A Different Chemotherapy Approach for Ovarian Cancer

OVARIAN CANCER that spreads to the lining of the abdominal cavity, called the peritoneum, is difficult to treat. Patients with this advanced cancer typically undergo debulking, also called cytoreductive surgery, a lengthy procedure in which surgeons aim to remove all cancer from the abdominal cavity and affected organs, including the ovaries and fallopian tubes as well as the bladder, colon and other parts of the gastrointestinal tract. In recent years, researchers have looked at the efficacy of using hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), which is heated chemotherapy delivered directly to the peritoneum, to destroy remaining cancer cells immediately after debulking surgery.

Scientists in Belgium and the Netherlands published long-term data from OVHIPEC-1, a randomized phase III trial to evaluate adding HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer, in the October 2023 Lancet Oncology. (In interval surgery, chemotherapy is given to shrink the cancer prior to surgery.) The study enrolled 245 women with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer whose cancer showed no signs of progression after upfront chemotherapy. Researchers randomly assigned women to have debulking surgery alone, or surgery plus HIPEC using the chemotherapy drug cisplatin. After 10 years, median overall survival for the surgery-plus-HIPEC group was 44.9 months versus 33.3 months for the surgery group. Median progression-free survival was 14.3 months and 10.7 months, respectively. The rates of adverse events were similar—25% with surgery alone versus 27% with surgery plus HIPEC—and the most common events were abdominal pain, infection and slowed bowel function.

These results are in line with the researchers’ five-year analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018. In that analysis, 6.6% of patients in the surgery group had survived without progression at five years, compared with 12.3% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. At 10 years, 6.6% of the people who received surgery were alive with no progression versus 10.1% in the surgery-plus-HIPEC group. While surgery plus HIPEC did not result in better cure rates, the authors note that it significantly prolonged the time cancer was controlled. “The most important finding is that the benefit for patients with stage III ovarian carcinoma when interval cytoreductive surgery is combined with HIPEC remains present after a 10-year follow up,” says Willemien van Driel, lead author and a gynecologic oncologist at the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, who notes that patients in both arms of the study received similar treatment after subsequent recurrences.

Van Driel says that there is still variation in the use of HIPEC along with cytoreductive surgery. European guidelines published in October 2023 note that HIPEC with cytoreductive surgery should not be considered a standard of care. In the U.S., National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines state that HIPEC can be considered for patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer.

Van Driel and her colleagues are now enrolling patients in the OVHIPEC-2 trial, which will study the effect of adding HIPEC in women with stage III ovarian cancer undergoing primary surgery, which is surgery done upfront prior to chemotherapy. Other trials are evaluating HIPEC use for recurrent ovarian cancer. She notes there are several unanswered questions, including optimal dosing and temperature for HIPEC and the impact of including other drugs, such as PARP inhibitors, with this approach, since many of these drugs were not standard of care at the time of the trial.

HIPEC may be a valid choice for patients who are generally healthy and open to a longer procedure and hospital stay. Although the length of surgery plus HIPEC varies, HIPEC generally adds 90 minutes or more to debulking surgery, which itself takes several hours. Also, patients typically require a longer hospital stay for recovery, possibly with intravenous or tube feedings while the digestive system recovers. 

Find more :

A Different Chemotherapy Approach for Ovarian Cancer

Cancer is on the rise in under-50s – a key task is to work out why

Nine in 10 of all cancers affect people over 50 but research shows a worrying rise in early onset cases

There are many upsides to growing old, but one of the downsides, unfortunately, is a higher risk of developing cancer. Increasing age is a key risk factor. And with more of us living longer worldwide, millions of older people will have to contend with the disease

Now a new study adds weight to previous work warning of a grim trend in global health: cancer in people under the age of 50 is becoming more common.

