National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions Research Articles

Care Patterns and Barriers to Outpatient Care for Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Following Intensive Chemotherapy at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Institutions

Background: Prolonged hospitalization following intensive (re)induction chemotherapy until resolution of cytopenias is the current standard of care for adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but this approach is costly, resource intense, contributory to hospital bed shortages, and negatively impacts patients' quality of life (QOL). Early hospital discharge (EHD) immediately following completion of chemotherapy has been proposed as an alternative and has proven safe at select institutions. Here, we conducted a National Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCCN) survey, through its Best Practices Committee (BPC), to examine discharge practices for adults with AML at other major cancer centers to better understand interest in, and barriers to, adopting an EHD approach more broadly. Methods: NCCN is a non-profit alliance of 33 cancer centers in the U.S. The survey was developed by 2 physicians at one center and piloted at 2 other centers. The NCCN BPC, which is composed of senior physician, nursing, and administrative leaders from NCCN Member Institutions, distributed the survey in early 2023 via a web-based survey tool (SurveyMonkey, San Mateo, CA) to a representative at each center, requesting completion by a content area expert. No incentives were offered for completion. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 30/33 (91%) centers completed the survey, 60% of which treat >100 AML patients annually and 45% treat over half of their patients with intensive chemotherapy (7+3 or regimens with a high-dose cytarabine backbone). All centers perform allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantations (HCT). There was no difference in the proportion of intensively treated patients across centers by patient volume. Following (re)induction therapy, 80% of institutions keep patients hospitalized until blood count recovery, whereas 20% attempt to discharge patients early if medically stable and logistics permit. Concerns regarding patient safety, housing, and caregiver availability were the main reasons for keeping patients hospitalized ( Figure 1). In contrast, following post-remission (“consolidation”) therapy, 87% of centers discharge patients early. Concerns regarding increased care needs, worse functional status, and higher complications risks following induction relative to post-remission therapy accounted for the main reasons for this difference ( Figure 2). 80% of centers were interested in exploring EHD after (re)induction but noted barriers including affordable local housing (71%), transportation (50%), high toxicity/infection rate (50%), high transfusion burden (50%) and limited bed availability when re-hospitalization is necessary (50%). Among the 6 centers that practice EHD, all have infusion centers with full weekday hours, 5 have full weekend/holiday hours, 3 more have evening hours, and 1 has reduced holiday/weekend hours. All can provide blood product support within 4 hours from ordering and administer IV antimicrobials within 1 hour from ordering in outpatient clinic. In 4 centers, evaluation of a patient with presumed neutropenia contacting the clinic with fever during regular hours can occur in the outpatient clinic, with subsequent admission if necessary; at one center the patient would be referred to the ED and at one center the patient would be directly admitted to an inpatient ward. If a patient needs admission, a bed would be available for direct admission to the inpatient ward in 4/6 of the centers >75% of the time, at 1 center 26-50% of the time, and at 1 center <25% of the time. EHD was not practiced at any centers in cities with population of >1 million, citing local housing availability as a major EHD barrier. There was no correlation between the ability to practice EHD and annual AML patient volume, treatment intensity patterns, or hospitalization practices following HCT. Conclusions: Hospitalization and care patterns following AML therapy are highly variable across major U.S. cancer institutions. While only 20% of major cancer centers surveyed practice EHD following intensive (re)induction chemotherapy, 87% do so following post-remission therapy. There is interest in exploring this approach despite medical and logistical barriers. Given potential advantages of EHD for both patients and healthcare systems, strategies to address these barriers should be explored to reduce healthcare resource utilization and improve patients' QOL.

Oncologist perspectives on tumor boards: Virtual meetings and EHR integration.

