Supporting Clinical Decision Making in Cancer Care Delivery

Background: Cancer treatment and management require complicated clinical decision making to provide the highest quality of care for an individual patient. This is facilitated in part with ever-increasing availability of medications and treatments but hindered due to barriers such as access to care, cost of medications, clinician knowledge, and patient preferences or clinical factors. Although guidelines for cancer treatment and many symptoms have been developed to inform clinical practice, implementation of these guidelines into practice is often delayed or does not occur. Informatics-based approaches, such as clinical decision support, may be an effective tool to improve guideline implementation by delivering patient-specific and evidence-based knowledge to the clinician at the point of care to allow shared decision making with a patient and their family. The large amount of data in the electronic health record can be utilized to develop, evaluate, and implement automated approaches; however, the quality of the data must first be examined and evaluated. Methods: This dissertation addresses gaps the literature about clinical decision making for cancer care delivery. Specifically, following an introduction and review of the literature for relevant topics to this dissertation, the researcher presents three studies. In Study One, the researcher explores the use of clinical decision support in cancer therapeutic decision making by conducting a systematic review of the literature. In Study Two, the researcher conducts a quantitative study to describe the rate of guideline concordant care provided for prevention of acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and to identify predictors of receiving guideline concordant care. In Study Three, the researcher conducts a mixed-methods study to evaluate the completeness, concordance, and heterogeneity of clinician documentation of CINV. The final chapter of this dissertation is comprised of key findings of each study, the strengths and limitations, clinical and research implications, and future research. Results: In Study One, the systematic review, the researcher identified ten studies that prospectively studied clinical decision support systems or tools in a cancer setting to guide therapeutic decision making. There was variability in these studies, including study design, outcomes measured, and results. There was a trend toward benefit, both in process and patient-specific outcomes. Importantly, few studies were integrated into the electronic health record. In Study Two, of 180 patients age 26 years or less, 36% received guideline concordant care as defined by pediatric or adult guidelines, as appropriate. Factors associated with receiving guideline concordant care included receiving a cisplatin-based regimen, being treated in adult oncology compared to pediatric oncology, and solid tumor diagnosis. In Study Three, of the 127 patient records reviewed for the documentation of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, 75% had prescriber assessment documented and 58% had nursing assessment documented. Of those who had documented assessments by both prescriber and nurse, 72% were in agreement of the presence/absence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. After mapping the concept through the United Medical Language System and developing a post-coordinated expression to identify chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in the text, 85% of prescriber documentation and 100% of nurse documentation could be correctly categorized as present/absent. Further descriptors of the symptoms, such as severity or temporality, however, were infrequently reported. Conclusion: In summary, this dissertation provides new knowledge about decision making in cancer care delivery. Specifically, in Study One the researcher describes that clinical decision support, one potential implementation strategy to improve guideline concordant care, is understudied or under published but a promising potential intervention. In Study Two, I identified factors that were associated with receipt of guideline concordant care for CINV, and these should be further explored to develop interventions. Finally, in Study Three, I report on the limitations of the data quality of CINV documentation in the electronic health record. Future work should focus on validating these results on a multi-institutional level

Readability of cancer clinical trial websites

Clinical trials are critically important for the development of new cancer treatments. According to recent estimates, however, clinical trial enrollment is only about 8%. Lack of patient understanding or awareness of clinical trials is one reason for the low rate of participation. The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate the readability of cancer clinical trial websites designed to educate the general public and patients about clinical trials. Nearly 90% of Americans use Google to search for health-related information. We conducted a Google Chrome Incognito search in 2018 using the keywords "cancer clinical trial" and "cancer clinical trials." Content of the 100 cancer clinical trial websites was analyzed using an online readability panel consisting of Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning-Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook scales. Reading level difficulty was assessed and compared between commercial versus non-commercial URL extensions. Content readability was found to be "difficult" (10.7 grade level). No significant difference in readability, overall, and between commercial and non-commercial URL extensions was found using 4/5 measures of readability; 90.9% of commercial versus 49.4% of non-commercial websites were written at a >10th grade (P = .013) using Gunning-Fog Index. Written cancer clinical trials content on the Internet is written at a reading level beyond the literacy capabilities of the average American reader. Improving readability to accommodate readers with basic literacy skills will provide an opportunity for greater comprehension that could potentially result in higher rates of clinical trial enrollment

Clinical trial recruitment of people who speak languages other than English: a Childrens Oncology Group report.

