Evolution of community outreach and engagement at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers, an evolving journey.

Cancer mortality rates have declined during the last 28 years, but that process is not equitably shared. Disparities in cancer outcomes by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation and gender identity, and geographic location persist across the cancer care continuum. Consequently, community outreach and engagement (COE) efforts within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center (NCI-DCC) catchment areas have intensified during the last 10 years as has the emphasis on COE and catchment areas in NCI's Cancer Center Support Grant applications. This review article attempts to provide a historic perspective of COE within NCI-DCCs. Improving COE has long been an important initiative for the NCI, but it was not until 2012 and 2016 that NCI-DCCs were required to define their catchment areas rigorously and to provide specific descriptions of COE interventions, respectively. NCI-DCCs had previously lacked adequate focus on the inclusion of historically marginalized patients in cancer innovation efforts. Integrating COE efforts throughout the research and operational aspects of the cancer centers, at both the patient and community levels, will expand the footprint of COE efforts within NCI-DCCs. Achieving this change requires sustained commitment by the centers to adjust their activities and improve access and outcomes for historically marginalized communities.

Planning for post-pandemic cancer care delivery: Recovery or opportunity for redesign?

The delivery of cancer care has never changed as rapidly and dramatically as we have seen with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. During the early phase of the pandemic, recommendations for the management of oncology patients issued by various professional societies and government agencies did not recognize the significant regional differences in the impact of the pandemic. California initially experienced lower than expected numbers of cases, and the health care system did not experience the same degree of the burden that had been the case in other parts of the country. In light of promising trends in COVID-19 infections and mortality in California, by late April 2020, discussions were initiated for a phased recovery of full-scale cancer services. However, by July 2020, a surge of cases was reported across the nation, including in California. In this review, the authors share the response and recovery planning experience of the University of California (UC) Cancer Consortium in an effort to provide guidance to oncology practices. The UC Cancer Consortium was established in 2017 to bring together 5 UC Comprehensive Cancer Centers: UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Irvine Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, and the UC San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. The interventions implemented in each of these cancer centers are highlighted, with a focus on opportunities for a redesign in care delivery models. The authors propose that their experiences gained during this pandemic will enhance pre-pandemic cancer care delivery.

Update on infection control practices in cancer hospitals.

Therapies in oncology have evolved rapidly over the last years. At the same pace, supportive care for patients receiving cancer therapy has also evolved, allowing patients to safely receive the newest advances in treatment in both an inpatient and outpatient basis. The recognition of the role of infection control and prevention (ICP) in the outcomes of patients living with cancer has been such that it is now a requirement for hospitals and involves multidisciplinary groups. Some unique aspects of ICP for patients with cancer that have gained momentum over the past few decades include catheter-related infections, multidrug-resistant organisms, community-acquired viral infections, and the impact of the health care environment on the horizontal transmission of organisms. Furthermore, as the potential for infections to cross international borders has increased, alertness for outbreaks or new infections that occur outside the area have become constant. As the future approaches, ICP in immunocompromised hosts will continue to integrate emerging disciplines, such as antibiotic stewardship and the microbiome, and new techniques for environmental cleaning and for controlling the spread of infections, such as whole-genome sequencing. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;000:000-000. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Outcome of early detection approach in control of breast, cervical, and oral cancer: Experience from a rural cancer center in India.

In low- and middle-income countries most of the cancer patients attend the hospital at a late stage and treatment completion of these cases is challenging. The early detection program (EDP), in rural areas of Punjab state, India was initiated to identify breast, cervical, and oral cancer at an early stage by raising awareness and providing easy access to diagnosis and treatment. A total of 361 health education programs and 99 early detection clinics were organized. The symptomatic and self-interested (non-symptomatic individuals who opted for screening) cases visited the detection clinic. They were screened for breast, cervical, and/or oral cancer. Further diagnosis and treatment of screen-positive cases were carried out at Homi Bhabha Cancer Hospital (HBCH), Sangrur. Community leaders and healthcare workers were involved in all the activities. The EDP, Sangrur removed barriers between cancer diagnosis and treatment with the help of project staff. From 2019 to 2023, a total of 221,317 populations were covered. Symptomatic and self-interested individuals attended the breast (1627), cervical (1601), and oral (1111) examinations. 46 breast (in situ-4.3%; localized-52.2%), 9 cervical (localized-77.8%), and 12 oral (localized-66.7%) cancer cases were detected, and treatment completion was 82.6%, 77.8%, and 50.0%, respectively. We compared cancer staging and treatment completion of cases detected through EDP with the cases attended HBCH from Sangrur district in 2018; the difference between two groups is statistically significant. Due to the early detection approach, there is disease down-staging and improvement in treatment completion. This approach is feasible and can be implemented to control these cancers in low- and middle-income countries.

