Improving clinical research and cancer care delivery in community settings: evaluating the NCI community cancer centers program

A Novel Approach for Conducting a Catchment Area Analysis of Breast Cancer by Age and Stage for a Community Cancer Center

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently issued an updated draft recommendation statement to initiate breast cancer screening at age 40, reflecting well-documented disparities in breast cancer-related mortality that disproportionately impact younger Black women. This study applied a novel approach to identify hotspots of breast cancer diagnosed before age 50 and/or at an advanced stage to improve breast cancer detection within these communities.

METHODS

Cancer registry data for 3,497 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed or treated between 2012 and 2020 at the Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute (HFGCCRI) and who resided in the HFGCCRI catchment area, defined as New Castle County, Delaware, were geocoded and analyzed with spatial intensity. Standardized incidence ratios stratified by age and race were calculated for each hotspot.

RESULTS

Four hotspots were identified, two for breast cancer diagnosed before age 50, one for advanced breast cancer, and one for advanced breast cancer diagnosed before age 50. Younger Black women were overrepresented in these hotspots relative to the full-catchment area.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel use of spatial methods to analyze a community cancer center catchment area identified geographic areas with higher rates of breast cancer with poor prognostic factors and evidence that these areas made an outsized contribution to racial disparities in breast cancer.

IMPACT

Identifying and prioritizing hotspot breast cancer communities for community outreach and engagement activities designed to improve breast cancer detection have the potential to reduce the overall burden of breast cancer and narrow racial disparities in breast cancer.

Barriers to Clinical Trial Implementation Among Community Care Centers

Importance

While an overwhelming majority of patients diagnosed with cancer express willingness to participate in clinical trials, only a fraction will enroll onto a research protocol.

Objective

To identify critical barriers to trial enrollment to translate findings into actionable practice changes that increase cancer clinical trial enrollment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This survey study included designated site contacts at oncology practices with teams who were highly involved with the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Community Oncology Research Institute (ACORI) clinical trials activities, all American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-ACCC collaboration pilot sites, and/or sites providing care to at least 25% African American and Hispanic residents. To determine participation trends among health care practices in oncology-focused research, identify barriers to clinical trial implementation and operation, and establish unmet needs for cancer clinics interested in trial participation, a 34-question survey was designed. Survey questions were defined within 3 categories: cancer center demographic characteristics, clinical trial characteristics, and referral practices. The survey was distributed through email and was open from June 20 through October 5, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Participation in and barriers to conducting oncology trials in different community oncology settings.

Results

The survey was distributed to 100 cancer centers, with completion by 58 centers (58%) across 25 states. Fifty-two centers (88%) reported that they conduct therapeutic clinical trials, of which 33 (63%) were from urban settings, 11 (21%) were from suburban settings, and 8 (15%) were from rural settings. Only 25% of rural practices (2 of 8) offered phase 1 trials, compared with 67% of urban practices (22 of 33) (P = .01). Respondents noted challenges in conducting research, including patient recruitment (27 respondents [52%]), limited staffing (27 [52%]), and nonrelevant trials for their patient population (25 [48%]). Among sites not offering therapeutic trials, barriers to research conduct included limited infrastructure, funding, and staffing. Most centers (46 of 58 [79%]) referred patients to outside centers for clinical trial enrollment, particularly in the context of late-stage disease and/or disease progression. Only 17 of these sites (37%) had established protocols for patient follow-up subsequent to outside referral.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this national survey study of barriers to clinical trial implementation, most sites offered therapeutic trials, but there were significant disparities in trial availability across care settings. Furthermore, fundamental deficiencies in trial support infrastructure limited research activity, including within programs currently conducting research as well as at sites interested in future clinical research opportunities. These results identify crucial unmet needs for oncology clinics to effectively offer clinical trials to patients seeking care.

Clinical research in the community

Most patients with high-risk hematologic malignancies are treated in community oncology practices near their residence. This is partly due to patients' ardent desire to be closer to home and trust in local caregivers. Treatments are increasingly complex, even as initial therapy, and more so upon relapse. Improved outcomes in the past decade are largely available through clinical trials primarily offered through academic medical centers. Limited availability of clinical trials at community oncology practices is a major contributor to outcome disparities among minorities, rural, and elderly patients, all of whom are underrepresented in clinical trials. Between 2003 and 2023, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) established programs to address these challenges: the Community Clinical Oncology Program, Minority- Based Community Clinical Oncology Program, NCI Community Cancer Centers Program, and NCI Community Oncology Research Program. However, disparities have persisted, particularly for pharmaceutical-directed clinical research. Lack of representation in clinical research results in data absenteeism, data chauvinism and hallucination, and a delay in treatment availability for high-risk hematologic malignancies in community practice. To address this, the US Congress enacted the Food and Drug Administration Omnibus Act in 2022 to help establish diversity plans that would broaden clinical trial patient enrollment in the United States. We recommend using these initiatives in community oncology practices, including the adoption of the DRIVE strategy in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies, as well as using the NCI-established programs to promote clinical trial availability for patients with high-risk malignancies treated in community oncology practices.

Palliative care use and utilization determinants among patients treated for advanced stage lung cancer care in the community and academic medical setting

PURPOSE

Despite clinical guidelines, palliative care is underutilized during advanced stage lung cancer treatment. To inform interventions to increase its use, patient-level barriers and facilitators (i.e., determinants) need to be characterized, especially among patients living in rural areas or those receiving treatment outside academic medical centers.

METHODS

Between 2020 and 2021, advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 77; 62% rural; 58% receiving care in the community) completed a one-time survey assessing palliative care use and its determinants. Univariate and bivariate analyses described palliative care use and determinants and compared scores by patient demographic (e.g., rural vs. urban) and treatment setting (e.g., community vs. academic medical center) factors.

RESULTS

Roughly half said they had never met with a palliative care doctor (49.4%) or nurse (58.4%) as part of cancer care. Only 18% said they knew what palliative care was and could explain it; 17% thought it was the same as hospice. After palliative care was distinguished from hospice, the most frequently cited reasons patients stated they would not seek palliative care were uncertainty about what it would offer (65%), concerns about insurance coverage (63%), difficulty attending multiple appointments (60%), and lack of discussion with an oncologist (59%). The most common reasons patients stated they would seek palliative care were a desire to control pain (62%), oncologist recommendation (58%), and coping support for family and friends (55%).

