Defining Practice Capacity for Cancer Care Delivery to Adolescents and Young Adults in the Community Setting: 2022 Landscape Assessment Results.

Background: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) commonly receive cancer care in the community setting, but the availability of treatment options, resources, and support services for this population is not well known. The National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) funds a network of practices whose mission is to increase access to cancer care and clinical trials in the community setting. We describe our interdisciplinary methodological approach to identify and characterize NCORP practices where AYAs receive cancer care. Methods: NCORP practices completed a cross-sectional Landscape Assessment to describe resources and practice characteristics. We established an interdisciplinary team of stakeholders to analyze the Landscape Assessment data relating to AYAs. Through an iterative process, we assessed NCORP practice responses to questions assessing AYA cancer care capacity, determined a threshold to define practices treating AYAs, and characterized these practices. Results: We determined that practices provide cancer care to AYAs if the following criteria were met: (1) endorsed having an AYA program (n = 20), (2) AYAs comprised ≥5% of annual cancer cases (n = 55), or (3) the practice treated ≥50 AYA cancer cases annually (n = 70). Of 271 NCORP practices, 100 (37%) met any criteria, whereas 87 (32%) did not; 84 (31%) could not be classified due to missing or unknown data. Conclusion: Using an interdisciplinary process, we define practices that treat AYAs in the community. We posit a uniform approach to examine resources and practice capacity for AYAs receiving cancer care across the United States to guide future AYA-focused cancer care delivery research development.

Defining the Role of the Advanced Practice Provider Within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

PURPOSE: Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual. METHODS: The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP. RESULTS: A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development. CONCLUSION: Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.

Cardiovascular health assessment in routine cancer follow-up in community settings: survivor risk awareness and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend cardiovascular risk assessment and counseling for cancer survivors. For effective implementation, it is critical to understand survivor cardiovascular health (CVH) profiles and perspectives in community settings. We aimed to (1) Assess survivor CVH profiles, (2) compare self-reported and EHR-based categorization of CVH factors, and (3) describe perceptions regarding addressing CVH during oncology encounters. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis utilized data from an ongoing NCI Community Oncology Research Program trial of an EHR heart health tool for cancer survivors (WF-1804CD). Survivors presenting for routine care after potentially curative treatment recruited from 8 oncology practices completed a pre-visit survey, including American Heart Association Simple 7 CVH factors (classified as ideal, intermediate, or poor). Medical record abstraction ascertained CVD risk factors and cancer characteristics. Likert-type questions assessed desired discussion during oncology care. RESULTS: Of 502 enrolled survivors (95.6% female; mean time since diagnosis = 4.2 years), most had breast cancer (79.7%). Many survivors had common cardiovascular comorbidities, including high cholesterol (48.3%), hypertension or high BP (47.8%) obesity (33.1%), and diabetes (20.5%); 30.5% of survivors received high cardiotoxicity potential cancer treatment. Less than half had ideal/non-missing levels for physical activity (48.0%), BMI (18.9%), cholesterol (17.9%), blood pressure (14.1%), healthy diet (11.0%), and glucose/ HbA1c (6.0%). While > 50% of survivors had concordant EHR-self-report categorization for smoking, BMI, and blood pressure; cholesterol, glucose, and A1C were unknown by survivors and/or missing in the EHR for most. Most survivors agreed oncology providers should talk about heart health (78.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Tools to promote CVH discussion can fill gaps in CVH knowledge and are likely to be well-received by survivors in community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03935282, Registered 10/01/2020.

Processes for identifying caregivers and screening for caregiver and patient distress in community oncology: results from WF-1803CD.