A framework for building comprehensive cancer center's capacity for bidirectional engagement.

PURPOSE: Community engagement has benefits for cancer centers' work and for its researchers. This study examined the experiences and perceptions of community engagement by members of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center (Case CCC) to create and implement a framework to meet the needs of the entire cancer center. METHODS: This study included three phases: 1) Semi-structured interviews with 12 researchers from a basic science program to identify needs and suggestions for the support of community engagement; 2) Preliminary interview results informed the development of a survey of 86 cancer center members' about their awareness of and readiness to integrate community outreach and engagement into their research; and 3) The Case CCC Office of Community Outreach and Engagement reviewed the results from phases 1 and 2 to develop and then utilize a framework of engagement opportunities. RESULTS: In the interviews and surveys, cancer center members recognized the importance of community engagement and expressed an interest in participating in COE-organized opportunities for bidirectional engagement. While participation barriers include communication issues, limited awareness of opportunities, and competing priorities, members were open to learning new skills, changing approaches, and utilizing services to facilitate engagement. The framework outlines engagement opportunities ranging from high touch, low reach to low touch, and high reach and was used to develop specific services. CONCLUSION: This study identified varying needs around community engagement using an approach aimed at understanding the perspectives of a community of scientists. Implementing the framework enables reaching scientists in different ways and facilitates scientists' recognition of and engagement with opportunities.

Payer-Negotiated Price Variation and Relationship to Surgical Outcomes for the Most Common Cancers at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: Federal rules mandate that hospitals publish payer-specific negotiated prices for all services. Little is known about variation in payer-negotiated prices for surgical oncology services or their relationship to clinical outcomes. We assessed variation in payer-negotiated prices associated with surgical care for common cancers at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and determined the effect of increasing payer-negotiated prices on the odds of morbidity and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 63 NCI-designated cancer center websites was employed to assess variation in payer-negotiated prices. A retrospective cohort study of 15,013 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery for colon, pancreas, or lung cancers at an NCI-designated cancer center between 2014 and 2018 was conducted to determine the relationship between payer-negotiated prices and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the effect of median payer-negotiated price on odds of a composite outcome of 30 days mortality and serious postoperative complications for each cancer cohort. RESULTS: Within-center prices differed by up to 48.8-fold, and between-center prices differed by up to 675-fold after accounting for geographic variation in costs of providing care. Among the 15,013 patients discharged from 20 different NCI-designated cancer centers, the effect of normalized median payer-negotiated price on the composite outcome was clinically negligible, but statistically significantly positive for colon [aOR 1.0094 (95% CI 1.0051-1.0138)], lung [aOR 1.0145 (1.0083-1.0206)], and pancreas [aOR 1.0080 (1.0040-1.0120)] cancer cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Payer-negotiated prices are statistically significantly but not clinically meaningfully related to morbidity and mortality for the surgical treatment of common cancers. Higher payer-negotiated prices are likely due to factors other than clinical quality.

