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.

The American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable strategic plan: Current challenges and future directions for shared decision making for lung cancer screening.

Shared decision making (SDM) between health care professionals and patients is essential to help patients make well informed choices about lung cancer screening (LCS). Patients who participate in SDM have greater LCS knowledge, reduced decisional conflict, and improved adherence to annual screening compared with patients who do not participate in SDM. SDM tools are acceptable to patients and clinicians. The importance of SDM in LCS is emphasized in recommendations from professional organizations and highlighted as a priority in the 2022 President's Cancer Panel Report. The updated 2022 national coverage determination from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reaffirms the value of SDM in offering LCS to eligible beneficiaries. The Shared Decision-Making Task Group of the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable undertook a group consensus process to identify priorities for research and implementation related to SDM for LCS and then evaluated current knowledge in these areas. Priority areas included: (1) developing feasible, adaptable SDM training programs for health care professionals; (2) understanding the impact of alternative health system LCS models on SDM practice and outcomes; (3) developing and evaluating new patient decision aids for use with diverse populations and in varied settings; (4) offering conceptual clarity about what constitutes a high-quality decision and developing appropriate quality measures; and (5) studying the use of prediction-augmented screening to support SDM in practice. Gaps in current research in all areas were observed. The authors conclude with a research and implementation agenda to advance the quality and implementation of SDM for persons who might benefit from LCS.

Refining research on access to gynecologic cancer care: The DIMeS framework.

BACKGROUND: Despite its importance, there is no consensus definition of access to care, and several fundamental philosophical questions about access remain unanswered. Lack of clarity impedes interventional research designed to develop and test methods of correcting barriers to access. To help remedy this problem, we propose a conceptual framework to help guide empirical research about access to gynecologic cancer care. METHODS: Relevant philosophical and empirical literature was reviewed and analyzed to highlight key elements needed to refine research on access to care. RESULTS: The DIMeS framework involves 1) choice and justification of a Definition of access to cancer care that will guide research; 2) Identification of essential gynecologic cancer care services for which access disparities are ethically unacceptable; 3) quantitative MEasurement of specific parameters that affect access to care; and 4) Selection of a target threshold on measured parameters above which access is acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: The DIMeS framework provides clarity and reproducibility for investigators seeking to develop and test interventions to improve cancer health equity. This framework should be considered for use in research on access to gynecologic cancer care.

Geographic and racial disparities in the quality of surgical care among patients with nonmetastatic uterine cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although the rates of minimally invasive surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy have increased considerably over time in the surgical management of early-stage uterine cancer, practice varies significantly in the United States, and there are disparities among low-volume centers and patients of Black race. A significant number of counties in the United States are without a gynecologic oncologist, and almost half of the counties with the highest gynecologic cancer rates lack a local gynecologic oncologist. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the relationships of distance traveled and proximity to gynecologic oncologists with the receipt of and racial disparities in the quality of surgical care among patients who underwent a hysterectomy for nonmetastatic uterine cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who underwent a hysterectomy for nonmetastatic uterine cancer in Kentucky, Maryland, Florida, and North Carolina were identified in the 2012 to 2018 State Inpatient Database and the State Ambulatory Surgery Services Database files. County-to-county distances were used as the distances traveled to the nearest gynecologic oncologist. Factors associated with the receipt of minimally invasive surgery and lymph node dissection were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression models, as was the assessment of the interaction between travel for surgery and patient race. RESULTS: Among 21,837 cases, 45.5% lived in a county without a gynecologic oncologist; overall, 55.5% traveled to another county for surgery, including 88% of those who lacked a local gynecologic oncologist. Patients who lacked access to a local gynecologic oncologist in their county who did not travel for surgery were more likely to receive open surgery and no lymph node dissection, and those in counties without access in any surrounding county were affected even more. Among patients in counties without a gynecologic oncologist, those who traveled for surgery had a similar likelihood of undergoing minimally invasive surgery (71%) but had a greater likelihood of undergoing lymph node dissection (64.7% vs 57.2%) than nontravelers. Among those in counties without a gynecologic oncologist, a longer distance traveled was associated with receipt of a lymph node assessment. When compared with non-Black patients, Black patients were less likely to undergo minimally invasive surgery (57.0% vs 74.1%). In adjusted regression models that controlled for a diagnosis of fibroids, Black race was an independent risk factor for the receipt of open surgery. There was a significant interaction between Black race and travel for surgery, and Black patients who lived in counties without a gynecologic oncologist who did not travel faced an incrementally lower likelihood of receiving minimally invasive surgery (odds ratio, 0.57 when compared with non-Black patients who traveled for surgery; odds ratio, 0.60 as interaction term; P<.001 for both). Similar disparities in surgical quality by race were noted for Black patients who lived in counties with a gynecologic oncologist who traveled out of county for surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients, particularly those of Black race, who lacked local access to gynecologic oncologist specialty care benefitted from traveling to specialty centers to ensure access to high-quality surgery for nonmetastatic uterine cancer. Further work is needed to ensure equitable and universal access to high-quality care through patient travel or specialist outreach.

