Hematology Nursing

General Medical Sciences

The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has created an online toolkit to help nurses integrate genomics into patient care.

The Method for Introducing a New Competency Genomics (MINC) website provides resources for nursing leaders at all levels of genomics competency, ranging from basic knowledge about genomics to its practical impact on healthcare systems and policies.

The resources are intended to help practicing nurses care for patients undergoing genomic testing and treatments, build awareness in their communities, and understand how to prepare their workforce for emerging clinical applications.

“The MINC toolkit is a starting point for healthcare providers who want to promote genomic integration into practice to benefit their patients,” said Laura Lyman Rodriguez, PhD, director of the Division of Policy, Communication and Education at NHGRI.

“It was designed based on the efforts of magnet hospital nurses whose experiences were used in the design and foundation for the toolkit.”

The toolkit is structured in a question and answer format, allowing users to tailor their interventions based on the resources that will work best for them in their clinical setting.

A key feature of the toolkit is “Champion Stories.” These video testimonials from health administrators and educators describe how they overcame barriers as they developed the necessary genomics knowledge to offer personalized care to their patients.

General Medical Sciences

The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has created an online toolkit to help nurses integrate genomics into patient care.

The Method for Introducing a New Competency Genomics (MINC) website provides resources for nursing leaders at all levels of genomics competency, ranging from basic knowledge about genomics to its practical impact on healthcare systems and policies.

The resources are intended to help practicing nurses care for patients undergoing genomic testing and treatments, build awareness in their communities, and understand how to prepare their workforce for emerging clinical applications.

“The MINC toolkit is a starting point for healthcare providers who want to promote genomic integration into practice to benefit their patients,” said Laura Lyman Rodriguez, PhD, director of the Division of Policy, Communication and Education at NHGRI.

“It was designed based on the efforts of magnet hospital nurses whose experiences were used in the design and foundation for the toolkit.”

The toolkit is structured in a question and answer format, allowing users to tailor their interventions based on the resources that will work best for them in their clinical setting.

A key feature of the toolkit is “Champion Stories.” These video testimonials from health administrators and educators describe how they overcame barriers as they developed the necessary genomics knowledge to offer personalized care to their patients.

General Medical Sciences

The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) has created an online toolkit to help nurses integrate genomics into patient care.

The Method for Introducing a New Competency Genomics (MINC) website provides resources for nursing leaders at all levels of genomics competency, ranging from basic knowledge about genomics to its practical impact on healthcare systems and policies.

The resources are intended to help practicing nurses care for patients undergoing genomic testing and treatments, build awareness in their communities, and understand how to prepare their workforce for emerging clinical applications.

“The MINC toolkit is a starting point for healthcare providers who want to promote genomic integration into practice to benefit their patients,” said Laura Lyman Rodriguez, PhD, director of the Division of Policy, Communication and Education at NHGRI.

“It was designed based on the efforts of magnet hospital nurses whose experiences were used in the design and foundation for the toolkit.”

The toolkit is structured in a question and answer format, allowing users to tailor their interventions based on the resources that will work best for them in their clinical setting.

A key feature of the toolkit is “Champion Stories.” These video testimonials from health administrators and educators describe how they overcame barriers as they developed the necessary genomics knowledge to offer personalized care to their patients.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

MADRID—New research indicates there is a lack of specialized care in Europe for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer.

In a survey of more than 200 European healthcare professionals, more than two-thirds of respondents said they did not have access to specialized services where adult and pediatric cancer specialists work together to plan treatment and deliver care to AYAs with cancer.

This lack of services was more pronounced in Eastern and Southern Europe than Western and Northern Europe.

“The survey found gaps and disparities in cancer care for adolescents and young adults across Europe,” said study author Emmanouil Saloustros, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at General Hospital of Heraklion “Venizelio” in Heraklion, Crete, Greece.

Dr Saloustros and his colleagues presented these findings at the ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 1438O_PR) and reported them in ESMO Open.

The researchers sent an online survey on the status of care and research in AYAs (ages 15-39) to members of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE).

The team received responses from 266 healthcare professionals across Europe—55% of them female. Eleven percent were age 20–29, 29% were age 30–39, 26% were age 40–49, 25% were age 50–59, and 9% were age 60 and older.

Forty-eight percent were medical oncologists, 21% were pediatric oncologists, 8% were in training, 5% were hematologists, 4% were radiation oncologists, and 2% were surgical oncologists. The rest were other types of healthcare professionals, such as oncology nurses.

Fifty-two percent of respondents worked in general academic centers, 19% in specialized cancer hospitals, and 11% in pediatric hospitals. Sixty percent of respondents had been trained to treat adults with cancer, 25% to treat pediatric cancer patients, and 15% were trained to treat both.

In the past year, 32% of respondents had treated between 1 and 10 AYAs, 28% had treated 11 to 20, 17% had treated between 21 and 50, and 16% had treated more than 50 AYAs.

Results

The following results are based on data from 242 survey respondents. (The other respondents did not provide complete information.)

More than two-thirds (67%) of the respondents said they did not have access to specialized services for AYAs with cancer. This was true for 88% of respondents in Southern Europe, 87% in Eastern Europe, 55% in Western Europe, and 40% in Northern Europe.

Sixty-two percent of hematologists said they had access to AYA services, as did 44% of pediatric oncologists and 27% of medical oncologists.

Eighty-six percent of respondents said their AYA patients had access to professional psychological support. This was true for 97% of respondents in Western Europe, 82% in Southern Europe, 81% in Northern Europe, and 74% in Eastern Europe.

Fifty-four percent of all respondents said their AYAs had access to a support group with other young people. This was true for 81% of respondents in Northern Europe, 60% in Western Europe, 48% in Eastern Europe, and 34% in Southern Europe.

Thirty-six percent of all respondents said their AYAs had access to an age-specific specialist nurse. This was true for 53% of respondents in Western Europe, 51% in Northern Europe, 32% in Eastern Europe, and 10% in Southern Europe.

Sixty-two percent of respondents said their institution provided AYAs with access to a fertility specialist. This was true for 78% of respondents in Western Europe, 72% in Northern Europe, 52% in Southern Europe, and 24% in Eastern Europe.

“These patients have specific needs that are not covered by pediatric or general oncology centers or classical medical oncology centers, and this survey shows that most do not have access to the recommended special care,” said Gilles Vassal, director of clinical research at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, and past president of SIOPE (who was not involved in this study).

“Countries without these services can look at existing examples—such as in the UK and France—to build teams equipped to improve survival and survivorship for adolescents and young adults with cancer.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

MADRID—New research indicates there is a lack of specialized care in Europe for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer.

In a survey of more than 200 European healthcare professionals, more than two-thirds of respondents said they did not have access to specialized services where adult and pediatric cancer specialists work together to plan treatment and deliver care to AYAs with cancer.

This lack of services was more pronounced in Eastern and Southern Europe than Western and Northern Europe.

“The survey found gaps and disparities in cancer care for adolescents and young adults across Europe,” said study author Emmanouil Saloustros, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at General Hospital of Heraklion “Venizelio” in Heraklion, Crete, Greece.

Dr Saloustros and his colleagues presented these findings at the ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 1438O_PR) and reported them in ESMO Open.

The researchers sent an online survey on the status of care and research in AYAs (ages 15-39) to members of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE).

The team received responses from 266 healthcare professionals across Europe—55% of them female. Eleven percent were age 20–29, 29% were age 30–39, 26% were age 40–49, 25% were age 50–59, and 9% were age 60 and older.

Forty-eight percent were medical oncologists, 21% were pediatric oncologists, 8% were in training, 5% were hematologists, 4% were radiation oncologists, and 2% were surgical oncologists. The rest were other types of healthcare professionals, such as oncology nurses.

Fifty-two percent of respondents worked in general academic centers, 19% in specialized cancer hospitals, and 11% in pediatric hospitals. Sixty percent of respondents had been trained to treat adults with cancer, 25% to treat pediatric cancer patients, and 15% were trained to treat both.

In the past year, 32% of respondents had treated between 1 and 10 AYAs, 28% had treated 11 to 20, 17% had treated between 21 and 50, and 16% had treated more than 50 AYAs.

Results

The following results are based on data from 242 survey respondents. (The other respondents did not provide complete information.)

More than two-thirds (67%) of the respondents said they did not have access to specialized services for AYAs with cancer. This was true for 88% of respondents in Southern Europe, 87% in Eastern Europe, 55% in Western Europe, and 40% in Northern Europe.

Sixty-two percent of hematologists said they had access to AYA services, as did 44% of pediatric oncologists and 27% of medical oncologists.

Eighty-six percent of respondents said their AYA patients had access to professional psychological support. This was true for 97% of respondents in Western Europe, 82% in Southern Europe, 81% in Northern Europe, and 74% in Eastern Europe.

Fifty-four percent of all respondents said their AYAs had access to a support group with other young people. This was true for 81% of respondents in Northern Europe, 60% in Western Europe, 48% in Eastern Europe, and 34% in Southern Europe.

