Status of Cancer Care at Network Sites of the Nation's Academic Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care coordination across major academic medical centers and their networks is evolving rapidly, but the spectrum of organizational efforts has not been described. We conducted a mixed-methods survey of leading cancer centers and their networks to document care coordination and identify opportunities to improve geographically dispersed care. METHODS: A mixed-methods survey was sent to 91 cancer centers in the United States and Canada. We analyzed the number and locations of network sites; access to electronic medical records (EMRs); clinical research support and participation at networks; use of patient navigators, care paths, and quality measures; and physician workforce. Responses were collected via Qualtrics software between September 2017 and December 2018. RESULTS: Of the 69 responding cancer centers, 74% were NCI-designated. Eighty-seven percent of respondents were part of a matrix health system, and 13% were freestanding. Fifty-six reported having network sites. Forty-three respondents use navigators for disease-specific populations, and 24 use them for all patients. Thirty-five respondents use ≥1 types of care path. Fifty-seven percent of networks had complete, integrated access to their main center's EMRs. Thirty-nine respondents said the main center provides funding for clinical research at networks, with 22 reporting the main center provides all funding. Thirty-five said the main center provided pharmacy support at the networks, with 15 indicating the main center provides 100% pharmacy support. Certification program participation varied extensively across networks. CONCLUSIONS: The data show academic cancer centers have extensive involvement in network cancer care, often extending into rural communities. Coordinating care through improved clinical trial access and greater use of patient navigation, care paths, coordinated EMRs, and quality measures is likely to improve patient outcomes. Although it is premature to draw firm conclusions, the survey results are appropriate for mapping next steps and data queries.

Phase 1 dose escalation trial of TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil) and temozolomide in the treatment of advanced neuroendocrine tumors.

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are understudied and have limited systemic treatment options. Prior studies for patients with advanced NETs have demonstrated promising results when antimetabolite agents, including fluoropyrimidines, were combined with temozolomide TMZ. TAS-102 (trifluridine/tipiracil) is an antineoplastic agent that is non-cross resistant with 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine and that has a different toxicity profile. This study evaluated the safety of TAS-102 in combination with TMZ in patients in neuroendocrine tumors. Escalating doses of TMZ (100, 150 and 200 mg/m2) on days 8-12 were given in combination with TAS-102 (35 mg/m2 twice a day) on days 1-5 and 8-12 of a 28 day cycle in subjects with advanced NETs. Primary endpoints were safety and determination of maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Growth factor support was mandated starting with level 2 to avoid treatment delays. Fifteen evaluable subjects were enrolled in the phase 1 study. No dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed on level 1. One DLT was observed on level 2 (grade 3 fatigue and inability to resume treatment), and 1 on level 3 (grade 4 thrombocytopenia). The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events included neutropenia (33%), lymphopenia (27%), and thrombocytopenia (27%). Disease control rate of 92% and partial response rate of 8% were observed in 13 evaluable subjects. This study established MTD of TAS-102 (35 mg/m2 twice daily) and TMZ (200 mg/m2 daily). This regimen was well tolerated. Early signs of clinically meaningful activity were observed. Further evaluation of the efficacy of this regimen is warranted.

Metastatic Bulk Independently Predicts Outcomes for EGFR Precision Targeting in Colorectal Cancer.

Background: Molecular profiles guide the clinical management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), particularly related to the use of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies. Tumor sidedness has also been implicated in resistance to these therapies, but has largely been studied in the first-line setting. We examined the role of tumor sidedness and disease bulk in predicting clinical outcomes to anti-EGFR therapy in the treatment-refractory setting. Methods: We identified a retrospective cohort of 62 patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC who received anti-EGFR therapy in the late-line setting. Response was assessed per RECIST 1.1, with bulky disease defined as any single lesion >35 mm in longest cross-sectional diameter or nodal short axis. Primary sidedness was defined in relation to the splenic flexure. Results: Patients with right-sided primary tumors at time of late-line EGFR therapy presented with increased tumor bulk and worsened overall survival (OS) relative to left-sided primary tumors. Tumor bulk, defined as either a categorical or continuous variable, predicted worsened progression-free survival (PFS) and OS, which persisted when controlling for differences in the primary tumor location. Within the right-sided cohort, no objective responses were observed for bulky disease or during treatment with anti-EGFR monotherapy. The nonbulky cohort experienced clinical benefit with anti-EGFR monotherapy, showing similar PFS and an improved response rate compared with sequential chemotherapy. Conclusions: In an effort to expand understanding of the role of primary sidedness in clinical response to anti-EGFR therapy, we identified sidedness and tumor bulk as potential predictive biomarkers of clinical response in late-line mCRC. Future prospective studies of EGFR targeting should consider tumor bulk in addition to molecular profiling in the identification of populations most likely to achieve meaningful clinical benefit.

