Precision Oncology Platform trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Precision Oncology Platform (POP) trial represents the effort of the Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto) for joining other leading European institutions in both 'Personalised Cancer Medicine for all EU citizens' (PCM4EU), and 'PRecisIon Cancer MEdicine RepurpOsing SystEm Using Pragmatic Clinical Trials' (PRIME-ROSE) consortia, enabling the development of the Portuguese version of the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP)-like Clinical Trial (DLCT), based on the experience of the DRUP trial developed in The Netherlands. PATIENTS/MATERIAL AND METHODS: The POP trial is a phase II, pragmatic multicentric, non-randomised, open-label study, designed entirely like the other DLCTs. Its primary objective is to describe anti-tumour activity of targeted anticancer drugs in patients with advanced malignancies harbouring actionable molecular alterations. The primary endpoint is disease control rate (DCR). Secondary endpoints encompass treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Exploratory objectives will assess biomarkers, resource use and costs, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). INTERPRETATION: The POP trial will offer access to innovative treatments for patients without further therapeutic options and provide evidence on efficacy and safety of molecularly-guided treatments. Methodologically, it represents a pioneer approach in Portugal, including a pay-for-performance model embedded in the clinical trial. The POP trial represents a unique opportunity to integrate clinical research within cancer care, pursuing an evidence-based precision oncology strategy, and facilitating its rational and cost-effective implementation into the Portuguese healthcare system.

Cancer Core Europe: Leveraging Institutional Synergies to Advance Oncology Research and Care Globally.

Cancer Core Europe brings together the expertise, resources, and interests of seven leading cancer institutes committed to leveraging collective innovation and collaboration in precision oncology. Through targeted efforts addressing key medical challenges in cancer and partnerships with multiple stakeholders, the consortium seeks to advance cancer research and enhance equitable patient care.

The WERA cancer center matrix: Strategic management of patient access to precision oncology in a large and mostly rural area of Germany.

PURPOSE: Providing patient access to precision oncology (PO) is a major challenge of clinical oncologists. Here, we provide an easily transferable model from strategic management science to assess the outreach of a cancer center. METHODS: As members of the German WERA alliance, the cancer centers in Würzburg, Erlangen, Regensburg and Augsburg merged care data regarding their geographical impact. Specifically, we examined the provenance of patients from WERA´s molecular tumor boards (MTBs) between 2020 and 2022 (n = 2243). As second dimension, we added the provenance of patients receiving general cancer care by WERA. Clustering our catchment area along these two dimensions set up a four-quadrant matrix consisting of postal code areas with referrals towards WERA. These areas were re-identified on a map of the Federal State of Bavaria. RESULTS: The WERA matrix overlooked an active screening area of 821 postal code areas - representing about 50 % of Bavaria´s spatial expansion and more than six million inhabitants. The WERA matrix identified regions successfully connected to our outreach structures in terms of subsidiarity - with general cancer care mainly performed locally but PO performed in collaboration with WERA. We also detected postal code areas with a potential PO backlog - characterized by high levels of cancer care performed by WERA and low levels or no MTB representation. CONCLUSIONS: The WERA matrix provided a transparent portfolio of postal code areas, which helped assessing the geographical impact of our PO program. We believe that its intuitive principle can easily be transferred to other cancer centers.

Shared Decision Making in Oncology and Its Implementation in Cervical Cancer Management in the Philippines: A Narrative Review.

