Cancer Treatment Decision-Making for People Living With HIV: Physician-Reported Barriers, Facilitators, and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Compared with the general cancer population, people living with HIV (PLWH) and cancer are less likely to receive treatment and have significantly elevated cancer-specific mortality for many common cancer types. Physician recommendations drive the cancer therapy that patients receive, yet there is limited information assessing how cancer treatment decisions are made for people living with HIV and cancer. We sought to understand oncologist decision-making in PLWH and cancer by eliciting barriers, facilitators, and recommendations for enhancing care delivery. SETTING: Participants were recruited between May 2019 and May 2021 from one academic medical center in the western United States (n = 13), another in the southeastern United States (n = 7), and community practices nationwide (n = 5). METHODS: Using an inductive qualitative approach, we conducted in-depth interviews with 25 oncologists from two academic medical centers and community practices. RESULTS: Facilitators of cancer care delivery included readily available information regarding HIV status and stage, interdepartmental communication, and antiviral therapy adherence. Barriers included a lack of formal education on HIV malignancies, perceptions of decreased life expectancy, fear of inadvertent disclosure, and drug-drug interactions. Recommendations included improved provider communication, patient social and mental health resources, and continuing education opportunities. CONCLUSION: The study revealed drivers of cancer treatment decision-making, highlighting physician-reported barriers and facilitators, and recommendations to support treatment decision-making. This is the first known study examining oncologists' perceptions of caring for PLWH. Given that cancer is a leading cause of death among PLWH, there is an urgent need to improve care and outcomes.

Cancer treatment delays among cancer patients living with HIV during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to care disruptions across the cancer continuum. It is unknown if immunosuppressed patients with cancer, who may be at higher risk for complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection, are disproportionately impacted. Thus, we aimed to compare delays in cancer treatment initiation between people living with HIV (PLWH) and cancer, the general cancer population (GCP), and patients with cancer and a history of solid organ transplant (SOT). Comparisons were made across the period 2 years preceding the pandemic versus the first year of the pandemic. METHODS: We used data from a real-world electronic health record-derived de-identified database (2018-2021) comprised of US patients with cancer from 800 sites of care across the country. We included patients with 19 different cancer types. We calculated time to cancer treatment initiation (TTI) as the difference between the date of cancer diagnosis and the earliest date that cancer treatment was recorded. RESULTS: The sample included 181 PLWH, 65,073 GCP patients, and 195 patients with a SOT. Difference-in-difference regression models adjusted for age, sex, and presence of metastatic disease at cancer diagnosis revealed a significant increase in delayed TTI among PLWH compared to the GCP during COVID-19 versus prior to COVID-19, with delays increasing by approximately 1 month during the pandemic (DID: 32.6 days [8.9-56.3]; p = 0.007). The increase in TTI for PLWH was observed across treatment modalities, including surgery (DID: 55.1 [28.8-81.3], p < 0.001) and systemic therapy (DID: 30.4 [4.6-56.3], p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS/RELEVANCE: PLWH experienced significant delays in cancer treatment initiation after diagnosis during the first year of COVID-19, delays that may negatively impact cancer outcomes. These data warrant patient and provider attention as the pandemic continues to impact the US healthcare system.

