Addressing transportation barriers in oncology: existing programs and new solutions.

Transportation is an underrecognized, but modifiable barrier to accessing cancer care, especially for clinical trials. Clinicians, insurers, and health systems can screen patients for transportation needs and link them to transportation. Direct transportation services (i.e., ride-sharing, insurance-provided transportation) have high rates of patient satisfaction and visit completion. Patient financial reimbursements provide necessary funds to counteract the effects of transportation barriers, which can lead to higher trial enrollment, especially for low socioeconomic status and racially and ethnically diverse patients. Expanding transportation interventions to more cancer patients, and addressing knowledge, service, and system gaps, can help more patients access needed cancer care.

Telemedicine in geriatric oncology - lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Telemedicine quickly became integrated into healthcare caused by the Coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Rapid use of telemedicine into healthcare systems was supported by the World Health Organization and other prominent national organizations to reduce transmission of the virus while continuing to provide access to care. In this review, we explored the effect of this swift change in care and its impact on older adults with cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Older adults are susceptible to the COVID-19 virus caused by various risk factors, such as comorbidity, frailty, decreased immunity, and cancer increases vulnerability to infection, hospitalization, and mortality. We found three major themes emerged in the literature published in the past 18 months, including access to care, telemedicine modes of communication, and the use of technology by older adults with cancer. These findings have brought insight into issues regarding healthcare disparities. SUMMARY: The utilization of telemedicine by older adults with cancer has potential future benefits with the integration of technology preparation prior to the patient's initial visit and addressing known health disparities. The hybrid model of care provides in-person and or remote access to clinicians which may allow older adults with cancer the flexibility needed to obtain quality cancer care.

Policy strategies for capacity building and scale up of the workforce for comprehensive cancer care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer in low- and middle-income countries experience worse outcomes as a result of the limited capacity of health systems to deliver comprehensive cancer care. The health workforce is a key component of health systems; however, deep gaps exist in the availability and accessibility of cancer care providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of the literature evaluating the strategies for capacity building of the cancer workforce. We studied how the policy strategies addressed the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality (AAAQ) of the workforce. We used a strategic planning framework (SWOT: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) to identify actionable areas of capacity building. We contextualized our findings based on the WHO 2030 Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health, evaluating how they can ultimately be framed in a labour market approach and inform strategies to improve the capacity of the workforce (PROSPERO: CRD42020109377). RESULTS: The systematic review of the literature yielded 9617 records, and we selected 45 eligible papers for data extraction. The workforce interventions identified were delivered mostly in the African and American Regions, and in two-thirds of cases, in high-income countries. Many strategies have been shown to increase the number of competent oncology providers. Optimization of the existing workforce through role delegation and digital health interventions was reported as a short- to mid-term solution to optimize cancer care, through quality-oriented, efficiency-improving, and acceptability-enforcing workforce strategies. The increased workload alone was potentially detrimental. The literature on retaining the workforce and reducing brain drain or attrition in underserved areas was commonly limited. CONCLUSIONS: Workforce capacity building is not only a quantitative problem but can also be addressed through quality-oriented, organizational, and managerial solutions of human resources. The delivery of comprehensive, acceptable, and impact-oriented cancer care requires an available, accessible, and competent workforce for comprehensive cancer care. Efficiency-improving strategies may be instrumental for capacity building in resource-constrained settings.

Cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit in Ethiopia.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit in Ethiopia to inform the revision of the Ethiopia Essential Health Service Package (EEHSP), which ranks the treatment of childhood cancers at a low and medium priority. METHODS: We built a decision analytical model-a decision tree-to estimate the cost-effectiveness of running a paediatric oncology unit compared with a do-nothing scenario (no paediatric oncology care) from a healthcare provider perspective. We used the recently (2018-2019) conducted costing estimate for running the paediatric oncology unit at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital (TASH) and employed a mixed costing approach (top-down and bottom-up). We used data on health outcomes from other studies in similar settings to estimate the disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted of running a paediatric oncology unit compared with a do-nothing scenario over a lifetime horizon. Both costs and effects were discounted (3%) to the present value. The primary outcome was incremental cost in US dollars (USDs) per DALY averted, and we used a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50% of the Ethiopian gross domestic product per capita (USD 477 in 2019). Uncertainty was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The incremental cost and DALYs averted per child treated in the paediatric oncology unit at TASH were USD 876 and 2.4, respectively, compared with no paediatric oncology care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of running a paediatric oncology unit was USD 361 per DALY averted, and it was cost-effective in 90% of 100 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a USD 477 WTP threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of paediatric cancer services using a specialised oncology unit is most likely cost-effective in Ethiopia, at least for easily treatable cancer types in centres with minimal to moderate capability. We recommend reassessing the priority-level decision of childhood cancer treatment in the current EEHSP.