CONCLUSION

Interventions should address knowledge and misconceptions, assess care needs, and facilitate communication between patients and oncologists about palliative care.

Multisite Quality Improvement Initiative to Identify and Address Racial Disparities and Deficiencies in Delivering Equitable, Patient-Centered Care for Multiple Myeloma-Exploring the Differences between Academic and Community Oncology Centers

Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) is complex; however, with equal access to care, clinical outcomes for Black patients match those in other patient groups. To reveal and begin to address clinical practice barriers to equitable, patient-centered MM care, this quality improvement (QI) initiative assessed patient electronic medical records (EMRs) and surveyed patients and providers at two large hospital systems and four community-based practices. For the educational intervention, providers participated in feedback-focused grand rounds sessions to reflect on system barriers and develop action plans to improve MM care. EMR reviews revealed infrequent documentation of cytogenetics and disease staging at community-based practices compared to large hospital systems. In surveys, providers from each care setting reported different challenges in MM care. Notably, the goals of treatment for patients and providers aligned at community clinics while providers and patients from large hospital systems had discordant perspectives. However, providers in community settings underreported race-associated barriers to care and identified different factors impacting treatment decision-making than Black patients. Relative to pre-session responses, providers were more likely to report high confidence after the educational sessions in aligning treatment decisions with guidelines and clinical evidence and shared decision-making (SDM). This QI study identified discordant perceptions among providers at large hospital systems and community-based practices in providing quality MM care. Provider education yielded increased confidence in and commitment to patient-centered care.

Impact of Merging Into a Comprehensive Cancer Center on Health Care Teams and Subsequent Team-Member and Patient Experiences

PURPOSE

Comprehensive health care centers are increasingly popular as they offer inclusive health care services under one roof. Often, these centers are formed by merging previously separate clinics. However, there is a lack of systematic guidance on the interprofessional, and interteam and intrateam dynamics that may develop during such an organizational change process. Using team process literature, we identify a possible model to explain how merging into a comprehensive cancer center (CCC) might influence health care teams and their subsequent outcomes, including patient experience.

METHODS

We used a mixed-method research design. Qualitative data were collected via semistructured interviews from 20 health care professionals employed at a recently merged CCC. During the time frame the interviews were collected, quantitative data were collected from 50 patients receiving treatment at the cancer center through anonymous paper-pencil surveys. Qualitative interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis, on the basis of the input-process-output team dynamics framework. Descriptive statistics were calculated for patient experience data. Trends between data collections were identified.

RESULTS

On the basis of our qualitative analysis, we provide an input-process-output framework that documents positive and negative aspects of interteam and intrateam dynamics associated with the merger process. Additionally, a number of connections were found between health care professional perceptions and quality patient experiences (eg, merger impacts on interteam and patient communication).

CONCLUSION

Our findings and model may assist in future merging efforts. Future CCCs may use the proposed framework to better understand and visualize their postmerger progress, in particular from the aspects of interprofessional, and interteam and intrateam dynamics.

A randomized controlled trial of a multi-modal palliative care intervention to promote advance care planning and psychological well-being among adults with advanced cancer: study protocol

Background

Up to half of adults with advanced cancer report anxiety or depression symptoms, which can cause avoidance of future planning. We present a study protocol for an innovative, remotely-delivered, acceptance-based, multi-modal palliative care intervention that addresses advance care planning (ACP) and unmet psychological needs commonly experienced by adults with metastatic cancer.

Methods

A two-armed, prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) randomizes 240 adults with Stage IV (and select Stage III) solid tumor cancer who report moderate to high anxiety or depression symptoms to either the multi-modal intervention or usual care. The intervention comprises five weekly two-hour group sessions (plus a booster session one month later) delivered via video conferencing, with online self-paced modules and check-ins completed between the group sessions. Intervention content is based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), an acceptance, mindfulness, and values-based model. Participants are recruited from a network of community cancer care clinics, with group sessions led by the network’s oncology clinical social workers. Participants are assessed at baseline, mid-intervention, post-intervention, and 2-month follow-up. The primary outcome is ACP completion; secondary outcomes include anxiety and depression symptoms, fear of dying, and sense of life meaning. Relationships between anxiety/depression symptoms and ACP will be evaluated cross-sectionally and longitudinally and theory-based putative mediators will be examined.

Discussion

Among adults with advanced cancer in community oncology settings, this RCT will provide evidence regarding the efficacy of the group ACT intervention on ACP and psychosocial outcomes as well as examine the relationship between ACP and anxiety/ depression symptoms. This trial aims to advance palliative care science and inform clinical practice.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04773639 on February 26, 2021.

A Population Health Assessment in a Community Cancer Center Catchment Area: Triple negative breast cancer, alcohol use, and obesity in New Castle County, Delaware

BACKGROUND

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) requires designated cancer centers to conduct catchment area assessments to guide cancer control and prevention efforts designed to reduce the local cancer burden. We extended and adapted this approach to a community cancer center catchment area with elevated rates of triple negative breast cancer (TNBC).

METHODS

Cancer registry data for 462 TNBC and 2,987 Not-TNBC cases diagnosed between 2012 and 2020 at the Helen F. Graham Cancer Center & Research Institute (HFGCCRI), located in New Castle County, Delaware, were geocoded to detect areas of elevated risk ('hot spots') and decreased risk ('cold spots'). Next, electronic health record (EHR) data on obesity and alcohol use disorder (AUD) and catchment-area measures of fast-food and alcohol retailers were used to assess for spatial relationships between TNBC hot spots and potentially modifiable risk factors.

RESULTS

Two hot and two cold spots were identified for TNBC within the catchment area. The hot spots accounted for 11% of the catchment area but nearly a third of all TNBC cases. Higher rates of unhealthy alcohol use and obesity were observed within the hot spots.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of spatial methods to analyze cancer registry and other secondary data sources can inform cancer control and prevention efforts within community cancer center catchment areas, where limited resources can preclude the collection of new primary data.

IMPACT

Targeting community outreach and engagement activities to TNBC hot spots offers the potential to reduce the population-level burden of cancer efficiently and equitably.

Accuracy of an Artificial Intelligence System for Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Screening: Retrospective Pilot Study

Background

Screening patients for eligibility for clinical trials is labor intensive. It requires abstraction of data elements from multiple components of the longitudinal health record and matching them to inclusion and exclusion criteria for each trial. Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been developed to improve the efficiency and accuracy of this process.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the ability of an AI clinical decision support system (CDSS) to identify eligible patients for a set of clinical trials.

