The Quid Pro Quo of pediatric versus adult services for older adolescent cancer patients

Access to Care for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer in the United States: State of the Literature

Access to care remains a persistent challenge for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. We review key findings in the science to date. (1) Location of care matters. There is survival benefit for AYAs treated either at a pediatric center or site with special status (eg, Children's Oncology Group, National Cancer Institute [NCI]-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center). (2) Socioeconomic status and insurance require further investigation. Medicaid expansion has had a moderate effect on AYA outcomes. The dependent care expansion benefit has come largely from improvements in coverage for younger populations whose parents have insurance, while some subgroups likely still face insurance gaps. (3) Clinical trial enrollment remains poor, but access may be improving. Numerous barriers and facilitators of clinical trial enrollment include those that are system level and patient level. NCI has established several initiatives over the past decade to improve enrollment, and newer collaboratives have recently brought together multidisciplinary US teams to increase clinical trial enrollment. (4) Effective AYA programs require provider and system flexibility and program reflection. With flexibility comes a need for metrics to assess program effectiveness in the context of the program model. Centers treating AYAs with cancer could submit a subset of metrics (appropriate to their program and/or services) to maintain their status; persistence would require an entity with staying power committed to overseeing the metrics and the system. Substantial clinical and biological advances are anticipated over the next 20 years that will benefit all patients with cancer. In parallel, it is crucial to prioritize research regarding access to health care and cancer care delivery; only with equitable access to care for AYAs can they, too, benefit from these advances.

The Importance of Subspecialty Pediatricians to the Health and Wellbeing of the Nation's Children

Through this review of published literature, it is clear that children benefit in measurable ways when they receive care from trained pediatric subspecialists. The improved outcomes provided by pediatric subspecialists supports the care provided in the patient's pediatric medical home and emphasizes the importance of care coordination between all components of the pediatric workforce. The AAP highlights this in a recent policy statement by stating the care provided by pediatric clinicians "encompasses diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic health disorders; management of serious and life-threatening illnesses; and when appropriate, referral of patients with more complex conditions for medical subspecialty or surgical specialty care" Explicit in this statement is the emphasis on the role of complex care coordination between pediatric specialist and primary care pediatricians and that collaboration and guidance by the pediatrician is central to providing optimal care of patients. ⁶⁵ Improving health outcomes early in life is an important public health strategy for modifying the complications from childhood chronic disease and highlights the role of pediatricians in mitigating the long-term consequences of antecedents of adult disease. ⁶⁶ The recent announcement of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)'s plan for a Consensus Study on The Pediatric Subspecialty Workforce and Its Impact on Child Health and Well-being is a related and exciting development, on a national scale. ⁶⁷ In response to shortages and geographic maldistributions of pediatric subspecialists, the NASEM committee intends to assess the impact of current pediatric clinical workforce trends on child health and well-being, in order to develop informed strategies to ensure an adequate, high-quality pediatric workforce, with a robust research portfolio that informs those recommendations. While this large, national initiative will surely lead to a better understanding of and strategies to implement across the pediatric subspecialty workforce, more well-designed studies that specifically measure child outcomes related to access to pediatric subspecialty care, would add meaningfully to the body of pediatric literature and to our national pediatric advocacy initiatives.

Impact of locus of care on outcomes in adolescents and young adults with osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma treated at pediatric versus adult cancer centers: An IMPACT cohort study

