Citations

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

AbstractPopulation‐based genomic screening has the potential to improve health outcomes by identifying genetic causes of disease before they occur. While much attention has been paid to supporting the needs of the small percentage of patients who will receive a life‐altering positive genomic screening result that requires medical attention, little attention has been given to the communication of negative screening results. As there are currently no best practices for returning negative genomic screening results, we drew on experiences across the electronic medical records and genomics (eMERGE) III Network to highlight the diversity of reporting methods employed, challenges encountered in reporting negative test results, and “lessons learned” across institutions. A 60‐item survey that consisted of both multiple choice and open‐ended questions was created to gather data across institutions. Even though institutions independently developed procedures for reporting negative results, and had very different study populations, we identified several similarities of approach, including but not limited to: returning results by mail, placing results in the electronic health record via an automated process, reporting results to participants' primary care provider, and providing genetic counseling to interested patients at no cost. Differences in procedures for reporting negative results included: differences in terminology used to describe negative results, definitions of negative results, guidance regarding the meaning of negative results for participants and their family members, and recommendations for clinical follow up. Our findings highlight emerging practices for reporting negative genomic screening results and highlight the need to create patient education and clinical support tools for reporting negative screening results.

AbstractClinical decision-making is based on knowledge, expertise, and authority, with clinicians approving almost every intervention—the starting point for delivery of “All the right care, but only the right care,” an unachieved healthcare quality improvement goal. Unaided clinicians suffer from human cognitive limitations and biases when decisions are based only on their training, expertise, and experience. Electronic health records (EHRs) could improve healthcare with robust decision-support tools that reduce unwarranted variation of clinician decisions and actions. Current EHRs, focused on results review, documentation, and accounting, are awkward, time-consuming, and contribute to clinician stress and burnout. Decision-support tools could reduce clinician burden and enable replicable clinician decisions and actions that personalize patient care. Most current clinical decision-support tools or aids lack detail and neither reduce burden nor enable replicable actions. Clinicians must provide subjective interpretation and missing logic, thus introducing personal biases and mindless, unwarranted, variation from evidence-based practice. Replicability occurs when different clinicians, with the same patient information and context, come to the same decision and action. We propose a feasible subset of therapeutic decision-support tools based on credible clinical outcome evidence: computer protocols leading to replicable clinician actions (eActions). eActions enable different clinicians to make consistent decisions and actions when faced with the same patient input data. eActions embrace good everyday decision-making informed by evidence, experience, EHR data, and individual patient status. eActions can reduce unwarranted variation, increase quality of clinical care and research, reduce EHR noise, and could enable a learning healthcare system.

Objective:To address variance in clinical care surrounding sporadic vestibular schwannoma, a modified Delphi study was performed to establish a general framework to approach vestibular schwannoma care. A multidisciplinary panel of experts was established with deliberate representation from key stakeholder societies. External validity of the final statements was assessed through an online survey of registered attendees of the 8th Quadrennial International Conference on Vestibular Schwannoma.Study Design:Modified Delphi method.Methods:The panel consisted of 16 vestibular schwannoma experts (8 neurotology and 8 neurosurgery) and included delegates representing the AAOHNSF, AANS/CNS tumor section, ISRS, and NASBS. The modified Delphi method encompassed a four-step process, comprised of one prevoting round to establish a list of focus areas and three subsequent voting rounds to successively refine individual statements and establish levels of consensus. Thresholds for achieving moderate consensus, at ≥67% agreement, and strong consensus, at ≥80% agreement, were determined a priori. All voting was performed anonymously via the Qualtrics online survey tool and full participation from all panel members was required before procession to the next voting round.Results:Through the Delphi process, 103 items were developed encompassing hearing preservation (N = 49), tumor control and imaging surveillance (N = 20), preferred treatment (N = 24), operative considerations (N = 4), and complications (N = 6). As a result of item refinement, moderate (4%) or strong (96%) consensus was achieved in all 103 final statements. Seventy-nine conference registrants participated in the online survey to assess external validity. Among these survey respondents, moderate (N = 21, 20%) or strong (N = 73, 71%) consensus was achieved in 94 of 103 (91%) statements, and no consensus was reached in 9 (9%). Of the four items with moderate consensus by the expert panel, one had moderate consensus by the conference participants and three had no consensus.Conclusion:This modified Delphi study on sporadic vestibular schwannoma codifies 100% consensus within a multidisciplinary expert panel and is further supported by 91% consensus among an external group of clinicians who regularly provide care for patients with vestibular schwannoma. These final 103 statements address clinically pragmatic items that have direct application to everyday patient care. This document is not intended to define standard of care or drive insurance reimbursement, but rather to provide a general framework to approach vestibular schwannoma care for providers and patients.

Abstract Antimullerian hormone (AMH) is a promising biomarker for ovarian reserve. In this study, we assessed AMH before and 1 year after initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy on National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)/NRG Oncology B-47 in female participants aged 42 years and younger (median age = 39 years). At baseline, median AMH was 1.2 ng/mL; 13 (4.7%) values were less than 0.1 ng/mL (the threshold for detectable levels, in the perimenopause and menopause range), and 57 values (20.6%) were less than 0.5 ng/mL. At 1 year, 215 (77.6%) were less than 0.1 ng/mL, and 264 (95.3%) were less than 0.5 ng/mL. Postchemotherapy menses were reported by 46.2% of participants. Multivariable logistic regression found that the odds of having postchemotherapy menses increased with younger age, higher body mass index, and higher prechemotherapy AMH, but not by trastuzumab administration or by the choice of chemotherapy (doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel vs docetaxel-cyclophosphamide). We conclude that higher prechemotherapy AMH predicts a lower risk of chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea and that AMH 1 year after chemotherapy initiation is not informative in this setting because it is likely to be very low.