Physician and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Cancer Questions From Social Media.

Importance: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots pose the opportunity to draft template responses to patient questions. However, the ability of chatbots to generate responses based on domain-specific knowledge of cancer remains to be tested. Objective: To evaluate the competency of AI chatbots (GPT-3.5 [chatbot 1], GPT-4 [chatbot 2], and Claude AI [chatbot 3]) to generate high-quality, empathetic, and readable responses to patient questions about cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This equivalence study compared the AI chatbot responses and responses by 6 verified oncologists to 200 patient questions about cancer from a public online forum. Data were collected on May 31, 2023. Exposures: Random sample of 200 patient questions related to cancer from a public online forum (Reddit r/AskDocs) spanning from January 1, 2018, to May 31, 2023, was posed to 3 AI chatbots. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were pilot ratings of the quality, empathy, and readability on a Likert scale from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). Two teams of attending oncology specialists evaluated each response based on pilot measures of quality, empathy, and readability in triplicate. The secondary outcome was readability assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Results: Responses to 200 questions generated by chatbot 3, the best-performing AI chatbot, were rated consistently higher in overall measures of quality (mean, 3.56 [95% CI, 3.48-3.63] vs 3.00 [95% CI, 2.91-3.09]; P < .001), empathy (mean, 3.62 [95% CI, 3.53-3.70] vs 2.43 [95% CI, 2.32-2.53]; P < .001), and readability (mean, 3.79 [95% CI, 3.72-3.87] vs 3.07 [95% CI, 3.00-3.15]; P < .001) compared with physician responses. The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of physician responses (mean, 10.11 [95% CI, 9.21-11.03]) was not significantly different from chatbot 3 responses (mean, 10.31 [95% CI, 9.89-10.72]; P > .99) but was lower than those from chatbot 1 (mean, 12.33 [95% CI, 11.84-12.83]; P < .001) and chatbot 2 (mean, 11.32 [95% CI, 11.05-11.79]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that chatbots can generate quality, empathetic, and readable responses to patient questions comparable to physician responses sourced from an online forum. Further research is required to assess the scope, process integration, and patient and physician outcomes of chatbot-facilitated interactions.

Real-World Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Mutated Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Canada Using Data Extracted by Large Language Model-Based Artificial Intelligence.

Real-world evidence for patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Canada is limited. This study's objective was to use previously validated DARWENTM artificial intelligence (AI) to extract data from electronic heath records of patients with non-squamous NSCLC at University Health Network (UHN) to describe EGFR mutation prevalence, treatment patterns, and outcomes. Of 2154 patients with NSCLC, 613 had advanced disease. Of these, 136 (22%) had common sensitizing EGFR mutations (cEGFRm; ex19del, L858R), 8 (1%) had exon 20 insertions (ex20ins), and 338 (55%) had EGFR wild type. One-year overall survival (OS) (95% CI) for patients with cEGFRm, ex20ins, and EGFR wild type tumours was 88% (83, 94), 100% (100, 100), and 59% (53, 65), respectively. In total, 38% patients with ex20ins received experimental ex20ins targeting treatment as their first-line therapy. A total of 57 patients (36%) with cEGFRm received osimertinib as their first-line treatment, and 61 (39%) received it as their second-line treatment. One-year OS (95% CI) following the discontinuation of osimertinib was 35% (17, 75) post-first-line and 20% (9, 44) post-second-line. In this real-world AI-generated dataset, survival post-osimertinib was poor in patients with cEGFR mutations. Patients with ex20ins in this cohort had improved outcomes, possibly due to ex20ins targeting treatment, highlighting the need for more effective treatments for patients with advanced EGFRm NSCLC.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion in the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer: a global membership survey.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) are essential for healthcare organizations since they allow for the development of programs and initiatives that bring together diverse perspectives and knowledge. Global multidisciplinary organizations, such as the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), need to understand the perspective of their members regarding EDI to identify opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness and to better meet the needs of members from different backgrounds and resources. The MASCC Health Disparities Committee designed a survey to identify issues related to disparities faced by MASCC members when providing supportive care to patients with cancer and to examine the EDI landscape within the organization. Here, we report results related to EDI initiatives within the organization. Two-hundred and eighteen MASCC members responded to the survey (response rate 10.2%). The results indicated that respondents were generally satisfied with how MASCC manages leadership, membership, and organization-related EDI issues. Opportunities for improvement noted by respondents included developing strategies to foster a more diverse membership, improving communication regarding diversity in the organization, and increasing EDI content in educational sessions and publications. The results of this survey represent the first attempt at understanding how to improve EDI within MASCC and will be utilized to guide further initiatives and programs.