BACKGROUND: Persons who speak languages other than English are underrepresented in clinical trials, likely in part because of inadequate multilevel resources. We conducted a survey of institutions affiliated with the Childrens Oncology Group (COG) to characterize current research recruitment practices and resources regarding translation and interpretation services. METHODS: In October 2022, a 20-item survey was distributed electronically to institutions affiliated with COG to assess consent practices and resources for recruiting participants who speak languages other than English to COG trials. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses; responses were compared by institution size and type as well as respondent role. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 230 institutions, and the response rate was 60% (n = 139). In total, 60% (n = 83) of those respondents had access to short-form consent forms. Full consent form translation was required at 50% of institutions, and 12% of institutional review boards restricted use of centrally translated consent forms. Forty-six percent (n = 64) of institutions reported insufficient funding to support translation costs; 19% (n = 26) had access to no-cost translation services. Forty-four percent (n = 61) were required to use in-person interpreters for consent discussions; the most frequently cited barrier (56%) to obtaining consent was lack of available in-person interpreters. Forty-seven percent (n = 65) reported that recruiting persons who speak languages other than English to clinical trials was somewhat or very difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Institutions affiliated with COG face resource-specific challenges that impede recruitment of participants who speak languages other than English for clinical trials. These findings indicate an urgent need to identify strategies aimed at reducing recruitment barriers to ensure equitable access to clinical trials

Clinical Practice Guideline for Systemic Antifungal Prophylaxis in Pediatric Patients With Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation Recipients

PURPOSE: To develop a clinical practice guideline for systemic antifungal prophylaxis in pediatric patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients. METHODS: Recommendations were developed by an international multidisciplinary panel that included a patient advocate. We conducted a systematic review of systemic antifungal prophylaxis in children and adults with cancer and HSCT recipients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to make strong or weak recommendations and to classify level of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. The panel considered directness of the data to pediatric patients. RESULTS: There were 68 randomized trials included in the systematic review, of which 6 (9%) were conducted in a solely pediatric population. Strong recommendations were made to administer systemic antifungal prophylaxis to children and adolescents receiving treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, to those undergoing allogeneic HSCT pre-engraftment, and to those receiving systemic immunosuppression for graft-versus-host disease treatment. A strong recommendation was made to administer a mold-active agent with an echinocandin or a mold-active azole when systemic antifungal prophylaxis is warranted. For children younger than 13 years of age, an echinocandin, voriconazole, or itraconazole is suggested. Posaconazole may also be used in those age 13 years or older. A strong recommendation against routine administration of amphotericin as systemic antifungal prophylaxis was made. CONCLUSION: We developed a clinical practice guideline for systemic antifungal prophylaxis administration in pediatric patients with cancer and HSCT recipients. Implementation and assessment of guideline-concordant rates and impacts are important future steps

YouTube videos as a source of information about clinical trials

Background: Clinical trials are essential to the advancement of cancer treatment but fewer than 5% of adult cancer patients enroll in a trial. A commonly cited barrier to participation is the lack of understanding about clinical trials. Objective: Since the internet is a popular source of health-related information and YouTube is the second most visited website in the world, we examined the content of the top 115 YouTube videos about clinical trials to evaluate clinical trial information available through this medium. Methods: YouTube videos posted prior to March 2017 were searched using selected keywords. A snowballing technique was used to identify videos wherein sequential screening of the autofill search results for each set of keywords was conducted. Video characteristics (eg, number of views and video length) were recorded. The content was broadly grouped as related to purpose, phases, design, safety and ethics, and participant considerations. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between video type (cancer vs noncancer) and video characteristics and content. Results: In total, 115 videos were reviewed. Of these, 46/115 (40.0%) were cancer clinical trials videos and 69/115 (60.0%) were noncancer/general clinical trial videos. Most videos were created by health care organizations/cancer centers (34/115, 29.6%), were oriented toward patients (67/115, 58.3%) and the general public (68/115, 59.1%), and were informational (79/115, 68.7%); altruism was a common theme (31/115, 27.0%). Compared with noncancer videos, cancer clinical trials videos more frequently used an affective communication style and mentioned the benefits of participation. Cancer clinical trial videos were also much more likely to raise the issue of costs associated with participation (odds ratio [OR] 5.93, 95% CI 1.15-29.46) and advise patients to communicate with their physician about cancer clinical trials (OR 4.94, 95% CI 1.39-17.56). Conclusions: Collectively, YouTube clinical trial videos provided information on many aspects of trials; however, individual videos tended to focus on selected topics with varying levels of detail. Cancer clinical trial videos were more emotional in style and positive in tone and provided information on the important topics of cost and communication. Patients are encouraged to verify and supplement YouTube video information in consultations with their health care professionals to obtain a full and accurate picture of cancer clinical trials to make an adequately informed decision about participation

Guideline for the Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Pediatric Patients With Cancer and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Recipients: 2023 Update.

