Examining provider perceptions and practices for comprehensive geriatric assessment among cancer survivors: a qualitative study with an implementation science focus.

Introduction: Cancer rates increase with age, and older cancer survivors have unique medical care needs, making assessment of health status and identification of appropriate supportive resources key to delivery of optimal cancer care. Comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) help determine an older person's functional capabilities as cancer care providers plan treatment and follow-up care. Despite its proven utility, research on implementation of CGA is lacking. Methods: Guided by a qualitative description approach and through interviews with primary care providers and oncologists, our goal was to better understand barriers and facilitators of CGA use and identify training and support needs for implementation. Participants were identified through Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network partner listservs and a national cancer and aging organization. Potential interviewees, contacted via email, were provided with a description of the study purpose. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. The interview guide explored providers' knowledge and use of CGAs. For codebook development, three representative transcripts were independently reviewed and coded by four team members. The interpretive process involved reflecting, transcribing, coding, and searching for and identifying themes. Results: Providers shared that, while it would be ideal to administer CGAs with all new patients, they were not always able to do this. Instead, they used brief screening tools or portions of CGAs, or both. There was variability in how CGA domains were assessed; however, all considered CGAs useful and they communicated with patients about their benefits. Identified facilitators of implementation included having clinic champions, an interdisciplinary care team to assist with implementation and referrals for intervention, and institutional resources and buy-in. Barriers noted included limited staff capacity and competing demands on time, provider inexperience, and misaligned institutional priorities. Discussion: Findings can guide solutions for improving the broader and more systematic use of CGAs in the care of older cancer patients. Uptake of processes like CGA to better identify those at risk of poor outcomes and intervening early to modify treatments are critical to maximize the health of the growing population of older cancer survivors living through and beyond their disease.

From study plans to capacity building: a journey towards health equity in cancer survivorship.

This article highlights the importance of pausing and reflecting on one's motivation, capacity, and positionality when engaging in health equity research and encourages researchers to engage in critical self-reflection and contribute to the ongoing dialogue on the ethical conduct of health equity-focused cancer research. In response to the urgent need to address health disparities and improve health equity in cancer survivorship care, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Survivorship workgroup discussed developing a study focused on understanding how racism impacts patient engagement in cancer survivorship care. However, during the study's development, the workgroup recognized limitations in research team composition and infrastructure. The workgroup engaged in critical self-reflections, individually and collectively, leading to the halting of the research study. Consequently, they redirected their efforts towards strengthening the necessary infrastructure for conducting such research, including diverse investigator representation and equitable partnerships with cancer survivors. The description of this process, along with suggestions for reflection, may be helpful and informative to other researchers and research networks seeking to center marginalized voices and work in partnership to address healthcare and health equity.

Measuring and addressing health equity: an assessment of cancer center designation requirements.

PURPOSE: By requiring specific measures, cancer endorsements (e.g., accreditations, designations, certifications) promote high-quality cancer care. While 'quality' is the defining feature, less is known about how these endorsements consider equity. Given the inequities in access to high-quality cancer care, we assessed the extent to which equity structures, processes, and outcomes were required for cancer center endorsements. METHODS: We performed a content analysis of medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, and research hospital endorsements from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), respectively. We analyzed requirements for equity-focused content and compared how each endorsing body included equity as a requirement along three axes: structures, processes, and outcomes. RESULTS: ASCO guidelines centered on processes assessing financial, health literacy, and psychosocial barriers to care. ASTRO guidelines related to language needs and processes to address financial barriers. CoC equity-related guidelines focused on processes addressing financial and psychosocial concerns of survivors, and hospital-identified barriers to care. NCI guidelines considered equity related to cancer disparities research, inclusion of diverse groups in outreach and clinical trials, and diversification of investigators. None of the guidelines explicitly required measures of equitable care delivery or outcomes beyond clinical trial enrollment. CONCLUSION: Overall, equity requirements were limited. Leveraging the influence and infrastructure of cancer quality endorsements could enhance progress toward achieving cancer care equity. We recommend that endorsing organizations 1) require cancer centers to implement processes for measuring and tracking health equity outcomes and 2) engage diverse community stakeholders to develop strategies for addressing discrimination.

