Characterizing Different Multidisciplinary Team Models Implemented Within One Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Background: The multidisciplinary approach is considered "best practice" in oncology. Multidisciplinary Teamwork (MDTW) can be broadly classified into Multidisciplinary Team Meetings (MDTM) and Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinics (MDCC; involving also patients), yet both models are heterogeneously implemented. Purpose: This study aims at describing the different MDTW implemented models in a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methods: All clinical unit directors of the hospital were contacted to identify any MDTW activities the personnel of the unit were involved in. Structured interviews were carried out to collect MDTWs information, ie, type (MDTM vs MDCC), team composition, aims, disease phase, use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Descriptive analyses and Social Network Analysis (SNA) were performed. Results: Among 38 structured interviews, 25 concerned MDTMs and 13 in MDCCs. Responders were mainly surgeons (35%) and oncologists (29%), 35% of them were team leaders. Teams were mostly composed of physicians only (64% in MDTMs, 69% in MDCCs). Case managers (8% and 31%), palliative care specialists (12% and 23%) and psychologists (20% and 31%) were involved to a lesser extent, mainly when dealing with advanced disease. MDTWs were mainly aimed at integrating the skills of the different specialists (respectively 72% for MDTMs and 64% for MDCCs) and offering the best overall patient care pathway (64%, 61.5%). MDTWs were directed at patients in both diagnostic (72%, 61.5%) and locally advanced/metastatic (32%, 38.4%) disease. PROMs were seldom used (24%, 23%). SNA shows a similar density in the two MDTWs, but in the MDCCs two nodes remain isolated (pathologists and radiologists). Conclusion: Despite a high number of MDTWs for advanced/metastatic disease, there is limited involvement of palliative care specialists, psychologists, and nurses.

'Why should I fill out this questionnaire?' A qualitative study of cancer patients' perspectives on the integration of e-PROMs in routine clinical care.

PURPOSE: There is increasing interest in integrating electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PROs) into clinical routines in cancer settings. However, little is known about patients' experiences with and perceptions of e-PRO measures (e-PROMs). This study examines patients' experiences with e-PROMS, particularly their perspectives about its usefulness and its implications for the clinical encounter with their doctors. METHOD: A total of 19 individual in-person interviews with cancer patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center in northern Italy conducted in 2021 inform this study. RESULTS: The findings suggested that, overall, patients had positive attitudes towards data collection using e-PROMs. On the one hand, most patients found the integration of e-PROMs into routine clinical practice as beneficial in treating patients with cancer. The main benefits of e-PROMs according to this group of patients were that: they promoted patient-centred care; could be used to tailor and improve the quality of care through a holistic approach; supported early detection of problematic symptoms; increased patient self-awareness; and contributed to clinical research. On the other hand, many patients did not fully understand the purpose of e-PROMs and some patients were also sceptical about their usefulness in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have several practical implications for ensuring the successful implementation of e-PROMs in routine clinical practice. These include the following preconditions: patients are informed about the purposes of data collection; physicians provide feedback to patients about the e-PROMs' results; and that hospital administrators allocate sufficient time for clinical interactions to integrate e-PROMs into routine clinical practice.

Knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of the positive impact of routine assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their systematic collection is not widely implemented in cancer care. AIM: To assess the knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards PROMs and electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs) in clinical practice and research and to explore respondent-related factors associated with the above dimensions. METHOD: An ad hoc developed online survey was administered to all HCPs employed in clinical activity in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. The survey investigated which PROMs were known and used, as well as HCPs' opinions on the advantages and drawbacks of routine PROM assessment, including electronic assessment (ePROM). Linear and logistic regression models were used for association analyses. RESULTS: Five Hundred Eleven of nine hundred ninety-two invited HCPs (52%) provided analyzable responses. 68% were women, 46% were nurses and 42% physicians, and 52.5% had > 20 years seniority. The average number of PROMs known was six among 17 proposed. All proved to be under-used (< 28%) except unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales (77 and 36%). Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards PROMs, with strengths outweighing weaknesses (mean overall scores 3.6 and 2.9, respectively, on a 1-5 scale). 67% of respondents preferred electronic collection over paper and pencil. Profession was associated with knowledge and use (physicians reported knowing more PROMs than other professionals) and with a preference for electronic collection (nurses were less likely to prefer the electronic format than physicians). Senior HCPs were slightly more critical about both PROMs and electronic administration. CONCLUSIONS: This survey indicates an acceptable level of knowledge of common PROM tools but low usage in practice. Based on the generally positive attitude of HCPs, routine implementation of ePROMs can be promoted as long as adequate resources and training are provided. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not registered.

