European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Pancreatic Cancer.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Pancreatic cancer is an increasing cause of cancer mortality and has wide variation in treatment and care in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must be carried out only in pancreatic cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

Direct costs of antineoplastic and supportive treatment for progressive multiple myeloma in a tax-based health system.

Aim: To estimate current real-world costs of drugs and supportive care for the treatment of multiple myeloma in a tax-based health system. Methods: Forty-one patients were included from a personalized medicine study (2016-2019). Detailed information was collected from patient journals and hospital registries to estimate the total and mean costs using inverse probability weighting of censored data. Results: Total observed (censored) costs for the 41 patients was €8.84 million during 125 treatment years, with antineoplastic drugs as the main cost driver (€5.6 million). Individual costs showed large variations. Mean 3-year cost per patient from first progression was €182,103 (€131,800-232,405). Conclusion: Prediction of real-world costs is hindered by the availability of detailed costing data. Micro-costing analyses are needed for budgeting and real-world evaluation of cost-effectiveness.

Lay abstract In recent years, there has been a dramatic improvement in the treatment of multiple myeloma due to the introduction of new drugs. These drugs have significantly increased survival but have also had an immense impact on healthcare budgets. In this study, we used detailed treatment information for multiple myeloma patients in combination with billing data from the hospital pharmacy at a Danish hospital to calculate individual cost histories for both drugs and supportive care. Using these data, we estimated the mean 3-year cost of a multiple myeloma patient to be €182.103, but we also found large variation between patients, causing an uncertainty of €50.000 in either direction. We believe that detailed costing studies, similar to the present one, are necessary for evaluation of cost-effectiveness of drugs in clinical practice.

Analysing the attributes of Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres across Europe to identify key hallmarks.

There is a persistent variation in cancer outcomes among and within European countries suggesting (among other causes) inequalities in access to or delivery of high-quality cancer care. European policy (EU Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan) is currently moving towards a mission-oriented approach addressing these inequalities. In this study, we used the quantitative and qualitative data of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes' Accreditation and Designation Programme, relating to 40 large European cancer centres, to describe their current compliance with quality standards, to identify the hallmarks common to all centres and to show the distinctive features of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. All Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes show good compliance with quality standards related to care, multidisciplinarity and patient centredness. However, Comprehensive Cancer Centres on average showed significantly better scores on indicators related to the volume, quality and integration of translational research, such as high-impact publications, clinical trial activity (especially in phase I and phase IIa trials) and filing more patents as early indicators of innovation. However, irrespective of their size, centres show significant variability regarding effective governance when functioning as entities within larger hospitals.

Medical Cannabis in Oncology: a Valuable Unappreciated Remedy or an Undesirable Risk?

OPINION STATEMENT: The use of the cannabis plant by cancer patients has been rising significantly in the past few years worldwide, primarily driven by public demand. There is an obvious need for more reliable scientific data, pharmacology information, a better understanding of its mode of action, and available clinical evidence supporting its robust use. Physicians must complete a thorough medical assessment, screening for potential drugs, or treatment contraindications before allowing its consumption. In light of the growing popularity of cannabis usage, it is highly essential that, in the near future, the medical community will be able to provide practical recommendations and explicit guidelines, including doses, and that cannabinoid concentrations in the used products are defined regarding its prescription before any medical procedure involving its usage is authorized. Here, we review and describe the favorable outcomes demonstrating the benefits of cannabis as an adjunctive treatment to conventional medicines for chemotherapy-induced nausea, vomiting, and cancer-related pain (primarily refractory chronic or neuropathic pain). Although not yet substantial enough, the treatment of anorexia, insomnia, depression, and anxiety is also seemingly favorable. To date, reports regarding its anti-neoplastic effects or its potent immunosuppressive properties influencing response to immunotherapy are still very conflicting and controversial. Thus, with the current state of evidence, cannabis use is not advisable as initial treatment, as an adjunct or an advanced line of care. In the coming years, we expect that preclinical data and animal models will shift to the clinical arena, and more patients will be recruited for clinical trials, and their reports will advance the field. Thus, physicians should prescribe cannabis only if careful clarification and consideration is provided together with a follow-up response evaluation.

