Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases ...in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.
Delivering oncologic care via telemedicine has presented a unique set of benefits and challenges. Discussions of sensitive topics between patients and providers can be difficult on a virtual ...platform. Although it was imperative to utilize telemedicine to keep cancer patients safe during the height of the pandemic, its continued use in the postvaccination era has provided important conveniences to both providers and patients. In the case of breaking bad news and end-of-life discussions, however, in-person care has remained the overwhelming preference of both groups. If face-to-face consultation is not possible or feasible in these situations, virtual visits are a viable option to connect oncologists with their patients.
Background
As indications for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy have increased in recent years, so has the proportion of patients eligible for this type of therapy. However, a lack of data ...exists about the risks and benefits of ICI therapy in hospitalized patients, who tend to be frailer and sicker than patients enrolled in clinical trials.
Material and Methods
We conducted a retrospective cohort study among hospitalized patients with metastatic solid tumors who received ICI therapy at a large academic cancer center over the course of 4 years. We analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of these patients and identified demographic and clinical factors that could be used to predict mortality.
Results
During the 4‐year study period, 106 patients were treated with ICI therapy while admitted to the hospital; 70 (66%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≥2, which would have prevented them from enrolling in most clinical trials of ICIs. Fifty‐two patients (49%) died either during admission or within 30 days of discharge; median overall survival was 1.0 month from discharge, and 16 patients (15%) were alive 6 months after discharge. Independent predictors of death following receipt of inpatient ICI included a diagnosis of non‐small cell lung cancer relative to melanoma and prior treatment with two or more lines of therapy.
Conclusion
The poor overall outcomes observed in this study may give clinicians pause when considering ICI therapy for hospitalized patients, particularly those with characteristics that are associated with a greater risk of mortality.
Implications for Practice
Immunotherapy strategies for patients with cancer are rapidly evolving and their use is expanding, but not all patients will develop a response, and secondary toxicity can be significant and challenging. This is especially evident in hospitalized patients, where the economic cost derived from inpatient immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) administration is important and the clinical benefit is sometimes unclear. The poor overall outcomes evidenced in the ICI inpatient population in this study highlight the need to better identify the patients that will respond to these therapies, which will also help to decrease the financial burden imposed by these highly priced therapies.
To aid future decisions regarding immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use in the inpatient setting, this retrospective cohort study was conducted among hospitalized patients who received ICI therapy at a large academic cancer center. The objectives were to characterize the patients receiving inpatient ICI therapy and to identify predictors of poor survival.
Background
The American Cancer Society recommends screening magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with a ≥ 20% lifetime breast cancer risk. This study assesses the outcomes of baseline MRI ...screens in women from a high-risk breast clinic (HRBC).
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed patients from our institution’s HRBC, excluding those with prior breast cancer and predisposing genetic mutations. Screening MRI was recommended for a lifetime risk of ≥ 20% using the Tyrer–Cuzick model. We determined baseline MRI results, biopsy rates, and frequency of MRI-detected high-risk lesions (HRLs) and breast cancers.
Results
Overall, 319 women attended our HRBC; median age was 48 years and 4.7% had prior atypia/lobular carcinoma in situ. Screening MRI was recommended for 282 patients, of whom 196 (69.5%) completed a baseline screen. A Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) 3 or 4 finding occurred in 19.6% of patients; 23 (12.3%) required 6-month follow-up MRI, 16 (8.6%) underwent core biopsy, and 4 (2.1%) underwent excisional biopsy after initial core. An additional 7 (3.7%) patients had a non-breast incidental finding. An HRL was identified in 2 (1.1%) patients (atypical ductal and lobular hyperplasia, respectively), and 2 (1.1%) were diagnosed with T1N0 breast cancers.
Conclusions
In the setting of an HRBC, 70% of women with a ≥ 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer pursued screening MRI when recommended. On baseline screen, the rate of MRI-detected breast cancer was low (1%); however, malignancies were mammographically occult and identified at an early stage. Despite a low cancer rate, nearly one in four women required additional diagnostic investigation. Prescreening counselling should include a discussion of this possibility, and longer-term follow-up of screening MRI is needed in this high-risk population.
Purpose
Chemotherapy-related amenorrhea (CRA) is a surrogate for ovarian toxicity and associated risk of infertility and premature menopause. Here, we compare CRA rate with paclitaxel (T)-trastuzumab ...(H) to that with ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1).
Methods
Patients with T1N0 HER2 + early-stage breast cancer (eBC) enrolled on the ATEMPT trial and were randomized 3:1 to T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every (q) 3 weeks (w) × 17 vs. T 80 mg/m
2
with H IV qw × 12 (4 mg/kg load → 2 mg/kg), followed by H (6 mg/kg IV q3w × 13). Enrollees who self-reported as premenopausal were asked to complete menstrual surveys at baseline and every 6–12 months for 60 months. 18-month CRA (no periods reported during prior 6 months on 18-month survey) was the primary endpoint of this analysis.
Results
Of 512 ATEMPT enrollees, 123 who began protocol therapy and answered baseline and at least one follow-up menstrual survey were premenopausal at enrollment. 76 had menstrual data available at 18 months without having received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or undergone hysterectomy and/or oophorectomy. Median age was 45 (range 23–53) among 18 who had received TH and 46 (range 34–54) among 58 who had received T-DM1. The 18-month rate of CRA was 50% after TH and 24% after T-DM1 (
p
= 0.045).
Conclusion
Amenorrhea at 18 months was less likely in recipients of adjuvant T-DM1 than TH. Future studies are needed to understand how T-DM1 impacts risk of infertility and permanent menopause, and to assess amenorrhea rates when T-DM1 is administered after standard HER2-directed chemotherapy regimens.
PDF
