Implementing personalized pathways for cancer follow-up care in the United States: Proceedings from an American Cancer Society-American Society of Clinical Oncology summit.

A new approach to cancer follow-up care is necessary to meet the needs of cancer survivors while dealing with increasing volume and provider shortages, knowledge gaps, and costs to both health care systems and patients. An approach that triages patients to personalized follow-up care pathways, depending on the type(s) and level(s) of resources needed for patients' long-term care, is in use in the United Kingdom and other countries and has been shown to meet patients' needs, more efficiently use the health care system, and reduce costs. Recognizing that testing and implementing a similar personalized approach to cancer follow-up care in the United States will require a multipronged strategy, the American Cancer Society and the American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a summit in January 2018 to identify the needed steps to move this work from concept to implementation. The summit identified 4 key strategies going forward: 1) developing a candidate model (or models) of care delivery; 2) building the case for implementation by conducting studies modeling the effects of personalized pathways of follow-up care on patient outcomes, workforce and health care resources, and utilization and costs; 3) creating consensus-based guidelines to guide the delivery of personalized care pathways; and 4) identifying and filling research gaps to develop and implement needed care changes. While these national strategies are pursued, oncology and primary care providers can lay the groundwork for implementation by assessing their patients' risk of recurrence and the chronic and late effects of cancer as well as other health care needs and resources available for care and by considering triaging patients accordingly, referring patients to appropriate specialized survivorship clinics as these are developed, helping to support patients who are capable of self-managing their health, setting expectations with patients from diagnosis onward for the need for follow-up in primary care and/or a survivorship clinic, and improving coordination of care between oncology and primary care.

Coverage for evidence-based cancer survivorship care services.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Survivorship Committee established a task force to determine which survivorship care services were being denied by public and private payers for coverage and reimbursement. METHODS: A quantitative survey instrument was developed to determine the clinical practice-reported rates of coverage denials for evidence-based cancer survivorship care services. Additionally, qualitative interviews were conducted to understand whether coverage denials were based on payer policies, cost-sharing, or prior authorization. RESULTS: Of 122 respondents from 50 states, respondents reported that coverage denials were common ("always," "most of the time," or "some of the time") for maintenance therapies, screening for new primary cancers or cancer recurrence. Respondents reported that denials in coverage for maintenance therapies were highest for immunotherapy (41.74%) and maintenance chemotherapy (40.17%). Coverage denials for new primary cancer screenings were highest for Hodgkin lymphoma survivors needing a PET/CT scan (49.04%) and breast cancer survivors at a high risk of recurrence who needed an MRI (63.46%), respectively. More than half of survey respondents reported denials for symptom management and supportive care services. Fertility services, dental services when indicated, and mental health services were denied "always" or "most of the time" 23.1%, 22.5%, and 12.8%, respectively. Respondents reported they often had a process in place to automatically appeal denials for evidence-based services. The denial process, however, resulted in greater stress for the patient and provider. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that additional advocacy with payers is needed to ensure that reimbursement policies are consistent with evidence-based survivorship care services.

Attention to diet, exercise, and weight in oncology care: Results of an American Society of Clinical Oncology national patient survey.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) surveyed cancer patients to assess practice patterns related to weight, diet, and exercise as a part of cancer care. METHODS: An online survey was distributed between March and June 2020 through ASCO channels and patient advocacy organizations. Direct email communication was sent to more than 25,000 contacts, and information about the survey was posted on Cancer.Net. Eligibility criteria included being aged at least 18 years, living in the United States, and having been diagnosed with cancer. Logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with recommendation and referral patterns. RESULTS: In total, 2419 individuals responded to the survey. Most respondents were female (60.1%), 61.1% had an early-stage malignancy, and 48.4% were currently receiving treatment. Breast cancer was the most common cancer (35.7%). The majority of respondents consumed ≤2 servings of fruits and vegetables/d (50.5%) and exercised ≤2 times/wk (50.1%). Exercise was addressed at most or some oncology visits in 56.8% of respondents, diet in 50.1%, and weight in 28.0%. Respondents whose oncology provider provided diet and/or exercise recommendations were more likely to report changes in these behaviors vs. those whose oncology provider did not (exercise: 79.6% vs 69.0%, P < .001; diet 81.1% vs 71.3%, P < .001; weight 81.0% vs 73.3%, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: In a national survey of oncology patients, slightly more than one-half reported attention to diet and exercise during oncology visits. Provider recommendations for diet, exercise, and weight were associated with positive changes in these behaviors, reinforcing the importance of attention to these topics as a part of oncology care.

