Sun, Virginia Chih-Yi

Abstract Oncology Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), including Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, Physician Assistants, and Clinical Pharmacists (CPs), play a vital role in delivering high-quality, patient-centered cancer care across the United States. Despite their widespread presence in oncology practices, APPs remain underutilized in cancer clinical research, representing a missed opportunity to expand trial access and improve patient outcomes. Clinical trials are essential to advancing oncology care, yet participation remains critically low among adult patients. Given Oncology APPs’ and CPs’ central role in cancer care delivery, their meaningful engagement in oncology clinical trial research is imperative as the standard of oncology care. This position article, with contributions from 5 professional societies, presents solutions and resources to barriers limiting APPs’ and CPs’ involvement in cancer clinical research, including gaps in education, role expectations, limited protected time, restrictive policies, insufficient financial support, and underrecognition of contributions. Integrating APPs and CPs more fully into the clinical research enterprise is essential to improving trial access, patient outcomes, closing equity gaps, and accelerating innovation in oncology care.

AbstractBackgroundThe feasibility of remote perioperative telemonitoring of patient‐generated physiologic health data and patient‐reported outcomes in a high risk complex general and urologic oncology surgery population is evaluated.MethodsComplex general surgical/urologic oncology patients wore a pedometer, completed ePROs (electronic patient‐reported outcome surveys) and record their vitals (weight, pulse, pulse oximetry, blood pressure, and temperature) via a telehealth app platform. Feasibility (% adherence) was assessed as the primary outcome measure.ResultsTwenty‐one patients with a median age 58 (32−82) years were included. The readmission rate was 33% and the incidence of ≥Grade 3a morbidity was 24%. Adherence to vital sign and ePRO measurements was 95% before surgery, 91% at discharge, and 82%, 68%, and 64% at postdischarge d2, 7, 14, and 30, respectively. There was significant worsening of mobility, self‐care and usual daily activity at postdischarge d2 compared to preoperative baseline (p < 0.05). Median daily preoperative steps taken by patients with <Grade 3a versus ≥Grade 3a postoperative morbidity was 6062 versus 4166 (p < 0.05). Of those interviewed, 87% (13/15) viewed vital sign devices as helpful in recovery.ConclusionsTelemonitoring is feasible in a general surgical and urologic oncology setting. Future studies will ascertain optimal patient selection, duration, and extent of perioperative monitoring.

Background: Prospective, randomized trials are needed to determine optimal treatment approaches for palliative care problems such as malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). Randomization poses unique issues for such studies, especially with divergent treatment approaches and varying levels of equipoise. We report our experience accruing randomized patients to the Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Trial for Malignant Bowel Obstruction (SWOG S1316) study, comparing surgical and nonsurgical management of MBO. Methods: Patients with MBO who were surgical candidates and had treatment equipoise were accrued and offered randomization to surgical or nonsurgical management. Patients choosing nonrandomization were offered prospective observation. Trial details are listed on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT #02270450). An accrual algorithm was developed to enhance enrollment. Results: Accrual is ongoing with 176 patients enrolled. Most (89%) patients chose nonrandomization, opting for nonsurgical management. Of 25 sites that have accrued to this study, 6 enrolled patients on the randomization arm. Approximately 59% (20/34) of the randomization accrual goal has been achieved. Patient-related factors and clinician bias have been the most prevalent reasons for lack of randomization. An algorithm was developed from clinician experience to aid randomization. Using principles in this tool, repeated physician conversations discussing treatment options and goals of care, and a supportive team–approach has helped increase accrual. Conclusions: Experience gained from the S1316 study can aid future palliative care trials. Although difficult, it is possible to randomize patients to palliative studies by giving clinicians clear recommendations utilizing an algorithm of conversation, allotment of necessary time to discuss the trial, and encouragement to overcome internal bias.