A Vision for Democratizing Next-Generation Oncology Clinical Trials.

SUMMARY: Revolutionary advancements in oncology have transformed lives, but the clinical trials ecosystem encounters challenges, including restricted access to innovative therapies and a lack of diversity in participant representation. A vision emerges for democratized, globally accessible oncology trials, necessitating collaboration among researchers, clinicians, patients, and policymakers to shift from converting complex, exclusive trials into a dynamic, inclusive force against cancer.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Adults With Cancer: ASCO Guideline.

PURPOSE: To guide clinicians, adults with cancer, caregivers, researchers, and oncology institutions on the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids, including synthetic cannabinoids and herbal cannabis derivatives; single, purified cannabinoids; combinations of cannabis ingredients; and full-spectrum cannabis. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies on the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids when used by adults with cancer. Outcomes of interest included antineoplastic effects, cancer treatment toxicity, symptoms, and quality of life. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to January 27, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The evidence base consisted of 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies (four RCTs and one cohort study). The certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low. RECOMMENDATIONS: Cannabis and/or cannabinoid access and use by adults with cancer has outpaced the science supporting their clinical use. This guideline provides strategies for open, nonjudgmental communication between clinicians and adults with cancer about the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids. Clinicians should recommend against using cannabis or cannabinoids as a cancer-directed treatment unless within the context of a clinical trial. Cannabis and/or cannabinoids may improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens. Whether cannabis and/or cannabinoids can improve other supportive care outcomes remains uncertain. This guideline also highlights the critical need for more cannabis and/or cannabinoid research.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Establishing an Integrative Oncology Service: Essential Aspects of Program Development.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the last 2 decades, integrative oncology (IO) has seen exponential growth within cancer care. It aims to combine evidence-based complementary therapies with conventional treatments to improve the well-being and quality of life for individuals dealing with cancer. The proliferation of integrative medicine programs in major cancer centers globally reflects varying approaches shaped by cultural, demographic, and resource-based factors. RECENT FINDINGS: Drawing upon the expertise of leaders in IO from the Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO) Clinical Practice Committee, this manuscript serves as a practical guide for establishing an IO practice. Collating insights from diverse professionals, including oncologists, integrative oncologists, supportive care physicians, researchers, and clinicians, the paper aims to provide a comprehensive roadmap for initiating and advancing IO services. The primary objective is to bridge the gap between conventional cancer care and complementary therapies, fostering a patient-centric approach to address the multifaceted challenges encountered by individuals with cancer. This paper delineates several key sections elucidating different aspects of IO practice. It delves into the core components necessary for an IO service's foundation, outlines the initial medical consultation process, and presents crucial tools essential for successful consultations. By consolidating insights and expertise, this manuscript seeks to facilitate the integration of IO into mainstream cancer care, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and experiences.

Practice Patterns on the Incorporation of Integrative Medicine Into the Oncologic Care of Patients With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: With rising interest in complementary approaches to symptom management, awareness of real-world practice patterns in the incorporation of integrative oncology (IO) into cancer care is limited. Therefore, we examined the reasons for referral, symptom burdens, and clinical outcomes for cancer patients who underwent initial IO consultations. METHODS: The records of adult patients with cancer who underwent initial outpatient IO consultations at our cancer center for a representative 10-day period at the start of each month for 12 months starting January 1, 2017, were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographic and medical characteristics and outpatient IO consultation details, including patient-reported outcome measures of symptom burden, were extracted. Descriptive summary statistics and logistic regression were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Among the 473 study patients, 71% were women, breast cancer (42%) was the most common cancer type, and 31% had metastatic cancer. Referring clinicians listed an integrative approach (57%) as the most common reason for referral, followed by diet (26%), pain (19%), discussion of herbs and supplements (18%), and stress (18%). In comparison, patients listed their primary concerns as diet (16%), pain (15%), and an integrative approach to overall health (11%). After the IO consultations, the highest likelihood of subsequent recommendations were acupuncture for hot flashes (odds ratio [OR], P = .002) or peripheral neuropathy (OR = 6.59, P < .001), oncology massage for pain (OR = 3.04, P < .001), psychology referral for patient's self-reported anxiety (OR = 2.35, P < .001), and mind-body therapies for stress (OR = 2.57, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Cancer patients' top concerns regarding IO consultation may not always match providers' reasons for referral. Longitudinal data analysis is needed to determine the effect of integrative interventions on symptom burden.

The Careers and Professional Well-Being of Women Oncologists During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Responding for Tomorrow.

