Health System in Zimbabwe and Delay in Seeking Health Care of Breast Cancer Among Women

Breast cancer, the most prevailing and only cancer considered universal among women worldwide. The rate of breast cancer per 100,000 women is higher in high income countries than in low income countries. However, mortality rates are high in low income countries due to the delay in seeking health care. A systematic literature review was carried out to document the health system implemented in Zimbabwe and its challenges that could be contributing to the delay in seeking health care of breast cancer among women in Zimbabwe. A content analysis was used to analyze articles, searching was done using the Boolean search strategy, articles from 2005 to 2021, which met the inclusion criteria were considered. Factors such as centralized services due to shortage of cancer specialists, lack of financial allocations on breast cancer health programs, shortage of screening and surgical equipment, lack of accurate data due to weak registration system and health management information system as well as poor governance and leadership have also been found to be challenges in the health system of Zimbabwe that may contribute to delay in seeking health care of breast cancer among women in Zimbabwe. Keywords: breast cancer, health system, health care, Zimbabwe

Machine Learning and Its Application in Skin Cancer

Artificial intelligence (AI) has wide applications in healthcare, including dermatology. Machine learning (ML) is a subfield of AI involving statistical models and algorithms that can progressively learn from data to predict the characteristics of new samples and perform a desired task. Although it has a significant role in the detection of skin cancer, dermatology skill lags behind radiology in terms of AI acceptance. With continuous spread, use, and emerging technologies, AI is becoming more widely available even to the general population. AI can be of use for the early detection of skin cancer. For example, the use of deep convolutional neural networks can help to develop a system to evaluate images of the skin to diagnose skin cancer. Early detection is key for the effective treatment and better outcomes of skin cancer. Specialists can accurately diagnose the cancer, however, considering their limited numbers, there is a need to develop automated systems that can diagnose the disease efficiently to save lives and reduce health and financial burdens on the patients. ML can be of significant use in this regard. In this article, we discuss the fundamentals of ML and its potential in assisting the diagnosis of skin cancer.

Risk-Stratified Pathways for Cancer Survivorship Care: Insights from a Deliberative Multi-Stakeholder Consultation

Risk-stratified pathways of survivorship care seek to optimize coordination between cancer specialists and primary care physicians based on the whole person needs of the individual. While the principle is supported by leading cancer institutions, translating knowledge to practice confronts a lack of clarity about the meaning of risk stratification, uncertainties around the expectations the model holds for different actors, and health system structures that impede communication and coordination across the care continuum. These barriers must be better understood and addressed to pave the way for future implementation. Recognizing that an innovation is more likely to be adopted when user experience is incorporated into the planning process, a deliberative consultation was held as a preliminary step to developing a pilot project of risk-stratified pathways for patients transitioning from specialized oncology teams to primary care providers. This article presents findings from the deliberative consultation that sought to understand the perspectives of cancer specialists, primary care physicians, oncology nurses, allied professionals, cancer survivors and researchers regarding the following questions: what does a risk stratified model of cancer survivorship care mean to care providers and users? What are the prerequisites for translating risk stratification into practice? What challenges are involved in establishing these prerequisites? The multi-stakeholder consultation provides empirical data to guide actions that support the development of risk-stratified pathways to coordinate survivorship care.

San Antonio 2020 update—the top 3 surgical abstracts

SummaryThe San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium is one of the largest meetings addressing the treatment of breast cancer patients; therefore, the meeting is of high interest for breast cancer specialists from around the world.From the meeting in 2020, which was held virtually, I have picked the top three surgical abstracts to show new developments in the surgical treatment of breast cancer patients.The first abstract addresses the question of whether an axillary dissection is necessary or not, in a selected patient cohort. The results, even after a short follow-up time, could confirm the findings of the ACOZOG Z 0011 trial.The second abstract refers to the question of whether sentinel node biopsy is always mandatory in older patients with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer.Finally, the third abstract focuses on a trial dedicated to the sentinel lymph node after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.These three abstracts show the importance of the surgical management of the axilla, under special circumstances.