Thirty-six percent of all respondents said their AYAs had access to an age-specific specialist nurse. This was true for 53% of respondents in Western Europe, 51% in Northern Europe, 32% in Eastern Europe, and 10% in Southern Europe.

Sixty-two percent of respondents said their institution provided AYAs with access to a fertility specialist. This was true for 78% of respondents in Western Europe, 72% in Northern Europe, 52% in Southern Europe, and 24% in Eastern Europe.

“These patients have specific needs that are not covered by pediatric or general oncology centers or classical medical oncology centers, and this survey shows that most do not have access to the recommended special care,” said Gilles Vassal, director of clinical research at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, and past president of SIOPE (who was not involved in this study).

“Countries without these services can look at existing examples—such as in the UK and France—to build teams equipped to improve survival and survivorship for adolescents and young adults with cancer.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

MADRID—New research indicates there is a lack of specialized care in Europe for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer.

In a survey of more than 200 European healthcare professionals, more than two-thirds of respondents said they did not have access to specialized services where adult and pediatric cancer specialists work together to plan treatment and deliver care to AYAs with cancer.

This lack of services was more pronounced in Eastern and Southern Europe than Western and Northern Europe.

“The survey found gaps and disparities in cancer care for adolescents and young adults across Europe,” said study author Emmanouil Saloustros, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at General Hospital of Heraklion “Venizelio” in Heraklion, Crete, Greece.

Dr Saloustros and his colleagues presented these findings at the ESMO 2017 Congress (abstract 1438O_PR) and reported them in ESMO Open.

The researchers sent an online survey on the status of care and research in AYAs (ages 15-39) to members of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE).

The team received responses from 266 healthcare professionals across Europe—55% of them female. Eleven percent were age 20–29, 29% were age 30–39, 26% were age 40–49, 25% were age 50–59, and 9% were age 60 and older.

Forty-eight percent were medical oncologists, 21% were pediatric oncologists, 8% were in training, 5% were hematologists, 4% were radiation oncologists, and 2% were surgical oncologists. The rest were other types of healthcare professionals, such as oncology nurses.

Fifty-two percent of respondents worked in general academic centers, 19% in specialized cancer hospitals, and 11% in pediatric hospitals. Sixty percent of respondents had been trained to treat adults with cancer, 25% to treat pediatric cancer patients, and 15% were trained to treat both.

In the past year, 32% of respondents had treated between 1 and 10 AYAs, 28% had treated 11 to 20, 17% had treated between 21 and 50, and 16% had treated more than 50 AYAs.

Results

The following results are based on data from 242 survey respondents. (The other respondents did not provide complete information.)

More than two-thirds (67%) of the respondents said they did not have access to specialized services for AYAs with cancer. This was true for 88% of respondents in Southern Europe, 87% in Eastern Europe, 55% in Western Europe, and 40% in Northern Europe.

Sixty-two percent of hematologists said they had access to AYA services, as did 44% of pediatric oncologists and 27% of medical oncologists.

Eighty-six percent of respondents said their AYA patients had access to professional psychological support. This was true for 97% of respondents in Western Europe, 82% in Southern Europe, 81% in Northern Europe, and 74% in Eastern Europe.

Fifty-four percent of all respondents said their AYAs had access to a support group with other young people. This was true for 81% of respondents in Northern Europe, 60% in Western Europe, 48% in Eastern Europe, and 34% in Southern Europe.

Thirty-six percent of all respondents said their AYAs had access to an age-specific specialist nurse. This was true for 53% of respondents in Western Europe, 51% in Northern Europe, 32% in Eastern Europe, and 10% in Southern Europe.

Sixty-two percent of respondents said their institution provided AYAs with access to a fertility specialist. This was true for 78% of respondents in Western Europe, 72% in Northern Europe, 52% in Southern Europe, and 24% in Eastern Europe.

“These patients have specific needs that are not covered by pediatric or general oncology centers or classical medical oncology centers, and this survey shows that most do not have access to the recommended special care,” said Gilles Vassal, director of clinical research at Gustave Roussy in Villejuif, France, and past president of SIOPE (who was not involved in this study).

“Countries without these services can look at existing examples—such as in the UK and France—to build teams equipped to improve survival and survivorship for adolescents and young adults with cancer.”

Photo courtesy of NCI

Online education programs for nurses can improve the administration of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE), a new study suggests.

The research was spurred by a documented need to boost the administration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients.

Data had shown that patients’ refusal of VTE prophylaxis frequently resulted in nurses not administering the prescribed therapy.

The new research indicates that online education modules helped nurses communicate to patients the need for VTE prophylaxis and therefore improved rates of use.

“We teach in hopes of improving patient care, but there’s actually very little evidence that online professional education can have a measurable impact. Our results show that it does,” said Elliott Haut, MD, PhD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr Haut and his colleagues reported these results in PLOS ONE.

For this study, the researchers developed 2 online education modules about the importance of pharmacologic VTE prevention and tactics for better communicating its importance to patients.

One of the modules was “dynamic,” requiring nurses to select responses to clinical scenarios, such as how to respond to a patient who was refusing a prophylactic medication dose. The other module was “static,” involving a PowerPoint slide show with a traditional voice-over explaining the information.

The study included 933 permanently employed nurses on 21 medical or surgical floors at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2015, 445 nurses on 11 of the floors were randomized to the dynamic education arm of the study, and 488 nurses on 10 floors were enrolled in the static arm.

To track non-administration of VTE prophylaxis, the researchers retrieved data from the hospital’s electronic health record system. The team collected data for 1 year and divided it into 3 time periods: baseline, during the educational intervention, and post-education.

Over the entire study period, 214,478 doses of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis were prescribed to patients on the 21 hospital floors.

After education, non-administration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis decreased from 12.4% to 11.1% (conditional odds ratio [cOR]=0.87, P=0.002).

Nurses who completed the dynamic education module saw a greater reduction in non-administration—from 10.8% to 9.2% (cOR=0.83)—than nurses who completed the static education module—14.5% to 13.5% (cOR=0.92). However, the difference between the study arms was not significant (P=0.26).

“Our study adds to evidence that the way something is taught to professionals has a great influence on whether they retain information and apply it,” said Brandyn Lau, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

“Active learning seems to get better results than passive learning, showing that it’s not just what you teach, but also how you teach it.”

“Now that we’ve shown the modules can be effective in improving practice, we want to make [them] available to the more than 3 million nurses practicing in the US,” Dr Haut added.

Photo courtesy of NCI

Online education programs for nurses can improve the administration of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE), a new study suggests.

The research was spurred by a documented need to boost the administration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients.

Data had shown that patients’ refusal of VTE prophylaxis frequently resulted in nurses not administering the prescribed therapy.

The new research indicates that online education modules helped nurses communicate to patients the need for VTE prophylaxis and therefore improved rates of use.

“We teach in hopes of improving patient care, but there’s actually very little evidence that online professional education can have a measurable impact. Our results show that it does,” said Elliott Haut, MD, PhD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr Haut and his colleagues reported these results in PLOS ONE.

For this study, the researchers developed 2 online education modules about the importance of pharmacologic VTE prevention and tactics for better communicating its importance to patients.

One of the modules was “dynamic,” requiring nurses to select responses to clinical scenarios, such as how to respond to a patient who was refusing a prophylactic medication dose. The other module was “static,” involving a PowerPoint slide show with a traditional voice-over explaining the information.

The study included 933 permanently employed nurses on 21 medical or surgical floors at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2015, 445 nurses on 11 of the floors were randomized to the dynamic education arm of the study, and 488 nurses on 10 floors were enrolled in the static arm.

To track non-administration of VTE prophylaxis, the researchers retrieved data from the hospital’s electronic health record system. The team collected data for 1 year and divided it into 3 time periods: baseline, during the educational intervention, and post-education.

Over the entire study period, 214,478 doses of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis were prescribed to patients on the 21 hospital floors.

After education, non-administration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis decreased from 12.4% to 11.1% (conditional odds ratio [cOR]=0.87, P=0.002).

Nurses who completed the dynamic education module saw a greater reduction in non-administration—from 10.8% to 9.2% (cOR=0.83)—than nurses who completed the static education module—14.5% to 13.5% (cOR=0.92). However, the difference between the study arms was not significant (P=0.26).

“Our study adds to evidence that the way something is taught to professionals has a great influence on whether they retain information and apply it,” said Brandyn Lau, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

“Active learning seems to get better results than passive learning, showing that it’s not just what you teach, but also how you teach it.”

“Now that we’ve shown the modules can be effective in improving practice, we want to make [them] available to the more than 3 million nurses practicing in the US,” Dr Haut added.

Photo courtesy of NCI

Online education programs for nurses can improve the administration of prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism (VTE), a new study suggests.

The research was spurred by a documented need to boost the administration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients.

