Training mid-level providers on palliative care: bringing advanced directives and symptom assessment and management to community oncology practices.

Palliative care services are not available in most outpatient oncology practices. A program training 11 mid-level providers from oncology practices on advanced directive discussions and supportive symptom assessment and management performed by palliative care specialists was completed. A follow-up session 9 months later identified barriers to implementation. Of the 11 mid-level providers, 8 participated in the follow-up session, and 9 of the 11 providers implemented advanced directive's discussions and symptom assessment and management for patients with metastatic cancer. Main barriers included uncertainties about reimbursement, patients' lack of knowledge about palliative care, and lack of access to supportive services. This program successfully promoted advanced directive discussions and supportive/palliative care symptom assessment and management to community oncology practices, which will hopefully translate into improved quality of life for patients with metastatic cancer.

A Phase III trial of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab vs. pentostatin, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled studies comparing pentostatin (P), cyclophosphamide (C), and rituximab (R) (PCR) to fludarabine plus C+R (FCR) suggest similar efficacy with fewer infectious complications with PCR. We compared FCR and PCR in previously-untreated or minimally-treated B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). TREATMENT: FCR (F 20 mg/m(2) Days 1-5, C 600 mg/m(2) Day 1, R 375 mg/m(2) Day 1) (28-day cycles) or PCR (P 4 mg/m(2) Day 1, C 600 mg/m(2) Day 1, R 375 mg/m(2) Day 1) (21-day cycles). Dose 1 of R: 100 mg/m(2) was given on Day 8 Cycle 1 and the remainder on Day 9; in subsequent cycles the entire dose was given on Day 1. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were randomly assigned to each group (N = 184). Groups were balanced; ~20% had received prior chemotherapy. The infection rate (FCR/PCR) was 31%/36%, the infective event rate was 38%/45%; 30 (35%)/37 (44%) patients were hospitalized; total hospitalization days was 271/404. 12 (14%)/6 (7%) patients achieved complete remissions (CR); the overall response rate (ORR) including CR+nodular PR (nPR)+PR was 59%/49%. Grade 3-4 treatment related AEs: neutropenia (69%/57%), leukopenia (34%/17%), thrombocytopenia (13%/6%). Grade 3-4 infections: febrile neutropenia (8%/6%), fever (2%/6%), infection (1%/3%), urinary tract infection (1%/0%), pneumonia (3%/1%), and sepsis (1%/2%); 5 deaths (1 FCR/4 PCR) were treatment-related. CONCLUSIONS: PCR and FCR have significant activity in CLL and can be given safely in the community setting despite significant toxicity. ORRs were lower than expected; the CR rate was higher (NS) with FCR. This trial did not demonstrate a lower infection rate with PCR.

Reducing cancer costs and improving quality through collaboration with payers: a proposal from the Florida society of clinical oncology.

One of Florida's largest private payers has retained an outside consulting firm to develop a program to reduce cancer care spending, which could seriously limit the ability of oncology practices in Florida to provide quality care to their patients.