Utilization and evaluation of noncore chemotherapy regimens within an academic medical center.

Uniformity of evidence-based chemotherapy prescribing using approved, standard, or "core" regimens provides systems-based safety. Noncore chemotherapy regimens are non-standard-of-care regimens requested by physicians on a patient-by-patient basis. Chemotherapy Council, a Pharmacy & Therapeutics subcommittee, assesses all requests and determines approval status based upon submitted evidence and patient-specific factors. This study's purpose is to describe noncore chemotherapy regimens utilization, efficacy, and clinical outcomes in patients receiving noncore chemotherapy regimens. This retrospective chart review includes a two-stage utilization and outcomes evaluation of patients receiving noncore chemotherapy regimens. Stage I, a demographics and utilization assessment of patients receiving noncore chemotherapy regimens, has data collection including patient age, sex, performance score, malignancy, and noncore chemotherapy regimen use justification. Stage II assesses noncore chemotherapy regimen-related, patient-specific outcomes of breast cancer noncore chemotherapy regimen patients. Breast cancer patients were evaluated on regimen and clinical outcomes including disease stage, regimen duration, discontinuation reason, subsequent chemotherapy, survival, and time from noncore chemotherapy regimen until death. Within stage I, 307 patient-specific noncore chemotherapy regimen requests were submitted. The most commonly submitted rationale was modification of a core regimen (33%), followed by patient-specific factors (29%) and salvage therapy (22%). For stage II, 29 breast cancer patients received a noncore chemotherapy regimen and most (54%) received a modified core regimen. The vast majority of noncore chemotherapy regimen discontinuation was due to either regimen completion (42%) or disease progression (42%). Nonelective hospitalizations (35%) and mortality (30%) were found during the median 13.3 months of follow up. Noncore chemotherapy regimen use provides regimen tailoring for patients who are candidates for further therapy, but nonelective hospitalizations, end-of-life chemotherapy, and mortality warrant further investigation to improve patient outcomes.

Effect of First-Line Chemotherapy Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab on Overall Survival in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Combining biologic monoclonal antibodies with chemotherapeutic cytotoxic drugs provides clinical benefit to patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, but the optimal choice of the initial biologic therapy in previously untreated patients is unknown. Objective: To determine if the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) regimen or the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen is superior as first-line therapy in advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type (wt) colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients (≥18 years) enrolled at community and academic centers throughout the National Clinical Trials Network in the United States and Canada (November 2005-March 2012) with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors were KRAS wt chose to take either the mFOLFOX6 regimen or the FOLFIRI regimen as chemotherapy and were randomized to receive either cetuximab (n = 578) or bevacizumab (n = 559). The last date of follow-up was December 15, 2015. Interventions: Cetuximab vs bevacizumab combined with either mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimen chosen by the treating physician and patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival and overall response rate, site-reported confirmed or unconfirmed complete or partial response. Results: Among 1137 patients (median age, 59 years; 440 [39%] women), 1074 (94%) of patients met eligibility criteria. As of December 15, 2015, median follow-up for 263 surviving patients was 47.4 months (range, 0-110.7 months), and 82% of patients (938 of 1137) experienced disease progression. The median overall survival was 30.0 months in the cetuximab-chemotherapy group and 29.0 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08). The median progression-free survival was 10.5 months in the cetuximab-chemotherapy group and 10.6 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified HR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Response rates were not significantly different, 59.6% vs 55.2% for cetuximab and bevacizumab, respectively (difference, 4.4%, 95% CI, 1.0%-9.0%, P = .13). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with KRAS wt untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to chemotherapy as initial biologic treatment. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00265850.

