Dysphagia training after head and neck cancer fails to follow legislation and national recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Dysphagia is a known sequela after head and neck cancer (HNC) and causes malnutrition, aspiration pneumonia and a reduced quality of life. Due to improved survival rates, the number of patients with sequelae is increasing. Evidence on the ideal HNC-specific rehabilitation of dysphagia is lacking, but several studies indicate that early initiation is crucial. The aim of this study was to map the existing dysphagia rehabilitation programmes for HNC patients in Denmark.

METHODS

Occupational therapists (OTs), oncologists and surgeons from five hospitals participated in a nationwide questionnaire-based survey, along with OTs from 39 municipal health centres.

RESULTS

HNC patients rarely receive preventive occupational therapy before treatment, and hospital-based OTs mainly attend to HNC patients undergoing surgery. Far from all oncology and surgical departments complete the required rehabilitation plans upon discharge which leaves many patients untreated. There are vast differences between the municipalities' rehabilitation programmes and between the expertise employed in municipalities and hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Existing HNC rehabilitation does not meet official Danish guidelines. Only a fraction of HNC patients are offered rehabilitation and often long after completing treatment. Municipal rehabilitation services vary considerably in terms of type, duration, intensity and expertise. Dysphagia-related rehabilitation requires an improved monitoration, possibly with an increase in the uptake of centralised dysphagia rehabilitation.

FUNDING

not relevant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

not relevant.

Challenges of coverage policy development for next-generation tumor sequencing panels: experts and payers weigh in

BACKGROUND

Next-generation tumor sequencing (NGTS) panels, which include multiple established and novel targets across cancers, are emerging in oncology practice, but lack formal positive coverage by US payers. Lack of coverage may impact access and adoption. This study identified challenges of NGTS coverage by private payers.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 NGTS experts on potential NGTS benefits, and with 10 major payers, representing more than 125,000,000 enrollees, on NGTS coverage considerations. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analyses and simple frequencies to further describe findings.

RESULTS

All interviewed payers see potential NGTS benefits, but all noted challenges to formal coverage: 80% state that inherent features of NGTS do not fit the medical necessity definition required for coverage, 70% view NGTS as a bundle of targets versus comprehensive tumor characterization and may evaluate each target individually, and 70% express skepticism regarding new evidence methods proposed for NGTS. Fifty percent of payers expressed sufficient concerns about NGTS adoption and implementation that will preclude their ability to issue positive coverage policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers perceive that NGTS holds significant promise but, in its current form, poses disruptive challenges to coverage policy frameworks. Proactive multidisciplinary efforts to define the direction for NGTS development, evidence generation, and incorporation into coverage policy are necessary to realize its promise and provide patient access. This study contributes to current literature, as possibly the first study to directly interview US payers on NGTS coverage and reimbursement.

The Affordable Care Act: where are we now? An NCCN roundtable

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a transformational event for health care in the United States, with multiple impacts on health care, the economy, and society. Oncologists and other health care providers are already experiencing many changes-direct and indirect, anticipated and unanticipated. A distinguished and diverse panel assembled at the NCCN 19th Annual Conference to discuss the early phase of implementation of the ACA. The roundtable touched on early successes and stumbling blocks; the impact of the ACA on contemporary oncology practice and the new risk pool facing providers, payers, and patients; and some of the current and future challenges that lie ahead for all.

Community oncology in an era of payment reform

Patients and payers (government and private) are frustrated with the fee-for-service system (FFS) of payment for outpatient health services. FFS rewards volume and highly valued services, including expensive diagnostics and therapeutics, over lesser valued cognitive services. Proposed payment schemes would incent collaboration and coordination of care among providers and reward quality. In oncology, new payment schemes must address the high costs of all services, particularly drugs, while preserving the robust distribution of sites of service available to patients in the United States. Information technology and personalized cancer care are changing the practice of oncology. Twenty-first century oncology will require increasing cognitive work and shared decision making, both of which are not well regarded in the FFS model. A high proportion of health care dollars are consumed in the final months of life. Effective delivery of palliative and end-of-life care must be addressed by practice and by new models of payment. Value-based reimbursement schemes will require oncology practices to change how they are structured. Lessons drawn from the principles of primary care's Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) will help oncology practice to prepare for new schemes. PCMH principles place a premium on proactively addressing toxicities of therapies, coordinating care with other providers, and engaging patients in shared decision making, supporting the ideal of value defined in the triple aim-to measurably improve patient experience and quality of care at less cost. Payment reform will be disruptive to all. Oncology must be engaged in policy discussions and guide rational shifts in priorities defined by new payment models.

The impact of the written request process on drug development in childhood cancer

PURPOSE

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act, enacted in 1997, created a pediatric exclusivity incentive allowing sponsors to qualify for an additional 6 months of marketing exclusivity after satisfying the requirements outlined in the Written Request (WR). This review evaluates the impact of the WR mechanism on the development of oncology drugs in children.

METHODS

A search of the FDA document archiving, reporting, and regulatory tracking system was performed for January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2010. Drugs were identified and pediatric-specific labeling information was obtained from Drugs@fda.gov and FDA Pediatric Labeling Changes Table.

RESULTS

Fifty WRs have been issued for oncology drugs. Pediatric studies have been submitted for 14 drugs. Thirteen received pediatric exclusivity. As of December 31, 2010, labeling changes have been made for 11 drugs. Three drugs were approved for pediatric use.

