Explore the vast range of titles available.

Chemotherapy agents used in the standard treatments for many types of cancer are neurotoxic and can lead to lasting sensory and motor symptoms that compromise day-to-day movement functions in cancer survivors. To date, the details of movement disorders associated with chemotherapy are known largely through self-reported symptoms and functional limitations. There are few quantitative studies of specific movement deficits, limiting our understanding of dysfunction, as well as effective assessments and interventions. The aim of this narrative review is to consolidate the current understanding of sensorimotor disabilities based on quantitative measures in cancer survivors who received chemotherapy. We performed literature searches on PubMed and found 32 relevant movement studies. We categorized these studies into three themes based on the movement deficits investigated: (1) balance and postural control; (2) gait function; (3) upper limb function. This literature suggests that cancer survivors have increased postural sway, more conservative gait patterns, and suboptimal hand function compared to healthy individuals. More studies are needed that use objective measures of sensorimotor function to better characterize movement disabilities and investigate the underlying causes, as required for developing targeted assessments and interventions. By updating our understanding of movement impairments in this population, we identify significant gaps in knowledge that will help guide the direction of future research.

In this analysis of data from the U.S. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, the overall frequency of outpatient physician visits, emergency department visits, and inpatient hospitalizations did not change significantly between 1996 and 2012. To the Editor: The “Ecology of Medical Care,” initially published in 1961 1 and updated in 2001, 2 offers a framework to explore trends in the choices that patients make in seeking medical care. Understanding how individual persons seek care offers insight into the persistence of patterns despite dramatic changes in the organization and financing of health care. 3 In addition, it may reveal intractable disparities between demographic groups in the use of health care. 4 Given the substantial changes in health care delivery since 2001 and the availability of new data, we sought to update and expand the model. We used data from . . .

The unprecedented and growing number of cancer survivors requires comprehensive quality care that includes cancer surveillance, symptom management, and health promotion to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve quality of life. However, coordinated and sustainable survivorship care has been challenged by barriers at multiple levels. We outline the survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center that have evolved over two decades. Our current survivorship clinics comprise STAR (Survivors Taking Action and Responsibility) for adult survivors of childhood cancers; Adult Specialty Survivorship for survivors of breast, colorectal and testicular cancers, lymphomas, and leukemias; and Gynecologic Oncology Survivorship. Care provision models align with general, disease/treatment-specific, and integrated survivorship models, respectively. Reimbursement for survivorship services has been bolstered by institutional budget allocations. We have standardized survivor education, counseling, and referrals through electronic health record (EHR)-integrated survivorship care plan (SCP) templates that incorporate partial auto-population. We developed EHR-integrated data collection tools (e.g., dashboards; SmartForm, and registry) to facilitate data analytics, personalized patient referrals, and reports to the Commission on Cancer (CoC). We report to the CoC on SCP delivery, dietitian encounters, and DEXA scans. For the last decade, our Cancer Survivorship Institute has aligned the efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators. The institute promotes evidence-based care, high-impact research, and state-of-the-science educational programs for professionals, survivors, and the community. Future plans include expansion of clinical services and funding for applied research centered on the unique needs of post-treatment cancer survivors.Implications for Cancer SurvivorsThe survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center underscore the imperative for comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable survivorship care to address the needs of increasing numbers of cancer survivors, with a focus on evidence-based clinical practices, associated research, and educational initiatives.

