Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Patient Experiences, Trust, and Preferences for Health Data Sharing.

PURPOSE: Scholars have examined patients' attitudes toward secondary use of routinely collected clinical data for research and quality improvement. Evidence suggests that trust in health care organizations and physicians is critical. Less is known about experiences that shape trust and how they influence data sharing preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To explore learning health care system (LHS) ethics, democratic deliberations were hosted from June 2017 to May 2018. A total of 217 patients with cancer participated in facilitated group discussion. Transcripts were coded independently. Finalized codes were organized into themes using interpretive description and thematic analysis. Two previous analyses reported on patient preferences for consent and data use; this final analysis focuses on the influence of personal lived experiences of the health care system, including interactions with providers and insurers, on trust and preferences for data sharing. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis identified four domains of patients' lived experiences raised in the context of the policy discussions: (1) the quality of care received, (2) the impact of health care costs, (3) the transparency and communication displayed by a provider or an insurer to the patient, and (4) the extent to which care coordination was hindered or facilitated by the interchange between a provider and an insurer. Patients discussed their trust in health care decision makers and their opinions about LHS data sharing. CONCLUSION: Additional resources, infrastructure, regulations, and practice innovations are needed to improve patients' experiences with and trust in the health care system. Those who seek to build LHSs may also need to consider improvement in other aspects of care delivery.

Telehealth in Oncology: ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: To provide standards and practice recommendations specific to telehealth in oncology. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on telehealth in oncology was performed, including the use of technologies and telecommunications systems, and other electronic methods of care delivery and sharing of information with patients. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO Telehealth Expert Panel to develop telehealth standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The Expert Panel determined that general guidance on implementing telehealth across general and specialty settings has been published previously and these resources are endorsed. A systematic search for studies on topics specific to oncology resulted in the inclusion of two clinical practice guidelines, 12 systematic reviews, and six primary studies. STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE: Standards and guidance are provided for which patients in oncology can be seen via telehealth, establishment of the doctor-physician relationship, role of allied health professionals, role of advanced practice providers, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and teletrials in oncology. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards.

Governance of a Learning Health Care System for Oncology: Patient Recommendations.

PURPOSE: The learning health care system (LHS) was designed to enable real-time learning and research by harnessing data generated during patients' clinical encounters. This novel approach begets ethical questions regarding the oversight of users and uses of patient data. Understanding patients' perspectives is vitally important. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted democratic deliberation sessions focused on CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS. Experts presented educational content, and then small group discussions were held to elicit viewpoints. The deliberations centered around whether policies should permit or deny certain users and uses of secondary data. De-identified transcripts of the discussions were examined by using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis identified two thematic clusters: expectations and concerns, which seemed to inform LHS governance recommendations. Participants expected to benefit from the LHS through the advancement of medical knowledge, which they hoped would improve treatments and the quality of their care. They were concerned that profit-driven users might manipulate the data in ways that could burden or exploit patients, hinder medical decisions, or compromise patient-provider communication. It was recommended that restricted access, user fees, and penalties should be imposed to prevent users, especially for-profit entities, from misusing data. Another suggestion was that patients should be notified of potential ethical issues and included on diverse, unbiased governing boards. CONCLUSION: If patients are to trust and support LHS endeavors, their concerns about for-profit users must be addressed. The ethical implementation of such systems should consist of patient representation on governing boards, transparency, and strict oversight of for-profit users.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

A phase 2 trial of consolidation pembrolizumab following concurrent chemoradiation for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: Hoosier Cancer Research Network LUN 14-179.

BACKGROUND: Five-year overall survival (OS) for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poor. Until recently, a standard of care was concurrent chemoradiation alone. Patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with anti-programmed death 1 antibodies have demonstrated improved OS. This trial evaluated pembrolizumab as consolidation therapy after concurrent chemoradiation in patients with unresectable stage III disease. METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC received concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin and etoposide, cisplatin and pemetrexed, or carboplatin and paclitaxel and 59.4 to 66.6 Gy of radiation. Patients with nonprogression of disease were enrolled and received pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 12 months). The primary endpoint was the time to metastatic disease or death (TMDD). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. RESULTS: The median follow-up for 93 patients (92 for efficacy) was 32.2 months (range, 1.2-46.6 months). The median TMDD was 30.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.7 months to not reached), which was significantly longer than the historical control of 12 months (P < .0001). The median PFS was 18.7 months (95% CI, 12.4-33.8 months), and the median OS was 35.8 months (95% CI, 24.2 months to not reached). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS estimates were 81.2%, 62.0%, and 48.5%, respectively. Forty patients (43.5%) completed 12 months of treatment (median number of cycles, 13.5). Symptomatic pneumonitis (grade 2 or higher) was noted in 16 patients (17.2%); these cases included 4 grade 3 events (4.3%), 1 grade 4 event (1.1%), and 1 grade 5 event (1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Consolidation pembrolizumab after concurrent chemoradiation improves TMDD, PFS, and OS in comparison with historical controls of chemoradiation alone. Rates of grade 3 to 5 pneumonitis were similar to those reported with chemoradiation alone.

