NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) set the standard for providing exemplary patient care. Quality cancer care includes discussions about fertility and referrals to fertility specialists for patients at risk for sterility. This study sought to determine what fertility preservation (FP) resources are available in CCCs and how well those are integrated into patient care. Leaders at each CCC received a letter requesting a short telephone interview with individuals who could provide information about the institution’s FP resources. A semi-structured interview guide was used and responses were audio-recorded. Data were analyzed using content and thematic analysis. Interviews were conducted with 30 of the 39 CCCs that see adult patients (77%). The remaining institutions included 4 nonresponders, 3 that referred the interviewers to childhood cancer survivorship clinics, 1 that refused, and 1 that could not identify any FP resources. Participants were primarily affiliated with reproductive endocrinology (n=15) or hematology/oncology divisions (n=10). Institutional policies regarding consistent provision of FP information were rare (n=4), although most sites (n=20) either had some services on-site or had referral programs (n=8). However, only 13 had some experimental services, such as ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Respondents reported barriers to provision of FP, including oncologists’ identification of patients at risk, low referral rates, and perceptions of patient prognosis. Only 8 (27%) sites had staff with time dedicated to FP. CCCs vary widely in implementing FP-recommended practice to their patients. CCCs are positioned to provide exemplary oncofertility care, but most need to better integrate FP information and referral into practice.
You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for
- Author: Gwendolyn P. Quinn x
- Refine by Access: All x
Marla L. Clayman, Maya M. Harper, Gwendolyn P. Quinn, Joyce Reinecke, and Shivani Shah
Gwendolyn P. Quinn, Susan T. Vadaparampil, Clement K. Gwede, Joyce D. Reinecke, Tina M. Mason, and Celso Silva
The goal of this project was to develop a referral system to increase the likelihood that patients of childbearing age with newly diagnosed cancer receive timely information about fertility, and reduce the burden oncologists may feel when discussing and exploring fertility preservation options with their patients. The group developed and examined the effectiveness of a fertility preservation referral system through pilot-testing a developed patient education brochure. During the 12-month pilot-testing period, 776 patients of childbearing age (< 40 years) were seen at H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and 349 brochures were taken. The reproductive endocrinologist/infertility clinic experienced a 9-fold increase in the number of calls received during the 12-month study period, with 122 calls received compared with 13 the prior year. The large increase in calls illuminates the gap in patient interest and referral, and shows an effective method to transmit this information. Improving the communication of time-sensitive information about fertility and preservation options to patients with cancer is associated with an increased likelihood of improving quality of life, reducing patient distress, and increasing use of ancillary fertility-related health services. Through referring and providing patient information, this referral system allows oncologists to fulfill their obligation and make informed decisions about fertility preservation, thereby improving the full cancer care continuum.
Janella Hudson, Matthew B. Schabath, Julian Sanchez, Steven Sutton, Vani N. Simmons, Susan T. Vadaparampil, Peter A. Kanetsky, and Gwendolyn P. Quinn
Background: The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ) population is at higher risk for multiple types of cancers compared with the heterosexual population. Expert NCCN panels lead the nation in establishing clinical practice guidelines addressing cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment of cancer sites and populations. Given the emergence of new data identifying cancer disparities in the LGBTQ population, this study examined the inclusion of medical and/or psychosocial criteria unique to LGBTQ within NCCN Guidelines. Methods: Data were collected for 32 of the 50 NCCN Guidelines. Results: NCCN panel members reported that neither sexual orientation (84%) nor gender identity (94%) were relevant to the focus of their guidelines; 77% responded that their panels currently do not address LGBTQ issues, with no plans to address them in the future. Conclusions: Greater consideration should be given to the needs of LGBTQ patients across the cancer care continuum. Given that research concerning LGBTQ and cancer is in its infancy, additional empirical and evidence-based data are needed to bolster further integration of LGBTQ-specific criteria into clinical care guidelines.
Martin J. Edelman, Daniel P. Raymond, Dwight H. Owen, Michelle B. Leavy, Kari Chansky, Sriram Yennu, Felix G. Fernandez, Carolyn J. Presley, Tithi Biswas, Gwendolyn P. Quinn, Matthew B. Schabath, Seth Sheffler-Collins, Laura Chu, and Richard E. Gliklich
Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States and globally, and many questions exist about treatment options. Harmonizing data across registries and other data collection efforts would yield a robust data infrastructure to help address many research questions. The purpose of this project was to develop a minimum set of patient and clinician relevant harmonized outcome measures that can be collected in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patient registries and clinical practice. Methods: Seventeen lung cancer registries and related efforts were identified and invited to submit outcome measures. Representatives from medical specialty societies, government agencies, health systems, health information technology groups, patient advocacy organizations, and industry formed a stakeholder panel to categorize the measures and harmonize definitions using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s supported Outcome Measures Framework (OMF). Results: The panel reviewed 66 outcome measures and identified a minimum set of 8 broadly relevant measures in the OMF categories of patient survival, clinical response, events of interest, and resource utilization. The panel harmonized definitions for the 8 measures through in-person and virtual meetings. The panel did not reach consensus on 1 specific validated instrument for capturing patient-reported outcomes. The minimum set of harmonized outcome measures is broadly relevant to clinicians and patients and feasible to capture across NSCLC disease stages and treatment pathways. A pilot test of these measures would be useful to document the burden and value of the measures for research and in clinical practice. Conclusions: By collecting the harmonized measures consistently, registries and other data collection systems could contribute to the development research infrastructure and learning health systems to support new research and improve patient outcomes.