Survivorship Care for People Affected by Advanced or Metastatic Cancer: MASCC-ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations

PURPOSE

People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer.

METHODS

A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process.

RESULTS

A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.Additional information is available at www.mascc.org, www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer: MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations

PURPOSE

People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared to those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end-of-life. These MASCC-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer.

METHODS

An expert panel comprising MASCC and ASCO members was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting: (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process.

RESULTS

A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including 8 people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low-to-middle resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥ 94.8% agreement for seven standards (1. Person-Centred Care; 2. Coordinated and Integrated Care; 3. Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; 4. Evaluated and Communicated Care; 5. Accessible and Equitable Care; 6. Sustainable and Resourced Care; 7. Research and Data-Driven Care) and ≥ 84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards will support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders in cancer care (healthcare professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers. Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts.

Associations between healthcare costs and care experiences among older adults with and without cancer

INTRODUCTION

Care coordination and patient-provider communication are important for older adults with cancer, as they likely have additional, non-cancer chronic conditions requiring consultation across multiple providers. Suboptimal care coordination and patient-provider communication can lead to costly and preventable adverse outcomes. This study examines Medicare expenditures associated with patient-reported care coordination and patient-provider communication among older adults with and without cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We explore SEER-CAHPS® (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) linked data for differences in health care expenditures by care coordination and patient-provider communication experiences for beneficiaries with and without cancer. The cancer cohort included beneficiaries with ten prevalent cancer types diagnosed 2011-2019 at least six months before completing a CAHPS survey. Medicare expenditures were abstracted from Medicare claims data. Care coordination and patient-provider communication composite scores (range 0-100, higher scores indicate better experiences) were patient-reported in the CAHPS® survey. We estimated expenditure differences per one-point change in composite scores for patients with and without cancer.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 16,778 matched beneficiaries with and without a previously diagnosed cancer (N = 33,556). Higher care coordination and patient-provider communication scores were inversely associated with Medicare expenditures among beneficiaries with and without cancer in the six months prior to survey response, ranging from -$83 (standard error [SE] = $7) to -$90 (SE = $6) per month. Six months post-survey, expenditures estimates ranging -$88 (SE = $6) to -$106 (SE = $8) were found.

DISCUSSION

We found that lower Medicare expenditures were associated with higher care coordination and patient-provider communication scores. As the number of survivors living longer both with and beyond their cancer grows, addressing their multifaceted care and improving outcomes will be critical.

Is patient experience of care associated with treatment choices for women with early-stage breast cancer?

289

Background: For women diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy is a guideline-recommended treatment. However, lumpectomy followed by hormonal therapy is also an approved treatment regimen for certain women. It is unclear what patient-driven factors are related to the decision to receive radiation therapy. This study examined the relationship between patient-reported experience of care, an important dimension of health care quality, and receipt of radiation therapy following lumpectomy among women with breast cancer. Methods: We used the SEER-CAHPS data resource (NCI Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results [SEER] data linked to Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey responses) to examine experiences of care among women diagnosed with local or regional stage breast cancer in 2000-2017 who received lumpectomy, were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare, completed a CAHPS survey within 18 months of diagnosis, and survived for this study period. Experience of care was assessed by patient-provided numeric scores for overall care, health plan, physicians, customer service, doctor communication, care coordination, and other aspects of care. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed associations of receipt of radiation therapy with care experience and patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Results: The study population included 825 women; 651 (79%) received radiation therapy. Approx. 84% were diagnosed with localized (vs. regional) breast cancer. Women with higher experience scores for their personal doctor or for care coordination were significantly more likely to have received any radiation therapy. In contrast, among women enrolled in Medicare Part D plans, those who reported higher scores for their prescription drug plan were significantly less likely to have received radiation therapy. Conclusions: Patient experience of care was significantly associated with receipt of radiation therapy following lumpectomy among women with breast cancer. While these results do not show causality, future quality improvement initiatives may want to explore the role of patient experience of care in facilitating patient decision making and improving quality of care.

Team-Based Care for Cancer Survivors With Comorbidities: A Systematic Review

Coordination of quality care for the growing population of cancer survivors with comorbidities remains poorly understood, especially among health disparity populations who are more likely to have comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. This systematic review synthesized the literature from 2000 to 2022 on team-based care for cancer survivors with comorbidities and assessed team-based care conceptualization, teamwork processes, and outcomes. Six databases were searched for original articles on adults with cancer and comorbidity, which defined care team composition and comparison group, and assessed clinical or teamwork processes or outcomes. We identified 1,821 articles of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies occurred during active cancer treatment and nine focused on depression management. Four studies focused on Hispanic or Black cancer survivors and one recruited rural residents. The conceptualization of team-based care varied across articles. Teamwork processes were not explicitly measured, but teamwork concepts such as communication and mental models were mentioned. Despite team-based care being a cornerstone of quality cancer care, studies that simultaneously assessed care delivery and outcomes for cancer and comorbidities were largely absent. Improving care coordination will be key to addressing disparities and promoting health equity for cancer survivors with comorbidities.