BACKGROUND: Despite their vital roles, informal caregivers of adult cancer patients are commonly overlooked in cancer care. This study describes processes for identifying cancer caregivers and processes for distress screening and management among caregivers and patients in the understudied community oncology setting. METHODS: Supportive care leaders from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program practices completed online survey questions regarding caregiver identification, caregiver and patient distress screening, and distress management strategies. We described practice group characteristics and prevalence of study outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression explored associations between practice group characteristics and caregiver identification in the electronic health record (EHR). RESULTS: Most (64.9%, 72 of 111) supportive care leaders reported routine identification and documentation of informal caregivers; 63.8% record this information in the EHR. Only 16% routinely screen caregivers for distress, though 92.5% screen patients. Distress management strategies for caregivers and patients are widely available, yet only 12.6% are routinely identified and screened and had at least 1 referral strategy for caregivers with distress; 90.6% are routinely screened and had at least 1 referral strategy for patients. Practices with a free-standing outpatient clinic (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29, P = .0106) and academic affiliation (OR = 0.01, P = .04) were less likely to identify and document caregivers in the EHR. However, higher oncologist volume was associated with an increased likelihood of recording caregiver information in the EHR (OR = 1.04, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high levels of patient distress screening and management, few practices provide comprehensive caregiver engagement practices. Existing patient engagement protocols may provide a promising platform to build capacity to better address caregiver needs.

Developing a national implementation strategy to accelerate uptake of evidence-based family caregiver support in U.S. cancer centers.

OBJECTIVE: Characterize key factors and training needs of U.S. cancer centers in implementing family caregiver support services. METHODS: Sequential explanatory mixed methods design consisting of: (1) a national survey of clinicians and administrators from Commission-on-Cancer-accredited cancer centers (N = 238) on factors and training needed for establishing new caregiver programs and (2) qualitative interviews with a subsample of survey respondents (N = 30) to elicit feedback on survey findings and the outline of an implementation strategy to facilitate implementation of evidence-based family caregiver support (the Caregiver Support Accelerator). Survey data was tabulated using descriptive statistics and transcribed interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Top factors for developing new caregiver programs were that the program be: consistent with the cancer center's mission and strategic plan (87%), supported by clinic leadership (86.5%) and providers and staff (85.7%), and low cost or cost effective (84.9%). Top training needs were how to: train staff to implement programs (72.3%), obtain program materials (63.0%), and evaluate program outcomes (62.6%). Only 3.8% reported that no training was needed. Qualitative interviews yielded four main themes: (1) gaining leadership, clinician, and staff buy-in and support is essential; (2) cost and clinician burden are major factors to program implementation; (3) training should help with adapting and marketing programs to local context and culture; and (4) the Accelerator strategy is comprehensive and would benefit from key organizational partnerships and policy standards. CONCLUSION: Findings will be used to inform and refine the Accelerator implementation strategy to facilitate the adoption and growth of evidence-based cancer caregiver support in U.S. cancer centers.

Information Technology and Telemedicine Services in Community Oncology Practices.

PURPOSE: We described information technology support and use of telemedicine for cancer care and research purposes at community oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). METHODS: We used data from the NCORP 2017 and 2022 Landscape Assessments. Separate logistic regression models were used to assess factors associated with the use of telemedicine for delivery of cancer care in 2017 and for research purposes in 2022 (cancer care delivery not assessed in 2022). RESULTS: Information was available from 210 and 259 practice groups excluding pediatric-only groups in 2017 and 2022, respectively. In 2017, 30% of practice groups used telemedicine for delivery of cancer care; half of these (15% overall) could use telemedicine for research purposes. In 2022, telemedicine was used for research purposes in 73% of practice groups. In multivariable models, self-identifying as a safety-net hospital was associated with a lower odd of telemedicine use for delivery of cancer care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.93), whereas affiliation with a designated critical access hospital was associated with a higher odd of telemedicine use for delivery of cancer care (AOR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.76). Having a general survivorship clinic (AOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.54) and number of oncology providers (increase per 10 providers; AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.65) were associated with telemedicine use for research purposes. CONCLUSION: Almost one third of NCORP practice groups used telemedicine for cancer care delivery in 2017. In 2022, there is high capacity among NCORP practices (almost three-quarters) to use telemedicine for research purposes, especially among practices with a general survivorship clinic and a greater provider number.

Endometrial cancer survivors' perceptions of their cardiovascular disease risk (results from WF-1804CD AH-HA).