46 Background: Tumor boards (TBs) are considered a key component for ensuring high quality cancer care. However, little is known about TB operational aspects that impact effectiveness. We aimed to understand how TBs leverage Electronic Health Record (EHR) functionalities and how pandemic-driven transitions from in-person TBs to virtual TBs impacted TB quality and effectiveness. Methods: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Oncology EHR Advisory Group formed a Workgroup to assess the current state of TBs, obtain providers’ views on ideal TB state, and develop recommendations for improving TB quality and effectiveness. The Workgroup surveyed providers in various specialties at 31 NCCN Member Institutions in March 2022. Results: 846 providers from 27 institutions responded to the survey (n = 76 respondents were excluded from analysis because they reported not participating in TBs). Almost all (n = 764/767, 99%) indicated that one or more participants always or frequently attended TB meetings virtually. When comparing (newly established) virtual to (pre-pandemic) in-person TBs, 69% indicated increased attendance at virtual TBs. 65% reported no change in case volume, and 56% reported unchanged discussion quality while 19% reported increased discussion quality when comparing virtual to in-person TB meetings. In regards to EHR integration, several gaps between current and ideal state were noted. For instance, 40% always or frequently added patients to the TB roster via the EHR, but 57% reported this functionality to be very important or important for TBs. Additionally, 53% always or frequently document TB recommendations within the EHR, while 87% indicated EHR documentation of recommendations as very important or important. Respondents reported that barriers to documentation include resource constraints, concerns with patient access to documentation, legal and liability concerns, and poor EHR functionality. Conclusions: Overall, the majority of responding providers reported virtual TBs to be at least similar in quality to in-person TB meetings. A major gap identified by this study is the lack of documentation of TB recommendations in the EHR. Workflows and EHR functionalities could be improved to fully optimize the EHR for TB management and documentation.[Table: see text]

A Study of Advanced Practice Provider Staffing Models and Professional Development Opportunities at National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions.

Introduction:The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Best Practices Committee created an Advanced Practice Provider (APP) Workgroup to develop recommendations to support APP roles at NCCN Member Institutions.Methods:The Workgroup conducted three surveys to understand APP program structure, staffing models, and professional development opportunities at NCCN Member Institutions.Results:The total number of new and follow-up visits a 1.0 APP full-time equivalent conducts per week in shared and independent visits ranged from 11 to 97, with an average of 40 visits per week (n = 39). The type of visits APPs conduct include follow-up shared (47.2%), follow-up independent (46%), new shared (6.5%), and new independent visits (0.5%). Seventy-two percent of respondents utilize a mixed model visit type, with 15% utilizing only independent visits and 13% utilizing only shared visits (n = 39). Of the 95% of centers with APP leads, 100% indicated that leads carry administrative and clinical responsibilities (n = 20); however, results varied with respect to how this time is allocated. Professional development opportunities offered included posters, papers, and presentations (84%), leadership development (57%), research opportunities (52%), writing book chapters (19%), and other professional development activities (12%; n = 422). Twenty percent of APPs indicated that protected time to engage in development opportunities should be offered.Conclusion:As evidenced by the variability of the survey results, the field would benefit from developing standards for APPs. There is a lack of information regarding leadership structures to help support APPs, and additional research is needed. Additionally, centers should continuously assess the career-long opportunities needed to maximize the value of oncology APPs.

Psychology Staffing at Cancer Centers: Data From National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions.

The field of psycho-oncology is relatively undeveloped, with little information existing regarding the use of psychologists at cancer centers. Comprising 30 leading cancer centers across the United States, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) set out to understand the trends in its Member Institutions. The NCCN Best Practices Committee surveyed NCCN Member Institutions regarding their use of psychologists. The survey was administered electronically in the spring/summer of 2017. The survey was completed by 18 cancer centers. Across institutions, 94% have psychologists appointed to provide direct care to their cancer center patients. The number of licensed psychologist full-time equivalents (FTEs) on staff who provide direct patient care ranged from < 1.0 FTE (17%) to 17.0-17.9 FTEs (6%). Regarding psychologist appointments, 41% have both faculty and staff appointments, 41% have all faculty appointments, and 18% have all staff appointments. Forty-three percent of institutions indicated that some licensed psychologists at their centers (ranging from 1%-65%) do not provide any direct clinical care, and 57% indicated that all licensed psychologist on staff devote some amount of time to direct clinical care. The percent of clinical care time that is spent on direct clinical care ranged from 15%-90%. There is great variability in psychology staffing, academic appointments, and the amount of direct patient care provided by on-staff psychologists at cancer centers.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network Infusion Efficiency Workgroup Study: Optimizing Patient Flow in Infusion Centers.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) formed an Infusion Efficiency Workgroup to determine best practices for operating efficient and effective infusion centers. The Workgroup conducted three surveys that were distributed to NCCN member institutions regarding average patient wait time, chemotherapy premixing practices, infusion chair use, and premedication protocols. To assess chair use, the Workgroup identified and defined five components of chair time. The average patient wait time in infusion centers ranged from 25 to 102 minutes (n = 23; mean, 58 minutes). Five of 26 cancer centers (19%) routinely mix chemotherapy drugs before patient arrival for patients meeting specified criteria. Total planned chair time for subsequent doses of the same drug regimens for the same diseases varied greatly among centers, as follows: Administration of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide ranged from 85 to 240 minutes (n = 22); of FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplation) ranged from 270 to 420 minutes (n = 22); of rituximab ranged from 120 to 350 minutes (n = 21); of paclitaxel plus carboplatin ranged from 255 to 380 minutes (n = 21); and of zoledronic acid ranged from 30 to 150 minutes (n = 22) for planned total chair time. Cancer centers were found to use different premedication regimens with varying administration routes that ranged in administration times from zero to 60 minutes. There is a high degree of variation among cancer centers in regard to planned chair time for the same chemotherapy regimens, providing opportunities for improved efficiency, increased revenue, and more standardization across centers. The NCCN Workgroup demonstrates potential revenue impact and provides recommendations for cancer centers to move toward more efficient and more standard practices.