Methods

This study included the deidentified data from a cohort of patients with breast cancer seen at the medical oncology clinic of an academic medical center between May and July 2017 and assessed patient eligibility for 4 breast cancer clinical trials. CDSS eligibility screening performance was validated against manual screening. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for eligibility determinations were calculated. Disagreements between manual screeners and the CDSS were examined to identify sources of discrepancies. Interrater reliability between manual reviewers was analyzed using Cohen (pairwise) and Fleiss (three-way) κ, and the significance of differences was determined by Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

In total, 318 patients with breast cancer were included. Interrater reliability for manual screening ranged from 0.60-0.77, indicating substantial agreement. The overall accuracy of breast cancer trial eligibility determinations by the CDSS was 87.6%. CDSS sensitivity was 81.1% and specificity was 89%.

Conclusions

The AI CDSS in this study demonstrated accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of greater than 80% in determining the eligibility of patients for breast cancer clinical trials. CDSSs can accurately exclude ineligible patients for clinical trials and offer the potential to increase screening efficiency and accuracy. Additional research is needed to explore whether increased efficiency in screening and trial matching translates to improvements in trial enrollment, accruals, feasibility assessments, and cost.

Evolution of Cancer Care Delivery Research in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program

Research seeking to improve patient engagement with decision-making, use of evidence-based guidelines, and coordination of multi-specialty care has made important contributions to the decades-long effort to improve cancer care. The National Cancer Institute expanded support for these efforts by including cancer care delivery research in the 2014 formation of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Cancer care delivery research is a multi-disciplinary effort to generate evidence-based practice change that improves clinical outcomes and patient well-being. NCORP scientists and community-based clinicians and organizations rapidly embraced the addition of this type of research into the network, resulting in a robust portfolio of observational studies and intervention studies within the first 5 years of funding. This commentary describes the initial considerations in conducting this type of research in a network previously focused on cancer prevention, control, and treatment studies; characterizes the protocols developed to date; and outlines future directions for cancer care delivery research in the second round of NCORP funding.

Current Practices for Screening and Addressing Financial Hardship within the NCI Community Oncology Research Program

BACKGROUND

Cancer-related financial hardship is associated with poor care outcomes and reduced quality of life for patients and families. Scalable intervention development to address financial hardship requires knowledge of current screening practices and services within community cancer care.

METHODS

The NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) 2017 Landscape Assessment survey assessed financial screening and financial navigation practices within U.S. community oncology practices. Logistic models evaluated associations between financial hardship screening and availability of a cancer-specific financial navigator and practice group characteristics (e.g., safety-net designation, critical access hospital, proportion of racial and ethnic minority patients served).

RESULTS

Of 221 participating NCORP practice groups, 72% reported a financial screening process and 50% had a cancer-specific financial navigator. Practice groups with more than 10% of new patients with cancer enrolled in Medicaid (_adjOR = 2.81, P = 0.02) and with less than 30% racial/ethnic minority cancer patient composition (_adjOR = 3.91, P < 0.01) were more likely to screen for financial concerns. Practice groups with less than 30% racial/ethnic minority cancer patient composition (_adjOR = 2.37, P < 0.01) were more likely to have a dedicated financial navigator or counselor for patients with cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Most NCORP practice groups screen for financial concerns and half have a cancer-specific financial navigator. Practices serving more racial or ethnic minority patients are less likely to screen and have a designated financial navigator.

IMPACT

The effectiveness of financial screening and navigation for mitigating financial hardship could be tested within NCORP, along with specific interventions to address cancer care inequities.See related commentary by Yabroff et al., p. 593.

How vision and leadership shaped the U.S. National Cancer Institute's 50-year journey to advance the evidence base of cancer control and cancer care delivery research

In 1971, Congress passed the National Cancer Act, landmark legislation that reorganized the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (NCI). The Act included a new focus on cancer control, including the requirement that the NCI award research grants and contracts, in collaboration with other public agencies and private industry, to conduct cancer control activities related to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer. The requirement placed the NCI at the nexus of a rapidly changing science and a complex and dynamic healthcare delivery system and involved an evolutionary transformation to advance cancer control and cancer care delivery research along the cancer care continuum. Analysis is based on a qualitative ethnographic approach using historical records, oral histories, and targeted interviews. The multimethod approach provided the opportunity to describe the vision, leadership, and struggle to build an infrastructure, expand expertise, and forge collaboration with the NCI and a complex and changing healthcare system. As the 50th anniversary of the National Cancer Act approaches in 2021, the process and these achievements are at risk of being taken for granted or lost in the flow of history. Documenting the process, milestones, and key players provides insight and guidance for continuing to improve cancer care, advance research, and reduce cancer incidence and mortality. Cancer care is a microcosm of the larger healthcare system providing insight and lessons on the importance of developing and maintaining a research infrastructure and the role of multi-level collaboration and partnerships involving both the private and public sectors.

•

Fifty years ago the U.S. National Cancer Act mandated Cancer Control activities.

•

Vision and leadership at the NCI were critical to advance cancer control on a global scale.

•

Cancer care is a microcosm of challenges facing health policy globally.

•

Evidence based strategies and infrastructure are important building blocks.

•

Public-private collaboration is essential for meeting future challenges.

Artificial Intelligence Tool for Optimizing Eligibility Screening for Clinical Trials in a Large Community Cancer Center

PURPOSE

Less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in clinical trials, and 1 in 5 trials are stopped for poor accrual. We evaluated an automated clinical trial matching system that uses natural language processing to extract patient and trial characteristics from unstructured sources and machine learning to match patients to clinical trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Medical records from 997 patients with breast cancer were assessed for trial eligibility at Highlands Oncology Group between May and August 2016. System and manual attribute extraction and eligibility determinations were compared using the percentage of agreement for 239 patients and 4 trials. Sensitivity and specificity of system-generated eligibility determinations were measured, and the time required for manual review and system-assisted eligibility determinations were compared.

RESULTS

Agreement between system and manual attribute extraction ranged from 64.3% to 94.0%. Agreement between system and manual eligibility determinations was 81%-96%. System eligibility determinations demonstrated specificities between 76% and 99%, with sensitivities between 91% and 95% for 3 trials and 46.7% for the 4th. Manual eligibility screening of 90 patients for 3 trials took 110 minutes; system-assisted eligibility determinations of the same patients for the same trials required 24 minutes.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the clinical trial matching system displayed a promising performance in screening patients with breast cancer for trial eligibility. System-assisted trial eligibility determinations were substantially faster than manual review, and the system reliably excluded ineligible patients for all trials and identified eligible patients for most trials.