Supportive and palliative care in hemato-oncology: how best to achieve seamless integration and subspecialty development?

While recent medical advances have led to cure, remission, or long-term disease control for patients with hematologic malignancy, many still portend poor prognoses, and frequently are associated with significant symptom and quality of life burden for patients and families. Patients with hematological cancer are referred to palliative care (PC) services less often than those with solid tumors, despite higher inpatient mortality and shorter interval between first consultation and death. The complexity of individual prognostication, ongoing therapeutic goals of cure, the technical nature and complications of treatment, the intensity of medical care even when approaching end of life, and the speed of change to a terminal event all pose difficulties and hinder referral. A modified palliative care model is an unmet need in hemato-oncology, where PC is introduced early from the diagnosis of hematological malignancy, provided alongside care of curative or life-prolonging intent, and subsequently leads to death and bereavement care or cure and survivorship care depending on disease course. From current evidence, the historical prioritization of cancer care at the center of palliative medicine did not guarantee that those diagnosed with a hematological malignancy were assured of referral, timely or otherwise. Hopefully, this article can be a catalyst for debate that will foster a new direction in integration of clinical service and research, and subspecialty development at the interface of hemato-oncology and palliative care.

Category of evidence and consensus underlying National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines: Is there evidence of progress?

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care, financial reimbursements and quality improvement initiatives in oncology. We studied the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) in the guidelines for the common cancers in the United States. We evaluated the EC categories in staging, therapy and surveillance recommendations in 2019 guidelines and compared them with the same in 2010. The latest 2019 version of NCCN guidelines were obtained. The definitions for various categories of EC used were, Category 1 (high level evidence, uniform consensus), Category 2A (lower level of evidence [LOE], uniform consensus), Category 2B (lower LOE, no uniform consensus but with no major disagreement) and Category 3 (any LOE, major disagreement). We compared our results with previously published results from 2010 guidelines. Total number of recommendations increased by 77% from 1023 (2010) to 1818 (2019). Of the 1818 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 7%, 87%, 6% and 0%, respectively, while in 2010 they were 6%, 83%, 10% and 1%. Breast (30%), lung (10%) and kidney (10%) cancer had the highest proportions of Category 1 therapeutic recommendations in their respective guidelines. No Category 1 recommendations were found in screening or surveillance guidelines or in pancreatic and uterine cancer guidelines. Recommendations in 2019 NCCN guidelines are largely Category 2A (lower levels of evidence, uniform expert opinion), unchanged from the previous study in 2010.

Combined use of advanced practice providers and care pathways reduces the duration of stay after surgery for gastrointestinal malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The gastrointestinal surgical oncology service at our comprehensive cancer center sought to improve the quality of postsurgical inpatient care while increasing discharge efficiency. METHODS: A stakeholder team established standard postsurgical care pathways and dedicated inpatient advanced practice provider positions. We compared postsurgical length of stay before (July 2017 to April 2018) and after (May 2018 to April 2019) the interventions using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. We benchmarked length of stay to National Surgical Quality Improvement Project and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services geometric mean length of stay. We also compared readmission rates and surgeon-specific Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care Provider and Systems and Press-Ganey scores. RESULTS: There were 462 cases before and 563 after the interventions. Postintervention, median length of stay decreased from 6.50 to 6.00 days (P = .017). There was a ≥1-day reduction for 10 of 14 case types with significant length of stay decreases for robotic esophagectomy (P = .001), liver resection (P = .023), and cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (P = .030). More case types met or exceeded Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and National Surgical Quality Improvement Project benchmarks after the interventions. Readmission rates were stable (preintervention 9.3%, postintervention 10.3%, P = .585). Press-Ganey and HCAHPS measures were stable or improved in all evaluated domains. CONCLUSION: Incorporating advanced practice providers and care pathways into gastrointestinal surgical oncology inpatient care was associated with reduced length of stay without declination in readmission rates or patient experience measures.