CONCLUSION

WRs have provided a mechanism to promote the study of drugs in pediatric malignancies. Information from studies resulting from the WRs regarding safety, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of oncology drugs has been incorporated into pediatric labeling for 11/14 of the drugs. Earlier communication and collaboration between the FDA, National Cancer Institute, clinical investigators, and commercial sponsors are envisioned to facilitate the identification and prioritization of emerging new drugs of interest for WR consideration. Since this is the only regulatory mechanism, resulting from specific legislative initiatives relevant to cancer drug development for children, efforts to enhance its impact on increasing drug approval for pediatric cancer indications are warranted.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: what every provider of gynecologic oncology care should know

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010. While initial implementation of the law began shortly thereafter, the full implementation will take place over the next few years. With respect to cancer care, the act was intended to make care more accessible, affordable, and comprehensive across different parts of the country. For our cancer patients and our practices, the ACA has implications that are both positive and negative. The Medicaid expansion and access to insurance exchanges are intended to increase the number of insured patients and thus improve access to care, but many states have decided to opt out of the Medicaid program and in these states access problems will persist. Screening programs will be put in place for insured patients but may supplant federally funded programs that are currently in place for uninsured patients and may not follow current screening guidelines. Both hospice and home health providers will be asked to provide more services with less funding, and quality measures, including readmission rates, will factor into reimbursement. Insured patients will have access to all phases of clinical trial research. There is a need for us as providers of Gynecologic Oncology care to be active in the implementation of the ACA in order to ensure that our patients and our practices can survive and benefit from the changes in health care reimbursement, with the ultimate goals of improving access to care and quality while reducing unsustainable costs.

SEOM guideline for the treatment of malignant glioma

High-grade gliomas are an infrequent disease diagnosed usually in the fifth or sixth decade. Careful histopathological diagnosis is essential because tumour grade and type condition the treatment. Magnetic resonance with gadolinium is considered the standard radiologic exploration and should be followed by tissue sampling. Treatment of these patients should be decided in a multidisciplinary committee. Surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy are the basis of patients' treatment, with the best results obtained when the three of them can be used.

SEOM guidelines for cervical cancer

Cervical cancer (CC) is the second most common cancer worldwide, with a well known origin, infection by high-risk human papilloma virus. Although screening programmes have led to a relevant reduction in the incidence and mortality due to CC in developed countries, it is still an important cause of mortality in young women in undeveloped countries. Clinical stage is the most relevant prognostic factor in CC and the standard of care is still based on it. In early stages, the primary treatment is surgery or radiotherapy, whereas concomitant chemo-radiotherapy is the conventional approach in locally advanced stage. In the setting of recurrent or metastatic CC the treatment is largely palliative, so it is important to develop new therapeutic strategies.

SEOM guidelines for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumours

Bone metastases are a common and distressing effect of cancer, being a major cause of morbidity in many patients with advanced stage cancer, in particular in breast and prostate cancer. Patients with bone metastases can experience complications known as skeletal-related events (SREs) which may cause significant debilitation and have a negative impact on quality of life and functional independence. The current recommended systemic treatment for the prevention of SREs is based on the use of bisphosphonates: ibandronate, pamidronate and zoledronic acid- the most potent one- are approved in advanced breast cancer with bone metastases, whereas only zoledronic acid is indicated in advanced prostate cancer with bone metastases. The 2011 ASCO guidelines on breast cancer, recommend initiating bisphosphonate treatment only for patients with evidence of bone destruction due to bone metastases. Denosumab, a fully human antibody that specifically targets the RANK-L, has been demonstrated in two phase III studies to be superior to zoledronic acid in preventing or delaying SREs in breast and prostate cancer and non-inferior in other solid tumours and mieloma; it's convenient subcutaneous administration and the fact that does not require dose adjustment in cases of renal impairment, make this agent an attractive new therapeutic option in patients with bone metastases. Finally, in a phase III study against placebo, denosumab significantly increased the median metastasis-free survival in high risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, arising the potential role of these bone-modifying agents in preventing or delaying the development of bone metastases.

Third CECOG consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer

The current third consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) builds upon and updates similar publications on the subject by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), which has published such consensus statements in the years 2002 and 2005 (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137). The principle of all CECOG consensus is such that evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment are given upon which all participants and authors of the manuscript have to agree (Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). This is of particular importance in diseases in which treatment options depend on very particular clinical and biologic variables (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137; Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). Since the publication of the last CECOG consensus on the medical treatment of NSCLC, a series of diagnostic tools for the characterization of biomarkers for personalized therapy for NSCLC as well as therapeutic options including adjuvant treatment, targeted therapy, and maintenance treatment have emerged and strongly influenced the field. Thus, the present third consensus was generated that not only readdresses previous disease-related issues but also expands toward recent developments in the management of NSCLC. It is the aim of the present consensus to summarize minimal quality-oriented requirements for individual patients with NSCLC in its various stages based upon levels of evidence in the light of a rapidly expanding array of individual therapeutic options.

NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines Occult primary

Occult primary tumors, or cancers of unknown primary (CUPs), are defined as histologically proven metastatic malignant tumors whose primary site cannot be identified during pretreatment evaluation. They have a wide variety of clinical presentations and a poor prognosis in most patients. Patients with occult primary tumors often present with general complaints, such as anorexia and weight loss. Clinical absence of primary tumor, early dissemination, aggressiveness, and unpredictability of metastatic pattern are characteristic of these tumors. Life expectancy is very short, with a median survival of 6 to 9 months. In most patients, occult primary tumors are refractory to systemic treatments, and chemotherapy is only palliative and does not significantly improve long-term survival. However, certain clinical presentations of these tumors are associated with a better prognosis. Special pathologic studies can identify subsets of patients with tumor types that are more responsive to chemotherapy. Treatment options should be individualized for this selected group of patients to achieve improved response and survival rates.