Background Bundling is combining individual interventions to meet quality metrics. Bundling offers of cancer screening with screening for social determinants of health (SDOH) may enable health centers to assist patients with social risks and yield efficiencies. Objective To measure effects of bundling fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and SDOH screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Design Clustered stepped-wedge trial. Participants Four Massachusetts FQHCs randomized to implement bundled FIT-SDOH over 8-week “steps.” Intervention Outreach to 50–75-year-olds overdue for CRC screening to offer FIT with SDOH screening. The implementation strategy used facilitation and training for data monitoring and reporting. Main Measures Implementation process descriptions, data from facilitation meetings, and CRC and SDOH screening rates. Rates were compared between implementation and control FQHCs in each “step” by fitting generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for FQHCs, patients, and “step” by FQHC. Key Results FQHCs tailored implementation processes to their infrastructure, workflows, and staffing and prioritized different groups for outreach. Two FQHCs used population health outreach, and two integrated FIT-SDOH within established programs, such as pre-visit planning. Of 34,588 patients overdue for CRC screening, 54% were female; 20% Black, 11% Latino, 10% Asian, and 47% white; 32% had Medicaid, 16% Medicare, 32% private insurance, and 11% uninsured. Odds of CRC screening completion in implementation “steps” compared to controls were higher overall and among groups prioritized for outreach (overall: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.41, p = 0.005; prioritized: aOR 2.88, p = 0.002). Odds of SDOH screening did not differ across “steps.” Conclusions As healthcare systems are required to conduct more screenings, it is notable that outreach for a long-standing cancer screening requirement increased screening, even when bundled with a newer screening requirement. This outreach was feasible in a real-world safety-net clinical population and may conserve resources, especially compared to more complex or intensive outreach strategies. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04585919

The NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer/Fallopian Tube Cancer/Primary Peritoneal Cancer provide multidisciplinary diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment recommendations for this disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail how the evolution of the use of PARP inhibitors as maintenance and single-agent regimens for the treatment of ovarian cancer informed panel recommendations in the guidelines.

Importance:People experiencing homelessness die of lung cancer at rates more than double those in the general population. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality, but the circumstances of homelessness create barriers to LCS participation. Objective:To determine whether patient navigation, added to usual care, improved LCS LDCT receipt at a large Health Care for the Homeless (HCH) program. Design, Setting, and Participants:This parallel group, pragmatic, mixed-methods randomized clinical trial was conducted at Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP), a federally qualified HCH program that provides tailored, multidisciplinary care to nearly 10 000 homeless-experienced patients annually. Eligible individuals had a lifetime history of homelessness, had a BHCHP primary care practitioner (PCP), were proficient in English, and met the pre-2022 Medicare coverage criteria for LCS (aged 55-77 years, ≥30 pack-year history of smoking, and smoking within the past 15 years). The study was conducted between November 20, 2020, and March 29, 2023. Intervention:Participants were randomized 2:1 to usual BHCHP care either with or without patient navigation. Following a theory-based, patient-centered protocol, the navigator provided lung cancer education, facilitated LCS shared decision-making visits with PCPs, assisted participants in making and attending LCS LDCT appointments, arranged follow-up when needed, and offered tobacco cessation support for current smokers. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was receipt of a 1-time LCS LDCT within 6 months after randomization, with between-group differences assessed by χ2 analysis. Qualitative interviews assessed the perceptions of participants and PCPs about the navigation intervention. Results:In all, 260 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [4.7] years; 184 males [70.8%]; 96 non-Hispanic Black participants [36.9%] and 96 non-Hispanic White participants [36.9%]) were randomly assigned to usual care with (n = 173) or without (n = 87) patient navigation. At 6 months after randomization, 75 participants in the patient navigation arm (43.4%) and 8 of those in the usual care-only arm (9.2%) had completed LCS LDCT (P < .001), representing a 4.7-fold difference. Interviews with participants in the patient navigation arm and PCPs identified key elements of the intervention: multidimensional social support provision, care coordination activities, and interpersonal skills of the navigator. Conclusions and Relevance:In this randomized clinical trial, patient navigation support produced a 4.7-fold increase in 1-time LCS LDCT completion among HCH patients in Boston. Future work should focus on longer-term screening participation and outcomes. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04308226.

The NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer/Fallopian Tube Cancer/Primary Peritoneal Cancer provide multidisciplinary diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment recommendations for this disease. These NCCN Guidelines Insights detail how the evolution of the use of PARP inhibitors as maintenance and single-agent regimens for the treatment of ovarian cancer informed panel recommendations in the guidelines.

Introduction A smoking-cessation program was implemented as a randomized non-inferiority trial in primary care practices in Croatia and Slovenia to investigate whether a standard 4-week treatment with cytisine was at least as effective and feasible as a standard 12-week treatment with varenicline in helping smokers quit. Aims and Methods Out of 982 surveyed smokers, 377 were recruited to the non-inferiority trial: 186 were randomly assigned to cytisine and 191 to varenicline treatment. The primary cessation outcome was 7-day abstinence after 24 weeks, while the primary feasibility outcome was defined by adherence to the treatment plan. We also compared the rates of adverse events between the two treatment groups. Results The cessation rate after 24 weeks was 32.46% (62/191) in the varenicline group and 23.12% (43/186) in the cytisine group (odds ratio [OR]: 95%, credible interval [CI]: 0.39 to 0.98). Of 191 participants assigned to varenicline treatment 59.16% (113) were adherent, while 70.43% (131 of 186) were adherent in the cytisine group (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.56). Participants assigned to cytisine experienced fewer total (incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.81) and fewer severe or more extreme adverse events (IRR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.47). Conclusions This randomized non-inferiority trial (n = 377) found the standard 4-week cytisine treatment to be less effective than the standard 12-week varenicline treatment for smoking cessation. However, adherence to the treatment plan, ie, feasibility, was higher, and the rate of adverse events was lower among participants assigned to cytisine treatment. Implications The present study found the standard 12 weeks of varenicline treatment to be more effective than the standard 4 weeks of cytisine treatment for smoking cessation in a primary care setting in Croatia and Slovenia. Participants assigned to cytisine, however, had a higher adherence to the treatment plan and a lower rate of adverse events. Estimates from the present study may be especially suitable for generalizations to high-smoking prevalence populations in Europe. Given the much lower cost of cytisine treatment, its lower rate of adverse events, and higher feasibility (but its likely lower effectiveness with the standard dosage regimen), future analyses should assess the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments for health policy considerations.

Purpose To describe policy and system-level interventions with potential to improve cancer care at six sites. Methods In 2016, six institutions received foundation support to develop unique multi-component interventions aimed at improving cancer care for underserved populations. These organizations, located across the United States, participated in a cross-site evaluation to assess the overall initiative impact and to identify potentially promising policy and system-level solutions for dissemination and broader implementation. A health system and policy tracking tool was developed to collect data from each site and included a description of their efforts, strategies employed, and changes achieved (e.g., new policies, clinical protocols). Tracking tool data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analyses and a matrix approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with site leaders (N = 65) and were analyzed by thematic analysis. Results Sites reported 20 system and policy efforts, which resulted in improvements to electronic health records and telehealth strategies, changes to hospital/health system policies, and standardized clinical protocols/guidelines, among others. Efforts were aimed at: (1) coordinating care across multiple providers, supported by patient navigators; (2) expanding psychosocial and supportive care; (3) improving patient-provider communication; and (4) addressing barriers to accessing care. Interview analyses provided insights into successful strategies, challenges, and implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care. Conclusions and implications for cancer survivors Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment, cancer care remains inequitable. System-level improvements aimed at eliminating common barriers faced by underserved populations offer opportunities to improve the delivery of equitable, effective, and efficient care.