PURPOSE To update a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the empiric management of fever and neutropenia (FN) in pediatric patients with cancer and hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients. METHODS The International Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia Guideline Panel reconvened to conduct the second update of this CPG. We updated the previous systematic review to identify new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any strategy for the management of FN in pediatric patients. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, evidence quality was classified as high, moderate, low, or very low. The panel updated recommendations related to initial management, ongoing management, and empiric antifungal therapy. Changes from the 2017 CPG were articulated, and good practice statements were considered. RESULTS We identified 10 new RCTs in addition to the 69 RCTs identified in previous FN CPGs to inform the 2023 FN CPG. Changes from the 2017 CPG included two conditional recommendations regarding (1) discontinuation of empiric antibacterial therapy in clinically well and afebrile patients with low-risk FN if blood cultures remain negative at 48 hours despite no evidence of marrow recovery and (2) pre-emptive antifungal therapy for invasive fungal disease in high-risk patients not receiving antimold prophylaxis. The panel created a good practice statement to initiate FN CPG-consistent empiric antibacterial therapy as soon as possible in clinically unstable febrile patients. CONCLUSION The updated FN CPG incorporates important modifications on the basis of recently published trials. Future work should focus on addressing knowledge gaps, improving CPG implementation, and measuring the impact of CPG-consistent care

Discordant attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation between physicians, research staff, and cancer patients

Background/aims: Essential to bringing innovative cancer treatments to patients is voluntary participation in clinical trials but approximately 8% of American cancer patients are enrolled onto a trial. We used a domain-oriented framework to assess barriers to cancer clinical trial enrollment. Methods: Physicians (MD, DO, fellows, residents) and research staff (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, staff and research nurses, clinical assistants, and program coordinators) involved in clinical research at a comprehensive cancer center completed an online survey in 2017; adult cancer patients not currently enrolled in a trial were interviewed in 2018. To inform the construct of our physician/staff and patient surveys and to assess barriers to clinical trial enrollment, we first conducted in-depth interviews among 14 key informants representing medical, hematologic, gynecologic, neurologic, radiation oncology, as well as members of the clinical research team (one clinical research coordinator, one research nurse practitioner). Perceived structural, provider- and patient-level barriers to clinical trial enrollment were assessed. Differences in perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs toward clinical trial enrollment between (1) physicians and staff, (2) patients by ethnicity, and (3) physicians/staff and patients were examined. Results: In total, 120 physicians/staff involved in clinical research (39.2% physicians, 60.8% staff; 48.0% overall response rate) and 150 cancer patients completed surveys. Nearly three-quarters of physician/staff respondents reported difficulty in keeping track of the eligibility criteria for open studies but was more often cited by physicians than staff (84.4% vs 64.3%, p = 0.02). Physicians more often reported lack of time to present clinical trial information than did staff(p < 0.001); 44.0% of staff versus 18.2% of physicians reported patient family interaction as a clinical trial enrollment barrier (p = 0.007). Hispanic patients more often stated they would join a trial, even if standard therapy was an option compared to non-Hispanic patients (47.7% vs 20.8%, p = 0.002). Comparing the beliefs and perceptions of physicians/staff to those of patients, patients more often reported negative beliefs about clinical trial enrollment (e.g. being in a trial does not help patients personally, 32.9% vs 1.8%, p < 0.001) but less often felt they had no other options when agreeing to join (38.1% vs 85.6%, p < 0.001), and less often refused clinical trial enrollment due to lack of understanding (9.1% vs 63.3%, p = 0.001) than reported by physicians/staff. Conclusion: Our findings indicate a wide gap between physician/staff and patient attitudes and beliefs about clinical trial enrollment and highlight the importance of focusing future initiatives to raise awareness of this incongruency. Reconciling these differences will require tailored education to reduce implicit biases and dispel misperceptions. Strategies to improve the quality of patient-provider communication and address infrastructure and resource issues are also needed to improve patient enrollment onto cancer clinical trials