CC-Connect: Identifying solutions to elevating the cancer experience for adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer.

Adolescents and young adults with cancer (AYAs, aged 15 to 39 years) experience unique challenges due to their developmental life stage, and many have limited access to support and resources. CC-Connect, the patient assistance component of the White House Cancer Moonshot CC-DIRECT initiative that aims to help childhood cancer families find the best care for their child, undertook a multipronged effort to identify key strategies for addressing the unique needs of AYAs with cancer. This paper describes the four strategies that emerged to form a comprehensive framework for addressing the unmet needs of AYAs with cancer, which can improve outcomes and enhance the cancer care experience for this vulnerable population.

Revolutionizing Rural Oncology: Innovative Models and Global Perspectives.

For individuals living in rural areas, access to cancer care can be difficult. Barriers to access cross international boundaries and have a negative impact on treatment outcomes. Current models to increase rural access in the United States are reviewed, as is a system-wide approach to this problem in Australia. Ongoing efforts to increase access to clinical trials for patients in rural areas are also discussed.

Improving Access to Patient-Focused, Decentralized Clinical Trials Requires Streamlined Regulatory Requirements: An ASCO Research Statement.

Strategies to bring clinical trials closer to patients gained momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling more participants to receive treatment and/or testing in their local communities. Incorporation of decentralized trial elements presents both opportunities and challenges, spanning regulatory, technical, and operational aspects. This ASCO research statement includes timely consensus-driven recommendations and a call for engagement of all research stakeholders. ASCO held multistakeholder meetings with leaders in oncology research and concluded that research-related regulatory and administrative requirements and burdens present critical barriers to decentralizing trials. One example is sponsor and contract research organization (CRO) use of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Statement of Investigator (Form 1572), which was found to exceed FDA's stated intent and used in conservative ways disproportionate to potential risks to participants and scientific integrity. As a result, research sites experience an avalanche of downstream administrative and regulatory activities that consume considerable resources. This statement recommends four key solutions to address such barriers and recalibrate regulatory and administrative expectations for decentralizing trials: (1) FDA should engage the research community in a public-private partnership to modernize standards and enable local access to trials; (2) sponsors and CROs should develop standards and protocols that accommodate flexible approaches, enable local participation, provide clarity around roles and requirements, and promote consistency; (3) research centers, networks, and sites should update policies and procedures to implement decentralized trial elements; and (4) research community should develop a streamlined, uniform mechanism to simplify regulatory data collection and documentation and use it consistently across trials. We can and must prioritize a concerted commitment to simplify and streamline regulatory requirements and practices to broaden access to and participation in cancer clinical trials.

Challenges and Solutions to Support Oncology Professionals Serving Underserved Populations With Cancer in the United States: Results From the ASCO Serving the Underserved Task Force.

PURPOSE: Little data exist regarding approaches to support oncology professionals who deliver cancer care for underserved populations. In response, ASCO developed the Serving the Underserved Task Force to learn from and support oncology professionals serving underserved populations. METHODS: The Task Force developed a 28-question survey to assess oncology professionals' experiences and strategies to support their work caring for underserved populations. The survey was deployed via an online link to 600 oncology professionals and assessed respondent and patient demographic characteristics, clinic-based processes to coordinate health-related social services, and strategies for professional society support and engagement. We used chi-square tests to evaluate whether there were associations between percent full-time equivalent (FTE) effort serving underserved populations (<50% FTE v ≥50% FTE) with responses. RESULTS: Of 462 respondents who completed the survey (77% response rate), 79 (17.1%) were Asian; 30 (6.5%) Black; 43 (9.3%) Hispanic or Latino/Latina; and 277 (60%) White. The majority (n = 366, 79.2%) had a medical doctor degree (MD). A total of 174 (37.7%) had <25% FTE, 151 (32.7%) had 25%-50% FTE, and 121 (26.2%) had ≥50% FTE effort serving underserved populations. Most best guessed patients' sociodemographic characteristics (n = 388; 84%), while 42 (9.2%) used data collected by the clinic. Social workers coordinated most health-related social services. However, in clinical settings with high proportions of underserved patients, there was greater reliance on nonclinical personnel, such as navigators (odds ratio [OR], 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.33]) or no individual (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.14 to 5.72]) for addressing mental health needs and greater reliance on physicians or advance practice practitioners (OR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.11 to 5.81]) or no individual (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.09 to 3.35]) for addressing childcare or eldercare needs compared with social workers. Prioritization of solutions, which did not differ by FTE effort serving underserved populations, included a return-on-investment model to support personnel, integrated health-related social needs screening, and collaboration with the professional society on advocacy and policy. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight crucial strategies that professional societies can implement to support oncology clinicians serving underserved populations with cancer.