OBJECTIVE: Despite considerable burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD), data on endometrial cancer survivors' CVD perceptions are lacking. We assessed survivors' perspectives on addressing CVD risk during oncology care. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis utilized data from an ongoing trial of an EHR heart health tool (R01CA226078 & UG1CA189824) conducted through the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP, WF-1804CD). Endometrial cancer survivors post-potentially curative treatment were recruited from community practices and completed a pre-visit baseline survey, including American Heart Association Simple 7 CVD factors. Likert-type questions assessed confidence in understanding CVD risk, CVD risk perception, and desired discussion during oncology care. Medical record abstraction ascertained data on CVD and cancer characteristics. RESULTS: Survivors (N = 55, median age = 62; 62% 0-2 years post-diagnosis) were predominately white, non-Hispanic (87%). Most agreed/strongly agreed heart disease poses a risk to their health (87%) and oncology providers should talk to patients about heart health (76%). Few survivors reported smoking (12%) but many had poor/intermediate values for blood pressure (95%), body mass index (93%), fasting glucose/A1c (60%), diet (60%), exercise (47%) and total cholesterol (53%). 16% had not seen a PCP in the last year; these survivors were more likely to report financial hardship (22% vs 0%; p = 0.02). Most reported readiness to take steps to maintain or improve heart health (84%). CONCLUSIONS: Discussions of CVD risk during routine oncology care are likely to be well received by endometrial cancer survivors. Strategies are needed to implement CVD risk assessment guidelines and to enhance communication and referrals with primary care. Clinical Trials #: NCT03935282.

Reducing Anxiety and Dyspnea via Device-Guided Breathing (RELAX): A Multi-Site Feasibility Study in Post-Treatment Lung Cancer Survivors at Community Cancer Clinics (WF-01213).

INTRODUCTION: Anxiety and dyspnea are 2 common symptoms for lung cancer survivors. Although research suggests decreasing respiration rate can reduce anxiety in several populations, potential benefits of device-guided breathing have not been studied in lung cancer survivors. This feasibility study (WF-01213) provides estimates of accrual, adherence, retention, and preliminary efficacy of 2 doses of a device-guided breathing intervention versus a usual breathing control group for improving self-reported anxiety and dyspnea in post-treatment lung cancer survivors. METHODS: Stage I-IV lung cancer survivors were recruited through the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) and randomized to 12 weeks of a device-guided breathing intervention (high dose vs. low dose) or control device. Self-reported outcomes (anxiety, depression, dyspnea, cancer-related worry, fatigue) were assessed at baseline, mid-intervention (Week-6), and post-intervention (Week-12). RESULTS: Forty-six participants (ages 41-77, median = 65; 78% White) were randomized to the high-dose intervention (n = 14), low-dose intervention (n = 14), or control (n = 18) groups between July 2015 and September 2019. Study accrual rate was 0.92 per month for 50 months (projected accrual was 6.3/month). Fourteen participants (30%) withdrew early from the study, with almost half of those discontinuing at or immediately following baseline assessment. No participants were adherent with the intervention per protocol specifications. The proportion minimally adherent (using device at least 1x/week) was 43% (6/14), 64% (9/14), and 61% (11/18) for high-dose, low-dose, and control groups, respectively. Anxiety significantly decreased from baseline for all groups at Week 12. Adherence to the intervention was low across all treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study did not establish feasibility of a community-based randomized trial of 2 doses of device-guided breathing and a control group using an identical-looking device for lung cancer survivors. In both the high-dose and control groups, there were significant improvements from baseline for anxiety and dyspnea. In the low-dose group, there were significant improvements from baseline for anxiety and depression. Ratings and feedback on the intervention were mixed (although leaned in a positive direction). Participants reported liking the feeling of relaxation/calm, helping others, breathing awareness, and music. Participants reporting liking least finding/making time to use the device, frustration with the device, and completing study forms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CLINICAL TRIALS ID: NCT02063828, clinicaltrials.gov.