BACKGROUND

Location of cancer care (LOC; pediatric vs. adult center) impacts outcomes in adolescents and young adults (AYA) with some cancer types. Data on the impact of LOC on survival in AYA with osteosarcoma (OSS) and Ewing sarcoma (EWS) are limited OBJECTIVES: To compare differences in demographics, disease/treatment characteristics, and survival in a population-based cohort of AYA with OSS or EWS treated at pediatric versus adult centers METHODS: The Initiative to Maximize Progress in Adolescent Cancer Therapy (IMPACT) cohort captured demographic, disease, and treatment data for all AYA (15-21 years old) diagnosed with OSS and EWS in Ontario, Canada between 1992 and 2012. Patients were linked to provincial administrative health care databases. Outcomes were compared between patients treated in pediatric versus adult centers.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-seven AYA were diagnosed with OSS (LOC: 47 pediatric, 90 adult) and 84 with EWS (38 pediatric, 46 adult). AYA treated at pediatric centers were more likely to be enrolled in a clinical trial (OSS 55% vs. 1%, p < .001; EWS 53% vs. 2%, p < .001) and received higher cumulative chemotherapy doses. Five-year event-free survival (EFS ± standard error) in OSS and EWS were 47% ± 4% and 43% ± 5%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, the impact of LOC (pediatric vs. adult center) on EFS in OSS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-2.27, p = .69) and EWS (adjusted HR 1.82, 95% CI: 0.97-3.43, p = .06) was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Despite disparities in trial participation and chemotherapy doses, outcomes did not differ by LOC suggesting that AYA with bone tumors can be treated at either pediatric or adult centers.

Patterns of Cancer Care and Association with Survival among Younger Adolescents and Young Adults: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Younger adolescents and young adults (AYA) may receive care from either adult or pediatric oncologists. We explored patterns of care in this population and whether survival is associated with provider type.

METHODS

Utilizing the California Cancer Registry, we examined a cohort of 9,993 AYAs diagnosed with cancer aged 15 to 24 years from 1999 to 2008. Provider type (adult/pediatric) was determined by individual physician identifiers. For provider type, multivariable logistic regression models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, diagnosis, and stage. For observed survival, Cox proportional hazard models were additionally adjusted for provider type. ORs and HR with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were determined.

RESULTS

Most patients saw adult providers (87.3% overall; 72.7% aged 15-19 years). Patients with acute leukemia, sarcoma, and central nervous system (CNS) malignancies more often saw pediatric providers [OR (95% CI) adult versus pediatric 0.48 (0.39-0.59), 0.74 (0.60-0.92), 0.76 (0.60-0.96), respectively]; those with germ cell tumors and other cancers, including carcinomas, more often saw adult providers [2.26 (1.72-2.98), 1.79 (1.41-2.27), respectively]. In aggregate and for most cancers individually, there was no survival difference by provider type [overall HR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.86-1.18)]. Higher survival was associated with pediatric providers for CNS malignancies [1.63 (1.12-2.37)] and rhabdomyosarcoma [2.22 (1.03-4.76)], and with adult providers for non-Hodgkin lymphoma [0.61 (0.39-0.96)].

CONCLUSIONS

Most AYAs 15 to 24 years old are treated by medical oncologists. In general, survival was not associated with provider type.

IMPACT

Current patterns of care for this population support increased collaboration between medical and pediatric oncology, including joint clinical trials.

[Influence of age on indications and modalities of radiation therapy: What to keep in mind for adolescents and young adults?]

When using radiation therapy for adolescents and young adults (AYA), paediatricians, adults' oncologists and radiation oncologists need to keep in mind several particularities through the whole therapeutic process. They embrace the indication, target volumes, prescribed dose, treatment techniques and follow-up. Indeed, the young age and the cancer features that characterised this population influence the modalities of irradiation. This article highlights the key points of AYA care with radiation therapy.

Survival of childhood and adolescent/young adult (AYA) cancer patients in Ireland during 1994-2013: comparisons by age

BACKGROUND

Some studies indicate that survival of adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer may be inferior to that of younger children with similar cancers, possibly related (in part) to differences in access to centralized or standardized treatment.

AIMS

This study aims to evaluate differences in survival for AYA patients when compared with paediatric patients treated in Ireland over a 20-year time period.

METHODS

This study compares relative survival for patients diagnosed in Ireland at ages 0-15 (paediatric group) and 16-24 (AYA group) during 1994-2013, followed to the end of 2014, for cancers defined by the International Classification of Childhood Cancer (ICCC) (Third Edition) group or subgroup. Five-year relative survival estimates, and excess hazard ratios (EHR) comparing excess mortality associated with a cancer diagnosis among AYA with that in the paediatric group, are presented. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

RESULTS

Significantly higher excess mortality was found for AYA with leukaemias, lymphomas, astrocytomas, malignant bone tumours, and Ewing and related bone sarcomas, soft tissue sarcomas and 'other/unspecified' epithelial cancers, rhabdomyosarcomas, and 'other and unspecified' carcinomas. In contrast, lower excess mortality was found in the AYA group for all cancers and intracranial/intraspinal tumours, and for gliomas other than astrocytomas or ependymomas. Comparing 1994-2003 and 2004-2013 cohorts, age-related survival differences narrowed for lymphoid leukaemias, but widened for all cancers combined and intracranial/intraspinal tumours combined. Centralization of services varied depending upon cancer subtype, with leukaemias, CNS tumours and bone sarcomas most centralized. Within these, improvements in survival for leukaemias and CNS tumours have been seen for the AYA population.