Gap between desired and self-determined roles of general practitioners: a multicentre questionnaire study in Japan

Background Primary care physicians have diverse responsibilities. To collaborate with cancer specialists efficiently, they should prioritise roles desired by other collaborators rather than roles based on their own beliefs. No previous studies have reported the priority of roles such clinic-based general practitioners are expected to fulfil across the cancer care continuum. This study clarified the desired roles of clinic-based general practitioners to maximise person-centred cancer care. Methods A web-based multicentre questionnaire in Japan was distributed to physicians in 2019. Physician roles within the cancer care continuum were divided into 12 categories, including prevention, diagnosis, surgery, follow-up with cancer survivors, chemotherapy, and palliative care. Responses were evaluated by the proportion of three high-priority items to determine the expected roles of clinic-based general practitioners according to responding physicians in similarly designated roles. Results Seventy-eight departments (25% of those recruited) from 49 institutions returned questionnaires. Results revealed that some physicians had lower expectations for clinic-based general practitioners to diagnose cancer, and instead expected them to provide palliative care. However, some physicians expected clinic-based general practitioners to be involved in some treatment and survivorship care, though the clinic-based general practitioners did not report the same priority. Conclusion Clinic-based general practitioners prioritised involvement in prevention, diagnoses, and palliative care across the cancer continuum, although lower expectations were placed on them than they thought. Some additional expectations of their involvement in cancer treatment and survivorship care were unanticipated by them. These gaps represent issues that should be addressed.

Advanced lung cancer and molecular testing in the middle of coronavirus disease 2019 second wave in the South Asian association for regional cooperation region

Objectives: We present the survey data on molecular testing and its implications among lung cancer specialists in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) region. Material and Methods: An online survey Google form was developed that could be completed in <5 min. This was circulated to oncologists who had been actively participated in our academic activities and this data were collected over an 11 day period in November 2020. Results: We had 354 responders from 8 SAARC countries, 58.9% (209/354) being medical oncologists, and 30.1% (107/354) radiation oncologists. Nearly 50% of responders were seeing patients in the second wave of coronavirus disease 2019 and 89% had seen reduction in their lung cancer patients during first wave. Biomarker testing in advanced lung cancer using next-generation sequencing as the preferred method was more among medical oncologists (76%) as compared to all the other specialists (24%); (Pearson Chi-square = 0.006). The practice of waiting for the molecular testing report before starting first line treatment was 55.4% in corporate/private hospitals as compared to 27% in the government/charity hospital sectors (Pearson Chi-square = 0.015). A total of 89.6% responders believed that targeted therapy has resulted in improved overall survival in advanced lung cancer. Conclusion: Educational activities need to be strengthened so that lung cancer specialists follow comprehensive NGS testing in appropriate settings, as shown by medical oncologists

Cancer specialists in the VA as early adopters of clinical genetic services.

11029 Background: Genetic testing has become essential to delivery of cancer treatment, risk assessment, surveillance, and prevention. We sought to understand the use of genetic tests by clinicians in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Methods: We administered a web-based survey to clinicians at 20 VA facilities with precision oncology programs. We excluded respondents if they were: not at one of the 20 VA facilities; not seeing patients in VA; not a physician, nurse practitioner (NP), physician assistant (PA), or pharmacist; a medical geneticist or specialty was not reported; or if the survey was incomplete. Using multiple logistic regression, we assessed the association between genetic test ordering, genetics referral, and clinician characteristics. Results: There were 909 (909/11,442, 8%) eligible respondents with 61% women and 64% under age 55. There were 571 physicians (63%), 200 NPs (22%), 93 pharmacists (10%), and 45 PAs 5(%). There were 361 (40%) primary care providers (PCPs), 90 (10%) cancer specialists, and 458 (50%) non-cancer specialists. Only 21% of clinicians reported feeling prepared to use genetic tests in their practice. In the past year, only 8% had ordered at least one multi-gene cancer test (germline, tumor or both), 12% a pharmacogenetic test, and 0.2%, an exome. Compared to physicians, NPs were 60% less likely (OR = 0.42, 0.23-0.77, p = 0.005), pharmacists, 80% less likely (OR = 0.22, 0.08-0.62, p = 0.005), and PAs, 90% less likely (OR = 0.08, 0.01-0.58, p = 0.01) to have ordered a genetic test. Compared to PCPs, cancer specialists were almost 5 times more likely to order a genetic test (OR = 4.74, 2.57-8.73, p < 0.0001); there was no difference in genetic test ordering between PCPs and non-cancer specialists. Among clinicians (n = 72) who had ordered cancer genetic tests, only about two-thirds were confident in knowing the indications for testing; discussing the potential benefits, harms and limitations of testing; understanding the test report; and knowing implications of results on disease management and prevention. Clinicians (n = 106) who had ordered pharmacogenetic tests had lower frequencies of confidence in these tasks. About half (52%) of the cancer specialists had referred patients to genetics in the past year; they were 1.8 times more likely than PCPs to refer (OR = 1.82, 1.10-3.03, p = 0.02), and non-cancer specialists were about 50% less likely than PCPs to refer (OR = 0.46, 0.33-0.64, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In the VA, cancer specialists are integrating genetic testing and genetics referral into their practice more than PCPs and other specialists. However, genetic testing is underutilized, and many clinicians remain unprepared to use genetic tests in their practice. These results will inform workforce planning, clinician education, and development of clinical decision support to facilitate genetic risk assessment, informed consent, and ordering of genetic tests.

