Sedhom, Ramy

PURPOSE Integrating palliative care into oncology is essential, yet disparities in access and quality persist, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The ASCO guidelines advocate for early, routine, interdisciplinary palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Barriers to implementing these recommendations include resource limitations, inadequate training, and cultural perceptions. Recognizing these challenges is essential for improving equitable access to palliative care worldwide. METHODS This prospective survey assessed adherence to ASCO recommendations for palliative care integration among LMIC health care providers (HCPs). Participants were recruited via e-mail, social media, and a list of members involved in the ASCO Palliative Care Communities of Practice from February to May 2024. The survey included sections on sociodemographic information, self-perceived adherence to ASCO guidelines on a 5-point Likert scale, and open-ended questions on implementation barriers. Data were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture system. Participants were grouped by WHO regions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics and adherence scores, and chi-square tests were used to evaluate regional differences. Thematic analysis identified key themes from open-ended responses. RESULTS One hundred eighty HCPs participated; 62% was female, and 51.1% was age 35-44 years. Most were physicians (66%), and 50% lacked palliative care specialization. Adherence to ASCO guidelines varied, with early palliative care referrals ranging from 50% in the Americas region to 0% in the Western Pacific region. Key barriers included lack of policy support (25%), unmet educational needs (22%), and accessibility constraints (19%). CONCLUSION Addressing identified barriers through evidence-based advocacy, comprehensive policy changes, training, and continuing education programs is essential for integrating palliative care into oncology services across LMICs, promoting health equity for patients with cancer.

The integration of palliative care into routine oncology practice is the standard of care by most leading cancer organizations. Palliative medicine helps to deliver higher quality of care at a lower cost. However, there are barriers to implementing palliative oncology at many institutions for myriad reasons. In this article, we discuss an innovative strategy that ASCO implemented called the Communities of Practice (CoP). We share our experiences as the Palliative Care CoP and how our group seeks to develop processes and structures to collectively promote systemic change and enhance palliative care delivery for people with cancer. Our Palliative Care CoP engages with senior leaders, administrators, and those in power to achieve a shared vision of delivering holistic health care for people with serious illness. We continue to evolve to meet our members' growing needs by addressing eight main domains: (1) increasing palliative care education and resources; (2) creating opportunities for global palliative care research; (3) providing peer mentorship and community building; (4) engaging with patient advocates; (5) supporting and developing interdisciplinary teams; (6) assisting with professional development and identity formation, especially for trainees and early career faculty; (7) extending our outreach through social media; and (8) enhancing the clinical practice of palliative oncology. The ASCO CoP has been a vital forum to realize ASCO's mission of conquering cancer and advancing the Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.

PURPOSE: Routine use of extended-fraction (> 10 fractions) radiation therapy (RT) for palliation of bone metastases is recognized as a low-value intervention by the American Society for Radiation Oncology. We examined contemporary practice patterns of, and physician characteristics associated with extended-fraction RT use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Medicare fee-for-service data. We included patients who underwent 2- or 3-dimensional external-beam RT for bone metastases between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Physicians treating > 10 patients over the study period were analyzed for their individual practice. Hierarchic logistic regression modeling was used to identify patient- and physician-level factors associated with extended-fraction RT use. RESULTS: A total of 12,221 patients (median age, 75.6 years; 40.9% women, 87.6% white) were included. The rate of extended-fraction RT was 23.4%. A total of 1,432 physicians treated any patient. Among the 382 physicians treating > 10 patients, 127 (33.2%) used extended-fraction RT > 30% (consensus threshold). Physician factors associated with decreased odds of extended-fraction RT were years since medical school graduation (≤ 10 years and 11-20 years v ≥ 31 years: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.32 [95% CI, 0.20 to 0.51] and 0.64 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.93]) and practicing in the Northeast or Midwest versus the South (aOR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.58] and 0.48 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.74]). Physicians treating > 20 patients ( v 11-14 patients) over the study period had increased odds of delivering extended-fraction RT (aOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.10 to 2.12]). CONCLUSION: In this study, almost one fourth of patients received extended-fraction RT, and one third of physicians had an extended-fraction RT use rate of > 30%. Personalized feedback of performance data, clinical pathways and peer review, and updated reimbursement models are potential mechanisms to address this low-value care.