The Community Oncology and Academic Medical Center Alliance in the Age of Precision Medicine: Cancer Genetics and Genomics Considerations

Recent public policy, governmental regulatory and economic trends have motivated the establishment and deepening of community health and academic medical center alliances. Accordingly, community oncology practices now deliver a significant portion of their oncology care in association with academic cancer centers. In the age of precision medicine, this alliance has acquired critical importance; novel advances in nucleic acid sequencing, the generation and analysis of immense data sets, the changing clinical landscape of hereditary cancer predisposition and ongoing discovery of novel, targeted therapies challenge community-based oncologists to deliver molecularly-informed health care. The active engagement of community oncology practices with academic partners helps with meeting these challenges; community/academic alliances result in improved cancer patient care and provider efficacy. Here, we review the community oncology and academic medical center alliance. We examine how practitioners may leverage academic center precision medicine-based cancer genetics and genomics programs to advance their patients' needs. We highlight a number of project initiatives at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center that seek to optimize community oncology and academic cancer center precision medicine interactions.

National Cancer Institute: Restructuring to Support the Clinical Trials of the Future

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evolution and structure of the National Cancer Institute clinical trials programs, their notable accomplishments, nurses' roles in these accomplishments, and the essential role of nursing today and in the future.

DATA SOURCES

Manuscripts, government publications, websites, and professional communications.

CONCLUSION

Change is inevitable and a constant factor in the world of advancing science and clinical research. Nurses' contribution to research and evidence-based practice will continue to grow and is vital as the scientific landscape evolves.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

As the understanding of cancer biology increases and clinical trials evolve, nurses will need to remain key team members and leaders in National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program and National Cancer Trials Network trials and their associated infrastructure.

Physician Experiences and Understanding of Genomic Sequencing in Oncology

The amount of information produced by genomic sequencing is vast, technically complicated, and can be difficult to interpret. Appropriately tailoring genomic information for non-geneticists is an essential next step in the clinical use of genomic sequencing. To initiate development of a framework for genomic results communication, we conducted eighteen qualitative interviews with oncologists who had referred adult cancer patients to a matched tumor-normal tissue genomic sequencing study. In our qualitative analysis, we found varied levels of clinician knowledge relating to sequencing technology, the scope of the tumor genomic sequencing study, and incidental germline findings. Clinicians expressed a perceived need for more genetics education. Additionally, they had a variety of suggestions for improving results reports and possible resources to aid in results interpretation. Most clinicians felt genetic counselors were needed when incidental germline findings were identified. Our research suggests that more consistent genetics education is imperative in ensuring the proper utilization of genomic sequencing in cancer care. Clinician suggestions for results interpretation resources and results report modifications could be used to improve communication. Clinicians' perceived need to involve genetic counselors when incidental germline findings were found suggests genetic specialists could play a critical role in ensuring patients receive appropriate follow-up.

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP): Sustaining Quality and Reducing Disparities in Guideline-Concordant Breast and Colon Cancer Care

BACKGROUND

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot was designed to improve quality of cancer care and reduce disparities at community hospitals. The NCCCP's primary intervention was the implementation of the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System (RQRS). The RQRS is a hospital-based data collection and evaluation system allowing near real-time assessment of selected breast and colon cancer quality of care measures. Building on previous NCCCP analyses, this study examined whether improvements in quality cancer care within NCCCP hospitals early in the program were sustained and whether improvements were notable for minority or underserved populations.

METHODS

We compared changes in concordance with three breast and two colon cancer quality measures approved by the National Quality Forum for patients diagnosed at NCCCP hospitals from 2006 to 2007 (pre-RQRS), 2008 to 2010 (early-RQRS), and 2011 to 2013 (later-RQRS). Data were obtained from NCCCP sites participating in the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of concordance with breast and colon cancer quality measures.

RESULTS

The sample included 13,893 breast and 5,546 colon cancer patients. After RQRS initiation, all five quality measures improved significantly and improvements were sustained through 2013. Quality of care measures showed sustained improvements for both breast and colon cancer patients and for vulnerable patient subgroups including black, uninsured, and Medicaid-covered patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Quality improvements in NCCCP hospitals were sustained throughout the duration of the program, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. Because many individuals receive cancer treatment at community hospitals, facilitating high-quality care in these environments must be a priority.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Quality improvement programs often improve practice, but the methods are not maintained over time. The implementation of a real-time quality reporting system and a network focused on improving quality of care sustained quality improvement at select community cancer centers. The NCCCP pilot increased numbers of patients receiving guideline-concordant care for breast and colon cancer in community settings, and initial improvements noted in earlier years of RQRS were sustained into later years, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. National initiatives that improve care for diverse patient groups are important for reducing and eliminating barriers to care.

Organizational theory for dissemination and implementation research

Background

Even under optimal internal organizational conditions, implementation can be undermined by changes in organizations’ external environments, such as fluctuations in funding, adjustments in contracting practices, new technology, new legislation, changes in clinical practice guidelines and recommendations, or other environmental shifts. Internal organizational conditions are increasingly reflected in implementation frameworks, but nuanced explanations of how organizations’ external environments influence implementation success are lacking in implementation research. Organizational theories offer implementation researchers a host of existing, highly relevant, and heretofore largely untapped explanations of the complex interaction between organizations and their environment. In this paper, we demonstrate the utility of organizational theories for implementation research.

Discussion

We applied four well-known organizational theories (institutional theory, transaction cost economics, contingency theories, and resource dependency theory) to published descriptions of efforts to implement SafeCare, an evidence-based practice for preventing child abuse and neglect. Transaction cost economics theory explained how frequent, uncertain processes for contracting for SafeCare may have generated inefficiencies and thus compromised implementation among private child welfare organizations. Institutional theory explained how child welfare systems may have been motivated to implement SafeCare because doing so aligned with expectations of key stakeholders within child welfare systems’ professional communities. Contingency theories explained how efforts such as interagency collaborative teams promoted SafeCare implementation by facilitating adaptation to child welfare agencies’ internal and external contexts. Resource dependency theory (RDT) explained how interagency relationships, supported by contracts, memoranda of understanding, and negotiations, facilitated SafeCare implementation by balancing autonomy and dependence on funding agencies and SafeCare developers.