PURPOSE: Shared decision making (SDM) is an approach where clinicians and patients make decisions together using the best available evidence. Although much studied, recognized to be ethically imperative, and recommended in international health policies, it remains poorly implemented. In the Philippines, there are limited studies on patient decision making preferences and SDM. Practical guidance on the implementation of SDM or use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) is often not detailed in existing national clinical practice guidelines in oncology. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of Philippine literature on SDM in oncology and an iterative review of international literature on the philosophy and methods of SDM, the utility and effectiveness of PtDAs, and the facilitators and barriers to implementation or usage. We contextualized our review to the cervical cancer management and health service delivery in the Philippines. RESULTS: Local literature is limited to five scientific publications and two registered studies. International literature encompasses patient decisional preferences, the role of PtDAs and the standards for their development and evaluation, their effectiveness, and barriers and facilitators to their use in cancer-related decision making. We discussed the implications on the management of cervical cancer in the Philippines, challenges in health service delivery and standards, and SDM research. CONCLUSION: Local SDM research is limited. Our preliminary experience in a multicenter clinical trial in Manila on PtDA use in the framework of SDM in cervical cancer suggest good patient and clinician acceptability. Challenges to implementation such as unfavorable financial situations, urgency of clinical decisions, low patient or caregiver educational attainment, and poor integration of multidisciplinary and SDM in organizational workflows will be important when implementing SDM in different settings.

[The collaborative project "Personalized medicine for oncology" (PM4Onco) as part of the Medical Informatics Initiative (MII)]. / Das Verbundprojekt "Personalisierte Medizin für die Onkologie" (PM4Onco) als Teil der Medizininformatik-Initiative (MII).

The collaborative project Personalized Medicine for Oncology (PM4Onco) was launched in 2023 as part of the National Decade against Cancer (NKD) and is executed within the Medical Informatics Initiative (MII). Its aim is to establish a sustainable infrastructure for the integration and use of data from clinical and biomedical research and therefore combines the experience and preliminary work of all four consortia of the MII and the leading oncology centers in Germany. The data provided by PM4Onco will be prepared in a suitable form to support decision making in molecular tumor boards. This concept and infrastructure will be extended to 23 participating partner sites and thus improve access to targeted therapies based on clinical information and analysis of molecular genetic alterations in tumors at different stages of the disease. This will help to improve the treatment and prognosis of tumor diseases.Clinical cancer registries are involved in the project to improve data quality through standardized documentation routines. Clinical experts advise on the expansion of the core datasets for personalized medicine (PM). Information on quality of life and treatment outcomes reported by patients in questionnaires, which is rarely collected outside of clinical trials, will make a significant contribution. Patient representatives are involved from the onset to ensure that the important perspective of patients is taken into account in the decision-making process. PM4Onco thus creates an alliance between the MII, oncological centers of excellence, clinical cancer registries, young scientists, patients, and citizens to strengthen and advance PM in cancer therapy.

Growing the global cancer care system: success stories from around the world and lessons for the future.

Despite major biomedical advancements in various realms of oncology, the benefits of these developments are not equitably distributed, particularly in underresourced settings. Although much work has described the challenges and systemic barriers in global cancer control, in this article we focus on success stories. This article describes clinical care delivered at Rwanda's Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence, the cancer research collaborations under India's National Cancer Grid, and the efforts of Latin America's Institute of Cancer of São Paulo in advancing cancer care and training. These examples highlight the potential of strategic collaborations and resource allocation strategies in improving cancer care globally. We emphasize the critical role of partnerships between physicians and allied health professionals, funders, and policy makers in enhancing access to treatment and infrastructure, advancing contextualized research and national guidelines, and establishing regional and global collaborations. We also draw attention to challenges faced in diverse global settings and outline benchmarks to measure success in the fight against cancer.

Addressing transportation barriers in oncology: existing programs and new solutions.

Transportation is an underrecognized, but modifiable barrier to accessing cancer care, especially for clinical trials. Clinicians, insurers, and health systems can screen patients for transportation needs and link them to transportation. Direct transportation services (i.e., ride-sharing, insurance-provided transportation) have high rates of patient satisfaction and visit completion. Patient financial reimbursements provide necessary funds to counteract the effects of transportation barriers, which can lead to higher trial enrollment, especially for low socioeconomic status and racially and ethnically diverse patients. Expanding transportation interventions to more cancer patients, and addressing knowledge, service, and system gaps, can help more patients access needed cancer care.