Stay at home: implementation and impact of virtualising cancer genetic services during COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid adoption of virtual clinic processes and healthcare delivery. Herein, we examine the impact of virtualising genetics services at Canada's largest cancer centre. A retrospective review was conducted to evaluate relevant metrics during the 12 weeks prior to and during virtual care, including referral and clinic volumes, patient wait times and genetic testing uptake. The number of appointments and new patients seen were maintained during virtual care. Likewise, there was a significant increase in the number of patients offered testing during virtual care who did not provide a blood sample (176/180 (97.7%) vs 180/243 (74.1%); p<0.001), and a longer median time from the date of pretest genetic counselling to the date a sample was given (0 vs 11 days; p<0.001). Referral volumes significantly decreased during virtual care (35 vs 22; p<0.001), which was accompanied by a decreased median wait time for first appointment (55 days vs 30 days; p<0.001). The rapid virtualisation of cancer genetic services allowed the genetics clinic to navigate the COVID-19 pandemic without compromising clinical volumes or access to genetic testing. There was a decrease in referral volumes and uptake of genetic testing, which may be attributable to pandemic-related clinical restrictions.

An Italian Model for the Management of Cancer Patients during COVID-19 Pandemic: The Regional Center for Oncological Orientation (COrO) of Taranto (ROP).

OBJECTIVE: The recent outbreak of COVID-19 limited the resources of the National Health System necessitating the formulation of novel practice recommendations for oncological care. To date, management guidelines for cancer patients in case of pandemic are not available. Each center tried to manage its own needs and requests independently, often reducing access to treatment and diagnostic exams to patients. Here, we have described the management of cancer patients during COVID-19 infection with suggestions of some practical approaches applied by our Regional Center for Oncological Orientation (COrO) in S.G. Moscati Hospital (Taranto, Italy). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Our strategy was to minimize any interruption of cancer treatment through the extension of Taranto's Health Regional (COrO). The extension of the oncological network, assisted by the General Management of Taranto ASL through agreements with private structures in Taranto's area, allowed cancer patients to receive up to 11 different types of services, according to their needs (first investigation or follow-up), and represents an exclusive organization on the entire Italian territory. RESULTS: Thanks to the organization of the COrO in 2020, 1,406 first oncological visits and 566 preparatory treatments were carried out, 372 of exemption for oncological pathology (free health care) were activated, and 1,742 instrumental investigations and 7 cases of civil invalidity were performed (certificate of disability). CONCLUSIONS: We have overcome barriers to care of oncology patients leading to a reduction of waiting lists representing a practical application model that can be extended to other healthcare settings.

The UK's contribution to cancer control in low-income and middle-income countries.

Cancer mortality rates in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are unacceptably high, requiring both collaborative global effort and in-country solutions. Experience has shown that working together in policy, clinical practice, education, training, and research leads to bidirectional benefit for LMICs and high-income countries. For over 60 years, the UK National Health Service has benefited from recruitment from LMICs, providing the UK with a rich diaspora of trained health-care professionals with links to LMICs. A grassroots drive to engage with partners in LMICs within the UK has grown from the National Health Service, UK academia, and other organisations. This drive has generated a model that rests on two structures: London Global Cancer Week and the UK Global Cancer Network, providing a high-value foundation for international discussion and collaboration. Starting with a historical perspective, this Series paper describes the UK landscape and offers a potential plan for the future UK's contribution to global cancer control. We also discuss the opportunities and challenges facing UK partnerships with LMICs in cancer control. The UK should harness the skills, insights, and political will from all partners to make real progress.

Transforming Canada's role in global cancer control.