Summary

In addition to the retrospective application of organizational theories demonstrated above, we advocate for the proactive use of organizational theories to design implementation research. For example, implementation strategies should be selected to minimize transaction costs, promote and maintain congruence between organizations’ dynamic internal and external contexts over time, and simultaneously attend to organizations’ financial needs while preserving their autonomy. We describe implications of applying organizational theory in implementation research for implementation strategies, the evaluation of implementation efforts, measurement, research design, theory, and practice. We also offer guidance to implementation researchers for applying organizational theory.

Utilization of Pharmaceutical Patient and Prescription Assistance Programs via a Pharmacy Department Patient Assistance Program for Indigent Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

With the advances in cancer treatments, mortality rates in the United States have been consistently falling but they are accompanied by substantial increases in the cost of cancer care. Patient and prescription assistance programs (PPAPs) are offered by pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide free medications to medically indigent patients. To assist the Cancer Care Center (CCC) at Nassau University Medical Center (NUMC) with drug costs for chemotherapies, the pharmacy department uses a patient assistance program (PAP) to obtain medications from the drug companies at no cost.

PURPOSE

This study evaluates the impact of the PAP at a public hospital from which indigent cancer patients obtain assistance for chemotherapy.

METHODS

We followed all patients requiring assistance with chemotherapy who enrolled in the PAP from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012. Medications included both oral and parenteral chemotherapy drugs and antiemetics used in the outpatient clinic setting.

RESULTS

The program served 347 patients in 2011 and 579 patients in 2012. The total number of visits in the clinic over 24 months was 9,405. The total cost savings of the medications was $1,066,000 in 2011 and $1,715,538 in 2012.

CONCLUSIONS

A pharmacy-based PAP to procure free medications from PPAPs for cancer patients has helped to defray the expense of providing care at NUMC, increased patients' compliance with chemo protocols, and allowed many patients to receive the treatment they otherwise would not be able to afford. The combination of PPAPs and PAP provides a safety net to ensure that indigent cancer patients receive needed prescription medications in the outpatient clinic setting.

Experience of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program on Community-Based Cancer Clinical Trials Activity

PURPOSE

A goal of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) was to improve cancer research capacity in community settings. We examined research capacity development during the pilot phase of the NCCCP within the context of national trends in clinical trial activity with respect to the number and phase of trials, total accrual, and accrual of underserved populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined self-reported data from NCCCP sites during 2007 to 2010, supplemented with data from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program.

RESULTS

Trial availability and accrual improved more quickly at NCCCP sites compared with national trends. Phase III trial availability increased 8% nationally versus 16% across NCCCP sites, and accrual increased 30% nationally versus 133% across NCCCP sites. Accrual of racial and ethnic minorities rose 82%, from 83 to 151 patients, and accrual of patients age ≥ 65 years rose by 221%, from 200 to 641 patients. Change in trial portfolio and accrual differed by sophistication of the site and by prior experience in conducting clinical trials at the site.

CONCLUSION

Despite the short duration, the NCCCP pilot resulted in an increase in the number of open trials as well as patient accrual at a faster rate than that observed nationally. These results, coupled with insights into the relative success of sites with varying sophistication at the outset, provide promise that lessons learned can be applied more broadly to increase research participation.

ReCAP: Impact of Multidisciplinary Care on Processes of Cancer Care: A Multi-Institutional Study

PURPOSE

The role of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on cancer care processes is not fully understood. We investigated the impact of MDC on the processes of care at cancer centers within the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP).

METHODS

The study used data from patients diagnosed with stage IIB to III rectal cancer, stage III colon cancer, and stage III non–small-cell lung cancer at 14 NCCCP cancer centers from 2007 to 2012. We used an MDC development assessment tool—with levels ranging from evolving MDC (low) to achieving excellence (high)—to measure the level of MDC implementation in seven MDC areas, such as case planning and physician engagement. Descriptive statistics and cluster-adjusted regression models quantified the association between MDC implementation and processes of care, including time from diagnosis to treatment receipt.

RESULTS

A total of 1,079 patients were examined. Compared with patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting low MDC scores, time to treatment receipt was shorter for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high or moderate MDC scores for physician engagement (hazard ratio [HR] for high physician engagement, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.70 to 4.17; HR for moderate physician engagement, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.89) and longer for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high 2MDC scores for case planning (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85). Results for patients with rectal cancer were qualitatively similar, and there was no statistically significant difference among patients with lung cancer.

CONCLUSION

MDC implementation level was associated with processes of care, and direction of association varied across MDC assessment areas.

Enrollment and Racial Disparities in Cancer Treatment Clinical Trials in North Carolina

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials provide access to innovative, high-quality cancer treatment. Simultaneously, broad access helps to ensure that trials include heterogeneous patient populations, which improves the generalizability of findings and the development of interventions that are effective for diverse populations. We provide updated data describing enrollment into cancer treatment trials in North Carolina.

METHODS

For the period 1996-2009, person-level data regarding cancer clinical trial enrollment and cancer incidence were obtained from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Enrollment rates were estimated as the ratio of trial enrollment to cancer incidence for race, sex, and year for each county, Area Health Education Center region, and the state overall. Enrollment rates for common cancers are presented.

RESULTS

From 1996 to 2009, North Carolina NCI treatment trial enrollment rates were 2.4% and 2.2% for white patients and minority patients, respectively. From 2007 to 2009, rates were 3.8% for white women, 3.5% for minority women, 1.3% for white men, and 1.0% for minority men; there was greater enrollment among more urban populations (2.4%) than among the most rural populations (1.5%).

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited to NCI-sponsored treatment trials in North Carolina. Policies governing collection of original data necessitate a delay in data availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Effort is needed to ensure trial access and enrollment among all North Carolina populations. Specifically, we identified racial and sex disparities, particularly for certain cancers (eg, breast cancer). Programs in North Carolina and across the nation can use the methods we employed to assess their success in broadening clinical trial enrollment to include diverse populations.

Impact of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program on Clinical Trial and Related Activities at a Community Cancer Center in Rural Nebraska

PURPOSE

Although 85% of patients with cancer are diagnosed and treated in the community setting, only 3% are enrolled onto clinical trials. Lack of adequate time, infrastructure, resources, incentives, and reimbursement adversely affect clinical trial participation. In July 2007, Saint Francis Cancer Treatment Center (SFCTC) in Grand Island, Nebraska, was selected as one of the initial 16 sites for the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP).

