Optimizing Nutrition Support in Cancer Care

Involvement of a multidisciplinary team in cancer care may have added benefits over the existing system ofpatient management. A paradigm shift in the current patient management would allow more focus on nutritionalsupport, in addition to clinical care. Malnutrition, a common problem in cancer patients, needs special attentionfrom the early days of cancer care to improve quality of life and treatment outcomes. Patient management teamswith trained oncology dietitians may provide quality personalized nutritional care to cancer patients.     

Value Based Care and Patient-Centered Care: Divergent or Complementary?

Two distinct but overlapping care philosophies have emerged in cancer care: patient-centered care (PCC) and value-based care (VBC). Value in healthcare has been defined as the quality of care (measured typically by healthcare outcomes) modified by cost. In this conception of value, patient-centeredness is one important but not necessarily dominant quality measure. In contrast, PCC includes multiple domains of patient-centeredness and places the patient and family central to all decisions and evaluations of quality. The alignment of PCC and VBC is complicated by several tensions, including a relative lack of patient experience and preference measures, and conceptions of cost that are payer-focused instead of patient-focused. Several strategies may help to align these two philosophies, including the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and value determinations, and the purposeful integration of patient preference in clinical decisions and guidelines. Innovative models of care, including accountable care organizations and oncology patient-centered medical homes, may also facilitate alignment through improved care coordination and quality-based payment incentives. Ultimately, VBC and PCC will only be aligned if patient-centered outcomes, perspectives, and preferences are explicitly incorporated into the definitions and metrics of quality, cost, and value that will increasingly influence the delivery of cancer care.     

Overall survival is similar between women who seek care at one or more institutions after diagnosis of operable breast cancer in the community

Background

As breast cancer diagnoses increase, so does the number of patients who are critically evaluating hospital attributes to determine where to receive their treatment. Evidence suggests that complex surgeries have better outcomes in high volume academic centers. Whether clinical outcomes of women diagnosed with operable breast cancer, who are treated by multiple disciplines including non-complex surgical approaches, differ for those received all or part of their treatment at their community cancer center is unclear. We hypothesize that the clinical outcomes do not differ for those who received all or part of their care at their community cancer center. Our aim is to analyze data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) to assess the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who received all their treatment at community cancer center when compared with those who had part or all of their care elsewhere.

Identifying critical steps towards improved access to innovation in cancer care: a European CanCer Organisation position paper

In recent decades cancer care has seen improvements in the speed and accuracy of diagnostic procedures; the effectiveness of surgery, radiation therapy and medical treatments; the power of information technology; and the development of multidisciplinary, specialist-led approaches to care. Such innovations are essential if we are to continue improving the lives of cancer patients across Europe despite financial pressures on our healthcare systems. Investment in innovation must be balanced with the need to ensure the sustainability of healthcare budgets, and all health professionals have a responsibility to help achieve this balance. It requires scrutiny of the way care is delivered; we must be ready to discontinue practices or interventions that are inefficient, and prioritise innovations that may deliver the best outcomes possible for patients within the limits of available resources. Decisions on innovations should take into account their long-term impact on patient outcomes and costs, not just their immediate costs. Adopting a culture of innovation requires a multidisciplinary team approach, with the patient at the centre and an integral part of the team. It must take a whole-system and whole-patient perspective on cancer care and be guided by high-quality real-world data, including outcomes relevant to the patient and actual costs of care; this accurately reflects the impact of any innovation in clinical practice. The European CanCer Organisation is committed to working with its member societies, patient organisations and the cancer community at large to find sustainable ways to identify and integrate the most meaningful innovations into all aspects of cancer care.     

Palliation and supportive care in radiation medicine

The treatment of bone metastases represents a paradigm for evaluating palliative care in terms of symptom relief, toxicities of therapy, and the financial burden to the patient, caregivers, and society. Despite enormous expenditures to treat metastases, patients continue to sustain symptoms of the disease, and uninterrupted aggressive therapies are pursued until death that incur toxicity in approximately 25% of patients. This approach is inconsistent with the goals of palliative care, which should efficiently provide comfort using antineoplastic therapies or supportive care approaches to the patient with the fewest treatment-related side effects, recognizing that the patient will die of the disease.The development of therapies such as bisphosphonates is important in advancing options for palliative care; however, clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of bisphosphonates have not addressed important issues for clinical practice. The primary study endpoints should primarily address pertinent patient outcomes such as pain relief rather than asymptomatic radiographic findings. These studies should define clear indications of when to start and stop the therapy, the appropriate patient populations to receive the therapy, and the cost effectiveness of the treatment relative to other available therapies such as radiation. Cost-utility analyses, which account for a broader domain of cost effectiveness, need to be performed as part of clinical trials, especially for palliative care endpoints. Clinical trials that include these criteria are critical to future practice guideline development. As health care resources continue to become more limited, the criteria for care must be better defined to avoid administration of therapy with limited benefit. Leadership must come from the specialty as clinical trials and clinical practice increasingly interface with health care policy. Goals of therapy must remain clear for the benefit of the individual and all patients.     