Telemedicine in geriatric oncology - lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Telemedicine quickly became integrated into healthcare caused by the Coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Rapid use of telemedicine into healthcare systems was supported by the World Health Organization and other prominent national organizations to reduce transmission of the virus while continuing to provide access to care. In this review, we explored the effect of this swift change in care and its impact on older adults with cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Older adults are susceptible to the COVID-19 virus caused by various risk factors, such as comorbidity, frailty, decreased immunity, and cancer increases vulnerability to infection, hospitalization, and mortality. We found three major themes emerged in the literature published in the past 18 months, including access to care, telemedicine modes of communication, and the use of technology by older adults with cancer. These findings have brought insight into issues regarding healthcare disparities. SUMMARY: The utilization of telemedicine by older adults with cancer has potential future benefits with the integration of technology preparation prior to the patient's initial visit and addressing known health disparities. The hybrid model of care provides in-person and or remote access to clinicians which may allow older adults with cancer the flexibility needed to obtain quality cancer care.

Tele-Oncology Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient Experiences and Communication Behaviors with Clinicians.

Background: Tele-oncology became a widely used tool during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there was limited understanding of how patient-clinician communication occurred using the technology. Our goal was to identify how communication transpired during tele-oncology consultations compared with in-person appointments. Methods: A convergent parallel mixed-method design was utilized for the web-based survey, and follow-up interviews were conducted with cancer patients from March to December 2020. Participants were recruited from the University of Florida Health Cancer Center and two national cancer organizations. During the survey, participants rated their clinician's patient-centered communication behaviors. Open-ended survey responses and interview data were combined and analyzed thematically using the constant comparative method. Results: A total of 158 participants completed the survey, and 33 completed an interview. Ages ranged from 19 to 88 years (mean = 64.2; standard deviation = 13.0); 53.2% identified as female and 44.9% as male. The majority of respondents (76%) considered communication in tele-oncology equal to in-person visits. Preferences for tele-oncology included the ability to get information from the clinician, with 13.5% rating tele-oncology as better than in-person appointments. Tele-oncology was considered worse than in-person appointments for eye contact (n = 21, 12.4%) and virtual waiting room times (n = 50, 29.4%). The following qualitative themes corresponded with several quantitative variables: (1) commensurate to in-person appointments, (2) uncertainty with the digital platform, (3) lack of a personal connection, and (4) enhanced patient experience. Conclusion: Patient-centered communication behaviors were mostly viewed as equally prevalent during tele-oncology and in-person appointments. Addressing the challenges of tele-oncology is necessary to improve the patient experience.

Policy strategies for capacity building and scale up of the workforce for comprehensive cancer care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer in low- and middle-income countries experience worse outcomes as a result of the limited capacity of health systems to deliver comprehensive cancer care. The health workforce is a key component of health systems; however, deep gaps exist in the availability and accessibility of cancer care providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of the literature evaluating the strategies for capacity building of the cancer workforce. We studied how the policy strategies addressed the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality (AAAQ) of the workforce. We used a strategic planning framework (SWOT: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) to identify actionable areas of capacity building. We contextualized our findings based on the WHO 2030 Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health, evaluating how they can ultimately be framed in a labour market approach and inform strategies to improve the capacity of the workforce (PROSPERO: CRD42020109377). RESULTS: The systematic review of the literature yielded 9617 records, and we selected 45 eligible papers for data extraction. The workforce interventions identified were delivered mostly in the African and American Regions, and in two-thirds of cases, in high-income countries. Many strategies have been shown to increase the number of competent oncology providers. Optimization of the existing workforce through role delegation and digital health interventions was reported as a short- to mid-term solution to optimize cancer care, through quality-oriented, efficiency-improving, and acceptability-enforcing workforce strategies. The increased workload alone was potentially detrimental. The literature on retaining the workforce and reducing brain drain or attrition in underserved areas was commonly limited. CONCLUSIONS: Workforce capacity building is not only a quantitative problem but can also be addressed through quality-oriented, organizational, and managerial solutions of human resources. The delivery of comprehensive, acceptable, and impact-oriented cancer care requires an available, accessible, and competent workforce for comprehensive cancer care. Efficiency-improving strategies may be instrumental for capacity building in resource-constrained settings.

Integrating Cardio-Oncology Across the Research Pipeline, Policy, and Practice in Australia-An Australian Cardiovascular Alliance Perspective.

