Hematology oncology practice in the Asia-Pacific APHCON survey results from the 6th international hematologic malignancies conference: bridging the gap 2015, Beijing, China

This report serves as a snapshot of the state-of-knowledge in the Asia Pacific (APAC) Hematology Oncology community, and establishes a baseline for longitudinal investigations to follow changes in best practices over time. The objective of this study was to understand the approach to hematologic diseases, common standards of care and best practices, issues that remain controversial or debated, and educational or resource gaps that warrant attention. We used mobile application to disseminate and distribute questionnaires to delegates during the 6th international hematologic malignancies conference hosted by the APAC Hematology Consortium at Beijing, China. User responses were collected in an anonymous fashion. We report survey results in two ways: the overall responses, and responses as stratified between Chinese physicians and "Other" represented nationalities. Overall geographical concordance in survey responses was positive and strong. Perhaps more interesting than instances of absolute agreement, these data provide a unique opportunity to identify topics in which physician knowledge or opinions diverge. We assigned questions from all modules to broad categories of: patient information; diagnosis; treatment preference; transplantation; and general knowledge/opinion. On average, we observed a geographic difference of 15% for any particular answer choice, and this was fairly constant across survey modules. These results reveal utility and need for widespread and ongoing initiatives to assess knowledge and provide evidence-based education in real time. The data will be made more valuable by longitudinal participation, such that we can monitor changes in the state of the art over time.

[Progress and Future of the Training Plan for Cancer Professionals - Looking Back for 10 Years]

In order to increase cancer professionals in Japan, the first phase of training plan for cancer professionals was performed for 5 years from 2007t o 2011, and the second one was performed for 5 years from 2012 to 2016. 95 universities for 18 hubs in the first phase and 100 universities for 15 hubs in the second one participated in this project 2,590 graduate students in the first phase and 2,319 students for 3 years in the second phase learned. Although the number of cancer professionals increased after the start of this project, it is still half of the set points and more efforts are required for this project. From 2017, the new training plan for cancer professionals will start for the third phase, and various professionals such as genome medicine professionals, rare cancer professionals, pediatric cancer professionals and those for the life-stage problems in cancer patients will be educated.

Some Builders' Remorse: The Rise and Fall of the Oncology Medical Home

Insurers pay for extra services that oncologists deliver in the hope that the investment will save them money down the road. That's the idea, anyway. In practice, payers and providers in general see the concept as another example of how vexing payment reform for cancer care is turning out to be.

First-line management of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer patients: Audit of real-life practices

BACKGROUND

No reliable guidelines are available for choosing the best option between docetaxel and new hormonal therapies (NHTs) (i.e., abiraterone and enzalutamide) in first-line therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. We performed an audit of real-life practices.

METHODS

We built an online questionnaire and distributed it with the help of French oncology networks. This questionnaire was sent to 481 physicians who treat patients with mCRPC. All of the answers were declarative, individual, and anonymized. A descriptive analysis was done. A univariate logistic regression analysis was performed for the criteria of choice between docetaxel and NHTs.

RESULTS

From March to July 2015, 109/481 physicians (22.6%) completed the questionnaire. The selection criteria for initially choosing docetaxel were as follows: presence of visceral metastases (79.8%), heavy tumor burden (68.8%), aggressive tumor disease (66.1%), and short-term efficacy of castration (66.1%). The selection criteria for initially choosing NHTs were as follows: long-term efficacy of castration (66.1%), higher age (67.9%), low tumor grade (56.9%), and absence of symptoms (54.1%). With docetaxel, the first tumor assessment was typically performed after three (1-6) cycles, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing (96.3%), a thoraco-abdominopelvic CT scan (68.8%), and bone scintigraphy (59.6%). With NHTs, tumor assessment was mainly performed after 3 months of treatment (1-6) and included PSA testing, a thoraco-abdominopelvic CT, and bone scintigraphy in 90.8%, 61.5%, and 63.3% of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study assessing real-life practices among physicians who treat patients with mCRPC. These practices were found to be homogeneous.

Variation in the Types of Providers Participating in Breast Cancer Follow-Up Care: A SEER-Medicare Analysis

BACKGROUND

The current guidelines do not delineate the types of providers that should participate in early breast cancer follow-up care (within 3 years after completion of treatment). This study aimed to describe the types of providers participating in early follow-up care of older breast cancer survivors and to identify factors associated with receipt of follow-up care from different types of providers.