Spiritual quality of life in family carers of patients with advanced cancer-a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Caring affects carers' psychological and physical health, mortality, and quality of life (QoL) negatively. Lower spiritual QoL is associated with anxiety and depression, but the spiritual dimension is rarely investigated in carers. The present study aimed to explore which patient- and carer-related characteristics were associated with spiritual QoL in carers of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Secondary analyses were conducted using data from a prospective study investigating integration between oncology and palliative care. Adult patients with advanced cancer and their carers were included, and baseline data considering demographics, clinical characteristics, symptoms, social support, and religious meaning-making were registered. Spiritual QoL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Spiritual well-being (FACIT-Sp-12) questionnaire. Associations to spiritual QoL were explored by bivariate and multivariate regression models. RESULTS: In total, 84 carers were included, median age was 62.5 years, 52 (62%) were female, and the average spiritual QoL score was 23.3. In bivariate analyses, higher education, social support, and lower patients' symptom burden were significantly associated with higher spiritual QoL. The multivariate regression model (n=77) had an explained variance (R2) = 0.34 and showed a significant association for social support, higher education, having children < 18 years living at home, and patient's age. CONCLUSION: The study indicates that spiritual QoL in carers were low and were negatively affected by several factors related to both carers and patients. However, there could be other important factors not yet described. Health care professionals should be aware of the known associated factors, as carers who hold these may need extra support.

PATIENT VOICES, a project for the integration of the systematic assessment of patient reported outcomes and experiences within a comprehensive cancer center: a protocol for a mixed method feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Listening to "patient voices" in terms of symptoms, emotional status and experiences with care, is crucial for patient empowerment in clinical practice. Despite convincing evidence that routine patient reported outcomes and experience measurements (PRMs) with rapid feed-back to oncologists can improve symptom control, patient well-being and cost effectiveness, PRMs are not commonly used in cancer care, due to barriers at various level. Part of these barriers may be overcome through electronic PRMs collection (ePRMs) integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR). The PATIENT VOICES initiative is aimed at achieving a stepwise integration of ePRMs assessment into routine cancer care. The feasibility project presented here is aimed at assessing the knowledge, use and attitudes toward PRMs in a comprehensive cancer centre; developing and assessing feasibility of a flexible system for ePRM assessment; identifying barriers to and developing strategies for implementation and integration of ePRMs clinical practice. METHODS: The project has been organized into four phases: a) pre-development; b) software development and piloting; c) feasibility assessment; d) post-development. A convergent mixed method design, based on concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection will be applied. A web-survey on health care providers (HCPs), qualitative studies on patients and HCPs (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) as well as longitudinal and cross-sectional quantitative studies will be carried out. The quantitative studies will enroll 600 patients: 200 attending out-patient clinics (physical symptom assessement), 200 attending inpatient wards (psychological distress assessment) and 200 patients followed by multidisciplinary teams (patient experience with care assessment). The Edmonton symptom assessment scale, the Distress Thermometer, and a tool adapted from existing patient reported experience with cancer care questionnaires, will be used in quantitative studies. A multi-disciplinary stakeholder team including researchers, clinicians, health informatics professionals, health system administrators and patients will be involved in the development of potentially effective implementation strategies in the post development phase. DISCUSSION: The documentation of potential advantages and implementation barriers achieved within this feasibility project, will serve as a starting point for future and more focused interventions aimed at achieving effective ePRMs routine assessment in cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03968718 ) May 30th, 2019.

