Advancing a comprehensive cancer care agenda for children and their families: Institute of Medicine Workshop highlights and next steps.

This article highlights key findings from the "Comprehensive Cancer Care for Children and Their Families" March 2015 joint workshop by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the American Cancer Society. This initiative convened more than 100 family members, clinician investigators, advocates, and members of the public to discuss emerging evidence and care models and to determine the next steps for optimizing quality-of-life outcomes and well-being for children and families during pediatric cancer treatment, after treatment completion, and across the life spectrum. Participants affirmed the triple aim of pediatric oncology that strives for every child with cancer to be cured; provides high-quality palliative and psychosocial supportive, restorative, and rehabilitative care to children and families throughout the illness course and survivorship; and assures receipt of high-quality end-of-life care for patients with advancing disease. Workshop outcomes emphasized the need for new pediatric cancer drug development and identified critical opportunities to prioritize palliative care and psychosocial support as an integral part of pediatric cancer research and treatment, including the necessity for adequately resourcing these supportive services to minimize suffering and distress, effectively address quality-of-life needs for children and families at all stages of illness, and mitigate the long-term health risks associated with childhood cancer and its treatment. Next steps include dismantling existing silos and enhancing collaboration between clinical investigators, disease-directed specialists, and supportive care services; expanding the use of patient-reported and parent-reported outcomes; effectively integrating palliative and psychosocial care; and clinical communication skills development. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:398-407. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Projected Costs of Informal Caregiving for Cardiovascular Disease: 2015 to 2035: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.

INTRODUCTION: In a recent report, the American Heart Association estimated that medical costs and productivity losses of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are expected to grow from $555 billion in 2015 to $1.1 trillion in 2035. Although the burden is significant, the estimate does not include the costs of family, informal, or unpaid caregiving provided to patients with CVD. In this analysis, we estimated projections of costs of informal caregiving attributable to CVD for 2015 to 2035. METHODS: We used data from the 2014 Health and Retirement Survey to estimate hours of informal caregiving for individuals with CVD by age/sex/race using a zero-inflated binomial model and controlling for sociodemographic factors and health conditions. Costs of informal caregiving were estimated separately for hypertension, coronary heart disease, heart failure, stroke, and other heart disease. We analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of 16 731 noninstitutionalized adults ≥54 years of age. The value of caregiving hours was monetized by the use of home health aide workers' wages. The per-person costs were multiplied by census population counts to estimate nation-level costs and to be consistent with other American Heart Association analyses of burden of CVD, and the costs were projected from 2015 through 2035, assuming that within each age/sex/racial group, CVD prevalence and caregiving hours remain constant. RESULTS: The costs of informal caregiving for patients with CVD were estimated to be $61 billion in 2015 and are projected to increase to $128 billion in 2035. Costs of informal caregiving of patients with stroke constitute more than half of the total costs of CVD informal caregiving ($31 billion in 2015 and $66 billion in 2035). By age, costs are the highest among those 65 to 79 years of age in 2015 but are expected to be surpassed by costs among those ≥80 years of age by 2035. Costs of informal caregiving for patients with CVD represent an additional 11% of medical and productivity costs attributable to CVD. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of informal caregiving for patients with CVD is significant; accounting for these costs increases total CVD costs to $616 billion in 2015 and $1.2 trillion in 2035. These estimates have important research and policy implications, and they may be used to guide policy development to reduce the burden of CVD on patients and their caregivers.

Stakeholder perspectives on addressing adverse events from adjuvant cancer therapy: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: With increasing survival rates, a growing population of patients with cancer have received or will receive adjuvant therapy to prevent cancer recurrences. Patients and caregivers will confront the complexities of balancing the preventative benefits of adjuvant therapy with possible near-term or long-term adverse events (AEs). Adjuvant treatment-related AEs (from minimal to severe) can impact therapeutic adherence, quality of life, emotional and physical health, and survival. However, to the authors' knowledge, limited information is available regarding how stakeholders use or desire to use adjuvant-related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer. METHODS: A qualitative, purposeful sampling approach was used to elicit stakeholder feedback via semistructured interviews (24 interviews). Drug development, drug regulatory, clinical, payer, and patient/patient advocacy stakeholders were questioned about the generation, dissemination, and use of adjuvant treatment-related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer. Transcripts were coded independently by 2 senior health care researchers and reconciled to identify key themes. RESULTS: All stakeholder groups in the current study identified needed improvements in each of the following 4 areas: 1) improving the accessibility and relevance of AE-related information; 2) better integrating and implementing available information regarding AEs for decisions; 3) connecting contemporary cultural and economic value systems to the generation and use of information regarding adjuvant treatment-related AEs; and 4) addressing a lack of alignment and ownership of stakeholder efforts to improve the use of AE information in the adjuvant setting. CONCLUSIONS: Despite commonalities in the overall needs identified by the diverse stakeholders in the current study, broad systemic change has been stymied. The current study identified the lack of alignment and the absence of a central "owner" of these diffuse efforts as a previously unrecognized hurdle to realizing the desired systemic improvements. Future initiatives aimed at improving quality of life and outcomes for patients receiving adjuvant therapy through the improved use of AE information must address this challenge through innovative collectives and novel leadership strategies.

