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.

The special sauce of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: 20 years of lessons learned in developing the evidence base, building community capacity, and translating research into practice.

PURPOSE: The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network focused on accelerating the translation of cancer prevention and control research evidence into practice through collaborative, multicenter projects in partnership with diverse communities. From 2003 to 2022, the CPCRN included 613 members. METHODS: We: (1) characterize the extent and nature of collaborations through a bibliometric analysis of 20 years of Network publications; and (2) describe key features and functions of the CPCRN as related to organizational structure, productivity, impact, and focus on health equity, partnership development, and capacity building through analysis of 22 in-depth interviews and review of Network documentation. RESULTS: Searching Scopus for multicenter publications among the CPCRN members from their time of Network engagement yielded 1,074 collaborative publications involving two or more members. Both the overall number and content breadth of multicenter publications increased over time as the Network matured. Since 2004, members submitted 123 multicenter grant applications, of which 72 were funded (59%), totaling more than $77 million secured. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the CPCRN's success-in terms of publication and grant productivity, as well as the breadth and depth of partnerships, subject matter expertise, and content area foci-is attributable to: (1) its people-the inclusion of members representing diverse content-area interests, multidisciplinary perspectives, and geographic contexts; (2) dedicated centralized structures and processes to enable and evaluate collaboration; and (3) focused attention to strategically adapting to change. CONCLUSION: CPCRN's history highlights organizational, strategic, and practical lessons learned over two decades to optimize Network collaboration for enhanced collective impact in cancer prevention and control. These insights may be useful to others seeking to leverage collaborative networks to address public health problems.

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.

Cardiac Adverse Events Associated With Chemo-Radiation Versus Chemotherapy for Resectable Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare Study.

Background We compared cardiac outcomes for surgery-eligible patients with stage III non-small-cell lung cancer treated adjuvantly or neoadjuvantly with chemotherapy versus chemo-radiation therapy in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. Methods and Results Patients were age 66+, had stage IIIA/B resectable non-small-cell lung cancer diagnosed between 2007 and 2015, and received adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemo-radiation within 121 days of diagnosis. Patients having chemo-radiation and chemotherapy only were propensity-score matched and followed from day 121 to first cardiac outcome, noncardiac death, radiation initiation by patients who received chemotherapy only, fee-for-service enrollment interruption, or December 31, 2016. Cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and competing risks subdistribution HRs were estimated. The primary outcome was the first of these severe cardiac events: acute myocardial infarction, other hospitalized ischemic heart disease, hospitalized heart failure, percutaneous coronary intervention/coronary artery bypass graft, cardiac death, or urgent/inpatient care for pericardial disease, conduction abnormality, valve disorder, or ischemic heart disease. With median follow-up of 13 months, 70 of 682 patients who received chemo-radiation (10.26%) and 43 of 682 matched patients who received chemotherapy only (6.30%) developed a severe cardiac event (P=0.008) with median time to first event 5.45 months. Chemo-radiation increased the rate of severe cardiac events (cause-specific HR: 1.62 [95% CI, 1.11-2.37] and subdistribution HR: 1.41 [95% CI, 0.97-2.04]). Cancer severity appeared greater among patients who received chemo-radiation (noncardiac death cause-specific HR, 2.53 [95% CI, 1.93-3.33] and subdistribution HR, 2.52 [95% CI, 1.90-3.33]). Conclusions Adding radiation therapy to chemotherapy is associated with an increased risk of severe cardiac events among patients with resectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer for whom survival benefit of radiation therapy is unclear.

Engagement in Primary Prevention Program among Rural Veterans With Osteoporosis Risk.

A primary osteoporosis prevention program using a virtual bone health team (BHT) was implemented to comanage the care of rural veterans in the Mountain West region of the United States. The BHT identified, screened, and treated rural veterans at risk for osteoporosis using telephone and United States Postal Service communications. Eligibility was determined by regular use of Veterans Health Administration primary care, age 50 or older, and evidence of fracture risk. This study was conducted to identify demographic and clinical factors associated with the acceptance of osteoporosis screening and the initiation of medication where indicated. A cross-sectional cohort design (N = 6985) was utilized with a generalized estimating equation and logit link function to account for facility-level clustering. Fully saturated and reduced models were fitted using backward selection. Less than a quarter of eligible veterans enrolled in BHT's program and completed screening. Factors associated with a lower likelihood of clinic enrollment included being of older age, unmarried, greater distance from VHA services, having a copayment, prior fracture, or history of rheumatoid arthritis. A majority of veterans with treatment indication started medication therapy (N = 453). In this subpopulation, Fisher's exact test showed a significant association between osteoporosis treatment uptake and a history of two or more falls in the prior year, self-reported parental history of fracture, current smoking, and weight-bearing exercise. The BHT was designed to reduce barriers to screening; however, for this population cost and travel continue to limit engagement. The remarkable rate of medication initiation notwithstanding, low enrollment reduces the impact of this primary prevention program, and findings pertaining to fracture, smoking, and exercise imply that health beliefs are an important contributing factor. Efforts to identify and address barriers to osteoporosis screening and treatment, such as clinical factors, social determinants of health, and health beliefs, may pave the way for effective implementation of population bone health care delivery systems. Published 2022. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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.

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.