Lessons Learned from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Therapies: Critical Perspectives From the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) COVID-19 Treatment Guideline Panel.

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

Therapeutic Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) During Pandemics: Double-edged Swords.

Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy's efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

Bridging the Gap Among Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pain Management in Cancer and Sickle Cell Disease.

Opioids are a critical component of pain relief strategies for the management of patients with cancer and sickle cell disease. The escalation of opioid addiction and overdose in the United States has led to increased scrutiny of opioid prescribing practices. Multiple reports have revealed that regulatory and coverage policies, intended to curb inappropriate opioid use, have created significant barriers for many patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and American Society of Clinical Oncology each publish clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic pain. A recent JAMA Oncology article highlighted perceived variability in recommendations among these guidelines. In response, leadership from guideline organizations, government representatives, and authors of the original article met to discuss challenges and solutions. The meeting featured remarks by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, presentations on each clinical practice guideline, an overview of the pain management needs of patients with sickle cell disease, an overview of perceived differences among guidelines, and a discussion of differences and commonalities among the guidelines. The meeting revealed that although each guideline varies in the intended patient population, target audience, and methodology, there is no disagreement among recommendations when applied to the appropriate patient and clinical situation. It was determined that clarification and education are needed regarding the intent, patient population, and scope of each clinical practice guideline, rather than harmonization of guideline recommendations. Clinical practice guidelines can serve as a resource for policymakers and payers to inform policy and coverage determinations.

Improving the Delivery of High-Quality Cancer Care in Medically Underserved Communities: A Formative Evaluation Method.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2015, the American Society of Clinical Oncology launched a new program: Improving Quality of Care in Underserved Communities with the overarching aim of serving patients with cancer who have traditionally had difficulty accessing the care they need. Cancer care requires intense coordination of complex services to provide safe, effective, timely, and equitable care. If chemotherapy and/or radiation is needed, patients must navigate a complex system of care many times, a formidable challenge for many disadvantaged patients. Many practices believe that these patients face such significant issues that it is almost impossible to provide high-quality care. A grant from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation allowed us to select 4 oncology practices serving high proportions of racial minorities and persons of low socioeconomic status to participate in the new American Society of Clinical Oncology program. The program had 2 objectives: (1) to improve the capacity and capability of the participating practices to provide evidence-based, high-quality care; and (2) to identify and disseminate lessons learned for improving quality of care among oncology practices serving underserved patients. METHODS: The program leveraged existing programs including the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, which is a national performance measurement and improvement program that collects data about processes of care provided in the outpatient medical oncology setting, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Training Program, which provides training in how to apply the tools and methods of quality improvement in routine care settings. Training was provided in face-to-face and virtual meetings and participants were provided mentors throughout the program. At the conclusion, a formative evaluation method was used to assess whether the goals had been achieved. Objectives, activities, and desired outcomes were identified for each of the goals and thus became the framework for the evaluation. RESULTS: The program met the stated goals and objectives. The evaluation revealed many successes, some surprises, and a list of improvements that were incorporated in the next iteration of this program. Based on data from the evaluation, the Niarchos Foundation provided funds for an additional 10 practices to participate in a similar program in 2020. CONCLUSION: This article outlines the evaluation of a new program demonstrating that medical oncology practices can make improvements in the care of their underserved populations if provided with the proper tools, methods, and coaching. The use of formative evaluation methodology also identified opportunities for improvement and ultimately resulted in additional funding for more practices to participate in the program.

Bridging the Gap Among Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pain Management in Cancer and Sickle Cell Disease.

Opioids are a critical component of pain relief strategies for the management of patients with cancer and sickle cell disease. The escalation of opioid addiction and overdose in the United States has led to increased scrutiny of opioid prescribing practices. Multiple reports have revealed that regulatory and coverage policies, intended to curb inappropriate opioid use, have created significant barriers for many patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and ASCO each publish clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic pain. A recent JAMA Oncology article highlighted perceived variability in recommendations among these guidelines. In response, leadership from guideline organizations, government representatives, and authors of the original article met to discuss challenges and solutions. The meeting featured remarks by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, presentations on each clinical practice guideline, an overview of the pain management needs of patients with sickle cell disease, an overview of perceived differences among guidelines, and a discussion of differences and commonalities among the guidelines. The meeting revealed that although each guideline varies in the intended patient population, target audience, and methodology, there is no disagreement among recommendations when applied to the appropriate patient and clinical situation. It was determined that clarification and education are needed regarding the intent, patient population, and scope of each clinical practice guideline, rather than harmonization of guideline recommendations. Clinical practice guidelines can serve as a resource for policymakers and payers to inform policy and coverage determinations.

