Supportive Care for Cancer Patients Via Telehealth: Breaking Bad News and Providing Palliative Care Virtually.

ABSTRACT: Delivering oncologic care via telemedicine has presented a unique set of benefits and challenges. Discussions of sensitive topics between patients and providers can be difficult on a virtual platform. Although it was imperative to utilize telemedicine to keep cancer patients safe during the height of the pandemic, its continued use in the postvaccination era has provided important conveniences to both providers and patients. In the case of breaking bad news and end-of-life discussions, however, in-person care has remained the overwhelming preference of both groups. If face-to-face consultation is not possible or feasible in these situations, virtual visits are a viable option to connect oncologists with their patients.

Physician Disruptive Behavior Compromising Safe Care Delivery.

The negative impact and management of disruptive behavior are discussed in the article by Monika Kumar, et al.

Preventing Future Harm: Identifying the Drivers of an Unsafe Discharge to Improve Safety on an Inpatient Oncology Service.

Cancer Morbidity, Mortality, and Improvement Rounds is a series of articles intended to explore the unique safety risks experienced by oncology patients through the lens of quality improvement, systems and human factors engineering, and cognitive psychology. For purposes of clarity, each case focuses on a single theme, although, as is true for all medical incidents, there are almost always multiple, overlapping, contributing factors. The quality improvement paradigm used here, which focuses on root cause analyses and opportunities to improve care delivery systems, was previously outlined in this journal.This article describes the care of a young patient with aggressive breast cancer, declining performance status, and multiple hospital admissions who died shortly after being discharged home without essential medications or an adequate plan for follow-up. The patient's death due to her malignancy was unavoidable, but she had inadequate resources before her death, leading to avoidable suffering. This outcome resulted from a series of minor errors attributable to inadequate handoffs, challenges establishing realistic goals of care, and hierarchy within and between medical teams that resulted in major lapses at the time of discharge. We explore these issues and discuss how this case led to the establishment of programs designed to empower health care providers and increase engagement of outpatient oncologists at critical points of patients' disease courses.

Telehealth in Oncology: ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: To provide standards and practice recommendations specific to telehealth in oncology. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on telehealth in oncology was performed, including the use of technologies and telecommunications systems, and other electronic methods of care delivery and sharing of information with patients. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO Telehealth Expert Panel to develop telehealth standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The Expert Panel determined that general guidance on implementing telehealth across general and specialty settings has been published previously and these resources are endorsed. A systematic search for studies on topics specific to oncology resulted in the inclusion of two clinical practice guidelines, 12 systematic reviews, and six primary studies. STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE: Standards and guidance are provided for which patients in oncology can be seen via telehealth, establishment of the doctor-physician relationship, role of allied health professionals, role of advanced practice providers, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and teletrials in oncology. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards.

Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) after adjuvant ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) compared to paclitaxel in combination with trastuzumab (TH) (TBCRC033: ATEMPT Trial).

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) is a surrogate for ovarian toxicity and associated risk of infertility and premature menopause. Here, we compare CRA rate with paclitaxel (T)-trastuzumab (H) to that with ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). METHODS: Patients with T1N0 HER2 + early-stage breast cancer (eBC) enrolled on the ATEMPT trial and were randomized 3:1 to T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every (q) 3 weeks (w) × 17 vs. T 80 mg/m2 with H IV qw × 12 (4 mg/kg load → 2 mg/kg), followed by H (6 mg/kg IV q3w × 13). Enrollees who self-reported as premenopausal were asked to complete menstrual surveys at baseline and every 6-12 months for 60 months. 18-month CRA (no periods reported during prior 6 months on 18-month survey) was the primary endpoint of this analysis. RESULTS: Of 512 ATEMPT enrollees, 123 who began protocol therapy and answered baseline and at least one follow-up menstrual survey were premenopausal at enrollment. 76 had menstrual data available at 18 months without having received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or undergone hysterectomy and/or oophorectomy. Median age was 45 (range 23-53) among 18 who had received TH and 46 (range 34-54) among 58 who had received T-DM1. The 18-month rate of CRA was 50% after TH and 24% after T-DM1 (p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Amenorrhea at 18 months was less likely in recipients of adjuvant T-DM1 than TH. Future studies are needed to understand how T-DM1 impacts risk of infertility and permanent menopause, and to assess amenorrhea rates when T-DM1 is administered after standard HER2-directed chemotherapy regimens.

Implementation of a High-Risk Breast Clinic for Comprehensive Care of Women With Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Identified by Risk Assessment Models in the Community.

