Implementation Barriers and Recommendations for a Multisite Community Health Worker Intervention in Palliative Care for African American Oncology Patients: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Palliative care remains underutilized by African American patients with advanced cancer. Community health workers (CHWs) may help improve palliative care outcomes among this patient population. Objectives: To explore barriers to success of a proposed CHW intervention and synthesize design and implementation recommendations to both optimize our intervention and inform others working to alleviate palliative care disparities. Design: Semi-structured qualitative interviews. Setting/Subjects: Key informants were health care professionals across clinical, leadership, and community health fields. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling from Baltimore, Maryland; Birmingham, Alabama; and Salisbury, Maryland. Measurements: Interviewers used an interview guide grounded in established implementation science models. Data were analyzed through a combined abductive/deductive approach by independent coders. A framework methodology was used to facilitate thematic analysis. Results: In total, 25 professionals completed an interview. Key informants discussed multiple barriers, including at the patient level (lack of knowledge), clinician and facility level (decreased workflow efficiency), and health system level (limited funding). Recommendations related to the intervention's design included high quality preintervention CHW training and full integration of CHWs into the care team to "bridge" divides between outpatient, inpatient, and at-home settings. Intervention delivery recommendations included clearly defining care team roles and balancing flexibility and standardization in CHW support approaches. These recommendations were then used to adapt the planned intervention and its implementation process. Conclusions: Clinicians, cancer center leaders, and CHWs identified multilevel potential barriers to the intervention's success but also described recommendations that may mitigate these barriers. Key informant input represents an important step prior to initiating CHW-based interventions.

Dissemination and Implementation of a Community Health Worker Intervention for Disparities in Palliative Care (DeCIDE PC): a study protocol for a hybrid type 1 randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are persistent racial and ethnic health disparities in end-of-life health outcomes in the United States. African American patients are less likely than White patients to access palliative care, enroll in hospice care, have documented goals of care discussions with their healthcare providers, receive adequate symptom control, or die at home. We developed Community Health Worker Intervention for Disparities in Palliative Care (DeCIDE PC) to address these disparities. DeCIDE PC is an integrated community health worker (CHW) palliative care intervention that uses community health workers (CHWs) as care team members to enhance the receipt of palliative care for African Americans with advanced cancer. The overall objectives of this study are to (1) assess the effectiveness of the DeCIDE PC intervention in improving palliative care outcomes amongst African American patients with advanced solid organ malignancy and their informal caregivers, and (2) develop generalizable knowledge on how contextual factors influence implementation to facilitate dissemination, uptake, and sustainability of the intervention. METHODS: We will conduct a multicenter, randomized, assessor-blind, parallel-group, pragmatic, hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial at three cancer centers across the United States. The DeCIDE PC intervention will be delivered over 6 months with CHW support tailored to the individual needs of the patient and caregiver. The primary outcome will be advance care planning. The treatment effect will be modeled using logistic regression. The secondary outcomes are quality of life, quality of communication, hospice care utilization, and patient symptoms. DISCUSSION: We expect the DeCIDE PC intervention to improve integration of palliative care, reduce multilevel barriers to care, enhance clinic and patient linkage to resources, and ultimately improve palliative care outcomes for African American patients with advanced cancer. If found to be effective, the DeCIDE PC intervention may be a transformative model with the potential to guide large-scale adoption of promising strategies to improve palliative care use and decrease disparities in end-of-life care for African American patients with advanced cancer in the United States. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05407844). First posted on June 7, 2022.

Palliative Care Curriculum and Training Plan for community health workers.

African American patients are less likely than White patients to access palliative care. Community health workers (CHWs) are non-clinical public health workers who may address this gap. We developed a Palliative Care Curriculum and Training Plan for CHWs as part of an ongoing randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a CHW palliative care intervention for African American patients with advanced cancer. This study aimed to determine whether the Palliative Care Curriculum and Training Plan leads to gains in knowledge, perceived competence on CHW study-based tasks, and satisfaction among CHWs. The curriculum was delivered over 3 months using synchronous, asynchronous and experiential training components. CHWs were assessed through survey questionnaires and semistructured interviews. We trained a total of three CHWs, one from each of our enrolment sites: Johns Hopkins Hospital, TidalHealth Peninsula Regional and University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital. CHWs demonstrated an increase in knowledge, with a mean pre-training test score of 85% (SD 10.49) and post-training test score of 96% (SD 4.17). The training led to increases in perceived competence among CHWs. Areas for future training were identified. This curriculum serves as a template for CHW training focused on palliative care, oncology and health disparities.