A Phase II Trial of a Histone Deacetylase Inhibitor Panobinostat in Patients With Low-Grade Neuroendocrine Tumors.

LESSONS LEARNED: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors versus carcinoid tumors should be examined separately in clinical trials.Progression-free survival is more clinically relevant as the primary endpoint (rather than response rate) in phase II trials for low-grade neuroendocrine tumors. BACKGROUND: The most common subtypes of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are pancreatic islet cell tumors and carcinoids, which represent only 2% of all gastrointestinal malignancies. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors have already been shown to suppress tumor growth and induce apoptosis in various malignancies. In NET cells, HDAC inhibitors have resulted in increased Notch1 expression and subsequent inhibition of growth. We present here a phase II study of the novel HDAC inhibitor panobinostat in patients with low-grade NET. METHODS: Adult patients with histologically confirmed, metastatic, low-grade NETs and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of ≤2 were treated with oral panobinostat 20 mg once daily three times per week. Treatment was continued until patients experienced unacceptable toxicities or disease progression. The study was stopped at planned interim analysis based on a Simon two-stage design. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were accrued, and 13 were evaluable for response. No responses were seen, but the stable disease rate was 100%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.9 months, and the median overall survival was 47.3 months. Fatigue (27%), thrombocytopenia (20%), diarrhea (13%), and nausea (13%) were the most common related grade 3 toxicities. There was one grade 4 thrombocytopenia (7%). These results did not meet the prespecified criteria to open the study to full accrual. CONCLUSION: The HDAC inhibitor panobinostat has a high stable disease rate and reasonable PFS in low-grade NET, but has a low response rate.

A phase I study of selumetinib (AZD6244/ARRY-142866), a MEK1/2 inhibitor, in combination with cetuximab in refractory solid tumors and KRAS mutant colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutations are clinically important predictors of resistance to EGFR-directed therapies in colorectal cancer (CRC). Oncogenic activation of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling cascade mediates proliferation independent of growth factor signaling. We hypothesized that targeting MEK with selumetinib could overcome resistance to cetuximab in KRAS mutant CRC. METHODS: A phase I study (NCT01287130) was undertaken to determine the tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profiles of the combination of selumetinib and cetuximab, with an expanded cohort in KRAS-mutant CRC. RESULTS: 15 patients were treated in the dose escalation cohort and 18 patients were treated in the expansion cohort. Two dose-limiting toxicities were observed. One grade 3 acneiform rash and one grade 4 hypomagnesemia occurred. The most common grade 1 and 2 adverse events included rash, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, and fatigue. The maximum tolerated dose was established at selumetinib 75 mg p.o. BID and cetuximab 250 mg/m(2) weekly following a 400 mg/m(2) load. Best clinical response in the dose escalation group included 1 unconfirmed partial response in a patient with CRC and stable disease (SD) in 5 patients (1 squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil, 1 non-small cell lung cancer, and 3 CRC), and in the KRAS-mutant CRC dose expansion cohort, of the 14 patients who were evaluable for response, 5 patients had SD and 9 patients had progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of selumetinib and cetuximab is safe and well tolerated. Minimal anti-tumor activity was observed in KRAS-mutant refractory metastatic CRC. Further investigations might be warranted in other cancer subtypes.

The Multidisciplinary Management of Colorectal Cancer: Present and Future Paradigms.

As treatment strategies for patients with colorectal cancer advance, there has now become an ever-increasing need for multidisciplinary teams to care for these patients. Recent investigations into the timing and duration of perioperative therapy, as well as, the rise of molecular profiling have led to more systemic chemotherapeutic options. The most efficacious use, in terms of timing and patient selection, of these therapies in the setting of modern operative and radiotherapy techniques requires the generation of care teams discussing cases at multidisciplinary conferences. This review highlights the role of multidisciplinary team conferences, advances in perioperative chemotherapy, current clinical biomarkers, and emerging therapeutic agents for molecular subtypes of metastatic colon cancer. As our understanding of relevant molecular subtypes increases and as data becomes available on treatment response, the treatment of colorectal cancer will become more precise and effective.