Comparing fertility preservation resources and policies between NCCN member and non-member institutions.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) created guidelines to facilitate implementation of fertility preservation (FP) discussions and referrals for adolescent and young adult patients. We assessed if availability of workplace FP resources and referral policies differed among learners in the Educating Nurses about Reproductive Health in Cancer Healthcare (ENRICH) training program based on NCCN membership. Learners completed a baseline application, including demographic information and the availability of FP resources and referral policies. Learners were categorized as either NCCN members or non-members and chi-square tests compared resources between the two groups. Learners from NCCN institutions reported the highest rates of established FP referral guidelines (p < .01), reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist (REI) on staff (p < .01), partnerships with REI, educational materials for staff (p < .05), and patients (p < .01). FP resources and referral policies were highest among learners from NCCN member institutions, but areas for development with fertility issues still exist and learners from non-member institutions may assist their workplaces in improving rates of discussions and referrals based on their ENRICH training. The variation of available resources and referral policies between groups suggests more FP education and training; focusing on implementation programs is needed to make steps towards impactful institutional level resources and policies.

Evaluation and treatment of insomnia in adult cancer survivorship programs.

Insomnia is commonly experienced by cancer survivors. Chronic insomnia is associated with significant physical and psychosocial consequences if not properly treated. Both the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend the evaluation of sleep disturbances and evidence-based treatment of insomnia during routine survivorship care. To better understand current clinical practices, we conducted a survey of major cancer centers across the United States (US). Adult survivorship programs at the 25 US cancer centers that are both NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers and NCCN member institutions were surveyed about the evaluation and treatment of insomnia in their hospital. All institutions responded to the survey. Thirteen centers (56%) reported screening <25% of survivors for sleep disorders, and few clinicians providing survivorship care were well-prepared to conduct a proper sleep evaluation. Insomnia was most commonly treated with sleep hygiene, or pharmacotherapy, rather than cognitive-behavioral therapy. No program reported that >50% of their survivors were receiving optimal insomnia-related care. A variety of methods to improve insomnia care were endorsed by respondents. There is a clear need to improve the evaluation and treatment of insomnia for cancer survivors at institutions across the country. Cancer centers deemed a number of modalities relevant for improving provider confidence in addressing sleep challenges. To improve the quality of insomnia care for survivors, systematic interventions to increase standardized screening for sleep disorders, providing additional sleep medicine training for survivorship clinicians, and optimizing the role of sleep medicine specialists in the oncology setting should be considered.

Variation in Definitive Therapy for Localized Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Among National Comprehensive Cancer Network Institutions

This study determined practice patterns in the staging and treatment of patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) among National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions. Secondary aims were to determine trends in the use of definitive therapy, predictors of treatment type, and acute adverse events associated with primary modalities of treatment. Data from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Oncology Outcomes Database from 2007 to 2011 for US patients with stage I NSCLC were used. Main outcome measures included patterns of care, predictors of treatment, acute morbidity, and acute mortality. Seventy-nine percent of patients received surgery, 16% received definitive radiation therapy (RT), and 3% were not treated. Seventy-four percent of the RT patients received stereotactic body RT (SBRT), and the remainder received nonstereotactic RT (NSRT). Among participating NCCN member institutions, the number of surgeries-to-RT course ratios varied between 1.6 and 34.7 (P<.01), and the SBRT-to-NSRT ratio varied between 0 and 13 (P=.01). Significant variations were also observed in staging practices, with brain imaging 0.33 (0.25-0.43) times as likely and mediastinoscopy 31.26 (21.84-44.76) times more likely for surgical patients than for RT patients. Toxicity rates for surgical and for SBRT patients were similar, although the rates were double for NSRT patients. The variations in treatment observed among NCCN institutions reflects the lack of level I evidence directing the use of surgery or SBRT for stage I NSCLC. In this setting, research of patient and physician preferences may help to guide future decision making.