INTRODUCTION: Many radiology centers perform risk assessment at time of screening mammography. The Massachusetts General Hospital North Shore Cancer Center (MGHNS) developed a nurse practitioner (NP)-led high-risk breast clinic (HRBC) to provide comprehensive care for patients with elevated breast cancer risk by a validated tool. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient and administrative data from the MGHNS HRBC was collected to evaluate clinical and implementation outcomes. We compared patients from the HRBC with those identified as having ≥ 20% lifetime risk at 5 community imaging centers. RESULTS: From March 2018 to February 2019, 318 patients were seen in the HRBC; 264 (83%) had ≥ 20% lifetime risk, 13 (4%) had prior atypia/lobular carcinoma in situ, 9 (3%) had ≥ 1.7% 5-year risk, and 32 (10%) had no indication of elevated risk. Genetic testing was recommended for 159 patients (50%); 33 (21%) completed testing with 1 mutation identified. Chemoprevention was discussed with 99 patients (31%); 9 (9%) initiated treatment. Screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was recommended for 284 patients (89%); 184 (65%) had MRI performed with 2 mammographically occult cancers identified. During this time period, 215,112 patients had risk assessment performed at time of breast imaging; of these, 1,170 were found to have ≥ 20% lifetime risk. Compared with those identified as high risk in the community, patients seen in the HRBC were more likely to be white (94.3% v 85.4%; P < .001) and have a family history of ovarian cancer (16.4% v 9.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the feasibility of an NP-led HRBC. Follow-through of recommendations by patients was highest for screening MRI; use of genetic testing and chemoprevention was lower than anticipated. In our community, uptake of the HRBC by referring providers remains a barrier, with only a minority of identified high-risk patients assessed in our clinic.

The adjuvant use of capecitabine for residual disease following pre-operative chemotherapy for breast cancer: Challenges applying CREATE-X to a US population.

INTRODUCTION: The CREATE-X study, conducted in Japan and South Korea, established capecitabine as an adjuvant treatment option for patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have residual disease (RD) following neoadjuvant anthracycline or taxane-based chemotherapy. However, there are no reports on the tolerability and outcomes of adjuvant capecitabine in the US setting following publication of the CREATE-X data. METHODS: We retrospectively collected treatment and tolerability data from the medical records of the first 23 TNBC patients who received adjuvant capecitabine for RD post neoadjuvant chemotherapy at our institution. Disease-free survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The median starting dosage of capecitabine was 1871 mg/m2/day, most commonly divided into two daily doses on days 1-14 of each 21 day cycle. 34.8% of patients completed the treatment as prescribed. Side effects associated with treatment were common with 69.6% of patients experiencing hand-foot syndrome, 39.1% of patients experiencing diarrhea, and 13.0% of patients requiring hospitalization for side effects. Of 23 patients treated with adjuvant capecitabine, 34.8% completed the planned dose, 30.4% completed with dose reduction, and 34.8% discontinued early. At a median follow-up time of 14 months, the median disease-free survival was 22 months, with 30.4% of patients experiencing recurrence. CONCLUSION: Tolerability was poor overall compared to the CREATE-X cohort. Administering adjuvant capecitabine for TNBC patients with residual disease in the United States is challenging given differences in tolerability. More research is needed to understand how poor tolerability will affect the efficacy of this approach in the US population.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Cancer Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Inpatient Setting.

BACKGROUND: As indications for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy have increased in recent years, so has the proportion of patients eligible for this type of therapy. However, a lack of data exists about the risks and benefits of ICI therapy in hospitalized patients, who tend to be frailer and sicker than patients enrolled in clinical trials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among hospitalized patients with metastatic solid tumors who received ICI therapy at a large academic cancer center over the course of 4 years. We analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of these patients and identified demographic and clinical factors that could be used to predict mortality. RESULTS: During the 4-year study period, 106 patients were treated with ICI therapy while admitted to the hospital; 70 (66%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≥2, which would have prevented them from enrolling in most clinical trials of ICIs. Fifty-two patients (49%) died either during admission or within 30 days of discharge; median overall survival was 1.0 month from discharge, and 16 patients (15%) were alive 6 months after discharge. Independent predictors of death following receipt of inpatient ICI included a diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer relative to melanoma and prior treatment with two or more lines of therapy. CONCLUSION: The poor overall outcomes observed in this study may give clinicians pause when considering ICI therapy for hospitalized patients, particularly those with characteristics that are associated with a greater risk of mortality. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Immunotherapy strategies for patients with cancer are rapidly evolving and their use is expanding, but not all patients will develop a response, and secondary toxicity can be significant and challenging. This is especially evident in hospitalized patients, where the economic cost derived from inpatient immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) administration is important and the clinical benefit is sometimes unclear. The poor overall outcomes evidenced in the ICI inpatient population in this study highlight the need to better identify the patients that will respond to these therapies, which will also help to decrease the financial burden imposed by these highly priced therapies.