State of Cancer Care in America: Achieving Cancer Health Equity Among Sexual and Gender Minority Communities.

In 2017, ASCO issued the position statement, Strategies for Reducing Cancer Health Disparities Among Sexual and Gender Minority Populations, outlining five areas of recommendations to address the needs of both sexual and gender minority (SGM, eg, LGBTQ+) populations affected by cancer and members of the oncology workforce who identify as SGM: (1) patient education and support; (2) workforce development and diversity; (3) quality improvement strategies; (4) policy solutions; and (5) research strategies. In 2019, ASCO convened the SGM Task Force to help actualize the recommendations of the 2017 position statement. The percentage of the US population who publicly identify as SGM has increased dramatically over the past few years. Although increased national interest in SGM health equity has accompanied a general interest in research, policy change, and education around diversity, equity, and inclusion, resulting from public concern over discrimination in health care against Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, this has been accompanied by a surge in discriminatory legislation directly impacting the SGM community. Although much progress has been made in advancing SGM cancer health equity since 2017, more progress is needed to reduce disparities and advance equity. The five focus areas outlined in the 2017 ASCO position statement remain relevant, as we must continue to promote and advance equity in quality improvement, workforce development, patient care, research, and SGM-affirming policies. This article reports on the progress toward reducing SGM cancer disparities and achieving equity across these five areas and identifies future directions for the work that still remains.

Assessing the Needs of Those Who Serve the Underserved: A Qualitative Study among US Oncology Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology established the 'Supporting Providers Serving the Underserved' (SUS) Task Force with a goal to develop recommendations to support cancer clinicians who deliver care for populations at risk for cancer disparities. As a first step, the Task Force explored barriers and facilitators to equitable cancer care delivery. METHODS: Clinicians across the United States who deliver care predominantly for low-income and racially and ethnically minoritized populations were identified based on lists generated by the Task Force and the Health Equity Committee. Through purposive sampling based on geographical location, clinicians were invited to participate in 30-60 min semi-structured interviews to explore experiences, barriers, and facilitators in their delivery of cancer care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, imported into qualitative data management software, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed three major themes regarding barriers (lack of executive leadership recognition of resources; patient-related socio-economic needs; clinician burnout) and two major themes regarding facilitators (provider commitment, experiential training). CONCLUSIONS: Findings reveal modifiable barriers and potential solutions to facilitate equitable cancer care delivery for populations at risk for cancer disparities.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Cancer Treatment Trials: Evaluation of an ASCO-Association of Community Cancer Centers Site Self-Assessment.

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.

Rural-Urban Disparities in Cancer Outcomes: Opportunities for Future Research.

Cancer care disparities among rural populations are increasingly documented and may be worsening, likely because of the impact of rurality on access to state-of-the-art cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment services, as well as higher rates of risk factors such as smoking and obesity. In 2018, the American Society of Clinical Oncology undertook an initiative to understand and address factors contributing to rural cancer care disparities. A key pillar of this initiative was to identify knowledge gaps and promote the research needed to understand the magnitude of difference in outcomes in rural vs nonrural settings, the drivers of those differences, and interventions to address them. The purpose of this review is to describe continued knowledge gaps and areas of priority research to address them. We conducted a comprehensive literature review by searching the PubMed (Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published in English between 1971 and 2021 and restricted to primary reports from populations in the United States and abstracted data to synthesize current evidence and identify continued gaps in knowledge. Our review identified continuing gaps in the literature regarding the underlying causes of rural-urban disparities in cancer outcomes. Rapid advances in cancer care will worsen existing disparities in outcomes for rural patients without directed effort to understand and address barriers to high-quality care in these areas. Research should be prioritized to address ongoing knowledge gaps about the drivers of rurality-based disparities and preventative and corrective interventions.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Collection in Oncology Practice: Findings of an ASCO Survey.

