Pyramidal Decision Support Framework Leverages Subspecialty Expertise across Enterprise to Achieve Superior Cancer Outcomes and Personalized, Precision Care Plans.

The complexity of cancer care requires integrated and continuous support to deliver appropriate care. An expert network with complementary expertise and the capability of multidisciplinary care is an integral part of contemporary oncology care. Appropriate infrastructure is necessary to empower this network to deliver personalized precision care to their patients. Providing decision support as cancer care becomes exponentially more complex with new diagnostic and therapeutic choices remains challenging. City of Hope has developed a Pyramidal Decision Support Framework to address these challenges, which were exacerbated by the COVID pandemic, health plan restrictions, and growing geographic site diversity. Optimizing efficient and targeted decision support backed by multidisciplinary cancer expertise can improve individual patient treatment plans to achieve improved care and survival wherever patients are treated.

Prospective Comparison of Medical Oncologists and a Machine Learning Model to Predict 3-Month Mortality in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.

Importance: To date, oncologist and model prognostic performance have been assessed independently and mostly retrospectively; however, how model prognostic performance compares with oncologist prognostic performance prospectively remains unknown. Objective: To compare oncologist performance with a model in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with metastatic solid tumors in an outpatient setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study evaluated prospective predictions for a cohort of patients with metastatic solid tumors seen in outpatient oncology clinics at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and associated satellites between December 6, 2019, and August 6, 2021. Oncologists (57 physicians and 17 advanced practice clinicians) answered a 3-month surprise question (3MSQ) within clinical pathways. A model was trained with electronic health record data from January 1, 2013, to April 24, 2019, to identify patients at high risk of 3-month mortality and deployed silently in October 2019. Analysis was limited to oncologist prognostications with a model prediction within the preceding 30 days. Exposures: Three-month surprise question and gradient-boosting binary classifier. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was performance comparison between oncologists and the model to predict 3-month mortality. The primary performance metric was the positive predictive value (PPV) at the sensitivity achieved by the medical oncologists with their 3MSQ answers. Results: A total of 74 oncologists answered 3099 3MSQs for 2041 patients with advanced cancer (median age, 62.6 [range, 18-96] years; 1271 women [62.3%]). In this cohort with a 15% prevalence of 3-month mortality and 30% sensitivity for both oncologists and the model, the PPV of oncologists was 34.8% (95% CI, 30.1%-39.5%) and the PPV of the model was 60.0% (95% CI, 53.6%-66.3%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model was 81.2% (95% CI, 79.1%-83.3%). The model significantly outperformed the oncologists in short-term mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study, the model outperformed oncologists overall and within the breast and gastrointestinal cancer cohorts in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with advanced cancer. These findings suggest that further studies may be useful to examine how model predictions could improve oncologists' prognostic confidence and patient-centered goal-concordant care at the end of life.

Integrating Academic and Community Cancer Care and Research through Multidisciplinary Oncology Pathways for Value-Based Care: A Review and the City of Hope Experience.

As the US transitions from volume- to value-based cancer care, many cancer centers and community groups have joined to share resources to deliver measurable, high-quality cancer care and clinical research with the associated high patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction, and practice health at optimal costs that are the hallmarks of value-based care. Multidisciplinary oncology care pathways are essential components of value-based care and their payment metrics. Oncology pathways are evidence-based, standardized but personalizable care plans to guide cancer care. Pathways have been developed and studied for the major medical, surgical, radiation, and supportive oncology disciplines to support decision-making, streamline care, and optimize outcomes. Implementing multidisciplinary oncology pathways can facilitate comprehensive care plans for each cancer patient throughout their cancer journey and across large multisite delivery systems. Outcomes from the delivered pathway-based care can then be evaluated against individual and population benchmarks. The complexity of adoption, implementation, and assessment of multidisciplinary oncology pathways, however, presents many challenges. We review the development and components of value-based cancer care and detail City of Hope's (COH) academic and community-team-based approaches for implementing multidisciplinary pathways. We also describe supportive components with available results towards enterprise-wide value-based care delivery.

Strategies to Improve Participation of Older Adults in Cancer Research.

Cancer is a disease associated with aging. As the US population ages, the number of older adults with cancer is projected to dramatically increase. Despite this, older adults remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments and, consequently, clinicians struggle with how to interpret data from clinical trials and apply them to older adults in practice. A combination of system, clinician, and patient barriers bar opportunities for trial participation for many older patients, and strategies are needed to address these barriers at multiple fronts, five of which are offered here. This review highlights the need to (1) broaden eligibility criteria, (2) measure relevant end points, (3) expand standard trial designs, (4) increase resources (e.g., institutional support, interdisciplinary care, and telehealth), and (5) develop targeted interventions (e.g., behavioral interventions to promote patient enrollment). Implementing these solutions requires a substantial investment in engaging and collaborating with community-based practices, where the majority of older patients with cancer receive their care. Multifaceted strategies are needed to ensure that older patients with cancer, across diverse healthcare settings, receive the highest-quality, evidence-based care.

