Baseline Quality of Life is a Strong and Independent Prognostic Factor for Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have established that higher baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We examined the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline QOL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1 247 patients with mCRC participating in N9741 (comparing bolus 5-FU/LV, irinotecan [IFL] vs infusional 5-FU/leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] vs. irinotecan/oxaliplatin [IROX]) provided data at baseline on overall QOL using a single-item linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) 0-100 point scale. The association of OS according to clinically deficient (defined as CD-QOL, score 0-50) vs not clinically deficient (nCD-QOL, score 51-100) baseline QOL scores was tested. A multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to adjust for the effects of multiple baseline factors. An exploratory analysis was performed evaluating OS according to baseline QOL status among patients who did or did not receive second-line therapy. RESULTS: Baseline QOL was a strong predictor of OS for the whole cohort (CD-QOL vs nCD-QOL: 11.2 months vs 18.4 months, P < .0001), and in each arm IFL 12.4 vs 15.1 months, FOLFOX 11.1 months vs 20.6 months, and IROX 8.9 months vs 18.1 months. Baseline QOL was associated with baseline performance status (PS) (P < .0001). After adjusting for PS and treatment arm, baseline QOL was still associated with OS (P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline QOL is an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with mCRC. The demonstration that patient-assessed QOL and PS are independent prognostic indicators suggests that these assessments provide important complementary prognostic information.

Optimizing Huddle Engagement Through Leadership and Problem Solving Within Primary Care: Results from a Cluster-Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Leaders play a crucial role in implementing and sustaining changes in clinical practice, yet there is limited evidence on the strategies to engage them in team problem solving and communication. OBJECTIVE: Examine the impact of an intervention focused on facilitating leadership during daily huddles on optimizing team-based care and improving outcomes. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized trial using intention-to-treat analysis to measure the effects of the intervention (n = 13 teams) compared with routine practice (n = 16 teams). PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-nine primary care clinics affiliated with a large integrated health system in the upper Midwest; representing differing practice types and geographic settings. INTERVENTION: Full-day leadership training retreat for team leaders to facilitate of care team huddles. Biweekly coaching calls and two site visits with an assigned coach. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes of team development and function were collected, pre- and post-intervention using surveys. Patient satisfaction and quality outcomes were compared pre- and post-intervention as secondary outcomes. Leadership engagement and adherence to the intervention were also assessed. KEY RESULTS: A total of 279 pre-intervention and 272 post-intervention surveys were completed. We found no impact on team development (- 0.98, 95% CI (- 3.18, 1.22)), improved team credibility (0.18, 95% CI (0.00, 0.35)), but worse psychological safety (- 0.19, 95% CI (- 0.38, 0.00)). No differences were observed in patient satisfaction; however, results were mixed among quality outcomes. Post hoc analysis within the intervention group showed higher adherence to the intervention was associated with improvement in team coordination (0.47, 95% CI (0.18, 0.76)), credibility (0.28, 95% CI (0.02, 0.53)), team learning (0.42, 95% CI (0.10, 0.74)), and knowledge creation (0.74, 95% CI (0.35, 1.13)) compared to teams that were less engaged. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this evaluation showed that leadership training and facilitation were not associated with better team functioning. Additional components to the intervention tested may be necessary to enhance team functioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03062670. Registration Date: February 23, 2017. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03062670.

A Multicenter Comparison of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Discussions in Oncology Care: The Role of Time, Patient-Centeredness, and Practice Context.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is discussed in cancer care across varied settings in the U.S. METHODS: In two practices affiliated with one academic medical center in southern California (SoCal), and one in the upper Midwest (UM), we audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions in medical oncology outpatient practices. We counted the frequency and duration of CAM-related conversations. We coded recordings using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. We used chi-square tests for bivariate analysis of categorical variables and generalized linear models for continuous variables to examine associations between dialogue characteristics, practice setting, and population characteristics with the occurrence of CAM discussion in each setting followed by multivariate models adjusting for clinician clustering. RESULTS: Sixty-one clinicians and 529 patients participated. Sixty-two of 529 (12%) interactions included CAM discussions, with significantly more observed in the SoCal university practice than in the other settings. Visits that included CAM were on average 6 minutes longer, with CAM content lasting an average of 78 seconds. In bivariate tests of association, conversations containing CAM included more psychosocial statements from both clinicians and patients, higher patient-centeredness, more positive patient and clinician affect, and greater patient engagement. In a multivariable model including significant bivariate terms, conversations containing CAM were independently associated with higher patient-centeredness, slightly longer visits, and being at the SoCal university site. CONCLUSION: The frequency of CAM-related discussion in oncology varied substantially across sites. Visits that included CAM discussion were longer and more patient centered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Institute of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have called for more open discussions of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). But little is known about the role population characteristics and care contexts may play in the frequency and nature of those discussions. The present data characterizing actual conversations in practice complements a much larger literature based on patient and clinician self-report about CAM disclosure and use. It was found that CAM discussions in academic oncology visits varied significantly by practice context, that the majority were initiated by the patient, and that they may occur more when visit time exists for lifestyle, self-care, and psychosocial concerns.

Absent and Discordant Electronic Health Record Documentation of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Cancer Care.

OBJECTIVES: Many patients with cancer use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), but the quality of CAM documentation in their electronic health records (EHRs) is unknown. The authors aimed to describe (i) the prevalence and types of CAM used after cancer diagnosis and the influence of oncologists on CAM use, as per patients' self-report, and (ii) the prevalence of CAM documentation in the EHR and its consistency with self-reported usage. DESIGN: Patient and provider surveys and chart review. SETTINGS/LOCATION: Medical oncology practices at one institution. SUBJECTS: Patients with cancer at oncologist visits. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient self-reported rate of 3-month postvisit CAM use; provider EHR documentation of CAM use or discussion and its concordance with patient self-report. RESULTS: Among 327 patients enrolled, 248 responded to the 3-month postvisit survey. Of these, 158 reported CAM use after diagnosis (63.7%). CAM users were younger (p < 0.001) and had a higher percentage of women (p = 0.03) than nonusers. Modalities most commonly used were supplements (62.6%), special diets (38.6%), chiropractor (28.4%), and massage (28.4%). CAM was used to improve well-being (68.7%), manage adverse effects (35.5%), and fight cancer (22.9%). Oncologists suggested CAM in 22.5% of instances of use. CAM use/discussion was documented for 58.2% of self-reported CAM users. Of the documented modalities, EHR and self-report were concordant for only 8.2%. CAM documentation was associated with physician provider (p = 0.03), older patients (p = 0.01), and treatment with radiation (p = 0.03) or surgery (p = 0.001). After adjusting for other factors, patients with breast cancer or "other" tumor category were four times more likely than patients with gastrointestinal cancer to have CAM use documentation (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 4.41 [1.48-13.10]; 3.76 [1.42-9.99], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with cancer use CAM after diagnosis, yet EHR documentation is complete for very few. Oncologists should inquire about, document, and discuss CAM benefits and harm or refer patients to CAM specialists.