Implementation of NCCN Palliative Care Guidelines by member institutions.

Increasingly, evidence suggests the integration of palliative care (PC) with standard oncologic care can yield substantial benefits. As part of an effort to improve the PC of cancer patients, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has developed clinical practice guidelines for PC that promote access to quality, evidence-based PC. This study sought to characterize current implementation of the guidelines by NCCN member institutions. Institutional representatives appointed to the NCCN Palliative Care Guidelines Panel were asked to complete an online survey in the spring of 2014. The survey focused on availability of PC services, screening and referral practices for PC, PC education, and quality improvement programs. The survey was completed by representatives from 21 of 25 NCCN member institutions (84 %). A majority routinely provides PC services via interdisciplinary teams; 52 % routinely inform patients of the availability, elements, and benefits of PC. The guidelines are most often used to guide clinical practice; only 10 % reported using the guidelines to formally screen for PC needs and/or make referrals to PC specialists. Among the 62 % of institutions that screen any patients using any available criteria, when a patient screens positive for PC needs, a referral to a PC specialist is made less than half the time. Implementation of PC Guidelines is incomplete and various aspects of the guidelines, such as the recommendation to screen all patients for PC needs, are applied inconsistently. Despite this, most institutions provide PC services in a manner consistent with the guidelines. Greater implementation of the guidelines' recommendations is needed.

Psychosocial staffing at National Comprehensive Cancer Network member institutions: data from leading cancer centers.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is comprised of 25 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers and arguably could thus set the standard for optimal psychosocial staffing for cancer centers; therefore, information was sought from NCCN Member Institutions about their current staffing for psychosocial services. These findings are put into perspective given the limited existing literature and consensus reports. The NCCN Best Practices Committee surveyed member institutions about their staffing for psychosocial services. The survey was administered electronically in the winter of 2012. The survey was completed by 20 cancer centers. Across institutions, case managers and mental health therapists, typically social workers, were utilized most frequently to provide psychosocial services (67% of full-time-equivalents (FTEs)), with other psychosocial professionals also represented but less consistently. Most psychosocial services are institutionally funded (ranging from 64 to 100%), although additional sources of support include fee for service and grant funding. Training of psychosocial providers is unevenly distributed across responding sites, ranging from 92% of institutions having training programs for psychiatrists to 36% having training programs for mental health therapists. There was variability among the institutions in terms of patient volume, psychosocial services provided, and psychosocial staff employed. As accreditation standards are implemented that provide impetus for psychosocial services in oncology, it is hoped that greater clarity will develop concerning staffing for psychosocial services and uptake of these services by patients with cancer.

Demonstrating Medical Student Competency in Palliative Care: Development and Evaluation of a New “OSCE” Station (S779)

Objectives Describe a process for gauging implementation of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s PalliativeCareGuidelinesby itsmember institutions. Identify the impediments to NCCN Palliative Care Guideline adoption by member institutions. Original Research Background. To promote access and delivery of quality, evidence-based palliative care (PC), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has developed PC guidelines to guide symptom screening, assessment, PC interventions, and reassessment by the oncology team. Research Objectives. We sought to evaluate adoption of the guidelines among NCCN member institutions. Methods. An invitation and reminders to participate in an online survey were sent to NCCN PC guidelines panel members. If a panel member did not reply, individuals at the same institution were approached. Results. Responses were received from 21 (84%) of the 25 member institutions. All of the institutions report having an interdisciplinary team with PC expertise. Forty-three percent have guidelines or triggers in place for the use of PC services. Only 10% actively employ the NCCN guidelines to screen for PC needs or make PC referrals; the guidelines are more often used to guide patient assessment (38%) and clinical practice (43%). When asked to endorse other PC referral criteria, 76% indicated the discretion of the oncology provider(s) and 29% the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care. Sixty-two percent agree providers concur on the elements of PC and 29% agree as to who should receive PC. Only 19% agree early integration of PC should occur for all oncology patients and 43% agree PC referrals occur in a timely and efficient manner. The most frequently cited barriers to the provision of quality PC are attitudes toward PC (71%), insufficient staffing (61%) and limited financial resources (57%). Conclusions. Adoption of the guidelines at NCCN member institutions is incomplete. There appears to be a lack of consensus about when and for whom PC should be provided. Implications for Research, Policy, or Practice. Future research should be designed to enhance understanding of the barriers to care and improve implementation of the guidelines.