N083E (Alliance): long-term outcomes of patients treated in a pilot phase II study of docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and lapatinib as adjuvant therapy for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The addition of lapatinib (L) to trastuzumab (T) was previously found to be synergistic in preclinical models and in the neoadjuvant setting. Prior to the results of the ALTTO trial, this study assessed the safety and feasibility of adding L to the standard adjuvant docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH) regimen in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (HER2+ BC). METHODS: In this single-arm, 2-stage, phase II study, patients with stages I-III HER2+ BC received TCH plus L at 1000 mg daily for a total of 12 months. The primary endpoint was the safety and tolerability, including the rate of diarrhea. Secondary endpoints included adverse event (AE) profile using the NCI CTCAE v3.0 and cardiac safety. RESULTS: Thirty eligible patients were enrolled. Median follow-up is 5.3 years. Diarrhea was the most common AE with 50% Grade (G)1/2 and 43% G3 diarrhea. However, it was responsive to dose reduction of L (750 mg) and institution of anti-diarrheal medications. Cardiovascular AE were infrequent and no patients experienced congestive heart failure while on treatment. CONCLUSION: TCHL was a tolerable regimen at a starting L dose of 750 mg PO daily when given concurrently with chemotherapy.

Patient Preferences Regarding Informed Consent Models for Participation in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology.

PURPOSE: The expansion of learning health care systems (LHSs) promises to bolster research and quality improvement endeavors. Stewards of patient data have a duty to respect the preferences of the patients from whom, and for whom, these data are being collected and consolidated. METHODS: We conducted democratic deliberations with a diverse sample of 217 patients treated at 4 sites to assess views about LHSs, using the example of CancerLinQ, a real-world LHS, to stimulate discussion. In small group discussions, participants deliberated about different policies for how to provide information and to seek consent regarding the inclusion of patient data. These discussions were recorded, transcribed, and de-identified for thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of participants, 67% were female, 61% were non-Hispanic Whites, and the mean age was 60 years. Patients' opinions about sharing their data illuminated 2 spectra: trust/distrust and individualism/collectivism. Positions on these spectra influenced the weight placed on 3 priorities: promoting societal altruism, ensuring respect for persons, and protecting themselves. In turn, consideration of these priorities seemed to inform preferences regarding patient choices and system transparency. Most advocated for a policy whereby patients would receive notification and have the opportunity to opt out of including their medical records in the LHS. Participants reasoned that such a policy would balance personal protections and societal welfare. CONCLUSION: System transparency and patient choice are vital if patients are to feel respected and to trust LHS endeavors. Those responsible for LHS implementation should ensure that all patients receive an explanation of their options, together with standardized, understandable, comprehensive materials.

Effect of Public Deliberation on Patient Attitudes Regarding Consent and Data Use in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology.

PURPOSE: We sought to generate informed and considered opinions regarding acceptable secondary uses of deidentified health information and consent models for oncology learning health care systems. METHODS: Day-long democratic deliberation sessions included 217 patients with cancer at four geographically and sociodemographically diverse sites. Patients completed three surveys (at baseline, immediately after deliberation, and 1-month follow-up). RESULTS: Participants were 67.3% female, 21.7% black, and 6.0% Hispanic. The most notable changes in perceptions after deliberation related to use of deidentified medical-record data by insurance companies. After discussion, 72.3% of participants felt comfortable if the purpose was to make sure patients receive recommended care (v 79.5% at baseline; P = .03); 24.9% felt comfortable if the purpose was to determine eligibility for coverage or reimbursement (v 50.9% at baseline; P < .001). The most notable change about secondary research use related to believing it was important that doctors ask patients at least once whether researchers can use deidentified medical-records data for future research. The proportion endorsing high importance decreased from baseline (82.2%) to 68.7% immediately after discussion (P < .001), and remained decreased at 73.1% (P = .01) at follow-up. At follow-up, non-Hispanic whites were more likely to consider it highly important to be able to conduct medical research with deidentified electronic health records (96.8% v 87.7%; P = .01) and less likely to consider it highly important for doctors to get a patient's permission each time deidentified medical record information is used for research (23.2% v 51.6%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This research confirms that most patients wish to be asked before deidentified medical records are used for research. Policies designed to realize the potential benefits of learning health care systems can, and should be, grounded in informed and considered public opinion.

Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs: ASCO Standards.

