Choosing wisely in oncology: necessity and obstacles

Challenges in the management of colorectal cancer in low- and middle-income countries

AIM

This narrative review aims to describe colorectal cancer (CRC) management landscape in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), presenting the most recent and relevant papers on the topic. As a secondary aim, the authors suggest new ways of improving CRC patient care in LMICs.

BACKGROUND

Several studies show that the incidence of colon cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is rising. In addition to the increasing incidence, lack of early detection and impeded access to optimal multidisciplinary treatment may worsen survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Developing quality diagnostic services in the proper health context is crucial for early diagnosis and successful therapy of CRC patients, and applying a resource-sensitive approach to prioritize essential treatments based on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is key to overcoming barriers in LMICs, with clinical research collaborations between high-income countries (HICs) and LMICs being a helpful strategy to improve health indicators and prevent the burnout of health workers.

Implementation and Impact of Choosing Wisely Recommendations in Oncology

The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, launched in 2012, includes oncology-specific recommendations to promote evidence-based care and deimplementation of low-value practices. However, it is unclear to what extent the campaign has prompted practice change. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the uptake of cancer-specific CW recommendations focusing on the period before the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Grimshaw's deimplementation framework to thematically group the findings and extracted information on implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators from articles reporting on active implementation. In the 98 articles addressing 32 unique recommendations, most reported on passive changes in adherence pre-post publication of CW recommendations. Use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and reduction in staging imaging for early breast cancer were the most commonly evaluated recommendations. Most articles assessing passive changes in adherence pre-post CW publication reported improvement. All articles evaluating active implementation (10 of 98) reported improved compliance (range: 3%-73% improvement). Most common implementation strategies included provider education and/or stakeholder engagement. Preconceived views and reluctance to adopt new practices were common barriers; common facilitators included the use of technology and provider education to increase provider buy-in. Given the limited uptake of oncology-specific CW recommendations thus far, more attention toward supporting active implementation is needed. Effective adoption of CW likely requires a multipronged approach that includes building stakeholder buy-in through engagement and education, using technology-enabled forced functions to facilitate change along with policy and reimbursement models that disincentivize low-value care. Professional societies have a role to play in supporting this next phase of CW.

De-implementing low-value care in cancer care delivery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies' key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care.

RESULTS

Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer (n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), and hematologic cancers (n = 1). Most of the interventions (n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers' behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients' behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care).

An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology

Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.

Recommending Unfunded Innovative Cancer Therapies: Ethical vs. Clinical Perspectives among Oncologists on a Public Healthcare System-A Mixed-Methods Study

Over the past decade, there has been a growing development of innovative technologies to treat cancer. Many of these technologies are expensive and not funded by health funds. The present study examined physicians' perceptions of the ethical and clinical aspects of the recommendation and use of unfunded technologies for cancer treatment. This mixed-methods study surveyed 127 oncologists regarding their perceptions toward using unfunded innovative cancer treatment technologies, followed by in-depth interviews with 16 oncologists. Most respondents believed that patients should be offered all treatment alternatives, regardless of their financial situation. However, 59% indicated that they often face dilemmas regarding recommending new unfunded treatments to patients with financial difficulties and without private health insurance. Over a third (38%) stated that they felt uncomfortable discussing the cost of treatment with patients. A predictive model found that physicians facing patients whose medical condition worsened due to an inability to access new treatments, and who expressed the opinion that physicians can assist in locating funding for patients who cannot afford treatments, were more likely to recommend unfunded innovative therapies to patients (F = 5.22, R2 = 0.15, p < 0.001). Subsequent in-depth interviews revealed four key themes: economic considerations in choosing therapy, patient-physician communication, the public healthcare fund, and discussion of treatment costs. Physicians feel a professional commitment to offer patients the best medical care and a moral duty to discuss costs and minimize patients' financial difficulty. There is a need for careful and balanced use of innovative life-prolonging technologies while putting patients at the center of discourse on this complex and controversial issue. It is essential to develop a psychosocial support program for physicians and patients dealing with ethical and psychosocial dilemmas and to set guidelines for oncologists to conduct a comprehensive and collaborative physician-patient discourse regarding all aspects of treatment.