Cost-Related Medication Nonadherence and Patient Cost Responsibility for Rural and Urban Cancer Survivors

PURPOSE

The relationship between out-of-pocket spending and cost-related medication nonadherence among older rural- and urban-dwelling cancer survivors is not well understood.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, Medicare claims, and the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey linked data resource linked data (2007-2015) to investigate the relationship between cancer survivors' cost responsibility in the year before and after report of delaying or not filling a prescription medication because of cost in the past 6 months (cost-related medication nonadherence). Secondary exposures and outcomes included Medicare spending and utilization. Generalized linear models assessed bidirectional relationships between cost-related medication nonadherence, spending, and utilization. Effects of residence were assessed via interaction terms.

RESULTS

Of 6,591 older cancer survivors, 13% reported cost-related medication nonadherence. Survivors were a median 8 years (interquartile range, 4.5-12.5 years) from their cancer diagnosis, 15% were dually Medicare/Medicaid-eligible, and prostate (40%) and breast (32%) cancer survivors were most prevalent. With every $500 USD increase in patient cost responsibility, risk of cost-related medication nonadherence increased by 3% (risk ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.04). After report of cost-related medication nonadherence, patient cost responsibility was 22% higher (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.32) compared with those not reporting nonadherence, amounting to $523 USD (95% CI, $430 USD to $630 USD). Medicare spending and utilization were also higher before and after report of cost-related nonadherence versus none. For survivors residing in rural (18%) and urban (82%) areas, residence did not modify adherence or cost outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A bidirectional relationship exists between patient cost responsibility and cost-related medication nonadherence. Interventions reducing urban- and rural-dwelling survivor health care costs and cost-related adherence barriers are needed.

Medication nonadherence and patient cost responsibility for rural and urban cancer survivors

4

Background: Little is known about the specific out-of-pocket costs which may lead to prescription nonadherence in older cancer survivors, and how patterns may differ for those living in rural areas. This study quantified patient costs overall and by residence for older cancer survivors who did and did not report cost-related prescription nonadherence. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, Medicare claims, and the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey linked data resource (SEER-CAHPS) from 2007-2015. Older cancer survivors self-reported cost-related prescription nonadherence in the prior six months. Patient cost responsibility (deductibles, coinsurance, copayments) was summed for all medical care received in the year prior to survey. Differences in patient cost responsibility by cost-related adherence was estimated using gamma generalized linear models adjusted for patient age, race, sex, education, dual Medicaid enrollment status, residence, comorbidity count, cancer type, stage, and phase of care. Models stratified by urban/rural residence as designated by Rural-Urban continuum codes assessed effect modification. Results: Of 11,829 older adult survivors of prostate (37%), breast (32%), colorectal (14%), gynecologic (10%), or lung (6%) cancer, 12% reported any cost-related prescription nonadherence in the prior year. Median age of survivors was 76 (interquartile range [IQR] 71-82), 15% had less than a high school degree, 59% had at least one non-cancer comorbidity, and 16% had ever been dual eligible. Prevalence of cost-related nonadherence was similar by patient characteristics. Median cost responsibility in the year prior to survey was $1,529 (IQR $744-$2,959) for patients reporting nonadherence and $1,123 (IQR $572-$2,362) for those reporting adherence. In adjusted models, patients reporting nonadherence had $656 higher patient cost responsibility in the year prior (95% CI $564-$760) compared to those reporting adherence. Approximately half of the difference in cost was outpatient spending (β = $277, 95% CI $210-$359). Differences in cost responsibility for patients reporting nonadherence compared to adherence were smaller for patients residing in rural areas (18% of respondents; β = $341, 95% CI $177-$564) compared to those residing in urban areas (82% of respondents; β = $715, 95% CI $613-$830). Conclusions: Compared to those reporting adherence, cost-related prescription nonadherence was associated with higher health care cost responsibility in cancer survivors. Furthermore, prescription adherence decisions may be more cost-sensitive for patients living in rural compared to urban areas. Interventions to address out-of-pocket health care costs, particularly for rural cancer survivors, could aid in increased prescription adherence and subsequent health outcomes.

Feasibility of Breast Radiation Therapy Video Education Combined With Standard Radiation Therapy Education for Patients With Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVES

To determine the feasibility of incorporating a brief animated educational video shown during the radiation therapy (RT) consultation appointment for patients with breast cancer and to collect preliminary quality-of-life data.

SAMPLE & SETTING

20 participants with breast cancer were recruited from an outpatient radiation oncology facility in the southeastern United States.

METHODS & VARIABLES

This single-arm, pre- and post-test feasibility study aimed to assess feasibility and preliminary outcomes of patient-reported anxiety, distress, and RT concerns.

RESULTS

The video intervention demonstrated feasibility, as evidenced by meeting or exceeding benchmarks set for recruitment, retention, and feasibility measured scores. The difference in means of total patient-reported scores comparing pre- to postintervention decreased.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

The intervention proved feasible. In addition, the decrease in total mean scores suggests the video may have a positive effect on reducing patient distress, anxiety, and RT concerns.

Delivery of Financial Navigation Services Within National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers

Background

Cancer centers have a responsibility to help patients manage the costs of their cancer treatment. This article describes the availability of financial navigation services within the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers.

Methods

Data were obtained from the NCI Survey of Financial Navigation Services and Research, an online survey administered to NCI-designated cancer centers from July to September 2019. Of the 62 eligible centers, 57 completed all or most of the survey, for a response rate of 90.5%.