In the study, researchers led by the University of Edinburgh in Scotland and Zhejiang University School of Medicine in Hangzhou, China, found that the number of under-50s being diagnosed with cancer worldwide rose by 79% between 1990 and 2019, from 1.82 million to 3.26 million. Cancer deaths in the same age group grew by 27%, and more than 1 million under-50s a year are now dying of cancer, the research published in BMJ Oncology reveals

The study is not the first to show the trend. A review in 2022 of cancer registry records from 44 countries found that the incidence of early onset cancer was rising rapidly for 14 types of cancers, and this increase was happening across many middle- and high-income nations.

The new research adds meat to the bone. Examining data from 204 countries, it found a striking increase in the global incidence of early onset cancers. It also showed the highest incidence rates of cancer in the under-50s was in North America, Oceania and western Europe.

Researchers worldwide are only just starting their next task: working out why.

The authors of the 2022 review, led by Harvard University, said any uptick in testing or checks could not account for the rise in diagnoses. They suggested the rise was most likely due to an unhealthy mix of risk factors that could be working together, some which are known and others of which need to be investigated.

Many of these risks had established links to cancer such as obesity, inactivity, diabetes, alcohol, smoking, environmental pollution and western diets high in red meat and added sugars, not to mention shift work and lack of sleep. Experts have speculated that ultra-processed food may also be partly to blame

The researchers behind the new study echoed those observations. Genetic factors are likely to have a role, they say. But diets high in red meat and salt and low in fruit and milk, as well as alcohol consumption and tobacco use, are the main risk factors underlying the most common cancers among under-50s, with physical inactivity, excess weight and high blood sugar other contributory factors.

As worrying as the increase in early onset cancers is, caution is required. Cancer in people under 50 is still uncommon. With breast cancer, the most common type in under-50s, there were 13.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2019. Nine in 10 of all cancers affect people over 50.

Until experts unlock definitive answers, there remains plenty that people young and old can do to reduce their risk of cancer. Not smoking, maintaining a balanced diet and a healthy weight, getting plenty of exercise and staying safe in the sun are among them.

 

Andrew GregoryHealth editor

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/sep/05/cancer-is-on-the-rise-in-under-50s-a-key-task-is-to-work-out-why?utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=September+12+2023+Cancer+Today+E-newsletter&utm_term=Read+More+in+the+Guardian

Essential cancer screening and diagnosis services must be included in UHC schemes to reduce mortality

The earlier a cancer is detected, the easier it is to treat successfully, often with fewer side effects, and at a lower cost. In many high-income regions, such as Europe and the United States, survival rates for cancer have risen in past decades, in part thanks to routine screening that detects cancers at an early stage. It’s especially true for common cancers like cervical, breast, colorectal, and prostate, where routine screening offers a clear test and methodology for early detection.

Investing in routine screening programmes for asymptomatic cancers as well as the early detection of symptomatic cancers and diagnostic and referral services is, therefore, a cost-efficient approach to mitigate the public health costs of cancer. These are estimated to reach USD 458 billion globally by 2030, and cut the projected global economic cost of cancers, estimated at USD 25.2 trillion for the period 2020-2050.

Such investments in services must be accompanied by clear communication about the necessity and benefits of such measures. It is also critical that the general public have access to reliable information on possible early signs of certain cancers (notably, breast, cervical, lung, prostate, ovarian and testicular) and primary healthcare staff must be equipped to spot signs of cancer – with rapid referral options for screening and then treatment.

Unfortunately, many people around the world still lack access to these essential services. In low- and middle-income countries in particular, cancer prevention, diagnosis and care remain a luxury that is out of reach for many.

A significant number of people, particularly those from low-income communities, face barriers that prevent them from accessing necessary health services, such as the distance to healthcare facilities and costs of healthcare – with the risk of financial toxicity if they must be paid for out of pocket.

A weak health system and an absence of knowledgeable healthcare providers can also stand in the way of timely cancer detection and diagnosis.

To close these gaps, routine screening, cancer diagnosis and referral services must be included in health insurance benefits packages.

