Integrating Academic and Community Practices in the Management of Colorectal Cancer: The City of Hope Model

The effectiveness of brief reminiscence-based psychosocial interventions for cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To determine the effectiveness of brief reminiscence-based psychosocial interventions in alleviating psychological distress in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients suffer tremendous psycho-spiritual pain, which affects their quality of life. Brief reminiscence-based psychosocial interventions have demonstrated positive effects on the mental health of cancer patients; however, the efficacy of these interventions has been inconsistent.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

This review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 checklist provided by the EQUATOR network. The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus databases were systematically searched from inception to 27 November 2022 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English.

RESULTS

Twenty studies involving 1744 cancer participants were included. The meta-analysis showed statistically significant effects of brief reminiscence-based psychosocial interventions on hope, anxiety and depression at post-intervention. A separate analysis revealed that brief reminiscence-based psychosocial interventions had a sustainable effect on hope, spiritual well-being, anxiety and depression at 1 month after the intervention. However, no statistically significant effect on quality of life was found in our study either immediately after the intervention or at 1 month.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief reminiscence-based psychosocial interventions can significantly reduce anxiety and depressive symptoms and improve hope and spiritual well-being in cancer patients.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study further supports that brief reminiscence-based psychosocial interventions should be incorporated into the routine care of cancer patients to address their psychosocial distress.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

All authors of this article contributed to the study conception and design. All authors of the included studies provided original data for this paper.

Current Research on Molecular Biomarkers for Colorectal Cancer in Stool Samples

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most diagnosed cancers worldwide, with a high incidence and mortality rate when diagnosed late. Currently, the methods used in healthcare to diagnose CRC are the fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. However, the lack of sensitivity and specificity and low population adherence are driving the need to implement other technologies that can identify biomarkers that not only help with early CRC detection but allow for the selection of more personalized treatment options. In this regard, the implementation of omics technologies, which can screen large pools of biological molecules, coupled with molecular validation, stands out as a promising tool for the discovery of new biomarkers from biopsied tissues or body fluids. This review delves into the current state of the art in the identification of novel CRC biomarkers that can distinguish cancerous tissue, specifically from fecal samples, as this could be the least invasive approach.

Outcomes of Antineoplastic Immunotherapy at a Large Healthcare Organization: Impact of Provider, Race and Socioeconomic Status

Purpose

Disparities in cancer care delivery remain a pressing health-care crisis within the United States (US). The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and their management may be a disparity generator that impacts survival. This retrospective study assessed disparities in a cohort of patients with a variety of solid tumors treated with ICIs within a single health-care organization focusing on the impact of race, socioeconomic status (SES) and site of care delivery on survival and the development of severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs).

Patients and Methods

Manual chart review was performed on all patients with solid tumors treated with ICIs within a health-care organization from 2012 to 2018. Care delivery was dichotomized as DOP (disease-oriented provider at academic center) and COP (community oncology provider). Primary and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and rates of grade 3-4 irAEs, respectively. Relationships with covariates of interest, including race, socioeconomic status and type of care delivery, were assessed among both outcomes.

Results

A total of 1070 eligible patients were identified. Of those, 11.4% were of Black race, 59.7% had either non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma and 82.8% had stage IV disease. Patients of Black race and lower SES were more likely to be treated by DOPs (p<0.0001). A superior OS was associated with care delivered by DOPs when compared to COPs (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.56-0.84; p=0.0002), which was durable after accounting for race, SES, histopathologic diagnosis and disease stage. Melanoma patients experienced higher rates of severe irAEs (HR 2.37; 95% CI 1.42-3.97; p=0.001). Race, SES and site of care delivery were not related to rates of severe irAEs.

Conclusion

In a large health-care organization, patients treated with checkpoint inhibitors by DOPs benefited from a significant OS advantage that was durable after controlling for racial and socioeconomic factors, providing evidence that disease-oriented care has the potential to mitigate racial and socioeconomic disparities.

Characterizing the relationships between tertiary and community cancer providers: Results from a survey of medical oncologists in Southern California

BACKGROUND

Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care.

METHODS

A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices.

RESULTS

The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients' access to clinical trials.

Integrating Academic and Community Cancer Care and Research through Multidisciplinary Oncology Pathways for Value-Based Care: A Review and the City of Hope Experience

As the US transitions from volume- to value-based cancer care, many cancer centers and community groups have joined to share resources to deliver measurable, high-quality cancer care and clinical research with the associated high patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction, and practice health at optimal costs that are the hallmarks of value-based care. Multidisciplinary oncology care pathways are essential components of value-based care and their payment metrics. Oncology pathways are evidence-based, standardized but personalizable care plans to guide cancer care. Pathways have been developed and studied for the major medical, surgical, radiation, and supportive oncology disciplines to support decision-making, streamline care, and optimize outcomes. Implementing multidisciplinary oncology pathways can facilitate comprehensive care plans for each cancer patient throughout their cancer journey and across large multisite delivery systems. Outcomes from the delivered pathway-based care can then be evaluated against individual and population benchmarks. The complexity of adoption, implementation, and assessment of multidisciplinary oncology pathways, however, presents many challenges. We review the development and components of value-based cancer care and detail City of Hope’s (COH) academic and community-team-based approaches for implementing multidisciplinary pathways. We also describe supportive components with available results towards enterprise-wide value-based care delivery.