The US health care system faces escalating costs, increasing emphasis on patient autonomy, and a regulatory shift toward patient-centered care and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Leveraging PROs to support shared decision-making has the potential to improve outcomes and reduce health care use for patients with advanced chronic conditions. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a PRO-based clinical dashboard on the use of costly health services among patients with advanced cancer and chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted a quasi-experimental, propensity score-weighted, difference-in-differences analysis using routinely collected data (June 2020 to January 2022) from a large US academic health system. Dashboard users were compared with contemporaneous nonexposed patients matched on clinical criteria. The primary outcomes were unplanned all-cause hospital admissions, potentially avoidable emergency department visits, excess days in acute care within 30 days of discharge, and 7-day readmissions. Cancer-specific secondary outcomes included acute encounters during outpatient chemotherapy, oncology triage use, advance directive completion, and hospice use. CKD-specific outcomes were CKD-related acute care use and disease progression. In the advanced cancer cohort (dashboard users: n=284; dashboard nonusers: n=917), dashboard use was associated with significantly fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department or hospital encounters (ratio-in-odds ratios 0.35, 95% CI 0.16-0.75) and a nonsignificant 1.7-percentage point reduction in unplanned admissions (β=-0.017, 95% CI -0.107 to 0.072). Using Firth penalized logistic regression to reduce small sample bias, dashboard use was also associated with significantly higher odds of 7-day readmissions (ratio-in-odds ratios 8.58, 95% CI 2.28-32.32). Among readmissions in the dashboard user group, most (13/14, 93%) were scheduled by clinicians. Excess days in acute care increased by 4 percentage points (β=0.040, 95% CI -0.001 to 0.089). Advance directive completion declined significantly (β=-0.009, 95% CI -0.039 to 0.020). In the CKD cohort (dashboard users: n=365; dashboard nonusers: n=2137), no significant differences were observed for any primary or CKD-specific outcome. In routine oncology practice, a PRO dashboard was associated with fewer acute care encounters during chemotherapy but more planned early readmissions. The dashboard had no measurable effect on patients with CKD. These disease-specific mixed results highlight the need to tailor dashboards to the clinical context and embed them within workflows that can act on real-time PRO information.

PurposeUnresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) signifies a poor prognosis with limited treatment options beyond systemic chemotherapy. This study’s purpose was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and potential for downstaging to resection of yttrium-90 (Y90) radioembolization for treatment of unresectable ICC.Materials and MethodsFrom 2004 to 2020, 136 patients with unresectable ICC were treated with radioembolization at a single institution. Retrospective review was performed of a prospectively collected database. Outcomes were (1) biochemical and clinical toxicities, (2) local tumor response, (3) time to progression, and (4) overall survival (OS) after Y90. Univariate/multivariate survival analyses were performed. A subgroup analysis was performed to calculate post-resection recurrence and OS in patients downstaged to resection after Y90.ResultsGrade 3+ clinical and biochemical toxicities were 7.6% (n = 10) and 4.9% (n = 6), respectively. Best index lesion response was complete response in 2 (1.5%), partial response in 42 (32.1%), stable disease in 82 (62.6%), and progressive disease in 5 (3.8%) patients. Median OS was 14.2 months. Solitary tumor (P < 0.001), absence of vascular involvement (P = 0.009), and higher serum albumin (P < 0.001) were independently associated with improved OS. Eleven patients (8.1%) were downstaged to resection and 2 patients (1.5%) were bridged to transplant. R0-resection was achieved in 8/11 (72.7%). Post-resection median recurrence and OS were 26.3 months and 39.9 months, respectively.ConclusionY90 has an acceptable safety profile and high local disease control rates for the treatment of unresectable ICC. Downstaging to resection with > 3 years survival supports the therapeutic role of Y90 for unresectable ICC.Level of Evidence: Level 3, single-arm single-center cohort study.

BackgroundChemotherapy quality measures consider hospitals compliant when chemotherapy is recommended, even if it is not received. This may mask shortcomings in cancer care delivery. Objectives of this study were to (1) identify patient factors associated with failure to receive recommended chemotherapy without a documented contraindication and (2) assess hospital variation in failure to administer recommended chemotherapy.MethodsPatients from 2005 to 2015 with breast, colon and lung cancers who failed to receive recommended chemotherapy were identified using the National Cancer Database. Hospital-level rates of failure to administer recommended chemotherapy were calculated, and patient and hospital factors associated with failure to receive recommended chemotherapy were identified by multivariable logistic regression.ResultsA total of 183 148 patients at 1281 hospitals were analysed. Overall, 3.5% of patients with breast, 6.6% with colon and 10.7% with lung cancers failed to receive recommended chemotherapy. Patients were less likely to receive recommended chemotherapy in all cancers if uninsured or on Medicaid (p<0.05), as were non-Hispanic black patients with both breast and colon cancer (p<0.001). Significant hospital variation was observed, with hospital-level rates of failure to administer recommended chemotherapy as high as 21.8% in breast, 40.2% in colon and 40.0% in lung cancers.Conclusions and relevanceThough overall rates are low, failure to receive recommended chemotherapy is associated with sociodemographic factors. Hospital variation in failure to administer recommended chemotherapy is masked by current quality measure definitions and may define a significant and unmeasured difference in hospital quality.