Implementation of NCCN palliative care guidelines by member institutions.

15 Background: To promote access to quality, evidence-based palliative care (PC) and help cancer patients experience the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has developed PC guidelines to guide symptom screening, assessment, PC interventions, and reassessment by the oncology team. We sought to evaluate use of the guidelines among NCCN member institutions. Methods: In April and May 2014 an invitation and reminders to participate in an online survey were sent electronically to NCCN PC guidelines panel members. If a panel member did not reply, individuals involved in the provision of PC at the same institution were approached. Results: Responses were received from 21 (84%) of the 25 member institutions. All of the institutions report having an interdisciplinary team with PC expertise. Among respondents, 38% have an accredited/certified PC program and 52% have an institutional PC quality improvement program in place. Fifty-two percent submit data to the National Palliative Care Registry. Forty-three percent have guidelines or triggers in place for the use of PC services. Only 10% actively employ the NCCN guidelines to screen for PC needs or make PC referrals; the guidelines are more often used to guide patient assessment (38%) and clinical practice (43%). When asked to endorse other PC referral criteria, 76% indicated the discretion of the oncology provider(s) and 29% the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care. Sixty-two percent agree providers concur on the elements of PC and 29% agree as to who should receive PC. Only 19% agree early integration of PC should occur for all oncology patients and 43% agree PC referrals occur in a timely and efficient manner. The most frequently cited barriers to the provision of quality PC are: attitudes toward PC (71%), insufficient staffing (61%) and limited financial resources (57%). Conclusions: Implementation of the guidelines at NCCN member institutions is incomplete. There appears to be a lack of consensus about when and for whom PC should be provided. Future research should be designed to enhance understanding of the barriers to care and improve implementation of the guidelines.

Dietary Recommendations During and After Cancer Treatment: Consistently Inconsistent?

Recent data reveals that dietary factors may influence outcomes in patients undergoing cancer treatment. However, patient-centered information on dietary recommendations is limited. In this study, we assessed dietary recommendations for cancer patients during treatment and survivorship by evaluating the websites of all National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions. NCCN members were identified on www.nccn.org, and individual websites were reviewed for nutritional content. Recommendations were categorized by meal frequency, diet type, macronutrient content, and other specific recommendations. Twenty-one NCCN member institutions were identified. Only 4 sites (19%) provided nutritional guidelines. Half promoted a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet recommending 5:1 and 7:1 ratios of carbohydrate to fat food types, and half promoted weight maintenance during treatment, endorsing a 1:1 ratio of carbohydrate to fat. One third of all NCCN sites (n = 7) had links to 9 external websites. Four external sites provided nutrition guidelines: half favored a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, and half favored high-caloric intake to maintain weight. Consistent online dietary recommendations are lacking for patients during and after cancer treatment. Given the lack of consensus on dietary recommendations, future research is warranted to develop evidenced-based guidelines that can be used by oncologists and patients alike.

Opportunities for improvement (OFI) in guideline concordance (GLC) at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions (MI).

172 Background: The NCCN is implementing a performance improvement initiative using breast cancer (BC) practice data from NCCN MIs to improve institutional delivery of GLC and identify tailored opportunities for improving efficiency and quality of care delivered. Methods: This initiative includes evaluation of baseline GLC, review of non-concordant (NC) cases, design of tailored institutional interventions, and post-intervention evaluation of GLC and reasons for NC. BC patients presenting from July 2007 to March 2009 at 11 NCCN MIs were included in the baseline review. Six Category 1 GLC and 3 ASCO/NCCN quality measures evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy (CTX), endocrine therapy (ET), and radiation (XRT) were reviewed. GLC was assessed using the NCCN Outcomes database. Results: Aggregate GLC across all measures was 90% (MI range 66% to 100%). Review of NC cases was used to develop tailored OFI interventions. Three MIs are focusing on clinical practice improvement via provider education and feedback and integration of electronic medical record flags for treatment consideration. Nine MIs are working on improving access and reducing time-to-treatment lags. Currently, half of MIs are implementing and half are evaluating OFI interventions. Conclusions: This program supports data-driven QI efforts at MIs with the goal of improving efficiency and quality of care delivered to patients at participating sites, as well as serving as a model for data-driven quality improvement programs. [Table: see text]

Dietary Recommendations During Cancer Treatment: Consistently Inconsistent?

