A qualitative approach to understanding the drivers of unequal receipt of definitive therapy for Black men with prostate cancer in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: Despite mandated insurance coverage since 2006 and robust health infrastructure in urban settings with high concentrations of minority patients, race-based disparities in prostate cancer (PCa) treatment persist in Massachusetts. In this qualitative study, the authors sought to identify factors driving inequities in PCa treatment in Massachusetts. METHODS: Four hospitals offering PCa treatment in Massachusetts were selected using a case-mix approach. Purposive sampling was used to conduct semistructured interviews with hospital stakeholders. Additional interviews were conducted with representatives from grassroots organizations providing PCa education. Two study staff coded the interviews to identify major themes and recurrent patterns. RESULTS: Of the 35 informants invited, 25 participated in the study. Although national disparities in PCa outcomes were readily discussed, one half of the informants were unaware that PCa disparities existed in Massachusetts. Informants and grassroots organization representatives acknowledged that patients with PCa are willing to face transportation barriers to receive treatment from trusted and accommodating institutions. Except for chief equity officers, most health care providers lacked knowledge on accessing or using metrics regarding racial disparities in cancer outcomes. Although community outreach was recognized as a potential strategy to reduce treatment disparities and engender trust, informants were often unable to provide a clear implementation plan. CONCLUSIONS: This statewide qualitative study builds on existing quantitative data on the nature and extent of disparities. It highlights knowledge gaps in recognizing and addressing racial disparities in PCa treatment in Massachusetts. Improved provider awareness, the use of disparity metrics, and strategic community engagement may ensure equitable access to PCa treatment. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Despite mandated insurance and urban health care access, racial disparities in prostate cancer treatment persist in Massachusetts. This qualitative study revealed that, although national disparities were acknowledged, awareness about local disparities are lacking. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of ancillary services, including translators, rideshares, and navigators, in the delivery of care. In addition, whereas hospital stakeholders were aware of collected equity outcomes, they were unsure whether and who is monitoring equity metrics. Furthermore, stakeholders agreed that community outreach showed promise in ensuring equitable access to prostate cancer treatment. Nevertheless, most interviewed stakeholders lacked clear implementation plans.

Safety and tolerability of tedizolid as oral treatment for bone and joint infections.

Bone and joint infections (BJIs) are common infections increasingly managed with oral therapy. However, there are limited safe oral options for many Gram-positive pathogens. In animal studies and short-term human use, tedizolid lacks the hematologic and neurologic toxicity of the other available oxazolidinone, linezolid. However, there are limited prospective safety data. We conducted an open-label, non-comparative trial of oral tedizolid for BJI treatment. Primary outcomes were safety and cure rate. Eligible patients had a BJI caused by documented or suspected Gram-positive pathogen, required 4-12 weeks of therapy, and did not have myelosuppression or peripheral/optic neuropathy. Subjects underwent weekly evaluation for cytopenias and neuropathy. We enrolled 44 subjects; five were lost to follow-up. Two subjects did not complete planned treatment because of rash (n = 1) and urgent surgery (n = 1). Of 37 patients with evaluable outcomes, 17 (46%) had hardware-associated infection, 13 (35%) had osteomyelitis, 5 (14%) had prosthetic joint infection, and 2 (5%) had other BJIs. Median (mean, range) treatment duration was 12 (10.1, 4-12) weeks. There were no cases of cytopenias or peripheral or optic neuropathy. Treatment cure occurred in 13 (35%); 19 (51%) required antibiotic continuation after 12 weeks of tedizolid related to retained hardware at the BJI site, and failure occurred in four (11%), two unlikely, one possibly, and one probably due to tedizolid. We found that oral tedizolid was well tolerated for prolonged BJI treatment without significant toxicity. Clinical failure rate was similar to that of other published BJI investigations. (This study has been registered at Clinicaltrials.gov under identifier NCT03009045.) IMPORTANCE Bone and joint infections are common infections with limited effective and safe oral options for Gram-positive infections. The largest prospective clinical trial of tedizolid therapy for bone and joint infections enrolled 44 patients and tested each in person weekly with detailed safety monitoring including tests for leukopenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, peripheral neuropathy, and optic neuropathy for up to 12 weeks. Findings demonstrated tedizolid was generally well tolerated and there were no incident cases of cytopenias or neuropathy. Cure rates were similar to that in other bone and joint infection studies. In summary, oral tedizolid appears to be a well-tolerated oral option for Gram-positive bone and joint infections.