Practice transformation at scale through a microsystems quality improvement (QI) approach.

e18667 Background: How oncology providers should implement practice transformation for value-based care is unclear, particularly at scale. Organizational size enables efficient “top down” approaches, but also presents challenges such as physician engagement. Dis-economies of scale can be acute in oncology due to physician autonomy and coordination costs. We hypothesized that organizational change based in sense-making models that enhance physician engagement and use a decentralized, iterative microsystems approach will enable practice transformation to scale. Methods: Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute (FCS) is a physician led 250-oncologist statewide practice, with regional variation in disease state/mix, patient cohort, etc., making a purely top-down approach to organizational change infeasible. FCS prototyped a transformation strategy starting in June 2017 based on sharing interpreted data with physician and executive leadership. Later implementation directly engaged physicians in a microsystems quality QI strategy focused on regional performance. Interventions targeted disease, health service utilization, location, and individual physicians. Performance was evaluated using data from Medicare’s Oncology Care Model (OCM) and assessed using the one-sided risk target (4% below benchmark). We analyzed 70,239 performance period (PP) episodes at FCS across 35,116 patients. Results: In the pre- intervention period (90% of PP1 episodes, completed by June 2017), FCS was 5.8% above target. Performance was 10.9% above target for the remainder of PP1 (10% of PP1 episodes), then improved to 0.3% above target in PP2 and PP3, and below target by 0.9%, 0.8%, and 0.75% in PP4, PP5, and PP6. Early QI efforts focused on performance in lung cancer, which was 2.5% over target in PP1; it improved to 2.1% under target in PP6. Later regional QI sessions targeted cancer, utilization and providers. Pre-intervention, all 18 regions were above target; by PP6, 11 out of 19 regions were below target. Relative to the pre-intervention period, per-episode inpatient costs increased by 12.1% for the remainder of PP1 and increased by 4.3% and 1.3% in PP2 and PP6; inpatient costs decreased in PP3, PP4, and PP5 by 3.8%, 2.4% and 4.8%. Conclusions: Practice transformation in oncology can achieve scale through models of organizational change that foster physician engagement. Data, when clinically contextualized, is a foundational tool in the sense-making process. Scale can develop through an additive microsystems approach in which QI units are de-centralized, accountability is defined, and iteration becomes part of organizational culture. [Table: see text]

Clinicians’ perspectives on strategies to improve cross-institutional collaboration and coordination of pancreatic cancer care for rural patients.

e13532 Background: Rural pancreatic cancer patients often lack access to high-volume pancreatic cancer specialists. This lack of access can result in fragmented cancer care—when patients receive care at multiple institutions—and necessitates that specialists engage in cross-institutional collaboration. In the context of fragmented pancreatic cancer care, the strategies specialists use to facilitate collaboration across institutions are poorly understood. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with cancer specialists (medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists) from a high-volume pancreas cancer center (n = 9) and rural community cancer centers (n = 11) to examine specialists’ coordination practices related to treating and co-managing pancreatic cancer patients across their respective institutions. Using qualitative methods, two of the co-authors independently coded the interview transcripts to identify themes related to cross-institutional coordination practices, noting improvement opportunities and facilitative strategies. Results: Cancer specialists described multiple practices to coordinate cross-institutional care including one-on-one phone calls and using a shared electronic medical record or secure email to exchange clinical notes. In recognizing the limitations of these practices, specialists acknowledged the need to develop and implement communication systems that could facilitate real-time discussions and information sharing between high-volume and rural specialists to coordinate diagnostic and treatment plans. Cross-institutional virtual tumor boards were viewed as a potentially useful approach to foster shared clinical decision-making and treatment plan development across institutions, but specialists perceived that logistical, institutional, and technological challenges could limit the use of this approach. Regardless, specialists indicated that cross-institutional virtual tumor boards could help disseminate treatment recommendations as well as identify barriers to care for mutually-shared rural cancer patients. Specialists also indicated that a dedicated patient navigator could help facilitate cross-institutional coordination by bridging communication between specialists while also assisting cancer patients with issues related to housing, transportation, scheduling, and treatment finances. Conclusions: It is important for cancer specialists treating rural cancer patients to have strategies that support efficient communication and decision-making. Cross-institutional virtual tumor boards and dedicated patient navigators are two such strategies that may help facilitate collaboration between high-volume and rural cancer specialists. Future research should examine the impact of these strategies on patients receiving cancer care at multiple institutions.