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

Are community oncology practices with or without clinical research programs different? A comparison of patient and practice characteristics

BACKGROUND

Expanding access to clinical trials in community settings is a potential approach to addressing disparities in accrual of historically underrepresented populations. However, little is known about the characteristics of practices that do not participate in research. We investigated differences in patient and practice characteristics of US community oncology practices with high vs low engagement in clinical research.

METHODS

We included patients from a real-world, nationwide electronic health record-derived, de-identified database who received active treatment for cancer at community oncology practices between November 1, 2017, and October 31, 2022. We assessed patient and practice characteristics and their associations with high vs low research engagement using descriptive analyses and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of the 178 practices, 70 (39.3%) events had high research engagement, treated 57.8% of the overall 568 540 patient cohort, and enrolled 3.25% of their patients on cancer treatment trials during the 5-year observation period (vs 0.27% enrollment among low engagement practices). Practices with low vs high research engagement treated higher proportions of the following patient groups: ages 75 years and older (24.2% vs 21.8%), non-Latinx Black (12.6% vs 10.3%) or Latinx (11.6% vs 6.1%), were within the lowest socioeconomic status quintile (21.9% vs16.5%), and were uninsured or had no documented insurance (22.2% vs 13.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient groups historically underrepresented in oncology clinical trials are more likely to be treated at community practices with limited or no access to trials. These results suggest that investments to expand the clinical research footprint among practices with low research engagement could help address persistent inequities in trial representation.

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.

Establishing a robust radioligand therapy program: A practical approach for North American centers

Radioligand therapy (RLT) is a targeted approach to treating cancer that has been shown to be safe and effective in a variety of disease states, including gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, lymphoma, and most recently, advanced prostate cancer. In the United States, patient access to this therapy is currently variable. Implementation of new RLT programs and expansion of existing programs are needed to broaden patient access to and standardize the delivery of RLT, especially as new therapies are introduced into clinical practice. Drawing from experience in establishing RLT programs in different settings, we have developed practical recommendations for building and implementing a robust RLT program. In this review, we present our recommendations for minimal requirements and optimal requirements, as well as system considerations, and special issues associated with implementing an RLT program in North American centers.

Establishment and Feasibility of an Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction Program in a Community Health System

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) remains a significant post-surgical complication of breast cancer treatment. Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) at the time of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) has shown promise in preventing BCRL. While the primary literature supporting ILR comes from academic institutions, the majority of breast cancer care in the USA occurs in the community setting. This study evaluated a preventative lymphedema program performing ILR at a community health system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective database including all patients who underwent ALND with concurrently attempted ILR from 2019 to 2021 was retrospectively reviewed. The historical benchmark lymphedema rate was calculated through retrospective review of electronic medical records for all patients who underwent ALND without ILR from 2011 to 2021.

RESULTS

Ninety patients underwent ALND with ILR, of which ILR was successful in 69 (76.7%). ILR was more likely to be aborted in smokers (p < 0.05) and those with fewer lymphatic channels (p < 0.05) or a higher body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.08). Patients with successful versus aborted ILR had lower lymphedema rates (10.9% versus 66.7%, p < 0.01) and improved Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) scores (8.7 versus 19.8, p = 0.25), and lower lymphedema rates than the historical benchmark (10.9% versus 50.2%, p < 0.01). Among patients with successful ILR, older patients were more likely to develop lymphedema (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Successful ILR after ALND significantly reduced the lymphedema rate when compared with patients with aborted ILR and our institution's historical benchmark. Our experience supports the efficacy of ILR and highlights the feasibility of ILR within a community health system.

Home-run trials for rare cancers: giving the right drug(s) to the right patients at the right time and in the right place

In oncology clinical trials, many patients spend their final months at a central clinical trial facility far from home for "mandatory" protocol visits/diagnostic testing. Studies suggest that the travel strain may be greatest among patients living in low-income areas and/or participating in early-phase studies. In this regard, rare cancers constitute a special unmet need with limited therapeutic options and few trials. Though individually uncommon, rare cancers as a group constitute ~22% of the cancer burden; the portion of cancer burden may even be greater if biomarker-defined rare subsets of either a single cancer type or a tissue-agnostic subgroup are included. Exacerbating the access issue is the fact that, in addition to the paucity of trials, many centers will not activate existing single-arm trials, often due to accrual concerns, which may further disadvantage this patient group and also jeopardize trial completion. Decentralized clinical trials may resolve some of these challenges by allowing patients to participate from close to home. Decentralized clinical trials can take the form of being site-less, with the coordinating body working remotely and care provided by the home oncologist, or by taking the tack of National Cancer Institute/cooperative groups (e.g., NCI-MATCH genomics matching trial or SWOG1609 [NCI] DART immunotherapy rare cancer trial) using a platform design with multiple cohorts and opening at >1000 sites. Decentralized trials now also have supportive FDA guidance. Importantly, home-run trials permit clinical trial access to underserved groups, including those in rural areas and patients financially unable to travel to a central facility.