Purpose/Objective(s): Recent data has shown that dietary factors may significantly influence outcomes in patients undergoing cancer treatment. However, patient-centered information on dietary recommendations during cancer treatment is limited. In this study, we sought to assess current nutritional recommendations for adult patients undergoing cancer treatment by reviewing dietary recommendations available on the websites of all National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) member institutions. Materials/Methods: We identified all NCCN-member institutions (excluding pediatric cancer centers) on www.nccn.org. We then thoroughly reviewed the web site of each of those institutions to evaluate nutritional guidance for patients undergoing cancer treatment. We tabulated the total number of sites that provided, or did not provide nutritional recommendations, and categorized advice as: meal frequency advice, general recommendations, macronutrient recommendations, and specific food-type recommendations. Results: Twenty-one NCCN member institutions were identified, and two members of the same comprehensive center were analyzed separately. In total, 38% (nZ8/21) NCCN member institution websites provided or referenced websites with specific nutritional information for patients during treatment. Nineteen percent (nZ4/21) NCCN institutions provided their own nutritional guidelines and 33% (nZ7/21) had links to external websites. Only 4 of these sites actually provided nutritional recommendations. Of the four NCCN member institutions that provided dietary guidelines, two promoted a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, with recommendations of carbohydrate to fat ratios of 5:1 and 6:1. The other two institutions promoted weight maintenance during treatment, and their dietary recommendations endorsed a near 1:1 ratio of carbohydrate to fat. Of the nine external websites that were referenced by NCCN institutions, 4 gave nutrition guidelines during cancer treatment, and two of these also favored a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet, while the other two favored high-caloric intake to maintain weight. Conclusions: Online dietary and nutritional recommendations are lacking for patients during cancer treatment and vary significantly, not only within the NCCN websites, but also from the external nutritional websites they reference. There is a lack of consensus of dietary recommendations and future research is warranted to develop evidenced-based, accessible, and consistent guidelines. Author Disclosure: C.E. Champ: None. N. Ohri: None. M.V. Mishra: None. T.N. Showalter: None. S. Munro: None. A.P. Dicker: None. N.L. Simone: None.

The 2010 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk assessment and genetic counseling (RA/GC) study: Operational aspects of RA/GC programs at academic medical centers.

e16510 Background: In 2010 NCCN conducted a Risk Assessment and Genetic Counseling (RA/GC) study focused on the operational aspects of RA/GC programs and services at NCCN Member Institutions (MIs). The primary aims were benchmarking of RA/GC operations and practice patterns. Methods: A survey instrument was developed by NCCN staff in consultation with RA/GC leaders at NCCN MIs. The survey collected quantitative and descriptive data on RA/GC program organization, staffing, and patient volume and also included questions on patient referral, test disclosure, and program funding. Results: 19/21 (90%) NCCN MIs participated. The mean number of patients seen annually for 17 MIs reporting data was 872 (range 130 – 2,200). The mean number of patients seen annually per 1.0 genetic counseling full-time equivalent was 272 (range 152 – 422). RA/GC services are made available to patients by scheduled appointment only at 5 MIs (26%) versus by appointment or with on-call genetic counselors at 14 MIs (74%). However, 11/19 (58%) MIs reported the time between initial patient contact and appointment was greater than 2 weeks. Self-sufficient RA/GC program funding was consistently cited by survey respondents as one of the greatest challenges, with 18 MIs indicating that they require institutional support, whereas only 11 indicated that reimbursement from third-party payors contributed to funding. Pertaining to disclosure, respondents estimated that 48% of test results were disclosed to patients via telephone and 39% in-person. The remaining disclosures were made based on patient preference. Conclusions: The availability of on-call RA/GC resources at most NCCN MIs likely indicates an effort to increase the number of patients that receive RA/GC services, but based on times to first appointment, access remains an issue. The 2011 recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors state that the disclosure of test results in-person is often very helpful. However, the percentage given by telephone remains substantial. Dissemination of RA/GC benchmark data and identification of best practices will promote enhanced operations and patient access at NCCN MIs.