A multicenter phase 1 study of γ -secretase inhibitor RO4929097 in combination with capecitabine in refractory solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: RO4929097 is an oral inhibitor of γ -secretase that results in Notch signaling inhibition. Prior work has demonstrated that Notch signaling inhibition enhances chemotherapy sensitivity of cancer cells. This phase I study was conducted to determine maximum tolerated dose (MTD), toxicities and efficacy of RO4929097 and capecitabine in advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with refractory solid tumors received capecitabine at a fixed dose of 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily with escalating doses of RO4929097 on a 21-day cycle in a 3 + 3 design. Capecitabine was administered for 14 days and the RO49029097 once daily, 3 days per week, both for a 21 day cycle. RESULTS: Thirty patients were treated on six dose levels (20 to 150 mg). The maximally tolerated dose was not reached. One dose limiting toxicity was observed at each level 3 through 6 (hypophosphatemia, fatigue, and nausea/vomiting). Three confirmed partial responses were observed: two patients with fluoropyrimide-refractory colon cancer and one patient with cervical cancer. Autoinduction of RO4929097 was demonstrated with increasing dose levels and duration. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended phase 2 dose is capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily on days 1 through 14 with RO4929097 20 mg orally once daily on days 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 with a 21 day cycle. Clinical benefit was observed in cervical and colon cancer. Autoinduction of RO4929097 was seen both with increasing cycle number and increasing dose. Plasma concentrations of RO4929097 were above those needed for Notch inhibition.

A phase I study to determine the maximum tolerated dose and safety of oral LR-103 (1α,24(S)Dihydroxyvitamin D2) in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose and safety of LR-103, a Vitamin D analogue, in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: In Step A, patients received oral LR-103 once daily in 14-day cycles with intra-patient dose escalation per accelerated dose escalation design. Dose limiting toxicity for Step A was defined as ≥grade 2 hypercalcemia and/or >grade 2 other toxicities. Starting dose was 5 µg/day. Step B used a 3+3 design starting at Step A maximum tolerated dose with 28-day cycles. Dose limiting toxicity was defined as ≥grade 3 hypercalcemia or any grade 3 or 4 non-hematologic toxicity, except hypercalciuria. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled; eight were treated in Step A. At dose level 3 (15 µg/day), two patients had dose limiting toxicity. One had grade 4 hyperuricemia. The other had grade 4 GGT plus grade 3 alkaline phosphatase, fatigue and urinary tract infection (UTI). Dose level 2 (10 µg/day) was the maximum tolerated dose for Step A and was starting dose for Step B. The dose was escalated to dose level 5 (30 µg/day) with a patient experiencing grade 3 dose limiting toxicity of hypercalcemia. The study was discontinued before reaching the maximum tolerated dose due to sponsor decision. Modest increases in serum osteocalcin and calcium and decrease in parathyroid hormone were noted. Best response was stable disease; four patients were on therapy for six months or longer. CONCLUSION: Step A dose limiting toxicities limited accelerated dose escalation. The maximum tolerated dose of LR-103 was not reached prior to study termination and this agent is no longer being developed.

A phase I study of sorafenib, oxaliplatin and 2 days of high dose capecitabine in advanced pancreatic and biliary tract cancer: a Wisconsin oncology network study.