Background Cancer survivors are at greater risk for poor health outcomes due to COVID-19. However, the pandemic's impact on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is not well known. This study hypothesized that cancer survivors' adverse COVID-19 experiences would be associated with worse HRQoL. Further, this association would be moderated by psychosocial resiliency factors (perceived social support, benefits, and ability to manage stress) and mediated by psychosocial risk factors (anxiety, depression; health, financial and social concerns). Methods 1,043 cancer survivors receiving care at Northwestern Medicine completed a cross-sectional survey on COVID-19 practical and psychosocial concerns from 6/2021 to 3/2022. Participants reported on 21 adverse COVID-19 experiences (e.g., COVID-19 hospitalization, death of family/friends, loss of income, medical delays). The survey assessed 9 psychosocial factors related to COVID-19: anxiety, depression; health care, financial, and social disruptions; health care satisfaction; social support, perceived benefits, and stress management skills. The FACT-G7 assessed HRQoL. Hypotheses were tested in a structural equation model. The number of reported adverse COVID-19 experiences was the primary (observed) independent variable. The dependent variable of HRQoL, and the proposed mediating and moderating factors, were entered as latent variables indicated by their respective survey items. Latent interaction terms between the independent variable and each resiliency factor tested moderation effects. Analyses were adjusted for demographic and COVID-specific variables. Results Participants were, on average, aged 58 years and diagnosed with cancer 4.9 years prior. They were majority female (73.3%), White (89.6%), non-Hispanic/Latino (94.5%), college-educated (81.7%), and vaccinated for COVID-19 (95.5%). An average of 3.8 adverse COVID-19 experiences were reported. Results of structural equation modeling demonstrated that the association between adverse COVID-19 experiences and HRQoL was explained by indirect effects through COVID-19-related depression (β = − 0.10 , percentile bootstrap 95% CI − 0.15 to − 0.07) and financial concerns (β = − 0.04, percentile bootstrap 95% CI − 0.07 to − 0.01). Hypotheses testing moderation by resiliency factors were not significant. Conclusions Adverse COVID-19 experiences were associated with higher depression symptoms and financial concerns about COVID-19, and in turn, worse HRQoL. Oncology clinics should be cognizant of the experience of adverse COVID-19 events when allocating depression and financial support resources. Plain English summary We conducted an online survey of cancer survivors receiving treatment at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, Illinois. Participants responded to a list of 21 adverse experiences related to the pandemic, such as COVID-19 hospitalization, death of family/friends, loss of income, and medical delays. They also responded to questionnaires measuring their degree of anxiety, depression, daily disruptions, health disruptions, financial disruptions, social support, perceived benefits, and ability to manage stress during the pandemic. Lastly, they responded to a questionnaire on health-related quality of life, capturing their physical symptoms, emotional symptoms, and satisfaction with life. Our survey found that people who had a greater number of adverse COVID-19 experiences had higher levels of depression and financial burden, which in turn was associated with worse health-related quality of life.