Perceived Barriers Toward Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation in Cancer Care: An International Scoping Survey.

PURPOSE: Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables. RESULTS: Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P = .02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P = .06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P = .08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P < .001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P < .001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P < .001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level. CONCLUSION: Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams.

Incidence and survival of secondary malignancies after external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer in the SEER database.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the incidence of secondary bladder (BCa) and rectal cancers (RCa) after external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for prostate cancer (PCa) compared to radical prostatectomy (RP) alone, and compared cancer-specific survival (CSS) of these secondary neoplasms to their primary counterparts. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included men in the SEER cancer registry with a diagnosis of non-metastatic, clinically node-negative PCa treated with either RP or EBRT from 1995-2011 and allowed a minimum five-year lag period for the development of secondary BCa or RCa. Patients were divided into two eras, 1995-2002 and 2003-2011, to examine differences in incidence of secondary malignancies over time. Univariable and multivariable competing risk analyses with Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard and cause-specific hazard models were used to examine the risk of developing a secondary BCa or RCa. Competing risks analyses were used to compare CSS of primary vs. secondary BCa and RCa. RESULTS: A total of 198 184 men underwent RP and 190 536 underwent EBRT for PCa. The cumulative incidence of secondary BCa at 10 years was 1.71% for RP, and 3.7% for EBRT (p<0.001), while that of RCa was 0.52% for RP and 0.99% for EBRT (p<0.001). EBRT was associated with almost twice the risk of developing a secondary BCa and RCa compared to RP. The hazard of secondary BCa following EBRT delivered during 2003-2011 was 20% less than from 1995-2002 (p<0.09, Fine-Gray model), while that of secondary RCa was 31% less (p<0.001) (hazard ratio 0.78, p<0.001) for Fine-Gray and cause-specific hazard models. In the Fine-Gray model, the risk of death from BCa was 27% lower for secondary BCa after RP compared to primary BCa, while the risk of death was 9% lower for secondary BCa after EBRT compared to primary BCa. There was no difference in RCa-specific survival between primary or secondary RCa after RP or EBRT. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of BCa and RCa is almost twice as high for men undergoing EBRT for localized PCa vs. RP, but that risk is declining, likely reflecting advances in radiation delivery. The development of secondary RCa or BCa does not confer elevated risk of death compared to their primary counterparts.

First impressions: A prospective evaluation of patient-physician concordance and satisfaction following the initial medical oncology consultation.

BACKGROUND: An especially significant event in the patient-oncologist relationship is the initial consultation, where many complex topics-diagnosis, treatment intent, and often, prognosis-are discussed in a relatively short period of time. This study aimed to measure patients' understanding of the information discussed during their first medical oncology visit and their satisfaction with the communication from medical oncologists. METHODS: Between January and August 2021, patients without prior systemic treatment of their gastrointestinal malignancy (GI) attending the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PMCC) were approached within 24 h of their initial consultation to complete a paper-based questionnaire assessing understanding of their disease (diagnosis, treatment plan/intent, and prognosis) and satisfaction with the consultation. Medical oncology physicians simultaneously completed a similar questionnaire about the information discussed at the initial visit. Matched patient-physician responses were compared to assess the degree of concordance. RESULTS: A total of 184 matched patient-physician surveys were completed. The concordance rates for understanding of diagnosis, treatment plan, treatment intent, and prognosis were 92.9%, 59.2%, 66.8%, and 59.8%, respectively. After adjusting for patient and physician variables, patients who reported treatment intent to be unclear at the time of the consultation were independently associated with lower satisfaction scores (global p = 0.014). There was no statistically significant association between patient satisfaction and whether prognosis was disclosed (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: An in-depth conversation as to what treatment intent and prognosis means is reasonable during the initial medical oncology consultation to ensure patients and caregivers have a better understanding about their cancer.

Presentation and outcomes of KRASG12C mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients with stage IV disease at diagnosis (de novo) versus at recurrence.