Patients' satisfaction with cancer pain treatment at adult oncologic centers in Northern Ethiopia; a multi-center cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is an important indicator of the quality of healthcare. Pain is one of the most common symptoms among cancer patients that needs optimal treatment; rather, it compromises the quality of life of patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the levels and associated factors of satisfaction with cancer pain treatment among adult patients at cancer centers found in Northern Ethiopia in 2023. METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval, a multi-center cross-sectional study was conducted at four cancer care centers in northern Ethiopia. The data were collected using an interviewer-administered structured questionnaire that included the Lubeck Medication Satisfaction Questionnaire (LMSQ). The severity of pain was assessed by a numerical rating scale from 0 to 10 with a pain score of 0 = no pain, 1-3 = mild pain, 4-6 = moderate pain, and 7-10 = severe pain Binary logistic regression analysis was employed, and the strength of association was described in an adjusted odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. RESULT: A total of 397 cancer patients participated in this study, with a response rate of 98.3%. We found that 70.3% of patients were satisfied with their cancer pain treatment. Being married (AOR = 5.6, CI = 2.6-12, P < 0.001) and being single (never married) (AOR = 3.5, CI = 1.3-9.7, P = 0.017) as compared to divorced, receiving adequate pain management (AOR = 2.4, CI = 1.1-5.3, P = 0.03) as compared to those who didn't receive it, and having lower pain severity (AOR = 2.6, CI = 1.5-4.8, P < 0.001) as compared to those who had higher level of pain severity were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. CONCLUSION: The majority of cancer patients were satisfied with cancer pain treatment. Being married, being single (never married), lower pain severity, and receiving adequate pain management were found to be associated with satisfaction with cancer pain treatment. It would be better to enhance the use of multimodal analgesia in combination with strong opioids to ensure adequate pain management and lower pain severity scores.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic among patients with lung and head and neck cancer assisted in a public cancer center in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: There is no updated national data regarding the real impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delaying diagnosis and treatment among patients with lung, and head, and neck cancers in Brazil. This study aimed to analyze the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer diagnosis and clinical outcomes among lung, head, and neck cancer patients assisted in a tertiary cancer center in Southeastern Brazil, as well as to analyze these patients' pretreatment clinical features. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of patients with lung or head and neck cancer assisted in a tertiary cancer center in southeastern Brazil between January/2019 and December/2021. To assess statistical differences among groups [i.e., cohort 2019 versus (vs.) 2020 and 2019 vs. 2021] chi-square test was used with a 5% significance level and 90% power for sample size calculation. Differences among baseline clinical features and sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated either by T-test for two samples or Fisher's or Pearson's chi-square test (for quantitative or qualitative variables). All utilized tests had a 5% significance level. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-two patients were included, 332 with lung and 320 with head and neck cancer; it was observed a significant decrease in oncologic treatment recommendations and increase in palliative care recommendation for patients with lung cancer, despite similar stages at diagnosis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more pain symptoms were reported at the first Oncology assessment for patients with head and neck cancer (p < 0.05). Compared to 2019, head and neck cancer patients diagnosed in 2021 presented a worse initial performance status (p = 0.008). There was a statistically significant increase in survival for patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer in 2021 when compared to 2019 (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights low survival rates for patients with lung and head and neck cancer in Brazil, even before the pandemic started, as consequence of advanced diseases at diagnosis at the public health system and clinical degrading features. Additionally, there was an increase incidence in both lung cancer and head and neck cancer despite no differences in clinical stage. This reflects how fragile is the public healthcare system even before facing an acute public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, the total impact on public health may follow for many years.

Changing patterns of bacterial profile and antimicrobial resistance in high-risk patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at a tertiary oncology hospital.

The widespread evolution of phenotypic resistance in clinical isolates over the years, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic onset, has exacerbated the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance. This study aimed to explore changes in bacterial infection patterns and antimicrobial resistance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study involved the periods before and during COVID-19: the pre-pandemic and pandemic eras. The surveillance results of bacterial isolates causing infections in cancer patients at an Egyptian tertiary oncology hospital were retrieved. The Vitek®2 or Phoenix systems were utilized for species identification and susceptibility testing. Statistical analyses were performed comparing microbiological trends before and during the pandemic. Out of 2856 bacterial isolates, Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) predominated (69.7%), and Gram-positive bacteria (GPB) comprised 30.3% of isolates. No significant change was found in GNB prevalence during the pandemic (P = 0.159). Elevated rates of Klebsiella and Pseudomonas species were demonstrated during the pandemic, as was a decrease in E. coli and Acinetobacter species (P < 0.001, 0.018, < 0.001, and 0.046, respectively) in hematological patients. In surgical patients, Enterobacteriaceae significantly increased (P = 0.012), while non-fermenters significantly decreased (P = 0.007). GPB species from either hematological or surgical wards exhibited no notable changes during the pandemic. GNB resistance increased in hematological patients to carbapenems, amikacin, and tigecycline and decreased in surgical patients to amikacin and cefoxitin (P < 0.001, 0.010, < 0.001, < 0.001, and 0.016, respectively). The study highlights notable shifts in the microbial landscape during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the prevalence and resistance patterns of GNB in hematological and surgical wards.

