Oncology training and education initiatives in low and middle income countries: a scoping review Safiya Karim1, Zahra Sunderji2, Matthew Jalink3, S

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have established surgical resection and adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) as the standard management for stage III colon cancer; however, the extent to which these results apply to elderly patients in routine practice is unclear. This article describes the management and outcomes of elderly patients with stage III colon cancer.METHODS: All cases of surgically resected colon cancer from 2002 to 2008 were identified with the population‐based Ontario Cancer Registry. Pathology reports were obtained for a random sample (25% of all cases); those with stage III disease constituted the study population. The utilization of ACT, cancer‐specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) in elderly patients (≥70 years) and nonelderly patients (<70 years) were compared.RESULTS: The study population included 2920 patients, and 1521 (52%) were elderly. The 30‐ and 90‐day mortality rates increased with advanced age: <70 years, 2% and 5%; 70 to 74 years, 3% and 7%; 75 to 79 years, 5% and 8%, and ≥80 years, 9% and 16% (P < .001). ACT was delivered to 48% of elderly patients and to 81% of younger patients (P < .001). Factors independently associated with ACT utilization among the elderly were a younger age (P < .001), male sex (P = .041), and no comorbidities (P = .001). Among elderly patients, ACT was associated with improved CSS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60‐0.88) and OS (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60‐0.83); however, the magnitude of the benefit was smaller for elderly patients than younger patients (HR for CSS, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42‐0.67; HR for OS 0.56; 95% CI, 0.45‐0.69).CONCLUSIONS: Half of elderly patients with stage III colon cancer do not receive ACT. Although the effect size is smaller than that in younger patients, ACT is associated with improved long‐term survival. Cancer 2017;123:2840–49. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Cancer patients’ attitudes toward progression-free survival (PFS) gains offered by treatment are not well understood, particularly in the absence of overall survival (OS) gains. The objectives were to describe patients’ willingness to accept treatment that offers PFS gains without OS gains, to compare these findings with treatments offering OS gains, and to qualitatively summarize patients’ reasons for their preferences. A multicenter, cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study design recruited patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. A treatment trade-off exercise determined the gains in imaging PFS that patients require to prefer additional systemic treatment for a scenario of a newly diagnosed, asymptomatic, incurable abdominal tumor. A qualitative, descriptive, thematic analysis explored factors influencing patients’ decisions, and a narrative method integrated the quantitative and qualitative findings. In total, 100 patients participated (63% were older than 60 years of age). If additional treatment with added toxicity offered no OS advantage, 17% would prefer it for no PFS benefit; 26% for some PFS benefit (range, 3-9 months), whereas 51% would decline it regardless of PFS benefit. Similarly, 71% preferred additional treatment offering a 6-month OS advantage dependent on described toxicity levels (P = .03). A spectrum of reasons for these preferences reflected the complexity of participants’ attitudes and values. Prolongation of time to progression was not universally valued. Most patients did not prefer treatments that negatively affect quality of life for PFS gains alone. Implications for individual decision making, policy, and trials research are discussed.

The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP), designed by Ariadne Labs, is a multicomponent intervention to improve conversations about values and goals for patients with a life-limiting illness. In oncology, implementation of the SICP achieved more, earlier, and better-quality conversations and reduced anxiety and depression among patients with advanced cancer. In this commentary, we describe the SICP, including results from the cluster-randomized trial, provide examples of real-world implementation of this program, and highlight ongoing challenges and barriers that are preventing widespread adoption of this intervention into routine practice. For the SICP to be successfully embedded into routine patient care, it will require significant effort, including ongoing leadership support and training opportunities, champions from all sectors of the interdisciplinary team, and adaptation of the program to a wider range of patients. Future research should also investigate how early conversations can be translated into personalized care plans for patients.

A growing number of cancer patients use complementary and alternative therapies during and after conventional cancer treatment. Patients are often reluctant to discuss these therapies with their oncologist, and oncologists may have limited knowledge and confidence on how to advise patients on the appropriate use. Integrative oncology is a patient-centered, evidence-informed field that utilizes mind–body practices, lifestyle modifications and/or natural products interwoven with conventional cancer treatment. It prioritizes safety and best available evidence to offer appropriate interventions alongside conventional care. There are few opportunities for oncologists to learn about integrative oncology. In this commentary, we highlight the Integrative Oncology Scholars (IOS) program as a means to increase competency in this growing field. We provide an overview of several integrative oncology modalities that are taught through this program, including lifestyle modifications, physical activity, and mind–body interventions. We conclude that as more evidence is generated in this field, it will be essential that oncology healthcare providers are aware of the prevalent use of these modalities by their patients and cancer centers include Integrative Oncology trained physicians and other healthcare professionals in their team to discuss and recommend evidence-based integrative oncology therapies alongside conventional cancer treatments to their patients.