Trimodality Versus Bimodality Therapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma: Commentary on the American Society of Clinical Oncology Practice Guidelines

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas K. Vitzthum ◽  
Caressa Hui ◽  
Erqi L. Pollom ◽  
Daniel T. Chang
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
American Society ◽  
Oncology Practice

Clinical Oncology Practice 2015: Preparing for the Future

2015 ◽  
pp. e622-e627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Kosty ◽  
Anupama Kurup Acheson ◽  
Eric D. Tetzlaff
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
The United States ◽  
Practice Model ◽  
American Society ◽  
Oncology Practice

The clinical practice of oncology has become increasingly complex. An explosion of medical knowledge, increased demands on provider time, and involved patients have changed the way many oncologists practice. What was an acceptable practice model in the past may now be relatively inefficient. This review covers three areas that address these changes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) National Oncology Census defines who the U.S. oncology community is, and their perceptions of how practice patterns may be changing. The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-ASCO Teams in Cancer Care Project explores how best to employ team science to improve the efficiency and quality of cancer care in the United States. Finally, how physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) might be best integrated into team-based care in oncology and the barriers to integration are reviewed.

1997 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. Adopted on November 7, 1997 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 793-795 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Tumor Markers ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Research Committee ◽  
American Society

OBJECTIVE The primary objective was to update the 1996 clinical practice guidelines for the use of tumor marker tests in the prevention, screening, treatment, and surveillance of breast and colorectal cancers. These guidelines are intended for use in the care of patients outside of clinical trials. OPTIONS Six tumor markers for colorectal cancer and eight for breast cancer were considered. They could be recommended or not for routine use or for special circumstances. In addition to carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen (CA) 15-3, CA 27.29 also was considered in regard to circulatory tumor markers for breast cancer. OUTCOMES In general, the significant health outcomes identified for use in making clinical practice guidelines (overall survival, disease-free survival, quality of life, lesser toxicity, and cost effectiveness) were used. EVIDENCE A computerized literature search from 1994 to July 1997 was performed. VALUES The same values for Use, Utility, and Levels of Evidence were used by the Committee. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS The same benefit, harms, and costs were used. RECOMMENDATION No changes in any guidelines were recommended (see text). VALIDATION External review by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee and by ASCO Board of Directors. SPONSOR American Society of Clinical Oncology.

scholarly journals Advancing Performance Measurement in Oncology: Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Participation and Quality Outcomes

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (3S) ◽  
pp. 31s-35s ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis X. Campion ◽  
Leanne R. Larson ◽  
Pamela J. Kadlubek ◽  
Craig C. Earle ◽  
Michael N. Neuss
Keyword(s):  
Performance Measurement ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
End Of Life Care ◽  
Life Care ◽  
Quality Outcomes ◽  
American Society ◽  
Oncology Practice

American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative has grown to include 973 practices as of 2010. Practices demonstrated rates of end-of-life care and other measures of quality.

The Role of Prevention in Oncology Practice: Results From a 2004 Survey of American Society of Clinical Oncology Members

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18) ◽  
pp. 2948-2957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Lorna Kwan ◽  
Mark R. Somerfield ◽  
David Alberts ◽  
Judy E. Garber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Cancer Prevention And Control ◽  
Prevention Activities ◽  
American Society ◽  
Oncology Practice ◽  
And Control

Purpose In 2004, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Cancer Prevention Committee surveyed the members to describe involvement in clinical prevention activities. Methods A previously administered survey, with updated items on genetics, chemoprevention, and survivorship, was mailed to a stratified random sample of 2,000 domestic members and a convenience sample of 3,144 international members. Results A total of 49.7% of domestic members contacted and survey eligible responded (n = 851). Nonresponders were younger (50.5 v 51.7 years; P < .01); 465 international members responded. Overall, 35% had received formal instruction in cancer prevention and control, and most respondents expected increased use of prevention, screening/early detection, and risk reduction/genetic counseling in their practices in the next 5 years. Most reported caring for cancer survivors, including providing general medical care. They also either directly provide or refer patients for cancer prevention and control services (eg, cancer screening, tobacco and nutrition counseling, risk reduction, and chemoprevention). Multivariable modeling found fewer perceived barriers to inclusion of cancer prevention activities in clinical practice among those practicing in an academic setting, seeing a higher proportion of patients without a cancer diagnosis, having formal training in prevention and control, expecting an increase in prevention activities in the next 5 years, and providing community advice on prevention. Conclusion Barriers to the inclusion of cancer prevention and control activities in oncology clinical practice exist. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of both domestic and international ASCO members report an interest in cancer prevention and control activities, with a desire for more specific educational programs in this emerging area of oncology practice.