Results

Nearly all cancer centers reported providing help with applications for pharmaceutical assistance programs and medical discounts (96.5%), health insurance coverage (91.2%), assistance with nonmedical costs (96.5%), and help understanding medical bills and out-of-pocket costs (85.9%). Although other services were common, in some cases they were only available to certain patients. These services included direct financial assistance with medical and nonmedical costs and referrals to outside organizations for financial assistance. The least common services included medical debt management (63.2%), detailed discussions about the cost of treatment (54.4%), and guidance about legal protections (50.1%). Providing treatment cost transparency to patients was reported as a common challenge: 71.9% of centers agreed or strongly agreed that it is difficult to determine how much a cancer patient's treatment will cost, and 70.2% of oncologists are reluctant to discuss financial issues with patients.

Conclusions

Cancer centers provide many financial services and resources. However, there remains a need to build additional capacity to deliver comprehensive financial navigation services and to understand the extent to which patients are referred and helped by these services.

Cancer Information-seeking in an Age of COVID-19: Findings from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service

Seeking cancer information is recognized as an important, life-saving behavior under normal circumstances. However, given the significant impact of COVID-19 on society, the healthcare system, and individuals and their families, it is important to understand how the pandemic has affected cancer information needs in a crisis context and, in turn, how public health agencies have responded to meeting the information needs of various audiences. Using data from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS) - a long-standing, multi-channel resource for trusted cancer information in English and Spanish - this descriptive analysis explored differences in cancer information-seeking among cancer survivors, caregivers, tobacco users, and members of the general public during the onset and continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic (February - September 2020), specifically comparing interactions that involved a discussion of COVID-19 to those that did not. During the study period, COVID-19 discussions were more likely to involve survivors or caregivers compared to tobacco users and the general public. Specific patterns emerged across the four user types and their respective discussions of COVID-19 related to language of service, point of CIS access, stage on the cancer continuum, subject of interaction, cancer site discussed, and referrals provided by the CIS. These results provide insights that may help public health agencies deliver, prioritize, and tailor their messaging and response to specific audiences based on heightened health information needs during a crisis.

Associations of care experiences with survival among people with cancer in SEER-CAHPS, 2006 to 2017

177

Background: A growing body of literature indicates associations between cancer care experiences and survival. Several studies suggest people with cancer who report worse care experiences have greater mortality. However, studies in general patient populations have found worse care experiences are associated with lower mortality. To our knowledge, no study has evaluated the relationship between care experiences and survival using a large, nationally representative sample of cancer patients. Methods: We used linked SEER cancer registry-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) data to identify people diagnosed 8/2006-12/2013 with one of the top ten solid tumor cancer sites with the highest mortality rates among those over age 65 (lung, colon, prostate, pancreas, breast, bladder, ovary, esophagus, kidney, or liver cancers). We included people who completed a survey between 6-24 months post-diagnosis and were continuously enrolled in Medicare A & B from ≤6 months pre-diagnosis through survey completion. CAHPS outcomes were ratings of Overall Care, Specialist Physician, Health Plan, and Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) and composite scores of Getting Needed Care. We used survey-weighted Cox proportional hazard models to compare those who gave lower (0-8) vs higher ratings (9-10), and lower (0-89) vs higher (90-100) scores. Results: We identified 2,403 eligible people. Mean survival was 46 months and 26% died by 5 years after diagnosis. In unadjusted models, lower Overall Care ratings were significantly associated with higher mortality (HR=1.25, p=.04), but this did not persist in the adjusted model. In contrast, lower ratings of PDP were significantly associated with lower mortality after covariate adjustment (HR=.63, p=.02). Conclusions: Except for PDP, survival was similar among those with worse vs better care experiences. People with better cancer prognoses may perceive worse services from their PDP compared to those with poorer prognoses. Future research examining mechanisms underlying this association may be warranted. [Table: see text]

Perceptions of care coordination among older adult cancer survivors: A SEER-CAHPS study

178

Background: Care coordination represents deliberate efforts to harmonize and organize patient care activities. This study examined sociodemographic and clinical predictors of patient-reported care coordination among Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 with a history of cancer. Methods: This study utilized the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (SEER-CAHPS) linked data, including SEER cancer registry data, Medicare CAHPS patient experience surveys, and Medicare claims. We identified Medicare beneficiaries who completed a CAHPS survey within ten years after their most recent cancer diagnosis and reported visiting a personal doctor within six months before their survey (n = 14,646). Multivariable regression models examined associations between cancer survivor characteristics and care coordination, with higher scores indicating better coordination (scale of 0-100). Results: Residing in a rural area at time of diagnosis (1.2-points greater score than urban; p= 0.04) and reporting > 4 visits with a personal doctor within 6 months (3.0-points greater than 1-2 visits; p< 0.001) were significantly associated with higher care coordination scores. Older age ( p< 0.001) and seeing more specialists ( p= 0.006) were associated with significantly lower care coordination scores. Patients with melanoma (women: 5.2-point difference, p< 0.001; men: 2.8 points, p= 0.01) and breast cancer (women: 2.4 points; p< 0.001) also reported significantly lower care coordination scores than did men with prostate cancer (reference group). Conclusions: Adult cancer survivors who are older, have a history of breast, lung, or melanoma cancers, or see more specialists report worse care coordination. Future research should explore and address the multilevel influences that lead to worse care coordination for older adult cancer survivors.