PURPOSE: Lack of collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data in oncology practices limits assessment of sexual and gender minority (SGM) cancer patients' experiences and restricts opportunities to improve health outcomes of SGM patients. Despite national calls for routine SOGI data collection, individual-level and institutional barriers hinder progress. This study aimed to identify these barriers in oncology. METHODS: An online survey of ASCO members and others assessed SOGI data collection in oncology practices, institutional characteristics related to SOGI data collection, respondents' attitudes about SOGI data and SGM patients, and respondent demographics. Logistic regression calculated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for factors associated with sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) data collection. RESULTS: Less than half of 257 respondents reported institutional SO and GI data collection (40% and 46%, respectively), whereas over a third reported no institutional data collection (34% and 32%, respectively) and the remainder were unsure (21% and 17%, respectively). Most respondents felt that knowing both SO and GI was important for quality care (77% and 85%, respectively). Collection of SO and GI was significantly associated in separate models with leadership support (ORs = 8.01 and 6.02, respectively), having resources for SOGI data collection (ORs = 10.6 and 18.7, respectively), and respondents' belief that knowing patient SO and GI is important (ORs = 4.28 and 2.76, respectively). Themes from qualitative comments mirrored the key factors identified in our quantitative analysis. CONCLUSION: Three self-reinforcing factors emerged as critical drivers for collecting SOGI data: leadership support, dedicated resources, and individual respondents' attitudes. Policy mandates, implementation science, and clinical reimbursement are strategies to advance meaningful data collection and use in clinical practice.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement.

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

Gaps and Opportunities to Improve Prevention of Human Papillomavirus-Related Cancers.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infections cause more than 35,900 cancers annually in the United States. Although cervical cancer is the most prevalent HPV-related malignancy in women, the virus is also responsible for a significant percentage of anal, vaginal, and vulvar cancers. A comprehensive approach to mitigating cervical cancer includes HPV vaccination (primary prevention), screening and treatment of precancerous lesions (secondary prevention), and diagnosis and treatment of invasive cancer (tertiary prevention). Although a successful strategy, there are opportunities to innovate and increase access that can also be adapted to address the unique clinical care gaps that exist with the other anogenital cancers. The Society for Women's Health Research held a series of interdisciplinary meetings and events, during which expert researchers, clinicians, patient advocates, and health care policy leaders evaluated the current landscape of HPV-related cancers and their effects on women's health. This report summarizes the discussions of this working group and areas it identified in which to address gaps in primary and secondary prevention approaches to improve access and health outcomes for women with HPV-related anogenital cancers.

How Is Geriatric Assessment Used in Clinical Practice for Older Adults With Cancer? A Survey of Cancer Providers by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

PURPOSE: For patients with cancer who are older than 65 years, the 2018 ASCO Guideline recommends geriatric assessment (GA) be performed. However, there are limited data on providers' practices using GA. Therefore, ASCO's Geriatric Oncology Task Force conducted a survey of providers to assess practice patterns and barriers to GA. METHODS: Cancer providers treating adult patients including those ≥ 65 years completed an online survey. Questions included those asking about awareness of ASCO's Geriatric Oncology Guideline (2018), use of validated GA tools, and perceived barriers to using GA. Descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons between those aware of the Guideline and those who were not were conducted. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: Participants (N = 1,277) responded between April 5 and June 5, 2019. Approximately half (53%) reported awareness of the Guideline. The most frequently used GA tools, among those aware of the Guideline and those who were not, assessed functional status (69% v 50%; P < .001) and falls (62% v 45%; P < .001). Remaining tools were used < 50% of the time, including tools assessing weight loss, comorbidities, cognition, life expectancy, chemotherapy toxicity, mood, and noncancer mortality risk. GA use was two to four times higher among those who are aware of the Guideline. The most frequent barriers for those who reported being Guideline aware were lack of resources, specifically time (81.7%) and staff (77.0%). In comparison, those who were unaware of the Guideline most often reported the following barriers: lack of knowledge or training (78.4%), lack of awareness about tools (75.2%), and uncertainty about use of tools (75.0%). CONCLUSION: Among providers caring for older adults, 52% were aware of the ASCO Guideline. Some domains were assessed frequently (eg, function, falls), whereas other domains were assessed rarely (eg, mood, cognition). Guideline awareness was associated with two to four times increased use of GA and differing perceived barriers. Interventions facilitating Guideline-consistent implementation will require various strategies to change behavior.

Oncologists' Attitudes and Practice of Addressing Diet, Physical Activity, and Weight Management With Patients With Cancer: Findings of an ASCO Survey of the Oncology Workforce.