METHODS

Clinical trial and related activities data at SFCTC 5 years before and 5 years during the NCCCP were gathered and compared. Data included information on patients in clinical trials, number and type of trials, ratio of underserved patients, staffing, collection and storage of tissue samples, availability of new cancer services, and organizational infrastructure and linkage to National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

RESULTS

The number and percentage of patients enrolled onto clinical trials increased from 89 (3.2%) to 640 (23%; P<.001). All enrollees were rural Nebraskans, with 70%age > 65 years. Available treatment and nontreatment (eg, prevention, biospecimen,cancer control) trials increased from eight and three per year to 28 and 12 per year (P=.012), respectively. Staffing increased from 1.2 to 3.9 full-time equivalents (P=.012). A genetic counselor, smoking cessation counselor, and outreach project coordinator and two nurse navigators were hired. The number of tissue samples collected and/or stored increased from 26 (19%) to 320 (52%; P<.001).

CONCLUSION

NCCCP participation had a direct and positive impact on all activities, with enhanced access to expanded types of trials and cancer care services. Our data demonstrate the feasibility of successful implementation of an expanded spectrum of clinical trials and programs in a rural community.

The strategic case for establishing public-private partnerships in cancer care

BACKGROUND

In 2007, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the NCI Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) as a public-private partnership with community hospitals with a goal of advancing cancer care and research. In order to leverage federal dollars in a time of limited resources, matching funds from each participating hospital were required. The purpose of this paper is to examine hospitals' level of and rationale for co-investment in this partnership, and whether there is an association between hospitals' co-investment and achievement of strategic goals.

METHODS

Analysis using a comparative case study and micro-cost data was conducted as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the NCCCP pilot to determine the level of co-investment made in support of NCI's goals. In-person or telephone interviews with key informants were conducted at 10 participating hospital and system sites during the first and final years of implementation. Micro-cost data were collected annually from each site from 2007 to 2010. Self-reported data from each awardee are presented on patient volume and physician counts, while secondary data are used to examine the local Medicare market share.

RESULTS

The rationale expressed by interviewees for participation in a public-private partnership with NCI included expectations of increased market share, higher patient volumes, and enhanced opportunities for cancer physician recruitment as a result of affiliation with the NCI. On average, hospitals invested resources into the NCCCP at a level exceeding $3 for every $1 of federal funds. Six sites experienced a statistically significant change in their Medicare market share. Cancer patient volume increased by as much as one-third from Year 1 to Year 3 for eight of the sites. Nine sites reported an increase in key cancer physician recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Demonstrated investments in cancer care and research were associated with increases in cancer patient volume and perhaps in recruitment of key cancer physicians, but not in increased Medicare market share. Although the results reflect a small sample of hospitals, findings suggest that hospital executives believe there to be a strategic case for a public-private partnership as demonstrated through the NCCCP, which leveraged federal funds to support mutual goals for advancing cancer care and research.

Cancer Care Delivery Research: Building the Evidence Base to Support Practice Change in Community Oncology

Understanding how health care system structures, processes, and available resources facilitate and/or hinder the delivery of quality cancer care is imperative, especially given the rapidly changing health care landscape. The emerging field of cancer care delivery research (CCDR) focuses on how organizational structures and processes, care delivery models, financing and reimbursement, health technologies, and health care provider and patient knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors influence cancer care quality, cost, and access and ultimately the health outcomes and well-being of patients and survivors. In this article, we describe attributes of CCDR, present examples of studies that illustrate those attributes, and discuss the potential impact of CCDR in addressing disparities in care. We conclude by emphasizing the need for collaborative research that links academic and community-based settings and serves simultaneously to accelerate the translation of CCDR results into practice. The National Cancer Institute recently launched its Community Oncology Research Program, which includes a focus on this area of research.

Adapting and implementing an evidence-based sun-safety education program in rural Idaho, 2012

BACKGROUND

Melanoma incidence and mortality rates in Idaho are higher than national averages. The importance of increased awareness of skin cancer has been cited by state and local organizations. St. Luke's Mountain States Tumor Institute (MSTI) prioritized educational outreach efforts to focus on the implementation of a skin cancer prevention program in rural Idaho.

COMMUNITY CONTEXT

As a community cancer center, MSTI expanded cancer education services to include dedicated support to rural communities. Through this expansion, an MSTI educator sought to partner with a community organization to provide sun-safety education. MSTI selected, adapted, and implemented an evidence-based program, Pool Cool.

METHODS

The education program was implemented in 5 phases. In Phase I, we identified and recruited a community partner; in Phase 2, after thorough research, we selected a program, Pool Cool; in Phase 3, we planned the details of the program, including identification of desired short- and long-term outcomes and adaptation of existing program materials; in Phase 4, we implemented the program in summer 2012; in Phase 5, we assessed program sustainability and expansion.

OUTCOME

MSTI developed a sustainable partnership with Payette Municipal Pool, and in summer 2012, we implemented Pool Cool. Sun-safety education was provided to more than 700 young people aged 2 to 17 years, and educational signage and sunscreen benefitted hundreds of additional pool patrons.

INTERPRETATION

Community cancer centers are increasingly being asked to assess community needs and implement evidence-based prevention and screening programs. Clinical staff may become facilitators of evidence-based public health programs. Challenges of implementing evidence-based programs in the context of a community cancer centers are staffing, leveraging of resources, and ongoing training and support.

Use of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program screening and accrual log to address cancer clinical trial accrual

PURPOSE

Screening logs have the potential to help oncology clinical trial programs at the site level, as well as trial leaders, address enrollment in real time. Such an approach could be especially helpful in improving representation of racial/ethnic minority and other underrepresented populations in clinical trials.

METHODS

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed a screening log. Log data collected from March 2009 through May 2012 were analyzed for number of patients screened versus enrolled, including for demographic subgroups; screening methods; and enrollment barriers, including reasons for ineligibility and provider and patient reasons for declining to offer or participate in a trial. User feedback was obtained to better understand perceptions of log utility.

RESULTS

Of 4,483 patients screened, 18.4% enrolled onto NCCCP log trials. Reasons for nonenrollment were ineligibility (51.6%), patient declined (25.8%), physician declined (15.6%), urgent need for treatment (6.6%), and trial suspension (0.4%). Major reasons for patients declining were no desire to participate in trials (43.2%) and preference for standard of care (39%). Major reasons for physicians declining to offer trials were preference for standard of care (53%) and concerns about tolerability (29.3%). Enrollment rates onto log trials did not differ between white and black (P = .15) or between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients (P = .73). Other races had lower enrollment rates than whites and blacks. Sites valued the ready access to log data on enrollment barriers, with some sites changing practices to address those barriers.