Differences in Functional and Survival Outcomes Between Patients Receiving Primary Surgery vs Chemoradiation Therapy for Treatment of T1-T2 Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Importance

Due to lack of data from high-powered randomized clinical trials, the differences in functional and survival outcomes for patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) undergoing primary transoral robotic surgery (TORS) vs primary radiation therapy and/or chemoradiation therapy (RT/CRT) are unclear.

Objectives

To compare 5-year functional (dysphagia, tracheostomy dependence, and gastrostomy tube dependence) and survivorship outcomes in patients with T1-T2 OPSCC receiving primary TORS vs RT/CRT.

Design, Setting, and Population

This national multicenter cohort study used data from a global health network (TriNetX) to identify differences in functional and survival outcomes among patients with OPSCC who underwent primary TORS or RT/CRT in 2002 to 2022. After propensity matching, 726 patients with OPSCC met inclusion criteria. In the TORS group, 363 (50%) patients had undergone primary surgery, and in the RT/CRT group, 363 (50%) patients had received primary RT/CRT. Data analyses were performed from December 2022 to January 2023 using the TriNetX platform.

Exposure

Primary surgery with TORS or primary treatment with radiation therapy and/or chemoradiation therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Propensity score matching was used to balance the 2 groups. Functional outcomes were measured at 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and more than 5 years posttreatment and included dysphagia, gastrostomy tube dependence, and tracheostomy dependence according to standard medical codes. Five-year overall survivorship was compared between patients undergoing primary TORS vs RT/CRT.

Results

Propensity score matching allowed a study sample with 2 cohorts comprising statistically similar parameters with 363 (50%) patients in each. Patients in the TORS cohort had a mean (SD) age of 68.5 (9.9) vs 68.8 (9.7) years in RT/CRT cohort; 86% and 88% were White individuals, respectively; 79% of patients were men in both cohorts. Primary TORS was associated with clinically meaningful increased risk of dysphagia at 6 months (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.01-1.84) and 1 year posttreatment (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.22-2.39) compared with primary RT/CRT. Patients receiving surgery were less likely to be gastrostomy tube dependent at 6 months (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-1.00) and 5 years posttreatment (risk difference, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.02). Differences in overall rates of tracheostomy dependence (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.51-1.82) between groups were not clinically meaningful. Patients with OPSCC, unmatched for cancer stage or human papillomavirus status, who received RT/CRT had worse 5-year overall survival than those who underwent primary surgery (70.2% vs 58.4%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40-0.79).

Conclusions and Relevance

This national multicenter cohort study of patients undergoing primary TORS vs primary RT/CRT for T1-T2 OPSCC found that primary TORS was associated with a clinically meaningful increased risk of short-term dysphagia. Patients treated with primary RT/CRT had an increased risk of short- and long-term gastrostomy tube dependence and worse 5-year overall survival than those who underwent surgery.

Consensuses, controversies, and future directions in treatment deintensification for human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancer

The most common cancer caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the United States is oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), and its incidence has been rising since the turn of the century. Because of substantial long-term morbidities with chemoradiation and the favorable prognosis of HPV-positive OPC, identifying the optimal deintensification strategy for this group has been a keystone of academic head-and-neck surgery, radiation oncology, and medical oncology for over the past decade. However, the first generation of randomized chemotherapy deintensification trials failed to change the standard of care, triggering concern over the feasibility of de-escalation. National database studies estimate that up to one third of patients receive nonstandard de-escalated treatments, which have subspecialty-specific nuances. A synthesis of the multidisciplinary deintensification data and current treatment standards is important for the oncology community to reinforce best practices and ensure optimal patient outcomes. In this review, the authors present a summary and comparison of prospective HPV-positive OPC de-escalation trials. Chemotherapy attenuation compromises outcomes without reducing toxicity. Limited data comparing transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with radiation raise concern over toxicity and outcomes with TORS. There are promising data to support de-escalating adjuvant therapy after TORS, but consensus on treatment indications is needed. Encouraging radiation deintensification strategies have been reported (upfront dose reduction and induction chemotherapy-based patient selection), but level I evidence is years away. Ultimately, stage and HPV status may be insufficient to guide de-escalation. The future of deintensification may lie in incorporating intratreatment response assessments to harness the powers of personalized medicine and integrate real-time surveillance.