Comparative Assessment of Clinical Benefit Using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Version 1.1 and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score.

PURPOSE: To better understand the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2), ESMO and ASCO collaborated to evaluate the concordance between the frameworks when used to assess clinical benefit attributable to new therapies. METHODS: The 102 randomized controlled trials in the noncurative setting already evaluated in the field testing of ESMO-MCBS v1.1 were scored using ASCO-NHB v2 by its developers. Measures of agreement between the frameworks were calculated and receiver operating characteristic curves used to define thresholds for the ASCO-NHB v2 corresponding to ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. Studies with discordant scoring were identified and evaluated to understand the reasons for discordance. RESULTS: The correlation of the 102 pairs of scores for studies in the noncurative setting is estimated to be 0.68 (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient; overall survival, 0.71; progression-free survival, 0.67). Receiver operating characteristic curves identified thresholds for ASCO-NHB v2 for facilitating comparisons with ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. After applying pragmatic threshold scores of 40 or less (ASCO-NHB v2) and 2 or less (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for low benefit and 45 or greater (ASCO-NHB v2) and 4 to 5 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for substantial benefit, 37 discordant studies were identified. Major factors that contributed to discordance were different approaches to evaluation of relative and absolute gain for overall survival and progression-free survival, crediting tail of the curve gains, and assessing toxicity. CONCLUSION: The agreement between the frameworks was higher than observed in other studies that sought to compare them. The factors that contributed to discordant scores suggest potential approaches to improve convergence between the scales.

Addressing Financial Barriers to Patient Participation in Clinical Trials: ASCO Policy Statement.

Research conducted through clinical trials is essential for evaluating new treatment modalities, establishing new standards of cancer care, and ultimately improving and prolonging the lives of patients with cancer. However, participation in trials has been low, and this is attributable to various factors including patient financial barriers. Such financial barriers include the rising cost of cancer care; a lack of transparency in coverage policy; and the perception of ethical, compliance, or institutional impediments to patient financial support. ASCO convened a roundtable discussion with a variety of stakeholders to define the scope of the problem, as well as to identify clinical practice and policy solutions applicable at the institutional and system-wide levels. This statement summarizes key discussions from the ASCO Roundtable, as well as findings from the literature, and provides ASCO's recommendations for overcoming financial barriers that may otherwise prevent participation in clinical trials. These recommendations broadly address the following key areas: (1) improving the policy environment for coverage of clinical trials; (2) facilitating transparency among providers, patients, and payers for trial-related out-of-pocket costs; (3) refuting the specter of inducement to enable targeted financial support for patients; and (4) improving the available data on costs of cancer clinical trials.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Position Statement: Strategies for Reducing Cancer Health Disparities Among Sexual and Gender Minority Populations.

ASCO is committed to addressing the needs of sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations as a diverse group at risk for receiving disparate care and having suboptimal experiences, including discrimination, throughout the cancer care continuum. This position statement outlines five areas of recommendations to address the needs of both SGM populations affected by cancer and members of the oncology workforce who identify as SGM: (1) patient education and support; (2) workforce development and diversity; (3) quality improvement strategies; (4) policy solutions; and (5) research strategies. In making these recommendations, the Society calls for increased outreach and educational support for SGM patients; increased SGM cultural competency training for providers; improvement of quality-of-care metrics that include sexual orientation and gender information variables; and increased data collection to inform future work addressing the needs of SGM communities.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Strategic Plan for Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Oncology Workforce.

In December 2016, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors approved the ASCO Strategic Plan to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Oncology Workforce. Developed through a multistakeholder effort led by the ASCO Health Disparities Committee, the purpose of the plan is to guide the formal efforts of ASCO in this area over the next three years (2017 to 2020). There are three primary goals: (1) to establish a longitudinal pathway for increasing workforce diversity, (2) to enhance ASCO leadership diversity, and (3) to integrate a focus on diversity across ASCO programs and policies. Improving quality cancer care in the United States requires the recruitment of oncology professionals from diverse backgrounds. The ASCO Strategic Plan to Increase Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Oncology Workforce is designed to enhance existing programs and create new opportunities that will move us closer to the vision of achieving an oncology workforce that reflects the demographics of the US population it serves.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Summit on Addressing Obesity Through Multidisciplinary Provider Collaboration: Key Findings and Recommendations for Action.