METHODS

Stages 1-3 breast cancer survivors treated from 2000 to 2007 were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End results Medicare database (n = 44,306). Oncologist (including medical, radiation, and surgical) follow-up and primary care visits were defined using Medicare specialty provider codes and linked American Medical Association (AMA) Masterfile. The types of providers involved in follow-up care were summarized. Stepped regression models identified factors associated with receipt of medical oncology follow-up care and factors associated with receipt of medical oncology care alone versus combination oncology follow-up care.

RESULTS

Oncology follow-up care was provided for 80 % of the patients: 80 % with a medical oncologist, 46 % with a surgeon, and 39 % with a radiation oncologist after radiation treatment. The patients with larger tumor size, positive axillary nodes, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive status, and chemotherapy treatment were more likely to have medical oncology follow-up care than older patients with higher Charlson comorbidity scores who were not receiving axillary care. The only factor associated with increased likelihood of follow-up care with a combination of oncology providers was regular primary care visits (>2 visits/year).

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial variation exists in the types of providers that participate in breast cancer follow-up care. Improved guidance for the types of providers involved and delineation of providers' responsibilities during follow-up care could lead to improved efficiency and quality of care.

[Topical problems of occupational cancer in Russia.]

The authors present data on occupational oncologic morbidity in Russia by federal districts and regions. Over 2002- 2014, a total of 497 cases of occupational cancer was registered, that is less than 0,3% of minimal expected number of cases. Necessity is to urgent improvement of legislation and methodic basis, informational supply, providing qualitative account of occupational oncologic morbidity. Important role in solving this problem could be played by continued sanitary and hygienic certification of caricnogenically dangerous institutions in RF and creation of Federal register (governmental automated information system) of individuals who had (has) occupational exposure to carcinogenic factors.

Distribution and Patterns of Industry-Related Payments to Oncologists in 2014

BACKGROUND

Industry-physician collaboration is critical for anticancer therapeutic development, but financial relationships introduce conflicts of interest. We examined the specialty variation and context of physician payments and ownership interest among oncologists.

METHODS

We performed a population-based multivariable analysis of 2014 Open Payments reports of industry payments to US physicians matched to physician and practice data, including sex, specialty, practice location, and sole proprietor status. Payment data were aggregated per physician and compared by specialty (medical, radiation, surgical, and nononcology), and practice location linked with spending level (low, average, and high). Primary outcomes included likelihood, mean annual amount, and number of general payments. Secondary outcomes included likelihood of holding ownership interests and receipt of royalty/license payments. Estimates for each outcome were determined using multivariable models, including logistic regression for likelihood and linear regression with gamma distribution and log-link for value, adjusted for physician specialty, sex, sole proprietor status, and practice spending. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

In 2014, there were 883 438 physicians, including 22 712 oncologists, licensed to practice in the United States. Among oncology specialties, 52.4% to 63.0% of physicians received a general payment in 2014, totaling $76 million, $4 million, and $5 million to medical, radiation, and surgical oncology, respectively. The median annual per-physician payment to medical oncologists was $632 (IQR = 136-2500), compared with $124 (IQR = 39-323) in radiation oncology and $250 (IQR = 84-1369) in surgical oncology. After controlling for physician and practice characteristics, oncologists were 1.09 to 1.75 times as likely to receive a general payment compared with nononcologists (overall P < 001). There was a 67.6% difference (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.6 to 71.5, P < .001) in the mean annual value of payments between medical oncology and nononcology specialties (vs -92.7%, 95%CI = -100.2 to -85.0, P < .001] for radiation oncology). Medical and radiation oncologists were more likely to hold ownership interest (adjusted OR = 3.72, 95% CI = 3.22 to 4.27, and 2.27, 95% CI = 1.65 to 3.03, respectively, P < .001 both comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

In 2014, industry-oncologist financial relationships were common, and their impact on oncology practice should be further explored.

Outcomes Definitions and Statistical Tests in Oncology Studies: A Systematic Review of the Reporting Consistency

BACKGROUND

Quality of reporting for Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) in oncology was analyzed in several systematic reviews, but, in this setting, there is paucity of data for the outcomes definitions and consistency of reporting for statistical tests in RCTs and Observational Studies (OBS). The objective of this review was to describe those two reporting aspects, for OBS and RCTs in oncology.