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012.

Although there has been considerable progress in reducing cancer incidence in the United States, the number of cancer survivors continues to increase due to the aging and growth of the population and improvements in survival rates. As a result, it is increasingly important to understand the unique medical and psychosocial needs of survivors and be aware of resources that can assist patients, caregivers, and health care providers in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship. To highlight the challenges and opportunities to serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute estimated the prevalence of cancer survivors on January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2022, by cancer site. Data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries were used to describe median age and stage at diagnosis and survival; data from the National Cancer Data Base and the SEER-Medicare Database were used to describe patterns of cancer treatment. An estimated 13.7 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2012, and by January 1, 2022, that number will increase to nearly 18 million. The 3 most prevalent cancers among males are prostate (43%), colorectal (9%), and melanoma of the skin (7%), and those among females are breast (41%), uterine corpus (8%), and colorectal (8%). This article summarizes common cancer treatments, survival rates, and posttreatment concerns and introduces the new National Cancer Survivorship Resource Center, which has engaged more than 100 volunteer survivorship experts nationwide to develop tools for cancer survivors, caregivers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers.

Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care: critical components in the delivery of high-quality oncology services.

Palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are important collaborative referral sources for each other who can work together to improve the lives of cancer patients, survivors, and caregivers by improving both quality of care and quality of life. Cancer rehabilitation and palliative care involve the delivery of important but underutilized medical services to oncology patients by interdisciplinary teams. These subspecialties are similar in many respects, including their focus on improving cancer-related symptoms or cancer treatment-related side effects, improving health-related quality of life, lessening caregiver burden, and valuing patient-centered care and shared decision-making. They also aim to improve healthcare efficiencies and minimize costs by means such as reducing hospital lengths of stay and unanticipated readmissions. Although their goals are often aligned, different specialized skills and approaches are used in the delivery of care. For example, while each specialty prioritizes goal-concordant care through identification of patient and family preferences and values, palliative care teams typically focus extensively on using patient and family communication to determine their goals of care, while also tending to comfort issues such as symptom management and spiritual concerns. Rehabilitation clinicians may tend to focus more specifically on functional issues such as identifying and treating deficits in physical, psychological, or cognitive impairments and any resulting disability and negative impact on quality of life. Additionally, although palliative care and rehabilitation practitioners are trained to diagnose and treat medically complex patients, rehabilitation clinicians also treat many patients with a single impairment and a low symptom burden. In these cases, the goal is often cure of the underlying neurologic or musculoskeletal condition. This report defines and describes cancer rehabilitation and palliative care, delineates their respective roles in comprehensive oncology care, and highlights how these services can contribute complementary components of essential quality care. An understanding of how cancer rehabilitation and palliative care are aligned in goal setting, but distinct in approach may help facilitate earlier integration of both into the oncology care continuum-supporting efforts to improve physical, psychological, cognitive, functional, and quality of life outcomes in patients and survivors.

Parent Priorities in End-of-Life Care for Children With Cancer.

Importance: Robust quality measures to benchmark end-of-life care for children with cancer do not currently exist; 28 candidate patient-centered quality measures were previously developed. Objective: To prioritize quality measures among parents who lost a child to cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study was conducted using an electronic, cross-sectional discrete choice experiment (DCE) with maximum difference scaling from January to June 2021 in the US. In each of 21 questions in the DCE, participants were presented with a set of 4 quality measures and were asked to select the most and least important measures within each set. All 28 quality measures were presented an equal number of times in different permutations. In the volunteer sample, 69 eligible bereaved parents enrolled in the study; 61 parents completed the DCE (participation rate, 88.4%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Using choices participants made, a hierarchical bayesian multinomial logistic regression was fit to derive mean importance scores with 95% credible intervals (95% Crs) for each quality measure, representing the overall probability of a quality measure being selected as most important. Importance scores were rescaled proportionally from 0 to 100, with the sum of scores for all quality measures adding up to 100. This enabled interpretation of scores as the relative importance of quality measures. Results: Participants included 61 bereaved parents (median [range] age, 48 [24-74] years; 55 individuals self-identified as women [90.2%]; 1 American Indian or Alaska Native [1.6%], 1 Asian [1.6%], 2 Black or African American [3.3%], 1 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 58 White [91.8%]; 58 not Hispanic or Latinx [95.1%]). Highest-priority quality measures by mean importance score included having a child's symptoms treated well (9.25 [95% Cr, 9.06-9.45]), feeling that a child's needs were heard by the health care team (8.39 [95% Cr, 8.05-8.73]), and having a goal-concordant end-of-life experience (7.45 [95% Cr, 6.84-8.05]). Lowest-priority quality measures included avoiding chemotherapy (0.33 [95% Cr, 0.21-0.45]), provision of psychosocial support for parents (1.01 [95% Cr, 0.57-1.45]), and avoiding the intensive care unit (1.09 [95% Cr, 0.74-1.43]). Rank-ordering measures by mean importance revealed that symptom management was 9 times more important to parents than psychosocial support for themselves. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that bereaved parents prioritized end-of-life quality measures focused on symptom management and goal-concordant care while characterizing quality measures assessing their own psychosocial support and their child's hospital resource use as substantially less important. These findings suggest that future research should explore innovative strategies to measure care attributes that matter most to families of children with advanced cancer.