OBJECTIVE: Given the increasing evidence that obesity increases the risk of developing and dying from malignancy, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) launched an Obesity Initiative in 2013 that was designed to increase awareness among oncology providers and the general public of the relationship between obesity and cancer and to promote research in this area. Recognizing that the type of societal change required to impact the obesity epidemic will require a broad-based effort, ASCO hosted the "Summit on Addressing Obesity through Multidisciplinary Collaboration" in 2016. METHODS: This meeting was held to review current challenges in addressing obesity within the respective health care provider communities and to identify priorities that would most benefit from a collective and cross-disciplinary approach. RESULTS: Efforts focused on four key areas: provider education and training; public education and activation; research; and policy and advocacy. Summit attendees discussed current challenges in addressing obesity within their provider communities and identified priorities that would most benefit from multidisciplinary collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: A synopsis of recommendations to facilitate future collaboration, as well as examples of ongoing cooperative efforts, provides a blueprint for multidisciplinary provider collaboration focused on obesity prevention and treatment.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Obesity Initiative: Rationale, Progress, and Future Directions.

Obesity is increasingly being linked to the risk of developing and dying from cancer. In recognition of the growing contribution of obesity to cancer risk and outcomes, ASCO made obesity and cancer one of its core initiatives in 2014. The goals of this initiative included raising awareness of the relationship between obesity and cancer, providing tools and resources to oncology providers and patients to help encourage conversations regarding weight management in cancer survivors, fostering a robust research agenda, and advocating for access to evidence-based weight management programs for cancer survivors. Efforts to date have included developing patient and provider toolkits focused on weight management and physical activity, publishing a policy statement outlining ASCO's initiatives in this area, and hosting a summit focused on obesity research in cancer populations. As ASCO has defined its priorities in the area of obesity and cancer, it has become increasingly clear that obesity is a problem that extends far beyond its impact on cancer risk and outcomes. Many groups, including those focused on heart disease, diabetes, and endocrinology, have been developing, testing, and implementing obesity prevention and treatment strategies for years. As ASCO moves forward with its obesity initiative, the next steps will focus on forging collaboration with groups working on obesity-related initiatives both within and outside of the field of cancer to learn from their efforts and to partner with them on efforts to increase the education of medical professionals; raising awareness in lay populations regarding the negative health consequences of obesity and effective strategies to foster weight loss; developing collaborative research initiatives; and working together to advocate for the societal changes that will be needed to combat the obesity epidemic in the United States and beyond.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: Human Papillomavirus Vaccination for Cancer Prevention.

American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the leading medical professional oncology society, is committed to lessening the burden of cancer and as such will promote underused interventions that have the potential to save millions of lives through cancer prevention. As the main providers of cancer care worldwide, our patients, their families, and our communities look to us for guidance regarding all things cancer related, including cancer prevention. Through this statement and accompanying recommendations, ASCO hopes to increase awareness of the tremendous global impact of human papillomavirus (HPV) -caused cancers, refocus the discussion of HPV vaccination on its likely ability to prevent millions of cancer deaths, and increase HPV vaccination uptake via greater involvement of oncology professionals in ensuring accurate public discourse about HPV vaccination and calling for the implementation of concrete strategies to address barriers to vaccine access and acceptance.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement on Clinical Pathways in Oncology.

The use of clinical pathways in oncology care is increasingly important to patients and oncology providers as a tool for enhancing both quality and value. However, with increasing adoption of pathways into oncology practice, concerns have been raised by ASCO members and other stakeholders. These include the process being used for pathway development, the administrative burdens on oncology practices of reporting on pathway adherence, and understanding the true impact of pathway use on patient health outcomes. To address these concerns, ASCO's Board of Directors established a Task Force on Clinical Pathways, charged with articulating a set of recommendations to improve the development of oncology pathways and processes, allowing the demonstration of pathway concordance in a manner that promotes evidence-based, high-value care respecting input from patients, payers, and providers. These recommendations have been approved and adopted by ASCO's Board of Directors on August 12, 2015, and are presented herein.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement Update: Genetic and Genomic Testing for Cancer Susceptibility.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has long affirmed that the recognition and management of individuals with an inherited susceptibility to cancer are core elements of oncology care. ASCO released its first statement on genetic testing in 1996 and updated that statement in 2003 and 2010 in response to developments in the field. In 2014, the Cancer Prevention and Ethics Committees of ASCO commissioned another update to reflect the impact of advances in this area on oncology practice. In particular, there was an interest in addressing the opportunities and challenges arising from the application of massively parallel sequencing-also known as next-generation sequencing-to cancer susceptibility testing. This technology introduces a new level of complexity into the practice of cancer risk assessment and management, requiring renewed effort on the part of ASCO to ensure that those providing care to patients with cancer receive the necessary education to use this new technology in the most effective, beneficial manner. The purpose of this statement is to explore the challenges of new and emerging technologies in cancer genetics and provide recommendations to ensure their optimal deployment in oncology practice. Specifically, the statement makes recommendations in the following areas: germline implications of somatic mutation profiling, multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility, quality assurance in genetic testing, education of oncology professionals, and access to cancer genetic services.