Chemotherapy has yielded minimal clinical benefit in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer. A high-dose, short course capecitabine schedule with oxaliplatin, has shown some efficacy with a lower incidence of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. Achieving high exposures of the targeted agent sorafenib may be possible with this shorter schedule of capecitabine by avoiding dermatologic toxicity. All patients had pancreatic or biliary tract cancer. Patients in both cohorts received oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 followed by capecitabine 2,250 mg/m2 PO every 8 h x 6 doses starting on days 1 and 15 of a 28 day cycle, or 2DOC (2 Day Oxaliplatin/Capecitabine). Cohort 1 used sorafenib 200 mg BID, and cohort 2 used sorafenib 400 mg BID. Sixteen patients were enrolled. Across all cycles the most common grade 1 or 2 adverse events were fatigue (10 pts), diarrhea (10 pts), nausea (9 pts), vomiting (8 pts), sensory neuropathy (8 pts), thrombocytopenia (7 pts), neutropenia (5 pts), and hand-foot syndrome (5 pts). Grade 3 toxicites included neutropenia, mucositis, fatigue, vomiting and diarrhea. Cohort 1 represented the MTD. Two partial responses were seen, one each in pancreatic and biliary tract cancers. The recommended phase II dose of sorafenib in combination with 2DOC is 200 mg BID. There were infrequent grade 3 toxicities, most evident with sorafenib at 400 mg BID.

Supporting Structured Data Capture for Patients With Cancer: An Initiative of the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center Survivorship Program to Improve Capture of Malignant Diagnosis and Cancer Staging Data.

PURPOSE: Structured data elements within electronic health records are health-related information that can be entered, stored, and extracted in an organized manner at later time points. Tracking outcomes for cancer survivors is also enabled by structured data. We sought to increase structured data capture within oncology practices at multiple sites sharing the same electronic health records. METHODS: Applying engineering approaches and the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, we launched dual quality improvement initiatives to ensure that a malignant diagnosis and stage were captured as structured data. Intervention: Close Visit Validation (CVV) requires providers to satisfy certain criteria before closing ambulatory encounters. CVV may be used to track open clinical encounters and chart delinquencies to encourage optimal clinical workflows. We added two cancer-specific required criteria at the time of closing encounters in oncology clinics: (1) the presence of at least one malignant diagnosis on the Problem List and (2) staging all the malignant diagnoses on the Problem List when appropriate. RESULTS: Six months before the CVV implementation, the percentage of encounters with a malignant diagnosis on the Problem List at the time of the encounter was 65%, whereas the percentage of encounters with a staged diagnosis was 32%. Three months after cancer-specific CVV implementation, the percentages were 85% and 75%, respectively. Rates had increased to 90% and 88% more than 2 years after implementation. CONCLUSION: Oncologist performance improved after the implementation of cancer-specific CVV criteria, with persistently high percentages of relevant malignant diagnoses and cancer stage structured data capture 2 years after the intervention.

Measuring Advanced Practice Provider Productivity at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Member Institutions.

Introduction: The utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs) in oncology has been growing over the last decade; however, there is no standard method for assessing an APP's contributions to oncology care. Methods: The NCCN Best Practices Committee (BPC) created an APP Workgroup to develop recommendations to support the roles of APPs at NCCN Member Institutions. The Workgroup conducted surveys to understand how NCCN centers measure productivity. This article will review the survey results and provide recommendations for measuring APP productivity. Results: Although 54% of responding centers indicated they utilize relative value units (RVU) targets for independent APP visits, 88% of APPs are either unsure or do not believe RVUs are an effective measurement of overall productivity. Relative value units do not reflect non-billable hours, and APPs perform a significant number of non-billable tasks that are important to oncology practices. Sixty-six percent of APPs believe that measuring disease-based team productivity is a more reasonable assessment of APP productivity than measuring productivity at the individual level. Conclusion: Our recommendation for cancer centers is to focus on the value that APPs provide to overall care delivery. Advanced practice provider productivity metrics should consider not only the number of patients seen by APPs, but also the high quality and thorough care delivered that contributes to the overall care of the patient and practice. Advanced practice providers can help improve access to care, deliver improved outcomes, and increase patient and provider satisfaction. Reducing the focus on RVUs, accounting for important non-RVU-generating activities, and incorporating quality and team metrics will provide a better overall picture of APP productivity.

