Analysis of adolescent oncology cases from 2008 through 2018 in a tertiary-level hospital: an opportunity for improvement

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to disclose the variability of pathways currently taken in the treatment of adolescent patients from diagnosis to final follow-up with a view to developing a more homogenous system. Patients & methods: A cross-sectional, observational and retrospective study of the cancer diagnosis and assignment to medical care teams in adolescent patients (12–20 years) from January 2008 to December 2018 was conducted. A total of 345 adolescent patients aged between 12 and 20 years, diagnosed with cancer and treated at Hospital Clinico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca were included. Results: Central nervous system (CNS) tumors, followed by leukemia were the most frequent tumors. At the time of diagnosis, the highest incidences of patients were assisted in the pediatrics service adult oncology service (21.7%) and hematology (11%). Conclusion: Our aim is to highlight the need for a better transition for patients from pediatric to adult oncology and hematology services.

Radiotherapy and the Cancers of Children, Teenagers, and Young Adults

As most cancers occur in middle-aged or older adults, only a very small proportion of the overall radiotherapy workload relates to children and young people. As there is a wide spectrum of different cancer types in this age group, not only is paediatric cancer uncommon overall but each individual type is very rare. There are many ways in which to deliver radiotherapy, including advanced photon techniques, proton beam therapy, brachytherapy, and molecular radiotherapy. For these reasons, the care of children and young people requiring radiotherapy is limited to a small number of highly specialist centres. Delivery of high-quality paediatric radiotherapy requires a multiprofessional team including radiation or clinical oncologists, therapy radiographers, physicists, dosimetrists, anaesthetists, and play specialists. This team has to interact very closely with the wider paediatric and adolescent oncology multidisciplinary team, which includes oncologists, surgeons with different anatomical expertise, radiologists, and pathologists. Children, with their developing tissues and organs, are more susceptible to long-term radiation-induced complications, including second cancers, than adults. The art of paediatric radiotherapy, therefore, is to select treatment approaches which offer the maximum chance of cure while minimizing the risk of adverse effects. Careful teamwork, peer review of radiotherapy planning, and quality assurance within a clinical trial framework offer the best chances of achieving this balance. This book covers all these aspects, highlighting the need for highly specialist teams with the extensive knowledge and the broad skillset required to offer children and young people the best possible treatments.

“Getting to Know You and Your Child” screening questionnaire: Results from a Chicago pediatric collaborative.

163 Background: In 2012, a congressional symposium identified the need for services to address psychosocial issues of children with cancer. In 2013, the Institute of Medicine recommended supportive oncology services be initiated at cancer diagnosis. Chicago providers of pediatric cancer are collaborating to improve care for children with cancer and their families focusing on psychosocial stressors and quality of life. Methods: The collaborative conducted a structured review of tools: Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT), Social Work Assessment Tool (SWAT), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Problem List, and √IN; with input from providers on stressors throughout the care continuum. The resulting screening tool was created and piloted in English and Spanish at 7 pediatric cancer hospitals. Social workers (SW) informally reported assessment of its usefulness. Results: Parents (n = 85) completed “Getting to Know You and Your Child” screening tool which inquired about caregivers, siblings, child’s interests, school, SSI/SNAP, challenges, and cultural/religious preferences. Providers reported families found the tool useful “to think about support needs.” The tool assessed 12 psychosocial stressors; the mean per patient/family was 2.4 (range 0-11). Most frequent stressors included: lack of support from friends, family, community (29%), paying for food (26%), job flexibility (26%), paying for utilities (25%), medical costs (23%), emotional support for family (22%), school concerns (21%). All who reported temporary residence also reported difficulty paying for housing (p < 0.01). Ten SWs reported this screening tool generated new insight into family structures, identified stressors and informed resolution efforts. Provider recommended adjustments to the screening tool: simplify terms for siblings, hobbies and spiritual, add pet question. Conclusions: Pilot testing of a psychosocial screening tool for pediatric and adolescent oncology informed providers of patient/family needs in a standard manner. Six of the seven pilot sites are implementing this tool as a standard practice. Preliminary data suggests patients and providers find the screener easy to use and informative.

"Getting to know you and your child" screening questionnaire: Results from a Chicago-based collaborative.

150 Background: In 2013 the Institute of Medicine recommended that supportive oncology services be initiated at time of cancer diagnosis. Providers of pediatric cancer care in the Chicago metro area, supported by The Coleman Foundation, created and pilot tested a standard psycho-social stressors screening instrument for children with cancer and their families. Methods: The collaborative conducted structured review of tools: Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT), Social Work Assessment Tool (SWAT), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Problem List, and √IN; and collected input from social workers and oncology providers on stressors throughout the care continuum. The resulting tool was piloted in English and Spanish at 7 pediatric cancer hospitals. Providers qualitatively reported assessment of its usefulness. Results: Patients/family (n = 57) completed the “getting to know you and your child” instrument which inquired about caregivers, siblings, child’s likes/hobbies, school situation, SSI/SNAP, challenges, and cultural/religious preferences. Providers reported that almost all families found the tool useful “to think about support needs”; one said it was invasive. The tool assessed 12 psychosocial stressors; the mean per patient/family was 2.49 (range 0-11). The most frequent stressors were support from friends, family, community (30%), paying for food (26%), job flexibility (26%), school concerns (25%), emotional support for family (25%), and medical costs (23%). All who reported temporary housing also reported difficulty paying for a place to live (p < 0.0001). Providers reported that the standard tool generated new insight into family structures, challenges and needs informing resolution efforts. Provider recommended adjustments: simplify terms for siblings, hobbies and spiritual, adding question about pets in the home. Conclusions: Pilot testing of a psycho-social screening tool for pediatric and adolescent oncology informed providers of patient/family needs in a standard manner. Four of the seven sites involved in the pilot are now implementing this tool as a standard practice; the remaining sites are performing analyses on how to incorporate the tool into their care processes.