Data had shown that patients’ refusal of VTE prophylaxis frequently resulted in nurses not administering the prescribed therapy.

The new research indicates that online education modules helped nurses communicate to patients the need for VTE prophylaxis and therefore improved rates of use.

“We teach in hopes of improving patient care, but there’s actually very little evidence that online professional education can have a measurable impact. Our results show that it does,” said Elliott Haut, MD, PhD, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland.

Dr Haut and his colleagues reported these results in PLOS ONE.

For this study, the researchers developed 2 online education modules about the importance of pharmacologic VTE prevention and tactics for better communicating its importance to patients.

One of the modules was “dynamic,” requiring nurses to select responses to clinical scenarios, such as how to respond to a patient who was refusing a prophylactic medication dose. The other module was “static,” involving a PowerPoint slide show with a traditional voice-over explaining the information.

The study included 933 permanently employed nurses on 21 medical or surgical floors at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

Between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2015, 445 nurses on 11 of the floors were randomized to the dynamic education arm of the study, and 488 nurses on 10 floors were enrolled in the static arm.

To track non-administration of VTE prophylaxis, the researchers retrieved data from the hospital’s electronic health record system. The team collected data for 1 year and divided it into 3 time periods: baseline, during the educational intervention, and post-education.

Over the entire study period, 214,478 doses of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis were prescribed to patients on the 21 hospital floors.

After education, non-administration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis decreased from 12.4% to 11.1% (conditional odds ratio [cOR]=0.87, P=0.002).

Nurses who completed the dynamic education module saw a greater reduction in non-administration—from 10.8% to 9.2% (cOR=0.83)—than nurses who completed the static education module—14.5% to 13.5% (cOR=0.92). However, the difference between the study arms was not significant (P=0.26).

“Our study adds to evidence that the way something is taught to professionals has a great influence on whether they retain information and apply it,” said Brandyn Lau, of The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

“Active learning seems to get better results than passive learning, showing that it’s not just what you teach, but also how you teach it.”

“Now that we’ve shown the modules can be effective in improving practice, we want to make [them] available to the more than 3 million nurses practicing in the US,” Dr Haut added.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests older cancer patients and their caregivers often differ in their assessment of the patients’ abilities.

In this study, patients generally rated their physical and mental function higher than caregivers did.

The study also showed the differences in assessment of patients’ physical abilities were associated with greater caregiver burden.

This research was published in The Oncologist.

“Caregivers are such an important part of our healthcare system, particularly for older adults with cancer,” said study author Arti Hurria, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California.

“We wanted to further understand the factors that are associated with caregiver burden.”

One factor Dr Hurria and her colleagues thought might be important is differences in assessments of patient health and physical abilities between patients and their caregivers.

“In daily practice, we sometimes see a disconnect between what the patient perceives their general health and abilities to be in comparison to what the caregiver thinks,” Dr Hurria said. “We wanted to see whether this disconnect impacted caregiver burden.”

To do this, Dr Hurria and her colleagues questioned 100 older cancer patients and their caregivers.

Subjects were asked about the patients’ general health and physical function, meaning their ability to perform everyday activities. The researchers then compared the answers given by the patients and their respective caregivers.

The researchers also assessed the level of caregiver burden (defined as a subjective feeling of stress caused by being overwhelmed by the demands of caring) by administering a standard questionnaire on topics such as sleep disturbance, physical effort, and patient behavior.

The 100 cancer patients, ages 65 to 91, were suffering from a variety of cancers. The most common were lymphoma (n=26), breast cancer (n=19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n=15). Twelve patients had leukemia, and 10 had myeloma.

The ages of the caregivers ranged from 28 to 85, and the majority were female (73%). They were mainly either the spouse of the patient (68%) or an adult child (18%).

Results

There was no significant difference in patient and caregiver accounts of the patients’ comorbidities (P=0.68), falls in the last 6 months (P=0.71), or percent weight change in the last 6 months (P=0.21).

However, caregivers consistently rated patients as having poorer physical function and mental health and requiring more social support than the patients themselves did.

There was a significant difference (P<0.05) in caregiver and patient accounts when it came to the following measures:

• Need for help with instrumental activities of daily living
• Karnofsky Performance Status
• Medical Outcomes Study-Physical Function
• Medical Outcomes Study-Social Support Survey
• Mental Health Inventory.

Only the disparity in the assessment of physical function was significantly associated with greater caregiver burden (P<0.001). What is still unclear is the cause of this disparity.

“I think there are 2 possible explanations,” said study author Tina Hsu, MD, of the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“One is that older adults with cancer either don’t appreciate how much help they require or, more likely, they are able preserve their sense of independence and dignity through a perception that they feel they can do more than they really can.”

“Alternatively, it is possible that caregivers who are more stressed out perceive their loved one to require more help than they actually do need. Most likely, the truth of how much help the patient actually needs lies somewhere between what patients and caregivers report.”

Based on their findings, Drs Hsu and Hurria and their colleagues advise that clinicians consider assessing caregiver burden in those caregivers who report the patient as being more dependent than the patient does themselves.

“Caregivers play an essential role in supporting older adults with cancer,” Dr Hsu said. “We plan to further explore factors associated with caregiver burden in this population, particularly in those who are frailer and thus require even more hands-on support. We also hope to explore what resources caregivers of older adults with cancer feel they need to better help them with their role.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests older cancer patients and their caregivers often differ in their assessment of the patients’ abilities.

In this study, patients generally rated their physical and mental function higher than caregivers did.

The study also showed the differences in assessment of patients’ physical abilities were associated with greater caregiver burden.

This research was published in The Oncologist.

“Caregivers are such an important part of our healthcare system, particularly for older adults with cancer,” said study author Arti Hurria, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California.

“We wanted to further understand the factors that are associated with caregiver burden.”

One factor Dr Hurria and her colleagues thought might be important is differences in assessments of patient health and physical abilities between patients and their caregivers.

“In daily practice, we sometimes see a disconnect between what the patient perceives their general health and abilities to be in comparison to what the caregiver thinks,” Dr Hurria said. “We wanted to see whether this disconnect impacted caregiver burden.”

To do this, Dr Hurria and her colleagues questioned 100 older cancer patients and their caregivers.

Subjects were asked about the patients’ general health and physical function, meaning their ability to perform everyday activities. The researchers then compared the answers given by the patients and their respective caregivers.

The researchers also assessed the level of caregiver burden (defined as a subjective feeling of stress caused by being overwhelmed by the demands of caring) by administering a standard questionnaire on topics such as sleep disturbance, physical effort, and patient behavior.

The 100 cancer patients, ages 65 to 91, were suffering from a variety of cancers. The most common were lymphoma (n=26), breast cancer (n=19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n=15). Twelve patients had leukemia, and 10 had myeloma.

The ages of the caregivers ranged from 28 to 85, and the majority were female (73%). They were mainly either the spouse of the patient (68%) or an adult child (18%).

Results

There was no significant difference in patient and caregiver accounts of the patients’ comorbidities (P=0.68), falls in the last 6 months (P=0.71), or percent weight change in the last 6 months (P=0.21).

However, caregivers consistently rated patients as having poorer physical function and mental health and requiring more social support than the patients themselves did.

There was a significant difference (P<0.05) in caregiver and patient accounts when it came to the following measures:

• Need for help with instrumental activities of daily living
• Karnofsky Performance Status
• Medical Outcomes Study-Physical Function
• Medical Outcomes Study-Social Support Survey
• Mental Health Inventory.

Only the disparity in the assessment of physical function was significantly associated with greater caregiver burden (P<0.001). What is still unclear is the cause of this disparity.

“I think there are 2 possible explanations,” said study author Tina Hsu, MD, of the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“One is that older adults with cancer either don’t appreciate how much help they require or, more likely, they are able preserve their sense of independence and dignity through a perception that they feel they can do more than they really can.”

“Alternatively, it is possible that caregivers who are more stressed out perceive their loved one to require more help than they actually do need. Most likely, the truth of how much help the patient actually needs lies somewhere between what patients and caregivers report.”

Based on their findings, Drs Hsu and Hurria and their colleagues advise that clinicians consider assessing caregiver burden in those caregivers who report the patient as being more dependent than the patient does themselves.

“Caregivers play an essential role in supporting older adults with cancer,” Dr Hsu said. “We plan to further explore factors associated with caregiver burden in this population, particularly in those who are frailer and thus require even more hands-on support. We also hope to explore what resources caregivers of older adults with cancer feel they need to better help them with their role.”

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests older cancer patients and their caregivers often differ in their assessment of the patients’ abilities.

In this study, patients generally rated their physical and mental function higher than caregivers did.

The study also showed the differences in assessment of patients’ physical abilities were associated with greater caregiver burden.

This research was published in The Oncologist.

“Caregivers are such an important part of our healthcare system, particularly for older adults with cancer,” said study author Arti Hurria, MD, of City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, California.

“We wanted to further understand the factors that are associated with caregiver burden.”

