Browse

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 3,539 items for

  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Full access

Peter D. Stetson, Nadine J. McCleary, Travis Osterman, Kavitha Ramchandran, Amye Tevaarwerk, Tracy Wong, Jessica M. Sugalski, Wallace Akerley, Annette Mercurio, Finly J. Zachariah, Jonathan Yamzon, Robert C. Stillman, Peter E. Gabriel, Tricia Heinrichs, Kathleen Kerrigan, Shiven B. Patel, Scott M. Gilbert, and Everett Weiss

Background: Collecting, monitoring, and responding to patient-generated health data (PGHD) are associated with improved quality of life and patient satisfaction, and possibly with improved patient survival in oncology. However, the current state of adoption, types of PGHD collected, and degree of integration into electronic health records (EHRs) is unknown. Methods: The NCCN EHR Oncology Advisory Group formed a Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Workgroup to perform an assessment and provide recommendations for cancer centers, researchers, and EHR vendors to advance the collection and use of PGHD in oncology. The issues were evaluated via a survey of NCCN Member Institutions. Questions were designed to assess the current state of PGHD collection, including how, what, and where PGHD are collected. Additionally, detailed questions about governance and data integration into EHRs were asked. Results: Of 28 Member Institutions surveyed, 23 responded. The collection and use of PGHD is widespread among NCCN Members Institutions (96%). Most centers (90%) embed at least some PGHD into the EHR, although challenges remain, as evidenced by 88% of respondents reporting the use of instruments not integrated. Forty-seven percent of respondents are leveraging PGHD for process automation and adherence to best evidence. Content type and integration touchpoints vary among the members, as well as governance maturity. Conclusions: The reported variability regarding PGHD suggests that it may not yet have reached its full potential for oncology care delivery. As the adoption of PGHD in oncology continues to expand, opportunities exist to enhance their utility. Among the recommendations for cancer centers is establishment of a governance process that includes patients. Researchers should consider determining which PGHD instruments confer the highest value. It is recommended that EHR vendors collaborate with cancer centers to develop solutions for the collection, interpretation, visualization, and use of PGHD.

Full access

Jessica M. Sugalski, Theresa Franco, Lawrence N. Shulman, Elizabeth Souza, Ephraim Hochberg, Anne Chiang, Scott Lawrence, Diana Krause, and Timothy Kubal

The NCCN Best Practices Committee, which is composed of senior physician, nursing, and administrative leaders from NCCN Member Institutions, evaluated the status of cancer center operations after 1 year of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two major initiatives stood out: the increase in the utilization of network sites, and the gains made in telemedicine operations and reimbursement. Experts from NCCN Member Institutions participated in a webinar series in June 2021 to share their experiences, knowledge, and thoughts on these topics and discuss the impact on the future of cancer care.

Full access

Samuel Martel, Matteo Lambertini, and Evandro de Azambuja

Full access

Lynn A. McCain, Kara J. Milliron, Amanda M. Cook, Robert Paquette, Jasmine B. Parvaz, Susan D. Ernst, Anne L. Kittendorf, Diane M. Harper, Phillip Zazove, Jim Arthurs, Jerry A. Tippie, Bailey Hulswit, Lee F. Schroeder, David F. Keren, and Sofia D. Merajver

Background: Individuals at increased risk for cancer are ascertained at low rates of 1% to 12% in primary care (PC). Underserved populations experience disparities of ascertainment, but data are lacking. INHERET is an online personal and family history tool to facilitate the identification of individuals who are eligible, according to guidelines, to be counseled on germline genetic testing and risk management. Patients and Methods: INHERET data entry uses cancer genetics clinic questionnaires and algorithms that process patient data through NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology and best practice guidelines. The tool was tested in silico on simulated and retrospective patients and prospectively in a pilot implementation trial. Patients in cancer genetics and in PC clinics were invited to participate via email or a card. Informed consent was completed online. Results: INHERET aimed to integrate patient data by algorithms based on professional and best practice guidelines to elicit succinct, actionable recommendations that providers can use without affecting clinic workflow or encounter length. INHERET requires a 4th-grade reading level, has simple navigation, and produces data lists and pedigree graphs. Prospective implementation testing revealed understandability of 90% to 100%, ease of use of 85%, and completion rates of 85% to 100%. Physicians using INHERET reported no added time to their encounters when patients were identified for counseling. In a specialty genetics clinic, INHERET’s data were input, on average, within 72 hours compared with 4 to 6 weeks through standard care, and the queue for scheduling patients decreased from 400 to fewer than 15 in <6 months. Conclusions: INHERET was found to be accessible for all education and age levels, except patients aged >70 years, who encountered more technical difficulties. INHERET aided providers in conveying high-risk status to patients and eliciting appropriate referrals, and, in a specialty clinic, it produced improved workflows and shortened queues.

Full access

Robert J. Motzer, Eric Jonasch, Neeraj Agarwal, Ajjai Alva, Michael Baine, Kathryn Beckermann, Maria I. Carlo, Toni K. Choueiri, Brian A. Costello, Ithaar H. Derweesh, Arpita Desai, Yasser Ged, Saby George, John L. Gore, Naomi Haas, Steven L. Hancock, Payal Kapur, Christos Kyriakopoulos, Elaine T. Lam, Primo N. Lara, Clayton Lau, Bryan Lewis, David C. Madoff, Brandon Manley, M. Dror Michaelson, Amir Mortazavi, Lakshminarayanan Nandagopal, Elizabeth R. Plimack, Lee Ponsky, Sundhar Ramalingam, Brian Shuch, Zachary L. Smith, Jeffrey Sosman, Mary A. Dwyer, Lisa A. Gurski, and Angela Motter

The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC typically undergo surgery and/or receive systemic therapy. Tumor histology and risk stratification of patients is important in therapy selection. The NCCN Guidelines for Kidney Cancer stratify treatment recommendations by histology; recommendations for first-line treatment of ccRCC are also stratified by risk group. To further guide management of advanced RCC, the NCCN Kidney Cancer Panel has categorized all systemic kidney cancer therapy regimens as “Preferred,” “Other Recommended Regimens,” or “Useful in Certain Circumstances.” This categorization provides guidance on treatment selection by considering the efficacy, safety, evidence, and other factors that play a role in treatment selection. These factors include pre-existing comorbidities, nature of the disease, and in some cases consideration of access to agents. This article summarizes surgical and systemic therapy recommendations for patients with relapsed or stage IV RCC.

Full access

Leah Puklin, Melinda L. Irwin, Tara Sanft, and Leah M. Ferrucci

Full access

Kristine A. Donovan, George Handzo, Cheyenne Corbett, Jessica Vanderlan, Benjamin W. Brewer, and Kauser Ahmed