Cancer, immune suppression and Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19): Need to manage drug safety (French Society for Oncology Pharmacy [SFPO] guidelines).

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is disrupting our health environment. As expected, studies highlighted the great susceptibility of cancer patients to COVID-19 and more severe complications, leading oncologists to deeply rethink patient cancer care. This review is dedicated to the optimization of care pathways and therapeutics in cancer patients during the pandemic and aims to discuss successive issues. First we focused on the international guidelines proposing adjustments and alternative options to cancer care in order to limit hospital admission and cytopenic treatment in cancer patients, most of whom are immunocompromised. In addition cancer patients are prone to polypharmacy, enhancing the risk of drug-related problems as adverse events and drug-drug interactions. Due to increased risk in case of COVID-19, we reported a comprehensive review of all the drug-related problems between COVID-19 and antineoplastics. Moreover, in the absence of approved drug against COVID-19, infected patients may be included in clinical trials evaluating new drugs with a lack of knowledge, particularly in cancer patients. Focusing on the several experimental drugs currently being evaluated, we set up an original data board helping oncologists and pharmacists to identify promptly drug-related problems between antineoplastics and experimental drugs. Finally additional and concrete recommendations are provided, supporting oncologists and pharmacists in their efforts to manage cancer patients and to optimize their treatments in this new era related to COVID-19.

Evaluation of a Comprehensive Skin Toxicity Program for Patients Treated With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors at a Cancer Treatment Center.

Importance: Up to 90% of patients treated with an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) experience cutaneous toxic effects that are negatively associated with quality of life and lead to treatment interruptions. The Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol With Panitumumab trial found reduced incidence of skin toxicity and quality of life impairment with preemptive use of doxycycline hyclate, topical corticosteroids, moisturizers, and sunscreen, demonstrating the benefit of prophylactic treatment for skin toxicity. Objective: To evaluate the association of a comprehensive skin toxicity program with adherence to prophylaxis guidelines for the prevention of EGFRi-associated cutaneous toxic effects. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all adult patients receiving at least 1 dose of cetuximab at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in the calendar year 2012 (2 years after publication of the Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol With Panitumumab) or the calendar year 2017 (2 years after full implementation of the Skin Toxicities from Anticancer Therapies program). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were rate of preemptive rash treatment and selection of preemptive agents. Secondary outcomes were incidence of rash, rates of rescue treatments, rates of cetuximab dose changes or interruptions, and overall survival at 2 years. Results: There were 118 patients (85 men; median age, 62.4 years [range, 23.5-91.7 years]) treated with cetuximab in 2012 and 90 patients (70 men; median age, 62.5 years [range, 30.7-90.5 years]) treated with cetuximab in 2017; 11 patients (9%) in 2012 and 31 patients (34%) in 2017 were treated at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute affiliate sites. At cetuximab treatment initiation, 29 patients (25%) in 2012 and 42 patients (47%) in 2017 were prophylactically treated for skin toxicity (P < .001). From 2012 to 2017, preemptive tetracycline use (13 of 29 [45%] to 30 of 42 [71%]; P = .02) and topical corticosteroid use (2 of 29 [7%] to 24 of 42 [57%]; P < .001) increased and topical antibiotic use (23 of 29 [79%] to 18 of 42 [43%]; P = .002) decreased. There was no significant difference in incidence of rash by prophylaxis status. Patients prescribed prophylactic treatment were 94% less likely to require a first rescue treatment for rash (adjusted odds ratio, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.02-0.16; P < .001), 74% less likely to require a second rescue treatment for rash (adjusted odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83; P = .02), and 79% less likely to experience a cetuximab dose change or interruption (adjusted odds ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.81; P = .02) than patients not prescribed prophylactic treatment, adjusting for treatment site and year. Conclusions and Relevance: Dermatologists can add value to oncology care by raising awareness of appropriate treatment options and increasing adherence to evidence-based prophylaxis protocols for EGFRi-associated rash, which is associated with decreased interventions and toxicity-associated chemotherapy interruptions.

Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology.

PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used by about half of all patients with cancer. Guidelines are an important tool to introduce evidence-based medicine into routine cancer care. The aim of our study was to assess methodology of the statements and recommendations concerning CAM. METHODS: A systematic assessment of all S3 guidelines published until November 2018 was done. Methodology of all statements and recommendations concerning CAM which were declared as evidence-based was evaluated with respect to international standards. According to the AMSTAR-2 instrument search strategy including filters, searched databases, restrictions to the research question and description of the included studies were examined. In case of adaptations from other guidelines, all underlying guidelines were examined as well. RESULTS: After examining 212 guidelines, 82 evidence-based statements and recommendations regarding CAM could be identified. Four were derived by adaptation, 78 by a de-novo search. Only 11 of 78 (14%) fulfilled all assessment criteria. In 18 (19%) cases no information on search strategy was attainable in any document affiliated to the guideline, in 35 (45%) cases information on search strategy was superficial and in 54 (78%) cases the referred evidence was not presented in adequate detail. CONCLUSIONS: Concerning CAM statements and recommendations within S3 guidelines quality of evidence processing has several shortcomings. Guideline adaptions often lack transparency and traceability.

Recommendations for spiritual care in cancer patients: a clinical practice guideline for oncology nurses in Iran.

BACKGROUND: In spite of the necessity of implementing spiritual care practices for cancer patients, there is no clear process in this regard in palliative care programs of the health system of countries. The present study was designed with the aim of developing a clinical practice guideline of spiritual care in cancer patients for oncology nurses in the current context. METHODS: This is a multi-method study which was conducted in five stages within the framework of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline. A research committee consisting of four focal and 16 secondary members was formed. The stages included determining the scope of the study, developing guideline (a qualitative study and a systematic review, triangulation of the data, and producing a preliminary draft), consultation stage (validation of the guideline in three rounds of the Delphi study), as well as revision and publication stages. RESULTS: The clinical guideline of spiritual care with 84 evidence-based recommendations was developed in three main areas, including the human resources, care settings, and the process of spiritual care. CONCLUSIONS: We are hoping by applying this clinical guideline in oncology settings to move towards an integrated spiritual care plan for cancer patients in the context of our health system. Healthcare organizations should support to form spiritual care teams under supervision of the oncology nurses with qualified healthcare providers and a trained clergy. Through holistic care, they can constantly examine the spiritual needs of cancer patients alongside their other needs by focusing on the phases of the nursing process.

Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Precision Medicine Era: From Treatment Stage Migration to Therapeutic Hierarchy.

Treatment allocation is extremely complex in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because this neoplasm arises, in most cases, in patients with cirrhosis and additional comorbidities. The "stage hierarchy" approach, which involves linking each stage (or substage) of the disease to a specific treatment, has become the main proposed treatment strategy for the clinical management of HCC, particularly in the West. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) scheme serves as the main example of the application of this strategy. In an attempt to increase the plasticity of the "stage hierarchy" approach as well as its adaptability to the requirements of real-world clinical practice, the latest versions of European and American guidelines have introduced certain relevant elements of flexibility, which were not intrinsic to the original BCLC scheme. These elements are as follows: the "treatment stage migration" strategy, which allows moving to another treatment (generally the one that is associated with the subsequent stage) if the approach linked with the current stage proves to be unfeasible, and the "treatment stage alternative" approach, which proposes further therapeutic options for each BCLC-defined stage. In regard to most of the solid cancers, another potential strategy is to consider the treatment decision to be hierarchically dictated by the efficacy of each therapy with complete or partial independence from the tumor stage. This concept of "therapeutic hierarchy" has been historically endorsed by the Asia-Pacific treatment algorithm as well as by the recent Italian multisociety guidelines. The present review provides a critical analysis of the different conceptual approaches to HCC management, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages and focusing on the remarkable differences between the stage-guided and the hierarchical strategies.

Incidence of Brain Metastases in Nonmetastatic and Metastatic Breast Cancer: Is There a Role for Screening?