METHODS

From a list of 19 medical journals, three were retained for analysis, after a random selection: British Medical Journal (BMJ), Annals of Oncology (AoO) and British Journal of Cancer (BJC). All original articles published between March 2009 and March 2014 were screened. Only studies whose main outcome was accompanied by a corresponding statistical test were included in the analysis. Studies based on censored data were excluded. Primary outcome was to assess quality of reporting for description of primary outcome measure in RCTs and of variables of interest in OBS. A logistic regression was performed to identify covariates of studies potentially associated with concordance of tests between Methods and Results parts.

RESULTS

826 studies were included in the review, and 698 were OBS. Variables were described in Methods section for all OBS studies and primary endpoint was clearly detailed in Methods section for 109 RCTs (85.2%). 295 OBS (42.2%) and 43 RCTs (33.6%) had perfect agreement for reported statistical test between Methods and Results parts. In multivariable analysis, variable "number of included patients in study" was associated with test consistency: aOR (adjusted Odds Ratio) for third group compared to first group was equal to: aOR Grp3 = 0.52 [0.31-0.89] (P value = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Variables in OBS and primary endpoint in RCTs are reported and described with a high frequency. However, statistical tests consistency between methods and Results sections of OBS is not always noted. Therefore, we encourage authors and peer reviewers to verify consistency of statistical tests in oncology studies.

Improving the quality of survivorship for older adults with cancer

In May 2015, the Cancer and Aging Research Group, in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute on Aging through a U13 grant, convened a conference to identify research priorities to help design and implement intervention studies to improve the quality of life and survivorship of older, frailer adults with cancer. Conference attendees included researchers with multidisciplinary expertise and advocates. It was concluded that future intervention trials for older adults with cancer should: 1) rigorously test interventions to prevent the decline of or improve health status, especially interventions focused on optimizing physical performance, nutritional status, and cognition while undergoing cancer treatment; 2) use standardized care plans based on geriatric assessment findings to guide targeted interventions; and 3) incorporate the principles of geriatrics into survivorship care plans. Also highlighted was the need to integrate the expertise of interdisciplinary team members into geriatric oncology research, improve funding mechanisms to support geriatric oncology research, and disseminate high-impact results to the research and clinical community. In conjunction with the 2 prior U13 meetings, this conference provided the framework for future research to improve the evidence base for the clinical care of older adults with cancer. Cancer 2016;122:2459-68. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard "core" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival).

CONCLUSION

This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.

Terminology-Based Recording of Clinical Data for Multiple Purposes Within Oncology

INTRODUCTION

Collecting clinical data once for the use in both electronic health record (EHR) and registries requires semantic interoperability. This paper presents the results of a systematic semantic analysis of similarities and differences in clinical documentation across regional EHR and a national oncology registry to assess options for an integration of recording templates.

METHODS

A comparison of current clinical information in EHR and the national registry was carried out, using SNOMED CT as frame of reference to find exact-, similar- and non-match.

RESULTS

Exact match was found for 9 out of 19 items from the registry and EHR, relating to clinical history, observations and findings at the examination and tumor control. Similar match concerned clinical findings of more common side effects to therapy whether present or absent. Both EHR and the registry had information with no compared match.

CONCLUSION

Clinical documentation during a follow-up in head and neck cancer contains a core set of items recorded in both EHR and registry, representing clinical history, observations and more common side effects and tumor evaluation. These core items could be the point of departure for integration or re-design of EHR-systems.

Does Cancer Literature Reflect Multidisciplinary Practice? A Systematic Review of Oncology Studies in the Medical Literature Over a 20-Year Period