Racial Disparities in Patient-Provider Communication During Telehealth Visits Versus Face-to-face Visits Among Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Patients With Cancer: Cross-sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Telehealth visits increase patients' access to care and are often rated as "just as good" as face-to-face visits by oncology patients. Telehealth visits have become increasingly more common in the care of patients with cancer since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Asians and Pacific Islanders are two of the fastest growing racial groups in the United States, but there are few studies assessing patient satisfaction with telemedicine among these two racial groups.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare satisfaction with communication during telehealth visits versus face-to-face visits among oncology patients, with a specific focus on Asian patients and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander (NHOPI) patients.

METHODS

We surveyed a racially diverse group of patients who were treated at community cancer centers in Hawaii and had recently experienced a face-to-face visit or telehealth visit. Questions for assessing satisfaction with patient-physician communication were adapted from a previously published study of cancer survivors. Variables that impact communication, including age, sex, household income, education level, and cancer type and stage, were captured. Multivariable logistic models for patient satisfaction were created, with adjustments for sociodemographic factors.

RESULTS

Participants who attended a face-to-face visit reported higher levels of satisfaction in all communication measures than those reported by participants who underwent a telehealth encounter. The univariate analysis revealed lower levels of satisfaction during telehealth visits among Asian participants and NHOPI participants compared to those among White participants for all measures of communication (eg, when asked to what degree "[y]our physician listened carefully to you"). Asian patients and NHOPI patients were significantly less likely than White patients to strongly agree with the statement (P<.004 and P<.007, respectively). Racial differences in satisfaction with communication persisted in the multivariate analysis even after adjusting for sociodemographic factors. There were no significant racial differences in communication during face-to-face visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Asian patients and NHOPI patients were significantly less content with patient-physician communication during telehealth visits when compared to White patients. This difference among racial groups was not seen in face-to-face visits. The observation that telehealth increases racial disparities in health care satisfaction should prompt further exploration.

Toward a More Just System of Care in Molecular Pathology

Policy Points American health care policy must be critically assessed to establish the role it plays in sustaining and alleviating the health disparities that currently exist in molecular genetic testing. It is critical to understand the economic and sociocultural influences that drive patients to undergo or forgo molecular testing, especially in marginalized patient populations. A multipronged solution with actions necessary from multiple stakeholders is required to reduce the cost of health care, rebalance regional disparities, encourage physician engagement, reduce data bias, and earn patients' trust.

CONTEXT

The health status of a population is greatly influenced by both biological processes and external factors. For years, minority and low socioeconomic patient populations have faced worse outcomes and poorer health in the United States. Experts have worked extensively to understand the issues and find solutions to alleviate this disproportionate burden of disease. As a result, there have been some improvements and successes, but wide gaps still exist. Diagnostic molecular genetic testing and so-called personalized medicine are just now being integrated into the current American health care system. The way in which these tests are integrated can either exacerbate or reduce health disparities.

METHODS

We provide case scenarios-loosely based on real-life patients-so that nonexperts can see the impacts of complex policy decisions and unintentional biases in technology without needing to understand all the intricacies. We use data to explain these findings from an extensive literature search examining both peer-reviewed and gray literature.

FINDINGS

Access to diagnostic molecular genetic testing is not equitable or sufficient, owing to at least five major factors: (1) cost to the patient, (2) location, (3) lack of provider buy-in, (4) data-set bias, and (5) lack of public trust.

CONCLUSIONS

Molecular genetic pathology can be made more equitable with the concerted efforts of multiple stakeholders. Confronting the five major factors identified here may help us usher in a new era of precision medicine without its discriminatory counterpart.