UHC cannot be achieved unless everyone has access to affordable cancer care. At the same time, without the benefits offered by UHC, access to potentially life-saving screenings remains limited. This means someone may die of a cancer that could have been detected and treated at an earlier stage, but either an early detection programme was not available or that person could not access it, for financial or other reasons. A cost-efficient national cancer control plan with essential services – including routine screening and diagnosis – covered by national health insurance schemes available to everyone – can break down these barriers to accessibility, availability and affordability.

Indeed, often cancer treatment by national health insurance schemes but not screening. Issues of stigma that surround many cancer tests (for instance, those that concern sexual organs) therefore compound concerns about cost or fears of a diagnosis (e.g. cancer may be considered a death sentence, so why get tested?) to prevent high numbers of people getting a timely diagnosis, resulting in many patients presenting with late-stage cancers.

At the second High-level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage taking place on 21 September 2023, Governments are expected to adopt a set of new commitments to accelerate UHC implementation. This meeting will provide an opportunity for UICC to advocate for including comprehensive cancer prevention and control measures in UHC benefits packages.

In preparation for this pivotal meeting, UICC reached out to its members to learn about their concerns and inform its advocacy strategy in the lead-up to the UN HLM on UHC.

UICC is also organising a series of Virtual Dialogues intended to facilitate discussions around UHC and its impact on cancer control. The first dialogue organised in early May looked at UHC and prevention. A second Virtual Dialogue on UHC and early detection will take place on 20 July, and look at examples of successful advocacy to include screening and early detection in UHC benefit packages (for instance, mammography reimbursement in Algeria) and the use of legislation to support screening and early detection programmes and referral to treatment.

Read more :

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/essential-cancer-screening-diagnosis-services-must-included-uhc-schemes%3FtrackingId=yU3y0j6Af4hHzyucBwUSyw%253D%253D/?trackingId=yU3y0j6Af4hHzyucBwUSyw%3D%3D

 

Empowering patients through medical technologies for a healthier future

By constantly investing in existing and future technologies, the medical technology sector contributes to a healthier Europe. The 2023 MedTech Forum looked at some key trends in legislation and business and the role that EU policymakers can play to bring medical innovations to patients in a timely manner.

Europe takes great pride in its robust social security systems and the fundamental principles of equitable healthcare access. Data indicates however that significant efforts are still required to ensure that all patients across the continent enjoy top-tier quality care and unfettered access to medical services and technologies.

Medical technologies empower early diagnoses, timely interventions, and remarkable outcomes. Medical technologies mend, revive, and improve body functions, while telemedicine and connected devices bring patient monitoring to new frontiers. Innovations speed up recovery, safeguard well-being, and equip healthcare workers with vital insights for optimal decisions and fewer complications. By relieving strain on healthcare systems, fostering social and economic vitality, averting complications, and advancing efficiency through cutting-edge data and machine learning, medical technologies are high-tech, high-value game-changers in healthcare. Diagnostic technologies also act as a first line of defence against disease outbreaks and help support their management.

Because of its innovation power, and its positive impact on patients, healthcare professionals, and health systems, the medical technology sector has developed into a key industry with an important economic and societal impact in Europe.

European leadership for the benefit of patients 

Europe’s 34,000 medical technology companies invest heavily in improving existing and innovating breakthrough technologies for the benefit of patients. These companies, 95% of which are SMEs, drive economic growth, provide employment in Europe, and boost EU exports. In doing so, the sector adheres to strict regulatory standards that ensure safe devices which live up to their performance claims. Patient health and well-being in mind, no other region in the world sets such high standards to guarantee that medical technologies are safe for patients and healthcare professionals to use.

Despite Europe’s fundamental strengths in health and medical solutions, there are growing indicationsthat new and existing products will struggle to reach European patients and health systems in a timely manner: 17% of today’s in vitro diagnostics are expected to be discontinued in Europe, particularly among SMEs and approximately 50% of medical device manufacturers are deprioritising the EU market (or will do so) as the geography of choice for first regulatory clearance of their new devices.

MedTech Europe, the leading European medical technology trade association, believes that there are persistent, system-level issues within the European regulations for medical technologies which lead to unpredictability and delays, dampen innovation, and undermine confidence in the long-term viability of the regulatory framework.