Bridging the Communication Gaps: A Prospective Single-Arm Pilot Study Testing the Feasibility of Interdisciplinary Radiotherapy Planning in Locally Advanced Lung Cancer.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The treatment of locally advanced lung cancer (LALC) with radiotherapy (RT) can be challenging. Multidisciplinary collaboration between radiologists and radiation oncologists (ROs) may optimize RT planning, reduce uncertainty in follow-up imaging interpretation, and improve outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective clinical treatment trial (clinicaltrials.gov NCT04844736), 37 patients receiving definitive RT for LALC, six attending ROs, and three thoracic radiologists were consented and enrolled across four treatment centers. Prior to RT plan finalization, representative computed tomography (CT) slices with overlaid outlines of preliminary irradiation targets were shared with the team of radiologists. The primary endpoint was to assess feasibility of receiving feedback no later than 4 business days of RT simulation on at least 50% of plans. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with lung cancer were enrolled, and 35 of 37 RT plans were reviewed. Of the 35 patients reviewed, mean age was 69 years. For 27 of 37 plans (73%), feedback was received within 4 or fewer days (interquartile range 3-4 days). Thirteen of 35 cases (37%) received feedback that the delineated target potentially did not include all sites suspicious for tumor involvement. In total, changes to the RT plan were recommended for over- or undercoverage in 16 of 35 cases (46%) and implemented in all cases. Radiology review resulted in no treatment delays and substantial changes to irradiated volumes: gross tumor volume, -1.9 to +96.1%; planning target volume, -37.5 to +116.5%. CONCLUSION: Interdisciplinary collaborative RT planning using a simplified workflow was feasible, produced no treatment delays, and prompted substantial changes in RT targets.

Financial burden for caregivers of adolescents and young adults with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors are vulnerable to cancer-related financial burden, which is likely shared by their caregivers. This study aims to enhance an existing conceptual model of financial burden by conducting concept elicitation interviews with caregivers to generate knowledge that can be translated to inform instrumental and psychosocial support in cancer care. METHODS: Qualitative concept elicitation interviews were conducted with 24 caregivers of AYA cancer survivors (caregivers of adolescents, n = 12; caregivers of emerging adults, n = 12) recruited from four sites. Constant comparative methods were used to identify themes, and results were interpreted and organized into domains of the conceptual model. We also explored COVID-19 related financial impacts among a subset (n = 12) of caregivers. RESULTS: Seven themes emerged, which varied by age group and strengthened the conceptualization of the model. Themes centered on: (1) direct and indirect costs of cancer; (2) impact of socioeconomic status on financial burden; (3) caregiver desire to shield AYAs from distress due to financial burden; (4) strategies to manage cancer-related costs; (5) worries about AYAs' financial future; (6) seeking and receiving financial support; and (7) navigating the healthcare system. Findings also revealed that COVID-19 exacerbates financial burden for some caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Building upon our prior work, we have adapted the conceptual model of financial burden to reflect perspectives of AYAs, oncology providers, and now, caregivers. An important next step is to develop a reliable and valid self-report measure of financial burden among caregivers of AYA cancer survivors.

Stakeholder-informed conceptual framework for financial burden among adolescents and young adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and its treatments can result in substantial financial burden that may be especially distressing for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) since they are at a developmental stage focused on completing one's education and establishing independence. The purpose of this study was to develop a conceptual model of financial burden among AYA cancer patients to inform development of a financial burden measure. METHODS: In-depth concept elicitation interviews were conducted with a purposive-selected stakeholder sample (36 AYAs and 36 AYA oncology health care providers). The constant comparative method was used to identify themes that illustrate AYAs' experience of financial burden by stakeholder groups. RESULTS: Eleven financial burden themes emerged: (1) impact of socioeconomic status and age; (2) significant cancer costs; (3) indirect cost "ripple effects"; (4) limited awareness of costs (adolescents); (5) emotional impact; (6) feeling overwhelmed navigating the health care system; (7) treatment decision modifications; (8) reducing spending; (9) coping strategies; (10) financial support; and (11) long-lasting impact. The conceptual model highlights the importance of material, psychosocial, and behavioral domains of financial burden with an emphasis on phase along the cancer continuum and developmental stage in the experience of financial burden for AYAs. CONCLUSIONS: Issues presented in the voice of AYA patients and providers highlight the profound impact of financial burden in this survivor group. The next step in this work will be to develop and test a patient-reported measure of financial burden among AYA cancer survivors.

The Head and Neck Survivorship Tool (HN-STAR) Trial (WF-1805CD): A protocol for a cluster-randomized, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, pragmatic trial to improve the follow-up care of head and neck cancer survivors.

Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) can have multiple health concerns. To facilitate their care, we developed and pilot-tested a clinical informatics intervention, HN-STAR. HN-STAR elicits concerns online from HNC survivors prior to a routine oncology clinic visit. HN-STAR then presents tailored evidence-based clinical recommendations as a clinical decision support tool to be used during the visit where the oncology clinician and survivor select symptom management strategies and other actions. This generates a survivorship care plan (SCP). Online elicitation of health concerns occurs 3, 6, and 9 months after the clinic visit, generating an updated SCP each time. HN-STAR encompasses important methods of improving survivorship care (e.g., needs assessment, tailored interventions, dissemination of guidelines) and will be evaluated in a pragmatic trial to maximize external validity. This hybrid type 1 implementation-effectiveness trial tests HN-STAR effectiveness while studying barriers and facilitators to implementation in community oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Effectiveness will be measured as differences in key survivorship outcomes between HNC participants who do and do not use HN-STAR over one year after the clinic visit. The primary endpoint is HNC-specific quality of life; other outcomes include patient-centered measures and receipt of guideline-concordant care. Implementation outcomes will be assessed of survivors, providers, and clinic stakeholders. The hybrid design will provide insight into a dose-response relationship between the extent of implementation fidelity and effectiveness outcomes, as well as how to incorporate HN-STAR into standard practice outside the research setting.

Systematic review of financial burden assessment in cancer: Evaluation of measures and utility among adolescents and young adults and caregivers.

The cost of cancer care is rising and represents a stressor that has significant and lasting effects on quality of life for many patients and caregivers. Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer are particularly vulnerable. Financial burden measures exist but have varying evidence for their validity and reliability. The goal of this systematic review is to summarize and evaluate measures of financial burden in cancer and describe their potential utility among AYAs and their caregivers. To this end, the authors searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for concepts involving financial burden, cancer, and self-reported questionnaires and limited the results to the English language. They discarded meeting abstracts, editorials, letters, and case reports. The authors used standard screening and evaluation procedures for selecting and coding studies, including consensus-based standards for documenting measurement properties and study quality. In all, they screened 7250 abstracts and 720 full-text articles to identify relevant articles on financial burden. Eighty-six articles met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction revealed 64 unique measures for assessing financial burden across material, psychosocial, or behavioral domains. One measure was developed specifically for AYAs, and none were developed for their caregivers. The psychometric evidence and study qualities revealed mixed evidence of methodological rigor. In conclusion, several measures assess the financial burden of cancer. Measures were primarily designed and evaluated in adult patient populations with little focus on AYAs or caregivers despite their increased risk of financial burden. These findings highlight opportunities to adapt and test existing measures of financial burden for AYAs and their caregivers.

Unmet Care Needs and Financial Hardship in Patients With Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer on Immunotherapy or Chemoimmunotherapy in Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy is now standard treatment for most patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), yet patient supportive care needs (SCNs) on immunotherapy are not well defined. This study characterized the SCNs and financial hardship of patients with mNSCLC treated with immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy and examined the relationship between patient and caregiver cancer-related employment reductions and patient financial hardship. METHODS: Patients with mNSCLC on immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy from a single academic medical center completed the SCNs Survey-34, items indexing material, psychological, and behavioral financial hardship, and the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity. Univariate and bivariate analyses examined care needs, financial hardship, and impact of cancer-related employment reductions on patient financial hardship. RESULTS: Sixty patients (40% male; 75% White, mean age = 62.5 years, 57% on immunotherapy alone) participated. Fifty-five percent reported unmet needs in physical or daily living and psychological domains. Financial hardship was common (33% material, 63% psychological, and 57% behavioral). Fifty-two percent reported hardship in at least two domains. Forty percent reported a caregiver cancer-related employment reduction. Caregiver employment reduction was related to patient financial hardship (68% of those reporting caregiver employment reduction reported at least two domains of hardship v 40% of those without reduction, P = .03) and patient financial distress (mean Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity = 19.6 among those with caregiver employment reduction v 26.8 without, P = .01). CONCLUSION: Patients with mNSCLC treated with immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy report multiple unmet care needs and financial hardship. Psychological, functional, financial, and caregiver concerns merit assessment and intervention in this population.