Nature and extent of financial conflicts of interest among National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines panel members.

e16555 Background: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines are the most widely recognized and comprehensive clinical policies used in oncology written by multidisciplinary panels of expert physicians from NCCN member institutions. However, the recommendations are largely developed from lower levels of evidence or expert opinions, and therefore, potentially vulnerable to influence by financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) (Poonacha T, et al. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:186-191). Objective: We performed this study to describe the nature and extent of self-reported FCOIs of NCCN panel members among the 10 most common cancers in the US. Methods: We obtained the disclosures from the NCCN website (accessed December 1, 2011). FCOIs are reported under 4 categories: clinical research support (research), advisory board/speaker bureau/expert witness/consultant (honoraria), patent/equity/royalty (equity), and other remunerations. Results: There are 330 panel members with a mean of 33 per panel. Most (94%), but not all, disclosures are up to date as of 2011. 141 (43%) panel members reported FCOIs. The extent of FCOIs among panel members according to disease sites are as follows: non-Hodgkin lymphoma (60%), breast (52%), kidney (49%), colorectal (48%), lung (47%), prostate (41%), bladder (40%), melanoma (29%), thyroid (28%), and uterine (25%) cancers. 74% (n=23) of writing committee members and 83% of panel chairs have FCOIs. Among the panel members with FCOIs, 51%, 48 %, 1%, and 1% of the FCOIs are related to research, honoraria, equity, and other remunerations, respectively. Of those with non-research FCOIs (n=109), 38%, 29%, and 33%, reported 1, 2-3, and &gt;4 disclosures, respectively Conclusions: ASubstantial proportions of NCCN panel members as well as the majority of panel chairs and writing committee members have FCOIs. Nearly half of the FCOIs are unrelated to research support. While the actual impact of FCOIs on the NCCN recommendations cannot be determined from our study, the potential for such influence can be considerable.

Aggressive end-of-life (EOL) chemotherapy (CT) use in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC): A National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) outcomes database analysis.

7537 Background: Aggressive EOL cancer care is a health care quality and cost issue. As lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the U.S., and NCCN member institutions are consid...

NCCN Oncology Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies White Paper: Recommendations for Stakeholders

REMS are a particularly important issue for oncology and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). A disproportionate number of drugs with complex REMS are used in patients with cancer or hematologic disorders. REMS policies and processes within oncology may act as a model for other clinical areas. A breadth of experience and access to a wide knowledge base exists within oncology that will ensure appropriate development and consideration of the practical implications of REMS. NCCN is uniquely positioned to assume a leadership role in this process given its status as the arbiter of high-quality cancer care based on its world-leading institutions and clinicians. Notwithstanding the potential benefits, the successful design, implementation, and analysis of the FDA's recent requirement for REMS for some high-risk drugs and biologics will present significant challenges for stakeholders, including patients, providers, cancer centers, manufacturers, payors, health information technology vendors, and regulatory agencies. To provide guidance to these stakeholders regarding REMS challenges, the NCCN assembled a work group comprised of thought leaders from NCCN Member Institutions and other outside experts. The Work Group identified challenges across the REMS spectrum, including the areas of standardization, development and assessment of REMS programs, medication guides, provider knowledge and impact on prescribing, provider burden and compensation, and incorporation of REMS into clinical practice.

Implementation of NCCN Distress Management Guidelines by Member Institutions

Up to half of all adults with cancer experience clinically significant psychological distress and much of this distress goes unrecognized and untreated. As part of an effort to improve the care of cancer patients, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has developed clinical practice guidelines for distress management that include recommendations about the evaluation and treatment of distress. These authors conducted a study to evaluate the implementation of these distress management guidelines by NCCN member institutions. The NCCN member institutions that treat adults were asked in April and May 2005 to describe their distress management practices, and 15 (83%) provided responses. Of these, 8 (53%) conduct routine distress screening for at least some patient groups, with 4 additional institutions (27%) pilot-testing screening strategies. However, only 20% of surveyed member institutions screened all patients as the guidelines recommend. In addition, whether institutions that conduct routine distress screening do so through standardized assessment methods is unclear, because 37.5% of institutions that conduct screening rely only on interviews to identify distressed patients. Findings suggest that most institutions consider screening patients' mental health concerns important and worthwhile, but that greater implementation of guideline recommendations is needed.