To remain a global leader in medical technologies, the EU must deliver a more patient-centred and innovation-friendly regulatory framework that addresses the system-level challenges of today while preparing for the opportunities of tomorrow.

Getting through the maze 

Beyond the medical technology industry’s sector-specific developments, fundamental changes have been brought about in the last decade by the mega trends of digitalisation and sustainability. Such trends contribute to a revolution in the way innovation in medical technologies is happening, driving the need for a more forward-looking regulatory mentality to allow innovation to thrive.

Legislative activity of the EU in this area has been, rightly, immense – and much more needs to be done to ensure that all the rules-in-development which will impact medical technologies will actually work together to deliver products to patients. The EU’s Digital Strategy, driving regulation on artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and data, including the European Health Data Space and the European Green Deal will legislate tectonic changes, including in the area of product design, are coming with a substantial set of new or updated requirements for medical technologies.

Against this background, substantial legislations are also being revised, such as the ones on Product Liability and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence. It is paramount to include principles that ensure patients across the EU can benefit from a high level of protection and businesses are provided with legal certainty.

These new rules will significantly impact the way and speed in which technologies can be brought to market and accessed by those who need them. Getting medical technology innovations to European patients and healthcare systems in fact can often feel like navigating a complex and ever-shifting maze.

As a result, whether for R&D investment, clinical research, manufacturing or new product launches, Europe slowly losing ground to other geographies on innovation, because the maze seems to be getting harder to navigate. The EU thus has a big task ahead to further its efforts towards driving harmonisation and creating an environment of legal certainty for businesses.

The slowly approaching end of the EU legislative cycle is a unique opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved and what is still to be done. It is not a time to rush to the finish line but to stay level-headed and look for effective solutions to ensure medical technologies reach patients on time. We need to solve existing challenges in a comprehensive, sustainable manner, setting the tone for a future environment that will allow patients to continue benefiting from first-line, quality medical technologies and more equitable access to healthcare, and health systems to build the long-term resilience they need. The medical technology industry in Europe stands ready to contribute and collaborate to make this a reality.

This article was produced in partnership with Medtech Europe. MedTech Europe is the European trade association for the medical technology industry including diagnostics, medical devices and digital health.

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/empowering-patients-through-medical-technologies-for-a-healthier-future

A post-emergency COVID-19 vaccine strategy: WHO’s end of emergency declaration spells out hope but challenges remain

The declaration of the end to COVID-19 as a public emergency is a symbolic signpost, but COVID-19 remains a threat and vaccination can play a key role in addressing it.

The declaration of the end to COVID-19 as a public health emergency is a symbolic signpost of the transition from an emergency to a more sustainable mode of preparedness and reaction. COVID-19 remains a threat though, and vaccination can play a key role in addressing it.

Thirty-eight months into the pandemic, and COVID-19 claims a life every three minutes globally. This leaves no room for complacency.

Instead, we need, to remain vigilant, have a coherent approach on vaccination and continue reducing COVID-19 hospitalisations, severe disease, as well as protecting our healthcare systems.

In this regard, Member States should strive for a better coordination among their national vaccination strategies in order to avoid major differences, with the EU having a stronger role through further harmonisation of some aspects of the vaccine administration in the Member States.

At the same time, while predictable pattern of COVID-19 seasonality has yet to be established, the impact of the disease has been much higher during the period corresponding to the traditional influenza season. Therefore, where possible, COVID-19 and influenza vaccination campaigns need to be combined.

Second, we need to reflect on the use of joint procurement as part of the EU’s vaccine strategy.

The strategy has been one of the milestones of the EU’s response to the pandemic. It demonstrated the unity of the EU as a whole, facilitated access to a broad and diversified portfolio of safe and affordable vaccines, and saved the lives of more than a million Europeans since the end of 2020.

Capitalising on this success, we need to go one-step further and, seriously, consider extending it to treatments of very rare types of cancer, especially paediatrics, as well as some rare diseases.