Staphylococcus Epidermidis as a Uropathogen in Children.

Historically, Staphylococcus epidermidis has been considered a contaminant when grown on urine cultures. However, a growing body of literature suggests that S. epidermidis can cause urinary tract infections (UTIs) in children with anatomic variants or a history of instrumentation. In this case report, we describe a previously healthy child who presented with symptoms of UTI and urine cultures grew this uropathogen. The patient was screened for anatomic abnormalities and none were found; nonetheless, appropriate treatment should be initiated even if no underlying pathology is found.

Racial Differences in Germline Genetic Testing for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Testing for pathogenic variants can aid in oncologic risk stratification and identification of targeted therapies. Despite known disparities in access to prostate cancer (PCa) care, little has been written about access to germline genetic testing (GGT) for Black men and other historically marginalized populations. This systematic review sought to delineate racial/ethnic disparities in GGT for PCa. METHODS: This systematic review identified articles published from January 1996 through May 2021 in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. We included studies that reported rates of GGT in men with PCa in the United States by race/ethnicity as reflective of routine clinical care or research. A narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Of 4,309 unique records, 91 studies examining 50 unique study populations met inclusion criteria. Of these, four populations included men who received GGT through routine clinical care, accounting for 4,415 men (72.6% White and 7.2% Black). The other 46 populations included men who received GGT as part of a research study, accounting for 30,824 men (64.3% White and 21.6% Black). Of these 46 research populations, 19 used targeted methods to increase recruitment from a specific demographic. CONCLUSION: Most studies that report GGT rates by race/ethnicity are in research settings. Many of these studies used targeted recruitment methods and subsequently have a greater proportion of Black men than clinical and US population-based studies. Other historically marginalized populations are not well represented. There remains a knowledge gap regarding the extent of racial disparities in the use of GGT, particularly in the clinical setting.

Feasibility and Limitations of Proning Protocol for Nonintubated Patients With COVID-19.

Proning awake patients with COVID-19 is associated with lower mortality and intubation rates. However, these studies also demonstrate low participation rates and tolerance of awake proning. In this study, we attempt to understand barriers to proning. Medical and dental students surveyed nonintubated patients to understand factors affecting adherence to a proning protocol. Only patients who discussed proning with their medical team attempted the practice. Eight of nine patients who were informed about benefits of proning attempted the maneuver. Discomfort was the primary reason patients stopped proning. Addressing discomfort and implementing systematic patient education may increase adherence to proning.

Impact of Pain, Opioids, and the Mu-opioid Receptor on Progression and Survival in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Stage IV Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is frequently associated with pain requiring opioid therapy. Opioids, however, have been implicated in causing tumor progression, ultimately shortening survival. We examined the impact of pain, opioid use, and the mu-opioid receptor (MOP-R) expression in tumor tissue on progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We identified 103 patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma receiving chemotherapy and abstracted data from Tumor Registry, in addition to pain, opioid exposure, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 values, survival, and imaging response. MOP-R expression was evaluated using an immunohistochemistry assay. The association of variables with progression-free survival and overall survival was analyzed in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: Patients with low opioid use (<5 mg oral morphine equivalent/d) survived longer than patients with high opioid (HO) use (≥5 mg oral morphine equivalent/d) (median overall survival of 315 vs. 150 d; hazard ratio [HR]=1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13, 2.84). This effect persisted on multivariate models (adjusted HR=2.76; 95% CI: 1.39, 5.48). Low opioid patients tended to respond better to treatment than HO patients, based on carbohydrate antigen 19-9. Patients with low MOP-R expression had longer median survival (230 vs. 193 d), though the HR was not significant (1.15; 95% CI: 0.71, 1.88). Baseline pain was not associated with outcomes. CONCLUSION: In patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, HO use is associated with decreased survival, but the severity of baseline pain and MOP-R expression score in tumor tissue does not correlate with clinical outcomes.