PURPOSE

Quality cancer care is best delivered through a multidisciplinary approach requiring awareness of current evidence for all oncologic specialties. The highest impact journals often disseminate such information, so the distribution and characteristics of oncology studies by primary intervention (local therapies, systemic therapies, and targeted agents) were evaluated in 10 high-impact journals over a 20-year period.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Articles published in 1994, 2004, and 2014 in New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Annals of Oncology, Radiotherapy and Oncology, International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, Annals of Surgical Oncology, and European Journal of Surgical Oncology were identified. Included studies were prospectively conducted and evaluated a therapeutic intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 960 studies were included: 240 (25%) investigated local therapies, 551 (57.4%) investigated systemic therapies, and 169 (17.6%) investigated targeted therapies. More local therapy trials (n=185 [77.1%]) evaluated definitive, primary treatment than systemic (n=178 [32.3%]) or targeted therapy trials (n=38 [22.5%]; P<.001). Local therapy trials (n=16 [6.7%]) also had significantly lower rates of industry funding than systemic (n=207 [37.6%]) and targeted therapy trials (n=129 [76.3%]; P<.001). Targeted therapy trials represented 5 (2%), 38 (10.2%), and 126 (38%) of those published in 1994, 2004, and 2014, respectively (P<.001), and industry-funded 48 (18.9%), 122 (32.6%), and 182 (54.8%) trials, respectively (P<.001). Compared to publication of systemic therapy trial articles, articles investigating local therapy (odds ratio: 0.025 [95% confidence interval: 0.012-0.048]; P<.001) were less likely to be found in high-impact general medical journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer studies evaluating local therapies, such as surgery and radiation, are published in high-impact oncology and medicine literature. Further research and attention are necessary to guide efforts promoting appropriate representation of all oncology studies in high-impact, broad-readership journals.

Key statistical concepts in cancer research

In this article, we provide a high-level overview of statistical concepts related to study design and data analysis in oncology research. These concepts are discussed for 2 main types of clinical research: (1) observational studies, which focus on biomarker discovery in order to predict disease risk and prognosis, and (2) prospectively designed, well-controlled clinical trials, which are critical for the development of new cancer treatments. Throughout the article, we emphasize the importance of appropriate design and prospectively determined analysis plans. We also hope to promote effective collaboration between oncology investigators and statisticians who center their research on the development of cancer treatments.

Breast cancer specialists' views on and use of risk prediction models in clinical practice: a mixed methods approach

Purpose

Risk prediction models (RPM) in breast cancer quantify survival benefit from adjuvant systemic treatment. These models [e.g. Adjuvant! Online (AO)] are increasingly used during consultations, despite their not being designed for such use. As still little is known about oncologists' views on and use of RPM to communicate prognosis to patients, we investigated if, why, and how they use RPM.

Methods

We disseminated an online questionnaire that was based on the literature and individual and group interviews with oncologists.

Results

Fifty-one oncologists (partially) completed the questionnaire. AO is the best known (95%) and most frequently used RPM (96%). It is used to help oncologists decide whether or not to recommend chemotherapy (> 85%), to inform (86%) and help patients decide about treatment (> 80%), or to persuade them to follow the proposed course of treatment (74%). Most oncologists (74%) believe that using AO helps patients understand their prognosis.

Conclusion

RPM have found a place in daily practice, especially AO. Oncologists think that using AO helps patients understand their prognosis, yet studies suggest that this is not always the case. Our findings highlight the importance of exploring whether patients understand the information that RPM provide.

How well is palliative care integrated into cancer care? A MASCC, ESMO, and EAPC Project

INTRODUCTION

The benefits of integration of palliative care into oncology have become evidence-based. How palliative care is perceived and structured in various settings and countries would be of interest.

METHOD

We used a previously published questionnaire to survey multiple institutions with members in MASCC and ESMO. The survey was made available on the MASCC website for approximately 6 months and repeated requests were made to complete the survey. Comparisons were made between NCI/ESMO designated cancer centers, nondesignated cancer centers, and urban hospitals.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-three different institutions completed this survey, 28 % of ESMO designated centers. Most institutions had palliative care programs and most programs consisted of an inpatient consult service and outpatient clinics. A minority had inpatient palliative care beds and institution supported hospice services. Barriers to palliative care were largely financial. Integration of palliative care into oncology was highly desirable but only a minority of respondents felt that their institution would financially support expanded services and additional palliative care personnel. Designated centers were more likely to have expanded palliative care services.

DISCUSSION

Our findings are very similar to those previously published. Multiple studies have demonstrated that though palliative care integration into oncology is highly beneficial as measured by patient related outcomes, there is a great concern about reimbursement for services and budget constraints which prevent expansion of services.