Associations between perceptions of care experiences and receipt of mental health care among older adults with cancer

175

Background: Older adults with cancer and worse self-rated mental health report worse care experiences. We hypothesized that, controlling for health and demographic characteristics, older adults with cancer who received care for anxiety or mood disorders would report better care experiences. Methods: We used SEER-CAHPS data to identify Medicare beneficiaries, aged 66 and over, diagnosed from August 2006 through December 2013 with one of the 10 most prevalent solid tumor malignancies. To identify utilization for anxiety or mood disorders (screening, diagnosis, or treatment), we analyzed inpatient, outpatient, home health, physician, and prescription drug claims from 12 months before through up to 5 years after cancer diagnosis. Outcomes of interest were global care experience ratings (Overall Care, Personal Doctor, and Specialist; rated on a 0-10 scale) and composite measures (Getting Needed Care, Getting Care Quickly, and Doctor Communication; scored from 0-100). We estimated linear regression models and also used a Bayesian Model Averaging approach, adjusting for standard case-mix adjustors (including sociodemographics and self-reported general health and mental health status [MHS]) and other characteristics, including cancer site and stage at diagnosis. We also included interaction terms between mental health care utilization and MHS. Results: Approximately 22% of the overall sample (n = 4,998) had both cancer and a claim for an anxiety or mood disorder, and of those individuals, 18% reported fair/poor MHS. Only 7% of those in the cancer-only cohort reported fair/poor MHS. Before adjusting for mental health utilization, worse MHS was significantly associated with worse experience of care. After accounting for anxiety/mood disorder-related utilization, linear regression models showed no significant associations between fair/poor MHS and worse care experiences, while Bayesian models found that reliable associations remained between worse MHS and lower global ratings of Overall Care and Specialist. Conclusions: Utilization for anxiety/mood disorders mediates the association between fair/poor MHS and worse care experiences. Although MHS is a case-mix adjustor for CAHPS public reporting, it is important to recognize that care for anxiety or mood disorders may improve care experiences among seniors with cancer.

Survivorship Science at the NIH: Lessons Learned From Grants Funded in Fiscal Year 2016

Federal investment in survivorship science has grown markedly since the National Cancer Institute's creation of the Office of Cancer Survivorship in 1996. To describe the nature of this research, provide a benchmark, and map new directions for the future, a portfolio analysis of National Institutes of Health-wide survivorship grants was undertaken for fiscal year 2016. Applying survivorship-relevant terms, a search was conducted using the National Institutes of Health Information for Management, Planning, Analysis and Coordination grants database. Grants identified were reviewed for inclusion and categorized by grant mechanism used, funding agency, and principal investigator characteristics. Trained pairs of coders classified each grant by focus and design (observational vs interventional), population studied, and outcomes examined. A total of 215 survivorship grants were identified; 7 were excluded for lack of fit and 2 for nonresearch focus. Forty-one (19.7%) representing training grants (n = 38) or conference grants (n = 3) were not coded. Of the remaining 165 grants, most (88.5%) were funded by the National Cancer Institute; used the large, investigator-initiated (R01) mechanism (66.7%); focused on adult survivors alone (84.2%), often breast cancer survivors (47.3%); were observational in nature (57.3%); and addressed a broad array of topics, including psychosocial and physiologic outcomes, health behaviors, patterns of care, and economic/employment outcomes. Grants were led by investigators from diverse backgrounds, 28.4% of whom were early in their career. Present funding patterns, many stable since 2006, point to the need to expand research to include different cancer sites, greater ethnoculturally diverse samples, and older (>65 years) as well as longer-term (>5 years) survivors and address effects of newer therapies.

Patient experiences of care in localized prostate cancer

215

Background: Over 161,000 new prostate cancer patients diagnosed annually, with 75% diagnosed at early stages. Limited evidence exists supporting choice of treatment (including radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, active surveillance or watchful waiting) for localized prostate cancer. Treatments have varying side effects associated with impaired functional status and health-related quality of life. Patient care experiences are important quality indicators, but research examining patient experiences by prostate cancer treatment is limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between treatment received (surgery, radiation, or no treatment) and CAHPS ratings of overall care over the prior six months. Methods: This study used data from SEER-CAHPS, which links Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data with Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) patient experience survey and Medicare claims data. Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries ≥65 years with a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer diagnosis were assigned to surgery only, radiation only, and no treatment received groups for analysis. The outcome variable was a CAHPS rating of overall care (0 = worst; 10 = best). The analysis adjusted for case mix and other cancer-specific variables. Results: The final cohort included 507 prostate cancer survivors (surgery n = 109 [21%]; radiation n = 197 [39%]; no treatment n = 201 [40%]). Respondents who received radiation rated their overall care higher than those not receiving treatment (adjusted mean 8.9 vs 8.3; p= 0.02). Ratings did not differ significantly between the surgery and no treatment groups. Conclusions: This study represents a first look at patient experiences among localized prostate cancer survivors receiving surgery, radiation, or no treatment. It is not clear whether those who did not receive treatment chose active surveillance or watchful waiting, or whether they did not have access to care, which could have affected results. Future research should explore associations between receipt of treatment and patient care experiences in an adequately powered sample to inform future interventions.

Quality of care for cancer survivors: Does a model of shared care affect experience of care?