PURPOSE: To provide 2019 ASCO standards on the safe handling of hazardous drugs. METHODS: An Expert Panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature on closed system transfer devices was performed to May 2017 using PubMed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and Google Scholar were used to search for studies of medical surveillance and external ventilation/health effects of exposure to vapors to November 2017. Available standards were considered for endorsement. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The search for primary research found no studies that addressed health outcomes as they relate to the identified interventions of interest. The ASCO Expert Panel endorses the best practices for safe handling of hazardous drugs as issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Pharmacopeia Chapter 800, and Oncology Nursing Society with clarifications in four key areas: medical surveillance, closed system transfer devices, external ventilation of containment secondary engineering controls or containment segregated compounding areas, and alternative duties. CONCLUSION: The ASCO standards address the need for clear standards concerning safe handling of hazardous oncology drugs. More research is needed in several key areas to quantify the level of risk associated with handling hazardous drugs in current workplace settings where the hierarchy of controls is consistently applied. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/safe-handling-standards .

American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: Biosimilars in Oncology.

As many biosimilars come to market in the next several years, their use in oncology will play an important role in the future care of patients with cancer. ASCO is committed to providing education and guidance to the oncology community on the use of biosimilars in the cancer setting; therefore, ASCO has developed this statement to offer guidance in the following areas: (1) naming, labeling, and other regulatory considerations, (2) safety and efficacy of biosimilars, (3) interchangeability, switching, and substitution, (4) value of biosimilars, and (5) prescriber and patient education.

Association of 70-Gene Signature Assay Findings With Physicians' Treatment Guidance for Patients With Early Breast Cancer Classified as Intermediate Risk by the 21-Gene Assay.

IMPORTANCE: Among patients who undergo the 21-gene assay (21-GA), 39% to 67% receive an intermediate risk result and may receive ambiguous treatment guidance. The 70-gene signature assay (70-GS) may be associated with physicians' treatment decisions in this population with early breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 70-GS findings are associated with physicians' decisions about adjuvant treatment and confidence in their recommendations and to evaluate the dichotomous (high- vs low-risk) and continuous distribution of 70-GS indices among this group of patients with intermediate risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Prospective Study of MammaPrint in Breast Cancer Patients With an Intermediate Recurrence Score (PROMIS trial) was an impact study conducted from May 20, 2012, through December 31, 2015, that enrolled 840 patients with early-stage breast cancer and a 21-gene assay recurrence score of 18 to 30. Patients were treated in 58 US institutions. INTERVENTIONS: The 70-GS result was given to physicians before adjuvant treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Change in physician treatment decision before vs after receiving the 70-GS result. With a treatment change of greater than 20%, the odds ratio (OR) was applied. RESULTS: Among the 840 patients who underwent 70-GS classification (mean age, 59 years; range, 27-93 years), 374 (44.5%) had a low-risk and 466 (55.5%) had a high-risk result. The distribution of 70-GS indices did not correlate with recurrence score within the 21-GA intermediate range, with 70-GS low- and high-risk patients observed at every recurrence score. A significant change in adjuvant treatment was associated with receiving the 70-GS classifications with an OR of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.50-0.82; McNemar test, P < .001) for all patients. Among the low-risk patients, 108 of 374 (28.9%) had chemotherapy removed from their treatment recommendation; among the high-risk patients, 171 of 466 (36.7%) had chemotherapy added. Results of the 70-GS were associated with the physician's adjuvant treatment recommendation; 409 high-risk patients (87.8%) were recommended to receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and 339 low-risk patients (90.6%) were recommended no chemotherapy. Physicians reported having greater confidence in their treatment recommendation in 660 cases (78.6%) based on 70-GS results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The 70-GS provides clinically actionable information regarding patients classified as intermediate risk by the 21-GA and was associated with a change in treatment decision in 282 of these patients (33.6%). Chemotherapy was added or withheld by the treating physician based on the results of the 70-GS test. Physicians reported more confidence with their treatment recommendation after receiving 70-GS results.

Perspectives on the Use of Clinical Pathways in Oncology Care.

Pathways and guidelines are valuable tools to provide evidence-based care in oncology. Pathways may be more restrictive than guidelines because they attempt (where possible) to reduce cost, add efficiency, and remove unwarranted variability. Pathways offer an opportunity to measure, report, and improve quality of care; they can drive to evidence-based targeted therapy where appropriate; they can enhance efficiency through standardization; and, finally, they can be a vehicle to enhance participation in clinical trials. Pathway implementation requires understanding and commitment on the part of the physician and leadership as they may initially disrupt workflow, but ultimately have the ability to enhance patient care. ASCO criteria have been published for the development and implementation of high-quality oncology pathway programs. Future challenges for pathways include incorporation of molecular testing and appropriate targeted care in a real-time precision oncology approach.