CONCLUSION

Use of screening logs to document enrollment barriers at the local level can facilitate development of strategies to enhance clinical trial accrual.

Improving quality of cancer care at community hospitals: impact of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program pilot

PURPOSE

Patients with cancer treated at community hospitals may experience decreased quality of care compared with patients treated at higher-volume cancer hospitals. The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot is designed to enhance research and improve cancer care at community hospitals. We assessed changes in quality of care among the 16 initial NCCCP sites versus 25 similar hospitals that did not participate in the NCCCP.

METHODS

We compared changes in concordance with five National Quality Forum-approved quality of care measures (three for breast cancer, two for colon cancer) for patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2007 (pre-NCCCP initiation) versus 2008 to 2010 (post-NCCCP initiation) at NCCCP and comparison-group hospitals. Data were collected using the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System. Analyses were performed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Analyses included 18,608 patients with breast cancer and 7,031 patients with colon cancer. After NCCCP initiation, patient-level concordance rates for all five quality-of-care measures increased significantly among NCCCP and comparison-group hospitals. Increased quality of care among NCCCP sites was significantly greater than that among comparison-group hospitals for radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery and hormonal therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. In multivariate regressions, increases in hormonal therapy among NCCCP-site patients were significantly greater than those among comparison-group hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Both NCCCP and comparison-group hospitals showed improved quality of care; however, NCCCP sites had significantly greater improvements for a subset of measures. This greater increase may reflect the multidisciplinary focus of the NCCCP. Because many individuals receive cancer treatment at community hospitals, facilitating high-quality care in these environments must be a priority.

Early-phase clinical trials in the community: results from the national cancer institute community cancer centers program early-phase working group baseline assessment

PURPOSE

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) formed an Early-Phase Working Group to facilitate site participation in early-phase (EP) trials. The Working Group conducted a baseline assessment (BA) to describe the sites' EP trial infrastructure and its association with accrual.

METHODS

EP accrual and infrastructure data for the sites were obtained for July 2010-June 2011 and 2010, respectively. Sites with EP accrual rates at or above the median were considered high-accruing sites. Analyses were performed to identify site characteristics associated with higher accrual onto EP trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven of the 30 NCCCP sites participated. The median number of EP trials open per site over the course of July 2010-June 2011 was 19. Median EP accrual per site was 14 patients in 1 year. Approximately half of the EP trials were Cooperative Group; most were phase II. Except for having a higher number of EP trials open (P = .04), high-accruing sites (n = 14) did not differ significantly from low-accruing sites (n = 13) in terms of any single site characteristic. High-accruing sites did have shorter institutional review board (IRB) turnaround time by 20 days, and were almost three times as likely to be a lead Community Clinical Oncology Program site (small sample size may have prevented statistical significance). Most sites had at least basic EP trial infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

Community cancer centers are capable of conducting EP trials. Infrastructure and collaborations are critical components of success. This assessment provides useful information for implementing EP trials in the community.

Multilevel intervention research: lessons learned and pathways forward

This summary reflects on this monograph regarding multilevel intervention (MLI) research to 1) assess its added value; 2) discuss what has been learned to date about its challenges in cancer care delivery; and 3) identify specific ways to improve its scientific soundness, feasibility, policy relevance, and research agenda. The 12 submitted chapters, and discussion of them at the March 2011 multilevel meeting, were reviewed and discussed among the authors to elicit key findings and results addressing the questions raised at the outset of this effort. MLI research is underrepresented as an explicit focus in the cancer literature but may improve implementation of studies of cancer care delivery if they assess contextual, organizational, and environmental factors important to understanding behavioral and/or system-level interventions. The field lacks a single unifying theory, although several psychological or biological theories are useful, and an ecological model helps conceptualize and communicate interventions. MLI research designs are often complex, involving nonlinear and nonhierarchical relationships that may not be optimally studied in randomized designs. Simulation modeling and pilot studies may be necessary to evaluate MLI interventions. Measurement and evaluation of team and organizational interventions are especially needed in cancer care, as are attention to the context of health-care reform, eHealth technology, and genomics-based medicine. Future progress in MLI research requires greater attention to developing and supporting relevant metrics of level effects and interactions and evaluating MLI interventions. MLI research holds an unrealized promise for understanding how to improve cancer care delivery.

A surveillance system for monitoring, public reporting, and improving minority access to cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has recommended that each person with cancer should have access to clinical trials, which have been associated with improving care quality and disparities. With no effective enrollment monitoring system, patterns of trial enrollment remain unclear.

PURPOSE

We developed a population-based, statewide system designed to facilitate monitoring of cancer trial enrollment and targeting of future interventions to improve it.

METHODS

Person-level cancer incidence data from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry (NCCCR), person-level treatment trial accrual data from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and county-level Area Resource Files (ARF) measures for 12 years, 1996-2007, were studied. Deidentified person-level data necessitated county-level analysis. Enrollment rates were estimated as the ratio of trial enrollment to cancer incidence for each race, gender, year, and county combination. Multivariable analysis examined factors associated with trial accrual. Sensitivity analyses examined spurious fluctuations and temporal discordance of incidence and enrollment.

RESULTS

The NCI treatment trial enrollment rate was 2.39% for whites and 2.20% for minorities from 1996 to 2007, and 2.88% and 2.47%, respectively, from 2005 to 2007. Numerous counties had no minority enrollment. The 2005-2007 enrollment rates for white and minority females was 4.04% and 3.59%, respectively, and for white and minority males was 1.74% and 1.36%, respectively. Counties with a medical school or NCI Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP)-affiliated practice had higher trial enrollment.

LIMITATIONS

We examined NCI trial accrual only - industry-sponsored and investigator-initiated trials were excluded; however, studies comprise the majority of all clinical trial participants. Delays in data availability may hinder the immediacy of population-based analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Model stability and consistency suggest that this system is effective for population-based enrollment surveillance. For North Carolina, it suggests a worsening disparity in minority trial enrollment, though our analyses elucidate targets for intervention. Regional enrollment variation suggests the importance of access to clinical research networks and infrastructure. Substantial gender differences merit further examination.