Close monitoring after diagnosis of patients with stage I-III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may result in fitter patients with lower disease burden at the time of metastatic recurrence or progression compared to patients diagnosed initially as stage IV (de novo). We compared the presentation, treatments, and outcomes of patients with KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC with de novo versus recurrent stage IV disease. Of 109 patients, 94% had a smoking history. When compared to patients with KRASG12C-mutated NSCLC who developed stage IV disease at recurrence (n = 38), de novo stage IV patients (n = 71) had worse ECOG performance status (p = 0.007), greater numbers of extra-thoracic metastatic sites (p = 0.001), and were less likely to receive 2nd/3rd line systemic therapy (p = 0.05, p = 0.002) or targeted therapy (p = 0.001). De novo metastatic patients had shorter overall survival than metastatic patients at recurrence (9.1 versus 24.2 months; adjusted-hazard-ratio=1.94 (95% CI: 1.14-3.28; p = 0.01)). There is a critical need for well-tolerated targeted therapies in the first-line setting for metastatic patients with de novo, high-burden, stage IV KRASG12C-mutated NSCLCs.

Individualized risk assessment of distant metastases in oral cavity carcinoma: a validated predictive-score model.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop and validate a risk-scoring system for distant metastases (DMs) in oral cavity carcinoma (OCC). METHODS: Patients with OCC who were treated at 4 tertiary cancer institutions with curative surgery with or without postoperative radiation/chemoradiation therapy were randomly assigned to discovery or validation cohorts (3:2 ratio). Cases were staged on the basis of tumor, node, and metastasis staging according to the eighth edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control guidelines. Predictors of DMs on multivariable analysis in the discovery cohort were used to develop a risk-score model and classify patients into risk groups. The utility of the risk classification was evaluated in the validation cohort. RESULTS: Overall, 2749 patients were analyzed. Predictors (risk score coefficient) of DMs in the discovery cohort were the following: pathological stage (p)T3-4 (0.4), pN+ (N1: 0.8; N2: 1.0; N3: 1.5), histologic grade (G) 3 (G3, 0.7), and lymphovascular invasion (0.4). The DM risk groups were defined by the sum of the following risk score coefficients: high (>1.7), intermediate (0.7-1.7), and standard risk (<0.7). The 5-year DM rates (high/intermediate/standard risk groups) were 30%/15%/4% in the discovery cohort (C-index = 0.79) and 35%/16%/5% in the validation cohort, respectively (C-index = 0.77; both P < .001). In the whole cohort, this predictive model showed excellent discriminative ability in predicting DMs without locoregional failure (29%/11%/1%), later (>2 year) DMs (11%/4%/2%), and DMs in patients treated with surgery (20%/12%/5%), postoperative radiation therapy (34%/17%/4%), and postoperative chemoradiation therapy (39%/18%/7%) (all P < .001). The 5-year overall survival rates in the overall cohort were 25%/51%/67% (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at higher risk for DMs were identified by use of a predictive-score model for DMs that included pT3-4, pN1/2/3, G3, and lymphovascular invasion. Identified patients may be evaluated for individualized risk-adaptive treatment escalation and/or surveillance strategies.

Impact of Antibiotic Exposure Before Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment on Overall Survival in Older Adults With Cancer: A Population-Based Study.

PURPOSE: Antibiotic exposure before immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment can negatively affect outcomes through alteration in the gut microbiome, but large-scale evaluations are lacking. We performed a population-level retrospective cohort study to evaluate the impact of antibiotic exposure before starting ICI on overall survival (OS). PATIENT AND METHODS: Patients with cancer, age 65 years or older, who initiated treatment with ICIs between June 2012 and October 2018 in Ontario, Canada, were identified using systemic therapy administration data. The cohort was deterministically linked to other health care databases to obtain covariates and antibiotic prescription claim data at both 1 year and 60 days before ICI therapy. Multivariable Cox models evaluated the association between exposure and OS. RESULTS: Among the 2,737 patients with cancer who received ICIs, 59% and 19% of patients received antibiotics 1 year and 60 days before ICI therapy, respectively. Median OS was 306 days. Any antibiotic exposure within 1 year before ICI was associated with worse OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.23; P = .03). In antibiotic class analysis, exposure to fluoroquinolones within 1 year (aHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.40; P < .001) or 60 days before ICI (aHR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.45; P = .06) was associated with worse OS, with a dose effect seen on the basis of total weeks of exposure over 1 year (aHR, 1.07 per week; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11; P < .001) and 60 days (aHR, 1.12 per week; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23; P = .01). CONCLUSION: In this population-level study, exposure to antibiotics and specifically fluoroquinolones before ICI therapy was observed to be associated with worse OS among older adults with cancer. Interventions aimed at altering the gut microbiome to boost immunogenicity may help improve outcomes for patients receiving ICIs with prior antibiotic exposure.