Effect of Perioperative Palliative Care on Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Undergoing Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Involvement of palliative care specialists in the care of medical oncology patients has been repeatedly observed to improve patient-reported outcomes, but there is no analogous research in surgical oncology populations. Objective: To determine whether surgeon-palliative care team comanagement, compared with surgeon team alone management, improves patient-reported perioperative outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgery for high morbidity and mortality upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: From October 20, 2018, to March 31, 2022, a patient-randomized clinical trial was conducted with patients and clinicians nonblinded but the analysis team blinded to allocation. The trial was conducted in 5 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the US. Individuals pursuing curative-intent surgery for an upper GI cancer who had received no previous specialist palliative care were eligible. Surgeons were encouraged to offer participation to all eligible patients. Intervention: Surgeon-palliative care comanagement patients met with palliative care either in person or via telephone before surgery, 1 week after surgery, and 1, 2, and 3 months after surgery. For patients in the surgeon-alone group, surgeons were encouraged to follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended triggers for palliative care consultation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the trial was patient-reported health-related quality of life at 3 months following the operation. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported mental and physical distress. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Results: In total, 359 patients (175 [48.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [10.7] years) were randomized to surgeon-alone (n = 177) or surgeon-palliative care comanagement (n = 182), with most patients (206 [57.4%]) undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery. No adverse events were associated with the intervention, and 11% of patients in the surgeon-alone and 90% in the surgeon-palliative care comanagement groups received palliative care consultation. There was no significant difference between study arms in outcomes at 3 months following the operation in patient-reported health-related quality of life (mean [SD], 138.54 [28.28] vs 136.90 [28.96]; P = .62), mental health (mean [SD], -0.07 [0.87] vs -0.07 [0.84]; P = .98), or overall number of deaths (6 [3.7%] vs 7 [4.1%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: To date, this is the first multisite randomized clinical trial to evaluate perioperative palliative care and the earliest integration of palliative care into cancer care. Unlike in medical oncology practice, the data from this trial do not suggest palliative care-associated improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgeries for upper GI cancers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611309.

Tumor deposits are associated with a higher risk of peritoneal disease in non-metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Tumor deposit (TD) is a poor prognostic factor in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. This study aimed to determine whether TD carry the same risk of peritoneal recurrence as known high-risk (HR) features in CRC patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort-study of stage I-III CRC patients from 2010 to 2015 was conducted. TD group was defined by the presence of TD on histopathology whereas HR group was defined by the presence of obstruction, perforation, or T4-stage. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients with CRC were identified, of which 50 had TD and 101 had a HR feature. The overall risk of peritoneal recurrence was higher in the TD group versus HR group (36.0% vs. 19.8%, p = 0.03). The risk of peritoneum as the site of first recurrence was also higher in the TD group (22.0% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.03). Overall cancer recurrence at any site was also higher in the TD group (56.0% vs. 34.7%, p = 0.01). Median time to first recurrence was 1.2 (0.7-1.9) years in the TD group compared to 1.4 (0.8-2.1) years in the HR group (p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: In non-metastatic CRC patients, TD might have a higher risk of tumor recurrence versus their HR counterparts. Alternative strategies for surveillance and treatment should be considered.

The Perioperative and Operative Management of Esophageal and Gastric Cancer.

Optimal management of esophageal and gastric cancer during the perioperative period requires a coordinated multidisciplinary treatment effort. Accurate staging guides treatment strategy. Advances in minimally invasive surgery and endoscopy have reduced risks associated with resection while maintaining oncological standards. Although the standard perioperative chemo-and radiotherapy regimens have not yet been established, randomized control trials exploring this subject show promising results.

Feasibility of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for advanced peritoneal surface tumors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A single-institution experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a complex treatment used in selected patients with peritoneal surface malignancies. HIPEC procedures are time and resource intensive. The primary aim of this analysis was to compare the experience of treating advanced abdominal tumors with CRS-HIPEC before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Patients included in this analysis received CRS-HIPEC at a single center during either a prepandemic (March 18, 2019-March 17, 2020) or pandemic (March 18, 2020-February 5, 2021) interval. A retrospective chart review was performed. RESULTS: Our analysis included 67 patients: 30 (45%) treated prepandemic and 37 (55%) treated during the pandemic. Median age at the time of operation was 58 years (interquartile range: [49-65]); 53% of patients were women. Patients treated during the pandemic presented with higher peritoneal cancer index (PCI) scores with 32% (n = 12) having a PCI > 20 at the time of surgery (p = 0.01). Five patients had delays in surgery due to the pandemic. Rates of overall postoperative morbidity, reoperation, and readmission were not different between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Despite presenting with more extensive disease, patients treated with CRS-HIPEC during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic had comparable perioperative outcomes to patients treated prepandemic.