Implementing community-based provider participation in research: an empirical study

BACKGROUND

Since 2003, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) has sought to restructure the clinical research enterprise in the United States by promoting collaborative research partnerships between academically-based investigators and community-based physicians. By increasing community-based provider participation in research (CBPPR), the NIH seeks to advance the science of discovery by conducting research in clinical settings where most people get their care, and accelerate the translation of research results into everyday clinical practice. Although CBPPR is seen as a promising strategy for promoting the use of evidence-based clinical services in community practice settings, few empirical studies have examined the organizational factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of CBPPR. The purpose of this study is to explore the organizational start-up and early implementation of CBPPR in community-based practice.

METHODS

We used longitudinal, case study research methods and an organizational model of innovation implementation to theoretically guide our study. Our sample consisted of three community practice settings that recently joined the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) in the United States. Data were gathered through site visits, telephone interviews, and archival documents from January 2008 to May 2011.

RESULTS

The organizational model for innovation implementation was useful in identifying and investigating the organizational factors influencing start-up and early implementation of CBPPR in CCOP organizations. In general, the three CCOP organizations varied in the extent to which they achieved consistency in CBPPR over time and across physicians. All three CCOP organizations demonstrated mixed levels of organizational readiness for change. Hospital management support and resource availability were limited across CCOP organizations early on, although they improved in one CCOP organization. As a result of weak IPPs, all three CCOPs created a weak implementation climate. Patient accrual became concentrated over time among those groups of physicians for whom CBPPR exhibited a strong innovation-values fit. Several external factors influenced innovation use, complicating and enriching our intra-organizational model of innovation implementation.

CONCLUSION

Our results contribute to the limited body of research on the implementation of CBPPR. They inform policy discussions about increasing and sustaining community clinician involvement in clinical research and expand on theory about organizational determinants of implementation effectiveness.

Quality assessment in oncology

The movement to improve healthcare quality has led to a need for carefully designed quality indicators that accurately reflect the quality of care. Many different measures have been proposed and continue to be developed by governmental agencies and accrediting bodies. However, given the inherent differences in the delivery of care among medical specialties, the same indicators will not be valid across all of them. Specifically, oncology is a field in which it can be difficult to develop quality indicators, because the effectiveness of an oncologic intervention is often not immediately apparent, and the multidisciplinary nature of the field necessarily involves many different specialties. Existing and emerging comparative effectiveness data are helping to guide evidence-based practice, and the increasing availability of these data provides the opportunity to identify key structure and process measures that predict for quality outcomes. The increasing emphasis on quality and efficiency will continue to compel the medical profession to identify appropriate quality measures to facilitate quality improvement efforts and to guide accreditation, credentialing, and reimbursement. Given the wide-reaching implications of quality metrics, it is essential that they be developed and implemented with scientific rigor. The aims of the present report were to review the current state of quality assessment in oncology, identify existing indicators with the best evidence to support their implementation, and propose a framework for identifying and refining measures most indicative of true quality in oncologic care.

A population-based assessment of specialty physician involvement in cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are critical for evaluating new cancer therapies, but few adult patients participate in them. Physicians have an important role in facilitating patient participation in clinical trials. We examined the characteristics of specialty physicians who participate in clinical trials by enrolling or referring patients, the types of trials in which they participate, and factors associated with physicians who report greater involvement in clinical trials.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. The study included 1533 specialty physicians who cared for colorectal and lung cancer patients (496 medical oncologists, 228 radiation oncologists, and 809 surgeons) and completed a survey conducted during 2005-2006 (response rate = 61.0%). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize physicians' personal and practice characteristics, and regression models were used to examine associations between these characteristics and physician participation in clinical trials. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

A total of 87.8% of medical oncologists, 66.1% of radiation oncologists, and 35.0% of surgeons reported referring or enrolling one or more patients in clinical trials during the previous 12 months. The mean number of patients referred or enrolled by these physicians was 17.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 15.5 to 18.9) for medical oncologists, 9.5 (95% CI = 7.7 to 11.3) for radiation oncologists, and 12.2 (95% CI = 9.8 to 14.6) for surgeons (P < .001). Specialty type, involvement in teaching, and affiliation with a Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) and/or a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center were associated with physician trial participation and enrolling more patients (all Ps < .05). Two-thirds of physicians with a CCOP or National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center affiliation reported participating in trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Features of specialty physicians' practice environments are associated with their trial participation, but many physicians at CCOPs and cancer centers do not participate.

Translating research into evidence-based practice: the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program

The recent rapid acceleration of basic science is reshaping both our clinical research system and our healthcare delivery system. The pace and growing volume of medical discoveries are yielding exciting new opportunities, yet we continue to face old challenges to maintain research progress and effectively translate research into practice. The National Institutes of Health and individual government programs increasingly are emphasizing research agendas that involve evidence development, comparative-effectiveness research among heterogeneous populations, translational research, and accelerating the translation of research into evidence-based practice as well as building successful research networks to support these efforts. For more than 25 years, the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program has successfully extended research into the community and facilitated the translation of research into evidence-based practice. By describing its keys to success, this article provides practical guidance to cancer-focused, provider-based research networks as well as those in other disciplines.

Health services research and data linkages: issues, methods, and directions for the future

BACKGROUND

Research on pressing health services and policy issues requires access to complete, accurate, and timely patient and organizational data.

AIM

This paper describes how administrative and health records (including electronic medical records) can be linked for comparative effectiveness and health services research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We categorize the major agents (i.e., who owns and controls data and who carries out the data linkage) into three areas: (1) individual investigators; (2) government sponsored linked data bases; and (3) public-private partnerships that facilitate linkage of data owned by private organizations. We describe challenges that may be encountered in the linkage process, and the benefits of combining secondary databases with primary qualitative and quantitative sources. We use cancer care research to illustrate our points.

RESULTS

To fill the gaps in the existing data infrastructure, additional steps are required to foster collaboration among institutions, researchers, and public and private components of the health care sector. Without such effort, independent researchers, governmental agencies, and nonprofit organizations are likely to continue building upon a fragmented and costly system with limited access. Discussion. Without the development and support for emerging information technologies across multiple health care settings, the potential for data collected for clinical and transactional purposes to benefit the research community and, ultimately, the patient population may go unrealized.

CONCLUSION

The current environment is characterized by budget and technical challenges, but investments in data infrastructure are arguably cost-effective given the need to reform our health care system and to monitor the impact of health reform initiatives.