Real-World Implementation of Best-Evidence Cancer Distress Management: Truly Comprehensive Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Cancer distress management is an evidence-based component of comprehensive cancer care. Group-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for cancer distress (CBT-C) is the first distress treatment associated with replicated survival advantages in randomized clinical trials. Despite research supporting patient satisfaction, improved outcomes, and reduced costs, CBT-C has not been tested sufficiently within billable clinical settings, profoundly reducing patient access to best-evidence care. This study aimed to adapt and implement manualized CBT-C as a billable clinical service. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A stakeholder-engaged, mixed-methods, hybrid implementation study design was used, and the study was conducted in 3 phases: (1) stakeholder engagement and adaptation of CBT-C delivery, (2) patient and therapist user testing and adaptation of CBT-C content, and (3) implementation of practice-adapted CBT-C as a billable clinical service focused on evaluation of reach, acceptability, and feasibility across stakeholder perspectives. RESULTS: A total of 40 individuals and 7 interdisciplinary group stakeholders collectively identified 7 primary barriers (eg, number of sessions, workflow concerns, patient geographic distance from center) and 9 facilitators (eg, favorable financial model, emergence of oncology champions). CBT-C adaptations made before implementation included expanding eligibility criteria beyond breast cancer, reducing number of sessions to 5 (10 total hours), eliminating and adding content, and revising language and images. During implementation, 252 patients were eligible; 100 (40%) enrolled in CBT-C (99% covered by insurance). The primary reason for declining enrollment was geographic distance. Of enrollees, 60 (60%) consented to research participation (75% women; 92% white). All research participants completed at least 60% of content (6 of 10 hours), with 98% reporting they would recommend CBT-C to family and friends. CONCLUSIONS: CBT-C implementation as a billable clinical service was acceptable and feasible across cancer care stakeholder measures. Future research is needed to replicate acceptability and feasibility results in more diverse patient groups, test effectiveness in clinical settings, and reduce barriers to access via remote delivery platforms.

Carboplatin dosing in the treatment of ovarian cancer: An NRG oncology group study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of using National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines to estimate renal function on carboplatin dosing and explore adverse effects associated with a more accurate estimation of lower creatinine clearance (CrCl). METHODS: Retrospective data were obtained for 3830 of 4312 patients treated on GOG182 (NCT00011986)-a phase III trial of platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced-stage ovarian cancer. Carboplatin dose per patient on GOG182 was determined using the Jelliffe formula. We recalculated CrCl to determine dosing using Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Cockcroft-Gault (with/without NCCN recommended modifications) formulas. Associations between baseline CrCl and toxicity were described using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Sensitivity and positive predictive values described the model's ability to discriminate between subjects with/without the adverse event. RESULTS: AUC statistics (range, 0.52-0.64) showed log(CrClJelliffe) was not a good predictor of grade ≥3 adverse events (anemia, thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, auditory, renal, metabolic, neurologic). Of 3830 patients, 628 (16%) had CrCl <60 mL/min. Positive predictive values for adverse events ranged from 1.8%-15%. Using the Cockcroft-Gault, Cockcroft-Gault with NCCN modifications, and MDRD (instead of Jelliffe) formulas to estimate renal function resulted in a >10% decrease in carboplatin dosing in 16%, 32%, and 5.2% of patients, respectively, and a >10% increase in carboplatin dosing in 41%, 9.6% and 12% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: The formula used to estimate CrCl affects carboplatin dosing. Estimated CrCl <60 mL/min (by Jelliffe) did not accurately predict adverse events. Efforts continue to better predict renal function. Endorsing National Cancer Institute initiatives to broaden study eligibility, our data do not support a minimum threshold CrCl <60 mL/min as an exclusion criterion from clinical trials.