Current Practices for Screening and Addressing Financial Hardship within the NCI Community Oncology Research Program.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related financial hardship is associated with poor care outcomes and reduced quality of life for patients and families. Scalable intervention development to address financial hardship requires knowledge of current screening practices and services within community cancer care. METHODS: The NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) 2017 Landscape Assessment survey assessed financial screening and financial navigation practices within U.S. community oncology practices. Logistic models evaluated associations between financial hardship screening and availability of a cancer-specific financial navigator and practice group characteristics (e.g., safety-net designation, critical access hospital, proportion of racial and ethnic minority patients served). RESULTS: Of 221 participating NCORP practice groups, 72% reported a financial screening process and 50% had a cancer-specific financial navigator. Practice groups with more than 10% of new patients with cancer enrolled in Medicaid (adjOR = 2.81, P = 0.02) and with less than 30% racial/ethnic minority cancer patient composition (adjOR = 3.91, P < 0.01) were more likely to screen for financial concerns. Practice groups with less than 30% racial/ethnic minority cancer patient composition (adjOR = 2.37, P < 0.01) were more likely to have a dedicated financial navigator or counselor for patients with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Most NCORP practice groups screen for financial concerns and half have a cancer-specific financial navigator. Practices serving more racial or ethnic minority patients are less likely to screen and have a designated financial navigator. IMPACT: The effectiveness of financial screening and navigation for mitigating financial hardship could be tested within NCORP, along with specific interventions to address cancer care inequities.See related commentary by Yabroff et al., p. 593.

Caregiver engagement practices in National Cancer Institute Clinical Oncology Research Program settings: Implications for research to advance the field.

BACKGROUND: Supportive care interventions have demonstrated benefits for both informal and/or family cancer caregivers and their patients, but uptake generally is poor. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the availability of supportive care services in community oncology practices, as well as engagement practices to connect caregivers with these services. METHODS: Questions from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP)'s 2017 Landscape Survey examined caregiver engagement practices (ie, caregiver identification, needs assessment, and supportive care service availability). Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the caregiver engagement outcomes and practice group characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 204 practice groups responded to each of the primary outcome questions. Only 40.2% of practice groups endorsed having a process with which to systematically identify and document caregivers, although approximately 76% were routinely using assessment tools to identify caregiver needs and approximately 63.7% had supportive care services available to caregivers. Caregiver identification was more common in sites affiliated with a critical access hospital (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; P = .013), and assessments were less common in safety-net practices (OR, 0.41; P = .013). Supportive care services were more commonly available in the Western region of the United States, in practices with inpatient services (OR, 2.96; P = .012), and in practices affiliated with a critical access hospital (OR, 3.31; P = .010). CONCLUSIONS: Although many practice groups provide supportive care services, fewer than one-half systematically identify and document informal cancer caregivers. Expanding fundamental engagement practices such as caregiver identification, assessment, and service provision will be critical to support recent calls to improve caregivers' well-being and skills to perform caregiving tasks.

Preferences for breast cancer survivorship care by rural/urban residence and age at diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Preferences for survivorship care among recently treated breast cancer survivors may vary by rural-urban residence and age, but potential differences have not been examined. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of survivorship preferences among women treated for non-metastatic breast cancer 6-24 months prior to recruitment. RESULTS: We surveyed 203 women (66% response) with American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage I or II breast cancer. Rural residents comprised 36.5% of respondents (82.7% White, non-Hispanic; 52.5% < college education) and 29.6% were ≥ 65 years. More than 95% indicated that checking for recurrence, receiving additional treatment, evaluation of side effects, and identification of late effects were "very important" reasons for follow-up care. The most common topics identified as "very important" for survivorship care discussions were recommendations for healthy behaviors (65.3%), best sources for breast cancer information (65.3%), and effects on family (53.3%) and job (53.8%). Women 65 years and older preferred to discuss follow-up care at the time of diagnosis (p = 0.002), with younger women preferring during (32%) or after treatment (39.1%). Rural survivors were significantly more likely to identify follow-up care reasons not related to the initial breast cancer as "very important" than urban survivors, including screening for other cancers, and examinations or tests for non-cancer diseases (both p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Survivorship care in accordance with national recommendations will likely be accepted by breast cancer survivors. Tailoring breast cancer survivorship care by timing, integration of primary care services, and specific psychosocial topics may best meet the needs of different ages and demographics.