CONCLUSION

Palliative care integration into cancer care is largely through consulting services for inpatients and outpatient clinics. Financial concerns limit integration and expansion of palliative care services. Designated cancer centers have more extensive palliative care services relative to nondesignated cancer centers and urban hospitals.

[Mental health in the hospital. Analysis of conditions of risk by department, age and gender, for the creation of best practices for the health of nurses]

BACKGROUND

Nurses mental health is still a major and unachieved goal in many public hospital settings. Hospital work organization analysis shows differences in health professions, hospital units, age and gender.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse work organisation and its effects on nurses mental health in three high risks hospital units (Oncoematology, First Aid, General Medicine) in order to improve good practices for nurses health.

METHODS

The Method of Organizational Congruences (72 hours of observation) has been used to detect organizational constraints and their possible effects on nurses' mental health. General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg D., 12 items) and the Check up Surveys for burnout (Leiter MP and Maslach C.) have been used to evaluate the mental health status of the 80 nurses employed (78% women).

RESULTS

High emotional work load in oncoematology Unit, high monotony and repetitiveness with lower emotional load in first Aid Unit, High mental and physical workload in General Medicine Unit. Burnout was significantly higher in General Medicine Unit, followed by First Aid Unit and oncoematology Unit. Female nurses reported more chronic diseases than males. The GHQ showed high frequency of minor psychiatric disorders (58%) in all units, higher in General Medicine Unit (78%).

CONCLUSION

The overall results show how organizational constraints and mental health conditions differ per hospital units, age groups and gender. Good nursing practices, to prevent mental health problems, should therefore be developed specifically in each hospital unit according to these results.

Comparison of anticipated and actual control group outcomes in randomised trials in paediatric oncology provides evidence that historically controlled studies are biased in favour of the novel treatment

BACKGROUND

Historically controlled studies are commonly undertaken in paediatric oncology, despite their potential biases. Our aim was to compare the outcome of the control group in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in paediatric oncology with those anticipated in the sample size calculations in the protocols. Our rationale was that, had these RCTs been performed as historical control studies instead, the available outcome data used to calculate the sample size in the RCT would have been used as the historical control outcome data.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken for published paediatric oncology RCTs using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database from its inception up to July 2013. Data on sample size assumptions and observed outcomes (timetoevent and proportions) were extracted to calculate differences between randomised and historical control outcomes, and a one-sample t-test was employed to assess whether the difference between anticipated and observed control groups differed from zero.

RESULTS

Forty-eight randomised questions were included. The median year of publication was 2005, and the range was from 1976 to 2010. There were 31 superiority and 11 equivalence/noninferiority randomised questions with time-to-event outcomes. The median absolute difference between observed and anticipated control outcomes was 5.0% (range: -23 to +34), and the mean difference was 3.8% (95% CI: +0.57 to +7.0; P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Because the observed control group (that is, standard treatment arm) in RCTs performed better than anticipated, we found that historically controlled studies that used similar assumptions for the standard treatment were likely to overestimate the benefit of new treatments, potentially leading to children with cancer being given ineffective therapy that may have additional toxicity.

A survey of Italian radiation oncologists: job satisfaction and burnout

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

Job satisfaction and burnout can greatly affect the quality of life of professionals involved in the medical field and can also have an impact on many aspects of the work. The aim of the present study was to investigate professional history, professional satisfaction and burnout in Italian radiation oncologists.

METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN

Members of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO) were asked to complete a questionnaire composed of three sections including personal and professional information, the Job Satisfaction Scale (JSS) and the Link Burnout Questionnaire (LBQ).

RESULTS

The 167 participants were prevalently males working in public hospitals. About half of participants were staff physicians, mainly with no other specialty. Concerning the JSS, most respondents were moderately to extremely satisfied with their job. With regard to the LBQ, instead, we found critical results in the four investigated dimensions (psychophysical exhaustion, relation deterioration, professional failure and disillusion).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that Italian radiation oncologists have good medical background and education levels with a deep understanding of working in a clinical discipline. Organizational factors and the work climate are the main determinants of the satisfaction level and burnout is limited to a small percentage of professionals. The identification of specific profiles for professionals with higher levels of burnout or poorer job satisfaction may allow the delivery of targeted prevention or support interventions with the aim of improving workers' quality of life, satisfaction and perception of effectiveness.