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gender inequity in medicine, with women physicians reporting greater household responsibilities than their men counterparts and steeper barriers to career advancement. The pandemic highlighted the systemic assumptions and challenges faced by women physicians, which we anticipate is also true in our field of oncology. Prior literature suggests that women physicians were tasked with increased personal and professional responsibilities without compensation for their additional work, as well as derailments in career progression and significant burnout. Our aims are to highlight areas of opportunity to optimize the workplace experience of the oncology workforce and to invest in the professional well-being and sustainability of women oncologists as a step toward global workplace equity and future pandemic preparedness.

Measuring symptom burden in patients with cancer during a pandemic: the MD Anderson symptom inventory for COVID-19 (MDASI-COVID).

BACKGROUND: Symptom expression in SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) may affect patients already symptomatic with cancer. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can describe symptom burden during the acute and postacute stages of COVID-19 and support risk stratification for levels of care. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, our purpose was to rapidly develop, launch through an electronic patient portal, and provide initial validation for a PRO measure of COVID-19 symptom burden in patients with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a CDC/WHO web-based scan for COVID-19 symptoms and a relevance review of symptoms by an expert panel of clinicians treating cancer patients with COVID-19 to create a provisional MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for COVID-19 (MDASI-COVID). English-speaking adults with cancer who tested positive for COVID-19 participated in the psychometric testing phase. Patients completed longitudinal assessments of the MDASI-COVID and the EuroQOL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) utility index and visual analog scale, which were presented through an electronic health record patient portal. To test the validity of the MDASI-COVID to distinguish between known groups of patients, we hypothesized that patients hospitalized, including having a hospitalization extended, for COVID-19 versus those not hospitalized would experience higher symptom burden. Correlation of mean symptom severity and interference scores with relevant EQ-5D-5L scores tested concurrent validity. The reliability of the MDASI-COVID was evaluated by calculating Cronbach alpha coefficients and test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients between the initial assessment and a second assessment no more than 14 days later. RESULTS: The web-based scan found 31 COVID-19-related symptoms; rankings of a 14-clinician expert panel reduced this list to 11 COVID-specific items to be added to the core MDASI. Time from literature scan start in March 2020 to instrument launch in May 2020 was 2 months. Psychometric analysis established the MDASI-COVID's reliability, known-group validity, and concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to rapidly develop and electronically launch a PRO measure of COVID-19 symptom burden in patients with cancer. Additional research is needed to confirm the content domain and predictive validity of the MDASI-COVID and define the symptom burden trajectory of COVID-19.

Feasibility and acceptability of an online intervention to enhance hopefulness among oncology professionals.

BACKGROUND: Patients prefer medical communication including both hopefulness and realism, though health-care professional (HCPs) struggle to balance these. Providers could thus benefit from a detailed personal understanding of hope, allowing them to model and convey it to patients. Additionally, given that hope is associated with lower levels of burnout, HCPs may benefit from tools designed to enhance their own personal hopefulness. Several investigators have proposed offering HCPs interventions to augment hope. We developed an online workshop for this purpose. METHODS: Feasibility and acceptability of the workshop were assessed in members of the SWOG Cancer Research Network. Three measures were used: the Was-It-Worth-It scale, a survey based on the Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model, and a single item prompting participants to rate the degree to which they believe concepts from the workshop should be integrated into SWOG studies. RESULTS: Twenty-nine individuals signed up for the intervention, which consisted of a single 2-hour session, and 23 completed measures. Results from Was-It-Worth-It items indicate that nearly all participants found the intervention relevant, engaging, and helpful. Mean ratings for Kirkpatrick Training Evaluation Model items were high, ranging from 6.91 to 7.70 on 8-point scales. Finally, participants provided a mean rating of 4.44 on a 5-point scale to the item "To what degree do you believe it may be useful to integrate concepts from this workshop into SWOG trials/studies?" CONCLUSIONS: An online workshop to enhance hopefulness is feasible and acceptable to oncology HCPs. The tool will be integrated into SWOG studies evaluating provider and patient well-being.

Long COVID in cancer patients: preponderance of symptoms in majority of patients over long time period.