A pilot phase II study of valproic acid for treatment of low-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Notch1 has been shown to be a tumor suppressor in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Previous in vitro studies in NET cell lines have also suggested that valproic acid (VPA), a histone deacetylase inhibitor, can induce Notch1 and that Notch1 activation correlates with a decrease in tumor markers for NETs. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the role of VPA in treating NETs and to determine whether VPA induced the Notch signaling pathway signaling in vivo. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight patients with low-grade NETs (carcinoid and pancreatic) were treated with 500 mg of oral VPA twice a day with dosing adjusted to maintain a goal VPA level between 50 and 100 µg/mL. All patients were followed for 12 months or until disease progression. RESULTS: Notch1 signaling was absent in all tumors prior to treatment and was upregulated with VPA. One patient had an unconfirmed partial response and was noted to have a 40-fold increase in Notch1 mRNA levels. Four patients had stable disease as best response. Tumor markers improved in 5 out of 7 patients. Overall, treatment with VPA was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: . VPA activates Notch1 signaling in vivo and may have a role in treating low-grade NETs.

A preclinical and clinical study of lithium in low-grade neuroendocrine tumors.

BACKGROUND: Low-grade neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) respond poorly to chemotherapy; effective, less toxic therapies are needed. Glycogen synthase kinase (GSK)-3ß has been shown to regulate growth and hormone production in NETs. Use of lithium chloride in murine models suppressed carcinoid cell growth, reduced GSK-3ß levels, and reduced expression of chromogranin A. This study assessed the efficacy of lithium chloride in patients with NETs. DESIGN: Eligible patients had low-grade NETs. A single-arm, open-label phase II design was used. Lithium was dosed at 300 mg orally three times daily, titrated to serum levels of 0.8-1.0 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was objective tumor response by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, progression-free survival, GSK-3ß phosphorylation, and toxicity. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were enrolled between October 3, 2007 and July 17, 2008, six men and nine women. The median age was 58 years. Patient diagnoses were carcinoid tumor for eight patients, islet cell tumor for five patients, and two unknown primary sites. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores were 0 or 1. Two patients came off study because of side effects. The median progression-free survival interval was 4.50 months. There were no radiographic responses. Because of an early stopping rule requiring at least one objective response in the first 13 evaluable patients, the study was closed to further accrual. Patients had pre- and post-therapy biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Lithium chloride was ineffective at obtaining radiographic responses in our 13 patients who were treated as part of this study. Based on the pre- and post-treatment tumor biopsies, lithium did not potently inhibit GSK-3ß at serum levels used to treat bipolar disorders.

A Study of Advanced Practice Provider Staffing Models and Professional Development Opportunities at National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions.

INTRODUCTION: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Best Practices Committee created an Advanced Practice Provider (APP) Workgroup to develop recommendations to support APP roles at NCCN Member Institutions. METHODS: The Workgroup conducted three surveys to understand APP program structure, staffing models, and professional development opportunities at NCCN Member Institutions. RESULTS: The total number of new and follow-up visits a 1.0 APP full-time equivalent conducts per week in shared and independent visits ranged from 11 to 97, with an average of 40 visits per week (n = 39). The type of visits APPs conduct include follow-up shared (47.2%), follow-up independent (46%), new shared (6.5%), and new independent visits (0.5%). Seventy-two percent of respondents utilize a mixed model visit type, with 15% utilizing only independent visits and 13% utilizing only shared visits (n = 39). Of the 95% of centers with APP leads, 100% indicated that leads carry administrative and clinical responsibilities (n = 20); however, results varied with respect to how this time is allocated. Professional development opportunities offered included posters, papers, and presentations (84%), leadership development (57%), research opportunities (52%), writing book chapters (19%), and other professional development activities (12%; n = 422). Twenty percent of APPs indicated that protected time to engage in development opportunities should be offered. CONCLUSION: As evidenced by the variability of the survey results, the field would benefit from developing standards for APPs. There is a lack of information regarding leadership structures to help support APPs, and additional research is needed. Additionally, centers should continuously assess the career-long opportunities needed to maximize the value of oncology APPs.