Over 18 million people worldwide were diagnosed with cancer in 2020, including over 150,000 people in Australia. Although improved early detection and treatment have increased the survival rates, cardiotoxic treatment and inadequate management of cardiovascular risk factors have resulted in cardiovascular disease (CVD) being one of the leading causes of non-cancer-related death and disability among cancer survivors. International guidelines outline the standards of care for CVD risk surveillance and management. However, Australian cardio-oncology policies and clinical guidelines are limited. There is increasing growth of cardio-oncology research in Australia and support from leading Australian professional bodies and advocacy and research networks, including the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, the National Heart Foundation of Australia, and the Australian Cardiovascular Alliance (ACvA). Thus, opportunities to drive multidisciplinary cardio-oncology initiatives are growing, including grant funding, position statements, and novel research to inform new policies. The ACvA has a unique flagship structure that spans the translational research pipeline from drug discovery to implementation science. This article aims to highlight how multidisciplinary cardio-oncology innovations could intersect with the seven ACvA flagships, and to showcase Australian achievements in cardio-oncology thus far. We summarise eight key priority areas for future cardio-oncology research that emerged. These strategies will strengthen cardio-oncology research and care in Australia, and drive new guidelines, policies, and government initiatives to ensure equity in health outcomes for all cardio-oncology patients.

Solomon Islands Oncology Unit: Sustainability in Terms of Outcomes.

Bush et al emphasize that the key to establishing enduring and efficient global health systems lies in prioritizing local stakeholders and, above all, the welfare of patients.

Introduction of Various Models of Palliative Oncology Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to synthesize the existing evidence on various palliative care (PC) models for cancer patients. This effort seeks to discern which facets of PC models are suitable for various patient cohorts, elucidate their mechanisms, and clarify the circumstances in which these models operate. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed using MeSH terms related to PC and cancer across various databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and a comprehensive evidence map were also applied. RESULTS: Thirty-three reviews were published between 2009 and 2023. The conceptual PC models can be classified broadly into time-based, provider-based, disease-based, nurse-based, issue-based, system-based, team-based, non-hospice-based, hospital-based, community-based, telehealth-based, and setting-based models. The study argues that the outcomes of PC encompass timely symptom management, longitudinal psychosocial support, enhanced communication, and decision-making. Referral methods to specialized PC services include oncologist-initiated referral based on clinical judgment alone, via referral criteria, automatic referral at the diagnosis of advanced cancer, or referral based on symptoms or other triggers. CONCLUSION: The gold standard for selecting a PC model in the context of oncology is a model that ensures broad availability of early PC for all patients and provides well-timed, scheduled, and specialized care for patients with the greatest requirement.

Cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit in Ethiopia.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit in Ethiopia to inform the revision of the Ethiopia Essential Health Service Package (EEHSP), which ranks the treatment of childhood cancers at a low and medium priority. METHODS: We built a decision analytical model-a decision tree-to estimate the cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit compared with a do-nothing scenario (no paediatric oncology care) from a healthcare provider perspective. We used the recently (2018-2019) conducted costing estimate for running the paediatric oncology unit at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH) and employed a mixed costing approach (top-down and bottom-up). We used data on health outcomes from other studies in similar settings to estimate the disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted of running a paediatric oncology unit compared with a do-nothing scenario over a lifetime horizon. Both costs and effects were discounted (3%) to the present value. The primary outcome was incremental cost in US dollars (USDs) per DALY averted, and we used a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50% of the Ethiopian gross domestic product per capita (USD 477 in 2019). Uncertainty was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The incremental cost and DALYs averted per child treated in the paediatric oncology unit at TASH were USD 876 and 2.4, respectively, compared with no paediatric oncology care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of running a paediatric oncology unit was USD 361 per DALY averted, and it was cost-effective in 90% of 100 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a USD 477 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of paediatric cancer services using a specialised oncology unit is most likely cost-effective in Ethiopia, at least for easily treatable cancer types in centres with minimal to moderate capability. We recommend reassessing the priority-level decision of childhood cancer treatment in the current EEHSP.