Gaps in Access to Medically Necessary Dental Care for Patients Living With and Beyond Cancer: We Must Do Better.

Delivery of high-quality, evidence-based oral care for those living with and beyond cancer needed!

Vulvar Cancer, Version 3.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Vulvar cancer is annually diagnosed in an estimated 6,470 individuals and the vast majority are histologically squamous cell carcinomas. Vulvar cancer accounts for 5% to 8% of gynecologic malignancies. Known risk factors for vulvar cancer include increasing age, infection with human papillomavirus, cigarette smoking, inflammatory conditions affecting the vulva, and immunodeficiency. Most vulvar neoplasias are diagnosed at early stages. Rarer histologies exist and include melanoma, extramammary Paget's disease, Bartholin gland adenocarcinoma, verrucous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and sarcoma. This manuscript discusses recommendations outlined in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for treatments, surveillance, systemic therapy options, and gynecologic survivorship.

Cancer survivorship programs at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE: We sought to present the current status of survivorship programs at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute which include the David B. Perini, Jr. Quality of Life Clinic for survivors of childhood cancer, Stop and Shop Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Clinic for pediatric brain tumor survivors, and Adult Survivorship Program for adult cancer survivors including those diagnosed as adults (age 18 years and older) and adult survivors of childhood cancer, in an effort to share best practices as well as challenges. METHODS: Description of programs and discussion. RESULTS: Our institutional programs are detailed regarding their history and the multidisciplinary approach and both consultative and long-term care delivery models for pediatric and adult cancer survivors, with the goal of meeting the spectrum of survivorship care needs, from diagnosis and management of long-term effects of cancer-directed therapy and surveillance for subsequent cancer, to healthy lifestyle promotion and psychosocial support. Program investigators conduct research to understand the risks and unmet needs of cancer survivors, and to develop and test interventions to improve care delivery and medical and psychosocial outcomes. There are also educational initiatives detailed. CONCLUSIONS: Survivorship programs at Dana-Farber are designed to optimize care and outcomes for cancer survivors including conducting quality improvement initiatives and research to further understand and meet the clinical needs of the large, heterogenous, and growing population cancer survivors into the future. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Programs like ours as well as those ongoing and planned aim to improve the comprehensive care of diverse cancer survivors.

Online description of services provided in adult survivorship programs across U.S. accredited cancer centers.

PURPOSE: The American College of Surgeons Standard 4.8 requires an institution to implement a survivorship program to become a Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited cancer center. The online information offered by these cancer centers can help educate patients and their caregivers about available services. We assessed the content of survivorship program websites of CoC-accredited cancer centers in the United States. METHODS: Of the 1245 CoC-accredited centers for adults, we sampled 325 institutions (26%) based proportionately on the 2019 new cancer cases by state. Website pages of the institutions' survivorship programs were assessed for information and services offered using the COC Standard 4.8. We included programs for adult survivors of adult- and childhood-onset cancers. RESULTS: 54.5% of the cancer centers did not have a survivorship program website. Of the 189 included programs, most were aimed at adult survivors in general, rather than those with specific cancer types. On average, five essential CoC-recommended services were described, most commonly nutrition, care plans, and psychology services. The least mentioned services were genetic counseling, fertility, and smoking cessation. Most programs described services offered to patients who had completed treatment, while 7.4% of described services for those with metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: More than half of CoC-accredited programs did have information about cancer survivorship programs on their websites and when included, had variable and limited description of services. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our study provides an overview of online cancer survivorship services and offers a methodology that may be used by cancer centers to review, expand, and improve the information described on their websites.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Cervical Cancer, Version 1.2024.

The NCCN Guidelines for Cervical Cancer provide recommendations for all aspects of management for cervical cancer, including the diagnostic workup, staging, pathology, and treatment. The guidelines also include details on histopathologic classification of cervical cancer regarding diagnostic features, molecular profiles, and clinical outcomes. The treatment landscape of advanced cervical cancer is evolving constantly. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates regarding the systemic therapy recommendations for recurrent or metastatic disease.