Baseline Screening MRI Uptake and Findings in Women with ≥ 20% Lifetime Risk of Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The American Cancer Society recommends screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with a ≥ 20% lifetime breast cancer risk. This study assesses the outcomes of baseline MRI screens in women from a high-risk breast clinic (HRBC). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients from our institution's HRBC, excluding those with prior breast cancer and predisposing genetic mutations. Screening MRI was recommended for a lifetime risk of ≥ 20% using the Tyrer-Cuzick model. We determined baseline MRI results, biopsy rates, and frequency of MRI-detected high-risk lesions (HRLs) and breast cancers. RESULTS: Overall, 319 women attended our HRBC; median age was 48 years and 4.7% had prior atypia/lobular carcinoma in situ. Screening MRI was recommended for 282 patients, of whom 196 (69.5%) completed a baseline screen. A Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) 3 or 4 finding occurred in 19.6% of patients; 23 (12.3%) required 6-month follow-up MRI, 16 (8.6%) underwent core biopsy, and 4 (2.1%) underwent excisional biopsy after initial core. An additional 7 (3.7%) patients had a non-breast incidental finding. An HRL was identified in 2 (1.1%) patients (atypical ductal and lobular hyperplasia, respectively), and 2 (1.1%) were diagnosed with T1N0 breast cancers. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of an HRBC, 70% of women with a ≥ 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer pursued screening MRI when recommended. On baseline screen, the rate of MRI-detected breast cancer was low (1%); however, malignancies were mammographically occult and identified at an early stage. Despite a low cancer rate, nearly one in four women required additional diagnostic investigation. Prescreening counselling should include a discussion of this possibility, and longer-term follow-up of screening MRI is needed in this high-risk population.

Results of the 2013 American Society of Clinical Oncology National Oncology Census.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) National Oncology Census (Census) provides a mechanism for ASCO to systematically gather and analyze information about current practice structures and potential changes at a time when practices are working to adapt to increasing administrative and financial pressures. The Census is conducted annually and reports on new and trending data. METHODS: The 2013 Census was launched on May 30, 2013, as a national survey of oncology practices. The survey required practices to answer 11 questions and provided additional optional questions. RESULTS: The Census collected 530 useable responses in 2013 compared with 632 respondents in 2012. Practices reporting in 2013, however, represented a total of 8,011 physicians compared with only 5,018 in 2012. CONCLUSION: The pace of policy change in oncology practice is changing the landscape of how practices are organized. A greater number of practices with more than seven physicians responded in 2013, which could indicate overall growth in the size of oncology practice. Practices reported increased affiliations with hospitals through a variety of contractual mechanisms. In subsequent census efforts, ASCO will have the capability to match 2013 respondents to future respondents, allowing for increased precision in comparison of longitudinal data.

American Society of Clinical Oncology National Census of Oncology Practices: preliminary report.

In response to reports of increasing financial and administrative burdens on oncology practices and a lack of systematic information related to these issues, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) leadership started an effort to collect key practice-level data from all oncology practices in the United States. The result of the effort is the ASCO National Census of Oncology Practices (Census) launched in June 2012. The initial Census work involved compiling an inventory of oncology practices from existing lists of oncology physicians in the United States. A comprehensive, online data collection instrument was developed, which covered a number of areas, including practice characteristics (staffing configuration, organizational structure, patient mix and volume, types of services offered); organizational, staffing, and service changes over the past 12 months; and an assessment of the likelihood that the practice would experience organizational, staffing, and service changes in the next 12 months. More than 600 practices participated in the Census by providing information. In this article, we present preliminary highlights from the data gathered to date. We found that practice size was related to having experienced practice mergers, hiring additional staff, and increasing staff pay in the past 12 months, that geographic location was related to having experienced hiring additional staff, and that practices in metropolitan areas were more likely to have experienced practice mergers in the past 12 months than those in nonmetropolitan areas. We also found that practice size and geographic location were related to higher likelihoods of anticipating practice mergers, sales, and purchases in the future.

Caveat emptor.

Until there is a clearer understanding of the role that genes of low penetrance play in cancer risk, the best advice may be: Buyer beware.

American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care.

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.

Treatment plan and summary templates: the experience of one practice.

Using a formal treatment plan template enables clearer and more fruitful discussions between physician and patient and among physicians within a practice. Treatment plans are vital to formal chemotherapy teaching sessions for patients beginning therapy, regardless of disease histology or treatment intent.