Information Sources Used by Oncologists to Understand Multi-marker Tumor Panel Tests for Cancer Patients.

Precision medicine using multi-marker tumor panel (MMTP) testing can help inform cancer treatment decisions. Oncologists' knowledge of these tests and their ability to find up-to-date information about their application in clinical care is essential. This study aimed to (1) describe information sources used by oncologists to learn about new genomic tests and (2) examine characteristics associated with the use of each information source. The National Cancer Institute's National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment surveyed a nationally representative sample of oncologists about MMTP testing. We examined the use of 11 information sources among oncologists that reported using MMTP tests (n = 1222). Bivariate analyses were used to examine whether information sources differed by oncologist- and practice-level characteristics and type of MMTP test. Most oncologists reported using peer-reviewed medical literature (88.8%), scientific conferences (87.9%), and medical professional societies (83.8%) to learn about MMTPs. In contrast, government websites, FDA inserts, and foundation resources were each used by < 36% of oncologists. The use of information sources differed by oncologist and practice characteristics. For example, a greater percentage of oncologists with an academic affiliation used peer-reviewed medical literature and scientific conferences, as compared to those without an academic affiliation (p = 0.006). As the number and type of MMTP tests increase, providing oncologists with current information about their appropriate application is essential. Further understanding of how oncologists use specific information sources may improve the dissemination and effective implementation of new MMTPs and help tailor educational interventions based on provider characteristics.

Perceptions of care coordination among older adult cancer survivors: A SEER-CAHPS study.

OBJECTIVE: Care coordination reflects deliberate efforts to harmonize patient care. This study examined variables associated with patient-reported care coordination scores among Medicare beneficiaries with a history of cancer. METHODS: We utilized Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (SEER-CAHPS) linked data, which includes cancer registry data, patient experience surveys, and Medicare claims. We identified Medicare beneficiaries with a CAHPS survey ≤10 years after cancer diagnosis who reported seeing a personal doctor within six months. Multivariable regression models examined associations between cancer survivor characteristics and patient-reported care coordination, with higher scores indicating better coordination. RESULTS: Cancer site distribution of the 14,646 survey respondents was 33.7% prostate, 22.1% breast, 11.1% colorectal, 7.2% lung, and 25.9% other. Rural residence at diagnosis (versus urban, 1.1-point difference; p = 0.04) and reporting >4 visits with a personal doctor (versus 1-2 visits, 3.0-point difference; p < 0.001) were significantly associated with higher care coordination. Older age (p < 0.001) and seeing more specialists (p = 0.006) were associated with significantly lower care coordination. Patients with melanoma (women: 5.2-point difference, p < 0.001; men: 2.7 points, p = 0.01) or breast cancer (women: 2.4 points; p < 0.001) reported significantly lower care coordination scores than did men with prostate cancer (reference group). Time from diagnosis to survey, cancer stage, number of cancers, and comorbidities were not significantly associated with care coordination scores. DISCUSSION: Cancer site, rural residence, and number of physician interactions are associated with patient-reported care coordination scores. Future research should address multilevel influences that lead to worse care coordination for older adult cancer survivors.

Follow-Up Care for Breast and Colorectal Cancer Across the Globe: Survey Findings From 27 Countries.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe follow-up care for breast and colorectal cancer survivors in countries with varying levels of resources and highlight challenges regarding posttreatment survivorship care. METHODS: We surveyed one key stakeholder from each of 27 countries with expertise in survivorship care on questions including the components/structure of follow-up care, delivery of treatment summaries and survivorship care plans, and involvement of primary care in survivorship. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize results across countries and variations between the WHO income categories (low, middle, high). We also performed a qualitative content analysis of narratives related to survivorship care challenges to identify major themes. RESULTS: Seven low- or /lower-middle-income countries (LIC/LMIC), seven upper-middle-income countries (UMIC), and 13 high-income countries (HICs) were included in this study. Results indicate that 44.4% of countries with a National Cancer Control Plan currently address survivorship care. Additional findings indicate that HICs use guidelines more often than those in LICs/LMICs and UMICs. There was great variation among countries regardless of income level. Common challenges include issues with workforce, communication and care coordination, distance/transportation issues, psychosocial support, and lack of focus on follow-up care. CONCLUSION: This information can guide researchers, providers, and policy makers in efforts to improve the quality of survivorship care on a national and global basis. As the number of cancer survivors increases globally, countries will need to prioritize their long-term needs. Future efforts should focus on efforts to bridge oncology and primary care, building international partnerships, and implementation of guidelines.