Prioritizing rural populations in state comprehensive cancer control plans: a qualitative assessment.

PURPOSE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) requires that states develop comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans and recommends that disparities related to rural residence are addressed in these plans. The objective of this study was to explore rural partner engagement and describe effective strategies for incorporating a rural focus in CCC plans. METHODS: States were selected for inclusion using stratified sampling based on state rurality and region. State cancer control leaders were interviewed about facilitators and barriers to engaging rural partners and strategies for prioritizing rural populations. Content analysis was conducted to identify themes across states. RESULTS: Interviews (n = 30) revealed themes in three domains related to rural inclusion in CCC plans. The first domain (barriers) included (1) designing CCC plans to be broad, (2) defining "rural populations," and (3) geographic distance. The second domain (successful strategies) included (1) collaborating with rural healthcare systems, (2) recruiting rural constituents, (3) leveraging rural community-academic partnerships, and (4) working jointly with Native nations. The third domain (strategies for future plan development) included (1) building relationships with rural communities, (2) engaging rural constituents in planning, (3) developing a better understanding of rural needs, and (4) considering resources for addressing rural disparities. CONCLUSION: Significant relationship building with rural communities, resource provision, and successful strategies used by others may improve inclusion of rural needs in state comprehensive cancer control plans and ultimately help plan developers directly address rural cancer health disparities.

Consequences of Structural Urbanism: Urban-Rural Differences in Cancer Patients' Use and Perceived Importance of Supportive Care Services from a 2017-2018 Midwestern Survey.

BACKGROUND: Structural inequities, in part, undergird urban-rural differences in cancer care. The current study aims to understand the potential consequences of structural inequities on rural and urban cancer patients' access to and perceived importance of supportive cancer care resources. METHODS: We used data collected from November 2017 to May 2018 from a larger cross-sectional needs assessment about patients' support needs, use of services, and perceptions at a Midwestern United States cancer center. Oncology patients received a study packet during their outpatient clinic visit, and interested patients consented and completed the questionnaires. RESULTS: Among the sample of 326 patients, 27% of the sample was rural. In adjusted logistic regression models, rural patients were less likely to report using any secondary support services (15% vs. 27%; OR = 0.43, 95%CI [0.22, 0.85], p = 0.02) and less likely than urban counterparts to perceive secondary support services as very important (51% vs. 64%; OR = 0.57, 95%CI [0.33, 0.94], p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Structural inequities likely have implications on the reduced access to and importance of supportive care services observed for rural cancer patients. To eliminate persistent urban-rural disparities in cancer care, rural residents must have programs and policies that address cancer care and structural inequities.

Characterizing head and neck cancer survivors' discontinuation of survivorship care.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about cancer survivors who discontinue survivorship care. The objective of this study was to characterize patients with head and neck cancer who discontinue survivorship care with their treating institution and identify factors associated with discontinuation. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016, who received cancer-directed therapy at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC). Eligible patients achieved a cancer-free status after curative-intent treatment and made at least 1 visit 90+ days after treatment completion. The primary outcome was discontinuation of survivorship care, which was defined as a still living survivor who had not returned to a UIHC cancer clinic for twice the expected interval. Demographic and oncologic factors were examined to identify associations with discontinuation. RESULTS: Ninety-seven of the 426 eligible patients (22.8%) discontinued survivorship care at UIHC during the study period. The mean time in follow-up for those who discontinued treatment was 15.4 months. Factors associated with discontinuation of care included an unmarried status (P = .036), a longer driving distance to the facility (P = .0031), and a single-modality cancer treatment (P < .0001). Rurality was not associated with discontinuation (24.3% vs 21.6% for urban residence; P = .52), nor was age, gender, or payor status. CONCLUSIONS: The study results indicate that a sizeable percentage of head and neck cancer survivors discontinue care with their treating institution. Both demographic and oncologic factors were associated with discontinuation at the treating institution, and this points to potential clinical and care delivery interventions.

Health-related quality of life in head and neck cancer survivors: Evaluating the rural disadvantage.