Clinical benefit of baseline imaging in Merkel cell carcinoma: Analysis of 584 patients

BACKGROUND

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) guidelines derive from melanoma and do not recommend baseline cross-sectional imaging for most patients. However, MCC is more likely to have metastasized at diagnosis than melanoma.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how often baseline imaging identifies clinically occult MCC in patients with newly diagnosed disease with and without palpable nodal involvement.

METHODS

Analysis of 584 patients with MCC with a cutaneous primary tumor, baseline imaging, no evident distant metastases, and sufficient staging data.

RESULTS

Among 492 patients with clinically uninvolved regional nodes, 13.2% had disease upstaged by imaging (8.9% in regional nodes, 4.3% in distant sites). Among 92 patients with clinically involved regional nodes, 10.8% had disease upstaged to distant metastatic disease. Large (>4 cm) and small (<1 cm) primary tumors were both frequently upstaged (29.4% and 7.8%, respectively). Patients who underwent positron emission tomography-computed tomography more often had disease upstaged (16.8% of 352), than those with computed tomography alone (6.9% of 231; P = .0006).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with clinically node-negative disease, baseline imaging showed occult metastatic MCC at a higher rate than reported for melanoma (13.2% vs <1%). Although imaging is already recommended for patients with clinically node-positive MCC, these data suggest that baseline imaging is also indicated for patients with clinically node-negative MCC because upstaging is frequent and markedly alters management and prognosis.

Eliciting the Social Determinants of Cancer Prevention and Control in the Catchment of an Urban Cancer Center

Objective

The objectives of this study were two-fold: 1) to engage community stakeholders in identifying the top three social determinant of health (SDOH) barriers to the early detection and treatment of cancer in their respective communities; and 2) to develop a tailored plan responsive to the potential social risks identified within the catchment of an urban academic cancer center.

Methods

Stakeholders from four neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York with disproportionate cancer burden were recruited; the nominal group technique, a semi-quantitative research method, was used to elicit the SDOH barriers. Responses were consolidated into categories and ranked by points received.

Results

112 stakeholders participated in four community-based meetings. The SDOH categories of economic stability, education, and community and social context were identified as the top barriers. The themes of lost wages/employment, competing priorities, and the inability to afford care embodied the responses about economic stability. The domain of education was best described by the themes of low health literacy, targeted health topics to fill gaps in knowledge, and recommendations on the best modalities for improving health knowledge. Lastly, within the category of community and social context, the themes of stigma, bias, and discrimination, eroding support systems, and cultural misconceptions were described.

Conclusions

The implications of our study are three-fold. First, they highlight the strengths of the nominal group technique as a methodology for engaging community stakeholders. Second, our analysis led to identifying a smaller set of social priorities for which tailored screening and practical solutions could be implemented within our health care system. Third, the results provide insight into the actual types of interventions and resources that communities expect from the health care sector.

Variation in Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations by Primary Care Providers Surveyed in Wisconsin

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening is chiefly performed by primary care providers (PCPs) who rely on organizational screening guidelines. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations; however, they are often without unanimity leading to divergent screening recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

Due to the high incidence of breast cancer, the availability of screening methods, and the presence of multiple incongruent guideline recommendations, we sought to understand breast cancer screening practices in Wisconsin to identify patterns that would allow us to improve evidence-based screening adherence.

METHODS

A 46-question survey on breast cancer screening beliefs and practices for average-risk women was sent to healthcare providers in Wisconsin in 2018, who provided cancer screening services to women. Providers included physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), and midwives.

RESULTS

A total of 295 people responded to the survey, for a response rate of 28.6%. Most respondents were physicians (64.1%), followed by NPs (25.7%), PAs (5.3%), and midwives (1.5%). Of physicians, most practiced family medicine (65.3%), followed by internal medicine (25.3%) and gynecology (9.4%). The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) was reported as being "very influential" for 60.5% of providers, followed by the American Cancer Society at 46.8%. For patients 40-49 years old, 75.6% of providers performed clinical breast exams and 58.5% recommended self-breast exams; these numbers increased for women 50+ years old to 78.7% and 61.2%, respectively. Mammography was more likely to be recommended annually for women aged 40-49 rather than biennially by non-physician clinicians compared to physicians (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs in Wisconsin continue to overestimate the efficacy of clinical and self-breast exams as well as overuse these in clinical practice. Providers find multiple screening guidelines influential but favor the USPSTF; however, these guidelines are frequently not being followed. Further research needs to be done to investigate the lack of national guideline adherence by providers to improve compliance with evidence-based screening recommendations.