Associations of cancer and other chronic medical conditions with SF-6D preference-based scores in Medicare beneficiaries

Documenting the impact of different types of cancer on daily functioning and well-being is important for understanding burden relative to other chronic medical conditions. This study examined the impact of 10 different cancers and 13 other chronic medical conditions on health-related quality of life

Impact of diagnosis and treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer on health-related quality of life for older Americans: A population-based study

Few studies have measured the longitudinal change in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of prostate cancer patients starting prior to cancer diagnosis, or provide simultaneous comparisons with a matched non-cancer cohort. Our study addresses these gaps by providing unique estimates of the effects of a cancer diagnosis on HRQOL accounting for the confounding effects of ageing and comorbidity

Cancer Care Delivery Research: Building the Evidence Base to Support Practice Change in Community Oncology

Understanding how health care system structures, processes, and available resources facilitate and/or hinder the delivery of quality cancer care is imperative, especially given the rapidly changing health care landscape. The emerging field of cancer care delivery research (CCDR) focuses on how organizational structures and processes, care delivery models, financing and reimbursement, health technologies, and health care provider and patient knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors influence cancer care quality, cost, and access and ultimately the health outcomes and well-being of patients and survivors. In this article, we describe attributes of CCDR, present examples of studies that illustrate those attributes, and discuss the potential impact of CCDR in addressing disparities in care. We conclude by emphasizing the need for collaborative research that links academic and community-based settings and serves simultaneously to accelerate the translation of CCDR results into practice. The National Cancer Institute recently launched its Community Oncology Research Program, which includes a focus on this area of research

Patient-Reported Quality of Supportive Care Among Patients With Colorectal Cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System

High-quality supportive care is an essential component of comprehensive cancer care. We implemented a patient-centered quality of cancer care survey to examine and identify predictors of quality of supportive care for bowel problems, pain, fatigue, depression, and other symptoms among 1,109 patients with colorectal cancer

Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

The National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is a library of question items that enables patient reporting of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials. This study contributes content validity evidence of the PRO-CTCAE by incorporating cancer patient input of the relevance and comprehensiveness of the item library

The health disparities cancer collaborative: a case study of practice registry measurement in a quality improvement collaborative

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Practice registry measurement provides a foundation for quality improvement, but experiences in practice are not widely reported. One setting where practice registry measurement has been implemented is the Health Resources and Services Administration's Health Disparities Cancer Collaborative (HDCC).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using practice registry data from 16 community health centers participating in the HDCC, we determined the completeness of data for screening, follow-up, and treatment measures. We determined the size of the change in cancer care processes that an aggregation of practices has adequate power to detect. We modeled different ways of presenting before/after changes in cancer screening, including count and proportion data at both the individual health center and aggregate collaborative level.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All participating health centers reported data for cancer screening, but less than a third reported data regarding timely follow-up. For individual cancers, the aggregate HDCC had adequate power to detect a 2 to 3% change in cancer screening, but only had the power to detect a change of 40% or more in the initiation of treatment. Almost every health center (98%) improved cancer screening based upon count data, while fewer (77%) improved cancer screening based upon proportion data. The aggregate collaborative appeared to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates by 12%, 15%, and 4%, respectively (p < 0.001 for all before/after comparisons). In subgroup analyses, significant changes were detectable among individual health centers less than one-half of the time because of small numbers of events.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The aggregate HDCC registries had both adequate reporting rates and power to detect significant changes in cancer screening, but not follow-up care. Different measures provided different answers about improvements in cancer screening; more definitive evaluation would require validation of the registries. Limits to the implementation and interpretation of practice registry measurement in the HDCC highlight challenges and opportunities for local and aggregate quality improvement activities.</p

Improving clinical research and cancer care delivery in community settings: evaluating the NCI community cancer centers program

Abstract Background In this article, we describe the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot and the evaluation designed to assess its role, function, and relevance to the NCI's research mission. In doing so, we describe the evolution of and rationale for the NCCCP concept, participating sites' characteristics, its multi-faceted aims to enhance clinical research and quality of care in community settings, and the role of strategic partnerships, both within and outside of the NCCCP network, in achieving program objectives. Discussion The evaluation of the NCCCP is conceptualized as a mixed method multi-layered assessment of organizational innovation and performance which includes mapping the evolution of site development as a means of understanding the inter- and intra-organizational change in the pilot, and the application of specific evaluation metrics for assessing the implementation, operations, and performance of the NCCCP pilot. The assessment of the cost of the pilot as an additional means of informing the longer-term feasibility and sustainability of the program is also discussed. Summary The NCCCP is a major systems-level set of organizational innovations to enhance clinical research and care delivery in diverse communities across the United States. Assessment of the extent to which the program achieves its aims will depend on a full understanding of how individual, organizational, and environmental factors align (or fail to align) to achieve these improvements, and at what cost

How well do second-year students learn physical diagnosis? Observational study of an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)