CONCLUSIONS

Reasons for age-related survival differences, and differences in time-trend by age group, are not clear. The significant narrowing of survival differences by age in more recent years for lymphoid leukaemias reflects a more marked recent increase in survival among AYA. More work is required to explain and improve other age-related survival differences.

Resource Utilization and Costs in Adolescents Treated for Cancer in Pediatric vs Adult Institutions

BACKGROUND

Adolescents with cancer can receive care in pediatric or adult institutions. Survival often differs by locus, but little is known about relative health care utilization and costs. We estimated these in a population-based cohort of adolescents.

METHODS

All Ontario adolescents (15.0-17.9 years) diagnosed with cancer between 1995 and 2010 were identified from provincial cancer registries. We compared health care resource utilization (hospitalizations, emergency department visits, same-day surgeries, outpatient chemotherapy, radiation, diagnostic/laboratory tests, physician services, home care) and costs (2012 Canadian dollars) during four discrete care phases-prediagnosis (60 days), initial (360 days), continuing (variable), and terminal (360 days)-between adolescents treated in pediatric vs adult institutions, for the whole cohort and within seven diagnostic categories. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Of 1356 eligible adolescents, 691 and 665 were treated in adult and pediatric institutions, respectively. Hospitalization rates were higher in pediatric institutions during prediagnosis (14.9% vs 6.9%, P < .001), initial (95.1% vs 73.3%, P < .001), and continuing phases (43.2% vs 34.4%, P = .002), but similar (96.1% vs 96.3%, P = .93) during the terminal phase. Average length of stay was higher at pediatric institutions within most diagnoses and phases. For all diagnoses, median initial phase costs were higher in pediatric than adult institutions (eg, leukemia: $153 926 vs $102 418 per 360 days, P < .001; lymphoma: $65 025 vs $19 846, P < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of caring for adolescents with the same malignancy are considerably higher in pediatric than adult institutions during most phases. Resource utilization, particularly hospitalization, drives much of the cost difference, making these data applicable to other jurisdictions.

Models of care for adolescent and young adult cancer programs

This review draws on the experience of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer clinicians from Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom to summarize common aspects of models of care implemented in their countries. The principles underpinning these models include patient- and family-focused care informed by an understanding of normal AYA development, enhancing existing adult or pediatric cancer services to meet the needs of AYA, and promoting collaboration between pediatric and adult oncologists. Common elements of AYA cancer care include establishing an AYA multidisciplinary team that integrates medical and psychosocial care, efforts to centralize complex care, providing access and equity for all AYA, promoting clinical trials, and helping facilitate transition to healthy survivorship. Several organizational approaches are described, noting that local program development depends on resources, infrastructure, and assessment of unmet needs within the region. The development of national networks provides opportunities for shared learning and approaches to evaluation.

Models of Care-There Is More Than One Way to Deliver

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer constitute a particular group of patients with unique features, whose needs during and after treatment are poorly met. A standardized model of care for them has yet to be established, as neither the pediatric nor the adult oncology systems seamlessly fit their needs. Regardless of the setting in which they are treated, their health care providers should be aware of the impact that the disease and its treatments have on these especially vulnerable patients. Simple ways of improving the AYA experience should be considered: reducing isolation through connections with peers, adapting the staff's approach to the emotional and developmental needs of this age group, and modifying the hospital environment making it more age appropriate. Commitment of national governments is valuable; building and sharing international experience will accelerate advances in clinical care, education, and research. Further progress in the care of AYA cancer patients is still needed to improve their outcomes.