PURPOSE: Head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors often experience distress and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) impairment. Research suggests that rural cancer patients may have poorer outcomes than urban patients. This study examined whether HNC patient emotional and HRQOL outcomes differ in those living in a rural versus urban location at 6 and 12 months postdiagnosis. METHODS: A total of 261 HNC patients were included from a longitudinal study of HNC outcomes. The majority were diagnosed with advanced stage cancer (51.3%); the most common cancer site was oral cavity (41.0%). Rurality was measured using the US Department of Agriculture Rural Urban Commuting Area codes. Depression was measured using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), general HRQOL using the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and HNC-specific HRQOL using the Head and Neck Cancer Inventory (HNCI). Analyses were 2 (group) × 3 (assessment) repeated measures ANCOVAs, controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. FINDINGS: Approximately 45% of the sample lived in a rural location. Follow-up comparisons of significant overall models indicated that rural patients reported significantly more nonsomatic depression symptoms at 6-month follow-up. Rural patients were also more likely to report significantly poorer general mental HRQOL at 12-month follow-up, significantly poorer HNC-specific HRQOL related to eating at 6- and 12-month follow-up, and marginally worse aesthetics at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are consistent with suggestions that rural HNC patients may be at heightened risk for depression symptoms and decrements in HRQOL. Patients should be screened and regularly monitored for issues with depression and HNC-specific HRQOL throughout the survivorship period.

Time to put it out - nurse-facilitated tobacco treatment in a comprehensive cancer center.

Few cancer patients receive guideline-concordant care for treatment of tobacco dependence. The purpose of this pilot trial was to obtain preliminary estimates of effectiveness of an evidence-based practice intervention on the delivery of tobacco treatment and cessation outcomes in cancer patients. We conducted a pragmatic implementation trial with a before-after design in 119 current or recently quit adult smokers with cancer who met with a clinician at a single National Cancer Institute designated comprehensive cancer center (CCC) (n = 61 pre-implementation, n = 58 post-implementation). We used a multi-component strategy based on the Chronic Care Model to implement National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for smoking cessation. Smoking cessation counseling during the index visit was assessed by exit interview and patients were interviewed by phone to assess cessation outcomes at 3-month follow-up. Performance of cessation counseling and 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) were compared across the pre- and post-implementation periods using log-logistic regression, accounting for clustering by nursing staff. More patients had received assistance in quitting at the index visit during the post-implementation period compared to the pre-implementation period (30 vs. 10%, p < .01). At 3-month follow-up, 38 and 14% of participants had discussed smoking cessation medication with a CCC healthcare professional and 57 and 27% of participants had used pharmacotherapy, respectively (p < .01 for both comparisons). Seven-day PPA at 3-month follow-up was similar in both periods, however (14 vs. 12%, respectively). A multi-component tobacco treatment intervention increased the proportion of smokers who received assistance in quitting smoking during usual cancer care but did not improve cessation outcomes.

Few patients with cancer receive help in quitting smoking. We conducted a pilot before-after trial to determine the effectiveness of an evidence-based practice intervention, including brief cessation counseling during the clinic visit and referral to an onsite tobacco treatment specialist, on the delivery of stop smoking services and cessation outcomes at a NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. During the post-implementation period, cancer patients who smoke were more likely to have received assistance in quitting in clinic and during 3-month follow-up. This change in process of care did not translate into improved short-term abstinence from tobacco, however. Greater and more sustained participation in tobacco treatment will be needed to improve cessation outcomes in this population.