BACKGROUND: Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines recommend against screening breast cancer patients for asymptomatic brain metastases. Because brain metastases are a major cause of morbidity and mortality from breast cancer, we undertook a literature review to ascertain whether there might be a role for brain metastases screening in high-risk patient subgroups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted on the OvidSP platform in the MedLine database, using MeSH terms and subject headings related to breast cancer, brain metastases, and incidence. The search was conducted without language or publication restrictions, and included articles indexed from January 1, 2006 to June 10, 2018. Experimental and observational studies that reported the incidence of brain metastases in patients with nonmetastatic or metastatic breast cancer were included. RESULTS: One hundred seventy studies were identified, with 33 included in the final analysis. Among nonmetastatic breast cancer patients, incidence of brain metastases as site of first recurrence per year of median follow-up ranged from 0.1% to 3.2%. Although incidence of brain metastases was much higher among the metastatic breast cancer population overall, it was particularly high among metastatic HER2-overexpressing (HER2+) and triple-negative populations, ranging between 22% and 36% for the former, and 15%-37% for the latter in the absence of screening. CONCLUSION: In patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer, screening for asymptomatic brain metastases cannot currently be justified. However, due to the high incidence of brain metastases among patients with metastatic HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancer, studies to determine the value of screening for brain metastases should be undertaken in these subgroups.

Integrated cancer networks improve compliance with national guidelines and outcomes for resectable gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend accurate clinical staging, perioperative therapy, and complete lymphadenectomy for patients with stage II to III gastric cancer. However, national compliance remains low. It was hypothesized that integrated cancer networks might improve compliance and outcomes within the community. METHODS: Patients with stage II to III gastric adenocarcinoma undergoing curative-intent resection (National Cancer Data Base, 2006-2015) were examined. Guideline compliance was defined as any perioperative adjunctive therapy, complete lymphadenectomy, complete clinical staging, and complete compliance (all measures). Univariate comparisons and multivariable regression were used to assess factors associated with compliance, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess survival. RESULTS: There were 27,210 patients identified: 7235 (26.6%) underwent surgery alone, whereas 19,975 (73.4%) received additional therapy. Half (53.1%) had complete lymphadenectomies, whereas complete clinical staging was available for 65.5%. Overall compliance with all 3 measures was 30.1%. Compliance improved by approximately 20% for each measure across the 10-year study period. Although patients treated at academic programs were most likely to receive concordant care in an adjusted analysis, those treated at integrated care networks were more likely to receive guideline-concordant care (odds ratio [OR], 0.69) than those treated at comprehensive community programs (OR, 0.48) or community programs (OR, 0.45; all P values <.001). The median overall survival was 45.5 months for patients who received guideline-concordant care and 32.0 months for those who did not (P < .001, reference for all ORs: academic programs). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with guidelines was associated with improved outcomes. Although the rate of compliance with NCCN guidelines is improving, integrated care networks may be an important way of improving the quality of gastric cancer care within the community.

Targeting Mindsets, Not Just Tumors.

Mindsets - core assumptions about the nature and workings of things in the world - are a critical but relatively understudied variable that can influence mental and physical health in patients with cancer. Precise, targeted psychological interventions aimed at instilling adaptive mindsets have the potential to transform supportive care in oncology.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Integrative Oncology: Bridging Clinical Care With Research.

There is growing interest in the value of routine collection and monitoring of patient-reported outcomes as part of high-quality, patient-centered, oncology care. Integrative oncology, with its focus on providing symptom and lifestyle support for patients throughout the cancer care continuum, serves a diverse patient population with a complex, changing symptom burden. Monitoring of patient-reported outcomes can contribute significantly to the successful comprehensive evaluation and management of patients receiving integrative oncology care. Data collected as part of an integrative oncology evaluation can also support real-world clinical research efforts to help learn more about the effects of integrative oncology interventions on patient symptoms, quality of life, and treatment outcomes.

A systematic review of complementary and alternative medicine in oncology: Psychological and physical effects of manipulative and body-based practices.