213

Background: Cancer survivors may have unique medical care needs due to chronic/late-occurring effects of cancer or cancer treatment. “Shared care,” survivorship care delivered by both oncologists and primary care providers (PCPs), may better address these needs. Little is known about outcomes for survivors receiving shared care vs. oncologist-led or PCP-led patterns of care. We compared patient reported experiences of care for survivors receiving oncologist-led, PCP-led, shared care, or other patterns of care. Methods: Analyses of SEER-CAHPS, a data resource linking NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry data, Medicare claims, and Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey responses. Individuals age ≥ 65 in SEER-CAHPS diagnosed 2000-2011 with breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, renal, or prostate cancer or hematologic malignancies who completed a Medicare CAHPS survey ≥ 18 months after diagnosis and were continuously enrolled in Medicare A & B ≥ 6 months before and 6 months after survey completion were included. CAHPS included ratings of Overall Care, Personal Doctor, Specialist Physician, Health Plan, and composite scores for Doctor Communication, Care Coordination, Getting Needed Care, Getting Care Quickly, and Getting Needed Drugs. Survivorship care patterns were identified using proportions of oncologist, PCP, and other physician encounters. Multivariable regressions examined associations between survivorship care patterns and CAHPS outcomes. Results: Among 10,132 survivors, 15% received Shared Care; 10% Oncologist-led; 33% PCP-led; and 42% Other. Compared with Shared Care, we found no significant differences in survivors' experience of care except for Getting Needed Drugs (lower for PCP-led and Other). Sensitivity analyses using different pattern of care definitions showed no associations between survivorship model and experience of care. Conclusions: Survivors’ experiences of care were similar for those in Shared Care vs. Oncologist-led, PCP-led, and Other patterns of care. Within the study’s limitations, these results do not indicate enhanced patient reported medical care experiences for survivors receiving shared care.

Abstract 3366: SEER-CAHPS: A national population-based data resource to evaluate patient-centered cancer care

Background: Delivery of patient-centered cancer care includes a focus on the preferences and values of individuals with cancer. SEER-CAHPS is a new data resource developed by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) linking cancer registry data from NCI’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program with Medicare claims and patient experience of care collected by the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) survey. We report on the unique data available in SEER-CAHPS for population-based assessments of patient experience and discuss several studies of patient-centered care conducted using these data.

Methods: SEER-CAHPS includes SEER cancer registry data from 1973-2013 (including type/stage of cancer at diagnosis, patient sociodemographic characteristics, and mortality), Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims data from 2002-2015, and Medicare CAHPS survey responses from 1997-2015 (including patient-reported health status and experience of care ratings). CAHPS data in SEER-CAHPS include global ratings of overall care, personal doctor, specialist, health plan, and prescription drug plan and composite ratings of Doctor Communication, Care Coordination, Getting Needed Care, and Getting Care Quickly. The data also contain optional survey weights to account for the CAHPS sampling design.

Results: SEER-CAHPS currently includes 249,474 individuals with a history of cancer documented in SEER. Individuals enrolled in both FFS Medicare (36,284 with a CAHPS survey prior to cancer diagnosis, 64,642 with a survey after diagnosis) and Medicare Advantage (70,378 with a survey before cancer diagnosis, 78,170 with a survey after diagnosis) are included. The database also includes 805,124 CAHPS respondents without cancer from SEER regions (FFS: 326,476; MA: 478,648). These data allow assessments of the impacts of patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and self-reported general and mental health status on patient experience of care. SEER-CAHPS has been used to examine factors associated with experiences in individuals diagnosed with cancer during their last year of life; experiences of cancer survivors; and experiences of dually eligible (Medicare-Medicaid) cancer patients. A recent analysis focused on associations of their experiences of care with receipt of guideline-concordant follow-up care among people with colorectal cancer. Online information (https://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/seer-cahps/) provides details on variables in SEER-CAHPS, instructions for obtaining these data, and other researcher resources.

Conclusions: SEER-CAHPS is an important population science resource for assessing treatment patterns, unmet needs, and other factors to enhance patient-centered cancer care.

Citation Format: Michael T. Halpern, Michelle Mollica, Lisa M. Lines, Julia Cohen, Erin E. Kent. SEER-CAHPS: A national population-based data resource to evaluate patient-centered cancer care [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3366.

Is Cancer Information Exchanged on Social Media Scientifically Accurate?

Cancer patients and their caregivers are increasingly using social media as a platform to share cancer experiences, connect with support, and exchange cancer-related information. Yet, little is known about the nature and scientific accuracy of cancer-related information exchanged on social media. We conducted a content analysis of 12 months of data from 18 publically available Facebook Pages hosted by parents of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (N = 15,852 posts) and extracted all exchanges of medically-oriented cancer information. We systematically coded for themes in the nature of cancer-related information exchanged on personal Facebook Pages and two oncology experts independently evaluated the scientific accuracy of each post. Of the 15,852 total posts, 171 posts contained medically-oriented cancer information. The most frequent type of cancer information exchanged was information related to treatment protocols and health services use (35%) followed by information related to side effects and late effects (26%), medication (16%), medical caregiving strategies (13%), alternative and complementary therapies (8%), and other (2%). Overall, 67% of all cancer information exchanged was deemed medically/scientifically accurate, 19% was not medically/scientifically accurate, and 14% described unproven treatment modalities. These findings highlight the potential utility of social media as a cancer-related resource, but also indicate that providers should focus on recommending reliable, evidence-based sources to patients and caregivers.