Post-treatment head and neck cancer survivors' approaches to self-management: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Post-treatment head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors contend with distinct, long-term challenges related to cancer treatments that impact their day-to-day lives. Alongside follow-up cancer care, they also must be responsible for the daily management of often intrusive physical and psychological symptoms, as well as maintaining their health and a lifestyle to promote their well-being. The purpose of this study was to identify HNC survivors' approaches toward engagement in self-management activities. METHODS: Post-treatment HNC survivors (N=22) participated in the study through purposeful sampling. Participants were eligible if they 1) had a history of upper aerodigestive tract cancer; 2) completed their most recent primary treatment (i.e. chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery) more than eighteen months prior and had no evidence of HNC, and 3) could speak in English. A semi-structured interview was used. Data was analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: We identified three approaches that survivors took towards self-management activities: taking charge, living with it, and engaging as needed. Our results showed that taking charge is when survivors take an active role in evaluating their health and taking action subsequently; as needed represents engaging in self-management as necessary; and living with it reflects adapting to the symptoms and side effects without managing them. CONCLUSIONS: We propose self-management approaches as a novel mechanism to understand the relationship between survivors' characteristics and health preferences and their self-management. It is important for clinicians to highlight the variation in individuals 'self-management approaches as they work to identify tailored patient-centered strategies that compliment specific patient needs.

Factors Associated With the Choice of Radiation Therapy Treatment Facility in Head and Neck Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinicodemographic characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients receiving postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) at a different treatment facility rather than the initial surgical facility for head and neck cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. METHODS: Utilizing the National Cancer Data Base, 2004 to 2015, patients with a diagnosis of oral cavity/oropharyngeal, hypopharyngeal, and laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma were studied. Multivariate analysis was completed with multivariate regression and Cox proportional hazard model, and survival outcomes were examined using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15,181 patients who had surgery for a head and neck cancer at an academic/research center were included in the study population. Of the study population, 4,890 (32.2%) patients completed PORT at a different treatment facility. Treatment at a different facility was more common among patients who were ≥65 years old, white, Medicare recipients, those with a greater distance between residence and surgical treatment facility, and with lower income within area of residence (each P < .05). Overall survival was worse in patients completing PORT at a different treatment facility versus at the institution where surgery was completed (61.9% vs. 66.4%; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: PORT at a different facility was more common in older individuals, Medicare recipients, those with greater distance to travel, and lower-income individuals. Completing PORT outside the hospital where surgery was performed was associated with inferior survival outcomes among head and neck cancer patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:1019-1025, 2021.

An Integrative Review of Self-Management Interventions for Treatment Sequelae in Adult Survivors.

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: Self-management interventions support cancer survivors in addressing the consequences of treatment. With post-treatment survivors living longer, it is critical to know how research responds to their changing needs. LITERATURE SEARCH: A comprehensive search of the CINAHL®, PsycINFO®, and PubMed® databases was performed. Articles were included if the self-management intervention was conducted on cancer-free adult survivors after completing primary treatment. DATA EVALUATION: Each study was evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. SYNTHESIS: 38 articles were included. The majority of the interventions were designed for short-term survivors, with limited interventions found to support the self-management of long-term cancer survivors. When implementing self-management support, there is a need to use theoretical frameworks that can respond to the changing needs of cancer survivors over time. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Future research should provide support for long-term survivors. Oncology nurses can use the results of this review to identify gaps in the self-management education provided to cancer survivors.

Head and neck cancer survivorship from the patient perspective.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship is a critical part of head and neck cancer (HNC) care. In order to design better processes, we assessed care provided to long-term HNC survivors and their priorities for ongoing care. METHODS: A survey was provided to HNC survivors at clinic appointments, including our HNC survivorship clinic. Questions focused on priorities for care in the otolaryngology clinic, types of care provided, and opioid use. RESULTS: Of 168 respondents, the most common priority for survivors was surveillance for recurrence (first priority in 75%), with general health the next most common (8%). Few respondents reported active primary care involvement in survivorship. About 10% of patients reported current opioid use. CONCLUSION: Survivors face a large burden of symptoms and deficits, but our data show that most survivors focus on recurrence. Few survivors reported recall of survivorship care plan delivery or discussing cancer care needs with primary care providers.

Attitudes of Clinicians about Screening Head and Neck Cancer Survivors for Lung Cancer Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography.