Cancer has not been an explicit priority of Canada's international health and development agenda, but it is key to realising the country's Sustainable Development Goal commitments. Multiple converging political, health, and social forces could now drive support for a more integrated Canadian approach to global cancer control. Success will depend on the extent to which Canadian leaders and institutions can build consensus as a community and agree to work together. Collaboration should include agreement on the framing and prioritisation of the core issues, building a broad coalition base, aligning with priorities of international partners, and on a governance structure that reflects the principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion. This Series paper will discuss global cancer control within Canada's global health agenda, how Canada can address its history of colonisation and present-day disparities in its global work, and the challenges and opportunities of creating a Canadian global cancer control network.

Second Paediatric Strategy Forum for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibition in paediatric malignancies: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with the participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

The first (2017) and sixth (2021) multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forums focused on anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibition in paediatric malignancies. ALK is an important oncogene and target in several paediatric tumours (anaplastic large cell lymphoma [ALCL], inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour [IMT], neuroblastoma and hemispheric gliomas in infants and young children) with unmet therapeutic needs. ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been demonstrated to be active both in ALK fusion-kinase positive ALCL and IMT. ALK alterations differ, with fusions occurring in ALCL, IMT and gliomas, and activating mutations and amplification in neuroblastoma. While there are many ALK inhibitors in development, the number of children diagnosed with ALK driven malignancies is very small. The objectives of this ALK Forum were to (i) Describe current knowledge of ALK biology in childhood cancers; (ii) Provide an overview of the development of ALK inhibitors for children; (iii) Identify the unmet needs taking into account planned or current ongoing trials; (iv) Conclude how second/third-generation inhibitors could be evaluated and prioritised; (v) Identify lessons learnt from the experience with ALK inhibitors to accelerate the paediatric development of other anti-cancer targeted agents in the new regulatory environments. There has been progress over the last four years, with more trials of ALK inhibitors opened in paediatrics and more regulatory submissions. In January 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved crizotinib for the treatment of paediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory ALCL and there are paediatric investigation plans (PIPs) for brigatinib and for crizotinib in ALCL and IMT. In ALCL, the current goal is to investigate the inclusion of ALK inhibitors in front-line therapy with the aim of decreasing toxicity with higher/similar efficacy compared to present first-line therapies. For IMT, the focus is to develop a joint prospective trial with one product in children, adolescents and adults, taking advantage of the common biology across the age spectrum. As approximately 50% of IMTs are ALK-positive, molecular analysis is required to identify patients to be treated with an ALK inhibitor. For neuroblastoma, crizotinib has not shown robust anti-tumour activity. A focused and sequential development of ALK inhibitors with very good central nervous system (CNS) penetration in CNS tumours with ALK fusions should be undertaken. The Forum reinforced the strong need for global academic collaboration, very early involvement of regulators with studies seeking possible registration and early academia-multicompany engagement. Innovations in study design and conduct and the use of 'real-world data' supporting development in these rare sub-groups of patients for whom randomised clinical trials are not feasible are important initiatives. A focused and sequenced development strategy, where one product is evaluated first with other products being assessed sequentially, is applicable for ALK inhibitors and other medicinal products in children.

Thematic Analysis of Challenges of Care Coordination for Underinsured and Uninsured Cancer Survivors With Chronic Conditions.

Importance: Although a majority of underinsured and uninsured patients with cancer have multiple comorbidities, many lack consistent connections with a primary care team to manage chronic conditions during and after cancer treatment. This presents a major challenge to delivering high-quality comprehensive and coordinated care. Objective: To describe challenges and opportunities for coordinating care in an integrated safety-net system for patients with both cancer and other chronic conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multimodal qualitative study was conducted from May 2016 to July 2019 at a county-funded, vertically integrated safety-net health system including ambulatory oncology, urgent care, primary care, and specialty care. Participants were 93 health system stakeholders (clinicians, leaders, clinical, and administrative staff) strategically and snowball sampled for semistructured interviews and observation during meetings and daily processes of care. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively using a grounded theory approach, followed by systematic thematic analysis to organize data, review, and interpret comprehensive findings. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multilevel factors associated with experiences of coordinating care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions among oncology and primary care stakeholders. Results: Among interviews and observation of 93 health system stakeholders, system-level factors identified as being associated with care coordination included challenges to accessing primary care, lack of communication between oncology and primary care clinicians, and leadership awareness of care coordination challenges. Clinician-level factors included unclear role delineation and lack of clinician knowledge and preparedness to manage the effects of cancer and chronic conditions. Conclusions and Relevance: Primary care may play a critical role in delivering coordinated care for patients with cancer and chronic diseases. This study's findings suggest a need for care delivery strategies that bridge oncology and primary care by enhancing communication, better delineating roles and responsibilities across care teams, and improving clinician knowledge and preparedness to care for patients with cancer and chronic conditions. Expanding timely access to primary care is also key, albeit challenging in resource-limited safety-net settings.