One factor Dr Hurria and her colleagues thought might be important is differences in assessments of patient health and physical abilities between patients and their caregivers.

“In daily practice, we sometimes see a disconnect between what the patient perceives their general health and abilities to be in comparison to what the caregiver thinks,” Dr Hurria said. “We wanted to see whether this disconnect impacted caregiver burden.”

To do this, Dr Hurria and her colleagues questioned 100 older cancer patients and their caregivers.

Subjects were asked about the patients’ general health and physical function, meaning their ability to perform everyday activities. The researchers then compared the answers given by the patients and their respective caregivers.

The researchers also assessed the level of caregiver burden (defined as a subjective feeling of stress caused by being overwhelmed by the demands of caring) by administering a standard questionnaire on topics such as sleep disturbance, physical effort, and patient behavior.

The 100 cancer patients, ages 65 to 91, were suffering from a variety of cancers. The most common were lymphoma (n=26), breast cancer (n=19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n=15). Twelve patients had leukemia, and 10 had myeloma.

The ages of the caregivers ranged from 28 to 85, and the majority were female (73%). They were mainly either the spouse of the patient (68%) or an adult child (18%).

Results

There was no significant difference in patient and caregiver accounts of the patients’ comorbidities (P=0.68), falls in the last 6 months (P=0.71), or percent weight change in the last 6 months (P=0.21).

However, caregivers consistently rated patients as having poorer physical function and mental health and requiring more social support than the patients themselves did.

There was a significant difference (P<0.05) in caregiver and patient accounts when it came to the following measures:

• Need for help with instrumental activities of daily living
• Karnofsky Performance Status
• Medical Outcomes Study-Physical Function
• Medical Outcomes Study-Social Support Survey
• Mental Health Inventory.

Only the disparity in the assessment of physical function was significantly associated with greater caregiver burden (P<0.001). What is still unclear is the cause of this disparity.

“I think there are 2 possible explanations,” said study author Tina Hsu, MD, of the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada.

“One is that older adults with cancer either don’t appreciate how much help they require or, more likely, they are able preserve their sense of independence and dignity through a perception that they feel they can do more than they really can.”

“Alternatively, it is possible that caregivers who are more stressed out perceive their loved one to require more help than they actually do need. Most likely, the truth of how much help the patient actually needs lies somewhere between what patients and caregivers report.”

Based on their findings, Drs Hsu and Hurria and their colleagues advise that clinicians consider assessing caregiver burden in those caregivers who report the patient as being more dependent than the patient does themselves.

“Caregivers play an essential role in supporting older adults with cancer,” Dr Hsu said. “We plan to further explore factors associated with caregiver burden in this population, particularly in those who are frailer and thus require even more hands-on support. We also hope to explore what resources caregivers of older adults with cancer feel they need to better help them with their role.”

Photo courtesy of the CDC

A diagnosis of delirium during a visit to the emergency department (ED) is a poor prognostic factor for patients with advanced cancer, according to research published in The Oncologist.

The study showed that patients with advanced cancer who were diagnosed with delirium during an ED visit were more likely to be admitted to the hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) and more likely to die earlier than patients without delirium.

This shows the importance of accurately diagnosing delirium in advanced cancer patients, said Ahmed Elsayem, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Previous studies have shown that delirium is associated with poor survival in advanced cancer patients being treated in ICUs or receiving palliative care in hospices, but no one had investigated whether the same was true for patients visiting EDs.

“To the best our knowledge, this is the first study to show the poor survival of advanced cancer patients in the emergency department setting,” Dr Elsayem said.

He and his colleagues previously conducted a study in which they assessed the frequency of delirium in advanced cancer patients visiting the ED at MD Anderson. The researchers tested for delirium using 2 questionnaires—the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS).

Questioning 243 patients in total, the team found that 44 patients, or 18%, were suffering with delirium according to at least 1 of the questionnaires.

In the current study, Dr Elsayem and his colleagues determined how many of these cancer patients, with and without delirium, were subsequently admitted to hospital and ICUs, as well as how long the patients lived after their visit to the ED.

Results

The rate of hospitalization was 82% among patients with delirium according to CAM and/or MDAS, 77% among patients with delirium according to MDAS only, and 49% among patients without delirium (P=0.0013). Rates of ICU admission were 18%, 14%, and 2%, respectively (P=0.0004).

The median overall survival was 1.23 months for patients with delirium according to CAM and/or MDAS, 4.70 months for patients with delirium according to MDAS only, and 10.45 months for patients without delirium. The difference between the patients with and without delirium was significant (P<0.0001).

Given the influence delirium appears to have on survival, Dr Elsayem said prompt diagnosis and management in hospital EDs is essential.

He noted that, in many cases, delirium in advanced cancer patients can be resolved by simply stopping or modifying their medication and treating any associated infections.

“Treating the triggers if known—such as stopping medications—is the main treatment for an episode of delirium,” Dr Elsayem said.

He also suggested that further research needs to be done on this topic, including conducting similar studies on delirium in advanced cancer patients in other EDs and with larger groups of patients.

Photo courtesy of the CDC

A diagnosis of delirium during a visit to the emergency department (ED) is a poor prognostic factor for patients with advanced cancer, according to research published in The Oncologist.

The study showed that patients with advanced cancer who were diagnosed with delirium during an ED visit were more likely to be admitted to the hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) and more likely to die earlier than patients without delirium.

This shows the importance of accurately diagnosing delirium in advanced cancer patients, said Ahmed Elsayem, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Previous studies have shown that delirium is associated with poor survival in advanced cancer patients being treated in ICUs or receiving palliative care in hospices, but no one had investigated whether the same was true for patients visiting EDs.

“To the best our knowledge, this is the first study to show the poor survival of advanced cancer patients in the emergency department setting,” Dr Elsayem said.

He and his colleagues previously conducted a study in which they assessed the frequency of delirium in advanced cancer patients visiting the ED at MD Anderson. The researchers tested for delirium using 2 questionnaires—the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS).

Questioning 243 patients in total, the team found that 44 patients, or 18%, were suffering with delirium according to at least 1 of the questionnaires.

In the current study, Dr Elsayem and his colleagues determined how many of these cancer patients, with and without delirium, were subsequently admitted to hospital and ICUs, as well as how long the patients lived after their visit to the ED.

Results

The rate of hospitalization was 82% among patients with delirium according to CAM and/or MDAS, 77% among patients with delirium according to MDAS only, and 49% among patients without delirium (P=0.0013). Rates of ICU admission were 18%, 14%, and 2%, respectively (P=0.0004).

The median overall survival was 1.23 months for patients with delirium according to CAM and/or MDAS, 4.70 months for patients with delirium according to MDAS only, and 10.45 months for patients without delirium. The difference between the patients with and without delirium was significant (P<0.0001).

Given the influence delirium appears to have on survival, Dr Elsayem said prompt diagnosis and management in hospital EDs is essential.

He noted that, in many cases, delirium in advanced cancer patients can be resolved by simply stopping or modifying their medication and treating any associated infections.

“Treating the triggers if known—such as stopping medications—is the main treatment for an episode of delirium,” Dr Elsayem said.

He also suggested that further research needs to be done on this topic, including conducting similar studies on delirium in advanced cancer patients in other EDs and with larger groups of patients.

Photo courtesy of the CDC

A diagnosis of delirium during a visit to the emergency department (ED) is a poor prognostic factor for patients with advanced cancer, according to research published in The Oncologist.

The study showed that patients with advanced cancer who were diagnosed with delirium during an ED visit were more likely to be admitted to the hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) and more likely to die earlier than patients without delirium.

This shows the importance of accurately diagnosing delirium in advanced cancer patients, said Ahmed Elsayem, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Previous studies have shown that delirium is associated with poor survival in advanced cancer patients being treated in ICUs or receiving palliative care in hospices, but no one had investigated whether the same was true for patients visiting EDs.

“To the best our knowledge, this is the first study to show the poor survival of advanced cancer patients in the emergency department setting,” Dr Elsayem said.

He and his colleagues previously conducted a study in which they assessed the frequency of delirium in advanced cancer patients visiting the ED at MD Anderson. The researchers tested for delirium using 2 questionnaires—the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS).

Questioning 243 patients in total, the team found that 44 patients, or 18%, were suffering with delirium according to at least 1 of the questionnaires.

In the current study, Dr Elsayem and his colleagues determined how many of these cancer patients, with and without delirium, were subsequently admitted to hospital and ICUs, as well as how long the patients lived after their visit to the ED.

Results

The rate of hospitalization was 82% among patients with delirium according to CAM and/or MDAS, 77% among patients with delirium according to MDAS only, and 49% among patients without delirium (P=0.0013). Rates of ICU admission were 18%, 14%, and 2%, respectively (P=0.0004).

The median overall survival was 1.23 months for patients with delirium according to CAM and/or MDAS, 4.70 months for patients with delirium according to MDAS only, and 10.45 months for patients without delirium. The difference between the patients with and without delirium was significant (P<0.0001).