Statewide Treatment Center Referral Patterns for Adolescent and Young Adult Patients with Cancer in Utah

Cancer therapy is selected by individual oncology providers. For adolescent and young adults (AYAs), the type of provider, adult or pediatric, and medical facility type, non- or academic, influence regimens offered. We evaluated the proportions of 15-29-year-old cancer patients in Utah seen at pediatric and adult academic centers between 1994 and 2013 and examined factors that influence treatment location. Of all AYA patients, 31.6% were treated in academic centers and those with sarcomas, central nervous system tumors, and leukemias were more likely to be treated at academic centers. Further determinants of AYA healthcare access and cooperation between adult and pediatric providers are needed.

Who cares for adolescents and young adults with cancer in Brazil?

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 6% of all cancers arise in adolescents and young adults. Currently, the ward type best placed to treat this patient group remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate exactly where adolescents and young adults with cancer are treated in Brazil.

METHODS

Data were extracted from 271 Brazilian hospital-based cancer registries (2007-2011), including all five national regions (North, Northeast, Midwest, South, and Southeast). Variables included gender, age, ethnicity, National Code of Health Establishment, hospital unit state, and region. Tumors were classified according to the World Health Organization classification for adolescents and young adults with cancer. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were computed by unconditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most patients were managed on medical oncology wards, followed by pediatric oncology and then by non-specialist wards. Of patients aged 15-19 years, 49% were managed on pediatric wards; most of the older patients (96%; aged 20-24) were managed on adult wards. Patients were more likely to be seen in medical oncology wards as their age increased (OR=2.03 [1.98-2.09]), or if they were based in the South (OR=1.50 [1.29-1.73]). Conversely, bone tumors were less likely to be treated (decreased OR) on medical oncology wards, regardless of age, gender, and region.

CONCLUSION

An elevated risk of treatment on medical oncology wards was observed for older patients and those treated in the South. Bone tumors were generally treated in pediatric oncology wards, while skin cancers were treated in medical oncology wards, regardless of age, gender, and region.

Primary Care Physicians' Decision Making Regarding Initial Oncology Referral for Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were to determine whether pediatricians are more likely than other primary care physicians (PCPs) to refer newly diagnosed adolescent and young adult patients with cancer to pediatric oncological specialists, and to assess the physician and patient characteristics that affect patterns of referral.

METHODS

A cross-sectional vignette survey was mailed to PCPs to examine hypothetical referral decisions as a function of physician characteristics and patient characteristics, including diagnosis, age, gender, race/ethnicity, family support, transportation, insurance, and patient preference for site of care. Pediatrician PCPs and nonpediatrician PCPs (family medicine, internal medicine, and emergency medicine physicians) practicing in North Carolina and in Washington State participated in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 406 surveys were completed (35.8% response rate). Sixty percent of pediatric PCPs referred their hypothetical patients with cancer to pediatric specialists (PSs), compared with only 37% of nonpediatric PCPs. Patient age also influenced referral patterns; 89% of 13-year-olds, 74% of 16-year-olds, 25% of 19-year-olds, and only 9% of 22-year-old patients were referred to a PS. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that diagnosis and physician practice setting also were associated with referral patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Both patient age and PCP specialty were significant predictors of referral patterns in hypothetical vignettes of newly diagnosed adolescent and young adult patients with cancer. Pediatricians were more likely than nonpediatrician PCPs to refer patients to a PS. Referrals to PSs decreased dramatically between ages 16 and 19. Because the site of oncological care can impact outcomes, these data have the potential to inform awareness and education initiatives directed at PCPs.

Patterns of Involved-Field Radiation Therapy Protocol Deviations in Pediatric Versus Adolescent and Young Adults With Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Report From the Children's Oncology Group AHOD0031

PURPOSE

The presented protocol for pediatric intermediate-risk Hodgkin lymphoma evaluated the use of a dose-intensive chemotherapy regimen (ABVE-PC [doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, cyclophosphamide, prednisone]) with response-based therapy augmentation (addition of DECA [dexamethasone, etoposide, cisplatin, cytarabine]) or therapy reduction (elimination of radiation).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A central review of the radiation therapy data for quality assurance was performed, and the association between radiation protocol deviation (RPD) and relapse was assessed in the pediatric group (age <15 years) and adolescent and young adult (AYA) group (age ≥15-21 years). Involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT) planning was reviewed before the start of treatment and at treatment completion. The records were reviewed through the Quality Assurance Review Center's central review to identify RPD, classified according to dose deviation (DD), volume deviation (VD), undertreatment (UT), and overtreatment (OT). DDs and VDs were further classified as major or minor.