Examining the relative influence of multimorbidity on variations in older cancer patients’ experiences with care

14

Background: Cancer patients often have multiple chronic conditions and require complex care coordination. We compared older (ages 66+) cancer patients’ reports of their healthcare experiences based on level of multimorbidity. Methods: Data from the SEER-CAHPS combines cancer registry (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results; SEER), patient experiences (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems; CAHPS) and Medicare claims data. Multimorbidity was captured as: (1) the National Cancer Institute-Combined Comorbidity Index (NCCI, 16 Charlson conditions diagnosed ≤12 months prior to cancer); and (2) a Multimorbidity Burden Index (MBI), which categorizes conditions based on the impact to cancer treatment (no comorbidity, low/medium, and high). Outcomes were CAHPS patient experience measures: Doctor Communication, Getting Care Quickly, Getting Needed Care, Obtaining Prescription Drugs, Customer Service, and ratings of Overall Care, Personal Doctor, and Specialist. Multivariable linear regression provided associations of each multimorbidity measure with CAHPS measures controlling for standard case mix adjustors, years from diagnosis to survey and diagnostic stage. Results: The study cohort included 9305 cancer patients (53% male, 84% Non-Hispanic White, average age 77, average time from diagnosis 29 months), with a distribution of NCCI conditions as: 0 (cancer only), 73%; 1, 17%; ≥2, 10%. Cancer patients with NCCI = 0 and those with MBI = no comorbidity rated their Personal Doctor more negatively than those with any comorbidities ( p < 0.02). Those with NCCI ≥ 2 or MBI = low/medium reported better Doctor Communication ( p < 0.04). Those with high MBI rated their specialist physician better than those with no multimorbidity ( p = 0.04), and those with low/medium MBI reported better experiences Getting Care Quickly ( p = 0.02). No other associations were significant. Conclusions: Cancer patients with multimorbidity report better communication with their doctor and care = by = personal doctors and specialists. Increased attention to the care experiences of cancer patients with multimorbidity may lead to insights and interventions that benefit all cancer patients.

Improving quality of cancer survivorship care: From framework to action

49

Background: One decade after the Institute of Medicine report recommended the development of quality of cancer survivorship care measures, there remains little progress in achieving that goal. Our goal was to develop a framework for quality measurement and outline the next steps needed to drive research, policy and clinical care. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify quality domains and indicators for cancer survivorship care that included: (1) published cancer/cancer survivorship guidelines; (2) National Cancer Institute and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded cancer survivorship studies; (3) U.S. state Comprehensive Cancer Control Plans; (4) indicators developed by national quality organizations. We also reviewed published literature, specifically focusing on narrative and systematic reviews, commentaries/editorials and position papers addressing cancer survivorship care quality. We then conducted interviews with key experts in cancer survivorship and quality. Once the framework was developed, we convened a stakeholder meeting to outline actionable next steps. Results: Key domains focused on (1) cancer and its treatment, specifically prevention and surveillance of recurrences and second cancers as well as surveillance and management of physical and psychosocial effects and (2) primary health care needs such as management of multiple medical conditions and health promotion. Patient experience, communication, care coordination and health care delivery structure are critical domains in cancer survivorship care that must be measured. Lastly, domains included health care outcomes, such as utilization, costs, mortality and quality of life. Respective indicators and findings from stakeholder meeting will be presented at the Symposium. Conclusions: We developed a framework that will promote a systematic approach to (1) designing effective, evidence-based clinical care for cancer survivors in oncology and primary care settings, (2) expanding research initiatives to address identified gaps in quality measurement and (3) developing policy recommendations to encourage the implementation of standardized measures for quality improvement.

Communication and Exchange of Specialized Health-Related Support Among People With Experiential Similarity on Facebook

Social support is an important factor that shapes how people cope with illness, and health-related communication among peers managing the same illness (network ties with experiential similarity) offers specialized information, resources, and emotional support. Facebook has become a ubiquitous part of many Americans' lives, and may offer a way for patients and caregivers experiencing a similar illness to exchange specialized health-related support. However, little is known about the content of communication among people who have coped with the same illness on personal Facebook pages. We conducted a content analysis of 12 months of data from 18 publicly available Facebook pages hosted by parents of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, focusing on communication between users who self-identified as parents of pediatric cancer patients. Support exchanges between users with experiential similarity contained highly specialized health-related information, including information about health services use, symptom recognition, compliance, medication use, treatment protocols, and medical procedures. Parents also exchanged tailored emotional support through comparison, empathy, encouragement, and hope. Building upon previous research documenting that social media use can widen and diversify support networks, our findings show that cancer caregivers access specialized health-related informational and emotional support through communication with others who have experienced the same illness on personal Facebook pages. These findings have implications for health communication practice and offer evidence to tailor M-Health interventions that leverage existing social media platforms to enhance peer support for patients and caregivers.