Background: The American Society of Clinical Oncology established the ‘Supporting Providers Serving the Underserved’ (SUS) Task Force with a goal to develop recommendations to support cancer clinicians who deliver care for populations at risk for cancer disparities. As a first step, the Task Force explored barriers and facilitators to equitable cancer care delivery. Methods: Clinicians across the United States who deliver care predominantly for low-income and racially and ethnically minoritized populations were identified based on lists generated by the Task Force and the Health Equity Committee. Through purposive sampling based on geographical location, clinicians were invited to participate in 30-60 min semi-structured interviews to explore experiences, barriers, and facilitators in their delivery of cancer care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, imported into qualitative data management software, and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Thematic analysis revealed three major themes regarding barriers (lack of executive leadership recognition of resources; patient-related socio-economic needs; clinician burnout) and two major themes regarding facilitators (provider commitment, experiential training). Conclusions: Findings reveal modifiable barriers and potential solutions to facilitate equitable cancer care delivery for populations at risk for cancer disparities.

BackgroundAttending to patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using data visualisation dashboards could enhance shared decision-making (SDM) and care delivery for serious chronic illnesses. However, few studies have evaluated real-world strategies and resulting implementation outcomes of PRO dashboards.MethodFrom June 2020 to January 2022, we implemented an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated PRO dashboard for advanced cancer and chronic kidney disease. Based on implementation science guidelines (eg, Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies, Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance), we monitored use and captured adaptations in implementation strategies. Clinicians (n=7) and patients (n=30) responded to a 6-month survey that included appropriateness, acceptability, adoption and sustainability.ResultsOut of 1450 eligible patients, 748 (52%) completed at least one PRO invitation (reach). 37% of PRO questionnaire invitations (1421/3882) were completed (fidelity to PRO completion), with higher rates occurring when more implementation strategies were adopted. Among completed postvisit surveys from patients, 57% indicated that the dashboard was discussed at an eligible visit (fidelity to dashboard use). In the 6-month survey, patients endorsed the dashboard’s acceptability and appropriateness: 77% felt it frequently provided clear information and 63% felt it frequently met their needs. Most patients (77%) and clinicians (86%) valued the dashboard for increasing SDM, and 57% of clinicians endorsed the dashboard’s clinical sustainability.DiscussionThis pilot study demonstrated the clinical appropriateness, acceptability and feasibility of implementing an EHR-integrated PRO dashboard for advanced cancer and chronic kidney disease. Results also point to areas for improvement, including strategies to further support patient and clinician engagement, PRO completion and sustainability in real-world implementation.

IntroductionCancer symptom monitoring and management interventions can address concerns that may otherwise go undertreated. However, such programmes and their evaluations remain largely limited to trials versus healthcare systemwide applications. We previously developed and piloted an electronic patient-reported symptom and need assessment (‘cPRO’ for cancer patient-reported outcomes) within the electronic health record (EHR). This study will expand cPRO implementation to medical oncology clinics across a large healthcare system. We will conduct a formal evaluation via a stepped wedge trial with a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design.Methods and analysisAim 1 comprises a mixed method evaluation of cPRO implementation. Adult outpatients will complete cPRO assessments (pain, fatigue, physical function, depression, anxiety and supportive care needs) before medical oncology visits. Results are available in the EHR; severe symptoms and endorsed needs trigger clinician notifications. We will track implementation strategies using the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System. Aim 2 will evaluate cPRO’s impact on patient and system outcomes over 12 months via (a) a quality improvement study (n=4000 cases) and (b) a human subjects substudy (n=1000 patients). Aim 2a will evaluate EHR-documented healthcare usage and patient satisfaction. In aim 2b, participating patients will complete patient-reported healthcare utilisation and quality, symptoms and health-related quality of life measures at baseline, 6 and 12 months. We will analyse data using generalised linear mixed models and estimate individual trajectories of patient-reported symptom scores at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Using growth mixture modelling, we will characterise the overall trajectories of each symptom. Aim 3 will identify cPRO implementation facilitators and barriers via mixed methods research gathering feedback from stakeholders. Patients (n=50) will participate in focus groups or interviews. Clinicians and administrators (n=40) will complete surveys to evaluate implementation. We will graphically depict longitudinal implementation survey results and code qualitative data using directed content analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (STU00207807). Findings will be disseminated via local and conference presentations and peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT04014751; ClinicalTrials.gov.