PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts. Additional information is available at www.mascc.org , www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Background: Microelimination of hepatitis C virus (HCV) among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) may be feasible in Australia, given unrestricted access to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy from 2016. Our aim was to evaluate progress towards elimination goals within HIV/HCV-coinfected adults in Australia following universal DAA access. Methods: The CEASE prospective cohort study enrolled adults with HIV/HCV, irrespective of viremic status, from 14 primary and tertiary clinics in Australia. Annual and cumulative HCV treatment uptake, outcome, and HCV RNA prevalence were evaluated, with follow-up through May 2018 (median follow-up, 2.63 years). Factors associated with DAA uptake were analyzed. Results: Between July 2014 and March 2017, 402 participants who were HIV/HCV antibody positive were enrolled (95% male [80% gay and bisexual men,], 13% cirrhosis, 80% history of injecting drug use [39% currently injecting]). Following universal DAA access, annual HCV treatment uptake in those eligible increased from 7% and 11% per year in 2014 and 2015, respectively, to 80% in 2016. By 2018, cumulative HCV treatment uptake in those ever eligible for treatment was 91% (336/371). HCV viremic prevalence declined from 82% (95% CI, 78–86%) in 2014 to 8% (95% CI, 6–12%) in 2018. Reinfection was reported in only 5 participants for a reinfection incidence of 0.81 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 0.34–1.94). Conclusions: High uptake and effectiveness of unrestricted DAA therapy in Australia have permitted rapid treatment scale-up, with a dramatic reduction in HCV infection burden and low reinfection rate among people living with HIV, suggesting that microelimination is feasible. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02102451.

Metastatic breast cancer is a disease of changing status—once an imminent death sentence, now a chronic (albeit incurable) disease. Medical intervention advances mean women with metastatic breast cancer now have symptoms alleviated and, potentially, life extended. Living with this disease, however, requires more than a medical approach to symptoms. We were interested to know whether women manage, and if so, how, to “live well” with metastatic cancer. We conducted interviews with 18 women. Women differed in the approaches they used. Most common was the attempt to reestablish a sense of normality in their lives. However, a second group reevaluated and reprioritized their lives; and a third group was restricted in their capacity to live well because of symptoms. The findings provide the foundation for future research exploring normalization of experiences of metastatic cancer, and other chronic illnesses, where people are living with knowledge that they have contracted time.