A Call to Action: Ethics Committee Roundtable Recommendations for Addressing Burnout and Moral Distress in Oncology.

Oncologist well-being is critical to initiating and maintaining the physician-patient relationship, yet many oncologists suffer from symptoms of burnout. Burnout has been linked to poor physical and mental health, as well as increased medical errors, patient dissatisfaction, and workforce attrition. In this Call to Action article, we discuss causes of and interventions for burnout and moral distress in oncology, highlight existing interventions, and provide recommendations for addressing burnout and improving well-being at the individual and organizational levels to deliver ethical, quality cancer care.

Role of Bone-Modifying Agents in Metastatic Breast Cancer: An American Society of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Care Ontario Focused Guideline Update.

Purpose To update, in collaboration with Cancer Care Ontario (CCO), key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on the role of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in metastatic breast cancer. This focused update addressed the new data on intervals between dosing and the role of BMAs in control of bone pain. Methods A joint ASCO-CCO Update Committee conducted targeted systematic literature reviews to identify relevant studies. Results The Update Committee reviewed three phase III noninferiority trials of dosing intervals, one systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of de-escalation of BMAs, and two randomized trials of BMAs in control of pain secondary to bone metastases. Recommendations Patients with breast cancer who have evidence of bone metastases should be treated with BMAs. Options include denosumab, 120 mg subcutaneously, every 4 weeks; pamidronate, 90 mg intravenously, every 3 to 4 weeks; or zoledronic acid, 4 mg intravenously every 12 weeks or every 3 to 4 weeks. The analgesic effects of BMAs are modest, and they should not be used alone for bone pain. The Update Committee recommends that the current standard of care for supportive care and pain management-analgesia, adjunct therapies, radiotherapy, surgery, systemic anticancer therapy, and referral to supportive care and pain management-be applied. Evidence is insufficient to support the use of one BMA over another. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Value-Based Medicine and Integration of Tumor Biology.

Clinical oncology is in the midst of a genomic revolution, as molecular insights redefine our understanding of cancer biology. Greater awareness of the distinct aberrations that drive carcinogenesis is also contributing to a growing armamentarium of genomically targeted therapies. Although much work remains to better understand how to combine and sequence these therapies, improved outcomes for patients are becoming manifest. As we welcome this genomic revolution in cancer care, oncologists also must grapple with a number of practical problems. Costs of cancer care continue to grow, with targeted therapies responsible for an increasing proportion of spending. Rising costs are bringing the concept of value into sharper focus and challenging the oncology community with implementation of value-based cancer care. This article explores the ways that the genomic revolution is transforming cancer care, describes various frameworks for considering the value of genomically targeted therapies, and outlines key challenges for delivering on the promise of personalized cancer care. It highlights practical solutions for the implementation of value-based care, including investment in biomarker development and clinical trials to improve the efficacy of targeted therapy, the use of evidence-based clinical pathways, team-based care, computerized clinical decision support, and value-based payment approaches.

TITAN: phase III study of doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by ixabepilone or paclitaxel in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Ixabepilone is a microtubule stabilizer with activity in taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer and low susceptibility to taxane-resistance mechanisms including multidrug-resistant phenotypes and high ß-III tubulin expression. Since these resistance mechanisms are common in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), ixabepilone may have particular advantages in this patient population. This study evaluated the substitution of ixabepilone for paclitaxel following doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage TNBC. METHODS: Patients with operable TNBC were eligible following definitive breast surgery. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive four cycles of AC followed by either four cycles (12 weeks) of ixabepilone or 12 weekly doses of paclitaxel. RESULTS: 614 patients were randomized: 306 to AC/ixabepilone and 308 to AC/paclitaxel. At a median follow-up of 48 months, 59 patients had relapsed (AC/ixabepilone, 29; AC/paclitaxel, 30). The median time from diagnosis to relapse was 20.8 months. The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates of the two groups were similar [HR 0.92; ixabepilone 87.1% (95% CI 82.6-90.5) vs. paclitaxel 84.7% (95% CI 79.7-88.6)]. The estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were also similar [HR 1.1; ixabepilone 89.7% (95% CI 85.5-92.7) vs. paclitaxel 89.6% (95% CI 85.0-92.9)]. Peripheral neuropathy was the most common grade 3/4 event. Dose reductions and treatment discontinuations occurred more frequently during paclitaxel treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with AC/ixabepilone provided similar DFS and OS in patients with operable TNBC when compared to treatment with AC/paclitaxel. The two regimens had similar toxicity, although treatment discontinuation, dose modifications, and overall peripheral neuropathy were more frequent with AC/paclitaxel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier, NCT00789581.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy for Patients With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.