Use of Communication Technology to Improve Clinical Trial Participation in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: Consensus Statement From the Children's Oncology Group Adolescent and Young Adult Responsible Investigator Network

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; age 15-39 years) with cancer are under-represented in cancer clinical trials because of patient, provider, and institutional barriers. Health care technology is increasingly available to and highly used among AYAs and has the potential to improve cancer care delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic forced institutions to rapidly adopt novel approaches for enrollment and monitoring of patients on cancer clinical trials, many of which have the potential for improving AYA trial participation overall. This consensus statement from the Children's Oncology Group AYA Oncology Discipline Committee reviews opportunities to use technology to optimize AYA trial enrollment and study conduct, as well as considerations for widespread implementation of these practices. The use of remote patient eligibility screening, electronic informed consent, virtual tumor boards, remote study visits, and remote patient monitoring are recommended to increase AYA access to trials and decrease the burden of participation. Widespread adoption of these strategies will require new policies focusing on reimbursement for telehealth, license portability, facile communication between electronic health record systems and advanced safeguards to maintain patient privacy and security. Studies are needed to determine optimal approaches to further incorporate technology at every stage of the clinical trial process, from enrollment through study completion.

Quantitative multiparametric MRI predicts response to neoadjuvant therapy in the community setting

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine whether advanced quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be deployed outside of large, research-oriented academic hospitals and into community care settings to predict eventual pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with locally advanced breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients with stage II/III breast cancer (N = 28) were enrolled in a multicenter study performed in community radiology settings. Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted (DW)-MRI data were acquired at four time points during the course of NAT. Estimates of the vascular perfusion and permeability, as assessed by the volume transfer rate (K^trans) using the Patlak model, were generated from the DCE-MRI data while estimates of cell density, as assessed by the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), were calculated from DW-MRI data. Tumor volume was calculated using semi-automatic segmentation and combined with K^trans and ADC to yield bulk tumor blood flow and cellularity, respectively. The percent change in quantitative parameters at each MRI scan was calculated and compared to pathological response at the time of surgery. The predictive accuracy of each MRI parameter at different time points was quantified using receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

Tumor size and quantitative MRI parameters were similar at baseline between groups that achieved pCR (n = 8) and those that did not (n = 20). Patients achieving a pCR had a larger decline in volume and cellularity than those who did not achieve pCR after one cycle of NAT (p < 0.05). At the third and fourth MRI, changes in tumor volume, K^trans, ADC, cellularity, and bulk tumor flow from baseline (pre-treatment) were all significantly greater (p < 0.05) in the cohort who achieved pCR compared to those patients with non-pCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Quantitative analysis of DCE-MRI and DW-MRI can be implemented in the community care setting to accurately predict the response of breast cancer to NAT. Dissemination of quantitative MRI into the community setting allows for the incorporation of these parameters into the standard of care and increases the number of clinical community sites able to participate in novel drug trials that require quantitative MRI.

Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging and tumor forecasting of breast cancer patients in the community setting

This protocol describes a complete data acquisition, analysis and computational forecasting pipeline for employing quantitative MRI data to predict the response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant therapy in a community-based care setting. The methodology has previously been successfully applied to a heterogeneous patient population. The protocol details how to acquire the necessary images followed by registration, segmentation, quantitative perfusion and diffusion analysis, model calibration, and prediction. The data collection portion of the protocol requires ~25 min of scanning, postprocessing requires 2-3 h, and the model calibration and prediction components require ~10 h per patient depending on tumor size. The response of individual breast cancer patients to neoadjuvant therapy is forecast by application of a biophysical, reaction-diffusion mathematical model to these data. Successful application of the protocol results in coregistered MRI data from at least two scan visits that quantifies an individual tumor's size, cellularity and vascular properties. This enables a spatially resolved prediction of how a particular patient's tumor will respond to therapy. Expertise in image acquisition and analysis, as well as the numerical solution of partial differential equations, is required to carry out this protocol.

Report of National Brain Tumor Society roundtable workshop on innovating brain tumor clinical trials: building on lessons learned from COVID-19 experience

On July 24, 2020, a workshop sponsored by the National Brain Tumor Society was held on innovating brain tumor clinical trials based on lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience. Various stakeholders from the brain tumor community participated including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academic and community clinicians, researchers, industry, clinical research organizations, patients and patient advocates, and representatives from the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the National Cancer Institute. This report summarizes the workshop and proposes ways to incorporate lessons learned from COVID-19 to brain tumor clinical trials including the increased use of telemedicine and decentralized trial models as opportunities for practical innovation with potential long-term impact on clinical trial design and implementation.