Nevertheless, increasing public confidence in vaccination is a key prerequisite to reach these strategies’ objectives.

As EPP Coordinator at the COVI Committee, I find the major disparities in vaccination coverage between and within Member States as well as the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases, such as measles, quite concerning. In order to address these, we have to continue tackling misinformation and disinformation, and reduce vaccination hesitancy through science-based communication on the benefits of vaccination.

Last, we should not forget that these challenges are essentially global. The EU played a decisive role in the global response to the COVID-19, by donating hundreds of millions of doses, and billions of aid to assist developing countries.

Building on that, the EU has to continue playing its role in providing support, improving access to vaccines for LMICs, as well as, boost global health research to develop the technologies and countermeasures, which are necessary to improve health.

By Stelios Kympouropoulos

Stelios Kympouropoulos (EL, EPP) is a member of Parliament’s EMPL and PETI Committees, the SANT Subcommittee and the COVI Special Commmittee.

Quality Questions:When you are diagnosed with cancer, how can you be sure you’re getting appropriate care?

IN APRIL 2020, truck driver John Lex was waiting to load up his tractor trailer at a Walmart distribution center in LaGrange, Georgia, when he felt a severe, sharp pain in his lower abdomen. The self-proclaimed “stubborn guy” figured if he went home to lie down, he would feel better. However, by the time he arrived home in Monroe, Georgia, the pain had amped up to “an eight out of 10.” He asked his wife to drive him to the local hospital’s emergency room.

Doctors there thought his pain might be appendicitis, but a CT scan revealed something unexpected: a mass in his colon. “The doctor told me that they believed it was cancerous, but he wouldn’t know for sure until they got in there,” says Lex, now 56, who had immediate surgery to remove the mass and have his colon resected. He would need to wait for results from the biopsy to get confirmation, but “[the doctor] was pretty confident that it was cancer,” Lex says

Three days after surgery, on April 25, 2020, these suspicions were confirmed. Lex’s tumor was malignant—with 19 positive lymph nodes. He had stage IIIC colon cancer. He was referred to a medical oncologist at Piedmont Walton Hospital in Monroe—the same hospital where he had his surgery. He completed a six-month course of chemotherapy with FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin), but in January 2021, the scans showed that the tumors were back in his colon, as well as the lining of his abdominal cavity.

At that time, his oncologist suggested another chemotherapy combination and referred Lex to a colleague at Atlanta-based Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, which is less than 30 miles away from Lex’s home, for a second opinion. Winship Cancer Institute has earned the National Cancer Institute’s highest honor—a comprehensive cancer center designation—which signifies significant research infrastructure along with the capacity to provide high-quality treatments to patients. The oncologist at Winship confirmed the treatment plan. Lex continued to be treated by his original oncologist, satisfied that he was receiving appropriate care.

Treatment Close to Home

Like an estimated 80% to 85% of people with cancer in the U.S., Lex sought treatment at a community cancer center. Community cancer centers typically provide care through oncology practices or networks, offering treatment at local hospitals instead of specialty cancer centers. They are not usually a part of large academic teaching hospitals and don’t have NCI designations.

“Community hospitals are those institutions that are designed to take care of patients. They’re not necessarily teaching and they’re not necessarily doing research. That’s not to say that they never do,” says Thomas Tucker, the senior director for cancer surveillance and associate director of the Kentucky Cancer Registry at the Markey Cancer Center Prevention and Control Program at the University of Kentucky in Lexington. Tucker has published research on Markey Cancer Center’s efforts to form an alliance with community cancer hospitals to help provide more standardized cancer care throughout Kentucky.