RESULTS

Of the 1712 patients enrolled, 1155 received IFRT, of whom, 216 (18.7%) had RPDs. The DD and VD patterns were similar between the pediatric and AYA groups. Minor VDs were most common. UT RPDs accounted for 69% in the pediatric group and 75% in the AYA group. Of the 35 patients with relapse and a RPD, 29 had an undertreatment RPD. Among the patients who received IFRT, a significant difference was found in the cumulative incidence rates of relapse between the pediatric and AYA groups (P = .03); however, no significant difference was found between patients with and without RPD (P = .2).

CONCLUSIONS

Most RPDs were minor and consisted of UT in the AYA and pediatric populations both. No difference was observed in RPDs between the pediatric and AYA patients. Thus, in a well-defined and standardized protocol, the RPD distributions for AYA patients will be similar to those for pediatric population. However, the increased cumulative incidence of relapse in the AYA patients who had received IFRT compared with the pediatric population requires further exploration, given the potential differences in clinical outcomes in the AYA population.

Survival of adolescents with cancer treated at pediatric versus adult oncology treatment centers in France

BACKGROUND

In France, although children aged less than 15 years with cancer are usually referred to pediatric oncology centers, adolescents may be treated at pediatric or adult oncology centers. The objective was to compare survival according to their site of treatment.

PROCEDURE

Using population-based registration, 15- to 19-year-old patients diagnosed with cancer in 2006 or 2007 and living in six French regions (accounting for 41% of the French population) were included.

RESULTS

Of the 594 patients included, 33% of the French adolescents were treated at a pediatric oncology center. Compared with those treated at a pediatric center, adolescents treated at an adult center were older, were more likely to have carcinoma and germ-cell tumor, had a longer time to diagnosis, and were less likely to be enrolled in a clinical trial. In addition, the decisions for their management were less likely to be taken in the context of multidisciplinary team meetings. In multivariate analysis, adolescent patients treated at a pediatric center did not have significantly different overall survival (OS) compared with those treated at an adult center (5-year OS: 84.1% [95% confidence interval: 78.6-90.0] versus 87.7% [95% confidence interval: 84.2-91.3]; P = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of French adolescents with cancer have begun to improve, with 81.2% survival in 2006-2007, with no difference between the types of treatment center. However, for this unique group of diseases, survival is not the unique endpoint. In order to ensure good quality of life after cancer, management of those patients requires specific approaches, designed to reduce the late effects of cancer treatment and improve supportive care.

Costs for Childhood and Adolescent Cancer, 90 Days Prediagnosis and 1 Year Postdiagnosis: A Population-Based Study in Ontario, Canada

BACKGROUND

Childhood and adolescent cancers are uncommon, but they have important economic and health impacts on patients, families, and health care systems. Few studies have measured the economic burden of care for childhood and adolescent cancers.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate costs of cancer care in population-based cohorts of children and adolescents from the public payer perspective.

METHODS

We identified patients with cancer, aged 91 days to 19 years, diagnosed from 1995 to 2009 using cancer registry data, and matched each to three noncancer controls. Using linked administrative health care records, we estimated total and net resource-specific costs (in 2012 Canadian dollars) during 90 days prediagnosis and 1 year postdiagnosis.

RESULTS

Children (≤14 years old) numbered 4,396: 36% had leukemia, 21% central nervous system tumors, 10% lymphoma, and 33% other cancers. Adolescents (15-19 years old) numbered 2,329: 28.9% had lymphoma. Bone and soft tissue sarcoma, germ cell tumor, and thyroid carcinoma each comprised 12% to 13%. Mean net prediagnosis costs were $5,810 and $1,127 and mean net postdiagnosis costs were $136,413 and $62,326 for children and adolescents, respectively; the highest were for leukemia ($157,764 for children and $172,034 for adolescents). In both cohorts, costs were much higher for patients who died within 1 year of diagnosis. Inpatient hospitalization represented 69% to 74% of postdiagnosis costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating children with cancer is costly, more costly than treating adolescents or adults. Substantial survival gains in children mean that treatment may still be very cost-effective. Comprehensive age-specific population-based cost estimates are essential to reliably assess the cost-effectiveness of cancer care for children and adolescents, and measure health system performance.

