Tsang, Mazie

ABSTRACT Newly diagnosed patients with non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) often have a history of other diseases, and these comorbidities can impact patient treatment and management options, as well as overall survival (OS). We developed the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) comorbidity index (LCI) as a sum of 10 comorbidities adapted from the Self‐Report‐Generated Charlson Comorbidity Index (SRG‐CCI) for use in the LEO cohort, a national prospective study of newly diagnosed NHL. Of the 5502 participants with self‐reported comorbidity data, 3107 (56.4%) were male and the mean age at diagnosis was 60.9 years (range, 18–99 years). The LCI ranged from 0 to 6, with 48.6% having 0, 30.2% having 1, 21.2% having 2 or more comorbidities. With a median follow‐up of 62.4 months among surviving participants, 2099 patients had an event and 1219 died. Continuous LCI similarly predicted both 1‐year mortality (c‐statistic = 0.654) and OS (c‐statistic = 0.655), while it showed a weaker but still statistically significant predictive ability for lymphoma‐specific (c‐statistics = 0.617) and event‐free (c‐statistic = 0.574) survival. Participants with 1 (HR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.05–1.39) and 2+ (HR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.56–2.08) comorbidities had inferior OS compared to those with no comorbidities after adjustment for age and sex (c‐statistic = 0.654), and performance strengthened after adjustment for the International Prognostic Index (c‐statistic = 0.672). LCI predicted OS most strongly in marginal zone (c‐statistics = 0.748) and weakest in T‐cell (c‐statistic = 0.579) lymphoma. The cumulative incidence of death due to lymphoma, lymphoma treatment, and other causes all increased with increasing comorbidities, with the greatest increase observed for death due to other causes. The LCI performs comparable to other published comorbidity indices, supporting its use in the LEO cohort to better model real‐world outcomes and more generally providing an approach to implementing comorbidity indices in cancer survivorship cohorts.

Immunotherapy has significantly affected cancer treatment and survival rates, accompanied by an increase in immune-related adverse events (irAEs) requiring new management strategies. irAEs can affect various organ systems and have varying severity levels, with higher rates observed when combining immune checkpoint inhibitors. National organizations such as ASCO, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, and the European Society for Medical Oncology have created guidelines for managing irAEs. This chapter expands on these guidelines by discussing practical strategies to improve the multidisciplinary management in irAE care, focusing on the who, what, and how to bridge gaps in care and enhance collaboration between academic and community oncology practices. Effective irAE management involves early recognition and guideline-adherent approaches using a multidisciplinary team, including oncologists, other subspecialists, primary care clinicians, and all care team members. Institutions are developing methods to integrate irAE care into clinical workflows, such as incorporating urgent care clinics and e-consults for efficient irAE management and developing hub-and-spoke models to extend specialized care from academic centers to community hospitals for equitable care delivery. Additionally, effective patient education is critical for improving irAE recognition and health literacy. The new ASCO Community of Practice called the Alliance for Support and Prevention of Immune-Related Adverse Events consortium and patient advocacy group Standing Together to Optimize Research, Interventions, and Education in irAEs initiatives aim to advance irAE clinical care, research, and education through global collaboration, standardized data collection, and improved outreach to patients and caregivers.

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.

@JCOOP_ASCO editorial on unique needs of end-of-life care for different blood cancers discusses: #pallheme improves QOL but less utilized in cancers. Contextualize Weisse et al study. More #pallheme research needed for lymphoma and myeloma in era of cell therapy

Abstract Although Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKis) are generally well tolerated and less toxic than chemotherapy alternatives used to treat lymphoid malignancies, BTKis like ibrutinib have the potential to cause new or worsening hypertension (HTN). Little is known about the optimal treatment of BTKi-associated HTN. Randomly selected patients with lymphoid malignancies on a BTKi and antihypertensive drug(s) and with at least 3 months of follow-up data were sorted into 2 groups: those diagnosed with HTN before BTKi initiation (prior-HTN), and those diagnosed with HTN after BTKi initiation (de novo HTN). Generalized estimating equations assessed associations between time varying mean arterial pressures (MAPs) and individual anti-HTN drug categories. Of 196 patients included in the study, 118 had prior-HTN, and 78 developed de novo HTN. Statistically significant mean MAP reductions were observed in patients with prior-HTN who took β blockers (BBs) with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), (−5.05 mmHg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0 to −0.0596; P = .047), and patients diagnosed with de novo HTN who took either an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) with HCTZ (−5.47 mmHg; 95% CI, 10.9 to −0.001; P = .05). These regimens also correlated with the greatest percentages of normotensive MAPs. Treatment of HTN in patients taking a BTKi is challenging and may require multiple antihypertensives. Patients with prior-HTN appear to benefit from combination regimens with BBs and HCTZ, whereas patients with de novo HTN appear to benefit from ACEi/ARBs with HCTZ. These results should be confirmed in prospective studies.