Predictors of germline genetic testing referral and completion in ovarian cancer patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of referral and completion of germline genetic testing among newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients, with a focus on geographic social deprivation, oncologist-level practices, and time between diagnosis and completion of testing. METHODS: Clinical and sociodemographic data were abstracted from medical records of patients newly diagnosed with ovarian cancer between 2014 and 2019 in the University of North Carolina Health System. Factors associated with referral for genetic counseling, completion of germline testing, and time between diagnosis and test results were identified using multivariable regression. RESULTS: 307/459 (67%) patients were referred for genetic counseling and 285/459 (62%) completed testing. The predicted probability of test completion was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88) for patients with a referral compared to 0.27 (95% CI: 0.18-0.35) for patients without a referral. The predicted probability of referral was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.82) for patients at the 25th percentile of ZIP code-level Social Deprivation Index (SDI) and 0.67 (0.60-0.74) for patients at the 75th percentile of SDI. Referral varied by oncologist, with predicted probabilities ranging from 0.47 (95% CI: 0.32-0.62) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.85-1.00) across oncologists. The median time between diagnosis and test results was 137 days (IQR: 55-248 days). This interval decreased by a predicted 24.46 days per year (95% CI: 37.75-11.16). CONCLUSIONS: We report relatively high germline testing and a promising trend in time from diagnosis to results, with variation by oncologist and patient factors. Automated referral, remote genetic counseling and sample collection, reduced out-of-pocket costs, and educational interventions should be explored.

Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs: Safety assessment in a European Comprehensive Cancer Centre using the risk matrix approach.

AIMS: The purpose of this work was to assess failures in the advanced prescription of parenteral anticancer agents in an adult day oncology care unit with more than 100 patients per day. METHODS: An a priori descriptive analysis was carried out by using the risk matrix approach. After defining the scope in a multidisciplinary meeting, we determined at each step the failure modes (FMs), their effects (E) and their associated causes (C). A severity score (S) was assigned to all effects and a probability of occurrence (O) to all causes. These S and O indicators, were used to obtain a criticality index (CI) matrix. We assessed the risk control (RC) of each failure in order to define a residual criticality index (rCI) matrix. RESULTS: During risk analysis, 14 FMs were detected, and 61 scenarios were identified considering all possible effects and causes. Nine situations (15%) were highlighted with the maximum CI, 18 (30%) with a medium CI, and 34 (55%) with a negligible CI. Nevertheless, among all these critical situations, only three (5%) had an rCI to process (i.e., missed dose adjustment, multiple prescriptions and abnormal biology data); the others required monitoring only. Clinicians' and pharmacists' knowledge of these critical situations enables them to manage the associated risks. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs appears to be a safe practice for patients when combined with risk management. The major risks identified concerned missed dose adjustment, prescription duplication and lack of consideration for abnormal biology data.

Investigation of antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, risk factors and their impact on mortality in cancer patients at a tertiary care cancer hospital- A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients are vulnerable to infections due to immunosuppression caused by cancer itself and its treatment. The emergence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria further complicates the treatment of infections and increases the mortality and hospital stays. This study aimed to investigate the microbial spectrum, antimicrobial resistance patterns, risk factors, and their impact on clinical outcomes in these patients. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted at a tertiary care cancer hospital in Patna, Bihar, India, which included cancer patients aged 18 years and older with positive microbial cultures. RESULTS: This study analysed 440 patients, 53% (234) of whom were females, with an average age of 49.27 (± 14.73) years. A total of 541 isolates were identified, among which 48.01% (242) were multidrug resistant (MDR), 29.76% (150) were extensively drug resistant (XDR), and 19.84% (112) were sensitive. This study revealed that patients who underwent surgery, chemotherapy, were hospitalized, had a history of antibiotic exposure, and had severe neutropenia were more susceptible to MDR and XDR infections. The average hospital stays were 16.90 (± 10.23), 18.30 (± 11.14), and 22.83 (± 13.22) days for patients with sensitive, MDR, and XDR infections, respectively. The study also revealed overall 30-day mortality rate of 31.81% (140), whereas the MDR and XDR group exhibited 38.92% and 50.29% rates of 30-day mortality respectively (P < 0.001). Possible risk factors identified that could lead to mortality, were cancer recurrence, sepsis, chemotherapy, indwelling invasive devices such as foley catheter, Central venous catheter and ryles tube, MASCC score (< 21) and pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the necessity for personalized interventions among cancer patients, such as identifying patients at risk of infection, judicious antibiotic use, infection control measures, and the implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs to reduce the rate of antimicrobial-resistant infection and associated mortality and hospital length of stay.