[Germ cell tumor in adolescents and young adults]

Management of extracranial germ cell tumors (TG) is emblematic of the adolescents and young adults' problematic. Beyond persisting differences in care between adult and pediatric oncologists, it emphasizes the need for effective collaboration between both teams. If the therapy is primarily guided today by adult standards, pediatricians bring expertise in long-term follow-up, justified by the increasing description of late side effects in this young population, with highly curable disease since cisplatin's emergence.

Who Treats Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer? A Report from the AYA HOPE Study

PURPOSE

Physicians play a critical role in delivering effective treatment and enabling successful transition to survivorship among adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients. However, with no AYA cancer medical specialty, information on where and by whom AYAs with cancer are treated is limited.

METHODS

Using the National Cancer Institute's population-based AYA HOPE Study, 464 AYAs aged 15-39 at diagnosis treated by 903 physicians were identified. Differences in physician and hospital characteristics were examined by age at diagnosis and cancer type (germ cell cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, acute lymphocytic leukemia [ALL], and sarcoma) using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Treating physicians were predominately 51-64 years old, male, United States-trained in non-pediatric specialties, and in group practices within large metropolitan areas. Older patients were less often treated by pediatric physicians (p < 0.01) and more likely to be treated by United States-trained physicians without research/teaching responsibilities and in hospitals without residency programs (p < 0.05). The majority of the few pediatricians (n = 44) treated ALL patients. Physicians with research/teaching responsibilities and those based in medical schools were more likely to treat patients with ALL and sarcoma compared with other cancer types (p < 0.01). Of HL patients, 73% were treated at a cancer center compared with 56% of patients with germ cell cancer (p < 0.01), while ALL (85%) and sarcoma (87%) patients were more likely to be treated in hospitals with residency programs (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Most AYAs with cancer were treated by non-pediatric physicians in community settings, although physician characteristics varied significantly by patient cancer type and age at diagnosis.

Next steps for adolescent and young adult oncology workshop: An update on progress and recommendations for the future

Each year, 70,000 adolescents and young adults (AYAs) between ages 15 and 39 years in the United States are diagnosed with cancer. In 2006, a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Progress Review Group (PRG) examined the state of science associated with cancer among AYAs. To assess the impact of the PRG and examine the current state of AYA oncology research, the NCI, with support from the LIVESTRONG Foundation, sponsored a workshop entitled "Next Steps in Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology" on September 16 and 17, 2013, in Bethesda, Maryland. This report summarizes the findings from the workshop, opportunities to leverage existing data, and suggestions for future research priorities. Multidisciplinary teams that include basic scientists, epidemiologists, trialists, biostatisticians, clinicians, behavioral scientists, and health services researchers will be essential for future advances for AYAs with cancer.

The Initiative to Maximize Progress in Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Therapy (IMPACT) Cohort Study: a population-based cohort of young Canadians with cancer

Background

Cancer is the leading cause of disease-related death in adolescents and young adults (AYA). Annual improvements in AYA cancer survival have been inferior to those observed in children and older adults. Prior studies of AYA with cancer have been limited by their focus on patients from select treatment centres, reducing generalizability, or by being population-based but lacking diagnostic and treatment details. There is a critical need to conduct population-based studies that capture detailed patient, disease, treatment and system-level data on all AYA regardless of treatment location.

Methods/Design

We will create a cohort of all AYA (aged 15–21 years) at the time of diagnosis with any malignancy between 1992 and 2011 in Ontario, Canada (n = 5,394). Subjects will be identified through the Ontario Cancer Registry and the final cohort will be expanded to include 2012 diagnoses, as these data become available. Detailed diagnostic, treatment and outcome data for those patients treated at a pediatric cancer centre will be provided by a population-based pediatric cancer registry (n = 1,030). For 15–18 year olds treated at adult centres (n = 923) and all 19–21 year olds (n = 3396), trained abstractors will collect the comparable data elements from medical records. We will link these data to population-based administrative health data that include physician billings, hospitalizations and emergency room visits. This will allow descriptions of health care access and use prior to cancer diagnosis, and during and after treatment.