Patient perceptions of altering chemotherapy treatment due to peripheral neuropathy.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines recommend altering neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment in patients experiencing intolerable chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). The primary objective of this survey was to understand patient's perspectives on altering neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment, including their perceptions of the benefits of preventing irreversible CIPN and the risks of reducing treatment efficacy. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was distributed via social networks to patients who were currently receiving or had previously received neurotoxic chemotherapy for cancer. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Following data cleaning, 447 participants were included in the analysis. The median age was 57 years, 93% were white, and most were from the UK (53%) or USA (38%). Most participants who were currently or recently treated expected some CIPN symptom resolution (86%), but 45% of those who had completed treatment more than a year ago reported experiencing no symptom resolution. Participants reported that they would discontinue chemotherapy treatment for less severe CIPN if they knew their symptoms would be permanent than if symptoms would disappear after treatment. Most patients stated that the decision to alter chemotherapy or not was usually made collaboratively between the patient and their treating clinician (61%). The most common reason participants were reluctant to talk with their clinician about CIPN was fear that treatment would be altered. Participants noted a need for improved understanding of CIPN symptoms and their permanence, better patient education relating to CIPN prior to and after treatment, and greater clinician understanding and empathy around CIPN. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights the importance of shared decision-making, including a consideration of both the long-term benefits and risks of altering neurotoxic chemotherapy treatment due to CIPN. Additional work is needed to develop decision aids and other communication tools that can be used to improve shared decision making and help patients with cancer achieve their treatment goals.

Psychosocial care for cancer survivors: A global review of national cancer control plans.

OBJECTIVE: National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) are high-level policy documents that prioritise actions to be taken to improve cancer control activities. As the number of cancer survivors grows globally, there is an urgent need to assess whether and how psychosocial care across the cancer care continuum is included in NCCPs. This review aimed to ascertain the extent to which NCCPs referenced psycho-oncology care for cancer survivors in the post-treatment phase. METHODS: NCCPs were obtained from the International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP) portal (in November 2021) and reviewed in two phases. In Phase 1, all available NCCPs were screened to determine whether they mentioned psycho-oncology or survivorship. In Phase 2, reviewers extracted data from the NCCPs identified in Phase 1 on the degree that each plan articulated objectives/goals to improve psychosocial care in the post-treatment survivorship phase. RESULTS: We screened 237 NCCPs. Of these, initial potential reference to psycho-oncology and survivorship content were identified in 97 plans (41%). In Phase 1, 57/97 (59%) had reference to psycho-oncology or survivorship content within defined criteria. In Phase 2, 27/97 (28%) had little mention of psycho-oncology specifically in survivorship, 47/97 (48%) had some (general or brief) mention, and the remaining 23/97 (24%) had substantial content/specific sections and clearly articulated goals and/or objectives. Common goals for improving psychosocial care in the post-treatment period included building capacity of healthcare professionals, implementing rehabilitation models, and increasing the utilisation of community services. CONCLUSIONS: Most NCCPs did not reference psycho-oncology and only one-quarter contained clear objectives specifically in the post-treatment survivorship phase.

Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature.

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.

Primary care physicians' knowledge and confidence in providing cancer survivorship care: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review existing literature on knowledge and confidence of primary care physicians (PCPs) in cancer survivorship care. METHODS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to July 2022 for quantitative and qualitative studies. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and quality. Outcomes were characterized by domains of quality cancer survivorship care. RESULTS: Thirty-three papers were included, representing 28 unique studies; 22 cross-sectional surveys, 8 qualitative, and 3 mixed-methods studies. Most studies were conducted in North America (n = 23) and Europe (n = 8). For surveys, sample sizes ranged between 29 and 1124 PCPs. Knowledge and confidence in management of physical (n = 19) and psychosocial effects (n = 12), and surveillance for recurrences (n = 14) were described most often. Generally, a greater proportion of PCPs reported confidence in managing psychosocial effects (24-47% of PCPs, n= 5 studies) than physical effects (10-37%, n = 8). PCPs generally thought they had the necessary knowledge to detect recurrences (62-78%, n = 5), but reported limited confidence to do so (6-40%, n = 5). There was a commonly perceived need for education on long-term and late physical effects (n = 6), and cancer surveillance guidelines (n = 9). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' knowledge and confidence in cancer survivorship care varies across care domains. Suboptimal outcomes were identified in managing physical effects and recurrences after cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: These results provide insights into the potential role of PCPs in cancer survivorship care, medical education, and development of targeted interventions.