Analysis of travel burden and travel support among patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center in the Southeastern United States.

INTRODUCTION: Travel burden leads to worse cancer outcomes. Understanding travel burden and the level and types of travel support provided at large cancer centers is critical for developing systematic programs to alleviate travel burden. This study analyzed patients who received travel assistance, including their travel burden, types and amount of travel support received, and factors that influenced these outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed 1063 patients who received travel support from 1/1/2021 to 5/1/2023 at Winship Cancer Institute, in which ~18,000 patients received cancer care annually. Travel burden was measured using distance and time to Winship sites from patients' residential address. Travel support was evaluated using the monetary value of total travel support and type of support received. Patients' sociodemographic and clinical factors were extracted from electronic medical records. Area-level socioeconomic disadvantage was coded by the Area Deprivation Index using patient ZIP codes. RESULTS: On average, patients traveled 57.2 miles and 67.3 min for care and received $74.1 in total for travel support. Most patients (88.3%) received travel-related funds (e.g., gas cards), 5% received direct rides (e.g., Uber), 3.8% received vouchers for taxi or public transportation, and 3% received combined travel support. Male and White had longer travel distance and higher travel time than female and other races, respectively. Patients residing in more disadvantaged neighborhoods had an increased travel distance and travel time. Other races and Hispanics received more travel support ($) than Black and White patients or non-Hispanics. Patients with higher travel distance and travel time were more like to receive travel-related financial support. CONCLUSION: Among patients who received travel support, those from socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods had greater travel burden. Patients with greater travel burden were more likely to receive travel funds versus other types of support. Further understanding of the impact of travel burden and travel support on cancer outcomes is needed.

The experience of surgical cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large cancer centre in London.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on the experiences of patients across all health disciplines, especially those of cancer patients. The study aimed to understand the experiences of cancer patients who underwent surgery during the first two waves of the pandemic at Guy's Cancer Centre, which is a large tertiary cancer centre in London. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted for this study. Firstly, a survey was co-designed by the research team and a patient study group. Patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic were invited to take part in this survey. Results were analysed descriptively. Three discussion groups were then conducted to focus on the main themes from the survey findings: communication, COVID-19 risk management and overall experience. These discussion groups were transcribed verbatim and underwent a thematic analysis using the NVivo software package. RESULTS: Out of 1657 patients invited, a total of 250 (15%) participants took part in the survey with a mean age of 66 (SD 12.8) and 52% females. The sample was representative of a wide range of tumour sites and was reflective of those invited to take part. Overall, the experience of the cancer patients was positive. They felt that the safety protocols implemented at the hospital were effective. Communication was considered key, and patients were receptive to a change in the mode of communication from in-person to virtual. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the immense challenges faced by our Cancer Centre, patients undergoing surgery during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic had a generally positive experience with minimal disruptions to their planned surgery and ongoing care. Together with the COVID-19 safety precautions, effective communication between the clinical teams and the patients helped the overall patient experience during their surgical treatment.

Diagnostic and therapeutic delays in lung cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a single center experience at a German Cancer center.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had negative drawbacks on the healthcare system worldwide and on individuals other than those directly affected by the virus. Delays in cancer therapy and diagnosis have been reported in the literature. We hypothesized similar effects on patients with lung cancer at our center. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data of patients referred to our center with newly diagnosed lung cancer from 2018 to 2022. We considered distribution of UICC Stages and time from case presentation in our multidisciplinary tumor board or from therapeutic indication from treating physician to therapy initiation (surgery, systemic therapies and radiation) to define delays in diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: 1020 patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer were referred to our center from 2018 to 2022, with a median of 206 cases yearly (range: 200-208). Cases with Stage IV in 2020-2022 were significantly higher than in 2018-2019 (57% vs. 46%, p = 0,001). 228 operative resections took place between 2018 and 2022, 100 from January 2018 to February 2020 and 128 from March 2020 to December 2022. Median time from presentation in our tumor board to resection was also significantly longer after the beginning of the pandemic than before (22 days vs. 15,5 days, p = 0,013). No significant delays were observed for administration of systemic treatment and initiation of radiation. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic higher disease stages were reported for patients with lung cancer, yet there were no clinically relevant delays in treatment. In the context of the post-covid era new diagnostic strategies are necessary to facilitate early diagnosis of lung cancer. Despite the pandemic, for patients with suspicious symptoms prompt access to healthcare facilities is essential for early diagnosis.

