Perceived Barriers Toward Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation in Cancer Care: An International Scoping Survey.

PURPOSE: Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables. RESULTS: Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P = .02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P = .06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P = .08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P < .001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P < .001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P < .001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams.

Association of tobacco exposure with demographic and clinicopathological factors in patients of oral squamous cell carcinoma - A single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Almost a third of the global load of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) occurs in India and can be attributed to the widespread use of tobacco and tobacco-related products in this part of the sub-continent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 274 patients of OSCC treated between January 2018 and December 2019 in our institute were analyzed for the study for history of tobacco abuse and distribution of associated demographic, clinical, and pathological factors. RESULTS: The age of the patients in the study ranged from 31 to 82 years with a median age of 60 years. The ratio of oral cancer in males: females was 3:1. Exposure to tobacco was seen in the majority of patients (89%) who reported with oral carcinoma. Smokeless tobacco in the form of gutka was the most common abused tobacco, followed by bidi in our study. Tongue and buccal mucosa (38% and 36%, respectively) were the most common sites. Significant statistical correlation of tobacco use was seen with age, gender, clinical, and pathological tumor stages. CONCLUSION: With tobacco being the main cause of OSCC, further studies with a larger number of patients and preferably with a comparison arm of non-tobacco OSCC would help in elucidating the exact clinical and statistical correlation of tobacco with the clinicopathological factors.

Epidemiology of cancer in adolescents and young adults from a tertiary care hospital in Southern India.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze cancer pattern among adolescents and young adults (AYA) in a tertiary care center in South India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken from January 2018 to December 2021 on AYA cancer patients (aged 15-39 years). RESULTS: Totally, 369 cases of AYA cancers were identified for analyzing the frequency and pattern of cancer distribution. The most common cancers were breast cancer, thyroid cancer, and astrocytoma. All the cancers were more common in males than in females, except for breast, thyroid, gonadal cancers, and unspecified malignant neoplasms. CONCLUSION: Cancer distribution patterns are distinct among AYA in terms of epidemiology and biology.

Exercise counselling and referral in cancer care: an international scoping survey of health care practitioners' knowledge, practices, barriers, and facilitators.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports the role of prescribed exercise for cancer survivors, yet few are advised to exercise by a healthcare practitioner (HCP). We sought to investigate the gap between HCPs' knowledge and practice from an international perspective. METHODS: An online questionnaire was administered to HCPs working in cancer care between February 2020 and February 2021. The questionnaire assessed knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding exercise counselling and referral of cancer survivors to exercise programs. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 375 participants classified as medical practitioners (42%), nurses (28%), exercise specialists (14%), and non-exercise allied health practitioners (16%). Between 35 and 50% of participants self-reported poor knowledge of when, how, and which cancer survivors to refer to exercise programs or professionals, and how to counsel based on exercise guidelines. Commonly reported barriers to exercise counselling were safety concerns, time constraints, cancer survivors being told to rest by friends and family, and not knowing how to screen people for suitability to exercise (40-48%). Multivariable logistic regression models including age, gender, practitioner group, leisure-time physical activity, and recall of guidelines found significant effects for providing specific exercise advice (χ2(7) = 117.31, p < .001), discussing the role of exercise in symptom management (χ2(7) = 65.13, p < .001) and cancer outcomes (χ2(7) = 58.69, p < .001), and referring cancer survivors to an exercise program or specialist (χ2(7) = 72.76, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Additional education and practical support are needed to equip HCPs to provide cancer survivors with exercise guidelines, resources, and referrals to exercise specialists.

The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners.

BACKGROUND: There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners' experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care. METHODS: Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings. RESULTS: In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia-Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as "high frequency users" who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P < .0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P = .006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P = .001) as an implementation barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care.

A clinico-epidemiological, pathological, and molecular study of lung cancer in Northwestern India.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the most common malignant disease and is the topmost cause of cancer deaths in the world across all age groups and in both sexes. It is the most common cause of cancer deaths in developed countries and is also rising at an alarming rate in the developing countries. OBJECTIVE: The present study was undertaken to explore the clinicopathological and molecular profile of bronchogenic carcinoma in northwestern population of India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 136 consecutive patients with histologically proven bronchogenic carcinoma, registered between May 2014 and April 2016 at a tertiary care hospital in New Delhi, India, were analyzed. RESULTS: Out of a total of 136 diagnosed cases, 6% were in the third to fourth decade of life, 49% in the fifth to sixth decade, and 45% in the seventh decade and above. Seventy-one percent of patients were male. Smoking was the major risk factor in 65.40% of patients. About 33% of female patients were smokers with a significant overlap in the use of smoking objects. Twenty-one percent of patients had been initially empirically treated with antitubercular therapy. Most common symptoms at presentation were cough, dyspnea, weight loss, and chest pain. Pleural effusion, paraneoplastic phenomenon, clubbing, peripheral lymphadenopathy, and Pancoast syndrome were the major signs at presentation. Twenty-one percent of nonsmokers and 40% of smoker patients presented with ECOG Performance Status 3 or 4. Ninety-three percent of patients presented in stage III or IV. Metastases to skeleton, brain, liver, pleura, adrenals, lung, and distant lymph nodes were present in 30.8%, 16.9%, 15.4%, 15.4%, 14.7%, 13.2%, and 11.8%, respectively. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy was found to be the most efficient diagnostic procedure as compared to transthoracic and thoracoscopic methods. Histologically, squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, and small cell carcinoma and its variants were seen in 35.30%, 44.9%, and 15.40% cases, respectively. Nearly 4.4% of patients were diagnosed as poorly differentiated carcinoma. Driver mutations (epidermal growth factor receptor or anaplastic lymphoma kinase) were detected in 48% (25 of 52 tested) of adenocarcinomas and 55.55% (5 of 9 tested) of young, nonsmoker, female squamous cell carcinoma patients. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that the adenocarcinoma incidence is surpassing squamous cell carcinoma in Indian lung cancer patients also, as observed in Western population. Mean age at diagnosis is about one decade earlier than in the Western population. Driver mutations are more common in India than in the West as also reported in other Asian studies.

Rare cancers in India: A road less travelled.

Globally, rare cancers as a group are commoner than any single common cancer. They represent an unmet medical need, and this issue gets further amplified in India due to various reasons, including the limited accessibility of healthcare system to the population at large. The scarce available data yet only represents the tip of the iceberg, due to poor registration and incomplete medical cover. Rare cancers, as a consequence, are driven further away from attention of the policy.makers and financial authorities. Poor research prospectives and lesser administrative support restrict the research in this field. There is an urgent need for initiating studies exclusively on rare cancers in India, considering their prevalence and deprived management, as many countries are already pursuing work in this field. All such inadequacies ultimately affect the patient outcomes. In this review, after discussing these aspects, we suggest a stepwise approach to improve the care of rare cancers in India.