Factors Associated With Breast Cancer Surgery Delay Within a Coordinated Multihospital Community Health System: When Does Surgical Delay Impact Outcome?

BACKGROUND

Multiple factors influence the time elapsed between diagnosis of breast cancer and surgical extirpation of the primary tumor. The disease-free interval between resection of primary breast cancer and first evidence of recurrence is predictive of mortality. We aimed to determine patient, disease, and treatment factors associated with a delay in time to surgery (TTS) and identify the point when prolonged TTS negatively impacts disease-free survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Cancer registry and electronic medical record data for patients with breast cancer who underwent surgery as first course of treatment during 2006-2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients undergoing surgery in ≤30 vs. 31-60 vs. >60 days of initial diagnosis were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses with Cox proportional hazards were performed to evaluate impact of time from breast cancer diagnosis to definitive therapeutic surgery on breast cancer recurrence or death (all-cause).

RESULTS

Overall, 4462 patients were analyzed, 43.4% of whom underwent surgery beyond 30 days. The following factors were associated with TTS >30 days: age <50, non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, commercial or health exchange/Medicaid insurance, diagnosis of noninvasive disease (i.e., ductal carcinoma in situ), had breast magnetic resonance imaging before definitive surgery, underwent total mastectomy (especially if immediate reconstruction, particularly if autologous, was performed), and did not receive adjuvant therapies (P < .001 for all). After adjusting for relevant variables, significant predictors of recurrence/death included a TTS >60 days, increased patient age, higher breast cancer stage, and triple-negative biomarker expression.

CONCLUSION

Risk of recurrence or death is not compromised until TTS exceeds 60 days after initial breast cancer diagnosis.

"When Offered to Participate": A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Agreement to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Patient participation in clinical trials is vital for knowledge advancement and outcomes improvement. Few adult cancer patients participate in trials. Although patient.

decision-making about trial participation has been frequently examined, the participation rate for patients actually offered a trial is unknown.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis using 3 major search engines was undertaken. We identified studies from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2020, that examined clinical trial participation in the United States. Studies must have specified the numbers of patients offered a trial and the number enrolled. A random effects model of proportions was used. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

We identified 35 studies (30 about treatment trials and 5 about cancer control trials) among which 9759 patients were offered trial participation. Overall, 55.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49.4% to 60.5%) of patients agreed to enroll. Participation rates did not differ between treatment (55.0%, 95% CI = 48.9% to 60.9%) and cancer control trials (55.3%, 95% CI = 38.9% to 71.1%; P = .98). Black patients participated at similar rates (58.4%, 95% CI = 46.8% to 69.7%) compared with White patients (55.1%, 95% CI = 44.3% to 65.6%; P = .88). The main reasons for nonparticipation were treatment choice or lack of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of all cancer patients offered a clinical trial do participate. These findings upend several conventional beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation, including that Black patients are less likely to agree to participate and that patient decision-making is the primary barrier to participation. Policies and interventions to improve clinical trial participation should focus more on modifiable systemic structural and clinical barriers, such as improving access to available trials and broadening eligibility criteria.

Evaluating patient-specific neoadjuvant regimens for breast cancer via a mathematical model constrained by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging data

The ability to accurately predict response and then rigorously optimize a therapeutic regimen on a patient-specific basis, would transform oncology. Toward this end, we have developed an experimental-mathematical framework that integrates quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data into a biophysical model to predict patient-specific treatment response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant therapy. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data is collected prior to therapy, after 1 cycle of therapy, and at the completion of the first therapeutic regimen. The model is initialized and calibrated with the first 2 patient-specific MRI data sets to predict response at the third, which is then compared to patient outcomes (N = 18). The model's predictions for total cellularity, total volume, and the longest axis at the completion of the regimen are significant within expected measurement precision (P< 0.05) and strongly correlated with measured response (P < 0.01). Further, we use the model to investigate, in silico, a range of (practical) alternative treatment plans to achieve the greatest possible tumor control for each individual in a subgroup of patients (N = 13). The model identifies alternative dosing strategies predicted to achieve greater tumor control compared to the standard of care for 12 of 13 patients (P < 0.01). In summary, a predictive, mechanism-based mathematical model has demonstrated the ability to identify alternative treatment regimens that are forecasted to outperform the therapeutic regimens the patients clinically. This has important implications for clinical trial design with the opportunity to alter oncology care in the future.