Given the influence delirium appears to have on survival, Dr Elsayem said prompt diagnosis and management in hospital EDs is essential.

He noted that, in many cases, delirium in advanced cancer patients can be resolved by simply stopping or modifying their medication and treating any associated infections.

“Treating the triggers if known—such as stopping medications—is the main treatment for an episode of delirium,” Dr Elsayem said.

He also suggested that further research needs to be done on this topic, including conducting similar studies on delirium in advanced cancer patients in other EDs and with larger groups of patients.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has updated its clinical practice guidelines on the use of antiemetics in cancer patients.

The update, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, provides new evidence-based information on the appropriate use of olanzapine, NK1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone.

“The adverse impact of inadequately controlled nausea and vomiting on patients’ quality of life is well documented,” said Paul J. Hesketh, MD, co-chair of the ASCO expert panel that updated the guidelines.

“By following the ASCO antiemetics guideline, clinicians have the opportunity to improve patients’ quality of life by minimizing treatment-induced emesis.”

To update ASCO’s guidelines on antiemetics, the expert panel conducted a systematic review of the medical literature published between November 2009 and June 2016. The panel included members with expertise in medical oncology, radiation oncology, nursing, pharmacy, and health services research, as well as a patient representative.

“Tremendous progress has been realized over the last 25 years in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with the introduction of new classes of antiemetic agents,” said Mark G. Kris, MD, co-chair of the expert panel that updated the guidelines.

“The full benefit of these treatment advances will only be realized, however, if evidence-based guidelines are fully implemented.”

Key recommendations in the updated guidelines include:

For adults receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting (eg, cisplatin or the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline), olanzapine should be added to standard antiemetic regimens (the combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, an NK1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone). Olanzapine also helps individuals who experience symptoms despite receiving medicines to prevent vomiting before chemotherapy is given.

For adults receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy and children receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting, an NK1 receptor antagonist should be added to the standard antiemetic regimen (the combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone).

Dexamethasone treatment can be limited to the day of chemotherapy administration in patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.

Dronabinol and nabilone, cannabinoids approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, can be used to treat nausea and vomiting that is resistant to standard antiemetic therapies. Evidence remains insufficient to recommend medical marijuana for either prevention or treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has updated its clinical practice guidelines on the use of antiemetics in cancer patients.

The update, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, provides new evidence-based information on the appropriate use of olanzapine, NK1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone.

“The adverse impact of inadequately controlled nausea and vomiting on patients’ quality of life is well documented,” said Paul J. Hesketh, MD, co-chair of the ASCO expert panel that updated the guidelines.

“By following the ASCO antiemetics guideline, clinicians have the opportunity to improve patients’ quality of life by minimizing treatment-induced emesis.”

To update ASCO’s guidelines on antiemetics, the expert panel conducted a systematic review of the medical literature published between November 2009 and June 2016. The panel included members with expertise in medical oncology, radiation oncology, nursing, pharmacy, and health services research, as well as a patient representative.

“Tremendous progress has been realized over the last 25 years in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with the introduction of new classes of antiemetic agents,” said Mark G. Kris, MD, co-chair of the expert panel that updated the guidelines.

“The full benefit of these treatment advances will only be realized, however, if evidence-based guidelines are fully implemented.”

Key recommendations in the updated guidelines include:

For adults receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting (eg, cisplatin or the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline), olanzapine should be added to standard antiemetic regimens (the combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, an NK1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone). Olanzapine also helps individuals who experience symptoms despite receiving medicines to prevent vomiting before chemotherapy is given.

For adults receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy and children receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting, an NK1 receptor antagonist should be added to the standard antiemetic regimen (the combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone).

Dexamethasone treatment can be limited to the day of chemotherapy administration in patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.

Dronabinol and nabilone, cannabinoids approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, can be used to treat nausea and vomiting that is resistant to standard antiemetic therapies. Evidence remains insufficient to recommend medical marijuana for either prevention or treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has updated its clinical practice guidelines on the use of antiemetics in cancer patients.

The update, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, provides new evidence-based information on the appropriate use of olanzapine, NK1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone.

“The adverse impact of inadequately controlled nausea and vomiting on patients’ quality of life is well documented,” said Paul J. Hesketh, MD, co-chair of the ASCO expert panel that updated the guidelines.

“By following the ASCO antiemetics guideline, clinicians have the opportunity to improve patients’ quality of life by minimizing treatment-induced emesis.”

To update ASCO’s guidelines on antiemetics, the expert panel conducted a systematic review of the medical literature published between November 2009 and June 2016. The panel included members with expertise in medical oncology, radiation oncology, nursing, pharmacy, and health services research, as well as a patient representative.

“Tremendous progress has been realized over the last 25 years in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with the introduction of new classes of antiemetic agents,” said Mark G. Kris, MD, co-chair of the expert panel that updated the guidelines.

“The full benefit of these treatment advances will only be realized, however, if evidence-based guidelines are fully implemented.”

Key recommendations in the updated guidelines include:

For adults receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting (eg, cisplatin or the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline), olanzapine should be added to standard antiemetic regimens (the combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, an NK1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone). Olanzapine also helps individuals who experience symptoms despite receiving medicines to prevent vomiting before chemotherapy is given.

For adults receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy and children receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting, an NK1 receptor antagonist should be added to the standard antiemetic regimen (the combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone).

Dexamethasone treatment can be limited to the day of chemotherapy administration in patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.

Dronabinol and nabilone, cannabinoids approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, can be used to treat nausea and vomiting that is resistant to standard antiemetic therapies. Evidence remains insufficient to recommend medical marijuana for either prevention or treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Narrow insurance plan coverage may prevent US cancer patients from receiving care at “high-quality” cancer centers, according to research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers found that “narrow network” insurance plans—lower-premium plans with reduced access to certain providers—are more likely to exclude doctors associated with National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer centers.

These centers are recognized for their scientific and research leadership, quality and safety initiatives, and access to expert physicians and clinical trials.

NCCN member institutions are particularly recognized for higher-quality care, and treatment at NCI-designated cancer centers is associated with lower mortality than other hospitals, particularly among more severely ill patients and those with more advanced disease.

For this study, researchers examined cancer provider networks offered on the 2014 individual health insurance exchanges and then determined which oncologists were affiliated with NCI-designated and NCCN cancer centers.

The researchers found that narrower networks were less likely to include physicians associated with NCI-designated and NCCN member institutions.

“To see such a robust result was surprising,” said study author Laura Yasaitis, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“The finding that narrower networks were more likely to exclude NCI and NCCN oncologists was consistent no matter how we looked at it. This is not just a few networks. It’s a clear trend.”

The researchers said the results point to 2 major problems—transparency and access.

“Patients should be able to easily figure out whether the physicians they might need will be covered under a given plan,” said study author Justin E. Bekelman, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers suggested that insurers report doctor’s affiliations with NCI and NCCN cancer centers so that consumers can make more informed choices.

The team also suggested that insurers offer mechanisms that would allow patients to seek care out of network without incurring penalties in exceptional circumstances.

“If patients have narrow network plans and absolutely need the kind of complex cancer care that they can only receive from one of these providers, there should be a standard exception process to allow patients to access the care they need,” Dr Bekelman said. 

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Narrow insurance plan coverage may prevent US cancer patients from receiving care at “high-quality” cancer centers, according to research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers found that “narrow network” insurance plans—lower-premium plans with reduced access to certain providers—are more likely to exclude doctors associated with National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer centers.

These centers are recognized for their scientific and research leadership, quality and safety initiatives, and access to expert physicians and clinical trials.

NCCN member institutions are particularly recognized for higher-quality care, and treatment at NCI-designated cancer centers is associated with lower mortality than other hospitals, particularly among more severely ill patients and those with more advanced disease.

For this study, researchers examined cancer provider networks offered on the 2014 individual health insurance exchanges and then determined which oncologists were affiliated with NCI-designated and NCCN cancer centers.

The researchers found that narrower networks were less likely to include physicians associated with NCI-designated and NCCN member institutions.

“To see such a robust result was surprising,” said study author Laura Yasaitis, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“The finding that narrower networks were more likely to exclude NCI and NCCN oncologists was consistent no matter how we looked at it. This is not just a few networks. It’s a clear trend.”

The researchers said the results point to 2 major problems—transparency and access.

“Patients should be able to easily figure out whether the physicians they might need will be covered under a given plan,” said study author Justin E. Bekelman, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers suggested that insurers report doctor’s affiliations with NCI and NCCN cancer centers so that consumers can make more informed choices.

The team also suggested that insurers offer mechanisms that would allow patients to seek care out of network without incurring penalties in exceptional circumstances.

“If patients have narrow network plans and absolutely need the kind of complex cancer care that they can only receive from one of these providers, there should be a standard exception process to allow patients to access the care they need,” Dr Bekelman said. 