Measuring cancer care experiences: Introducing SEER-CAHPS

6595

Background: Care experience ratings are recognized as measures of healthcare quality. Here we introduce a new, public data resource, SEER-CAHPS, which links cancer registry data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program with Medicare claims and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (MCAHPS) survey. Methods: The SEER-CAHPS resource includes cancer registry data from 1973-2011 (diagnosis, incidence, mortality, and sociodemographic data), Medicare CAHPS survey data from 1998-2013 (sociodemographic, health status, and care experience ratings), and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims data from 2002-2013. The survey includes global ratings of overall care, personal doctor, specialist, health plan, and prescription drug plans, and composite ratings of doctor communication, care coordination, getting needed care, and getting care quickly. Data also contain survey weights to account for the Medicare CAHPS sampling design. Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses are possible. Results: Currently, SEER-CAHPS includes 205,339 individuals with a history of cancer documented in SEER (FFS: 26,802 with a survey before cancer diagnosis, and 55,231 with a survey after cancer diagnosis; Medicare Advantage [MA]: 57,227 with a survey before cancer diagnosis and 71,436 with a survey after cancer diagnosis). The data resource also includes 724,965 MCAHPS respondents without cancer in SEER regions (FFS: 282,592; MA: 447,358). The data provide insights on topics including experiences of cancer patients in their last year of life; experiences of cancer survivors; and the associations of guideline-concordant follow-up care with patient experiences among cancer survivors. We will demonstrate project sample-size estimation and present instructions for submitting data access applications. Conclusions: SEER-CAHPS, a new, publicly available resource, provides population-based, cancer-specific data on patient experiences, health outcomes and healthcare utilization.

Measuring experiences of patients with cancer with care: The SEER-CAHPS linked data resource

238

Background: Care experience ratings are recognized as measures of quality. We introduce a new resource, SEER-CAHPS, linking cancer registry data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program with Medicare claims and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. Methods: The SEER-CAHPS data resource includes registry data from 1973-2011 (diagnosis, incidence, mortality, and sociodemographic data), Medicare CAHPS survey data from 1998-2013 (sociodemographic, health status, and care experience ratings), and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims data from 2002-2013. SEER-CAHPS includes global ratings of overall care, personal doctor, specialist, health plan, and prescription drug plan and composite ratings of doctor communication, care coordination, getting needed care, and getting care quickly. The data also contain optional survey weights to account for the Medicare CAHPS sampling design. Results: Currently, SEER-CAHPS includes 205,339 individuals with a history of cancer documented in SEER (FFS: 26,802 with a survey before cancer diagnosis, and 55,231 with a survey after cancer diagnosis; Medicare Advantage [MA]: 57,227 with a survey before cancer diagnosis and 71,436 with a survey after cancer diagnosis). The database also includes 724,965 MCAHPS respondents without cancer in SEER regions (FFS: 282,592; MA: 447,358). The data provide insights on topics including experiences of cancer patients in their last year of life; experiences of cancer survivors; experiences of dually eligible (Medicare-Medicaid) cancer patients; and the associations of guideline-concordant follow-up care with patient experiences among people with colorectal cancer. We will demonstrate project sample-size estimation and present instructions for submitting data access applications. Conclusions: SEER-CAHPS provides population-based, cancer-specific data on patient experiences and associations with both health outcomes and healthcare utilization.

How Does Caregiver Well-Being Relate to Perceived Quality of Care in Patients With Cancer? Exploring Associations and Pathways

Purpose Perceived quality of care (QOC) is an increasingly important metric of care quality and can be affected by such factors among patients with cancer as quality of life and physician trust. This study sought to evaluate whether informal caregiver well-being was also associated with perceived QOC among patients with cancer and assessed potential pathways that link these factors. Methods This study used data from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) consortium. Patients with lung and colorectal cancer enrolled in CanCORS (N = 689) nominated an informal caregiver to participate in a caregiving survey. Both groups self-reported sociodemographic, psychosocial, and caregiving characteristics; cancer characteristics were obtained from the CanCORS core data set. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between caregiver psychosocial factors and subsequent patient-perceived QOC, controlling for earlier patient-perceived QOC and covariates. Secondary analysis examined potential pathways that link these factors. Results Patients whose informal caregiver had higher levels of depressive symptoms were significantly more likely to report fair or poor QOC (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.13). When caregivers reported fair or poor self-rated health, patients were more than three times more likely to report fair or poor perceived QOC (odds ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.76 to 9.55). Controlling for patient psychosocial factors and physician communication and coordination of medical care reduced the effect size and/or statistical significance of these relationships. Conclusion Informal caregivers are an important part of the care team and their well-being is associated with patient-perceived QOC. Engaging informal cancer caregivers as part of the care team and conducting ongoing risk stratification screening and intervention to optimize their health may improve patient-reported outcomes and QOC.

What does 'palliative care' mean? Diverse definitions from cancer care providers

40

Background: Existing literature on the epistemology of palliative care has mostly centered on patient/family perspectives. Understanding how multi-disciplinary healthcare providers themselves define palliative care is a critical step towards addressing barriers and harnessing facilitators that affect optimal delivery. Methods: Semi-structured key informant interviews (N = 19) were conducted with members of healthcare provider teams as part of a qualitative study on goals of care for cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials. Purposive sampling included diverse roles: attending physicians/principal investigators, oncology fellows, physician assistants, research and clinical nurses, patient care coordinators, palliative care physicians, social workers, chaplains, and pharmacists. One probe asked participants, “What does palliative care mean to you in your work?” Responses were transcribed and independently coded by two raters using interview-derived deductive and emergent inductive codes. Themes were then identified and analyzed using NVivo. Results: Informants included different elements in their definitions: attributes of palliative care (“Palliative care is helpful”); structure (“We have a pain and palliative team”); patient outcomes “(comfort”), and relation to other services (“adjunct to necessary medical care”). Additional themes also included (1) the charge of palliative care to alleviate suffering; (2) the recognition that palliative care should be holistic; (3) the centrality of symptom management, in particular pain; (4) the conflation of end-of-life, hospice, and palliative care; (5) tensions between palliative and curative care. Provider role and specific team membership appear to influence perspectives on definitions of palliative care. Conclusions: Providers share a wide range of perspectives on the operationalization of palliative care in their work. In addition to soliciting input from patients and family members, the viewpoints of a diverse set of providers should be ascertained often to inform models of care, alleviate tensions between palliative and curative care provider teams, and increase optimal usage of palliative care.