OBJECTIVE: National guidelines recommend lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients, including survivors of other tobacco-related cancers like head and neck cancer (HNC). This qualitative study investigated clinicians' practices and attitudes toward LCS with LDCT with patients who have survived HNC, in the context of mandated requirements for shared decision making (SDM) using decision aids. METHODS: Thematic analysis of transcribed semi-structured clinician interviews and focus group. RESULTS: Clinicians recognized LCS' utility for some HNC survivors with smoking histories. However, they identified many challenges to SDM in diverse clinic settings, including time, workflow, uncertainty about guidelines and reimbursement, decision aids, competing patient priorities, unclear evidence, potentially heightened patient receptivity and stress, and the complexity of discussions. They also identified challenges to LCS implementation. CONCLUSIONS: While clinicians feel that LDCT LCS may benefit some HNC survivors, there are barriers both to implementing LCS SDM for these patients in primary care as currently recommended and to integrating it into cancer clinics. Challenges for SDM across settings include a lack of decision aids tailored to patients with cancer histories. Given recommendations to broaden LCS eligibility criteria, more research may be required before refinement of current guidelines.

Why men with a low-risk prostate cancer select and stay on active surveillance: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Active surveillance (AS) is an increasingly utilized strategy for monitoring men with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) that allows them to defer active treatment (AT) in the absence of cancer progression. Studies have explored reasons for selecting AS and for then switching to AT, but less is known about men's experiences being on AS. We interviewed men to determine the clinical and psychological factors associated with selecting and adhering to AS protocols. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with men with a low-risk PCa at two academic medical centers. Subjects had either been on AS for ≥ 1 year or had opted for AT after a period of AS. We used an iterative, content-driven approach to analyze the interviews and to identify themes. RESULTS: We enrolled 21 subjects, mean age 70.4 years, 3 racial/ethnic minorities, and 16 still on AS. Men recognized the favorable prognosis of their cancer (some had sought second opinions when initially offered AT), valued avoiding treatment complications, were reassured that close monitoring would identify progression early enough to be successfully treated, and trusted their urologists. Although men reported feeling anxious around the time of surveillance testing, those who switched to AT did so based only on evidence of cancer progression. CONCLUSIONS: Our selected sample was comfortable being on AS because they understood and valued the rationale for this approach. However, this highlights the importance of ensuring that men newly diagnosed with a low-risk PCa are provided sufficient information about prognosis and treatment options to make informed decisions.

Incidence trends for upper aerodigestive tract cancers in rural United States counties.

BACKGROUND: Recent declines in cancer incidence and mortality have not been distributed equally across the United States. Factors such as tobacco cessation and human papillomavirus presence might differentially affect urban and rural portions of the country. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to assess cancer incidence rates and trends from 1973 to 2015. We compared incidence rates for oral cavity, oropharynx, and larynx cancer in urban and rural counties and identified trends using Joinpoint software. RESULTS: Incidence of larynx and oral cavity cancer are decreasing faster in urban areas than in rural areas, while incidence of oropharynx cancer is increasing faster in rural areas than urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Relative trends in incidence of larynx, oral cavity, and oropharynx cancer over the past 40 years are unfavorable for rural United States counties compared with urban areas. Cancer control programs should take this into account.

The complicated 'Yes': Decision-making processes and receptivity to lung cancer screening among head and neck cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended when offering lung cancer screening (LCS)-which presents challenges with tobacco-related cancer survivors because they were excluded from clinical trials. Our objective was to characterize head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward LCS and SDM. METHODS: Between November 2017 and June 2018, we conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 19 HNC survivors, focusing on patients' cancer and smoking history, receptivity to and perceptions of LCS, and decision-making preferences RESULTS: Participants were receptive to LCS, referencing their successful HNC outcomes. They perceived that LCS might reduce uncertainty and emphasized the potential benefits of early diagnosis. Some expressed concern over costs or overdiagnosis, but most minimized potential harms, including false positives and radiation exposure. Participants preferred in-person LCS discussions, often ideally with their cancer specialist. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: HNC survivors may have overly optimistic expectations for LCS, and clinicians need to account for this in SDM discussions. Supporting these patients in making informed decisions will be challenging because we lack clinical data on the potential benefits and harms of LCS for cancer survivors. While some patients prefer discussing LCS with their cancer specialists, the ability of specialists to support high-quality decision making is uncertain.