Future trends in incidence and long-term survival of metastatic cancer in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated epidemiological trends in individual metastatic cancer subtypes; however, research forecasting long-term incidence trends and projected survivorship of metastatic cancers is lacking. We assess the burden of metastatic cancer to 2040 by (1) characterizing past, current, and forecasted incidence trends, and (2) estimating odds of long-term (5-year) survivorship. METHODS: This retrospective, serial cross-sectional, population-based study used registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER 9) database. Average annual percentage change (AAPC) was calculated to describe cancer incidence trends from 1988 to 2018. Autoregressive integrating moving average (ARIMA) models were used to forecast the distribution of primary metastatic cancer and metastatic cancer to specific sites from 2019 to 2040 and JoinPoint models were fitted to estimate mean projected annual percentage change (APC). RESULTS: The average annual percent change (AAPC) in incidence of metastatic cancer decreased by 0.80 per 100,000 individuals (1988-2018) and we forecast an APC decrease by 0.70 per 100,000 individuals (2018-2040). Analyses predict a decrease in metastases to liver (APC = -3.40, 95% CI [-3.50, -3.30]), lung (APC (2019-2030) = -1.90, 95% CI [-2.90, -1.00]); (2030-2040) = -3.70, 95% CI [-4.60, -2.80]), bone (APC = -4.00, 95% CI [-4.30, -3.70]), and brain (APC = -2.30, 95% CI [-2.60, -2.00]). By 2040, patients with metastatic cancer are predicted to have 46.7% greater odds of long-term survivorship, driven by increasing plurality of patients with more indolent forms of metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: By 2040, the distribution of metastatic cancer patients is predicted to shift in predominance from invariably fatal to indolent cancers subtypes. Continued research on metastatic cancers is important to guide health policy and clinical intervention efforts, and direct allocations of healthcare resources.

Cancer that has spread beyond the area where it originated and into different organs is called metastatic cancer. This study analyzed trends in metastatic cancer incidence, the proportion of those with metastatic cancer surviving 5 years after diagnosis and the locations in the body each cancer had spread to. The incidence of metastatic cancer decreased between 1988 and 2018 and is expected to continue to decrease until 2040. Some of the most common locations cancer spreads to is the lung, liver, brain, and bone. Metastatic cancer incidence to these areas is predicted to decrease. Also, the likelihood of surviving for more than 5 years after diagnosis with metastatic cancer is predicted to increase by 2040. This research should facilitate optimal planning of future healthcare resources and policy.

Management of Anxiety and Depression in Adult Survivors of Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline on the management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer survivors. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel convened to update the guideline. A systematic review of evidence published from 2013-2021 was conducted. RESULTS: The evidence base consisted of 17 systematic reviews ± meta analyses (nine for psychosocial interventions, four for physical exercise, three for mindfulness-based stress reduction [MBSR], and one for pharmacologic interventions), and an additional 44 randomized controlled trials. Psychological, educational, and psychosocial interventions led to improvements in depression and anxiety. Evidence for pharmacologic management of depression and anxiety in cancer survivors was inconsistent. The lack of inclusion of survivors from minoritized groups was noted and identified as an important consideration to provide high-quality care for ethnic minority populations. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended to use a stepped-care model, that is, provide the most effective and least resource-intensive intervention based on symptom severity. All oncology patients should be offered education regarding depression and anxiety. For patients with moderate symptoms of depression, clinicians should offer cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), behavioral activation (BA), MBSR, structured physical activity, or empirically supported psychosocial interventions. For patients with moderate symptoms of anxiety, clinicians should offer CBT, BA, structured physical activity, acceptance and commitment therapy, or psychosocial interventions. For patients with severe symptoms of depression or anxiety, clinicians should offer cognitive therapy, BA, CBT, MBSR, or interpersonal therapy. Treating clinicians may offer a pharmacologic regimen for depression or anxiety for patients who do not have access to first-line treatment, prefer pharmacotherapy, have previously responded well to pharmacotherapy, or have not improved following first-line psychological or behavioral management.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Uterine Neoplasms, Version 1.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Adenocarcinoma of the endometrium (also known as endometrial cancer, or more broadly as uterine cancer or carcinoma of the uterine corpus) is the most common malignancy of the female genital tract in the United States. It is estimated that 65,950 new uterine cancer cases will have occurred in 2022, with 12,550 deaths resulting from the disease. Endometrial carcinoma includes pure endometrioid cancer and carcinomas with high-risk endometrial histology (including uterine serous carcinoma, clear cell carcinoma, carcinosarcoma [also known as malignant mixed Müllerian tumor], and undifferentiated/dedifferentiated carcinoma). Stromal or mesenchymal sarcomas are uncommon subtypes accounting for approximately 3% of all uterine cancers. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Uterine Neoplasms focuses on the diagnosis, staging, and management of pure endometrioid carcinoma. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Uterine Neoplasms is available online at NCCN.org.