Evaluating implementation of a community-focused patient navigation intervention at an NCI-designated cancer center using RE-AIM.

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation is an evidence-based intervention that reduces cancer health disparities by directly addressing the barriers to care for underserved patients with cancer. Variability in design and integration of patient navigation programs within cancer care settings has limited this intervention's utility. The implementation science evaluation framework, RE-AIM, allows quantitative and qualitative examination of effective implementation of patient navigation programs into cancer care settings. METHODS: The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to evaluate implementation of a community-focused patient navigation intervention at an NCI-designated cancer center between June 2018 and October 2021. Using a 3-month longitudinal, non-comparative measurement period, univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to examine associations between participant-level demographics and primary (i.e., barrier reduction) and secondary (i.e., patient-reported outcomes) effectiveness outcomes. Mixed methods analyses were used to examine adoption and delivery of the intervention into the cancer center setting. Process-level analyses were used to evaluate maintenance of the intervention. RESULTS: Participants (n = 311) represented a largely underserved population, as defined by the National Cancer Institute, with the majority identifying as Hispanic/Latino, having a household income of $35,000 or less, and being enrolled in Medicaid. Participants were diagnosed with a variety of cancer types and most had advanced staged cancers. Pre-post-intervention analyses indicated significant reduction from pre-intervention assessments in the average number of reported barriers, F(1, 207) = 117.62, p < .001, as well as significant increases in patient-reported physical health, t(205) = - 6.004, p < .001, mental health, t(205) = - 3.810, p < .001, self-efficacy, t(205) = - 5.321, p < .001, and satisfaction with medical team communication, t(206) = - 2.03, p = .029. Referral patterns and qualitative data supported increased adoption and integration of the intervention into the target setting, and consistent intervention delivery metrics suggested high fidelity to intervention delivery over time. Process-level data outlined a successful transition from a grant-funded community-focused patient navigation intervention to an institution-funded program. CONCLUSIONS: This study utilized the implementation science evaluation framework, RE-AIM, to evaluate implementation of a community-focused patient navigation program. Our analyses indicate successful implementation within a cancer care setting and provide a potential guide for other oncology settings who may be interested in implementing community-focused patient navigation programs.

Care quality and satisfaction at the cancer hospital - a questionnaire study of older patients with cancer and their family members.

BACKGROUND: The unique life situations of older patients with cancer and their family members requires that health care professionals take a holistic approach to achieve quality care. The aim of this study was to assess the perceptions of older patients with cancer and family members about the quality of care received and evaluate differences between their perceptions. A further aim was to examine which factors explain patients' and family members' levels of satisfaction with the care received. METHODS: The study was descriptive and cross-sectional in design. Data were collected from patients (n = 81) and their family members (n = 65) on four wards in a cancer hospital, using the Revised Humane Caring Scale (RHCS). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, crosstabulation, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and multivariable Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: Family members had more negative perceptions of the quality of care than patients did. Dissatisfaction was related to professional practice (p < 0.001), interaction between patient and health care professionals (p < 0.001), cognition of physical needs (p = 0.024), and human resources (p < 0.001). Satisfaction with overall care was significantly lower among those patients and family members who perceived that they had not been involved in setting clear goals for the patient's care with staff (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: It is important that older patients with cancer and family members receive friendly, respectful, individual care based on their needs and hopes, and that they can rely on professionals. Health care professionals need more resources and education about caring for older cancer patients to provide quality care.