Repairing small type I hiatal hernias at the time of RYGB is not necessary to achieve resolution of reflux symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the gold standard operation for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients with severe obesity, but there is variability in surgeon opinion regarding whether small type I hiatal hernias (HH) require routine repair concurrently with RYGB. We sought to examine whether leaving small type I HHs unrepaired during RYGB affected GERD outcomes. METHODS: Pre-operatively our patients all receive endoscopy, and select patients with reflux symptoms receive esophagram based on attending surgeon practice and preference. We routinely repair paraesophageal hernias (PEH) concurrently with RYGB, but refrain from repairing small type I HH if, intra-operatively, the gastric fat pad and cardia are below the diaphragm with no evidence of retraction into the mediastinum. Records from 268 consecutive patients undergoing primary RYGB between January 2016 and February 2021 who completed pre-operative GERD-HRQL assessments were reviewed for presence of type I HH or PEH. Mann-Whitney U tests examined the pre-operative to post-operative change in GERD-HRQL in patients with type I HH left unrepaired at the time of RYGB (HH group) and patients with no hernia (NH group). RESULTS: Pre-operatively, GERD-HRQL scores were not statistically different between HH group (median = 7, mean = 8.5, n = 100) and NH group (median = 6.5, mean = 7.2, n = 141) (p > 0.05). Post-operatively, there was no increase in GERD-HRQL scores patients whose hernias were left unrepaired. Neither group had clinically pathologic post-operative GERD-HRQL scores, with median 6 months scores of 1 for HH group (n = 68) versus 1.5 for NH group (n = 90) (p > 0.05), and median 12 months scores of 1.5 for HH group (n = 40) versus 1 for NH group (n = 56) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Repair of small type I HH is not necessary to achieve effective, durable resolution of reflux symptoms with RYGB. Omitting repair reduces operative time, cost, and potential risk without adverse impact on post-operative reflux symptoms.

The Clinical Significance of Maximum Tumor Diameter on MRI in Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy or Definitive Radiotherapy for Locoregional Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Maximum tumor diameter (MTD) on pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to further risk stratify for men with prostate cancer (PCa) prior to definitive local therapy. We aim to evaluate the prognostic impact of radiographic maximum tumor diameter (MTD) in men with localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From a single-center retrospective cohort of men receiving definitive treatment for PCa (radical prostatectomy [RP] or radiotherapy [RT]) with available pretreatment MRI, we conducted univariable and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models for progression using clinical variables including age, NCCN risk group, radiographic extracapsular extension (ECE), radiographic seminal vesical invasion (SVI), and MTD. RP and RT cohorts were analyzed separately. Covariates were used in a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis and progression-free survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and groups were compared using log-rank tests. RESULTS: The cohort included 631 patients (n = 428 RP, n = 203 RT). CART analysis identified 4 prognostic groups for patients treated with RP and 2 prognostic groups in those treated with RT. In the RP cohort, NCCN low/intermediate risk group patients with MTD>=15 mm had significantly worse PFS than those with MTD <= 14 mm, and NCCN high-risk patients with radiographic ECE had significantly worse PFS than those without ECE. In the RT cohort, PFS was significantly worse in the cohort with MTD >= 23 mm than those <= 22 mm. CONCLUSION: Radiographic MTD may be a useful prognostic factor for patients with locoregional prostate cancer. This is the first study to illustrate that the importance of pretreatment tumor size may vary based on treatment modality.

The Effect of Maximum Tumor Diameter by MRI on Disease Control in Intermediate and High-risk Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Brachytherapy Boost.

BACKGROUND: Larger maximum tumor diameter (MTD) has been associated with worse prostate cancer (PCa) outcomes. However, the impact of MTD in PCa treated with external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy boost (EBRT+BB) remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with PCa treated with EBRT+BB were identified from an institutional database. Clinical data including MTD, age, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, prostate specific antigen (PSA), International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) group, clinical T-stage, and presence of adverse pathology on imaging were retrospectively collected. Multivariable and univariable cox proportional hazards models for biochemical failure (BF) and distant metastasis (DM) were produced with MTD grouped by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) cut-point. Cumulative hazard functions for BF and DM were compared with log-rank test and stratified by ISUP group. RESULTS: Of 191 patients treated with EBRT+BB, 113 had MTD measurements available. Larger MTD was associated with increased ADT use and seminal vesicle involvement. ROC optimization identified MTD of 24 mm as the optimal cut-point for both BF and DM. MTD was independently associated with both BF (HR 8.61, P = .048, 95% CI 1.02-72.97) and DM (HR 8.55, P = .05, 95% CI 1.00-73.19). In patients with ISUP group 4 to 5 disease, MTD > 24 mm was independently associated with increased risk of DM (HR 10.13, P = .04, 95% CI 1.13-91.12). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate MTD in the setting of EBRT+BB. These results demonstrate that MTD is independently associated with BF and metastasis. This suggests a possible role for MTD in risk assessment models and clinical decision-making for men receiving EBRT+BB.