Prediction models in cancer care

Prediction is ubiquitous across the spectrum of cancer care from screening to hospice. Indeed, oncology is often primarily a prediction problem; many of the early stage cancers cause no symptoms, and treatment is recommended because of a prediction that tumor progression would ultimately threaten a patient's quality of life or survival. Recent years have seen attempts to formalize risk prediction in cancer care. In place of qualitative and implicit prediction algorithms, such as cancer stage, researchers have developed statistical prediction tools that provide a quantitative estimate of the probability of a specific event for an individual patient. Prediction models generally have greater accuracy than reliance on stage or risk groupings, can incorporate novel predictors such as genomic data, and can be used more rationally to make treatment decisions. Several prediction models are now widely used in clinical practice, including the Gail model for breast cancer incidence or the Adjuvant! Online prediction model for breast cancer recurrence. Given the burgeoning complexity of diagnostic and prognostic information, there is simply no realistic alternative to incorporating multiple variables into a single prediction model. As such, the question should not be whether but how prediction models should be used to aid decision‐making. Key issues will be integration of models into the electronic health record and more careful evaluation of models, particularly with respect to their effects on clinical outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 2011. © 2011 American Cancer Society, Inc.     

American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: the integration of palliative care into standard oncology care

PURPOSE: An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the integration of palliative care services into standard oncology practice at the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer. CLINICAL CONTEXT: Palliative care is frequently misconstrued as synonymous with end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on the relief of suffering, in all of its dimensions, throughout the course of a patient's illness. Although the use of hospice and other palliative care services at the end of life has increased, many patients are enrolled in hospice less than 3 weeks before their death, which limits the benefit they may gain from these services. By potentially improving quality of life (QOL), cost of care, and even survival in patients with metastatic cancer, palliative care has increasing relevance for the care of patients with cancer. Until recently, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefits of palliative care in patients with metastatic cancer who are also receiving standard oncology care have not been available. RECENT DATA: Seven published RCTs form the basis of this PCO. PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION: Based on strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at initial diagnosis. While a survival benefit from early involvement of palliative care has not yet been demonstrated in other oncology settings, substantial evidence demonstrates that palliative care-when combined with standard cancer care or as the main focus of care-leads to better patient and caregiver outcomes. These include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden. Earlier involvement of palliative care also leads to more appropriate referral to and use of hospice, and reduced use of futile intensive care. While evidence clarifying optimal delivery of palliative care to improve patient outcomes is evolving, no trials to date have demonstrated harm to patients and caregivers, or excessive costs, from early involvement of palliative care. Therefore, it is the Panel's expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden. Strategies to optimize concurrent palliative care and standard oncology care, with evaluation of its impact on important patient and caregiver outcomes (eg, QOL, survival, health care services utilization, and costs) and on society, should be an area of intense research. NOTE: ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical trials and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical practice. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.     

Implementation of Value Based Breast Cancer Care

PurposeAdding value of care to patients is crucial for all stakeholders. The use of both provider and patient reported outcome data was implemented in a single academic breast cancer center. We describe the development of the outcomes set, data integration within electronical health records (EHR) and clinical use.MethodsAn Integrated Practice Unit (IPU) was constructed providing the full care cycle for breast cancer patients. Provider reported outcomes and patient reported outcomes (PROs) were defined, reflecting the entire cycle of care and long-term sustainability of quality of life. Multidisciplinary provider and patient perspectives were obtained via focus groups and surveys. Patient pathways were redesigned in order to identify suitable opportunities for data collection during the entire care cycle.ResultsA Standard Set for Breast Cancer Outcomes together with case-mix variables and timelines was agreed upon within the IPU. A secure electronic platform, directly linked to the EHR, was designed to measure PROs during the outpatient phase. First year evaluation showed a decrease of response rates over time, from 83.3% at baseline to 45.2% at 12 months after surgery. Patients reacted positively to the use of PROMs in daily clinical cancer care.ConclusionAssessment of patient reported as well as provider reported outcomes was implemented within our standard of breast cancer care. For this, dedicated resources, change of culture and practice, and improved knowledge and awareness about Value-based healthcare (VBHC) were essential. Our proposed framework aims to serve as a blueprint for implementation of VBHC in daily care.     