Use of artificial intelligence for cancer clinical trial enrollment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) for cancer clinical trial enrollment and its predictive accuracy in identifying eligible patients for inclusion in such trials. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched until June 2022. Articles were included if they reported on AI actively being used in the clinical trial enrollment process. Narrative synthesis was conducted among all extracted data: accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. For studies where the 2x2 contingency table could be calculated or supplied by authors, a meta-analysis to calculate summary statistics was conducted using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics curve model. RESULTS: Ten articles reporting on more than 50 000 patients in 19 datasets were included. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity exceeded 80% in all but 1 dataset. Positive predictive value exceeded 80% in 5 of 17 datasets. Negative predictive value exceeded 80% in all datasets. Summary sensitivity was 90.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70.9% to 97.4%); summary specificity was 99.3% (95% CI = 81.8% to 99.9%). CONCLUSIONS: AI demonstrated comparable, if not superior, performance to manual screening for patient enrollment into cancer clinical trials. As well, AI is highly efficient, requiring less time and human resources to screen patients. AI should be further investigated and implemented for patient recruitment into cancer clinical trials. Future research should validate the use of AI for clinical trials enrollment in less resource-rich regions and ensure broad inclusion for generalizability to all sexes, ages, and ethnicities.

Association of Household Income at Diagnosis With Financial Toxicity, Health Utility, and Survival in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer.

Importance: While several studies have documented a link between socioeconomic status and survival in head and neck cancer, nearly all have used ecologic, community-based measures. Studies using more granular patient-level data are lacking. Objective: To determine the association of baseline annual household income with financial toxicity, health utility, and survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prospective cohort of adult patients with head and neck cancer treated at a tertiary cancer center in Toronto, Ontario, between September 17, 2015, and December 19, 2019. Data analysis was performed from April to December 2021. Exposures: Annual household income at time of diagnosis. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome of interest was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included subjective financial toxicity, measured using the Financial Index of Toxicity (FIT) tool, and health utility, measured using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between household income and survival. Income was regressed onto log-transformed FIT scores using linear models. The association between income and health utility was explored using generalized linear models. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for patient-level clustering. Results: There were 555 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.7 [10.7] years; 109 [20%] women and 446 [80%] men) included in this cohort. Two-year disease-free survival was worse for patients in the bottom income quartile (<$30 000: 67%; 95% CI, 58%-78%) compared with the top quartile (≥$90 000: 88%; 95% CI, 83%-93%). In risk-adjusted models, patients in the bottom income quartile had inferior disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.22-3.71) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.94-4.29), when compared with patients in the highest quartile. The average FIT score was 22.6 in the lowest income quartile vs 11.7 in the highest quartile. In adjusted analysis, low-income patients had 12-month FIT scores that were, on average, 134% higher (worse) (95% CI, 16%-253%) than high-income patients. Similarly, health utility scores were, on average, 0.104 points lower (95% CI, 0.026-0.182) for low-income patients in adjusted analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, patients with head and neck cancer with a household income less than CAD$30 000 experienced worse financial toxicity, health status, and disease-free survival. Significant disparities exist for Ontario's patients with head and neck cancer.

Tobacco Use and Response to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Tobacco is a known risk factor for lung cancer, and continued tobacco use is associated with poorer outcomes across multiple lung cancer treatment modalities including surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Less is known about the association of tobacco use and outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which are becoming an important part of the treatment landscape in lung cancer, both in metastatic and curative settings. We reviewed the literature on the association of tobacco and tumor biology as it relates to immunotherapy. We also reviewed the association of tobacco use on outcomes among phase III randomized clinical trials involving ICIs in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We identified that patients with a smoking history may have a greater benefit with ICI treatment compared to never smokers in both treatment-naïve (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97, vs. HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.38) and pre-treated (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70-0.90 vs. 1.03, 95% CI 0.74-1.43) settings. In trials where smoking status was further defined, ex-smokers appear to demonstrate greater benefit with ICI therapy compared to current smokers (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59-1.01 vs. 0.91, 95% CI 0.72-1.14). We conclude by offering our perspective on future directions in this area of research, including implementation of standardized collection and analysis of tobacco use in clinical trials involving ICI therapy in lung cancer and other disease sites, and also evaluating how tobacco may affect toxicities related to ICI therapy. Based on our review, we believe that a patient's history of tobacco smoking does have a role to play in guiding treatment decision making in patients with lung cancer.