PURPOSE: Obesity and related factors have been linked to cancer risk and outcomes, but little information exists with regard to oncologists' attention to these issues as a part of clinical care. METHODS: Oncology providers actively caring for patients with cancer in the United States and internationally were asked to complete an online survey about practice patterns and perceptions with regard to obesity and weight management during and after active cancer treatment. RESULTS: Nine hundred seventy-one practicing oncology providers completed the survey. The majority of respondents indicated a belief that the evidence linking obesity to cancer outcomes was strong and that weight and related factors should be addressed as a part of cancer treatment. The majority of respondents also reported that they frequently assessed body weight and related factors as well as counsel their patients to exercise, consume a healthy diet, and lose weight, if applicable. However, referral to providers and programs to support weight loss and increased physical activity occurred less frequently, and a number of barriers were identified for the incorporation of weight management and physical activity programs in the treatment of patients with cancer. CONCLUSION: In a survey of oncology providers, attention to weight management, physical activity, and diet in patients with cancer was high during and after cancer treatment but often did not result in referrals to support lifestyle change. Future work is needed to support education and training of oncology providers to facilitate referrals and overcome barriers to implementation of weight management and physical activity programs for patients with cancer.

Oncologic Implications of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection.

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection increases the risk for several types of cancer, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as primary and second primary malignancies. HCV-infected patients with cancer, particularly those undergoing anticancer therapy, are at risk for development of enhanced HCV replication, which can lead to hepatitis flare and progression of liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. Risk factors for HCV infection include injection drug use, blood transfusion, or solid organ transplantation before 1992, receipt of clotting factor concentrates before 1987, long-term hemodialysis, chronic liver disease, HIV positivity, and occupational exposure. Widely available direct-acting antivirals are highly effective against HCV and well tolerated. Identification of HCV-infected individuals is the essential first step in treatment and eradication of the infection. One-time screening is recommended for persons born from 1945 to 1965; screening is also recommended for persons with risk factors. Recently, a public health recommendation has been drafted to screen all adults age 18 to 79 years. Two oncology organizations recommend screening all patients with hematologic malignancies and hematopoietic cell transplant recipients, and a recently published multicenter prospective study supports universal HCV screening for all patients with cancer. HCV screening entails testing for anti-HCV antibodies in serum and, when results are positive, HCV RNA quantitation to confirm infection. Direct-acting antiviral therapy eradicates HCV in almost all cases. Virologic cure of HCV prevents chronic hepatitis and progression to liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. HCV eradication also decreases the risk of developing HCV-associated primary and second primary malignancies, and it may allow HCV-infected patients access to important cancer clinical trials. Patients with HCV-related cirrhosis require lifelong surveillance for HCC, even after viral eradication.

Alcohol and Cancer: A Statement of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Alcohol drinking is an established risk factor for several malignancies, and it is a potentially modifiable risk factor for cancer. The Cancer Prevention Committee of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) believes that a proactive stance by the Society to minimize excessive exposure to alcohol has important implications for cancer prevention. In addition, the role of alcohol drinking on outcomes in patients with cancer is in its formative stages, and ASCO can play a key role by generating a research agenda. Also, ASCO could provide needed leadership in the cancer community on this issue. In the issuance of this statement, ASCO joins a growing number of international organizations by establishing a platform to support effective public health strategies in this area. The goals of this statement are to: • Promote public education about the risks between alcohol abuse and certain types of cancer; • Support policy efforts to reduce the risk of cancer through evidence-based strategies that prevent excessive use of alcohol; • Provide education to oncology providers about the influence of excessive alcohol use and cancer risks and treatment complications, including clarification of conflicting evidence; and • Identify areas of needed research regarding the relationship between alcohol use and cancer risk and outcomes.

Global Epidemiology, Prevention, and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

The incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rising. It is one of the most common cancers worldwide and accounts for substantial morbidity and mortality. Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are the most important etiologies of HCC, and effective screening and management strategies are crucial to reduce the HCC risk. For HBV, which accounts for the majority of HCC cases, most infections were acquired via perinatal and early horizontal transmission. Universal vaccination of newborns has led to a decline in HCC incidence compared with the pre-vaccination era. Effective antiviral therapies with nucleos(t)ide analogues or pegylated interferon reduced the incidence of HCC. For HCV, the emergence of effective direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents has substantially improved cure rates; therefore all patients with HCV should be considered for DAA treatment. The most important obstacle in eliminating HCV is access to therapy. For NAFLD, the global incidence is increasing rapidly, thus its impact on HCC incidence may be explosive. Progression to HCC in NAFLD happens particularly in those with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and exacerbated by metabolic syndrome, or PNPLA3 gene polymorphism. Lifestyle changes are imperative while drug therapy has yet to demonstrate substantive protective effects on HCC prevention. For management of HCC, early diagnosis via imaging surveillance among persons with HCC risk factors remains the most important strategy to identify early-stage disease appropriate for resection or transplantation.