Do cancer patients' psychosocial outcomes and perceptions of quality of care vary across radiation oncology treatment centres?

This study aimed to explore whether rates of depression, and anxiety and patient views about quality of patient-centred care varied across four metropolitan radiation therapy treatment centres in Sydney, Australia. Participants were radiation therapy outpatients, aged 18 or older and English-speaking. Participants completed a brief survey by touch screen computer while waiting for their radiation therapy treatment appointment. For eight indicators of patient-centred care, participants were asked to indicate whether their well-being would have been improved by better care related to the indicator. Participants also completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. No differences between treatment centres were found for rates of anxiety and depression, or for the mean number of domains of care endorsed as needing improvement (indicated by agreeing or strongly agreeing that their well-being would have been improved by better care). The lack of variance in these outcomes may reflect that variation in treatment centre characteristics does not influence psychosocial outcomes and patient views of their care. Alternatively, it may suggest that the characteristics of the four treatment centres which participated in the present study were too similar for differences in patient outcomes to be observed.     

The Use of Virtual Care in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Scoping Review

There is increasing interest from cancer patients and their healthcare providers in the use of virtual care in routine clinical practice. In the setting of hematologic malignancy, where patients often undergo complex and immunodepleting treatments, understanding how to use virtual care safely and effectively is critically important. We aimed to describe the use of virtual care in patients with hematologic malignancies and to examine physician- and patient-reported outcomes in the form of a systematic scoping review. An electronic search of PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, Scopus, and EBSCO CINAHL was conducted from January 2000 to April 2021. A comprehensive search strategy was used to identify relevant articles, and data were extracted to assess the study design, population, setting, patient characteristics, virtual care platform, and study results. Studies were included if they described the use of virtual care for patients with hematologic malignancies; commentaries were excluded. Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria after abstract and full-text review. Three studies found that app-based tools were effective in monitoring patient symptoms and triggering alerts for more urgent follow-up. Four studies described the use of phone-based interventions. Five studies found that videoconferencing, with both physicians and oncology nurses, was highly rated by patients. Emerging themes included high levels of patient satisfaction across all domains of virtual care. Provider satisfaction scores were rated lower than patient scores, with concerns about technical issues leading to challenges with virtual care. Four studies found that virtual care allowed providers to promptly respond to patient concerns, especially when patients were experiencing side-effects or had questions about their treatment. Overall, the use of virtual care in patients with hematologic malignancies appears feasible, and resulted in high patient satisfaction. Further research is needed in order to evaluate the optimal method of integrating virtual care into clinical practice.     

Le réseau de prise en charge des sarcomes en France

Goals of network structuration is to organize and improve outcomes for people with sarcoma. While it is difficult to predict the influence of that structuration, it is assumed that advances in health care organization will result in improvements in patient outcomes. Aims of such a network care are multiple: to offer a high level of care to all patients, at diagnostic level as well as at therapeutic level, to improve the skill of doctors to facilitate updating knowledge and to reinforce clinical research. On the other hand, it is a time consuming project for all actors, technical material is to be installed to connect all participants, heavy investments which are to be accurately assessed. The GSF-GETO (Groupe sarcome français-Groupe d'étude sur les tumeurs osseuses) started in that way, based on the role of Multidisciplinary Concertation Meeting as the cement of a national network.     

Integrating psychosocial care into cancer services

Despite substantial evidence that patients with cancer commonly have significant psychosocial problems, for which we have evidence-based treatments, many patients still do not receive adequate psychosocial care. This means that we risk prolonging life without adequately addressing the quality of that life. There are many challenges to improving the current situation, the major one of which is organizational. Many cancer centers lack a system of psychosocial care that is integrated with the cancer care of the patient. Psychosocial care encompasses a range of problems (emotional, social, palliative, and logistical). The integration must occur with the cancer care of the patient at all stages (from screening to palliative care) and across all clinical sites of care (inpatient and outpatient cancer services as well as primary care). In this article, we consider the challenges we face if we are to provide such integrated psychosocial services. We focus on the collaborative care service model. This model comprises systematic identification of need, integrated delivery of care by care managers, appropriate specialist supervision, and the stepping of care based on systematic measurement of outcomes. Several trials of this approach to the management of depression in patients with cancer have found it to be both feasible to deliver and effective. It provides a model for services to meet other psychosocial needs. We conclude by proposing the key components of an integrated psychosocial service that could be implemented now and by considering what we need to do next if we are to succeed in providing better and more comprehensive care to our patients.     