The decision to receive care in a community cancer center is often influenced by geography, given that many people in the U.S. do not live near large academic teaching hospitals or one of the 71 NCI-designated cancer centers spread across 36 states and the District of Columbia. “The number one criterion that’s going to affect where a cancer patient gets treated is going to be their location,” says Rose Gerber, a breast cancer survivor who is the director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., that advocates for the preservation of oncology private practices that offer patients high-quality, affordable cancer care close to home. Gerber notes referrals often come from a patient’s primary care doctor who is familiar with local oncologists. In addition, a patient’s and doctor’s familiarity with the local health system and the convenience of not traveling far for what are usually multiple treatments often provide reassurance to patients, Gerber says

Experience Matters

Other variables, including a person’s cancer type, stage, the pathology and genetic makeup of the tumor, and any previous treatments, can all factor into people’s decisions about where they go for their care. When analyzing choices, oncologist Diane Reidy-Lagunes suggests that patients start by asking questions to gain an understanding of the doctor’s experience with the patient’s stage and type of cancer.

“There are definitely some questions that you want to ask the oncologist when you’re meeting them … particularly for instances of rare diseases,” says Reidy-Lagunes, who is the associate deputy physician-in-chief of the Regional Care Network at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. She suggests asking, “Is this a disease that you’re often taking care of? Have you only seen one in your lifetime or do you see five in clinic daily?”

Patients can also look up a physician’s specialties online before the office visit, says Nancy Keating, a primary care physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a researcher in the Department of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School in Boston, who studies factors that influence the delivery of high-quality care for people with cancer. “The more specialized training someone has, the better, especially when complex care is needed,” she says, using the example of a surgeon who specializes in a certain kind of cancer. “If you are a colorectal surgeon, you’ve done a fellowship, and you only do colorectal surgery. In addition, you are continually getting exposed to new cases daily and that’s all you do.”

With more experience comes greater proficiency. Research indicates that people with cancer who undergo complex procedures at high-volume surgical centers have better outcomes compared to low-volume centers, including for lung, esophageal and pancreatic cancer. For example, one study published in the April 2017 Annals of Surgery suggests patients with esophageal cancer who traveled to high-volume surgical centers had significantly better five-year survival rates, with 39.8% of patients living five years or longer compared to 20.6% who sought treatment at low-volume surgical centers. Another study published Nov. 1, 2021, in Cancer, compared outcomes at high-volume and low-volume radiation centers for a number of cancers and found patients receiving adjuvant radiation had significantly improved survival at very high-volume facilities when compared to low-volume facilities. Patients who received radiation alone for prostate, non-small cell lung, pancreatic, and head and neck cancer without surgery or other treatments also had increased survival, according to the study.

Lindsay Longo, an IT services director who lives in Tampa, Florida, was diagnosed with stage II Hodgkin lymphoma in November 2020 after going to an emergency room with escalating symptoms from COVID-19. While she was there, doctors performed a CT scan and discovered a large mass in her left lung, a rare presentation of Hodgkin lymphoma. She had a lung biopsy on Nov. 25, 2020, and five days later was diagnosed with cancer.

Longo ultimately decided to get her treatment at Moffitt Cancer Center, an NCI-designated cancer center in Tampa. The 39-year-old was impressed with the depth of experience that Moffitt provided, including swift coordination of care. “I didn’t feel like [the hospital where I was diagnosed] was moving fast enough for me, so I decided on Moffitt for its credibility and the top ranking. For me, it was a no-brainer,” she says.

On Dec. 31, 2020, Longo began treatment, receiving eight rounds of ABVD (Adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) administered every two weeks. At the end of treatment, a scan revealed one spot on a lymph node. At that point, a tumor board, consisting of a multidisciplinary team of physicians at Moffitt, reviewed her case and suggested she have four more rounds of chemotherapy. On July 27, 2020, her scans were clear.

Access to Clinical Trials

While the standard-of-care treatments offered in cancer centers and community hospitals already have proven efficacy, some patients may also be interested in experimental treatments and clinical trials, says Gerber, who was diagnosed with stage II HER2-positive breast cancer in 2003.

Gerber had a lumpectomy followed by eight rounds of chemotherapy and radiation at Eastern Connecticut Hematology and Oncology, an oncology practice affiliated with Backus Hospital in Norwich, Connecticut. Her physicians also offered her an opportunity to participate in a clinical trial that tested the use of a targeted medication called Herceptin (trastuzumab) to reduce the chance of her cancer returning.

