Search

Observational evidence has established a relationship between obesity and cancer risk and outcomes. Interventional studies have demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of lifestyle change after cancer diagnosis, and guidelines recommend weight management and regular physical activity in cancer survivors; however, lifestyle interventions are not a routine part of cancer care. The ASCO Research Summit on Advancing Obesity Clinical Trials in Cancer Survivors sought to identify the knowledge gaps that clinical trials addressing energy balance factors in cancer survivors have not answered and to develop a roadmap for the design and implementation of studies with the potential to generate data that could lead to the evidence-based incorporation of weight management and physical activity programs into standard oncology practice. Recommendations highlight the need for large-scale trials evaluating the impact of energy balance interventions on cancer outcomes, as well as the concurrent conduct of studies focused on dissemination and implementation of interventions in diverse populations of cancer survivors, including answering critical questions about the degree of benefit in key subgroups of survivors. Other considerations include the importance of incorporating economic metrics into energy balance intervention trials, the need to establish intermediate biomarkers, and the importance of integrating traditional and nontraditional funding sources. Establishing lifestyle change after cancer diagnosis as a routine part of cancer care will require a multipronged effort to overcome barriers related to study development, funding, and stakeholder engagement. Given the prevalence of obesity and inactivity in cancer survivors in the United States and elsewhere, energy balance interventions hold the potential to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in millions of patients, and it is essential that we move forward in determining their role in cancer care with the same care and precision used to test pharmacologic and other interventions.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) convened a subcommittee to develop recommendations on improving the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer in response to a critical need identified by the Institute of Medicine. Older adults experience the majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths and make up the majority of cancer survivors. Older adults are also the fastest growing segment of the US population. However, the evidence base for treating this population is sparse, because older adults are underrepresented in clinical trials, and trials designed specifically for older adults are rare. The result is that clinicians have less evidence on how to treat older adults, who represent the majority of patients with cancer. Clinicians and patients are forced to extrapolate from trials conducted in younger, healthier populations when developing treatment plans. This has created a dearth of knowledge regarding the risk of toxicity in the average older patient and about key end points of importance to older adults. ASCO makes five recommendations to improve evidence generation in this population: (1) Use clinical trials to improve the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer, (2) leverage research designs and infrastructure for generating evidence on older adults with cancer, (3) increase US Food and Drug Administration authority to incentivize and require research involving older adults with cancer, (4) increase clinicians' recruitment of older adults with cancer to clinical trials, and (5) use journal policies to improve researchers' reporting on the age distribution and health risk profiles of research participants., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Geographic access to care may be associated with receipt of chemotherapy but has not been fully examined. This study sought to evaluate the association between density of oncologists and travel distance and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer within 90 days of colectomy., Patients and Methods: Patients in the National Cancer Data Base with stage III colon cancer, diagnosed between 2007 and 2010, and age 18 to 80 years were selected. Generalized estimating equation clustering by hospital service area was conducted to examine the association between geographic access and receipt of oncology services, controlling for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics., Results: Of 34,694 patients in the study cohort, 75.7% received adjuvant chemotherapy within 90 days of colectomy. Compared with travel distance less than 12.5 miles, patients who traveled 50 to 249 miles (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; P=.009) or ≥250 miles (OR, 0.36; P<.001) had decreased likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Density level of oncologists was not statistically associated with receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy (low v high density: OR, 0.98; P=.77). When stratifying analyses by insurance status, non-privately insured patients who resided in areas with low density of oncologists were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (OR, 0.85; P=.03)., Conclusion: Increased travel burden was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, regardless of insurance status. Patients with nonprivate insurance who resided in low-density oncologist areas were less likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. If these findings are validated prospectively, interventions to decrease geographic barriers may improve the timeliness and quality of colon cancer treatment., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

As more clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents evolve, the number of eligibility criteria seems to be increasing. The importance and utility of eligibility criteria must be considered in the context of the fundamental goal of a clinical trial: to understand the risks and benefits of a treatment in the intended-use patient population. Although eligibility criteria are necessary to define the population under study and conduct trials safely, excessive requirements may severely restrict the population available for study, and often, this population is not reflective of the general population for which the drug would be prescribed. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee, which comprises academic faculty, industry representatives, and patient advocates, evaluated this issue. Evaluation results were mixed. Most physicians agreed that excessive eligibility criterias slow study enrollment rates and prolong the duration of enrollment; however, this hypothesis was difficult to validate with the data examined. We propose the organization of a public workshop, with input from regulatory bodies and key stakeholders, with the goal of developing an algorithmic approach to determining eligibility criteria for individual study protocols, which may help guide future investigators and companies in streamlining eligibility criteria in the era of molecularly driven therapy., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To conduct a comprehensive analysis of supply of and demand for oncology services through 2020. This study was commissioned by the Board of Directors of ASCO., Methods: New data on physician supply gathered from surveys of practicing oncologists, oncology fellows, and fellowship program directors were analyzed, along with 2005 American Medical Association Masterfile data on practicing medical oncologists, hematologists/oncologists, and gynecologic oncologists, to determine the baseline capacity and to forecast visit capacity through 2020. Demand for visits was calculated by applying age-, sex-, and time-from-diagnosis-visit rate data from the National Cancer Institute's analysis of the 1998 to 2002 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database to the National Cancer Institute's cancer incidence and prevalence projections. The cancer incidence and prevalence projections were calculated by applying a 3-year average (2000-2002) of age- and sex-specific cancer rates from SEER to the US Census Bureau population projections released on March 2004. The baseline supply and demand forecasts assume no change in cancer care delivery and physician practice patterns. Alternate scenarios were constructed by changing assumptions in the baseline models., Results: Demand for oncology services is expected to rise rapidly, driven by the aging and growth of the population and improvements in cancer survival rates, at the same time the oncology workforce is aging and retiring in increasing numbers. Demand is expected to rise 48% between 2005 and 2020. The supply of services provided by oncologists during this time is expected to grow more slowly, approximately 14%, based on the current age distribution and practice patterns of oncologists and the number of oncology fellowship positions. This translates into a shortage of 9.4 to 15.0 million visits, or 2,550 to 4,080 oncologists-roughly one-quarter to one-third of the 2005 supply. The baseline projections do not include any alterations based on changes in practice patterns, service use, or cancer treatments. Various alternate scenarios were also developed to show how supply and demand might change under different assumptions., Conclusions: ASCO, policy makers, and the public have major challenges ahead of them to forestall likely shortages in the capacity to meet future demand for oncology services. A multifaceted strategy will be needed to ensure that Americans have access to oncology services in 2020, as no single action will fill the likely gap between supply and demand. Among the options to consider are increasing the number of oncology fellowship positions, increasing use of nonphysician clinicians, increasing the role of primary care physicians in the care of patients in remission, and redesigning service delivery.