How best to palliate and treat emergency conditions in geriatric patients with colorectal cancer

Almost one third of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are diagnosed in an emergency setting, mostly among geriatric patients. Clinical scenarios are often complex and decision making delicate. Besides the obvious need to consider the patient's and/or family and care givers' desires, the surgeon should be able to make the best educated guess on future outcomes in three areas: oncological prognosis, morbidity and mortality risk, and long-term functional loss. Using simple and brief tools for frailty screening reasonable treatment goals with curative or palliative intent can be planned.The most frequent clinical scenarios of CRC in emergency are bowel obstruction and perforation. We propose treatment algorithms based on assessment of the patient's overall reserve and discuss the indications, techniques and impact of a stoma in the geriatric patient. Bridge to surgery strategies may be best adapted to help the frail geriatric patient overcome the acute disease and maybe return to previous state of function. Post-operative morbidity and mortality rates are high in emergency surgery for CRC, but if the geriatric patient survives the post-operative period, oncological prognosis seems to be similar to younger patients. Because the occurrence of complications is the strongest predictor of functional decline and death, post-operative care plays a major role to optimize outcomes.Future studies should further investigate emergency surgery of CRC in the older adults focusing in particular on functional outcomes in order to help physicians counsel patients and families for a tailored treatment.     

Developing quality indicators for cancer end‐of‐life care

Quality indicators applicable to cancer end‐of‐life care exist, but have not been widely implemented. To advance this field, the authors worked with the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality and the National Cancer Institute to organize a national symposium to discuss key issues and future goals, based on a conceptual framework. Discussions focused on 8 key domains in end‐of‐life cancer care: pain; dyspnea; communication, care planning, and decision making; psychosocial care; communication about chemotherapy; depression; continuity, coordination, and care transitions; and spirituality and closure. Key themes included the need for clarity on definitions and key aspects of care within domains, the need to start implementing indicators in more developed domains, and the importance of high‐quality symptom assessment and documentation of key processes. Key areas for future work include development of more outcome indicators, methods to better incorporate indicators and patient‐reported outcomes into clinical processes of care, and coordination across domains and settings. Measuring the quality of end‐of‐life cancer care is essential to understanding how best to improve patient outcomes and care. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.     

Use of cancer performance measures in population health: a macro-level perspective

The use of performance measurement to inform macro-level studies of cancer control and quality of care is receiving increasing interest at the state, national, and international level. This article describes the use of these measures to inform health policy and monitor cancer disparities and disease burden. Applications are discussed in clinical and provider-reported outcomes such as cancer incidence, mortality and survival, and outcome-linked processes of care, and patient-reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction/experience with care. The use of economic measures to monitor and evaluate the burden of illness is also discussed. The growing demand for surveillance capability coupled with the need to expand both the quality and breadth of available measure sets, suggests that there is a need to supplement traditional clinical and provider-reported process and outcomes measures with patient-reported outcomes measures such as health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction and experience with care. In addition, there is also a need to broaden and standardize outcome-linked process-of-care measures to improve the ability to measure and monitor incremental progress in improving cancer care. Finally, better measures of indirect costs of cancer care, such as loss productivity and caregiver burden among the aged, would improve national estimates of the cost of illness associated with cancer.     

Unraveling the mechanisms of endocrine resistance in breast cancer: new therapeutic opportunities.

Two thirds of breast cancers express the estrogen receptor (ER), which contributes to tumor development and progression. ER-targeted therapy is therefore widely used in breast cancer to inhibit signaling through ER and disrupt breast cancer growth. This therapeutic strategy, particularly using the antiestrogen tamoxifen, is proven to increase the cure rates in early breast cancer, improve patient outcomes in advanced disease, and reduce breast cancer incidence in the prevention setting. Despite the recent integration of more powerful endocrine agents into breast cancer care, resistance to all forms of endocrine therapy remains a major problem. New insight into ER biology and progress in understanding resistance mechanisms, mediated by molecular crosstalk between ER and various growth factor signaling pathways, are generating tremendous promise for new therapeutic opportunities to target resistance and improve breast cancer disease outcomes.     

