The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners.

BACKGROUND: There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners' experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care. METHODS: Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings. RESULTS: In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia-Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as "high frequency users" who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P < .0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P = .006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P = .001) as an implementation barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care.

Exercise counselling and referral in cancer care: an international scoping survey of health care practitioners' knowledge, practices, barriers, and facilitators.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports the role of prescribed exercise for cancer survivors, yet few are advised to exercise by a healthcare practitioner (HCP). We sought to investigate the gap between HCPs' knowledge and practice from an international perspective. METHODS: An online questionnaire was administered to HCPs working in cancer care between February 2020 and February 2021. The questionnaire assessed knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding exercise counselling and referral of cancer survivors to exercise programs. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 375 participants classified as medical practitioners (42%), nurses (28%), exercise specialists (14%), and non-exercise allied health practitioners (16%). Between 35 and 50% of participants self-reported poor knowledge of when, how, and which cancer survivors to refer to exercise programs or professionals, and how to counsel based on exercise guidelines. Commonly reported barriers to exercise counselling were safety concerns, time constraints, cancer survivors being told to rest by friends and family, and not knowing how to screen people for suitability to exercise (40-48%). Multivariable logistic regression models including age, gender, practitioner group, leisure-time physical activity, and recall of guidelines found significant effects for providing specific exercise advice (χ2(7) = 117.31, p < .001), discussing the role of exercise in symptom management (χ2(7) = 65.13, p < .001) and cancer outcomes (χ2(7) = 58.69, p < .001), and referring cancer survivors to an exercise program or specialist (χ2(7) = 72.76, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Additional education and practical support are needed to equip HCPs to provide cancer survivors with exercise guidelines, resources, and referrals to exercise specialists.

Accuracy and acceptability of survivorship care plans: results of a pilot study.

Survivorship treatment summaries and care plans are increasingly incorporated into cancer care but there are limited data on their accuracy and acceptability. We have evaluated written care plans developed as part of a once-off, nurse-led survivorship consultations across four medical oncology clinics in South Australia as part of a state-wide pilot. While the accuracy of treatment summaries was high, level of detail in care plans was moderate to low, as was survivors' perception of plans' utility.

Retrospective audit of neutropenic fever after chemotherapy: how many patients could benefit from oral antibiotic management?

Guidelines suggest that carefully selected patients with neutropenic fever (NF) may be suitable for early discharge on oral antibiotics. Despite these recommendations, many centres manage NF with intravenous antibiotic protocols and inpatient care. We have conducted a retrospective audit of patients with NF, and found that 12 of 40 (30%) patients were eligible for early discharge on oral antibiotics and ambulatory care. Further studies into the barriers to ambulatory management in NF are warranted.

Perceived Barriers Toward Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation in Cancer Care: An International Scoping Survey.

PURPOSE: Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables. RESULTS: Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P = .02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P = .06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P = .08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P < .001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P < .001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P < .001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams.

An aggressive cabergoline-resistant, temozolomide-responsive macroprolactinoma due to a germline SDHB pathogenic variant in the absence of paraganglioma or pheochromocytoma.

Context: Germline succinate dehydrogenase subunit B (SDHB) pathogenic variants are characteristic of familial paraganglioma (PGL) syndrome type 4. This syndrome frequently presents with abdominal PGL and has high tendency for locally aggressive behavior and distant metastasis. The vast majority of pituitary adenomas (PAs) are sporadic. However, PAs can be part of a number of familial tumor syndromes such as multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN 1) or more rarely in association with pheochromocytoma and PGL (referred to as 3P syndrome). Only a limited number of PAs in association with SDHB-related PGL has been reported and the vast majority occurred subsequently or simultaneously with pheochromocytoma/PGL (collectively abbreviated as PPGL). In this report, we describe a young patient who had a giant pituitary macroprolactinoma resistant to large doses of cabergoline (CBG) and external beam radiotherapy (XRT). The patient did not have personal history of PPGL but was found to carry a germline SDHB pathogenic variant. Case report: A 38-year-old woman presented with headache, visual disturbances and galactorrhea and was found to have a 34-mm macroprolactinoma. She was treated with CBG 3-4 mg per week but PA continued to grow and caused significant cranial pressure symptoms. She underwent two transsphenoidal surgeries with rapid tumor recurrence after each one. She received XRT but PA continued to grow. She was finally treated with temozolomide with excellent response. Whole exome and subsequent Sanger sequencing confirmed that she has a pathogenic monoallelic SDHB mutation (NM_003000:c.C343T, p.R115*). PA tissue showed loss of heterozygosity for the same mutation and absent SDHB immunostaining confirming the pathogenic role of this SDHB mutation. Conclusion: Germline SDHB mutations can rarely cause PA in the absence of PPGL. They should be considered as a possible cause of aggressiveness and resistance to dopamine agonists in similar cases.

A systematic scoping review of determinants of multidisciplinary cancer team access and decision-making in the management of older patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

Early diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) and access to optimal treatment achieves optimal cancer outcomes. However, CRC survival inequalities persist with a lower survival rate for older patients (≥65 years). Although the reasons for poorer cancer survival in older people are complex, evidence suggests that these patients are less likely to receive best practice care as indicated by access to multidisciplinary team (MDT) care. Three electronic databases were systematically searched to examine factors that affect access to, and clinical decision-making, in the context of MDT care of older people with CRC. We included studies reporting empirical data relating to predictors for a patient's case being discussed at a MDT meeting and/or factors that impact treatment decision-making during the meeting. From 303 returned titles and abstracts, eighteen articles were reviewed. Eight studies specifically selected older patients, with eligibility criteria varying from ≥65 to ≥80 years. Five articles explored predictors of MDT access, with all articles identifying age as a negative, and advanced stage as a positive predictor of MDT discussion. Fourteen studies explored factors that influenced the MDT decision-making process, with older age and presence of comorbid disease negatively influencing treatment decisions (cases less often discussed and/or treatment not recommended). A few studies identified access to a MDT discussion as an independent predictor for CRC treatment. Access to the MDT process for older patients with a CRC diagnosis should be based on relevant geriatric domains rather than on chronological age alone, which is expected to allow more appropriate clinical decision-making and reduce treatment inequities for older patients with cancer.