NCCN Policy Summit: Reducing the Cancer Burden Through Prevention and Early Detection.

Cancer prevention, screening, and early detection play an integral role in cancer incidence and outcomes. It is estimated that 30% to 50% of cancers worldwide are preventable, and it is well established that early detection of many cancers is associated with improved treatment outcomes. A recent NCCN Policy Summit: Reducing the Cancer Burden Through Prevention and Early Detection brought together healthcare providers, payers, policymakers, patient advocates, industry representatives, and technology representatives to explore challenges, triumphs, and outstanding questions surrounding current practices. Keynotes were delivered by Dr. Lisa Richardson, Director of the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control within the CDC, and Dr. Danielle Carnival, White House Cancer Moonshot Coordinator. Dr. Richardson focused on the field of public health, translating its utility in preventing and diagnosing cancer in the United States, while Dr. Carnival discussed ambitious goals by the Cancer Moonshot in reducing the cancer burden. Panelists highlighted characteristics of high-impact prevention and early detection programs, including how genetic testing has impacted this space. Existing programs are often challenged due to limitations in data, as well as financial, structural, and social barriers to motivating individuals to act on recommendations. Despite these barriers, we can learn from highly successful programs and should apply proven attributes, such as community engagement, more broadly.

NCCN Virtual Policy Summit: Defining the "New Normal" - 2021 and the State of Cancer Care in America Following 2020.

US healthcare systems have been deeply impacted by significant societal shifts over the past several years. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way we interact with healthcare, political narratives have impacted how healthcare is perceived and engaged with by the public, and the United States has become increasingly aware of historic and ongoing racial injustices across all health and social systems. The watershed events experienced during the last several years play a critical role in shaping the future of cancer care for payers, providers, manufacturers, and, most importantly, patients and survivors. To explore these issues, in June 2021 NCCN convened a virtual policy summit: Defining the "New Normal" - 2021 and the State of Cancer Care in America Following 2020. This summit offered the opportunity for a varied group of stakeholders to begin to explore the impact of recent events on the current and future state of oncology in the United States. Topics included the impact of COVID-19 on cancer detection and treatment, the role of innovation in ensuring continuity of care, and efforts to create more equitable systems of care.

NCCN Policy Summit: Cancer Care in the Workplace: Building a 21st Century Workplace for Patients, Survivors, and Caretakers.

Survival rates for people with cancer and quality of life for survivors have increased significantly as a result of innovations in cancer treatment, improvements in early detection, and improved healthcare access. In the United States, 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. As more cancer survivors and patients remain in the workforce, employers must evaluate how they can adjust workplace policies to meet employee and business needs. Unfortunately, many people still encounter barriers to remaining in the workplace following a cancer diagnosis for themselves or a loved one. In an effort to explore the impacts of contemporary employment policies on patients with cancer, cancer survivors, and caregivers, NCCN hosted the Policy Summit "Cancer Care in the Workplace: Building a 21st Century Workplace for Cancer Patients, Survivors, and Caretakers" on June 17, 2022. This hybrid event, through keynotes and multistakeholder panel discussions, explored issues regarding employer benefit design, policy solutions, current best and promising practices for return to work, and how these issues impact treatment, survivorship, and caregiving in the cancer community.

The Value and Process of Inclusion: Using Sensitive, Respectful, and Inclusive Language and Images in NCCN Content.

A core component of NCCN's mission is to improve and facilitate equitable cancer care. Inclusion and representation of diverse populations are essential toward this goal of equity. Within NCCN's professional content, inclusivity increases the likelihood that clinicians are prepared to provide optimal oncology care to all patients; within NCCN's patient-facing content, it helps ensure that cancer information is relevant and accessible for all individuals. This article describes changes that have been made in the language and images used in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) and the NCCN Guidelines for Patients to promote justice, respect, and inclusion for all patients with cancer. The goals are to use language that is person-first, nonstigmatizing, inclusive of individuals of all sexual orientations and gender identities, and anti-racist, anti-classist, anti-misogynist, anti-ageist, anti-ableist, and anti-fat-biased. NCCN also seeks to incorporate multifaceted diversity in images and illustrations. NCCN is committed to continued and expanding efforts to ensure its publications are inclusive, respectful, and trustworthy, and that they advance just, equitable, high-quality, and effective cancer care for all.

Advancing More Equitable Care Through the Development of a Health Equity Report Card.

The root causes of racial disparities in access to optimal cancer care and related cancer outcomes are complex, multifactorial, and not rooted in biology. Contributing factors to racial disparities in care delivery include implicit and explicit bias, lack of representation of people of color in the oncology care and research workforce, and homogenous research participants that are not representative of the larger community. Systemic and structural barriers include policies leading to lack of insurance and underinsurance, costs of cancer treatment and associated ancillary costs of care, disparate access to clinical trials, and social determinants of health, including exposure to environmental hazards, access to housing, childcare, and economic injustices. To address these issues, ACS CAN, NCCN, and NMQF convened the Elevating Cancer Equity (ECE) initiative. The ECE Working Group developed the Health Equity Report Card (HERC). In this manuscript, we describe the process taken by the ECE Working Group to develop the HERC recommendations, the strategies employed by NCCN to develop an implementation plan and scoring methodology for the HERC, and next steps to pilot the HERC tool in practice settings.