Clinical practice guideline-inconsistent chemotherapy-induced vomiting prophylaxis in pediatric cancer patients in community settings: A Children's Oncology Group study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the proportion of patients receiving clinical practice guideline (CPG)-inconsistent care related to chemotherapy-induced vomiting (CIV) prophylaxis, and to describe the association between CPG-inconsistent care and site size. The association between delivery of CPG-inconsistent care and patient outcomes (CIV control, admission prolongation, and unplanned healthcare visits) was also described. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted at Children's Oncology Group (COG) National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) sites. Eligible patients received highly (HEC) or moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC) as inpatients from January 2014 through December 2015, and were previously enrolled in a COG study. The COG generated a patient list from which patients were randomly selected for chart review by participating sites. A central panel adjudicated CIV prophylaxis received as CPG-consistent or -inconsistent. RESULTS: Twenty-four sites participated. Over half of patients received CPG-inconsistent CIV prophylaxis (HEC: 59/112, 52.6%; MEC: 119/215, 55.3%). The most common reasons for CPG-inconsistency were shortened duration of antiemetic administration or omission of dexamethasone. Site size was not found to be associated with CPG-inconsistent care delivery (HEC: adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.23; MEC: adjusted OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92-1.24). Additionally, there was no statistically significant association between receipt of CPG-inconsistent care and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving MEC or HEC often received CPG-inconsistent CIV prophylaxis. Site size was not associated with receipt of CPG-inconsistent care. Future studies should evaluate strategies to improve CIV control among pediatric oncology patients including those aimed at improving CPG adherence.

Clinical practice guideline-inconsistent management of fever and neutropenia in pediatric oncology: A Children's Oncology Group study.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective was to measure the proportion of episodes where care delivery was inconsistent with selected recommendations of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) on fever and neutropenia (FN) management. The influence of site size on CPG-inconsistent care delivery, and association between patient outcomes and CPG-inconsistent care were described. METHODS: This retrospective, multicenter study included patients less than 21 years old with cancer who were at high risk of poor FN outcomes and were previously enrolled to a Children's Oncology Group (COG) study at participating National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) institutions from January 2014 through December 2015. Patients were randomly selected for chart review by participating sites from a COG-generated list. Care delivered in each episode was adjudicated (CPG-consistent or CPG-inconsistent) against each of five selected recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients from 22 sites, representing 157 FN episodes, were included. The most common CPG-inconsistent care delivered was omission of pulmonary computerized tomography in patients with persistent FN (60.3%). Of 74 episodes where assessment of four (episodes without persistent FN) or five (episodes with persistent FN) recommendations was possible, CPG-inconsistent care was delivered with respect to at least one recommendation in 63 (85%) episodes. Site size was not associated with CPG-inconsistent care delivery. No statistically significant association between CPG-inconsistent care and fever recurrence was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of pediatric patients at high risk of poor FN outcomes, CPG-inconsistent care was common. Opportunities to optimize resource stewardship by boosting supportive care CPG implementation are highlighted.

The symbolic two-step method applied to cancer care delivery research: Safeguarding against designing an underpowered cluster randomized trial with a continuous outcome by accounting for the imprecision in the within- and between-center variation.