Rationale and design of Children’s Oncology Group (COG) study ACCL20N1CD: financial distress during treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the United States

Background The study purpose is to describe trajectories of financial distress for parents of children (ages 1–14.9 years) with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The secondary aim is to identify multilevel factors (child, parent, household, treating institution) that influence change in financial distress over time. Methods The study uses a prospective cohort design, repeated measurements, and mixed methods. The settings are Children’s Oncology Group (COG) institutions participating in the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Eligible participants are English- and/or Spanish-speaking parents or legal guardians (hereafter “parents”) of index children. Parents are asked to complete a survey during their child’s induction (T1) and maintenance therapy (T2), and near treatment completion (T3). Study surveys include items about (a) the child’s cancer and clinical course, (b) parental socio-economic status, financial distress and financial coping behaviors, and (c) household material hardships. At least 15 parents will be invited to participate in an optional semi-structured interview. NCORP institutions that enroll at least one parent must complete an annual survey about institution resources that could influence parental financial distress. Discussion The results will inform future interventions to mitigate financial distress for parents of children diagnosed with ALL and could be instructive beyond this disease group. Trial registration This trial was initially registered with the NCI Clinical Trial Reporting Program ID: NCI-2021–03,567 on June 16, 2021. The study can be found on clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier NCT04928599

Facilitators and barriers to clinical practice guideline-consistent supportive care at pediatric oncology institutions: a Children’s Oncology Group study

Background Clinical practice guideline (CPG)-consistent care improves patient outcomes, but CPG implementation is poor. Little is known about CPG implementation in pediatric oncology. This study aimed to understand supportive care CPG implementation facilitators and barriers at pediatric oncology National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) institutions. Methods Healthcare professionals at 26 pediatric, Children's Oncology Group-member, NCORP institutions were invited to participate in face-to-face focus groups. Serial focus groups were held until saturation of ideas was reached. Supportive care CPG implementation facilitators and barriers were solicited using nominal group technique (NGT), and implementation of specific supportive care CPG recommendations was discussed. Notes from each focus group were analyzed using a directed content analysis. The top five themes arising from an analysis of NGT items were identified, first from each focus group and then across all focus groups. Results Saturation of ideas was reached after seven focus groups involving 35 participants from 18 institutions. The top five facilitators of CPG implementation identified across all focus groups were organizational factors including charging teams with CPG implementation, individual factors including willingness to standardize care, user needs and values including mentorship, system factors including implementation structure, and implementation strategies including a basis in science. The top five barriers of CPG implementation identified were organizational factors including tolerance for inconsistencies, individual factors including lack of trust, system factors including administrative hurdles, user needs and values including lack of inclusivity, and professional including knowledge gaps. Conclusions Healthcare professionals at pediatric NCORP institutions believe that organizational factors are the most important determinants of supportive care CPG implementation. They believe that CPG-consistent supportive care is most likely to be delivered in organizations that prioritize evidence-based care, provide structure and resources to implement CPGs, and eliminate implementation barriers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02847130. Date of registration: July 28, 2016

Guideline for Antibacterial Prophylaxis Administration in Pediatric Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

INTRODUCTION: Bacteremia and other invasive bacterial infections are common among children with cancer receiving intensive chemotherapy and in pediatric recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Systemic antibacterial prophylaxis is one approach that can be used to reduce the risk of these infections. Our purpose was to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric cancer and HSCT patients. METHODS: An international and multi-disciplinary panel was convened with representation from pediatric hematology/oncology and HSCT, pediatric infectious diseases (including antibiotic stewardship), nursing, pharmacy, a patient advocate and a CPG methodologist. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to generate recommendations based on the results of a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 114 eligible randomized trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. The panel made a weak recommendation for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis for children receiving intensive chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia and relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Weak recommendations against the routine use of systemic antibacterial prophylaxis were made for children undergoing induction chemotherapy for ALL, autologous HSCT and allogeneic HSCT. A strong recommendation against its routine use was made for children whose therapy is not expected to result in prolonged severe neutropenia. If used, prophylaxis with levofloxacin was recommended during severe neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: We present a CPG for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric cancer and HSCT patients. Future research should evaluate the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of prophylaxis