Accelerating Advances in Cancer Care Research: A Lookback at the 21st Century Cures Act in 2020.

The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), signed into law in 2016, was designed to advance new therapies by modernizing clinical trials, funding research initiatives, and accelerating the development and use of health information technology. To analyze the current issues in cancer care related to the implementation and impact of the Cures Act, NCCN convened a multistakeholder working group. Participants discussed the legislation's impact on the oncology community since enactment and identified the remaining gaps and challenges as experienced by stakeholders. In June 2020, the policy recommendations of the working group were presented at the virtual NCCN Policy Summit: Accelerating Advances in Cancer Care Research: A Lookback at the 21st Century Cures Act in 2020. The summit consisted of informative discussions and a multistakeholder panel to explore the recommendations and the future of the Cures Act. This article explores identified policy recommendations from the NCCN Working Group and the NCCN Policy Summit, and analyzes opportunities to advance innovative cancer care and patient access to data.

NCCN Policy Summit: Defining, Measuring, and Applying Quality in an Evolving Health Policy Landscape and the Implications for Cancer Care.

Quality measurement is a critical component of advancing a health system that pays for performance over volume. Although there has been significant attention paid to quality measurement within health systems in recent years, significant challenges to meaningful measurement of quality care outcomes remain. Defining cost can be challenging, but is arguably not as elusive as quality, which lacks standard measurement methods and units. To identify industry standards and recommendations for the future, NCCN recently hosted the NCCN Oncology Policy Summit: Defining, Measuring, and Applying Quality in an Evolving Health Policy Landscape and the Implications for Cancer Care. Key stakeholders including physicians, payers, policymakers, patient advocates, and technology partners reviewed current quality measurement programs to identify success and challenges, including the Oncology Care Model. Speakers and panelists identified gaps in quality measurement and provided insights and suggestions for further advancing quality measurement in oncology. This article provides insights and recommendations; however, the goal of this program was to highlight key issues and not to obtain consensus.

The State of Cancer Care in America: Impact of State Policy on Access to High-Quality Cancer Care.

Health policy in America has shifted rapidly over the last decade, and states are increasingly exercising greater authority over health policy decision-making. This localization and regionalization of healthcare policy poses significant challenges for patients with cancer, providers, advocates, and policymakers. To identify the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead of stakeholders, NCCN hosted the 2019 Policy Summit: The State of Cancer Care in America on June 27, 2019, in Washington, DC. The summit featured multidisciplinary panel discussions to explore the implications for access to quality cancer care within a shifting health policy landscape from a patient, provider, and lawmaker perspective. This article encapsulates the discussion from this NCCN Policy Summit.

Quality Measurement in Cancer Care: A Review and Endorsement of High-Impact Measures and Concepts.

Although oncology care has evolved, outcome assessment remains a key challenge. Outcome measurement requires identification and adoption of a succinct list of metrics indicative of high-quality cancer care for use within and across healthcare systems. NCCN established an advisory committee, the NCCN Quality and Outcomes Committee, consisting of provider experts from NCCN Member Institutions and other stakeholders, including payers and patient advocacy, community oncology, and health information technology representatives, to review the existing quality landscape and identify contemporary, relevant cancer quality and outcomes measures by reevaluating validated measures for endorsement and proposing new measure concepts to fill crucial gaps. This manuscript reports on 22 measures and concepts; 15 that align with existing measures and 7 that are new.

A phase II study of imatinib mesylate and letrozole in patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer expressing c-kit or PDGFR-ß.

Background Imatinib mesylate is a potent inhibitor of the Abl, KIT and platelet derived growth factor (PDGF) receptor tyrosine kinases. Preclinical data suggest that combining imatinib mesylate with anti-estrogen therapy may be synergistic in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. We report results of the first phase II trial evaluating the efficacy of the novel combination of imatinib mesylate and letrozole in the treatment of postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. Patients and Methods 45 postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer whose tumors demonstrated c-kit and/or PDGFR-ß positivity were treated with imatinib mesylate 400 mg PO twice daily and letrozole 2.5 mg PO once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results There were no complete responses and five partial responses for an objective response rate of 11%. An additional 16 patients had stable disease lasting at least 24 weeks for a clinical benefit rate of 46.7%. The median progression-free and overall survival was 8.7 months (95% confidence interval: 3.8-11.4 months) and 44.3 months (95% confidence interval: 34.0-55.3 months), respectively. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment related adverse events were fatigue and diarrhea, occurring in 9 (20%) and 7 patients (16%), respectively. Conclusion The combination of imatinib mesylate and letrozole is well tolerated but appears to have limited efficacy in the treatment of hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Opportunities for improvement: experience at one institution.

In spring of 2011, 11 NCCN Member Institutions were invited to participate in an opportunity to use the NCCN Breast Oncology Outcomes Database to identify opportunities for improvement in the quality of patient care in breast cancer and to implement measures that would target such improvement. The identified measures focused on the administration of treatment that is concordant with selected sections in the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Breast Cancer or timely access to and administration of care. Each institution chose their project based on the individual opportunities specific to that institution.