Purpose To provide current recommendations on the use of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) for patients with early-stage breast cancer. Methods PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical practice guidelines from 2012 through July 2016. An Update Panel reviewed the identified abstracts. Results Of the eight publications identified and reviewed, none prompted a change in the 2014 recommendations, which are reaffirmed by the updated literature review. Conclusion Women without sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases should not receive axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Women with one to two metastatic SLNs who are planning to undergo breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast radiotherapy should not undergo ALND (in most cases). Women with SLN metastases who will undergo mastectomy should be offered ALND. These three recommendations are based on randomized controlled trials. Women with operable breast cancer and multicentric tumors, with ductal carcinoma in situ, who will undergo mastectomy, who previously underwent breast and/or axillary surgery, or who received preoperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy may be offered SNB. Women who have large or locally advanced invasive breast cancer (tumor size T3/T4), inflammatory breast cancer, or ductal carcinoma in situ (when breast-conserving surgery is planned) or are pregnant should not undergo SNB.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement on Clinical Pathways in Oncology.

The use of clinical pathways in oncology care is increasingly important to patients and oncology providers as a tool for enhancing both quality and value. However, with increasing adoption of pathways into oncology practice, concerns have been raised by ASCO members and other stakeholders. These include the process being used for pathway development, the administrative burdens on oncology practices of reporting on pathway adherence, and understanding the true impact of pathway use on patient health outcomes. To address these concerns, ASCO's Board of Directors established a Task Force on Clinical Pathways, charged with articulating a set of recommendations to improve the development of oncology pathways and processes, allowing the demonstration of pathway concordance in a manner that promotes evidence-based, high-value care respecting input from patients, payers, and providers. These recommendations have been approved and adopted by ASCO's Board of Directors on August 12, 2015, and are presented herein.

Paclitaxel, bevacizumab, and everolimus/placebo as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer: a randomized placebo-controlled phase II trial of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute.

Amplified PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling is common in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The mTOR inhibitor everolimus improves progression-free survival (PFS) when added to steroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy. This randomized phase II trial compares the efficacy of paclitaxel/bevacizumab/everolimus and paclitaxel/bevacizumab/placebo as first-line treatment for MBC. Patients with untreated HER2-negative MBC were randomized (1:1) to receive 28-day cycles of paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) IV (days 1, 8, and 15) and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg IV (days 1, 15) with either everolimus 10 mg (Arm 1) or placebo (Arm 2) daily. Treatment continued (evaluation every 8 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Treatment of 110 patients allowed detection of an improvement in median PFS from 11 to 16 months (70 % power, α = 0.10). Between August 2009 and June 2011, 113 patients (median age 58 years; 88 % ER or PR positive) were randomized (Arm 1, 56; Arm 2, 57). Patients in both arms received a median of six treatment cycles. Median PFS (95 % CI) was 9.1 months (6.8-18.8) for Arm 1, and 7.1 months (5.6-10.8) for Arm 2 (p = 0.89). Comparisons of other efficacy endpoints were also similar in the two treatment arms. Patients receiving everolimus had more anemia, stomatitis, diarrhea, rash, and arthralgia/myalgia, although the overall incidence of severe (grade 3/4) toxicity was similar. The addition of everolimus did not improve the efficacy of weekly paclitaxel/bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with HER2-negative MBC. These results contrast with the demonstrated efficacy of adding everolimus to either hormonal or HER2-targeted therapy in previously treated patients.

Cardiac safety results from a phase II, open-label, multicenter, pilot study of two docetaxel-based regimens plus bevacizumab for the adjuvant treatment of subjects with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Adding antiangiogenic therapy to standard chemotherapy has improved response rates and progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer (BC) patients. This phase II study evaluated cardiac safety of bevacizumab with/without trastuzumab with two docetaxel-based regimens in early BC. METHODS: 127 women with non-metastatic node-positive or high-risk node-negative BC were enrolled. Women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative BC (n = 93) received docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (TAC) + bevacizumab, while women with HER2-positive disease (n = 34) received docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab (TCH) + bevacizumab, every 3 weeks for six cycles. Maintenance therapy with bevacizumab alone or bevacizumab plus trastuzumab, respectively, was given every 3 weeks for 52 weeks. The primary objective was to evaluate cardiac safety, as measured by the incidence of ≥ grade 3 clinical congestive heart failure (CHF); the secondary objective was assessment of safety and toxicity. RESULTS: At least one cardiac adverse event (AE; CHF, cardiomyopathy, or left ventricular dysfunction) was reported in 26.1% of TAC (n = 92) and 17.6% of TCH subjects (n = 34); there were no cardiac deaths. ≥ Grade 3 clinical CHF was observed in 4.3% in the TAC plus bevacizumab stratum and 0% in the TCH plus bevacizumab stratum. A ≥ grade 3 treatment-emergent AE (any kind) related to study treatment was observed in 59.8% in the TAC with bevacizumab and 52.9% in the TCH plus bevacizumab stratum. CONCLUSION: Adding bevacizumab to a docetaxel-based regimen with trastuzumab did not appear to increase cardiotoxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00446030, registered March 8, 2007.