Challenges and Solutions to Support Oncology Professionals Serving Underserved Populations With Cancer in the United States: Results From the ASCO Serving the Underserved Task Force.

PURPOSE: Little data exist regarding approaches to support oncology professionals who deliver cancer care for underserved populations. In response, ASCO developed the Serving the Underserved Task Force to learn from and support oncology professionals serving underserved populations. METHODS: The Task Force developed a 28-question survey to assess oncology professionals' experiences and strategies to support their work caring for underserved populations. The survey was deployed via an online link to 600 oncology professionals and assessed respondent and patient demographic characteristics, clinic-based processes to coordinate health-related social services, and strategies for professional society support and engagement. We used chi-square tests to evaluate whether there were associations between percent full-time equivalent (FTE) effort serving underserved populations (<50% FTE v ≥50% FTE) with responses. RESULTS: Of 462 respondents who completed the survey (77% response rate), 79 (17.1%) were Asian; 30 (6.5%) Black; 43 (9.3%) Hispanic or Latino/Latina; and 277 (60%) White. The majority (n = 366, 79.2%) had a medical doctor degree (MD). A total of 174 (37.7%) had <25% FTE, 151 (32.7%) had 25%-50% FTE, and 121 (26.2%) had ≥50% FTE effort serving underserved populations. Most best guessed patients' sociodemographic characteristics (n = 388; 84%), while 42 (9.2%) used data collected by the clinic. Social workers coordinated most health-related social services. However, in clinical settings with high proportions of underserved patients, there was greater reliance on nonclinical personnel, such as navigators (odds ratio [OR], 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.33]) or no individual (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.14 to 5.72]) for addressing mental health needs and greater reliance on physicians or advance practice practitioners (OR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.11 to 5.81]) or no individual (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.09 to 3.35]) for addressing childcare or eldercare needs compared with social workers. Prioritization of solutions, which did not differ by FTE effort serving underserved populations, included a return-on-investment model to support personnel, integrated health-related social needs screening, and collaboration with the professional society on advocacy and policy. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight crucial strategies that professional societies can implement to support oncology clinicians serving underserved populations with cancer.

Aromatase Inhibitor Symptom Management Practices: A Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitor (AI)-associated symptoms contribute to early therapy discontinuation. Although guidelines exist for management of these symptoms, little is known about the degree to which physicians address symptoms and adhere to the guidelines for treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective chart review, women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who were prescribed an AI between October 15, 2012, and September 14, 2017, were randomly selected from the institution's cancer registry. Patient medical records were reviewed to identify the prevalence of symptom documentation and management. Documented symptoms were categorized into musculoskeletal, vasomotor, and urogenital. Symptom treatment guidelines were compiled from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology (ACS/ASCO). Treatments were categorized as either meeting or not meeting the guidelines. Among patients with symptoms recorded, chi-square tests and time-to-event models were used to examine factors associated with treatment and factors associated with guideline-based treatment. RESULTS: Among 179 women prescribed an AI, 82% had at least one symptom and 46% had multiple symptoms. Of the 147 women with any documented symptom, 97 (66%) received some form of symptom-palliating treatment. Seventy-seven patients (52%) received guideline-based treatments or guideline-based treatments in combination with non-guideline-based treatments. There were no differences in receipt of treatment overall (ie, guideline based or non-guideline based) for either vasomotor or musculoskeletal symptoms by age, race, or stage. CONCLUSION: Although 82% of patients had symptoms documented in their medical records, just over half of those patients received guideline-based treatment.