Discussion

The IMPACT cohort will serve as a platform for addressing questions that span the AYA cancer journey. These will include determining which factors influence where AYA receive care, the impact of locus of care on the types and intensity of cancer therapy, appropriateness of surveillance for disease recurrence, access to clinical trials, and receipt of palliative and survivor care. Findings using the IMPACT cohort have the potential to lead to changes in practice and cancer policy, reduce mortality, and improve quality of life for AYA with cancer. The IMPACT data platform will be a permanent resource, accessible to researchers across Canada.

Therapeutic approaches to haematological malignancies in adolescents and young adults

Tremendous strides have been made in improving the outcomes of haematological malignancies (HM) over the last three decades, but adolescents and young adult (AYA) patients have not benefitted equally compared to younger and older patients. Excellent outcomes in Hodgkin lymphoma have allowed tailoring of highly effective regimens that limit the incidence of late effects. Early successes in paediatric acute lymphoblastic leukaemia set the stage for a series of studies in young adults utilizing a paediatric-type treatment strategy. These studies have determined that AYAs benefit from paediatric-type chemotherapy regimens. Despite the increased incidence of acute myeloid leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the AYA age group, optimal strategies for these patients have not been systematically pursued. There is renewed interest in improving HM outcomes in AYA patients and this will rely on the development of clinical trials that specifically target these patients. Understanding and addressing the unique psychosocial challenges of this population will be critical in supporting this endeavor.

The challenge of access to care for soft tissue sarcomas bridging pediatric and adult age: the Italian pediatric oncology view

Synovial sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma are two high-grade soft tissue sarcoma subtypes that occur in adolescents and young adults. Managing these malignancies in patients in this age bracket poses various clinical problems, partly because different therapeutic approaches are sometimes adopted by pediatric and adult oncologists, even though they are dealing with the same condition. In this review, the doubts concerning how best to manage soft tissue sarcomas in patients between pediatric and adult ages lead up to a more general discussion of the issue of access to optimal cancer services for adolescents and young adults - a subset of patients acknowledged as being under-represented in clinical trials on therapies that may improve their outcome. The situation in Italy is described, along with action taken in an effort to bridge the gap and implement specific programs tailored to these patients.

Venous thromboembolism and adolescent and young adult oncology inpatients in US children's hospitals, 2001 to 2008

OBJECTIVES

To determine the frequency of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the adolescent and young adult oncology population and the effects of age and cancer type on VTE, and to characterize adolescent and young adult oncology admissions at US children's hospitals.

STUDY DESIGN

We extracted data on oncology patients 15 to 24 years of age who were discharged from 35 hospitals in the Pediatric Hospital Information System (PHIS) between 2001 and 2008.

RESULTS

Of 9721 unique patients, VTE occurred in 511 (5.3%). An elevated OR of VTE occurred in patients 18 to 20 and 21 to 24 years of age (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.36-2.00 and OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.21-2.32, respectively) compared with that in patients 15 to 17 years old. Patients with leukemia (OR, 5.53; 95% CI, 3.63-8.42) and bone/soft tissue sarcomas (OR, 4.32; 95% CI, 2.80-6.69) had a higher risk of VTE compared with patients with brain tumors. The number of adolescent and young adult oncology admissions to pediatric hospitals increased 31.9%, from 5409 admissions in 2001 to 7134 admissions in 2008.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescent and young adult oncology patients, a growing population at pediatric hospitals, experience VTE as a common complication. Pediatricians should implement adolescent and young adult-specific studies to develop a standardized approach to preventing this adverse event.