BACKGROUND: Knowing the predictive factors of the variation in a center-level continuous outcome of interest is valuable in the design and analysis of parallel-arm cluster randomized trials. The symbolic two-step method for sample size planning that we present incorporates this knowledge while simultaneously accounting for patient-level characteristics. Our approach is illustrated through application to cluster randomized trials in cancer care delivery research. The required number of centers (clusters) depends on the between- and within-center variance; the within-center variance is a function of estimates obtained by regressing the log within-center variance on predictive factors. Obtaining accurate estimates of the components needed to characterize the within-center variation is challenging. METHODS: Using our previously derived sample size formula, our objective in the current research is to directly account for the imprecision in these estimates, using a Bayesian approach, to safeguard against designing an underpowered study when using the symbolic two-step method. Using estimates of the required components, including the number of centers that contribute to those estimates, we make formal allowance for the imprecision in these estimates on which a sample size will be based. RESULTS: The mean of the distribution for power is consistently smaller than the single point estimate that the sample size formula yields. The reduction in power is more pronounced in the presence of increased uncertainty about the estimates with the reduction becoming more attenuated with increased numbers of centers that contribute to the estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for imprecision in the estimates of the components required for sample size estimation using the symbolic two-step method in the design of a cluster randomized trial yields conservative estimates of power.

A pre-implementation examination of barriers and facilitators of an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: An electronic Prospective Surveillance Model (ePSM) uses patient-reported outcomes to monitor symptoms along the cancer pathway for timely identification and treatment. Randomized controlled trials show that ePSMs can effectively manage treatment-related adverse effects. However, an understanding of optimal approaches for implementing these systems into routine cancer care is limited. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators prior to the implementation of an ePSM to inform the selection of implementation strategies. METHODS: A qualitative study using virtual focus groups and individual interviews was conducted with cancer survivors, oncology healthcare providers, and clinic leadership across four cancer centres in Canada. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the interviews and analysis of barriers and facilitators based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process). RESULTS: We conducted 13 focus groups and nine individual interviews with 13 patient participants and 56 clinic staff. Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 18 were identified as relevant determinants to the implementation. The adaptability, relative advantage, and complexity of an ePSM emerged as key intervention-level factors that could influence implementation. Knowledge of the system was important at the individual level. Within the inner setting, major determinants were the potential fit of an ePSM with clinical workflows (compatibility) and the resources that could be dedicated to the implementation effort (readiness for implementation). In the outer setting, meeting the needs of patients and the availability of rehabilitation supports were key determinants. Engaging various stakeholders was critical at the process level. CONCLUSIONS: Improving the implementation of ePSMs in routine cancer care has the potential to facilitate early identification and management of treatment-related adverse effects, thereby improving quality of life. This study provides insight into important factors that may influence the implementation of an ePSM, which can be used to select appropriate implementation strategies to address these factors.

An implementation science approach to the systematic study of access to gynecologic cancer care.

INTRODUCTION: Barriers to access to cancer care are profoundly threatening to patients with gynecologic malignancies. Implementation science focuses on empirical investigation of factors influencing delivery of clinical best practices, as well as interventions designed to improve delivery of evidence-based care. We outline one prominent framework for conducting implementation research and discuss its application to improving access to gynecologic cancer care. METHODS: Literature on the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was reviewed. Delivery of cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian carcinoma was selected as an illustrative case of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) in gynecologic oncology. CFIR domains were applied to the context of cytoreductive surgical care, highlighting examples of empirically-assessable determinants of care delivery. RESULTS: CFIR domains include Innovation, Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Individuals, and Implementation Process. "Innovation" relates to characteristics of the surgical intervention itself; "Inner Setting" relates to the environment in which surgery is delivered. "Outer Setting" refers to the broader care environment influencing the Inner Setting. "Individuals" highlights attributes of persons directly involved in care delivery, and "Implementation Process" focuses on integration of the Innovation within the Inner Setting. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritization of implementation science methods in the study of access to gynecologic cancer care will help ensure that patients are able to utilize interventions with the greatest prospect of benefiting them.

