Citations

307 Background: In the US, more than 12,000 people die from ovarian cancer annually. Although new treatments have recently become available, ovarian cancer care delivery remains suboptimal. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed a series of initiatives to improve the quality of care for patients with ovarian cancer. In Phase I, ACCC evaluated the needs of cancer programs, conducted 3 quality improvement (QI) workshops, and developed expert-driven Quality of Care recommendations to aid cancer programs in self-assessment and quality improvement. In Phase II, ACCC invited programs to self-assess their level of care using the Quality of Care recommendations. Methods: In 2022, ACCC surveyed 7 ovarian cancer programs across the US. Developed by a multidisciplinary expert steering committee, the 26-question survey assessed the patient populations served, services provided, diagnostic evaluations performed, access to molecular testing, and a self-assessment of quality care delivery and interest in conducting QI projects related to self-identified needs. The survey was administered in Qualtrics and summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Surveys were completed by 1 community, 2 comprehensive community, 2 hospital-associated, 1 academic comprehensive, and 1 NCI-designated comprehensive cancer programs. The median annual ovarian cases was 40 [range: 2 to 68]. The 7 programs serve diverse racial/ethnic distribution of patients with ovarian cancer ranging from 55% Black to 60% Asian and 30% Pacific Islander. Five programs have a multidisciplinary team for ovarian cancer. All 5 multidisciplinary teams included gynecologic oncology and pathology; 3 teams also included medical oncology and or radiology colleague(s). Sites assessed their level of care for 7 domains of quality care from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). The average score was 4.0 for Care Coordination and Patient Education, Treatment Planning, and Disease Surveillance. Diagnosis and Initial Management scored on average 3.8, Equity in Care 3.25, Prevention and Screening 3.25, and Quality of Life 3.2. Sites ranked areas of interest for future QI projects (1 = area of most interest, 7 = area of least interest). The highest ranked domains were Care Coordination and Patient Education as well as Diagnosis and Initial management (average rankings 2.8). These were followed by Quality of Life (average 3.0), Prevention and Screening (Average 3.8), Treatment Planning (Average 4.4), Equity in Care (Average 5.0), and Disease Surveillance (Average 6.2). Conclusions: This assessment will be used to identify 4 additional sites for Phase II QI workshops. Findings from these projects will be combined, summarized, and disseminated to inform future education opportunities and QI initiatives. This initiative aims to help organize and standardize the care of patients with ovarian cancer and improve patient care coordination.

Context.— Neoplastic cellularity assessment has become an essential component of molecular oncology testing; however, there are currently no best practice recommendations or guidelines for this potentially variable step in the testing process. Objective.— To describe the domestic and international practices of neoplastic cellularity assessment and to determine how variations in laboratory practices affect neoplastic cellularity assessment accuracy. Design.— Data were derived from 57 US and international laboratories that participated in the 2019 College of American Pathologists Neoplastic Cellularity Proficiency Testing Survey (NEO-B 2019). NEO-B 2019 included 29 laboratory practice questions and 5 images exhibiting challenging histologic features. Participants assessed the neoplastic cellularity of hematoxylin-eosin–stained digital images, and results were compared to a criterion standard derived from a manual cell count. Results.— The survey responses showed variations in the laboratory practices for the assessment of neoplastic cellularity, including the definition of neoplastic cellularity, assessment methodology, counting practices, and quality assurance practices. In some instances, variation in laboratory practice affected neoplastic cellularity assessment performance. Conclusions.— The results highlight the need for a consensus definition and improved standardization of the assessment of neoplastic cellularity. We put forth an initial set of best practice recommendations to begin the process of standardizing neoplastic cellularity assessment.

256 Background: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer mortality in the US. Given the high burden of disease and complexities in the provision of quality care, a multidisciplinary team approach is critical to optimal care delivery. In 2019, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) launched a multiphase, stakeholder-driven initiative to improve care for this patient population. Results of a national survey of cancer programs to identify the needs of patients are reported here. Methods: A 20 question survey was developed by an expert steering committee including gynecologic oncologists, pathologists, genetic counselors, a nurse navigator, and cancer center administrators. The instrument was designed to collect data about cancer programs, key ovarian cancer patient needs, and barriers to and opportunities for improving ovarian cancer care. The online survey was open for participation for 4 weeks using the Qualtrics platform and distributed via email to ACCC and Society of Gynecologic Oncology members. Results: We received 26 total responses from Comprehensive Community (26%), NCI-Designed Comprehensive (22%), Academic Comprehensive (22%), and Integrated Network (13%) Cancer Programs. Annual ovarian cancer cases ranged from 22 to 190 (median: 50.5). 85% of programs has a multidisciplinary team for ovarian cancer and 61% were part of a referral network. On average, programs has 1.5 phase II and 2 phase III clinical trials currently available for ovarian cancer (all programs had at least 1 trial available). Palliative care and comprehensive symptom management was integrated into the first appointment (15%), integrated at the time of recurrence (4%), and most frequently, available by consult (81%). We assessed genetic testing practices at each program. Aggregated across programs, 79% of patients received germline multipanel testing, 71% germline BRCA only, 50% somatic multigene, and 51% somatic BRCA only. The frequency of consultations included: genetic counseling (75%), nurse navigation (75%), social work (50%), dietetics (40%), financial counseling (25%). Genetic evaluations were typically ordered by Gynecologic Oncology (88%), genetic counseling (4%), or both (8%). When asked what topic they would choose for a quality improvement project, genetic testing and counseling was the most frequent choice (46%), followed by clinical trials enrollment and availability (23%), multidisciplinary team care (19%), education on best practices (15%), palliative care (15%), and ancillary services (15%). Conclusions: Multidisciplinary care for ovarian cancer was common across a range of cancer programs but integration of palliative care, social work, dietetics, and financial counseling could be improved. Expanding clinical trials and genetic testing and counseling were the most frequently identified opportunities to improve ovarian cancer care.