PALLiON - PALLiative care Integrated in ONcology: study protocol for a Norwegian national cluster-randomized control trial with a complex intervention of early integration of palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Several publications have addressed the need for a systematic integration of oncological care focused on the tumor and palliative care (PC) focused on the patient with cancer. The exponential increase in anticancer treatments and the high number of patients living longer with advanced disease have accentuated this. Internationally, there is now a persuasive argument that introducing PC early during anticancer treatment in patients with advanced disease has beneficial effects on symptoms, psychological distress, and survival. METHODS: This is a national cluster-randomized trial (C-RCT) in 12 Norwegian hospitals. The trial investigates effects of early, systematic integration of oncology and specialized PC in patients with advanced cancer in six intervention hospitals compared with conventional care in six. Hospitals are stratified on the size of local catchment areas before randomization. In the intervention hospitals, a three-part complex intervention will be implemented. The backbone of the intervention is the development and implementation of patient-centered care pathways that contain early, compulsory referral to PC and regular and systematic registrations of symptoms. An educational program must be completed before patient inclusion. A total of 680 patients with advanced cancer and one caregiver per patient are included when patients come for start of last line of chemotherapy, defined according to national treatment guidelines. Data registration, clinical variables, and patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes take place every 2 months for 1 year or until death. The primary outcome is use of chemotherapy in the last 3 months of life by comparing the proportion of patients who receive this in the intervention and control groups. Primary outcome is use of chemotherapy in the last 3 months before death, i.e. number of patients. Secondary outcomes are initiation, discontinuation and number of cycles, last 3 months of life, administration of other medical interventions in the last month of life, symptom burden, quality of life (QoL), satisfaction with information and follow-up, and caregiver health, QoL, and satisfaction with care. DISCUSSION: Results from this C-RCT will be used to raise the awareness about the positive outcomes of early provision of specialized palliative care using pathways for patients with advanced cancer receiving medical anticancer treatment. The long-term clinical objective is to integrate these patient-centered pathways in Norwegian cancer care. The specific focus on the patient and family and the organization of a predictable care trajectory is consistent with current Norwegian strategies for cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088202. Registered on 23 March 2017.

Power Comparisons and Clinical Meaning of Outcome Measures in Assessing Treatment Effect in Cancer Cachexia: Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Pilot Multimodal Intervention Trial.

Background: New clinical trials in cancer cachexia are essential, and outcome measures with high responsiveness to detect meaningful changes are crucial. This secondary analysis from a multimodal intervention trial estimates sensitivity to change and between treatment effect sizes (ESs) of outcome measures associated with body composition, physical function, metabolism, and trial intervention. Methods: The study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized pilot study investigating the feasibility of a 6-week multimodal intervention [exercise, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and oral nutritional supplements containing polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs)] vs. standard cancer care in non-operable non-small-cell lung cancer and advanced pancreatic cancer. Body composition measures from computerized tomography scans and circulating biomarkers were analyzed. Results: Forty-six patients were randomized, and the analysis included 22 and 18 patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively. The between-group ESs were high for body weight (ES = 1.2, p < 0.001), small for body composition and physical function [handgrip strength (HGS)] measures (ES < 0.25), moderate to high for n-3 PUFAs and 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH vitamin D) (ES range 0.64-1.37, p < 0.05 for all), and moderate for serum C-reactive protein (ES = 0.53, p = 0.12). Analysis within the multimodal treatment group showed high sensitivity to change for adiponectin (ES = 0.86, p = 0.001) and n-3 PUFAs (ES > 0.8, p < 0.05 for all) and moderate for 25-OH vitamin D (ES = 0.49, p = 0.03). In the control group, a moderate sensitivity to change for body weight (ES = -0.84, p = 0.002) and muscle mass (ES = -0.67, p = 0.016) and a high sensitivity to change for plasma levels of 25-OH vitamin D (ES = -0.88, p = 0.002) were found. Conclusion: Demonstrating high sensitivity to change and between treatment ES and body composition measures, body weight still stands out as a clinical and relevant outcome measure in cancer cachexia. Body composition and physical function measures clearly are important to address but demand large sample sizes to detect treatment group differences. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01419145.

Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care.

Hospital doctors' smoking behavior and attitude towards smoking cessation interventions for patients: a survey in an Italian Comprehensive Cancer Centre.

PURPOSE: Tobacco control guidelines recommend all healthcare professionals to ask patients about their smoking status and to offer them at least minimal cessation advice. However, few data are available about the daily practice of hospital clinicians who work with smoking cancer patients. This study assesses, in a comprehensive cancer center, the physicians' smoking habit, their clinical practice in offering a smoking cessation intervention to patients who smoke, and the training they received in this field. METHODS: A Web-based survey was sent to 285 physicians. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 75%. Sixty-two percent, 24%, and 14% of responders were never, former, and current smokers, respectively. Six percent of all responding physicians have already participated in smoking cessation training and 43% of them declared their willingness to be trained. Eighty-six percent of all responding physicians asked about the patients' smoking status, 50% routinely advised patients to quit smoking, and 32% assessed their motivation to do so. Smoking cessation guidelines were not followed mostly for lack of time, fear to increase patients' stress, and lack of smoking cessation training. Ninety-four percent of responding physicians knew the smoking cessation service for outpatients and 65% referred at least one patient, 66% of responding physicians knew the service for inpatients, and 36% of them asked for at least one intervention in the ward. CONCLUSIONS: This study pointed out partial adherence of the physicians working in a leading cancer center to the smoking cessation guidelines. The clinicians' smoking habits did not influence the training and the clinical practice in offering patients smoking cessation interventions.

Cancer patients' needs during hospitalisation: a quantitative and qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of cancer patients needs, especially during that delicate period when they are hospitalized, allows the identification of those areas of care that require to be improved. Aims of the study were to evaluate the needs in cancer inpatients and to improve the understanding of the meanings of the needs expressed. METHODS: The study was conducted during a "sample day", with all the cancer patients involved having been hospitalized at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan (INT) for at least 48 hours beforehand. The study was carried out using quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The quantitative part of the study consisted in making use of the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire (NEQ), a standardized questionnaire administered by the INT Psychology Unit members, supported by a group of volunteers from the Milan section of the Italian League Against Cancer. The aim of the qualitative part of the study, by semi-structured interviews conducted with a small sample of 8 hospitalized patients, was to improve our understanding of the meanings, implications of the needs directly described from the point of view of the patients. Such an approach determines the reasons and conditions of the dissatisfaction in the patient, and provides additional information for the planning of improvement interventions. RESULTS: Of the 224 eligible patients, 182 (81%) completed the questionnaire. Four of the top five needs expressed by 40% or more of the responders concerned information needs (diagnosis, future conditions, dialogue with doctors, economic-insurance solutions related to the disease). Only one of the 5 was concerned with improved "hotel" services (bathrooms, meals, cleanliness). Qualitative analysis showed that the most expressed need (to receive more information on their future conditions) has the meaning to know how their future life will be affected more than to know his/her actual prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the needs which emerged from this investigation could be immediately satisfied (the need for psychological support, the need for economic aid, the need for spiritual support), while others will have to be faced in the longer term; for example, the presence of a high percentage of needs in patient-physician relationships and/or information-communication issues, could be resolved by setting up structured introductory training courses for all clinicians in the institution. On the other hand, the needs related to the living infrastructure (bathrooms, meals, etc.) could encourage the Institution to improve its services.