Exercise counselling and referral in cancer care: an international scoping survey of health care practitioners' knowledge, practices, barriers, and facilitators.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports the role of prescribed exercise for cancer survivors, yet few are advised to exercise by a healthcare practitioner (HCP). We sought to investigate the gap between HCPs' knowledge and practice from an international perspective. METHODS: An online questionnaire was administered to HCPs working in cancer care between February 2020 and February 2021. The questionnaire assessed knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding exercise counselling and referral of cancer survivors to exercise programs. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 375 participants classified as medical practitioners (42%), nurses (28%), exercise specialists (14%), and non-exercise allied health practitioners (16%). Between 35 and 50% of participants self-reported poor knowledge of when, how, and which cancer survivors to refer to exercise programs or professionals, and how to counsel based on exercise guidelines. Commonly reported barriers to exercise counselling were safety concerns, time constraints, cancer survivors being told to rest by friends and family, and not knowing how to screen people for suitability to exercise (40-48%). Multivariable logistic regression models including age, gender, practitioner group, leisure-time physical activity, and recall of guidelines found significant effects for providing specific exercise advice (χ2(7) = 117.31, p < .001), discussing the role of exercise in symptom management (χ2(7) = 65.13, p < .001) and cancer outcomes (χ2(7) = 58.69, p < .001), and referring cancer survivors to an exercise program or specialist (χ2(7) = 72.76, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Additional education and practical support are needed to equip HCPs to provide cancer survivors with exercise guidelines, resources, and referrals to exercise specialists.

Clinical presentation and outcome of human papillomavirus-positive nasopharyngeal carcinoma in a North American cohort.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe the clinical presentation and outcomes of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) versus Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive NPC and HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). METHODS: Clinical characteristics and presenting signs/symptoms were compared between patients who had viral-related NPC versus viral-related OPC treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy from 2005 to 2020 and who were matched 1:1 (by tumor and lymph node categories, smoking, age, sex, histology, and year of diagnosis). Locoregional control (LRC), distant control (DC), and overall survival (OS) were compared using the 2005-2018 cohort to maintain 2 years of minimum follow-up. Multivariable analysis was used to evaluate the cohort effect. RESULTS: Similar to HPV-positive OPC (n = 1531), HPV-positive NPC (n = 29) occurred mostly in White patients compared with EBV-positive NPC (n = 422; 86% vs. 15%; p < .001). Primary tumor volumes were larger in HPV-positive NPC versus EBV-positive NPC (median volume, 51 vs. 23 cm3 ; p = .002), with marginally more Level IB nodal involvement. More patients with HPV-positive NPC complained of local pain (38% vs. 3%; p = .002). The median follow-up for the 2005-2018 cohort was 5.3 years. Patients who had HPV-positive NPC (n = 20) had rates of 3-year LRC (95% vs. 90%; p = .360), DC (75% vs. 87%; p = .188), and OS (84% vs. 89%; p = .311) similar to the rates in those who had EBV-positive NPC (n = 374). Patients who had HPV-positive NPC also had rates of LRC (95% vs. 94%; p = .709) and OS (84% vs. 87%; p = .440) similar to the rates in those who had HPV-positive OPC (n = 1287). The DC rate was lower in patients who had HPV-positive disease (75% vs. 90%; p = .046), but the difference became nonsignificant (p = .220) when the analysis was adjusted for tumor and lymph node categories, smoking, and chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: HPV-positive NPC and EBV-positive NPC seem to be mutually exclusive diseases. Patients who have HPV-positive NPC have greater local symptom burden and larger primary tumors but have similar outcomes compared with patients who have EBV-positive NPC or HPV-positive OPC.