BACKGROUND:Large segments of the US population do not receive quality cancer care due to pervasive and systemic inequities, which can increase morbidity and mortality. Multicomponent, multilevel interventions can address inequities and improve care, but only if they reach communities with suboptimal access. Intervention studies often underenroll individuals from historically excluded groups.METHODS:The Alliance to Advance Patient-Centered Cancer Care includes 6 grantees across the United States who implemented unique multicomponent, multilevel intervention programs with common goals of reducing disparities, increasing engagement, and improving the quality of care for targeted populations. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework informed the evaluation efforts across sites. Each Alliance site identified their intended populations, which included underrepresented minorities (eg, Black and Latinx persons), individuals who prefer a language other than English, and rural residents. We evaluated the demographic characteristics of participants to determine program reach.RESULTS:Between 2018 and 2020, a total of 2,390 of 5,309 potentially eligible participants were enrolled across the 6 sites. The proportion of enrolled individuals with selected characteristics included 38% (n=908) Black adults, 24% (n=574) Latinx adults, 19% (n=454) preferring a language other than English, and 30% (n=717) rural residents. The proportion of those enrolled who were the intended population was commensurate to the proportion with desired characteristics in those identified as potentially eligible.CONCLUSIONS:The grantees met or exceeded enrollments from their intended populations who have been underserved by quality cancer care into patient-centered intervention programs. Intentional application of recruitment/engagement strategies is needed to reach individuals from historically underserved communities.

Background Six multidisciplinary cancer centers were selected and funded by the Merck Foundation (2017-2021) to collaborate in the Alliance to Advance Patient-Centered Cancer Care ("Alliance"), an initiative to improve patient access, minimize health disparities, and enhance the quality of patient-centered cancer care. These sites share their insights on implementation and expansion of their patient navigation efforts. Methods Patient navigation represents an evidence-based health care intervention designed to enhance patient-centered care and care coordination. Investigators at 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers outline their approaches to reducing health care disparities and synthesize their efforts to ensure sustainability and successful transferability in the management of patients with cancer and their families in real-world health care settings. Results Insights are outlined within the context of patient navigation program effectiveness and supported by examples from Alliance cancer center sites: 1) understand the patient populations, particularly underserved and high-risk patients; 2) capitalize on the existing infrastructure and institutional commitment to support and sustain patient navigation; and 3) build capacity by mobilizing community support outside of the cancer center. Conclusions This process-level article reflects the importance of collaboration and the usefulness of partnering with other cancer centers to share interdisciplinary insights while undergoing intervention development, implementation, and expansion. These collective insights may be useful to staff at other cancer centers that look to implement, enhance, or evaluate the effectiveness of their patient navigation interventions.

Thousands of colonoscopies were canceled during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. As facilities resumed services, some patients were hesitant to reschedule. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a decision aid plus telephone coaching would increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and improve patient reports of shared decision making (SDM). A randomized controlled trial assigned adults aged 45-75 without prior history of CRC who had a colonoscopy canceled from March to May 2020 to intervention (n = 400) or usual care control (n = 400) arms. The intervention arm received three-page decision aid and call from decision coach from September 2020 through November 2020. Screening rates were collected at 6 months. A subset (n = 250) in each arm was surveyed 8 weeks after randomization to assess SDM (scores range 0-4, higher scores indicating more SDM), decisional conflict, and screening preference. The sample was on average, 60 years old, 53% female, 74% White, non-Hispanic, and 11% Spanish speaking. More intervention arm patients were screened within 6 months (35% intervention vs 23% control, p < 0.001). The intervention respondents reported higher SDM scores (mean difference 0.7 [0.4, 0.9], p < 0.001) and less decisional conflict than controls (-21% [-35%, -7%], p = 0.003). The majority in both arms preferred screening versus delaying (68% intervention vs. 65% control, p = 0.75). An SDM approach that offered alternatives and incorporated patients' preferences resulted in higher screening rates. Patients who are overdue for CRC screening may benefit from proactive outreach with SDM support.