Patient, Caregiver, and Oncologist Experiences With and Perceptions of Racial Bias and Discrimination in Cancer Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Cancer prevention and treatment systems are significantly impacted by interpersonal, organizational, and structural and systemic racism. A wide body of research has found that racial disparities in access to guideline-adherent cancer care are pervasive throughout the United States and contributing factors include social determinants of health, insurance status, and bias and discrimination in care delivery. Although the existence of racial disparities in cancer care and outcomes is well established, there has been limited research exploring the patient and caregiver experience with bias and discrimination in cancer care. METHODS: Two national surveys were conducted, one of patients and caregivers and one of oncologists. The surveys examined patient and caregiver experiences with and oncologist perceptions of racial disparities in cancer care. RESULTS: The surveys found that when patients and caregivers were asked about negative care experiences, differences across race were observed. Patients and caregivers identifying as African American/Black (AA/B) or Hispanic/Latino (H/L) were more likely to report at least one negative care experience than patients and caregivers identifying as White (W). Patients who were AA/B or H/L were also more likely than W patients to report that the healthcare system treats people unfairly based on their racial or ethnic background and that racial bias occurs often or very often when a patient and doctor are of different racial/ethnic background. A slight majority of oncologists reported that the healthcare system treats people unfairly based on their racial or ethnic background. CONCLUSIONS: The survey results highlight a need for improved racial representation in the oncology professional workforce, improved implicit bias training, and improved clinical trial recruitment efforts.

Development and evaluation of safety and effectiveness of novel cancer screening tests for routine clinical use with applications to multicancer detection technologies.

Multicancer screening is a promising approach to improving the detection of preclinical disease, but current technologies have limited ability to identify precursor or early stage lesions, and approaches for developing the evidentiary chain are unclear. Frameworks to enable development and evaluation from discovery through evidence of clinical effectiveness are discussed.

NCCN Virtual Patient Advocacy Summit: Cancer Across the Lifespan.

Patients with cancer have widely divergent experiences throughout their care from screening through survivorship. Differences in care delivery and outcomes may be due to varying patient preferences, patient needs according to stage of life, access to care, and implicit or explicit bias in care according to patient age. NCCN convened a series of stakeholder meetings with patients, caregivers, and patient advocacy groups to discuss the complex challenges and robust opportunities in this space. These meetings informed the NCCN Virtual Patient Advocacy Summit: Cancer Across the Lifespan held on December 10, 2020, which featured a keynote presentation, multidisciplinary panels, and presentations from patient advocacy organizations. This article encapsulates and expounds upon the findings from the stakeholder meetings and discussions during the summit.

NCCN Policy Summit: Innovative Solutions to Drive Down Healthcare Costs: Implications for Access to High-Quality Cancer Care.

The cost of delivering high-quality healthcare in America now consumes 17.7% of the nation's gross domestic product according to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Health Expenditure Data. With costs threatening to disrupt accessible and equitable care for patients, policymakers are reassessing all matters and functions of the healthcare system to excise waste, redundancies, and costly services. To explore this subjects' impact on oncology, NCCN hosted the NCCN Policy Summit: Innovative Solutions to Drive Down Healthcare Costs: Implications for Access to High Quality Cancer Care. This virtual summit featured multidisciplinary panel discussions and keynote addresses. Seeking to address barriers to low-cost, high-quality cancer care, panelists and keynotes presented innovative policy solutions to sustain high-quality oncologic care at lower costs to the health system. This article encapsulates the discussions held during the summit and expounds upon salient points where appropriate.

Prognostic Model for De Novo and Recurrent Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has a heterogeneous clinical course. We sought to develop a prognostic model for overall survival (OS) that incorporated contemporary tumor and clinical factors for estimating individual prognosis. METHODS: We identified patients with MBC from our institution diagnosed between 1998 and 2017. We developed OS prognostic models by Cox regression using demographic, tumor, and treatment variables. We assessed model predictive accuracy and estimated annual OS probabilities. We evaluated model discrimination and prediction calibration using an external validation data set from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. RESULTS: We identified 10,655 patients. A model using age at diagnosis, race or ethnicity, hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 subtype, de novo versus recurrent MBC categorized by metastasis-free interval, Karnofsky performance status, organ involvement, frontline biotherapy, frontline hormone therapy, and the interaction between variables significantly improved predictive accuracy (C-index, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.724 to 0.739) compared with a model with only hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status (C-index, 0.617; 95% CI, 0.609 to 0.626). The extended Cox regression model consisting of six independent models, for < 3, 3-14, 14-20, 20-33, 33-61, and ≥ 61 months, estimated up to 5 years of annual OS probabilities. The selected multifactor model had good discriminative ability but suboptimal calibration in the group of 2,334 National Comprehensive Cancer Network patients. A recalibration model that replaced the baseline survival function with the average of those from the training and validation data improved predictions across both data sets. CONCLUSION: We have generated and validated a robust prognostic OS model for MBC. This model can be used in clinical decision making and stratification in clinical trials.