Adolescents, young adults, and cancer--the international challenge

Cancer in adolescents and young adults is an important public health issue, because there are approximately 1 million new cases annually. The distribution of diseases in this age group varies geographically, contributing to differences in survival rates. Although an overall survival rate exceeding 80 % has been reported in optimal circumstances, emerging knowledge about distinctions in tumor biology and enhanced clinical accrual to clinical trials should lead to further gains. The challenges of cancer survivorship demand further attention with a particular focus on the quality of life of survivors and amelioration of the long-term complications of treatment. Programs in cancer screening and prevention provide potential for considerable benefits in this age group. A renewed perspective on the adolescent and young adult cohort is required; and, in all of these opportunities for change, there are important roles to be played by advocacy groups internationally.

Outcomes and metrics: measuring the impact of a comprehensive adolescent and young adult cancer program

Against a background of poorly coordinated provision of holistic care to the adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer population, the Canadian National Task Force on Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology, which is supported by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and the C17 network, convened a workshop to formulate the components of a systematic approach to care for this age group. Because such a program will deflect scarce resources, it must be validated and justified by reproducible metrics. A subgroup of experts was convened, comprising attendees at the AYA workshop, including AYA cancer survivors. A substantial number of key, feasible, and consistent metrics were identified and are systematized, justified, and presented in this article. Prioritization from within this range will be necessary.

Malignant hematologic diseases in adolescents and young adults

Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer have been designated as a vulnerable population by the National Cancer Institute. This group, defined by the ages of 16-39 years, has not enjoyed the same survival improvements over the past several decades as older and younger cohorts. Several barriers prevent the optimal delivery of oncologic care in this subpopulation. This review will describe these challenges in the context of the major hematologic malignancies affecting this population (acute lymphoblastic leukemia [ALL], acute myeloid leukemia [AML], Hodgkin lymphoma [HL], and non-Hodgkin lymphoma [NHL]). For example, historical differences in care delivery between pediatric and adult health care systems have created confusion about optimal treatment planning for AYAs, a population that spans the pediatric-adult divide. In the case of ALL, retrospective studies have demonstrated significantly better outcomes when AYAs are treated according to pediatric and not adult protocols. Additional challenges more specific to AYAs include increased treatment-related toxicity relative to younger patients; less access to care and, specifically, access to clinical trials; lower adherence to medications and treatment plans; and psychosocial stressors relevant to individuals at this stage of life. Recognizing and responding to these challenges in AYAs may create opportunities to improve the cancer outcomes of this group.

Brain Tumors: From Childhood Through Adolescence Into Adulthood

The transition from childhood to adulthood through adolescence has been clearly identified as a time of great physical, psychological, emotional, social, and sexual change. Clinical care is currently divided into adult or pediatric care; adolescent patients require specific expertise that most clinical practices do not have. When illness coincides with the adolescent transition, the health system is severely challenged. Health systems historically have varied widely in the age they choose for allocating an individual to the adult model of health care. Tumors of the CNS complicate the difficult adjustments required in adolescents and young adults by virtue of their morbidity, complex treatment, and prognosis. Some brain tumors are unique to children, some occur predominantly in adults, and others peak in adolescence. Delays in the diagnosis of brain tumors can occur at any age but are particularly common in adolescence because of difficulties of accessing health systems, the difficulties of discriminating pathologic from typical adolescent behavioral characteristics, and changing endocrine function. Coming to terms with the cancer diagnosis; coping personally, socially, and financially with cancer treatments; accepting the risk of a shortened life span; confronting acquired disability; and coping with complex rehabilitation and adjusted plans for life are challenges for which there are no established specialist health models. This article will discuss the changing brain tumor profile of children, adolescents, and adults, with a focus on our limited understanding of the adolescent/young adult transition period.

Adolescent oncology: who cares?-the new KID on the block

The paper reports a case of a 25-year-old male with a new diagnosis of acute lymphoblastic leukemia admitted in a predominantly older adult cancer ward. It explores the emerging area of adolescent oncology. Despite the advances of modern cancer medicine in both survival and outcomes, these adolescent and young adult cancer patients are an underserved group. Their medical, physical, psychological, and emotional needs are different and ought to be managed differently, just like pediatric or geriatric subpopulations. Cancer adds an enormous burden to the already turbulent period of adolescence. Cancer incidence in the 15-29-year age group is at least three times than that of those younger than 15 years of age, and it kills more young adults than any disease except depression-induced suicide. The need for optimizing and personalizing care in this age group is highlighted.