Supportive oncology care at home interventions: protocols for clinical trials to shift the paradigm of care for patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer often endure substantial symptoms and treatment toxicities leading to high healthcare utilization, including hospitalizations and emergency department visits, throughout the continuum of their illness. Innovative oncology care models are needed to improve patient outcomes and reduce their healthcare utilization. Using a novel hospital at home care platform, we developed a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to address the needs of patients with cancer. METHODS: We are conducting three trials to delineate the role of Supportive Oncology Care at Home for patients with cancer. The Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention includes: (1) a hospital at home care model for symptom assessment and management; (2) remote monitoring of daily patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; and (3) structured communication with the oncology team. Our first study is a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of Supportive Oncology Care at Home versus standard oncology care for improving healthcare utilization, cancer treatment interruptions, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer receiving definitive treatment of their cancer. Participants include adult patients with gastrointestinal and head and neck cancer, as well as lymphoma, receiving definitive treatment (e.g., treatment with curative intent). The second study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Eligible participants include adult patients with incurable cancer who are admitted with an unplanned hospitalization. The third study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to enhance the end-of-life care for patients with advanced hematologic malignancies. Eligible participants include adult patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancy receiving palliative therapy or supportive care alone. DISCUSSION: These studies are approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and are being conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological trials. This work has the potential to transform the paradigm of care for patients with cancer by providing them with the necessary support at home to improve their health outcomes and care delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT04544046, NCT04637035, NCT04690205.

Management of childhood cancer survivors at risk for thyroid function abnormalities: A Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid function abnormalities can occur after treatment for childhood cancer. Evidence for the management of thyroid dysfunction among asymptomatic childhood cancer survivors (CCS) is lacking. We used a Delphi consensus methodology to expand guidelines for screening asymptomatic CCS at risk for thyroid dysfunction and explore recommendations for the clinical management of abnormal results. PROCEDURE: A Delphi panel of 40 expert physicians representing oncology, endocrinology, and primary care participated in three rounds of anonymous, iterative questionnaires formatted as clinical scenarios. Consensus is defined as ≥ 90% of panelists agree with recommendation and disagreement as < 70% agree. RESULTS: Panelists reached consensus that CCS treated with radiation including neck, total body, whole brain, brain including the hypothalamic-pituitary axis (HPA), and therapeutic meta-iodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) should have annual, lifelong screening using serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free T4 starting within one year off-treatment (98%). Panelists disagreed on continuing to screen CCS for thyroid dysfunction after immunotherapy associated with acute thyroid injury (31%-50%). There was also disagreement on indications for brain (17%-43%) or thyroid (50%-65%) imaging, laboratory tests to assess the HPA (29%-75%), and TSH threshold to initiate treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism. Lack of evidence was the most frequent rationale panelists offered for not recommending additional testing or medications. Panelists' recommendations did not vary by geography, specialty, or survivorship clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached on most recommendations for screening and management of cancer treatment-related thyroid dysfunction. Screening after completion of thyroid-toxic immunotherapy, indications for imaging, and treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism are areas of disagreement for further investigation.

Supportive Oncology Care at Home Intervention for Patients With Pancreatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention among patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with pancreatic cancer from a parent trial of neoadjuvant fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX). The intervention entailed (1) remote monitoring of patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; (2) a hospital-at-home care model; and (3) structured communication with the oncology team. We defined the intervention as feasible if ≥ 60% of patients enrolled in the study and ≥ 60% completed the daily assessments within the first 2-weeks of enrollment. We determined rates of treatment delays, urgent clinic visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations among those who did (n = 20) and did not (n = 24) receive Supportive Oncology Care at Home from the parent trial. RESULTS: From January 2019 to September 2020, we enrolled 80.8% (21/26) of potentially eligible patients. One patient became ineligible following consent because of moving out of state, resulting in 20 participants (median age = 67 years). In the first 2 weeks of enrollment, 65.0% of participants completed all daily assessments. Overall, patients reported 96.1% of daily symptoms, 96.1% of daily vital signs, and 92.5% of weekly body weights. Patients receiving the intervention had lower rates of treatment delays (55.0% v 75.0%), urgent clinic visits (10.0% v 25.0%), and emergency department visits/hospitalizations (45.0% v 62.5%) compared with those not receiving the intervention from the same parent trial. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention. Future work will investigate the efficacy of this intervention for decreasing health care use and improving patient outcomes.