Search

In May 2015, the Cancer and Aging Research Group, in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute on Aging through a U13 grant, convened a conference to identify research priorities to help design and implement intervention studies to improve the quality of life and survivorship of older, frailer adults with cancer. Conference attendees included researchers with multidisciplinary expertise and advocates. It was concluded that future intervention trials for older adults with cancer should: 1) rigorously test interventions to prevent the decline of or improve health status, especially interventions focused on optimizing physical performance, nutritional status, and cognition while undergoing cancer treatment; 2) use standardized care plans based on geriatric assessment findings to guide targeted interventions; and 3) incorporate the principles of geriatrics into survivorship care plans. Also highlighted was the need to integrate the expertise of interdisciplinary team members into geriatric oncology research, improve funding mechanisms to support geriatric oncology research, and disseminate high-impact results to the research and clinical community. In conjunction with the 2 prior U13 meetings, this conference provided the framework for future research to improve the evidence base for the clinical care of older adults with cancer. Cancer 2016;122:2459-68. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure quality of life, symptoms, patient functioning, and patient perceptions of care; they are essential for gaining a full understanding of cancer care and the impact of cancer on people's lives. Repeatedly captured facility-level and/or population-level PROs (PRO surveillance) could play an important role in quality monitoring and improvement, benchmarking, advocacy, policy making, and research. This article describes the rationale for PRO surveillance and the methods of the Patient Reported Outcomes Symptoms and Side Effects Study (PROSSES), which is the first PRO study to use the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer's Rapid Quality Reporting System to identify patients and manage study data flow. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Commission on Cancer, and RTI International collaborated on PROSSES. PROSSES was conducted at 17 cancer programs that participated in the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program among patients diagnosed with locoregional breast or colon cancer. The methods piloted in PROSSES were successful as demonstrated by high eligibility (93%) and response (61%) rates. Differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents were mostly negligible, with the exception that non-white individuals were somewhat less likely to respond. These methods were consistent across cancer centers and reproducible over time. If repeated and expanded, they could provide PRO surveillance data from patients with cancer on a national scale.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure quality of life, symptoms, patient functioning, and patient perceptions of care; they are essential for gaining a full understanding of cancer care and the impact of cancer on people's lives. Repeatedly captured facility-level and/or population-level PROs (PRO surveillance) could play an important role in quality monitoring and improvement, benchmarking, advocacy, policy making, and research. This article describes the rationale for PRO surveillance and the methods of the Patient Reported Outcomes Symptoms and Side Effects Study (PROSSES), which is the first PRO study to use the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer's Rapid Quality Reporting System to identify patients and manage study data flow. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Commission on Cancer, and RTI International collaborated on PROSSES. PROSSES was conducted at 17 cancer programs that participated in the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program among patients diagnosed with locoregional breast or colon cancer. The methods piloted in PROSSES were successful as demonstrated by high eligibility (93%) and response (61%) rates. Differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents were mostly negligible, with the exception that non-white individuals were somewhat less likely to respond. These methods were consistent across cancer centers and reproducible over time. If repeated and expanded, they could provide PRO surveillance data from patients with cancer on a national scale.

Shared decision-making is an important component of patient-centered care and is associated with improved outcomes. To the authors' knowledge, little is known concerning the extent and predictors of the involvement of a patient's family in decisions regarding cancer treatments.The Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium is a large, multiregional, prospective cohort study of the cancer care and outcomes of patients with lung and colorectal cancer. Participants reported the roles of their families in decision-making regarding treatment. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess patient factors associated with family roles in decisions.Among 5284 patients, 80 (1.5%) reported family-controlled decisions, with the highest adjusted rates (12.8%) noted among non-English-speaking Asians. Among the 5204 remaining patients, 49.4% reported equally sharing decisions with family, 22.1% reported some family input, and 28.5% reported little family input. In adjusted analyses, patients who were married, female, older, and insured more often reported equally shared decisions with family (all P.001). Adjusted family involvement varied by race/ethnicity and language, with Chinese-speaking Asian (59.8%) and Spanish-speaking Hispanic (54.8%) patients equally sharing decisions with family more often than white individuals (47.6%). Veterans Affairs patients were least likely to report sharing decisions with family, even after adjustment for marital status and social support (P.001).The majority of patients with newly diagnosed lung or colorectal cancer involve family members in treatment decisions. Non-English-speaking Asians and Hispanics rely significantly on family. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of family involvement in treatment decisions on outcomes; until then, physicians should consider eliciting patients' preferences for family involvement.

Cancer survivors' disclosure of complementary health approaches (CHAs) to their follow-up care physicians is necessary to ensure the safe and optimal use of such approaches. Rates of disclosure of CHAs are variable and may be facilitated by patient-centered communication.This cross-sectional study conducted in 2003-2004 examined a population-based sample of leukemia, colorectal, and bladder cancer survivors (n=623) who were 2 to 5 years after their diagnosis. A subset of participants who reported using CHAs (n=196) was analyzed with multivariate logistic regression to examine the association between patients' perceptions of their physician's patient-centered communication (ie, information exchange, affective behavior, knowledge of patients as persons) and patients' disclosure of CHA use to their physician with adjustments for physician, patient, and patient-physician relationship factors.Thirty-one percent of the full sample used CHAs, and 47.6% of CHA users disclosed their use to their physicians. Disclosure was significantly associated with patient-centered communication even with adjustments for hypothesized covariates (odds ratio [OR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.71). Perceived physician knowledge of the patient as a person (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.48) and information exchange (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.60) were the aspects of patient-centered communication that contributed to this association. The main reason for nondisclosure assessed in the survey was that survivors did not think that it was important to discuss CHAs (67.0%). A majority of physicians encouraged continued use of CHAs when they were disclosed (64.8%).Results support the idea that improving the overall patient centeredness of cancer follow-up care and improving the disclosure of CHA use are potentially synergistic clinical goals.