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.

Barriers to Participation in Therapeutic Clinical Trials as Perceived by Community Oncologists

PURPOSE

Despite considerable research on the barriers to enrollment in cancer therapeutic trials, few studies have elicited barriers from the perspective of community physicians, who provide the majority of cancer care. The purpose of this study was to characterize barriers to and facilitators of cancer therapeutic trials as perceived by oncologists in community practices.

METHODS

Twenty semistructured interviews were conducted with oncologists at six community sites affiliated with City of Hope National Medical Center from March to June 2018. Responses were recorded digitally and transcribed. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants, 4 (20%) were women, 13 (65%) had > 10 years of practice experience, and 16 (80%) reported that < 5% of their patients were enrolled in a therapeutic trial. Participants identified four system-level barriers: lack of appropriate trials for community-based settings, insufficient infrastructure support, restrictive eligibility criteria, and financial limitations; three physician-level barriers: lack of awareness of available trials, lack of knowledge of trial details, and lack of time; and two patient-level barriers: patient burden and negative beliefs/attitudes toward research. Efforts aimed to increase trial availability, clinical trial support personnel, and physician knowledge were identified as major facilitators.

CONCLUSION

Community oncologists face numerous complex, multifaceted barriers to cancer therapeutic trial enrollment. Although expanding clinical research beyond the academic setting allows access to a larger and more diverse patient population, increasing generalizability and relevance of trial findings, there remains a substantial need for new strategies to improve cancer research delivery in the community.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

BACKGROUND

Barriers to cancer clinical trial participation have been the subject of frequent study, but the rate of trial participation has not changed substantially over time. Studies often emphasize patient-related barriers, but other types of barriers may have greater impact on trial participation. Our goal was to examine the magnitude of different domains of trial barriers by synthesizing prior research.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that examined the trial decision-making pathway using a uniform framework to characterize and quantify structural (trial availability), clinical (eligibility), and patient/physician barrier domains. The systematic review utilized the PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline search engines. We used random effects to estimate rates of different domains across studies, adjusting for academic vs community care settings.

RESULTS

We identified 13 studies (nine in academic and four in community settings) with 8883 patients. A trial was unavailable for patients at their institution 55.6% of the time (95% confidence interval [CI] = 43.7% to 67.3%). Further, 21.5% (95% CI = 10.9% to 34.6%) of patients were ineligible for an available trial, 14.8% (95% CI = 9.0% to 21.7%) did not enroll, and 8.1% (95% CI = 6.3% to 10.0%) enrolled. Rates of trial enrollment in academic (15.9% [95% CI = 13.8% to 18.2%]) vs community (7.0% [95% CI = 5.1% to 9.1%]) settings differed, but not rates of trial unavailability, ineligibility, or non-enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings emphasize the enormous need to address structural and clinical barriers to trial participation, which combined make trial participation unachievable for more than three of four cancer patients.

Barriers to accrual and enrollment in brain tumor trials

Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next 5 years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions.

Engaging Community-Based Cancer Physicians: Experience of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Cancer Alliance

BACKGROUND

The proliferation of relationships between community health systems and academic medical centers has created a need to identify effective components of these models. This article reports on frontline physician experiences, with one such relationship established through the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) Cancer Alliance. MSK created the Alliance with the goals of rapidly bringing the newest standards of care into community settings and increasing patient access to clinical trials in their local communities.

METHODS

Alliance leadership administered a 10-question anonymous survey to physicians treating patients with cancer across the 3 Alliance member health systems: Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute, Lehigh Valley Cancer Institute, and Miami Cancer Institute at Baptist Health South Florida. The purpose of the survey was to identify opportunities to improve physician engagement.

RESULTS

There were 103 clinician respondents across Alliance members, of which 87 reported participation in a disease management team and were included in the final analysis. Most respondents reported high value from Alliance activities, such as attending MSK tumor boards (94%) and lecture series (96%), among those who reported them applicable. Across all respondents, most reported satisfaction with engagement opportunities, such as MSK physician participation in their institution's meetings (76%). When asked where they would like to see increased engagement, the most commonly reported response was for more lecture series (45%). Most respondents (88%) reported that the Alliance led to practice change, either for themselves or for other clinicians at their institution. Many attributed this practice change to MSK disease-specific process measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The activities most valued by community physicians were heavily physician relationship-based. The encouraging experience of the MSK Cancer Alliance suggests that activities involving physician investment may be effective for promoting practice change in the context of cross-institution relationships. Future research is needed in this area.