Why the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Matters: It’s Not Just About Cost

2016 ◽  
pp. e102-e107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne C. Chiang
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Certification Program ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Regulatory Mandates ◽  
American Society ◽  
Oncology Practice ◽  
Changing Demographics

The nature and cost of cancer care is evolving, affecting more patients and often involving expensive treatment options. The upward cost trends also coincide with a national landscape of increasing regulatory mandates that may demand improved outcomes and value, but that often require significant up-front investment in infrastructure to achieve safety and quality. Oncology practices participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Institute for Quality’s Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) and the QOPI Certification Program (QCP) continue to grow in number and reflect changing demographics of the provision of cancer care. QOPI and QCP benchmarking can be used to achieve quality improvement and to build collaborative quality communities. These programs may be useful tools for oncology practices to comply with new legislation such as the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA).

Use of Hematopoietic Colony-Stimulating Factors: Comparison of the 1994 and 1997 American Society of Clinical Oncology Surveys Regarding ASCO Clinical Practice Guidelines

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 3676-3681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles L. Bennett ◽  
Jane A. Weeks ◽  
Mark R. Somerfield ◽  
Joe Feinglass ◽  
Thomas J. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Palliative Therapy ◽  
Lower Lobe ◽  
Primary Prophylaxis ◽  
Secondary Prophylaxis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
American Society

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Health Services Research Committee sought to assess whether more appropriate patterns of colony-stimulating factor (CSF) use occurred after the publication of ASCO evidence-based practice guidelines in 1994 and 1996 for patients with solid tumors or lymphoma. METHODS: In 1994 and 1997, questionnaires describing clinical scenarios were mailed to ASCO members who practiced medical oncology. Physicians were asked the extent to which they preferred to use a CSF for primary prophylaxis, secondary prophylaxis, or treatment of neutropenic complications. Multiple regression analyses were used to determine predictors of overall propensity to use CSFs and, when using a CSF, propensity to support longer schedules of CSF use. RESULTS: Decreased use of CSFs was shown in the following situations: (1) treatment for febrile neutropenia without localizing signs (39% in 1994 v 29% in 1997) or with a right lower lobe infiltrate (54% v 46%); (2) primary prophylaxis with paclitaxel for ovarian cancer (20% v 11%) or cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine chemotherapy for small-cell lung cancer (8.4% v 4.6%); and (3) secondary prophylaxis after afebrile neutropenia following chemotherapy for germ cell tumors (44.5% v 36.0%). One third fewer physicians supported the extended use of CSFs until an absolute neutrophil count ≥ 10,000/mm3 or a WBC count ≥ 10,000/mm3 was reached, both counts serving as criteria for stopping CSF therapy. However, we observed high rates of CSF use despite ASCO guideline recommendations against use in the following clinical situations: (1) primary prophylaxis in patients at low risk of febrile neutropenia (6% v 16%); (2) secondary prophylaxis late in the course of curative and palliative therapy (80% v 53%); and (3) treatment of afebrile and uncomplicated febrile neutropenia (30% v 60%). In 1994 and 1997, fee-for-service physicians were more likely than other physicians to prefer use of CSF support while maintaining treatment dose and schedule instead of using dose-reduction strategies, and, when using a CSF, they were more likely to support longer CSF treatment schedules (P < .05 for both scenarios). CONCLUSION: Decreased use and more appropriate use of CSFs in accordance with ASCO guideline recommendations occurred from 1994 to 1997, but there remain many opportunities to reduce CSF use with no clinical harm. Many oncologists continue to support the use of CSFs in scenarios and with scheduling criteria that the guidelines and evidence do not support. ASCO's evidence-based guidelines should be linked with formal continuous quality improvement initiatives to substantially improve the quality of supportive oncology care.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Technology Assessment: Chemotherapy Sensitivity and Resistance Assays

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (17) ◽  
pp. 3631-3638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Schrag ◽  
Harinder S. Garewal ◽  
Harold J. Burstein ◽  
David J. Samson ◽  
Daniel D. Von Hoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Chemotherapeutic Agents ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Chemotherapy Sensitivity ◽  
American Society ◽  
Oncology Practice

Purpose To develop a technology assessment of chemotherapy sensitivity and resistance assays in order to define the role of these tests in routine oncology practice. Methods The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) established a Working Group to develop the technology assessment. The Working Group collaborated with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) Technology Evaluation Center. The Working Group developed independent criteria for selecting articles for inclusion in the ASCO assessment, and developed a structured data abstraction tool to facilitate review of selected manuscripts. One Working Group member and an ASCO staff member independently reviewed the 1,139 abstracts identified by the BCBSA comprehensive literature search, and by an updated literature search performed by ASCO using the BCBSA search strategy (1966 to January 2004). Of the 12 articles included in this technology assessment, eight were identified by the original BCBSA systematic review, one was provided by industry, and three were identified by the ASCO updated literature review. Results Review of the literature does not identify any CSRAs for which the evidence base is sufficient to support use in oncology practice. Recommendations The use of chemotherapy sensitivity and resistance assays to select chemotherapeutic agents for individual patients is not recommended outside of the clinical trial setting. Oncologists should make chemotherapy treatment recommendations on the basis of published reports of clinical trials and a patient's health status and treatment preferences. Because the in vitro analytic strategy has potential importance, participation in clinical trials evaluating these technologies remains a priority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document