Physician Workforce Disparities and Patient Care: A Narrative Review.

Background: Ensuring the strength of the physician workforce is essential to optimizing patient care. Challenges that undermine the profession include inequities in advancement, high levels of burnout, reduced career duration, and elevated risk for mental health problems, including suicide. This narrative review explores whether physicians within four subpopulations represented in the workforce at levels lower than predicted from their numbers in the general population-women, racial and ethnic minorities in medicine, sexual and gender minorities, and people with disabilities-are at elevated risk for these problems, and if present, how these problems might be addressed to support patient care. In essence, the underlying question this narrative review explores is as follows: Do physician workforce disparities affect patient care? While numerous articles and high-profile reports have examined the relationship between workforce diversity and patient care, to our knowledge, this is the first review to examine the important relationship between diversity-related workforce disparities and patient care. Methods: Five databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and EBSCO Discovery Service) were searched by a librarian. Additional resources were included by authors, as deemed relevant to the investigation. Results: The initial database searches identified 440 potentially relevant articles. Articles were categorized according to subtopics, including (1) underrepresented physicians and support for vulnerable patient populations; (2) factors that could exacerbate the projected physician deficit; (3) methods of addressing disparities among underrepresented physicians to support patient care; or (4) excluded (n=155). The authors identified another 220 potentially relevant articles. Of 505 potentially relevant articles, 199 (39.4%) were included in this review. Conclusions: This report demonstrates an important gap in the literature regarding the impact of physician workforce disparities and their effect on patient care. This is a critical public health issue and should be urgently addressed in future research and considered in clinical practice and policy decision-making.

Do current approaches to assessing therapy related adverse events align with the needs of long-term cancer patients and survivors?

The increasing efficacy of cancer therapeutics means that the timespan of cancer therapy administration is undergoing a transition to increasingly long-term settings. Unfortunately, chronic therapy-related adverse health events are an unintended, but not infrequent, outcome of these life-saving therapies. Historically, the cardio-oncology field has evolved as retrospective effort to understand the scope, mechanisms, and impact of treatment-related toxicities that were already impacting patients. This review explores whether current systemic approaches to detecting, reporting, tracking, and communicating AEs are better positioned to provide more proactive or concurrent information to mitigate the impact of AE's on patient health and quality of life. Because the existing tools and frameworks for capturing these effects are not specific to cardiology, this study looks broadly at the landscape of approaches and assumptions. This review finds evidence of increasing focus on the provision of actionable information to support long-term health and quality of life for survivors and those on chronic therapy. However, the current means to assess and support the impact of this burden on patients and the healthcare system are often of limited relevance for an increasingly long-lived survivor and patient population.

Enhancing quality of life as a goal for anticancer therapeutics.

Translational cancer research requires a quality-of-life-driven agenda.

Palliative care: a lifeline to quality of life.

ASCO's Provisional Clinical Opinion offers the opportunity to bring clinicians a significant step forward in delivering truly patient-centered, family-focused care that can make a difference.

Reducing the toxicity of cancer therapy: recognizing needs, taking action.

Our understanding of the biology of cancer and the application of this knowledge to cancer treatment has greatly outpaced what we know of the biology underlying the symptoms and toxic effects that therapies produce. These adverse effects of therapy cause substantial discomfort and distress to patients and their families, limit treatment tolerability and can persist indefinitely in post-treatment survivorship. Despite these concerns, little research effort is targeted at documenting the nature of these effects. Similarly, limited efforts are being made in the drug-development arena to identify or develop treatments that might prevent or reduce toxicities. A panel of clinicians and researchers as well as representatives from advocacy groups, federal agencies and the pharmaceutical industry was convened to identify gaps in cancer treatment toxicity research and to provide direction for future action. With an emphasis on coordinating multidisciplinary efforts, this panel has presented a strategy to increase funding for the field and develop a coherent research agenda.

Regulatory barriers for adequate pain control.

In 1961 the "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" was adopted by the United Nations to explicitly address the need for narcotic drugs to curtail suffering and keep the distribution of these drugs in the control of health professionals. Fifty years later, neither goal has been reached for a variety of reasons. Governments have avoided putting in place systems to assure adequate supplies to relieve the suffering of those with severe pain, drug enforcement agencies maintain restrictive regulations and physicians are intimidated by threats of legal action if their prescribing patterns do not conform to arbitrary standards. There is a shortage of pain control consultants and the training for most health care providers is deficient when it comes to the management of chronic pain. Some of the regulatory barriers have been successfully addressed through advocacy efforts and the expertise deficiencies improved through targeted educational programs.