Photo by Rhoda Baer

Narrow insurance plan coverage may prevent US cancer patients from receiving care at “high-quality” cancer centers, according to research published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers found that “narrow network” insurance plans—lower-premium plans with reduced access to certain providers—are more likely to exclude doctors associated with National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer centers.

These centers are recognized for their scientific and research leadership, quality and safety initiatives, and access to expert physicians and clinical trials.

NCCN member institutions are particularly recognized for higher-quality care, and treatment at NCI-designated cancer centers is associated with lower mortality than other hospitals, particularly among more severely ill patients and those with more advanced disease.

For this study, researchers examined cancer provider networks offered on the 2014 individual health insurance exchanges and then determined which oncologists were affiliated with NCI-designated and NCCN cancer centers.

The researchers found that narrower networks were less likely to include physicians associated with NCI-designated and NCCN member institutions.

“To see such a robust result was surprising,” said study author Laura Yasaitis, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“The finding that narrower networks were more likely to exclude NCI and NCCN oncologists was consistent no matter how we looked at it. This is not just a few networks. It’s a clear trend.”

The researchers said the results point to 2 major problems—transparency and access.

“Patients should be able to easily figure out whether the physicians they might need will be covered under a given plan,” said study author Justin E. Bekelman, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania.

The researchers suggested that insurers report doctor’s affiliations with NCI and NCCN cancer centers so that consumers can make more informed choices.

The team also suggested that insurers offer mechanisms that would allow patients to seek care out of network without incurring penalties in exceptional circumstances.

“If patients have narrow network plans and absolutely need the kind of complex cancer care that they can only receive from one of these providers, there should be a standard exception process to allow patients to access the care they need,” Dr Bekelman said. 

Photo by Bill Branson

WASHINGTON, DC—In a head-to-head study comparing a single-dose oral antiemetic to a 3-day oral regimen, the single dose has shown itself to be non-inferior to the multi-day regimen in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

The investigators evaluated netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) against aprepitant/granisetron (APR/GRAN) in patients on highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

They found the data suggest “that NEPA, in a single dose, had equivalent efficacy to a 3-day oral aprepitant/granisetron regimen,” according to the lead investigator and abstract presenter.

Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, presented the data at the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Congress (abstract PS049, pp S55 – S56).

NEPA is a combination of the selective NK₁RA netupitant (300 mg) and the clinically and pharmacologically active 5-HT₃RA, palonosetron (0.5 mg) for the prevention of CINV.

Oral palonosetron prevents nausea and vomiting during the acute phase of treatment.

Netupitant prevents nausea and vomiting during both the acute and delayed phase after cancer chemotherapy.

It is formulated into a single oral capsule.

Study design

The study was a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study conducted in 828 chemotherapy-naïve Asian patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) agents.

Patients received a single oral dose of NEPA on day 1 or a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen (days 1-3).

All patients received oral dexamethasone on days 1-4.

The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis or rescue medication needed during the overall (0-120 hour) phase.

The investigators defined non-inferiority to be the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval greater than the non-inferiority margin set at  ̶ 10%.

Secondary endpoints included no emesis, no rescue medication, and no significant nausea (NSN), defined as <25 mm on 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The baseline demographics were comparable between the NEPA (n=413) and APR/GRAN (n=416) arms: 71% of the patients were male, a mean age of 55 years, and a little more than half were ECOG performance status 1.

The most common cancer types were lung and head and neck cancer.

Patients had received a median cisplatin dose of 73 and 72 mg/m² in the NEPA and APR/GRAN arms, respectively.

Within the first 24 hours (acute phase), NEPA was non-inferior to APR/GRAN. NEPA had a CR rate of 84.5% and APR/GRAN had a CR rate of 87.0%. The risk difference between the 2 agents was -2.5% (range, -7.2%, 2.3%).

In the delayed phase (25-120 hours), NEPA had a CR rate of 77.9% and APR/GRAN, 74.3%. The risk difference was 3.7% (range, -2.1%, 9.5%).

Overall, for both phases, the CR rate was 73.8% for NEPA and 72.4% for APR/GRAN. The risk difference was 1.5% (range, -4.5%, 7.5%).

Dr Zhang pointed out that although the overall CR rates were similar, the daily rates of patients experiencing CINV remained in the range of 13% - 15% for patients in the APR/GRAN arm.

However, daily rates of CINV for patients receiving NEPA declined from 16% to 8% over the 5 days. The investigators believe this suggests a benefit for delayed CINV.

Regarding secondary endpoints, significantly more patients receiving NEPA did not require rescue medication in the delayed phase and overall than patients in the APR/GRAN arm.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable between the arms—58.1% in the NEPA arm and 57.5% in the APR/GRAN arm, as were serious TEAS, at 4.5% and 4.6% for NEPA and APR/GRAN, respectively. And the no emesis and no significant nausea rates favored NEPA.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 2% or more of the patients in both arms were constipation and hiccups.

Two serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in each arm, 1 leading to discontinuation in the NEPA arm.

The investigators concluded that NEPA, as a convenient capsule administered once per cycle, is at least as effective as the 3-day regimen of APR/GRAN in patients receiving HEC.

NEPA (Akynzeo®) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and marketed globally by Helsinn, Lugano, Switzerland, the sponsor of the trial.

For the full US prescribing information, see the package insert.

Photo by Bill Branson

WASHINGTON, DC—In a head-to-head study comparing a single-dose oral antiemetic to a 3-day oral regimen, the single dose has shown itself to be non-inferior to the multi-day regimen in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

The investigators evaluated netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) against aprepitant/granisetron (APR/GRAN) in patients on highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

They found the data suggest “that NEPA, in a single dose, had equivalent efficacy to a 3-day oral aprepitant/granisetron regimen,” according to the lead investigator and abstract presenter.

Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, presented the data at the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Congress (abstract PS049, pp S55 – S56).

NEPA is a combination of the selective NK₁RA netupitant (300 mg) and the clinically and pharmacologically active 5-HT₃RA, palonosetron (0.5 mg) for the prevention of CINV.

Oral palonosetron prevents nausea and vomiting during the acute phase of treatment.

Netupitant prevents nausea and vomiting during both the acute and delayed phase after cancer chemotherapy.

It is formulated into a single oral capsule.

Study design

The study was a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study conducted in 828 chemotherapy-naïve Asian patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) agents.

Patients received a single oral dose of NEPA on day 1 or a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen (days 1-3).

All patients received oral dexamethasone on days 1-4.

The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis or rescue medication needed during the overall (0-120 hour) phase.

The investigators defined non-inferiority to be the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval greater than the non-inferiority margin set at  ̶ 10%.

Secondary endpoints included no emesis, no rescue medication, and no significant nausea (NSN), defined as <25 mm on 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The baseline demographics were comparable between the NEPA (n=413) and APR/GRAN (n=416) arms: 71% of the patients were male, a mean age of 55 years, and a little more than half were ECOG performance status 1.

The most common cancer types were lung and head and neck cancer.

Patients had received a median cisplatin dose of 73 and 72 mg/m² in the NEPA and APR/GRAN arms, respectively.

Within the first 24 hours (acute phase), NEPA was non-inferior to APR/GRAN. NEPA had a CR rate of 84.5% and APR/GRAN had a CR rate of 87.0%. The risk difference between the 2 agents was -2.5% (range, -7.2%, 2.3%).

In the delayed phase (25-120 hours), NEPA had a CR rate of 77.9% and APR/GRAN, 74.3%. The risk difference was 3.7% (range, -2.1%, 9.5%).

Overall, for both phases, the CR rate was 73.8% for NEPA and 72.4% for APR/GRAN. The risk difference was 1.5% (range, -4.5%, 7.5%).

Dr Zhang pointed out that although the overall CR rates were similar, the daily rates of patients experiencing CINV remained in the range of 13% - 15% for patients in the APR/GRAN arm.

However, daily rates of CINV for patients receiving NEPA declined from 16% to 8% over the 5 days. The investigators believe this suggests a benefit for delayed CINV.

Regarding secondary endpoints, significantly more patients receiving NEPA did not require rescue medication in the delayed phase and overall than patients in the APR/GRAN arm.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable between the arms—58.1% in the NEPA arm and 57.5% in the APR/GRAN arm, as were serious TEAS, at 4.5% and 4.6% for NEPA and APR/GRAN, respectively. And the no emesis and no significant nausea rates favored NEPA.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 2% or more of the patients in both arms were constipation and hiccups.

Two serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in each arm, 1 leading to discontinuation in the NEPA arm.

The investigators concluded that NEPA, as a convenient capsule administered once per cycle, is at least as effective as the 3-day regimen of APR/GRAN in patients receiving HEC.

NEPA (Akynzeo®) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and marketed globally by Helsinn, Lugano, Switzerland, the sponsor of the trial.

For the full US prescribing information, see the package insert.