A Phase 1 Dose Escalation Study of Neoadjuvant SBRT Plus Elective Nodal Radiation with Concurrent Capecitabine for Resectable Pancreatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: The role of neoadjuvant radiation for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma is controversial. We performed a prospective dose-escalation study of neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) with concurrent capecitabine and elective nodal irradiation (ENI) followed by surgical resection to explore the toxicity and feasibility of this approach. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with biopsy proven, resectable cancers of the pancreatic head were enrolled. A 4 + 4 dose-escalation design was employed delivering 5 fractions of 5 to 7 Gy to primary tumor with concurrent capecitabine. The maximum tolerated dose level was expanded for an additional 4 patients. Patients at all dose levels were treated with ENI delivering 25 Gy in 5 fractions. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined as any grade ≥3 nonhematologic toxicity (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0) attributable to chemoradiation occurring within 90 days of SBRT. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients were enrolled with 16 patients evaluable and 13 patients ultimately proceeding to surgery. The most common toxicity was nausea (56%). There were no dose-limiting toxicities, and SBRT was maximally dose escalated to 35 Gy in 5 fractions for 8 patients. All patients completing surgery had R0 resections. Seven patients (54%) had moderate treatment effect identified in pathologic specimens. Three patients (23%) developed locoregional recurrences, with 2 (15%) partially included within the treated volume. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT was safely dose escalated to 35 Gy in 5 fractions along with concurrent capecitabine and ENI. This regimen will be used in a future expansion cohort.

Microwave ablation for colorectal cancer metastasis to the liver: a single-center retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety and intermediate-term efficacy of percutaneous microwave (MW) ablation for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) at a single institution. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all CRLM treated with MW ablation from 3/2011 to 7/2020 (102 tumors; 72 procedures; 57 patients). Mean age was 60 years (range, 36-88) and mean tumor size was 1.8 cm (range, 0.5-5.0 cm). The patient population included 19 patients with extra-hepatic disease. Chemotherapy (pre- and/or post-ablation) was given in 98% of patients. Forty-five sessions were preceded by other focal CRLM treatments including resection, ablation, radiation, and radioembolization. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate local tumor progression-free survival (LTPFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) and multivariate analysis (Cox Proportional Hazards model) was used to test predictors of OS. RESULTS: Technical success (complete ablation) was 100% and median follow-up was 42 months (range, 1-112). There was a 4% major complication rate and an overall complication rate of 8%. Local tumor progression (LTP) rate during the entire study period was 4/98 (4%), in which 2 were retreated with MW ablation for a secondary LTP-rate of 2%. LTP-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 93%, 58%, and 39% and median LTP-free survival was 48 months. OS at 1, 3, and 5 years was 96%, 66%, 47% and median OS was 52 months. There were no statistically significant predictors of OS. CONCLUSIONS: MW ablation of hepatic colorectal liver metastases appears safe with excellent local tumor control and prolonged survival compared to historical controls in selected patients. Further comparative studies with other local treatment strategies appear indicated.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network Infusion Efficiency Workgroup Study: Optimizing Patient Flow in Infusion Centers.

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) formed an Infusion Efficiency Workgroup to determine best practices for operating efficient and effective infusion centers. METHODS: The Workgroup conducted three surveys that were distributed to NCCN member institutions regarding average patient wait time, chemotherapy premixing practices, infusion chair use, and premedication protocols. To assess chair use, the Workgroup identified and defined five components of chair time. RESULTS: The average patient wait time in infusion centers ranged from 25 to 102 minutes (n = 23; mean, 58 minutes). Five of 26 cancer centers (19%) routinely mix chemotherapy drugs before patient arrival for patients meeting specified criteria. Total planned chair time for subsequent doses of the same drug regimens for the same diseases varied greatly among centers, as follows: Administration of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide ranged from 85 to 240 minutes (n = 22); of FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplation) ranged from 270 to 420 minutes (n = 22); of rituximab ranged from 120 to 350 minutes (n = 21); of paclitaxel plus carboplatin ranged from 255 to 380 minutes (n = 21); and of zoledronic acid ranged from 30 to 150 minutes (n = 22) for planned total chair time. Cancer centers were found to use different premedication regimens with varying administration routes that ranged in administration times from zero to 60 minutes. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of variation among cancer centers in regard to planned chair time for the same chemotherapy regimens, providing opportunities for improved efficiency, increased revenue, and more standardization across centers. The NCCN Workgroup demonstrates potential revenue impact and provides recommendations for cancer centers to move toward more efficient and more standard practices.