Out-of-pocket costs associated with head and neck cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket costs (OOPC) associated with treatment have significant implications on quality of life and survival in cancer patients. Head and neck cancer patients face unique treatment-related challenges, but to date OOPC have been understudied in this population. AIMS: This study aims to identify and measure OOPC for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) in Ontario. METHODS: HNC patients between 2015 and 2018 at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto were recruited. Participants completed OOPC questionnaires and lost income questions during radiation, post-surgery, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after completion of treatment. Associations between OOPC and treatment modality and disease site were tested with multivariable hurdle regression. RESULTS: A total of 1545 questionnaires were completed by 657 patients. Median estimated OOPC for the total duration of treatment for participants undergoing chemoradiation was $1452 [$0-14 616], for surgery with adjuvant radiation or chemoradiation (C/RT) was $1626, for radiation therapy alone was $635, and for surgery alone was $360. The major expenses for participants at the mid-treatment time-point was travel (mean $424, standard error of the mean [SEM] $34) and meals, parking, and accommodations (mean $617, SEM $67). In multivariable analysis, chemoradiation, surgery with C/RT, and radiation were associated with significantly higher OOPC than surgery alone during treatment (791% higher, p < .001; 539% higher, p < .001; 370% higher, p < .001 respectively) among patients with non-zero OOPC. Participants with non-zero OOPC in the laryngeal cancer group paid 49% lower OOPC than those with oropharyngeal cancers in adjusted analysis (p = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing treatment for HNC pay significant OOPC. These costs are highest during treatment and gradually decrease over time. OOPC vary by patient demographics, clinical factors, and, in particular, treatment modality.

The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners.

BACKGROUND: There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners' experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care. METHODS: Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings. RESULTS: In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia-Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as "high frequency users" who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P < .0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P = .006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P = .001) as an implementation barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care.

Advancing health equity in cancer care: The lived experiences of poverty and access to lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with low income are more likely to smoke, have a higher risk of lung cancer, and are less likely to participate in preventative healthcare (i.e., low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening), leading to equity concerns. To inform the delivery of an organized pilot lung cancer screening program in Ontario, we sought to contextualize the lived experiences of poverty and the choice to participate in lung cancer screening. METHODS: At three Toronto academic primary-care clinics, high-risk screen-eligible patients who chose or declined LDCT screening were consented; sociodemographic data was collected. Qualitative interviews were conducted. Theoretical thematic analysis was used to organize, describe and interpret the data using the morphogenetic approach as a guiding theoretical lens. RESULTS: Eight participants chose to undergo screening; ten did not. From interviews, we identified three themes: Pathways of disadvantage (social trajectories of events that influence lung-cancer risk and health-seeking behaviour), lung-cancer risk and early detection (upstream factors that shape smoking behaviour and lung-cancer screening choices), and safe spaces of care (care that is free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas or conversations). We illuminate how 'choice' is contextual to the availability of material resources such as income and housing, and how 'choice' is influenced by having access to spaces of care that are free of judgement and personal bias. CONCLUSION: Underserved populations will require multiprong interventions that work at the individual, system and structural level to reduce inequities in lung-cancer risk and access to healthcare services such as cancer screening.

Internet and social media use in cancer patients: association with distress and perceived benefits and limitations.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients may turn to social media (SM) to cope with distress. We investigated associations between distress and internet/SM use for cancer information/support. METHODS: Adult patients at a Canadian cancer centre completed a cross-sectional survey on sociodemographics, health status, use of cancer online resources and distress (EQ5D-5L). Statistical models adjusted for relevant variables. RESULTS: Of 376 participants, median age was 52 years, time since diagnosis was 1.63 years, 272 (74%) had post-secondary education and 192 (51%) were female. For cancer information/support, 276 (73%) used internet and 147 (39%) SM. Dose response relationships were observed between distress and cancer-related internet (p = 0.02), and SM use (p < 0.001). Respondents using internet/SM for cancer information/support reported greater internet confidence (internet OR = 4.0, 95% CI: 1.9-8.3; SM OR = 4.18, 95%, CI: 1.9-11.3), higher education (internet OR = 3.0, 95% CI: 1.7-5.2; SM OR = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.2-4.1) and were more likely female (internet OR = 2.6, 95% CI 1.5-4.6; SM OR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.3-3.4). For SM for cancer information/support, more used SM > 30 min daily (OR = 3.4; 95% CI: 2.1-5.7), and were distressed (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.0-2.7). SM benefits were to learn about cancer (93; 25%), distract from cancer (85; 23%) and connect with survivors (81; 22%). SM limitations were privacy (161; 43%), quality (90; 24%) and personal applicability (85; 23%). Females used SM more to connect with survivors than males (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Greater internet confidence, higher education and being female were associated with cancer-related internet/SM use. Distressed cancer patients were also more likely to turn to SM. Privacy concerns may limit SM use for coping. Future research should determine how to optimize SM in caring for and connecting with patients and reduce cancer-related distress.