Background: An increasing number of observational studies have reported the persistence of symptoms following recovery from acute COVID-19 disease in non-cancer patients. The long-term consequences of COVID-19 are not fully understood particularly in the cancer patient population. The purpose of this study is to assess post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) in cancer patients following acute COVID-19 recovery. Methods: We identified cancer patients at MD Anderson Cancer Center who were diagnosed with COVID-19 disease between March 1, 2020, and September 1, 2020, and followed them till May 2021. To assess PASC, we collected patients reported outcomes through questionnaires that were sent to patients daily for 14 days after COVID-19 diagnosis then weekly for 3 months, and then monthly thereafter. We also reviewed patients' electronic medical records to capture the persistence or emergence of new COVID19-related symptoms reported during any clinic or hospital encounter beyond 30 days of the acute illness and up to 14 months. Results: We included 312 cancer patients with a median age of 57 years (18-86). The majority of patients had solid tumors (75%). Of the 312 patients, 188 (60%) reported long COVID-19 symptoms with a median duration of 7 months and up to 14 months after COVID-19 diagnosis. The most common symptoms reported included fatigue (82%), sleep disturbances (78%), myalgias (67%), and gastrointestinal symptoms (61%), followed by headache, altered smell or taste, dyspnea (47%), and cough (46%). A higher number of females reported a persistence of symptoms compared to males (63% vs. 37%; p=0.036). Cancer type, neutropenia, lymphocytopenia, and hospital admission during acute COVID-19 disease were comparable in both groups. Among the 188 patients with PASC, only 16 (8.5%) were re-admitted for COVID-related reasons. Conclusions: More than one out of two cancer patients, and more likely females, report PASC that may persist beyond 6 months and even 1 year. The most common symptoms are non-respiratory and consist of fatigue, sleep disturbance, myalgia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Most of the cancer patients with PASC were managed on outpatient basis with only 8.5% requiring a COVID-19-related re-admission. Funding: This research is supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute under award number P30CA016672, which supports the MD Anderson Cancer Center Clinical Trials Office. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Machine learning models for 180-day mortality prediction of patients with advanced cancer using patient-reported symptom data.

PURPOSE: The objective of the current study was to develop and test the performances of different ML algorithms which were trained using patient-reported symptom severity data to predict mortality within 180 days for patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We randomly selected 630 of 689 patients with advanced cancer at our institution who completed symptom PRO measures as part of routine care between 2009 and 2020. Using clinical, demographic, and PRO data, we trained and tested four ML algorithms: generalized regression with elastic net regularization (GLM), extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) trees, support vector machines (SVM), and a single hidden layer neural network (NNET). We assessed the performance of algorithms individually as well as part of an unweighted voting ensemble on the hold-out testing sample. Performance was assessed using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). RESULTS: The starting cohort of 630 patients was randomly partitioned into training (n = 504) and testing (n = 126) samples. Of the four ML models, the XGBoost algorithm demonstrated the best performance for 180-day mortality prediction in testing data (AUROC = 0.69, sensitivity = 0.68, specificity = 0.62, PPV = 0.66, NPV = 0.64). Ensemble of all algorithms performed worst (AUROC = 0.65, sensitivity = 0.65, specificity = 0.62, PPV = 0.65, NPV = 0.62). Of individual PRO symptoms, shortness of breath emerged as the variable of highest impact on the XGBoost 180-mortality prediction (1-AUROC = 0.30). CONCLUSION: Our findings support ML models driven by patient-reported symptom severity as accurate predictors of short-term mortality in patients with advanced cancer, highlighting the opportunity to integrate these models prospectively into future studies of goal-concordant care.

Frequency, barriers, outcomes, and consequences of reporting sexual harassment in clinical oncology.

Sexual harassment is increasingly recognized as widely prevalent in medicine. Broad efforts at the organizational and society level are working to address this inequity, but many of these efforts rely on reporting to eradicate problematic behaviors and shift culture. We examined, among oncologists experiencing sexual harassment, the frequency of reporting, as well as barriers, outcomes, and consequences of reporting. Among 271 survey respondents, 217 reported sexual harassment from peers or superiors or from patients or families. Most harassed oncologists (n = 148, 68%) did not report the event to authority because of concerns about future negative consequences for themselves. Among the minority who reported harassment (n = 31, 14%), 52% felt their concerns were not taken seriously and 55% reported no action was taken as a result of their report. Furthermore, 52% experienced retaliatory behavior. Addressing these findings may help to inform the change necessary to create an antiharassment culture in oncology.

Development of a measure of clinicians' self-efficacy for medical communication (SEMC).