“[HER2-positive breast cancer] at the time was one of the deadliest diagnoses with a very poor prognosis,” she says. Gerber realizes now how fortunate she was to take part in a ground-breaking clinical trial. Today, she credits her survival and good health to being a part of the Herceptin clinical trial, and the drug is now the standard of care for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. Gerber notes that many community cancer centers offer clinical trials—and the idea that this type of research is only offered at larger research or academic hospitals is a misconception.

Having access to a range of treatment options—both the standard of care and experimental drugs—is especially important for patients who have advanced cancer, says Heidi Nelson, medical director of the American College of Surgeons, Cancer Programs, which is responsible for the Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation program for hospitals. The accreditation means facilities have demonstrated that they provide a range of services, either on-site or through referrals to other facilities, including diagnostic imaging, radiation oncology, systemic therapy, psychosocial support, rehabilitation, nutrition and access to clinical research.

Collaboration between medical oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, nurses and social workers provides a good measure for quality care, Nelson says. “With an appropriate team of specialists, each professional sees a different part of the patients’ needs and the cancer details. The full picture comes together when all the professionals come together around each patient to make sure nothing is left out of the care plan,” she says.

That type of collaboration can also extend across hospital systems—including between NCI-designated cancer centers and community hospitals. One example of this type of collaboration is with the NCI-designated University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center, in Lexington, which started an affiliate program in 2006 that now includes 21 community hospitals. One of the requirements for facilities taking part in the alliance is achieving and maintaining CoC accreditation, as a means to increase quality of care in cancer hospitals across the state. A study of 13 hospitals in the network published in the February 2021 Annals of Surgical Oncology showed this collaboration increased the hospitals’ ability to meet quality measures three years after they joined the network compared to three years prior. In addition, the number of hospitals that received CoC accreditation increased from three to 12.

“This is an opportunity for the medium- and small-sized hospitals to have access to resources for facing issues or problems they may not have seen before,” says Tucker, who notes that academic and research hospitals don’t have the capacity to treat every cancer patient. “The smart thing [to do] is to help community hospitals develop that capacity. Many of them are quite good at it [already],” he says.

For patients like Lex, having the ability to tap into expertise at both his local cancer center and a larger cancer center provided extra reassurance. This collaboration included having a multidisciplinary team review his case at the hospital to determine the best course of care. “Knowing that it’s not just [my oncologist] that’s looking at my records, that it’s all the doctors that she works with really eased my mind,” he says.

In May 2021, Lex went back to Winship for another second opinion after a PET scan showed one of his three tumors was growing. Genetic testing in early 2021 showed his tumors tested positive for BRAF mutations, which made Lex eligible for a combination of targeted therapies, Erbitux (cetuximab) and Braftovi (encorafenib). Since starting treatment, his tumors have appeared to be less active in the PET scans, which could be an indication that treatment is working. In addition, one tumor has gotten smaller in size. He hopes the targeted therapy will keep his tumors at bay. “We’re hoping that maybe the treatment will knock it out completely,” says Lex. “I am so happy I got the second opinion. It just eases your mind because I have two great doctors looking over me.”

Quality Questions

Depression Is Often Overlooked in Cancer Patients

When Carly Flumer was a teenager, she was diagnosed with anxiety and depression. She saw a psychiatrist and a therapist regularly, and got medication and counseling. She managed her mental health well for over a decade. But in January 2017, she was diagnosed with an aggressive form of thyroid cancer that had spread to her lymph nodes by the time it was diagnosed.

That’s when things got complicated again.

Flumer, then 27, underwent surgery to remove her thyroid. She also received intensive radiation. To all observers, she got a clean bill of health — at least with regard to her cancer. But, she says, her mental health had suffered.

“People absolutely do not understand the panic a cancer diagnosis can cause,” Flumer says. “My depression and anxiety got worse when I got diagnosed. I also have had more suicidal thoughts because of the cancer,” she says. “The side effects of treatment are real. So is the stress of waiting to see if the cancer comes back again.”