BACKGROUND: Little is known about using the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in physical diagnosis courses. The purpose of this study was to describe student performance on an OSCE in a physical diagnosis course. METHODS: Cross-sectional study at Harvard Medical School, 1997–1999, for 489 second-year students. RESULTS: Average total OSCE score was 57% (range 39–75%). Among clinical skills, students scored highest on patient interaction (72%), followed by examination technique (65%), abnormality identification (62%), history-taking (60%), patient presentation (60%), physical examination knowledge (47%), and differential diagnosis (40%) (p < .0001). Among 16 OSCE stations, scores ranged from 70% for arthritis to 29% for calf pain (p < .0001). Teaching sites accounted for larger adjusted differences in station scores, up to 28%, than in skill scores (9%) (p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Students scored higher on interpersonal and technical skills than on interpretive or integrative skills. Station scores identified specific content that needs improved teaching

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is developing a patient-reported version of its Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, called the "PRO-CTCAE." The PRO-CTCAE consists of a library of patient-reported items which can be administered in clinical trials to directly capture the patient experience of adverse events during cancer treatment, as well as a software platform for administering these items via computer or telephone. In order to better understand the impressions of stakeholders involved in cancer clinical research about the potential value of the PRO-CTCAE approach to capturing adverse event information in clinical research, as well as their perspectives about barriers and strategies for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in NCI-sponsored cancer trials, a survey was conducted. A survey including structured and open-ended questions was developed to elicit perceptions about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for adverse event reporting, and to explore logistical considerations for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in cancer trials. The survey was distributed electronically and by paper to a convenience sample of leadership and committee members in the NCI's cooperative group network, including principal investigators, clinical investigators, research nurses, data managers, patient advocates, and representatives of the NCI and Food and Drug Administration. Between October, 2008 through February, 2009, 727 surveys were collected. Most respondents (93%) agreed that patient reporting of adverse symptoms would be useful for improving understanding of the patient experience with treatment in cancer trials, and 88%, 80%, and 76%, respectively, endorsed that administration of PRO-CTCAE items in clinical trials would improve the completeness, accuracy, and efficiency of symptom data collection. More than three fourths believed that patient reports would be useful for informing treatment dose modifications and towards FDA regulatory evaluation of drugs. Eighty-eight percent felt that patients in clinical trials would be willing to self-report adverse symptoms at clinic visits via computer, and 68% felt patients would self-report weekly from home via the internet or an automated telephone system. Lack of computers and limited space and personnel were seen as potential barriers to in-clinic self-reporting, but these were judged to be surmountable with adequate funding. The PRO-CTCAE items and software are viewed by a majority of survey respondents as a means to improve adverse event data quality and comprehensiveness, enhance clinical decision-making, and foster patient-clinician communication. Research is ongoing to assess the measurement properties and feasibility of implementing this measure in cancer clinical trials

Screening and diagnostic breast MRI:how do they impact surgical treatment? Insights from the MIPA study

Objectives: To report mastectomy and reoperation rates in women who had breast MRI for screening (S-MRI subgroup) or diagnostic (D-MRI subgroup) purposes, using multivariable analysis for investigating the role of MRI referral/nonreferral and other covariates in driving surgical outcomes. Methods: The MIPA observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer destined to have surgery as the primary treatment, in 27 centres worldwide. Mastectomy and reoperation rates were compared using non-parametric tests and multivariable analysis. Results: A total of 5828 patients entered analysis, 2763 (47.4%) did not undergo MRI (noMRI subgroup) and 3065 underwent MRI (52.6%); of the latter, 2441/3065 (79.7%) underwent MRI with preoperative intent (P-MRI subgroup), 510/3065 (16.6%) D-MRI, and 114/3065 S-MRI (3.7%). The reoperation rate was 10.5% for S-MRI, 8.2% for D-MRI, and 8.5% for P-MRI, while it was 11.7% for noMRI (p&nbsp;≤&nbsp;0.023 for comparisons with D-MRI and P-MRI). The overall mastectomy rate (first-line mastectomy plus conversions from conserving surgery to mastectomy) was 39.5% for S-MRI, 36.2% for P-MRI, 24.1% for D-MRI, and 18.0% for noMRI. At multivariable analysis, using noMRI as reference, the odds ratios for overall mastectomy were 2.4 (p&nbsp;&lt;&nbsp;0.001) for S-MRI, 1.0 (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.957) for D-MRI, and 1.9 (p&nbsp;&lt;&nbsp;0.001) for P-MRI. Conclusions: Patients from the D-MRI subgroup had the lowest overall mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). This analysis offers an insight into how the initial indication for MRI affects the subsequent surgical treatment of breast cancer. Key points: • Of 3065 breast MRI examinations, 79.7% were performed with preoperative intent (P-MRI), 16.6% were diagnostic (D-MRI), and 3.7% were screening (S-MRI) examinations. • The D-MRI subgroup had the lowest mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). • The S-MRI subgroup had the highest mastectomy rate (39.5%) which aligns with higher-than-average risk in this subgroup, with a reoperation rate (10.5%) not significantly different to that of all other subgroups