OBJECTIVES: Studies of clinician-patient communication have used varied, ad hoc measures for communication efficacy. We developed and validated the Self-Efficacy for Medical Communication (SEMC) scale as a standard, quantitative measure of clinician-reported skills in communicating difficult news. METHODS: Using evidence-based scale development guidelines, we created two 16-item forms of the SEMC, one assessing communication with patients and one assessing communication with families. Clinicians providing oncological care in four organisations were invited to participate and provided consent. Participant demographics, responses to the SEMC items and responses to convergent and discriminant measures (those expected to relate strongly and weakly to the SEMC) were collected online. We performed analyses to determine the convergent and discriminant validity of the SEMC as well as its reliability and factor structure. RESULTS: Overall, 221 oncology clinicians (including physicians, residents, fellows, medical students, nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) participated. The patient and family forms both demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (alpha=0.94 and 0.96, respectively) and were strongly correlated with one another (r=0.95, p<0.001). Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the SEMC measures a unitary construct (eigenvalue=9.0), and its higher mean correlation with convergent (r=0.46) than discriminant (r=0.22) measures further supported its validity. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the SEMC's validity and reliability as a measure of clinician-rated communication skills regarding conducting difficult conversations with patients and families. It provides a useful standard tool for future research in oncology provider-patient serious illness communication.

The Evolution of Geriatric Oncology and Geriatric Assessment over the Past Decade.

Cancer is predominantly a disease of aging, and older adults represent the majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths. Older adults with cancer differ significantly from younger patients, leading to important distinctions in cancer treatment planning and decision-making. As a consequence, the field of geriatric oncology has blossomed and evolved over recent decades, as the need to bring personalized cancer care to older adults has been increasingly recognized and a focus of study. The geriatric assessment (GA) has become the cornerstone of geriatric oncology research, and the past year has yielded promising results regarding the implementation of GA into routine cancer treatment decisions and outcomes for older adults. In this article, we provide an overview of the field of geriatric oncology and highlight recent breakthroughs with the use of GA in cancer care. Further work is needed to continue to provide personalized, evidence-based care for each older adult with cancer.

Social Media and Professional Development for Oncology Professionals.

The use of social media continues to increase in health care and academia. Health care practice, particularly the oncologic field, is constantly changing because of new knowledge, evidence-based research, clinical trials, and government policies. Therefore, oncology trainees and professionals continue to strive to stay up-to-date with practice guidelines, research, and skills. Although social media as an educational and professional development tool is no longer completely new to medicine and has been embraced, it is still under-researched in terms of various outcomes. Social media plays several key roles in professional development and academic advancement. We reviewed the literature to evaluate how social media can be used for professional development and academic promotion of oncology professionals.

Incidence, Nature, and Consequences of Oncologists' Experiences With Sexual Harassment.

PURPOSE: The incidence and impact of workplace sexual harassment (SH) of oncologists requires rigorous characterization. METHODS: Oncologists identified by ASCO's Research Survey Pool and social media outreach completed validated measures of SH (encompassing gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion) and four outcomes (mental health, job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and sense of workplace safety) over the previous year. Multivariable regression models assess the impact of SH on the four outcomes. RESULTS: Of 271 cisgender respondents (153 women and 118 men), 189 (70%) experienced SH in the past year alone by peers and/or superiors (80% of women v 56% of men, P < .0001). Specifically, 186 (69%) experienced gender harassment (79% of women, 55% of men, P < .0001), 45 (17%) unwanted sexual attention (22% of women, 9% of men, P = .005), and 7 (3%) sexual coercion (3% of women, 2% of men, P = .42). SH by patients and/or families in the past year was experienced by 143 (53% overall: 67% of women, 35% of men, P < .0001). Specifically, 141 (52%) experienced gender harassment (66% of women, 34% of men, P < .0001), 15 (6%) unwanted sexual attention (5% of women, 6% of men, P = .80), and 3 (1%) sexual coercion (1% of women, 1% of men, P = .72). Multivariable analysis showed that past-year SH by peers and/or superiors was significantly associated with decreased mental health (ß = -0.45, P = .004), sense of workplace safety (ß = -0.98, P < .001), and job satisfaction (ß = -0.69, P = .001), along with increased turnover intentions (ß = 0.93, P < .0001). Past-year SH by patients and/or families was significantly associated with decreased mental health (ß = -0.41, P = .002), sense of workplace safety (ß = -0.42, P = .014), and increased turnover intentions (ß = 0.58, P = .0004). There were no significant interactions between the respondents' gender and the SH scores in any of the four outcome models, signifying no difference in impact between men and women oncologists. CONCLUSION: This study using validated measures of SH to systematically characterize oncologists' workplace experience demonstrates substantial incidence of SH in the previous one year alone and its impact on men and women oncologists, informing the need for and design of effective protective and preventive measures.

Gastrointestinal malignancies and supportive care trials: a snapshot of the last two decades.

