This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.
Purpose Numerous experimental and targeted therapies are under investigation for patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Objective health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) data for patients receiving these therapies are limited. Methods Patients engaged in the Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation completed two validated HRQoL surveys: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)‐Hepatobiliary and COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST). Results Two hundred eight patients were included. Seventy‐five percent had intrahepatic CCA and 57% underwent resection, of which 48% had disease recurrence. Twenty‐two percent enrolled in a clinical trial and 80% underwent molecular profiling, of which 29% received targeted therapy. While patients enrolled in a clinical trial or received targeted therapy reported similar HRQoL compared to those who did not, they reported higher financial toxicity (p = 0.05 and p = 0.01, respectively). Conclusion Enrollment in a clinical trial or receipt of targeted therapy do not affect a patient's physical, emotional, social, or functional well‐being. However, patients report higher financial burden. These therapies are mainly offered in the advanced setting after significant financial strain has been endured and are often only available at large academic centers, creating a physical barrier to access. These findings underscore the need to increase availability and eliminate physical and financial barriers that threaten access and utilization of personalized and progressive therapies.
Background Treatment patterns for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) differ, but limited studies exist comparing them. This study examines differences in molecular profiling rates and treatment patterns in these populations, focusing on use of adjuvant, liver-directed, targeted, and investigational therapies. Methods This multi-center collaboration included patients with ICC or ECC treated at one of eight participating institutions. Retrospective data were collected on risk factors, pathology, treatments, and survival. Comparative statistical tests were two-sided. Results Among 1,039 patients screened, 847 patients met eligibility (ICC = 611, ECC = 236). Patients with ECC were more likely than those with ICC to present with early-stage disease (53.8% vs 28.0%), undergo surgical resection (55.1% vs 29.8%), and receive adjuvant chemoradiation (36.5% vs 4.2%), (all p < 0.00001). However, they were less likely to undergo molecular profiling (50.3% vs 64.3%) or receive liver directed therapy (17.9% vs 35.7%), targeted therapy (4.7% vs 18.9%), and clinical trial therapy (10.6% vs 24.8%), (all p < 0.001). In patients with recurrent ECC after surgery, the molecular profiling rate was 64.5%. Patients with advanced ECC had a shorter median overall survival than those with advanced ICC (11.8 vs 15.1 months, p < 0.001). Conclusions Patients with advanced ECC have low rates of molecular profiling, possibly in part due to insufficient tissue. They also have low rates of targeted therapy use and clinical trial enrollment. While these rates are higher in advanced ICC, the prognosis for both subtypes of cholangiocarcinoma remains poor, and a pressing need exists for new effective targeted therapies and broader access to clinical trials.
e24164 Background: Biomarker testing has advanced precision medicine in cancer. However, not all eligible patients benefit from biomarker-driven therapies due to suboptimal testing rates. A working group of 20 patient advocacy groups representing solid/hematologic malignancies, three professional societies, and 18 pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies identified patient confusion inconsistent testing terms as a possible contributing factor to biomarker testing underutilization. The group aimed to address patients’ confusion by identifying and adopting consistent, plain language terms for biomarker and germline genetic testing that are applicable across cancer types. Methods: Following a stakeholder roundtable discussion on barriers to precision medicine, working group members participated in interviews on their goals for consistent testing terminology for their constituents. We then conducted a framework analysis covering five themes: available testing by cancer type; purpose of test; biospecimen source; terms used in patient education; and preferred plain language term. Working group members were surveyed on preferences for germline testing terminology and also deployed a preliminary patient survey to their constituents to gain insight on preferences for germline testing terms. Results: Interviews, framework analysis, and surveys revealed notable differences across cancer communities. We identified at least 33 different terms related to biomarker, genetic and genomic testing being used in patient education and clinical care among the different cancer communities and stakeholders. Terminology was complicated by the variety of testing modalities and gene mutations tested for across cancers. Following multiple discussions, working group members agreed on two umbrella terms to distinguish between somatic and germline testing with additional context for specific cancer communities. “Biomarker testing” was selected as the somatic testing term. “Genetic testing for an inherited mutation” and “genetic testing for inherited cancer risk” were selected as preferred germline testing terms. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the disparate testing terminology landscape and the need for consistent terms to reduce patient confusion, improve communication, facilitate shared decision-making and assure concordance in policy development.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.