Reaching Populations to Address Disparities in Cancer Care Delivery: Results From a Six-Site Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Large segments of the US population do not receive quality cancer care due to pervasive and systemic inequities, which can increase morbidity and mortality. Multicomponent, multilevel interventions can address inequities and improve care, but only if they reach communities with suboptimal access. Intervention studies often underenroll individuals from historically excluded groups. METHODS: The Alliance to Advance Patient-Centered Cancer Care includes 6 grantees across the United States who implemented unique multicomponent, multilevel intervention programs with common goals of reducing disparities, increasing engagement, and improving the quality of care for targeted populations. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework informed the evaluation efforts across sites. Each Alliance site identified their intended populations, which included underrepresented minorities (eg, Black and Latinx persons), individuals who prefer a language other than English, and rural residents. We evaluated the demographic characteristics of participants to determine program reach. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2020, a total of 2,390 of 5,309 potentially eligible participants were enrolled across the 6 sites. The proportion of enrolled individuals with selected characteristics included 38% (n=908) Black adults, 24% (n=574) Latinx adults, 19% (n=454) preferring a language other than English, and 30% (n=717) rural residents. The proportion of those enrolled who were the intended population was commensurate to the proportion with desired characteristics in those identified as potentially eligible. CONCLUSIONS: The grantees met or exceeded enrollments from their intended populations who have been underserved by quality cancer care into patient-centered intervention programs. Intentional application of recruitment/engagement strategies is needed to reach individuals from historically underserved communities.

Children's Oncology Group 2023 blueprint for research: Adolescent and young adult oncology.

Over the past few decades, 5-year cancer survival has steadily improved for all adolescents and young adults (AYA, 15-39 years at diagnosis) combined. While encouraging, this progress simultaneously highlights a compelling need for improving survival in higher risk AYA subsets and for addressing health outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among long-term survivors. The Children's Oncology Group (COG), in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the adult network groups within the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN), has developed a large and growing portfolio of therapeutic AYA cancer clinical trials to identify optimal treatment approaches for common AYA cancers. Additional initiatives, led by the COG AYA Oncology Discipline Committee for increasing collaboration between the COG and the adult network groups, optimizing AYA clinical trial enrollment, and standardizing the assessment of HRQoL, have been highly successful to date. Further, NCTN-wide collaborations are currently underway focused on improving survival for AYA malignancies with poor prognosis and, through development of supportive care and care delivery trials, reducing the short- and long-term toxicity caused by cancer treatment. Leveraging the research infrastructure within the NCTN and the NCI Community Oncology Research Program, the COG will continue to champion meaningful advancements in health and survival for AYAs with cancer.

Children's Oncology Group 2023 blueprint for research: Cancer care delivery research.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a 40-year history of initiatives to encourage the participation of community oncology sites into clinical trials research and clinical care. In 2014, the NCI re-organized to form the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) network across seven research bases, including the Children's Oncology Group (COG), and numerous community sites. The COG portfolio for Cancer Care Delivery Research (CCDR), mirroring the larger NCORP network, has included two studies addressing guideline congruence, as an important marker of quality cancer care, and another focusing on financial toxicity, addressing the pervasive problems of healthcare cost. CCDR is a cross-cutting field that frequently examines intersectional aspects of healthcare delivery. With that in mind, we explicitly define domains of CCDR to propel our research agenda into the next phase of the NCORP CCDR program while acknowledging the complex and dynamic fields of clinical care, policy level decisions, research findings, and needs of communities served by the NCORP network that will inform the subsequent research questions. To ensure programmatic success, we will engage a broad interdisciplinary group of investigators and clinicians with expertise and dedication to community oncology and the populations they serve.

Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial.

PURPOSE: Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk. RESULTS: Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596, April 6, 2016.

Implementing process improvements to enhance distress screening and management.

INTRODUCTION: While distress is prevalent among individuals living with cancer, distress management has not been optimized across cancer care delivery despite standards for screening. This manuscript describes the development of an enhanced Distress Thermometer (eDT) and shares the process for deploying the (eDT) across a cancer institute by highlighting improvements at the provider, system, and clinic levels. METHODS: Focus groups and surveys were used at the provider-level to outline the problem space and to identify solutions to improve distress screening and management. Through stakeholder engagement, an eDT was developed and rolled out across the cancer institute. Technical EHR infrastructure changes were implemented at the system-level to improve the use of the distress screening findings and generate automated referrals for specialty services. Clinic workflows were adapted to improve screening and distress management using the eDT. RESULTS: Stakeholder focus group participants (n=17) and survey respondents (n=13) found the eDT to be feasible and acceptable for distress identification and management. System-level technical EHR changes resulted in high accuracy with patient identification for distress management, and 100% of patients with moderate to severe distress were connected directly to an appropriate specialty provider. Clinic-level workflow changes to expand eDT use improved compliance rates with distress screening from 85% to 96% over a 1-year period. CONCLUSIONS: An eDT that provides more context to patient-reported problems improved identification of referral pathways for patients experiencing moderate to high distress during cancer treatment. Combining process improvement interventions across multiple levels in the cancer care delivery system enhanced the success of this project. These processes and tools could support improved distress screening and management across cancer care delivery settings.