BACKGROUND: Patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers experience a high symptom burden due to the effects of both cancer and treatment. As such, trials assessing symptom burden and supportive interventions are crucial. Here, we characterise the landscape of phase III GI cancer clinical trials and explore study outcomes centred on the patient's quality of life (QoL). METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) registered between 2000 and 2017 that are assessing a therapeutic intervention in adult patients with cancer and grouped trials by GI disease sites. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 76 phase III trials specific to GI cancers that enrolled a total of 53 725 patients. When analysing the primary outcomes measured, the vast majority of studies (n=71, 86%) measured disease-related endpoints such as progression-free survival or overall survival. All trials had a secondary endpoint that measured adverse events, but only 30 trials (39%) included QoL measures as secondary endpoints. Of the 30 trials that included QoL secondary endpoints, only 16 (53%) reported these results. Only five trials (7%) assessed interventions aimed at supportive measures impacting disease-related or treatment-related toxicity. None of the supportive trials included QoL as a primary endpoint and only two of these trials (40%) included QoL as a secondary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Most GI cancer trials failed to incorporate patient-centred outcomes or QoL measures when studying new interventions. These findings call for greater integration of patient-reported metrics, which may lead to better care and outcomes for patients with GI malignancies.

Association Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Progression-Free Survival in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of SWOG Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an established prognostic factor for mortality; however, it is unclear if HRQOL is predictive of time to disease progression, a particularly meaningful outcome for patients. We examined the association between HRQOL and progression-free survival (PFS) in SWOG Cancer Research Network clinical trials. METHODS: For this secondary analysis, we reviewed all completed SWOG clinical trials to identify those for patients with advanced cancer that incorporated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) questionnaires at baseline. FACT-Trial Outcome Index (FACT-TOI) was the primary independent variable. Associations between FACT-TOI and other FACT subscores with PFS and overall survival were evaluated via log-rank test and multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Three clinical trials met our inclusion criteria: S0027 and S9509 for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and S0421 for hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Of the 1,527 enrolled patients, 1,295 (85%) had both HRQOL and survival outcomes data available and were included in this analysis. In univariable analysis, we observed a statistically significant gradient effect in all three trials, with higher baseline FACT-TOI scores corresponding to better PFS (S0027, P < .001; S9509, P = .02; and S0421, P < .001). In multivariable analysis, FACT-TOI was significantly associated with PFS in S0027 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.00) but not in S9509 (HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.05) or S042 (HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01). FACT-TOI was significantly associated with overall survival in multivariable analysis (P < .005 in all three trials). CONCLUSION: The association between baseline FACT-TOI scores and survival underscores their potential as a stratification factor in clinical trials.

Financial Burden of Drugs Prescribed for Cancer-Associated Symptoms.

PURPOSE: The financial toxicity of anticancer drugs is well-documented, but little is known about the costs of drugs used to manage cancer-associated symptoms. METHODS: We reviewed relevant guidelines and compiled drugs used to manage seven cancer-associated symptoms (anorexia and cachexia, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, constipation, diarrhea, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, cancer-associated fatigue, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). Using GoodRx website, we identified the retail price (cash price at retail pharmacies) and lowest price (discounted, best-case scenario of out-of-pocket costs) for patients without insurance for each drug or formulation for a typical fill. We describe lowest prices here. RESULTS: For anorexia and cachexia, costs ranged from $5 US dollars (USD; generic olanzapine or mirtazapine tablets) to $1,156 USD (brand-name dronabinol solution) and varied widely by formulation of the same drug or dosage: for olanzapine 5 mg, $5 USD (generic tablet) to $239 USD (brand-name orally disintegrating tablet). For chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, costs of duloxetine varied from $12 USD (generic) to $529 USD (brand-name). For constipation, the cost of sennosides or polyethylene glycol was <$15 USD, whereas newer agents such as methylnaltrexone were expensive ($1,001 USD). For diarrhea, the cost of generic loperamide or diphenoxylate-atropine tablets was <$15 USD. For exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, only brand-name formulations were available, range of cost, $1,072 USD-$1,514 USD. For cancer-associated fatigue, the cost of generic dexamethasone or dexmethylphenidate was <$15 USD, whereas brand-name modafinil was more costly ($1,284 USD). For a 4-drug nausea and vomiting prophylaxis regimen, costs ranged from $181 USD to $1,430 USD. CONCLUSION: We highlight the high costs of many symptom control drugs and the wide variation in the costs of these drugs. These findings can guide patient-clinician discussions about cost-effectively managing symptoms, while promoting the use of less expensive formulations when possible.