Overcoming resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma

Targeted agents have substantially improved patient outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and have now replaced cytokines as standard of care. Despite the clinical benefits observed, resistance to targeted agents has been shown to develop after a median of 5-11months of treatment. Furthermore, a small subset of patients does not experience any clinical benefit from targeted therapy. Two general modes of resistance have been proposed: intrinsic (pre-existing) and evasive (adaptive). Evasive resistance is thought to be the mechanism involved when patients progress after initial clinical benefit. It has been suggested that upregulation of alternative pro-angiogenic factors and/or downregulation of angiostatic factors may be involved. Several strategies have been shown to enable clinical benefit in patients who have experienced disease progression during prior therapy. These strategies include: adjusting the dose of the drug, combination therapy or switching to an alternative agent, with or without a different mechanism of action. Improvements in our understanding of the mechanisms of resistance associated with targeted agents and refinement of management strategies may help to improve patient outcomes further. In this article, we review the available evidence supporting mechanisms of resistance to targeted agents in mRCC, with a focus on tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and consider the potential management strategies which may allow further clinical benefit to be achieved.     

Recommendations for including multiple symptoms as endpoints in cancer clinical trials

The multiple symptoms arising from cancer and its treatment impose significant distress for patients. However, in clinical research, there is no agreed‐upon way of assessing and presenting the effects of treatment on multiple symptoms, as either individual scores or a composite score. The ASCPRO (Assessing the Symptoms of Cancer Using Patient‐Reported Outcomes) Multisymptom Task Force was established to make recommendations about measuring multiple symptoms as outcomes in cancer clinical trials. The Multisymptom Task Force addressed how to choose the symptoms to be assessed and how multiple individual symptom scores or composite scores of several symptoms might be used as clinical trial outcomes. Consensus was reached on a definition of a multisymptom outcome, the problem of source attribution, and the need for a hypothesis‐driven conceptual framework to measure multisymptom outcomes. Validated single‐item and multi‐item measures currently available or that can be easily generated for oncology use were deemed sufficient for measuring multiple symptoms. The relative value of a composite score versus a set of individual symptom scores was discussed, along with issues in developing and deploying such a composite measure. The results indicated that more research on combining scores of different symptoms is needed. Symptom data should be a required component of cancer clinical trials. Patient‐reported symptoms provide a unique patient perspective on treatment benefit and risk that goes beyond clinician‐reported adverse events. A representation of changes in multiple symptoms would clarify the impact of treatment and enhance the interpretation of cancer clinical trials for clinicians, patients, and those who make health care policy. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

Developing clinical trial protocols: The use of patient focus groups

Can patient views, obtained through patient focus groups, make a contribution to the design of clinical trials? This paper describes the use of patient focus groups as a method of gaining information for the development of a randomised trial looking at community versus hospital care in breast cancer follow-up. Focus groups were used as a method of obtaining qualitative data. Quick and easy access to patients was obtained through a local cancer support group network. Initial responses from the focus group participants appeared to be unfavourable to the protocol. In all, more than five issues were raised which might lead to reluctance to cooperate in the trial. Participants identified key issues related to their follow-up. Changes were made to the protocol addressing the issues raised. It is suggested that where trials require informed consent, using focus groups to find out patients' perceptions at the initial stage may well save time and money, increase participation levels and lead to better outcomes.     

Evidence‐practice gaps in lung cancer: A scoping review

Lung cancer is a significant international health problem. Aligning clinical practice with evidence‐based guideline recommendations has the potential to improve patient outcomes. This scoping review describes evidence‐practice gaps across the diagnostic and management care pathway for lung cancer. We conducted searches of online databases Medline, PsychInfo, Cinahl and the Cochrane Library to identify studies published between 2008 and 2012. Of 614 articles screened, 65 met inclusion criteria. We identified seven evidence‐practice gaps: (1) delays in timely diagnosis and referral; (2) curative and (3) palliative treatments are under‐utilised; (4) older age and co‐morbidities influence the use of treatments; (5) the benefits of multidisciplinary team review are not available to all lung cancer patients; (6) psychosocial needs are unmet; and (7) early referral to palliative care services is under‐utilised. The scoping review highlighted three key messages: (1) there are significant challenges in the timely diagnosis and referral of lung cancer; (2) curative and palliative treatments, psychosocial support and palliative care are under‐utilised in lung cancer management; and (3) variations in treatment utilisation appear to be associated with non‐disease factors such as patient characteristics, provider practices and the organisation of health care services. Future research should focus on designing interventions to overcome variations in care.