Cancer registry-survey data linkages to measure patient-centered quality of care: SEER-MHOS and SEER-CAHPS

303

Background: Limited opportunities exist to conduct population-based surveillance of cancer patient-reported outcomes. Data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program has recently been linked with data from two Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services quality improvement surveys: the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys. We provide an overview of the data available, recent findings, and priority areas for future research. Methods: Since 1998, the MHOS has conducted 2-wave/biennial surveys of individuals ages 65+ and individuals with disabilities enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) health plans on aspects of health-related quality of life, functional status, comorbidities, and symptoms. Fourteen cohorts are available, representing over 126K patients with cancer and over 1.9 million MA enrollees without a history of cancer. The SEER-MHOS publicly available data resource has produced over 40 data use agreements and 19 publications. SEER-CAHPS links cancer registry data with cross-sectional survey data of Medicare beneficiaries (both fee-for-service and MA) that contain information on patient experiences with care, including access to needed and timely care, doctor communication, health plan customer service, and care coordination. The current linkage contains survey data from 1998 to 2010 and includes over 150K and 570K respondents with and without a history of cancer, respectively. Plans to launch the publicly available resource are underway. Results: Recent findings include the impact of diagnosis and treatment on health-related quality of life in older cancer survivors, physical health impairments and variation of treatment received, the impact of cancer on activities of daily living, and variations in care ratings between participants with and without cancer across the cancer control continuum. Conclusions: The SEER-MHOS and SEER-CAHPS linked data resources provide population-based surveillance data on cancer patient-reported outcomes which allow unprecedented opportunities to evaluate national quality improvement activities.

Professional development utilizing an oncology summer nursing internship

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of an oncology student nursing internship on role socialization and professional self-concept. This mixed-methods study utilized a convergent parallel approach that incorporated a quasi-experimental and qualitative design. Data was collected through pre and post-survey and open-ended questions. Participants were 11 baccalaureate nursing students participating in a summer oncology student nursing internship between their junior and senior years. Investigators completed a content analysis of qualitative questionnaires resulted in categories of meaning, while the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used to compare pre and post internship scores. Aggregated mean scores from all instruments showed an increase in professionalism, role socialization, and sense of belonging from pre to post-internship, although no differences were significant. Qualitative data showed participants refined their personal philosophy of nursing and solidified their commitment to the profession. Participants did indicate, however, that the internship, combined with weekly debriefing forums and conferences, proved to have a positive impact on the students' role socialization and sense of belonging. Despite quantitative results, there is a need for longitudinal research to confirm the effect of nursing student internships on the transition from student to professional.

Breast cancer in African Americans: from patient to survivor

PURPOSE

The purpose of this synthesis is to explore the experience of the transition from cancer patient to survivor in African Americans with breast cancer, addressing the risk/ protective factors that have an influence on successful transition using the social ecological model.

METHODS

The investigator searched CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycInfo databases. Articles were assessed for content addressing risk and protective factors of transition in African American breast cancer survivorship. Eleven research articles were obtained and synthesized.

RESULTS

Risk and protective factors exist at all levels of the social ecological model. Emotional issues are prevalent after the cessation of cancer treatment, enhanced by the lack of social support in this population. Spirituality was shown to be present in many levels as a protective factor during this period.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The entrance to survivorship represents a time of increased stressors and subsequent coping. Through careful identification of influencing factors, health care providers can develop strategies to attenuate the emotional distress and negative complications of the transition specific to this vulnerable population. Illuminating the experiences of African American women during this transition period provides insight into the interventional needs during and after the cessation of breast cancer treatment.

Spirituality measurement in African American cancer survivors: a critical literature review

PURPOSE

Spirituality is a mechanism that supports coping with chronic illnesses such as cancer, and has been frequently used in the African American (AA) population. Measures of spirituality are needed, which are culturally sensitive, appropriate, and psychometrically sound.

DESIGN

A critical literature review was performed to identify instruments measuring spirituality as a response to illness.

METHOD

Whittemore and Knafl's method was used to search pertinent databases for instrumentation assessing spirituality and its applicability in AA cancer survivors.

FINDINGS

In all, 13 research articles detailing nine instruments were obtained and included for analysis. Of the nine instruments, only two (Perspectives of Support From God Scale and Connections to God Scale) were psychometrically tested in populations of AAs who had completed primary treatment for their cancer. Cultural validity was tested in only the Perspectives of Support From God Scale, showing a deficit in the assessment of cultural appropriateness of these instruments to the population.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to confirm validity of these measures. Cognitive pretesting and assessment of cross-cultural validity can be used to ensure proper understanding of terminology and avoid potential biases. Repeated testing of the instrument in the desired population is necessary to confirm that constructs and items are understood and cognitively processed as intended.