Carlson, Robert W.

Multicancer screening is a promising approach to improving the detection of preclinical disease, but current technologies have limited ability to identify precursor or early stage lesions, and approaches for developing the evidentiary chain are unclear. Frameworks to enable development and evaluation from discovery through evidence of clinical effectiveness are discussed.

Background: Financial distress from medical treatment is an increasing concern. Healthcare organizations may have different levels of organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes of screening and management of patient financial distress. Patients and Methods: In November 2018, representatives from 17 (63%) of the 27 existing NCCN Member Institutions completed an online survey. The survey focused on screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes about such practices. Due to the lack of a validated questionnaire in this area, survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search and discussions among the study team, including NCCN Best Practices Committee representatives. Results: Responses showed that 76% of centers routinely screened for financial distress, mostly with social worker assessment (94%), and that 56% screened patients multiple times. All centers offered programs to help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers, and payment plans. Charity care was provided by 100% of the large centers (≥10,000 unique annual patients) but none of the small centers that responded (<10,000 unique annual patients; P =.008). Metrics to evaluate the impact of financial advocacy services included number of patients assisted, bad debt/charity write-offs, or patient satisfaction surveys. The effectiveness of institutional practices for screening and management of financial distress was reported as poor/very poor by 6% of respondents. Inadequate staffing and resources, limited budget, and lack of reimbursement were potential barriers in the provision of these services. A total of 94% agreed with the need for better integration of financial advocacy into oncology practice. Conclusions: Three-fourths of NCCN Member Institutions reported screening and management programs for financial distress, although the actual practices and range of services vary. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar programs and identify best practices in this area.

Although oncology care has evolved, outcome assessment remains a key challenge. Outcome measurement requires identification and adoption of a succinct list of metrics indicative of high-quality cancer care for use within and across healthcare systems. NCCN established an advisory committee, the NCCN Quality and Outcomes Committee, consisting of provider experts from NCCN Member Institutions and other stakeholders, including payers and patient advocacy, community oncology, and health information technology representatives, to review the existing quality landscape and identify contemporary, relevant cancer quality and outcomes measures by reevaluating validated measures for endorsement and proposing new measure concepts to fill crucial gaps. This manuscript reports on 22 measures and concepts; 15 that align with existing measures and 7 that are new.

Background Quality measures are important because they can help improve and standardize the delivery of cancer care among healthcare providers and across tumor types. In an environment characterized by a rapidly shifting immunotherapeutic landscape and lack of associated long-term outcome data, defining quality measures for cancer immunotherapy is a high priority yet fraught with many challenges. Methods Thus, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer convened a multistakeholder expert panel to, first, identify the current gaps in measures of quality cancer care delivery as it relates to immunotherapy and to, second, advance priority concepts surrounding quality measures that could be developed and broadly adopted by the field. Results After reviewing the existing quality measure landscape employed for immunotherapeutic-based cancer care, the expert panel identified four relevant National Quality Strategy domains (patient safety, person and family-centered care, care coordination and communication, appropriate treatment selection) with significant gaps in immunotherapy-based quality cancer care delivery. Furthermore, these domains offer opportunities for the development of quality measures as they relate to cancer immunotherapy. These four quality measure concepts are presented in this consensus statement. Conclusions This work represents a first step toward defining and standardizing quality delivery of cancer immunotherapy in order to realize its optimal application and benefit for patients.

Abstract Background. Half of all breast cancers are early stage, lymph node negative, and hormone receptor positive. A 21-gene (Oncotype DX®; Genomic Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA) recurrence score (RS) is prognostic for recurrence and predictive of chemotherapy benefit. We explored the ability of oncologists to predict the RS using standard prognostic criteria. Methods. Standard demographic and tumor prognostic criteria were obtained from patients with an available RS. Two academic pathologists provided tumor grade, histologic type, and hormone receptor status. Six academic oncologists predicted the RS category (low, intermediate, or high) and provided a recommendation for therapy. The oncologists were then given the actual RS and provided recommendations for therapy. Analysis for agreement was performed. Results. Thirty-one cases, including nine additional cases with variant pathology reads, were presented. There was substantial agreement in oncologists' ability to discriminate between true low or true intermediate and true high (κ = 0.75; p &lt; .0001). Predictions between low and intermediate were not consistent. The most common discrepancies were predictions of a low RS risk when cases were true intermediate and predictions of an intermediate RS risk when cases were true low. The actual RS resulted in a change in the treatment recommendations in 19% of cases. Of the 186 scenarios and six oncologists in aggregate, five fewer chemotherapy recommendations resulted with the actual RS. Conclusions. Oncologists are able to differentiate between a low or intermediate RS and a high RS using standard prognostic criteria. However, provision of the actual RS changed the treatment recommendations in nearly 20% of cases, suggesting that the RS may reduce chemotherapy use. This effect was observed in particular in intermediate-risk cases. Prospective clinical trials are necessary to determine whether decisions based on the RS change outcomes.