American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical expert statement on cancer survivorship care planning.

The seminal report from the Institute of Medicine, "From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition," identified four essential components of survivorship care and recommended that a survivorship care plan (SCP), consisting of a treatment summary and follow-up care plan, be developed and used as a tool to deliver patient-centered care by enhancing communication between the oncology team and the patient as well as communication and coordination of care between the oncology team and the primary care provider (PCP). Nearly a decade ago, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) initiated a series of activities to promote chemotherapy treatment plans and summaries and SCPs. Unfortunately, there has been limited success in implementing SCPs in oncology practice because of barriers including, but not limited to, the time-consuming process of completing an SCP, lack of role clarity, and lack of reimbursement for preparation time. ASCO developed this statement and revised template to provide a framework for completing and sharing SCPs and to set clear expectations for survivorship care planning in the oncology setting. This statement is intended to help clinicians recognize the importance of developing patient-centered SCPs and delivering the information to both the patient and PCP and to identify barriers that may exist in completing and delivering these documents effectively.

Developing a service model that integrates palliative care throughout cancer care: the time is now.

Palliative care is a fundamental component of cancer care. As part of the 2011 to 2012 Leadership Development Program (LDP) of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), a group of participants was charged with advising ASCO on how to develop a service model integrating palliative care throughout the continuum of cancer care. This article presents the findings of the LDP group. The group focused on the process of palliative care delivery in the oncology setting. We identified key elements for models of palliative care in various settings to be potentially equitable, sustainable, feasible, and acceptable, and here we describe a dynamic model for the integrated, simultaneous implementation of palliative care into oncology practice. We also discuss critical considerations to better integrate palliative care into oncology, including raising consciousness and educating both providers and the public about the importance of palliative care; coordinating palliative care efforts through strengthening affiliations and/or developing new partnerships; prospectively evaluating the impact of palliative care on patient and provider satisfaction, quality improvement, and cost savings; and ensuring sustainability through adequate reimbursement and incentives, including linkage of performance data to quality indicators, and coordination with training efforts and maintenance of certification requirements for providers. In light of these findings, we believe the confluence of increasing importance of incorporation of palliative care education in oncology education, emphasis on value-based care, growing use of technology, and potential cost savings makes developing and incorporating palliative care into current service models a meaningful goal.

Models of cancer survivorship health care: moving forward.

The population of cancer survivors in the United States and worldwide is rapidly increasing. Many survivors will develop health conditions as a direct or indirect consequence of their cancer therapy. Thus, models to deliver high-quality care for cancer survivors are evolving. We provide examples of three different models of survivorship care from a cancer center, a community setting, and a country-wide health care system, followed by a description of the ASCO Cancer Survivorship Compendium, a tool to help providers understand the various models of survivorship care available and integrate survivorship care into their practices in a way that fits their unique needs.

Quality of cancer family history and referral for genetic counseling and testing among oncology practices: a pilot test of quality measures as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

PURPOSE: Family history of cancer (CFH) is important for identifying individuals to receive genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT). Prior studies have demonstrated low rates of family history documentation and referral for GC/GT. METHODS: CFH quality and GC/GT practices for patients with breast (BC) or colon cancer (CRC) were assessed in 271 practices participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative in fall 2011. RESULTS: A total of 212 practices completed measures regarding CFH and GC/GT practices for 10,466 patients; 77.4% of all medical records reviewed documented presence or absence of CFH in first-degree relatives, and 61.5% of medical records documented presence or absence of CFH in second-degree relatives, with significantly higher documentation for patients with BC compared with CRC. Age at diagnosis was documented for all relatives with cancer in 30.7% of medical records (BC, 45.2%; CRC, 35.4%; P ≤ .001). Referall for GC/GT occurred in 22.1% of all patients with BC or CRC. Of patients with increased risk for hereditary cancer, 52.2% of patients with BC and 26.4% of those with CRC were referred for GC/GT. When genetic testing was performed, consent was documented 77.7% of the time, and discussion of results was documented 78.8% of the time. CONCLUSION: We identified low rates of complete CFH documentation and low rates of referral for those with BC or CRC meeting guidelines for referral among US oncologists. Documentation and referral were greater for patients with BC compared with CRC. Education and support regarding the importance of accurate CFH and the benefits of proactive high-risk patient management are clearly needed.