The PhenX Toolkit: standard measurement resources for cancer outcomes and survivorship research.

This brief report introduces the Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship domain in the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), which includes 15 validated measurement protocols for cancer survivorship research that were recommended for inclusion in this publicly available resource. Developed with input from the scientific community, the domain provides researchers with well-established measurement protocols for evaluating physical and psychological effects, financial toxicity, and patient experiences with cancer care. The PhenX Toolkit, funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute since 2007, is an online resource that provides high-quality standard measurement protocols for a wide range of research areas (eg, smoking cessation, harm reduction and biomarkers, and social determinants of health). Use of the PhenX Cancer Survivorship Outcomes and Survivorship domain can simplify the selection of measurement protocols, data sharing, and comparisons across studies investigating the cancer survivorship experience.

Patient preferences and comfort for cancer survivorship models of care: results of an online survey.

PURPOSE: Workforce shortages will impact oncologists' ability to provide both active and survivorship care. While primary care provider (PCP) or survivorship clinic transition has been emphasized, there is little evidence regarding patient comfort. METHODS: We developed an online survey in partnership with patient advocates to assess survivors' comfort with PCP or survivorship clinic care and distributed the survey to online, cancer-specific patient communities from June to August 2020. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 975 surveys were complete. Most respondents were women (91%) and had private insurance (65%). Thirty-six cancer types were reported. Ninety-three percent had a PCP. Twenty-four percent were comfortable seeing a PCP for survivorship care. Higher odds of comfort were seen among respondents who were Black or had stage 0 cancer; female sex was associated with lower odds. Fifty-five percent were comfortable with a survivorship clinic. Higher odds of comfort were seen with lymphoma or ovarian cancer, > 15 years from diagnosis, and non-US government insurance. Lower odds were seen with melanoma, advanced stage, Medicaid insurance, and one late effect. Preference for PCP care was 87% for general health, 32% for recurrence monitoring, and 37% for late effect management. CONCLUSIONS: One quarter of cancer survivors were comfortable with PCP-led survivorship care and about half with a survivorship clinic. Most preferred oncologist care for recurrence monitoring and late-effect management. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patient preference and comfort should be considered when developing survivorship care models. Future efforts should focus on facilitating patient-centered transitions to non-oncologist care.

Effectiveness and implementation of models of cancer survivorship care: an overview of systematic reviews.

PURPOSE: To critically assess the effectiveness and implementation of different models of post-treatment cancer survivorship care compared to specialist-led models of survivorship care assessed in published systematic reviews. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2005 to May 2021. Systematic reviews that compared at least two models of cancer survivorship care were included. Article selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two authors. The models were evaluated according to cancer survivorship care domains, patient and caregiver experience, communication and decision-making, care coordination, quality of life, healthcare utilization, costs, and mortality. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were also synthesized. RESULTS: Twelve systematic reviews were included, capturing 53 primary studies. Effectiveness for managing survivors' physical and psychosocial outcomes was found to be no different across models. Nurse-led and primary care provider-led models may produce cost savings to cancer survivors and healthcare systems. Barriers to the implementation of different models of care included limited resources, communication, and care coordination, while facilitators included survivor engagement, planning, and flexible services. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence regarding the equivalent effectiveness of nurse-led, primary care-led, or shared care models, these models are not widely adopted, and evidence-based recommendations to guide implementation are required. Further research is needed to address effectiveness in understudied domains of care and outcomes and across different population groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Rather than aiming for an optimal "one-size fits all" model of survivorship care, applying the most appropriate model in distinct contexts can improve outcomes and healthcare efficiency.