Collection of electronic patient-reported symptoms in patients with advanced cancer using Epic MyChart surveys.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in routine cancer care can help identify troublesome symptoms and facilitate discussions between patients and clinicians and has been shown to improve patient satisfaction, quality of life, and survival. METHODS: Eighty patients with stage IV non-hematologic malignancies on chemotherapy participated. Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring (PRSM) surveys were sent every 14 days via the Epic MyChart system over a 12-week period. Surveys were offered via phone or paper if patients failed to complete the automated MyChart survey by day 16. Severe symptoms or concerning symptom trends were automatically highlighted in reports for clinic staff. Patients reporting severe symptoms were routed to oncology nursing triage for standard symptom care management. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-one surveys were sent during the 12-week study period. One hundred eighty-three surveys (66%) were completed, with 68% completed electronically via MyChart, 25% by paper, and 7% by phone call from a research coordinator. At least one severe symptom was reported on 36% of all surveys. However, most severe symptoms did not result in urgent triage follow-up because they were already being addressed and/or patients felt they were manageable. Patients and clinicians generally said the ePRO was efficient and helpful for addressing distressing symptoms and would use it in routine oncology care. CONCLUSION: ePROs can be integrated into the electronic health record using the Epic MyChart system. Patients and clinicians gave positive feedback on the system. Monitoring symptoms in real time may soon become part of standard oncology practice and requires seamless methods for collection.

A Comprehensive Review of Cannabis in Patients with Cancer: Availability in the USA, General Efficacy, and Safety.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As the legalization of medical cannabis continues across the USA, oncology care providers will be increasingly asked to provide recommendations regarding its use in the cancer setting. In this article, we review recent literature that analyzes cannabis use specifically in patients with cancer and provide an accessible guide for clinicians, researchers, and patients. RECENT FINDINGS: We aimed to answer questions about the availability of cannabis in the USA, the trials supporting its use in the cancer setting, and the important factors to consider related to safety. Thirty states plus the District of Columbia have established comprehensive medical cannabis programs, each with different regulations and products available. In June 2018, Epidiolex, a cannabis extraction product containing 99% CBD, was approved to treat refractory seizures; however, whole-plant products and non-prescription extraction products dominate the market. Recent randomized, placebo-controlled studies of nabiximols (Sativex) in patients with refractory cancer-pain have largely shown no significant benefits. Conversely, large observational studies suggest patients with cancer using cannabis report significant improvement of many common symptoms. Cannabis use appears well tolerated, with few serious adverse effects reported. Though prospective clinical trials are needed to provide the robust data required to establish the proper role of cannabinoid and cannabis-based therapy in cancer patients, physicians can draw upon the knowledge currently available to have informed discussions with their patients.

Oncology Clinicians and the Minnesota Medical Cannabis Program: A Survey on Medical Cannabis Practice Patterns, Barriers to Enrollment, and Educational Needs.