Accelerating Advances in Cancer Care Research: A Lookback at the 21st Century Cures Act in 2020.

The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), signed into law in 2016, was designed to advance new therapies by modernizing clinical trials, funding research initiatives, and accelerating the development and use of health information technology. To analyze the current issues in cancer care related to the implementation and impact of the Cures Act, NCCN convened a multistakeholder working group. Participants discussed the legislation's impact on the oncology community since enactment and identified the remaining gaps and challenges as experienced by stakeholders. In June 2020, the policy recommendations of the working group were presented at the virtual NCCN Policy Summit: Accelerating Advances in Cancer Care Research: A Lookback at the 21st Century Cures Act in 2020. The summit consisted of informative discussions and a multistakeholder panel to explore the recommendations and the future of the Cures Act. This article explores identified policy recommendations from the NCCN Working Group and the NCCN Policy Summit, and analyzes opportunities to advance innovative cancer care and patient access to data.

NCCN Patient Advocacy Summit: Delivering Value for Patients Across the Oncology Ecosystem.

As the oncology ecosystem shifts from service-based care to outcomes and value-based care, stakeholders cite concerns regarding the lack of patient experience data that are important to the patient community. To address the patient perspective and highlight the challenges and opportunities within policy and clinical decision-making to improve patient-centered care, NCCN hosted the NCCN Patient Advocacy Summit: Delivering Value for Patients Across the Oncology Ecosystem on December 11, 2019, in Washington, DC. The summit featured multidisciplinary panel discussions, keynote speakers, and patient advocate presentations exploring the implications for patient-centered care within a shifting health policy landscape. This article encapsulates and expounds upon the discussions and presentations from the summit.

Current Practices for Screening and Management of Financial Distress at NCCN Member Institutions.

BACKGROUND: Financial distress from medical treatment is an increasing concern. Healthcare organizations may have different levels of organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes of screening and management of patient financial distress. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In November 2018, representatives from 17 (63%) of the 27 existing NCCN Member Institutions completed an online survey. The survey focused on screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes about such practices. Due to the lack of a validated questionnaire in this area, survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search and discussions among the study team, including NCCN Best Practices Committee representatives. RESULTS: Responses showed that 76% of centers routinely screened for financial distress, mostly with social worker assessment (94%), and that 56% screened patients multiple times. All centers offered programs to help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers, and payment plans. Charity care was provided by 100% of the large centers (≥10,000 unique annual patients) but none of the small centers that responded (<10,000 unique annual patients; P=.008). Metrics to evaluate the impact of financial advocacy services included number of patients assisted, bad debt/charity write-offs, or patient satisfaction surveys. The effectiveness of institutional practices for screening and management of financial distress was reported as poor/very poor by 6% of respondents. Inadequate staffing and resources, limited budget, and lack of reimbursement were potential barriers in the provision of these services. A total of 94% agreed with the need for better integration of financial advocacy into oncology practice. CONCLUSIONS: Three-fourths of NCCN Member Institutions reported screening and management programs for financial distress, although the actual practices and range of services vary. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar programs and identify best practices in this area.

NCCN Policy Summit: Defining, Measuring, and Applying Quality in an Evolving Health Policy Landscape and the Implications for Cancer Care.

Quality measurement is a critical component of advancing a health system that pays for performance over volume. Although there has been significant attention paid to quality measurement within health systems in recent years, significant challenges to meaningful measurement of quality care outcomes remain. Defining cost can be challenging, but is arguably not as elusive as quality, which lacks standard measurement methods and units. To identify industry standards and recommendations for the future, NCCN recently hosted the NCCN Oncology Policy Summit: Defining, Measuring, and Applying Quality in an Evolving Health Policy Landscape and the Implications for Cancer Care. Key stakeholders including physicians, payers, policymakers, patient advocates, and technology partners reviewed current quality measurement programs to identify success and challenges, including the Oncology Care Model. Speakers and panelists identified gaps in quality measurement and provided insights and suggestions for further advancing quality measurement in oncology. This article provides insights and recommendations; however, the goal of this program was to highlight key issues and not to obtain consensus.

NCCN resource-stratified and harmonized guidelines: A paradigm for optimizing global cancer care.

Clinical practice guidelines in oncology lead to improved outcomes in care. However, the most frequently used guidelines are developed for highly resourced systems. Recognizing the significant and increasing burden of cancer in low- and middle-income countries, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has developed resource-stratified framework and harmonization processes that allow the NCCN Guidelines to be tailored and optimized for specific geographical areas, resource levels, and settings. The critical need for local expertise and involvement in successful development and uptake is emphasized, and the promise of this collaboration for advancement in oncology programs is illustrated.