Lung Cancer Patient and Caregiver Health Vulnerabilities and Interest in Health Promotion Interventions: An Exploratory Study.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer patients and their caregivers are at risk for negative health behaviors and poor psychosocial functioning, but few interventions exist that target this population. To inform intervention development, we explored potential targets and interest and concordance in health promotion interventions among lung cancer patients and their caregivers. METHODS: Lung cancer patients (n = 18) with a smoking history and their caregivers (n = 15) participated in a cross-sectional, observational survey study (an average of 1 month postdiagnosis) to assess health behaviors, psychosocial functioning, and interest in health promotion interventions. Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests examined factors associated with intervention interest. McNemar's test examined concordance in interest. RESULTS: Many caregivers (40%) reported providing care at least 4 days per week, and over half (53.3%) reported a smoking history. Patients reported high cancer self-blame (mean = 3.1, standard deviation = 0.9, range = 1-4). Patients (55.6%) and caregivers (60%) reported clinically significant depressive symptoms. There was high interest and concordance in interest in cancer education (patients, 77.8%; caregivers, 86.7%) and diet and exercise (patients, 66.7%; caregivers, 80%) interventions. Significantly more caregivers were interested in stress reduction (patients, 53.3%; caregivers, 73.3%; P = .05) and yoga (patients, 16.7%; caregivers, 50%; P = .03) than patients. Caregivers interested in stress reduction interventions had higher levels of distress than those not interested. DISCUSSION: Health promotion interventions are needed and of interest to lung cancer patients and caregivers. Shared interests in interventions suggest dyadic interventions may be appropriate, yet interventions should also address distinct patient and caregiver needs.

Cessation Attitudes and Preferences in Head and Neck Cancer Patients and Implications for Cessation Program Design: A Brief Report.

INTRODUCTION: This brief report examined prior cessation attempts, attitudes toward nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), and interests in cessation interventions among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients with a recent smoking history (current smokers and recent quitters). METHODS: Forty-two HNC patients scheduled for major surgery who reported current or recent (quit <6 months) cigarette smoking participated. Participants completed a survey to assess smoking status, prior cessation attempts, attitudes toward NRT, and interest in and preferences for cessation interventions. RESULTS: Patients attempted to quit smoking on average 3.2 times in the past 12 months. Most patients (65.8%) reported that NRT products help people quit, with 42.5% reporting ever using cessation aids/services. Most patients (81.8%) reported interest in a smoking cessation program. Current smokers and recent quitters reported similar cessation attempts, attitudes toward NRT, and interest in smoking cessation interventions. DISCUSSION: Cancer center-based smoking cessation interventions are needed for current smokers and recent quitters maintaining cessation.

Barriers and facilitators associated with colonoscopy completion in individuals with multiple chronic conditions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: A recommendation to undergo a colonoscopy, an invasive procedure that requires commitment and motivation, planning (scheduling and finding a driver) and preparation (diet restriction and laxative consumption), may be uniquely challenging for individuals with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). This qualitative study aimed to describe the barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy experienced by such patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semistructured focus groups were conducted with male Veterans who were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy and either failed to complete the procedure or completed the examination. Focus group recordings were transcribed and analyzed by an inductive grounded approach using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four individuals aged 51-83 years participated in this study (23 adherent and 21 nonadherent). Participants had an average of 7.4 chronic conditions (range 2-14). The five most common chronic conditions were hypertension (75%), hyperlipidemia (75%), osteoarthritis/degenerative joint disease (59%), atherosclerotic heart disease (48%), and diabetes mellitus (36%). We identified four unique themes that influenced motivation to undergo a colonoscopy: competing medical priorities, low perceived benefit, a prior negative colonoscopy experience, and pre-existing medical conditions. Additionally, we identified four themes that influenced individuals' ability to complete the examination: difficulty with bowel cleansing, difficulty with travel, worry about exacerbation of pre-existing conditions, and heightened concerns about potential complications. CONCLUSION: MCCs are common in individuals referred for colonoscopy and generate unique barriers to colonoscopy completion related to medication, dietary changes, transportation, preparation processes, symptoms exacerbation, and complication concerns. Future research should examine whether tailored interventions that include education and support in addressing the unique barriers can enhance colonoscopy completion.