Background: Medical cannabis has been available in the State of Minnesota since July 2015 through the Minnesota Medical Cannabis Program (MMCP). Objectives: Our study aimed to delineate oncology providers' views on medical cannabis, identify barriers to patient enrollment, and assess clinicians' interest in a clinical trial of medical cannabis in patients with stage IV cancer. Methods: From June to August 2017, we distributed a 14-question survey to Minnesota oncology physicians, advanced practice nurses, and physician assistants who care for adults and children with cancer. Descriptive analyses for each question were provided for all survey respondents. Results: Of the 529 eligible survey participants, 153 (29%) responded to our survey; 68 respondents were registered with the MMCP. Most identified themselves as a medical oncologist or medical oncology nurse practitioner/physician assistant (n=125, 82%), and most practiced in a community setting (n=102, 67%). Overall, 65% of respondents supported the use of medical cannabis. Perceived cost and inadequate research were the highest barriers to MMCP patient enrollment. The lowest barriers included lack of health group support for allowing certification of patients and risk of social stigma. Of all respondents, 36% lacked confidence in discussing the risks and benefits of medical cannabis, and 85% wanted more education. Conclusions: Although support for cannabis use in the cancer setting is growing, significant barriers remain. This study illustrates a clear need to give clinicians both data and education to guide their discussions about the benefits, risks, and cost considerations of using medical cannabis for cancer-related symptoms.

Impact of opioid use on health care utilization and survival in patients with newly diagnosed stage IV malignancies.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced cancers frequently experience pain. Opioids are commonly prescribed to treat cancer-related pain, but their use might be associated with undesirable consequences including adverse effects and tumor progression, resulting in increased heath care utilization and shorter survival. We examined these possibilities in a large cohort of patients diagnosed with ten common advanced malignancies. METHODS: We identified 1386 newly diagnosed patients with stage IV non-hematologic malignancies from 2005 to 2013 and ascertained opioid utilization within 90 days of starting anti-cancer treatment using electronic medical record and tumor registry data. Opioid utilization was stratified into low opioid (LO; < 5 mg oral morphine equivalents (OME)/day) and high opioid (HO; ≥ 5 mg OME/day). Health care utilization included tallies of emergency room, urgent care, and inpatient visits. The association of opioid use, tumor type prognosis, age, and gender with overall survival was analyzed in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: HO use patients (n = 624) had greater health care utilization compared to LO use patients (n = 762; p < 0.05). HO use patients also had shorter survival (median survival, 5.5 vs 12.4 months; p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, HO use remained associated with shorter overall survival (HR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6; p < 0.0001) after adjusting for age, gender, and prognostic group. CONCLUSIONS: In advanced cancer patients, HO use is associated with greater health care utilization and shorter survival. Prospective studies using opioid-sparing approaches are indicated, to confirm these retrospective findings and to evaluate if these undesirable effects associated with opioid use can be mitigated.

A systematic review of the impact of pain on overall survival in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: Pain commonly occurs in cancer patients, and has been associated with shorter survival. However, the importance of pain is less clear when analyzed with other known prognostic variables. This systematic review was performed to better understand how pain impacts overall survival (OS) in common cancers when key clinical variables are included in multivariate analysis. METHODS: A Medline search was completed to find studies examining the relationship between pain, clinical variables, and OS in patients with breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer. Multivariate analysis included known prognostic variables including age, performance status, disease burden, and laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Fifty studies met inclusion criteria. In patients with breast, colorectal, and lung cancer, pain was not a significant prognostic factor for OS on multivariate analysis in most studies. In contrast, several studies suggest that pain is an independent prognostic factor for OS in advanced prostate cancer, even when relevant clinical prognostic variables are included. However, analgesic use was often used as a surrogate for prostate cancer pain, making it difficult to determine whether pain or opioid exposure was more important in influencing survival. CONCLUSIONS: Pain may be associated with shorter survival in patients with cancer, but the mechanism for this relationship is unknown. The available evidence is insufficient to definitively determine if pain independently influences survival in patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. The majority of studies in prostate cancer show pain to be an independent prognostic factor for OS, and often also incorporate opioid analgesic use in multivariate analysis. Prospective studies are needed to better understand how opioid utilization and pain may affect cancer progression and survival in diverse malignancies.