BACKGROUND: Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAM) are widely used by cancer patients, despite limited evidence of efficacy. Manipulative and body-based practices are some of the most commonly used CAM. This systematic review evaluates their benefits in oncology. METHOD: A systematic literature review was carried out with no restriction of language, time, cancer location or type. PubMed, CENTRAL, PsycArticle, PsychInfo, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection and SOCindex were queried. Inclusion criteria were adult cancer patients and randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing manipulative and body-based complementary practices on psychological and symptom outcomes. Effect size was calculated when applicable. RESULTS: Of 1624 articles retrieved, 41 articles were included: massage (24), reflexology (11), acupressure (6). Overall, 25 studies showed positive and significant effects on symptom outcomes (versus 9 that did not), especially pain and fatigue. Mixed outcomes were found for quality of life (8 papers finding a significant effect vs. 10 which did not) and mood (14 papers vs. 13). In most studies, there was a high risk of bias with a mean Jadad score of 2, making interpretation of results difficult. CONCLUSION: These results seem to indicate that manipulative CAM may be effective on symptom management in cancer. However, more robust methodologies are needed. The methodological requirements of randomized controlled trials are challenging, and more informative results may be provided by more pragmatic study design.

Exercise is medicine in oncology: Engaging clinicians to help patients move through cancer.

Multiple organizations around the world have issued evidence-based exercise guidance for patients with cancer and cancer survivors. Recently, the American College of Sports Medicine has updated its exercise guidance for cancer prevention as well as for the prevention and treatment of a variety of cancer health-related outcomes (eg, fatigue, anxiety, depression, function, and quality of life). Despite these guidelines, the majority of people living with and beyond cancer are not regularly physically active. Among the reasons for this is a lack of clarity on the part of those who work in oncology clinical settings of their role in assessing, advising, and referring patients to exercise. The authors propose using the American College of Sports Medicine's Exercise Is Medicine initiative to address this practice gap. The simple proposal is for clinicians to assess, advise, and refer patients to either home-based or community-based exercise or for further evaluation and intervention in outpatient rehabilitation. To do this will require care coordination with appropriate professionals as well as change in the behaviors of clinicians, patients, and those who deliver the rehabilitation and exercise programming. Behavior change is one of many challenges to enacting the proposed practice changes. Other implementation challenges include capacity for triage and referral, the need for a program registry, costs and compensation, and workforce development. In conclusion, there is a call to action for key stakeholders to create the infrastructure and cultural adaptations needed so that all people living with and beyond cancer can be as active as is possible for them.

Implementing electronic health record-integrated screening of patient-reported symptoms and supportive care needs in a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Oncology practice can be enhanced by the integration of the assessment of patient-reported symptoms and concerns into the electronic health record (EHR) and clinical workflows. METHODS: Adult oncology outpatients (n = 6825) received 38,422 invitations to complete assessments through the EHR patient portal. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System computer adaptive tests were administered to assess fatigue, pain interference, physical function, depression, and anxiety. Checklists identified psychosocial, nutritional, and informational needs. In real time, assessment results were populated in the EHR, and clinicians were notified of elevated symptoms and needs. RESULTS: In all, 3521 patients (51.6%) completed 8162 assessments; approximately 55% of the responding patients completed 2 or more within 32 months. Fatigue, pain, anxiety, and depression scores were comparable to those of the general population (approximately 5% of assessments triggered clinical alerts across those domains); mean scores indicated a lower level of physical function (with severe scores prompting alerts in nearly 5% of assessments). More than half of assessments triggered an alert based on patient endorsement of supportive care needs, with the majority of those being nutritional (41.82% of assessments). Patient endorsement of supportive care needs was associated with significantly higher anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain interference scores and lower physical function scores. Patients who triggered clinical alerts tended to be younger and more recently diagnosed, to have greater comorbidities, and to be a racial/ethnic minority. Patients who triggered clinical alerts had more health care service encounters in the ensuing month. CONCLUSIONS: EHR integration facilitated the assessment and reporting of patient-reported symptoms and needs within routine oncology outpatient care.