Developing a system to track meaningful outcome measures in head and neck cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: The health care industry, including consumers, providers, and payers of health care, recognize the importance of developing meaningful, patient-centered measures. This article describes our experience using an existing electronic medical record largely based on free text formats without structured documentation, in conjunction with tumor registry abstraction techniques, to obtain and analyze data for use in clinical improvement and public reporting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 2467 previously untreated patients treated with curative intent who presented with laryngeal, pharyngeal, or oral cavity cancer in order to develop a system to monitor and report meaningful outcome metrics of head and neck cancer treatment. Patients treated between 1995 and 2006 were analyzed for the primary outcomes of survival at 1 and 2 years, the ability to speak at 1 year posttreatment, and the ability to swallow at 1 year posttreatment. RESULTS: We encountered significant limitations in clinical documentation because of the lack of standardization of meaningful measures, as well limitations with data abstraction using a retrospective approach to reporting measures. Almost 5000 person-hours were required for data abstraction, quality review, and reporting, at a cost of approximately $134,000. Our multidisciplinary teams document extensive patient information; however, data is not stored in easily accessible formats for measurement, comparison, and reporting. CONCLUSION: We recommend identifying measures meaningful to patients, providers, and payers to be documented throughout the patients' entire treatment cycle, and significant investment in the improvements to electronic medical records and tumor registry reporting in order to provide meaningful quality measures for the future.

Phase III trial evaluating weekly paclitaxel versus docetaxel in combination with capecitabine in operable breast cancer.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether capecitabine and docetaxel followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) or weekly paclitaxel (WP) followed by FEC would improve relapse-free survival (RFS) in operable breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-institution study, patients with clinical stages I to IIIC breast cancer were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to WP 80 mg/m(2) for 12 weeks followed by fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2), epirubicin 100 mg/m(2), and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2) (FEC-100) every 3 weeks for four cycles or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine (XT) 1,500 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 14 every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by FEC for four cycles and stratified by timing of chemotherapy (preoperative v adjuvant). Accrual was stopped short of 930 patients on the basis of a Bayesian predictive calculation that additional accrual would be unlikely to change the qualitative comparison of the two regimens. RESULTS: After enrollment of 601 patients and a median follow-up of 50 months, we observed no improvement in RFS between XT (87.5%; 95% CI, 82.7% to 91.1%) and WP (90.7%; 95% CI, 86.4% to 93.7%; P = .51). In the preoperative group, the pathologic complete response rate was 19.8% and 16.4% in the XT and WP arms, respectively (P = .45). Rates of breast-conserving surgery were similar between the two groups (P = .48). The XT arm had a significantly higher incidence of stomatitis (P < .001), hand-foot syndrome (P < .001), and neutropenic infection (P < .001). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in efficacy between WP and XT as used in this randomized phase III trial. XT was associated with higher GI, skin, and neutropenic-related toxicities.

NCCN Task Force Report: Oral chemotherapy.

Oral chemotherapy is emerging as a new option for well-selected patients who can manage potentially complex oral regimens and self-monitor for potential complications. If a choice between oral and parenteral therapy is available, patients may opt for oral chemotherapy because it is more convenient to administer, allows them to avoid multiple office visits, and gives them a sense of control over their own cancer care. Whether these potential advantages are maintained in regimens that combine oral and parenteral drugs is less clear. The use of oral chemotherapeutic agents profoundly affects all aspects of oncology, including creating significant safety and adherence issues, shifting some traditional roles and responsibilities of oncologists, nurses, and pharmacists to patients and caregivers. The financing of chemotherapy is also affected. To address these issues, the NCCN convened a multidisciplinary task force consisting of oncologists, nurses, pharmacists, and payor representatives to discuss the impact of the increasing use of oral chemotherapy.

Phase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel on an every-3-week versus weekly schedule in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have evaluated 3-week and weekly docetaxel schedules in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The varying efficacy results and toxicity profiles noted in these earlier studies led to a comparison of the schedules to determine which was safer and more efficacious. METHODS: A phase 3 clinical trial was conducted in patients with MBC who were treated with docetaxel either every 3 weeks or once weekly to determine and compare response rate and duration, time to disease progression, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Patients were randomized to receive docetaxel at a starting dose of either 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks or 35 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 consecutive weeks followed by 1 week of rest. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients underwent efficacy analysis; 59 patients were randomized to the every-3-week treatment arm and 59 to the weekly arm. The response rate was 35.6% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 23.6-49.1%) for the every-3-week arm versus 20.3% (95% CI, 11.0-32.8%) for the weekly arm. There was no statistical difference between the every 3-week and the weekly treatment arms with regard to median PFS (5.7 months vs 5.5 months; P= .46) or OS (18.3 months vs 18.6 months, respectively; P= .34). There was a higher overall toxicity rate (grades 3 and 4, according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria [version 2.0]) in the every-3-week treatment arm versus the weekly treatment arm (88.1% vs 55.9%, respectively; P= .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients who received weekly docetaxel, those who received docetaxel every 3 weeks had a higher response rate but experienced similar PFS and OS and a more pronounced toxicity.

Paclitaxel chemotherapy in a pregnant patient with bilateral breast cancer.

In this article, we report on a case of a pregnant patient with synchronous bilateral breast cancer treated with weekly paclitaxel. She presented after right mastectomy and anthracycline-based chemotherapy at an outside facility. Staging studies at our hospital before taxane administration demonstrated a 19-20-week gravid uterus and tumor in the remaining left breast. Weekly paclitaxel was given preoperatively during pregnancy. A normal male infant was delivered. Upon completion of chemotherapy, the patient underwent mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection followed by comprehensive radiation therapy to the chest wall.