A Community-Engaged Process for Adapting a Proven Community Health Worker Model to Integrate Precision Cancer Care Delivery for Low-income Latinx Adults With Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Disparities in precision cancer care delivery among low-income Latinx adults are well described. In prior work, we developed a community health worker-led goals of care and cancer symptom assessment intervention. The objective of this study was to adapt this intervention for a community setting, incorporating precision cancer care delivery. METHODS: We used a two-phased systematic approach to adapt an evidence-based intervention for our community. Specifically, we used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to identify barriers and facilitators to precision cancer care delivery via 1-hr interviews with Latinx adults with cancer, Latinx caregivers, community leaders, primary care and oncology clinicians, and community health workers. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the constant comparative method and grounded theory analysis. Phase 2 involved interviews with key community advisors using the Expert Panels Method to decide on final adaptations. RESULTS: Using this community-engaged approach, we identified specific intervention adaptations to ensure precision cancer care delivery in a community setting, which included: (a) expansion of the intervention inclusion criteria and mode of delivery; (b) integration of low-literacy precision cancer care intervention activities in Spanish in collaboration with community-based organizations; (c) ensuring goals reflective of patient and community priorities. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic and community-engaged approach to adapt an intervention for use in delivering precision cancer care strengthened an evidence-based approach to promote the needs and preferences of patients and key community stakeholders.

Perception of Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Survivors of Gynecologic Cancer.

Our objective was to assess gynecologic cancer survivor preferences for telehealth cancer care. Gynecologic cancer survivors participating in a prospective cohort study were invited to complete a cross-sectional survey regarding their experience with and preferences for telehealth. Of 188 participants, 48.9% had undergone a telehealth visit since March 2020, and 53.7% reported a preference for exclusively in-person visits for their cancer care and surveillance. Furthermore, 80.5% of participants were satisfied with the telehealth care they received and 54.8% would recommend telehealth services to patients with similar conditions. Most participants thought a physical examination was critical to detecting recurrence, and concern that their provider may miss something during telehealth visits was greater among those who preferred in-person visits. With many gynecologic cancer survivors preferring in-person care, building a future care model that includes telehealth elements will require adaptations, careful evaluation of patient concerns, as well as patient education on telehealth.

A qualitative study of patients' attitudes towards telemedicine for gynecologic cancer care.

INTRODUCTION: Women with gynecologic cancers may face geographic barriers to standard-of-care consultation with a gynecologic oncologist. While telemedicine may help overcome these geographic barriers, there are no qualitative data exploring gynecologic cancer patients' attitudes towards telemedicine for cancer care. Patients with gynecologic malignancies may have preferences distinct from general oncology populations due to the sensitive nature of the diseases and anatomy involved. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 patients with gynecologic cancers to identify perceived advantages and disadvantages of telemedicine use for gynecologic cancer care. Past experience with telemedicine was elicited as were suggestions for cancer care encounters most compatible with telemedicine. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed for emergent themes. RESULTS: All patients interviewed were open to the use of telemedicine. Emergent themes regarding advantages of telemedicine included convenience, cost savings, reduced travel, avoidance of infectious disease, and availability of care for those too unwell for in-person visits. Themes regarding disadvantages of telemedical care included technical difficulties, perceived need for examination or testing, and potential compromise of therapeutic relationship. Patients were particularly concerned that difficulty in establishing a therapeutic relationship would compromise initial consultations with gynecologic oncologists via telemedicine. CONCLUSION: Patients with gynecologic cancer are open to use of telemedicine for their care. Particular attention should be paid to overcoming patients' hesitancy to have initial visits with gynecologic oncologists, as these consultations have the greatest potential to improve access to high-quality gynecologic cancer care.

Successes and challenges of implementing a cancer care delivery intervention in community oncology practices: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD.