An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology.

Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.

The Ethical Imperative of Equity in Oncology: Lessons Learned From 2020 and a Path Forward.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the simultaneous increased focus on structural racism and racial/ethnic disparities across the United States have shed light on glaring inequities in U.S. health care, both in oncology and more generally. In this article, we describe how, through the lens of fundamental ethical principles, an ethical imperative exists for the oncology community to overcome these inequities in cancer care, research, and the oncology workforce. We first explain why this is an ethical imperative, centering the discussion on lessons learned during 2020. We continue by describing ongoing equity-focused efforts by ASCO and other related professional medical organizations. We end with a call to action-all members of the oncology community have an ethical responsibility to take steps to address inequities in their clinical and academic work-and with guidance to practicing oncologists looking to optimize equity in their research and clinical practice.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care activities at a Uruguayan mastology unit.

PURPOSE: Health emergency due to COVID-19 started in Uruguay on March 13, 2020; our mastology unit tried to ensure adequate oncological care, and protect patients from the virus infection and complications. OBJECTIVE: To assess the health care activities in the "peak" of the pandemic during 3 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: we collected data from the electronic health record. RESULTS: There were a total of 293 medical appointments from 131 patients (221 face-to-face), that decreased by 16.7% compared to the same period in 2019 (352 appointments). The medical appointments were scheduled to evaluate the continuity of systemic treatment or modifications (95 patients; 72.5%), follow-up (17; 12.9%), first-time consultation (12; 9.1%), and assess paraclinical studies (7; 5.3%). The patients were on hormone therapy (81 patients; 74%), chemotherapy (CT) (21; 19%), and anti-HER2 therapies (9; 8%). New twenty treatments were initiated. Of the 14 patients that were on adjuvant/neoadjuvant CT, 9 (64.3%) continued with the same regimen with the addition of prophylactic granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), and 5 (35.7%), who were receiving weekly paclitaxel, continued the treatment with no changes. Of the seven patients that were on palliative CT, 2 (28.5%) continued the treatment with the addition of G-CSF, 3 (42.8%) continued with weekly capecitabine or paclitaxel with no treatment changes, and 2 (28.5%) changed their treatment regimen (a less myelosuppressive regimen was selected for one and due to progression of the disease in the other patient). The ninety patients who were receiving adjuvant, neoadjuvant, or palliative criteria hormone therapy and/or anti-HER2 therapies, continued the treatment with no changes. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that, although medical appointments decreased by approximately 17%, we could maintain healthcare activities, continued most of the treatments while the most modified was CT with G-CSF to avoid myelosuppression.

Impact of innovation in oncology: more questions than answers.

Oncology is going through the fastest innovation period in the history of medicine and a growing number of patients improve or experience increased chances of survival. The declining death rate, starting from 1991, resulted in 2.9 million deaths avoided in the United States so far. A growing prevalence of patients is observed in all Western countries. New cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016, linked to other diagnostic, surgical, and health care improvements, were significantly associated with death reduction for the most common cancers. Alongside many positive aspects, other effects of innovations in oncology also deserve attention, especially challenges associated with the substantial increase of knowledge volume, the sharp growth of prevalence, and a concomitant or consequent increase in clinical, social, and organizational complexity. We analyse some of the consequences of oncology innovation on healthcare systems and professionals and present some suggestions on how these could be addressed by healthcare systems.

Determinants of the access to remote specialised services provided by national sarcoma reference centres.