Photo by Bill Branson

WASHINGTON, DC—In a head-to-head study comparing a single-dose oral antiemetic to a 3-day oral regimen, the single dose has shown itself to be non-inferior to the multi-day regimen in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

The investigators evaluated netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA) against aprepitant/granisetron (APR/GRAN) in patients on highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

They found the data suggest “that NEPA, in a single dose, had equivalent efficacy to a 3-day oral aprepitant/granisetron regimen,” according to the lead investigator and abstract presenter.

Li Zhang, MD, of Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China, presented the data at the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer/International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Congress (abstract PS049, pp S55 – S56).

NEPA is a combination of the selective NK₁RA netupitant (300 mg) and the clinically and pharmacologically active 5-HT₃RA, palonosetron (0.5 mg) for the prevention of CINV.

Oral palonosetron prevents nausea and vomiting during the acute phase of treatment.

Netupitant prevents nausea and vomiting during both the acute and delayed phase after cancer chemotherapy.

It is formulated into a single oral capsule.

Study design

The study was a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study conducted in 828 chemotherapy-naïve Asian patients receiving cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) agents.

Patients received a single oral dose of NEPA on day 1 or a 3-day oral APR/GRAN regimen (days 1-3).

All patients received oral dexamethasone on days 1-4.

The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis or rescue medication needed during the overall (0-120 hour) phase.

The investigators defined non-inferiority to be the lower limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval greater than the non-inferiority margin set at  ̶ 10%.

Secondary endpoints included no emesis, no rescue medication, and no significant nausea (NSN), defined as <25 mm on 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

The baseline demographics were comparable between the NEPA (n=413) and APR/GRAN (n=416) arms: 71% of the patients were male, a mean age of 55 years, and a little more than half were ECOG performance status 1.

The most common cancer types were lung and head and neck cancer.

Patients had received a median cisplatin dose of 73 and 72 mg/m² in the NEPA and APR/GRAN arms, respectively.

Within the first 24 hours (acute phase), NEPA was non-inferior to APR/GRAN. NEPA had a CR rate of 84.5% and APR/GRAN had a CR rate of 87.0%. The risk difference between the 2 agents was -2.5% (range, -7.2%, 2.3%).

In the delayed phase (25-120 hours), NEPA had a CR rate of 77.9% and APR/GRAN, 74.3%. The risk difference was 3.7% (range, -2.1%, 9.5%).

Overall, for both phases, the CR rate was 73.8% for NEPA and 72.4% for APR/GRAN. The risk difference was 1.5% (range, -4.5%, 7.5%).

Dr Zhang pointed out that although the overall CR rates were similar, the daily rates of patients experiencing CINV remained in the range of 13% - 15% for patients in the APR/GRAN arm.

However, daily rates of CINV for patients receiving NEPA declined from 16% to 8% over the 5 days. The investigators believe this suggests a benefit for delayed CINV.

Regarding secondary endpoints, significantly more patients receiving NEPA did not require rescue medication in the delayed phase and overall than patients in the APR/GRAN arm.

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were comparable between the arms—58.1% in the NEPA arm and 57.5% in the APR/GRAN arm, as were serious TEAS, at 4.5% and 4.6% for NEPA and APR/GRAN, respectively. And the no emesis and no significant nausea rates favored NEPA.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 2% or more of the patients in both arms were constipation and hiccups.

Two serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in each arm, 1 leading to discontinuation in the NEPA arm.

The investigators concluded that NEPA, as a convenient capsule administered once per cycle, is at least as effective as the 3-day regimen of APR/GRAN in patients receiving HEC.

NEPA (Akynzeo®) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and marketed globally by Helsinn, Lugano, Switzerland, the sponsor of the trial.

For the full US prescribing information, see the package insert.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A small study of 20 children aged 8 to 18 years with incurable or refractory cancers indicates children are reliable reporters of their symptoms and side effects.

The investigators collected reports from the children, who were enrolled on phase 1/2 clinical trials at 4 cancer centers and undergoing their first courses of chemotherapy.

The team assessed the feasibility and acceptability of collecting symptom, function, and quality of life (QOL) reports from the study participants.

The investigators also evaluated the measurement tool and interview questions at 2 time points.

They contend the youths’ self-reports potentially could be a new trial endpoint.

According to the investigators, only rarely do patient-reported outcomes (PROs) get incorporated into pediatric phase 1 or phase 2 trials.

And because these trials contribute to drug indications and labeling, the researchers decided to assess whether it was feasible to enroll young people and retain them in a PRO endeavor.

The researchers also assessed the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and range of the pediatric measures employed. They used the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to capture statistically significant and clinically meaningful changes or minimally important differences (MIDs) in PROs.

Pamela S. Hinds, PhD, RN, of George Washington University in Washington, DC,  reported the findings on behalf of the Children's National Health System researchers in Cancer, the journal of the American Cancer Society.

"When experimental cancer drugs are studied, researchers collect details about how these promising therapies affect children's organs, but rarely do they ask the children themselves about symptoms they feel or the side effects they experience," Dr Hinds said.

"Without this crucial information, the full impact of the experimental treatment on the pediatric patient is likely underreported and clinicians are hobbled in their ability to effectively manage side effects," she added.

The team recruited children and adolescents enrolled in phase 1 safety or phase 2 efficacy trials at Children's National, Seattle Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and Boston Children's Hospital.

Findings

Sixty percent of the participants were male and 70% were white.

Median age of the participants was 13.6 years: 7 (35%) were age 8 to 12, and 13 (65%) were 13 to 17.

Thirteen participants (65%) had solid tumors, 5 (25%) had brain tumors, and 2 (10%) had lymphoma.

A total of 29 patients were eligible to participate in the trial during 20 months of screening. Five parents and 2 patients declined to participate.

The remaining 22 patients who agreed to participate accounted for a 75.9% enrollment rate. Twenty of them (90.9%) participated at the first data time point, which was at the time of enrollment, and 77.3% participated 3 weeks later at time point 2.

The authors noted that refusals to enroll were more likely to come from parents (17.2%) than the eligible patients (8.3%).

And refusals only occurred when the self-report measures were not embedded in the clinical trial.

Of the 10 protocols represented, 7 patients were enrolled on the same protocol in which the PRO measures were embedded.

The researchers administered the 6-item short-form measures for the scales of Mobility, Pain, Fatigue, Depressive Symptoms, Anxiety, and Peer Relationships.

They asked the 4 open-ended questions—concerning QOL while receiving therapy and acceptability of the patient reporting—at time point 2.

At time point 1, 3 patients did not complete 3 PROMIS measures, for a person-missing rate of 15% and a measure-missing rate of 3.3%.

At the second time point, 2 patients did not complete 1 measure each, for a person-missing rate of 11.8% and a measure-missing rate of 2%.

All but one measure at time point 1 met the reliability criterion and all measures did so at time point 2.

The research team believes their findings support the feasibility and acceptability of completing quantitative and qualitative measures regarding symptom, function, and QOL experiences among children and adolescents with incurable cancer.

The researchers note the small study size and the number of parent refusals are limitations of the trial.

Nevertheless, they recommend embedding PROs in future pediatric oncology phase 1/2 trials. 

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A small study of 20 children aged 8 to 18 years with incurable or refractory cancers indicates children are reliable reporters of their symptoms and side effects.

The investigators collected reports from the children, who were enrolled on phase 1/2 clinical trials at 4 cancer centers and undergoing their first courses of chemotherapy.

The team assessed the feasibility and acceptability of collecting symptom, function, and quality of life (QOL) reports from the study participants.

The investigators also evaluated the measurement tool and interview questions at 2 time points.

They contend the youths’ self-reports potentially could be a new trial endpoint.

According to the investigators, only rarely do patient-reported outcomes (PROs) get incorporated into pediatric phase 1 or phase 2 trials.

And because these trials contribute to drug indications and labeling, the researchers decided to assess whether it was feasible to enroll young people and retain them in a PRO endeavor.

The researchers also assessed the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and range of the pediatric measures employed. They used the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to capture statistically significant and clinically meaningful changes or minimally important differences (MIDs) in PROs.

Pamela S. Hinds, PhD, RN, of George Washington University in Washington, DC,  reported the findings on behalf of the Children's National Health System researchers in Cancer, the journal of the American Cancer Society.

"When experimental cancer drugs are studied, researchers collect details about how these promising therapies affect children's organs, but rarely do they ask the children themselves about symptoms they feel or the side effects they experience," Dr Hinds said.

"Without this crucial information, the full impact of the experimental treatment on the pediatric patient is likely underreported and clinicians are hobbled in their ability to effectively manage side effects," she added.

The team recruited children and adolescents enrolled in phase 1 safety or phase 2 efficacy trials at Children's National, Seattle Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and Boston Children's Hospital.

Findings

Sixty percent of the participants were male and 70% were white.

Median age of the participants was 13.6 years: 7 (35%) were age 8 to 12, and 13 (65%) were 13 to 17.