BACKGROUND: Cancer Care Delivery (CCD) research studies often require practice-level interventions that pose challenges in the clinical trial setting. The SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) conducted S1415CD, one of the first pragmatic cluster-randomized CCD trials to be implemented through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Program (NCORP), to compare outcomes of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) use for an intervention of automated PP-CSF standing orders to usual care. The introduction of new methods for study implementation created challenges and opportunities for learning that can inform the design and approach of future CCD interventions. METHODS: The order entry system intervention was administered at the site level; sites were affiliated NCORP practices that shared the same chemotherapy order system. 32 sites without existing guideline-based PP-CSF standing orders were randomized to the intervention (n = 24) or to usual care (n = 8). Sites assigned to the intervention participated in tailored training, phone calls and onboarding activities administered by research team staff and were provided with additional funding and external IT support to help them make protocol required changes to their order entry systems. RESULTS: The average length of time for intervention sites to complete reconfiguration of their order sets following randomization was 7.2 months. 14 of 24 of intervention sites met their individual patient recruitment target of 99 patients enrolled per site. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we share seven recommendations based on lessons learned from implementation of the S1415CD intervention at NCORP community oncology practices representing diverse geographies and patient populations across the U. S. It is our hope these recommendations can be used to guide future implementation of CCD interventions in both research and community settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02728596 , registered April 5, 2016.

The exercise in all chemotherapy trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple international organizations have called for exercise to become standard practice in the setting of oncology care. The feasibility of integrating exercise within systemic chemotherapy has not been investigated. METHODS: Patients slated to receive infusion therapy between April 2017 and October 2018 were screened for possible inclusion. The study goal was to establish the acceptability and feasibility of embedding an exercise professional into the chemotherapy infusion suite as a method of making exercise a standard part of cancer care. The exercise prescriptions provided to patients were individualized according to results of brief baseline functional testing. RESULTS: In all, 544 patients were screened, and their respective treating oncologists deemed 83% of them to be medically eligible to participate. After further eligibility screening, 226 patients were approached. Nearly 71% of these patients (n = 160) accepted the invitation to participate in the Exercise in All Chemotherapy trial. Feasibility was established because 71%, 55%, 69%, and 63% of the aerobic, resistance, balance, and flexibility exercises prescribed to patients were completed. Qualitative data also supported the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention from the perspective of patients and clinicians. The per-patient cost of the intervention was $190.68 to $382.40. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding an exercise professional into the chemotherapy infusion suite is an acceptable and feasible approach to making exercise standard practice. Moreover, the cost of the intervention is lower than the cost of other common community programs. Future studies should test whether colocating an exercise professional with infusion therapy could reach more patients in comparison with not colocating. LAY SUMMARY: Few studies have tested the implementation of exercise for patients with cancer by embedding an exercise professional directly into the chemotherapy infusion suite. The Exercise in All Chemotherapy trial shows that this approach is both acceptable and feasible from the perspective of clinicians and patients.

A look at the gynecologic oncologist workforce - Are we meeting patient demand?

OBJECTIVE: to examine the geographic distribution of gynecologic oncologists (GO) and assess if the GO workforce is meeting the demand for oncology services for patients with gynecologic cancers. METHODS: We identified GO by National Provider Identifiers (NPI) and calculated county-level density of GO. County-level gynecologic cancer rates were derived from the U.S. Cancer Statistics to represent demand for GO services. A spatial data plot compared GO workforce to gynecologic cancer service demand. U.S. census county-level demographic information was collected and compared. RESULTS: In 2019, 1527 GO had a registered NPI. Of 3142 counties in the US, 2864 (91.2%) counties had no GO in their local county and 1943 (61.8%) counties had no GO in local or adjacent (neighboring) counties. As the gynecologic cancer rate increases (described in quintiles) in counties, there are fewer counties without a GO or adjacent GO. However, county-level GO density (number of GO per 100,000 women) did not significantly increase as the county-level incidence of gynecologic cancer increased (r = -0.12, p = 0.06)… Women living in counties with the highest gynecologic cancer rates and without access to a GO were more likely to reside in a rural area where residents had a lower median income and were predominately of White race.. CONCLUSION: There are a significant number of counties in the U.S. without a GO. As county-level gynecologic cancer incidence increased, the proportion of counties without a GO decreased; GO density did not increase with increasing cancer rates. Rural counties with high gynecologic incidence rates are underserved by GO. This information can inform initiatives to improve outreach and collaboration to better meet the needs of patients in different geographic areas.