BACKGROUND: Spatial inequalities in cancer management have been evidenced by studies reporting lower quality of care or/and lower survival for patients living in remote or socially deprived areas. NETSARC+ is a national reference network implemented to improve the outcome of sarcoma patients in France since 2010, providing remote access to specialized diagnosis and Multidisciplinary Tumour Board (MTB). The IGéAS research program aims to assess the potential of this innovative organization, with remote management of cancers including rare tumours, to go through geographical barriers usually impeding the optimal management of cancer patients. METHODS: Using the nationwide NETSARC+ databases, the individual, clinical and geographical determinants of the access to sarcoma-specialized diagnosis and MTB were analysed. The IGéAS cohort (n = 20,590) includes all patients living in France with first sarcoma diagnosis between 2011 and 2014. Early access was defined as specialised review performed before 30 days of sampling and as first sarcoma MTB discussion performed before the first surgery. RESULTS: Some clinical populations are at highest risk of initial management without access to sarcoma specialized services, such as patients with non-GIST visceral sarcoma for diagnosis [OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.78 to 2.15] and MTB discussion [OR 3.56, 95% CI 3.16 to 4.01]. Social deprivation of the municipality is not associated with early access on NETSARC+ remote services. The quintile of patients furthest away from reference centres have lower chances of early access to specialized diagnosis [OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.31] and MTB discussion [OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.40] but this influence of the distance is slight in comparison with clinical factors and previous studies on the access to cancer-specialized facilities. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of national organization driven by reference network, distance to reference centres slightly alters the early access to sarcoma specialized services and social deprivation has no impact on it. The reference networks' organization, designed to improve the access to specialized services and the quality of cancer management, can be considered as an interesting device to reduce social and spatial inequalities in cancer management. The potential of this organization must be confirmed by further studies, including survival analysis.

[Place of coordination of complex pathways in oncology by coordinating private nurses]. / Place d'une coordination de parcours complexes en cancérologie par des infirmiers libéraux coordinateurs.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of the hospital-city care pathway is a real challenge because of the lack of coordination and communication between many stakeholders. As part of a call for projects from the General Directorate of Healthcare Provision, an experiment involving private oncology coordinating nurses was developed to address this issue. To our knowledge, there is no evaluation so far of such a protocol . METHODS: This single-center retrospective study focused on data from the ONC'IDEC program between 2015 and 2018, where 28 private nurses provided a 24/7 hotline. The objective was to qualitatively assess the coordination of this system. The nature and number of calls, patient satisfaction and medico-economic parameters were assessed. RESULTS: More than a hundred patients (n=114) were included in this device (mean age: 72 ± 12 years). The most frequent reasons for calls concerned the patient's general condition (35 %) and home treatment follow-ups (13 %) but also referrals to the primary doctor (4 %), which helped avoiding hospitalizations. The patients were satisfied with the experiment (overall score of 8.4/10). DISCUSSION: Thanks to the ONC'IDEC program, patients were able to benefit from more appropriate care through a privileged interlocutor by making their care pathway more fluid and avoiding hospitalizations. It would be interesting to confirm these results by means of a study with a higher level of evidence, by comparing this protocol to conventional hospital coordination.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Evaluation of Oncology Hospital at Home: Unplanned Health Care Utilization and Costs in the Huntsman at Home Real-World Trial.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer experience high rates of morbidity and unplanned health care utilization and may benefit from new models of care. We evaluated an adult oncology hospital at home program's rate of unplanned hospitalizations and health care costs and secondarily, emergency department (ED) use, length of hospital stays, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions during the 30 days after enrollment. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, nonrandomized, real-world cohort comparison of 367 hospitalized patients with cancer-169 patients consecutively admitted after hospital discharge to Huntsman at Home (HH), a hospital-at-home program, compared with 198 usual care patients concurrently identified at hospital discharge. All patients met clinical criteria for HH admission, but those in usual care lived outside the HH service area. Primary outcomes were the number of unplanned hospitalizations and costs during the 30 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stays, ICU admissions, and ED visits during the 30 days after enrollment. RESULTS: Groups were comparable except that more women received HH care. In propensity-weighted analyses, the odds of unplanned hospitalizations was reduced in the HH group by 55% (odds ratio, 0.45, 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.70; P < .001) and health care costs were 47% lower (mean cost ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.72; P < .001) over the 30-day period. Secondary outcomes also favored HH. Total hospital stay days were reduced by 1.1 days (P = .004) and ED visits were reduced by 45% (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.92; P = .022). There was no evidence of a difference in ICU admissions (P = .972). CONCLUSION: This oncology hospital at home program shows initial promise as a model for oncology care that may lower unplanned health care utilization and health care costs.