Financial Toxicity and Equitable Access to Clinical Trials

Financial barriers to clinical trial enrollment are an area of active investigation. Financial toxicity as a concept describes how high costs and financial burden can lead to compromised care and outcomes. Despite the potential to yield large survival benefits and improved access to cutting-edge therapies, less than 5% of adult patients with cancer are enrolled in a clinical trial. Disparities in trial enrollment exist along age, ethnic, and sociodemographic lines, with younger, poorer, nonwhite patients with private insurance-the exact population who may be at highest risk for financial toxicity-less likely to participate. Cost and insurance concerns remain an obstacle for clinical trial enrollment for certain patient populations. Changing the clinical trial paradigm with a focus on addressing structural and clinical barriers to clinical trial enrollment is paramount. This includes expanding access to clinical trials within community populations, advocating for health policy changes to guarantee insurance coverage of clinical trial standard-of-care health care, and considering noncoercive financial assistance (particularly for indirect costs like travel and lodging) for participants to defray their additional costs of participation. Additional steps toward education, cost transparency, and expansion of foundation assistance may also improve equitable access to clinical trials for all.

Longitudinal trends in skin-related and global quality of life among women with breast radiodermatitis: A pilot study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the relationship between skin-related quality of life (SR-QOL) and global quality of life (G-QOL) among women experiencing breast radiodermatitis, measure change in SR-QOL and G-QOL between the start and fifth week on radiotherapy, and examine the trend in SR-QOL and severity of radiodermatitis over time on treatment.

METHODS

A descriptive longitudinal study using repeated measurements was implemented. Forty women undergoing whole breast 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy at a comprehensive community cancer center completed the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) weekly and Quality of Life-Breast Cancer Patient Version at baseline before and at five weeks on radiotherapy. Skin toxicity was measured weekly using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) Acute Radiation Morbidity Scoring Criteria-Skin scale. A Kendall's tau correlation explored the relationship between measures of SR-QOL and G-QOL. Paired t-tests measured the change in SR-QOL and G-QOL from baseline to fifth week on radiotherapy. The mean of the baseline and weekly total DLQI and RTOG scores was calculated and plotted on a graph.

RESULTS

In general, SR-QOL and G-QOL were highly correlated. SR-QOL changed profoundly (p < .001) while G-QOL did not change (p = .55) between baseline and five weeks on radiotherapy. SR-QOL and radiodermatitis steadily worsened over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation-induced skin toxicity has a major impact on SR-QOL but not G-QOL. This study provides much-needed scientific evidence to inform a larger future study in a community setting. Recommendations for future studies include inclusion of a skin-sensitive survey of radiodermatitis; larger, more diverse community-dwelling sample.

Precision oncology in advanced cancer patients improves overall survival with lower weekly healthcare costs

The impact of precision oncology on guiding treatment decisions of late-stage cancer patients was previously studied in a retrospective analysis. However, the overall survival and costs were not previously evaluated. We report the overall survival and healthcare costs associated with precision oncology in these patients with advanced cancer. Building on a matched cohort study of 44 patients with metastatic cancer who received all of their care within a single institution, we evaluated the overall survival and healthcare costs for each patient. We analyzed the outcomes of 22 patients who received genomic testing and targeted therapy (precision oncology) between July 1, 2013 and January 31, 2015, and compared to 22 historically controlled patients (control) who received standard chemotherapy (N = 17) or best supportive care (N = 5). The median overall survival was 51.7 weeks for the targeted treatment group and 25.8 weeks for the control group (P = 0.008) when matching on age, gender, histological diagnosis and previous treatment lines. Average costs over the entire period were $2,720 per week for the targeted treatment group and $3,453 per week for the control group, (P = 0.036). A separate analysis of 1,814 patients with late-stage cancer diagnoses found that those who received a targeted cancer treatment (N = 93) had 6.9% lower costs in the last 3 months of life compared with those who did not. These findings suggest that precision oncology may improve overall survival for refractory cancer patients while lowering average per-week healthcare costs, resource utilization and end-of-life costs.

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.