Background For adults aged 76–85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient’s CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. Objective To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. Design Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. Participants and Setting Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76–85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. Interventions Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. Main Measures The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0–4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. Key Results Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n =34 and Comparator n =33) enrolled. Patient participants ( n =466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p =0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p =0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p =0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. Conclusion Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. Trial Registration The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Background. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were canceled. Patient perceptions of the benefits and risks of routine screening relative to health concerns associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were unknown. Purpose. Assess patient anxiety, worry, and interest in CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A random sample of 200 patients aged 45 to 75 y with colonoscopy cancellation due to COVID-19 in March to May 2020 were surveyed. Anxiety, COVID-19 and CRC risk perceptions, COVID-19 and CRC worry, likelihood of following through with colonoscopy in the next month, and interest in alternatives to colonoscopy were assessed. Subsequent screening was tracked for 12 mo. Results. Respondents (N = 127/200, 63.5%) were on average 60 y old, female (59%), college educated (62% college degree or more), and White (91%). A substantial portion of patients (46%) stated they may not follow through with a colonoscopy in the next month. There was greater interest in stool-based testing than in delaying screening (48% v. 26%). Women, older patients, and patients indicating tolerance of uncertainty due to complexity reported they were less likely to follow through with colonoscopy in the next month. Greater interest in stool-based testing was related to lower perceptions of CRC risk. Greater interest in delaying screening was related to less worry about CRC and less tolerance of risk. Over 12 mo, 60% of participants completed screening. Patients who stated they were more likely to screen in the next month were more likely to complete CRC screening (P = 0.01). Conclusions. Respondents who had a colonoscopy canceled during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in interest in rescheduling the procedure. A shared decision-making approach may help patients address varying concerns and select the best approach to screening for them.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States, with less than half of patients living >5 years following diagnosis. The NCCN Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up for patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, and primary peritoneal cancers. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines, including revised guidance on alternative chemotherapy regimens for patients with advanced age and/or comorbidities, a new algorithm for recurrent low-grade serous carcinoma based on developing research and novel therapeutic agents, and updated language regarding tumor molecular analysis applications in ovarian cancer.

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gyne-cologic cancer in the United States and is the country's fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypeshigh-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosar-coma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.

Our study aims to implement a smoking cessation program using pharmacotherapy in a real-life setting (primary care practices in Croatia and Slovenia) and to investigate whether cytisine is at least as feasible and effective as Varenicline in helping smokers to quit in a randomized non-inferiority trial. The use of these medications as an intervention tool for smoking cessation in Croatia and Slovenia is not previously explored and the level of awareness and interest in pharmacotherapy among smokers is unknown.

INTRODUCTION:While substantial attention is focused on the delivery of routine preventive cancer screening, less attention has been paid to systematically ensuring that there is timely follow-up of abnormal screening test results. Barriers to completion of timely follow-up occur at the patient, provider, care team and system levels. METHODS:In this pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial, primary care sites in three networks are randomized to one of four arms: (1) standard care, (2) "visit-based" reminders that appear in a patient's electronic health record (EHR) when it is accessed by either patient or providers (3) visit based reminders with population health outreach, and (4) visit based reminders, population health outreach, and patient navigation with systematic screening and referral to address social barriers to care. Eligible patients in participating practices are those overdue for follow-up of an abnormal results on breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening tests. RESULTS:The primary outcome is whether an individual receives follow-up, specific to the organ type and screening abnormality, within 120 days of becoming eligible for the trial. Secondary outcomes assess the effect of intervention components on the patient and provider experience of obtaining follow-up care and the delivery of the intervention components. CONCLUSIONS:This trial will provide evidence for the role of a multilevel intervention on improving the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. We will also specifically assess the relative impact of the components of the intervention, compared to standard care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03979495.