The impact of robotic rectal cancer surgery at a Canadian regional cancer centre: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although robotic surgery has several advantages over other minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for rectal cancer surgery, the uptake in Canada has been limited owing to a perceived increase in cost and lack of training. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of access to robotic surgery in a Canadian setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving consecutive adults undergoing surgical resection for rectal cancer between 2017 and 2020. The primary exposure was access to robotic surgery. Outcomes included MIS utilization, short-term outcomes, total cost of care, and quality of surgical resection. We completed univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: We included 171 individuals in this cohort study (85 in the prerobotic period and 86 in the robotic period). The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics. A higher proportion of individuals underwent successful MIS in the robotic phase (86% v. 46%, p < 0.001). Other benefits included a shorter mean length of hospital stay (5.1 d v. 9.2 d, p < 0.001). The quality of surgical resection was similar between groups. The total cost of care was $16 746 in the robotic period and $18 808 in the prerobotic period (mean difference -$1262, 95% confidence interval -$4308 to $1783; p = 0.4). CONCLUSION: Access to robotic rectal cancer surgery increased successful completion of MIS and shortened hospital stay, with a similar total cost of care. Robotic rectal cancer surgery can enhance patient outcomes in the Canadian setting.

[Quality-assured treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia, Germany: An analysis based on data of the Bavarian Cancer Registry]. / Qualitätsgesicherte Behandlung in zertifizierten Versorgungsnetzwerken von Patientinnen mit Mammakarzinom in der Region Oberfranken: Eine Analyse auf Basis von Bayerischen Krebsregisterdaten.

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the most common cancer-related cause of death among women in Germany. The treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks is recommended to ensure high-quality care. The aim of the study was to determine the percentage of breast cancer patients receiving cancer treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia, Germany. METHODS: This study considered the location of treatment and the certification status of providers with regard to initial diagnosis, surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation during breast cancer care. Based on this, we compared patient characteristics receiving cancer care in certified and non-certified cancer centres and their networks. The evaluation was based on a dataset of the Bavarian Cancer Registry (4/2017-3/2022). RESULTS: The analysis included 5,545 primary tumors from a total of 5,355 patients (age: 64.5±14.2 years; 99.2% female). The percentage of patients receiving care in certified breast cancer centre networks was 78.8% for initial diagnosis, 82.6% for surgery, 79.5% for chemotherapy, and 99.6% for radiation, respectively. The weighted mean across all treatment sequences was 84.3%. Patients receiving care in certified care networks were significantly younger for three therapy sequences (p+<+0.001). In addition, an above-average proportion of patients with advanced tumor stages were treated in non-certified care networks, especially for diagnosis and surgery (p+<+0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding the different treatment sequences, we found differences in the proportion of patients who received quality-assured treatment in certified breast cancer centre networks in Upper Franconia. When comparing similar analysis, the results show an average care percentage of patients receiving care in certified care networks. Furthermore, it should be ensured that patients receive comprehensive information about receiving care in certified cancer centre networks.

Institution-Wide Retreats Foster Organizational Learning and Action at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Providing safe and informed healthcare for sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals with cancer is stymied by the lack of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data reliably available in health records and by insufficient training for staff. Approaches that support institutional learning, especially around sensitive topics, are essential for hospitals seeking to improve practices impacting patient safety and research. We engineered annual institutional retreats to identify and unify stakeholders, promote awareness of gaps and needs, identify initiatives, minimize redundant projects, and coordinate efforts that promote improvements in SGM cancer care, education, and research. The 2022 and 2023 retreats employed a 4-h hybrid format allowing virtual and in-person engagement. Retreat organizers facilitated small-group discussions for brainstorming among participants. We performed descriptive statistics from retreat evaluations. The retreats engaged 104 attendees from distinct departments and roles. Participants expressed robust satisfaction, commending the retreat organization and content quality. Notably, the first retreat yielded leadership endorsement and funding for a Quality Improvement pilot to standardize SOGI data collection and clinical staff training. The second retreat provided a platform for updates on focused efforts across the institution and for receiving direction regarding national best practices for SGM care and research. We report the processes and outcomes of institution-wide retreats, which served as a platform for identifying gaps in organizational healthcare practices and research for SGM individuals with cancer. The strategies described herein may be readily scaled at other cancer hospitals seeking to learn and enact system-wide practice changes that support the needs of SGM patients and families.