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.

Phase II Study of Palbociclib (PD-0332991) in CCND1, 2, or 3 Amplification: Results from the NCI-MATCH ECOG-ACRIN Trial (EAY131) Subprotocol Z1B.

PURPOSE: Cyclin D/CDK4/6 is critical in controlling the G1 to S checkpoint. CCND, the gene encoding cyclin D, is known to be amplified in a variety of solid tumors. Palbociclib is an oral CDK4/6 inhibitor, approved in advanced breast cancer in combination with endocrine therapy. We explored the efficacy of palbociclib in patients with nonbreast solid tumors containing an amplification in CCND1, 2, or 3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with tumors containing a CCND1, 2, or 3 amplification and expression of the retinoblastoma protein were assigned to subprotocol Z1B and received palbociclib 125 mg once daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Tumor response was assessed every two cycles. RESULTS: Forty patients were assigned to subprotocol Z1B; 4 patients had outside assays identifying the CCND1, 2, or 3 amplification and were not confirmed centrally; 3 were ineligible and 2 were not treated (1 untreated patient was also ineligible), leaving 32 evaluable patients for this analysis. There were no partial responses; 12 patients (37.5%) had stable disease as best response. There were seven deaths on study, all during cycle 1 and attributable to disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 1.8 months. The most common toxicities were leukopenia (n = 21, 55%) and neutropenia (n = 19, 50%); neutropenia was the most common grade 3/4 event (n = 12, 32%). CONCLUSIONS: Palbociclib was not effective at treating nonbreast solid tumors with a CCND1, 2, or 3 amplification in this cohort. These data do not support further investigation of single-agent palbociclib in tumors with CCND1, 2, or 3 amplification.

Palliative care use and utilization determinants among patients treated for advanced stage lung cancer care in the community and academic medical setting.

PURPOSE: Despite clinical guidelines, palliative care is underutilized during advanced stage lung cancer treatment. To inform interventions to increase its use, patient-level barriers and facilitators (i.e., determinants) need to be characterized, especially among patients living in rural areas or those receiving treatment outside academic medical centers. METHODS: Between 2020 and 2021, advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 77; 62% rural; 58% receiving care in the community) completed a one-time survey assessing palliative care use and its determinants. Univariate and bivariate analyses described palliative care use and determinants and compared scores by patient demographic (e.g., rural vs. urban) and treatment setting (e.g., community vs. academic medical center) factors. RESULTS: Roughly half said they had never met with a palliative care doctor (49.4%) or nurse (58.4%) as part of cancer care. Only 18% said they knew what palliative care was and could explain it; 17% thought it was the same as hospice. After palliative care was distinguished from hospice, the most frequently cited reasons patients stated they would not seek palliative care were uncertainty about what it would offer (65%), concerns about insurance coverage (63%), difficulty attending multiple appointments (60%), and lack of discussion with an oncologist (59%). The most common reasons patients stated they would seek palliative care were a desire to control pain (62%), oncologist recommendation (58%), and coping support for family and friends (55%). CONCLUSION: Interventions should address knowledge and misconceptions, assess care needs, and facilitate communication between patients and oncologists about palliative care.

The role of salvage reirradiation for malignant gliomas that progress on bevacizumab.

Bevacizumab and irinotecan are effective against recurrent malignant gliomas. However, at subsequent progression, patients rarely respond to a second bevacizumab-containing chemotherapeutic regimen. Salvage re-irradiation with bevacizumab for recurrent but bevacizumab naive malignant gliomas showed encouraging results. We performed a retrospective review of the medical records of 23 patients treated with either fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy (FSRT) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) after progression on an initial bevacizumab regimen. Patients were treated after re-irradiation with bevacizumab but combined with a different chemotherapy. We then compared them to another 23 patients who progressed on an initial bevacizumab + chemotherapy regimen. These patients did not receive re-irradiation but bevacizumab was continued combined with a different chemotherapy. Patients treated with FSRT/SRS/bevacizumab had a longer median progression-free period (2.6 vs. 1. 7 months, P = 0.009), longer median post FSRT/SRS treatment survival (7.2 vs. 3.3 months, P = 0.03) and higher radiographic response rate (22 vs. 0%, P = 0.049). FSRT or SRS followed by bevacizumab + chemotherapy may have a role for patients who progress on bevacizumab.