Thirteen participants (65%) had solid tumors, 5 (25%) had brain tumors, and 2 (10%) had lymphoma.

A total of 29 patients were eligible to participate in the trial during 20 months of screening. Five parents and 2 patients declined to participate.

The remaining 22 patients who agreed to participate accounted for a 75.9% enrollment rate. Twenty of them (90.9%) participated at the first data time point, which was at the time of enrollment, and 77.3% participated 3 weeks later at time point 2.

The authors noted that refusals to enroll were more likely to come from parents (17.2%) than the eligible patients (8.3%).

And refusals only occurred when the self-report measures were not embedded in the clinical trial.

Of the 10 protocols represented, 7 patients were enrolled on the same protocol in which the PRO measures were embedded.

The researchers administered the 6-item short-form measures for the scales of Mobility, Pain, Fatigue, Depressive Symptoms, Anxiety, and Peer Relationships.

They asked the 4 open-ended questions—concerning QOL while receiving therapy and acceptability of the patient reporting—at time point 2.

At time point 1, 3 patients did not complete 3 PROMIS measures, for a person-missing rate of 15% and a measure-missing rate of 3.3%.

At the second time point, 2 patients did not complete 1 measure each, for a person-missing rate of 11.8% and a measure-missing rate of 2%.

All but one measure at time point 1 met the reliability criterion and all measures did so at time point 2.

The research team believes their findings support the feasibility and acceptability of completing quantitative and qualitative measures regarding symptom, function, and QOL experiences among children and adolescents with incurable cancer.

The researchers note the small study size and the number of parent refusals are limitations of the trial.

Nevertheless, they recommend embedding PROs in future pediatric oncology phase 1/2 trials. 

Photo by Rhoda Baer

A small study of 20 children aged 8 to 18 years with incurable or refractory cancers indicates children are reliable reporters of their symptoms and side effects.

The investigators collected reports from the children, who were enrolled on phase 1/2 clinical trials at 4 cancer centers and undergoing their first courses of chemotherapy.

The team assessed the feasibility and acceptability of collecting symptom, function, and quality of life (QOL) reports from the study participants.

The investigators also evaluated the measurement tool and interview questions at 2 time points.

They contend the youths’ self-reports potentially could be a new trial endpoint.

According to the investigators, only rarely do patient-reported outcomes (PROs) get incorporated into pediatric phase 1 or phase 2 trials.

And because these trials contribute to drug indications and labeling, the researchers decided to assess whether it was feasible to enroll young people and retain them in a PRO endeavor.

The researchers also assessed the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and range of the pediatric measures employed. They used the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to capture statistically significant and clinically meaningful changes or minimally important differences (MIDs) in PROs.

Pamela S. Hinds, PhD, RN, of George Washington University in Washington, DC,  reported the findings on behalf of the Children's National Health System researchers in Cancer, the journal of the American Cancer Society.

"When experimental cancer drugs are studied, researchers collect details about how these promising therapies affect children's organs, but rarely do they ask the children themselves about symptoms they feel or the side effects they experience," Dr Hinds said.

"Without this crucial information, the full impact of the experimental treatment on the pediatric patient is likely underreported and clinicians are hobbled in their ability to effectively manage side effects," she added.

The team recruited children and adolescents enrolled in phase 1 safety or phase 2 efficacy trials at Children's National, Seattle Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and Boston Children's Hospital.

Findings

Sixty percent of the participants were male and 70% were white.

Median age of the participants was 13.6 years: 7 (35%) were age 8 to 12, and 13 (65%) were 13 to 17.

Thirteen participants (65%) had solid tumors, 5 (25%) had brain tumors, and 2 (10%) had lymphoma.

A total of 29 patients were eligible to participate in the trial during 20 months of screening. Five parents and 2 patients declined to participate.

The remaining 22 patients who agreed to participate accounted for a 75.9% enrollment rate. Twenty of them (90.9%) participated at the first data time point, which was at the time of enrollment, and 77.3% participated 3 weeks later at time point 2.

The authors noted that refusals to enroll were more likely to come from parents (17.2%) than the eligible patients (8.3%).

And refusals only occurred when the self-report measures were not embedded in the clinical trial.

Of the 10 protocols represented, 7 patients were enrolled on the same protocol in which the PRO measures were embedded.

The researchers administered the 6-item short-form measures for the scales of Mobility, Pain, Fatigue, Depressive Symptoms, Anxiety, and Peer Relationships.

They asked the 4 open-ended questions—concerning QOL while receiving therapy and acceptability of the patient reporting—at time point 2.

At time point 1, 3 patients did not complete 3 PROMIS measures, for a person-missing rate of 15% and a measure-missing rate of 3.3%.

At the second time point, 2 patients did not complete 1 measure each, for a person-missing rate of 11.8% and a measure-missing rate of 2%.

All but one measure at time point 1 met the reliability criterion and all measures did so at time point 2.

The research team believes their findings support the feasibility and acceptability of completing quantitative and qualitative measures regarding symptom, function, and QOL experiences among children and adolescents with incurable cancer.

The researchers note the small study size and the number of parent refusals are limitations of the trial.

Nevertheless, they recommend embedding PROs in future pediatric oncology phase 1/2 trials. 

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) recently launched the NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™, which provides a single access point for NCCN recommendations pertaining to radiation therapy.

The compendium provides guidance on all radiation therapy modalities recommended within NCCN guidelines, including intensity modulated radiation therapy, intra-operative radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiotherapy/stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy, low dose-rate brachytherapy/high dose-rate brachytherapy, radioisotope, and particle therapy.

“As a single source for all radiation therapy recommendations within the NCCN guidelines, the compendium benefits patients with cancer by assisting providers and payers in making evidence-based treatment and coverage decisions,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

The NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™ includes recommendations for the following 24 cancer types:

Acute myeloid leukemia

Anal cancer

B-cell lymphomas

Bladder cancer

Breast cancer

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphoblastic lymphoma

Colon cancer

Hepatobiliary cancers

Kidney cancer

Malignant pleural mesothelioma

Melanoma

Multiple myeloma

Neuroendocrine tumors

Non-small cell lung cancer

Occult primary cancer

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Penile cancer

Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas

Prostate cancer

Rectal cancer

Small cell lung cancer

Soft tissue sarcoma

T-cell lymphomas

Testicular cancer

NCCN said additional cancer types will be published on a rolling basis over the coming months.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) recently launched the NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™, which provides a single access point for NCCN recommendations pertaining to radiation therapy.

The compendium provides guidance on all radiation therapy modalities recommended within NCCN guidelines, including intensity modulated radiation therapy, intra-operative radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiotherapy/stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy, low dose-rate brachytherapy/high dose-rate brachytherapy, radioisotope, and particle therapy.

“As a single source for all radiation therapy recommendations within the NCCN guidelines, the compendium benefits patients with cancer by assisting providers and payers in making evidence-based treatment and coverage decisions,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

The NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™ includes recommendations for the following 24 cancer types:

Acute myeloid leukemia

Anal cancer

B-cell lymphomas

Bladder cancer

Breast cancer

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphoblastic lymphoma

Colon cancer

Hepatobiliary cancers

Kidney cancer

Malignant pleural mesothelioma

Melanoma

Multiple myeloma

Neuroendocrine tumors

Non-small cell lung cancer

Occult primary cancer

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Penile cancer

Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas

Prostate cancer

Rectal cancer

Small cell lung cancer

Soft tissue sarcoma

T-cell lymphomas

Testicular cancer

NCCN said additional cancer types will be published on a rolling basis over the coming months.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) recently launched the NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™, which provides a single access point for NCCN recommendations pertaining to radiation therapy.

The compendium provides guidance on all radiation therapy modalities recommended within NCCN guidelines, including intensity modulated radiation therapy, intra-operative radiation therapy, stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiotherapy/stereotactic ablative radiotherapy, image-guided radiotherapy, low dose-rate brachytherapy/high dose-rate brachytherapy, radioisotope, and particle therapy.

“As a single source for all radiation therapy recommendations within the NCCN guidelines, the compendium benefits patients with cancer by assisting providers and payers in making evidence-based treatment and coverage decisions,” said Robert W. Carlson, MD, chief executive officer of NCCN.

The NCCN Radiation Therapy Compendium™ includes recommendations for the following 24 cancer types:

Acute myeloid leukemia

Anal cancer

B-cell lymphomas

Bladder cancer

Breast cancer

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphoblastic lymphoma

Colon cancer

Hepatobiliary cancers

Kidney cancer

Malignant pleural mesothelioma

Melanoma

Multiple myeloma

Neuroendocrine tumors

Non-small cell lung cancer

Occult primary cancer

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Penile cancer

Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas

Prostate cancer

Rectal cancer

Small cell lung cancer

Soft tissue sarcoma

T-cell lymphomas

Testicular cancer

NCCN said additional cancer types will be published on a rolling basis over the coming months.