Cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) are common conditions, but for patients affected with both, there is a lack of data about management of anticoagulation and cerebrovascular outcomes. In the first section of this review, we summarize the most relevant studies on stroke risk and management of AF in patients with active cancer, attempting to answer questions of whether to anticoagulate, whom to anticoagulate, and what agents to use. In the second section of the review, we suggest a decision algorithm on the basis of the available evidence and provide practical recommendations for each of the anticoagulant options. In the third section, we discuss the limitations of the available evidence. On the basis of low-quality evidence, we find that patients with cancer and AF have a risk of stroke similar to that of the general population but a substantially higher risk of bleeding regardless of the anticoagulant agent used; this makes anticoagulation-related decisions complex and evidence from the general population not immediately applicable. In general, we suggest stopping anticoagulation in patients with high risk of bleeding and in those with a moderate bleeding risk without a high thromboembolic risk and recommend anticoagulation as in the general population for patients at a low risk for bleeding. However, regardless of initial therapy, we recommend reassessing whether anticoagulation should be given at each point in the clinical course of the disease. High-quality evidence to guide anticoagulation for AF in patients with cancer is needed.

The perspectives of patients with cancer about their treatment can inform interventions to improve the approaches of treating oncologists and experiences of future patients. We sought to identify areas where current toxicity management, informed consent processes, and physician-patient communication merit improvement.

A key challenge regarding the current opioid epidemic is understanding how concerns regarding opioid-related harms affect access to pain management, an essential element of cancer care. In certain regions of the United States where disproportionately high cancer mortality and opioid fatality rates coexist (such as southwest Virginia in central Appalachia), this dilemma is particularly pronounced.

Advance care planning (ACP) supports national priorities of patient engagement, person-centered care, and safety. A systematic approach is uncommon in most care settings. Our institution offers all patients with cancer new to the institution an opportunity to select and prepare a medical decision maker (MDM) after social work counseling. The goals of this study were to determine the success of a systematic institutional process for selecting a prepared MDM. The primary objectives were that (1) 70% or more of new patients would have one or more documented social work ACP discussions by the third office visit within 4 months, and (2) there would be a two-fold increase in scanned medical power of attorney (MPOA) documents available in the electronic health record (EHR). The secondary objectives were (1) improved surrogate preparedness for medical decision making, and (2) to determine whether patients with metastatic disease demonstrated greater readiness for selection of an MDM than those with localized disease.

Evidence suggests coverage has improved significantly for patients with cancer, particularly in the lower-income population, after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Yet no study has examined changes in type of coverage or the resulting effect on spending and financial burden.

Efforts to curb the rising costs of cancer care while improving quality include alternative payment models (APMs), which offer incentives to reduce avoidable spending and provide high-quality and cost-efficient care. The impact of proposed APMs has not been quantified in real-world practice. In this study, we evaluated ASCO's Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model in existing fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries to understand the magnitude of potential cost savings.

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection increases the risk for several types of cancer, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, as primary and second primary malignancies. HCV-infected patients with cancer, particularly those undergoing anticancer therapy, are at risk for development of enhanced HCV replication, which can lead to hepatitis flare and progression of liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. Risk factors for HCV infection include injection drug use, blood transfusion, or solid organ transplantation before 1992, receipt of clotting factor concentrates before 1987, long-term hemodialysis, chronic liver disease, HIV positivity, and occupational exposure. Widely available direct-acting antivirals are highly effective against HCV and well tolerated. Identification of HCV-infected individuals is the essential first step in treatment and eradication of the infection. One-time screening is recommended for persons born from 1945 to 1965; screening is also recommended for persons with risk factors. Recently, a public health recommendation has been drafted to screen all adults age 18 to 79 years. Two oncology organizations recommend screening all patients with hematologic malignancies and hematopoietic cell transplant recipients, and a recently published multicenter prospective study supports universal HCV screening for all patients with cancer. HCV screening entails testing for anti-HCV antibodies in serum and, when results are positive, HCV RNA quantitation to confirm infection. Direct-acting antiviral therapy eradicates HCV in almost all cases. Virologic cure of HCV prevents chronic hepatitis and progression to liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. HCV eradication also decreases the risk of developing HCV-associated primary and second primary malignancies, and it may allow HCV-infected patients access to important cancer clinical trials. Patients with HCV-related cirrhosis require lifelong surveillance for HCC, even after viral eradication.

Investigators often send reports to sponsors that incorrectly categorize adverse event (AE)s as serious or attribute AEs to investigational drugs. Such errors can contribute to high volumes of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports that sponsors submit to the US Food and Drug Administration and participating investigators, which strain resources and impede the detection of valid safety signals. To improve the quality of serious AE (SAE) reporting by physician-investigators and research staff, ASCO developed and tested a Decision Aid.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Approximately 20% of these patients present with brain metastases (BMs). Surgical resection, stereotactic radiosurgery, and whole-brain radiation therapy have historically been the primary treatment modalities for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and BMs. The treatments for BMs have become complex with the discovery of targetable molecular drivers and the development of an astonishing number of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Many of these tyrosine kinase inhibitors have robust and durable efficacy against CNS metastases. In many circumstances, these drugs can defer local therapy and even reduce the risk of CNS progression. More recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed the treatment landscape for many patients with NSCLC; however, the role of immunotherapy in patients with BMs is the subject of ongoing investigations. This article will review the current data and our approach to patients with NSCLC and BMs.

Extranodal natural killer (NK)/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, is a rare peripheral T-cell lymphoma associated with Epstein-Barr virus. It most often presents as limited-stage disease in patients of East Asian descent with a palatal deformity caused by erosion of the tumor through the hard palate. Limited-stage disease is often curable with the use of l-asparaginase-based chemotherapy and high-dose radiation therapy. Obtaining an accurate diagnosis is essential, because treatment with standard lymphoma regimens and omission of radiation severely compromise the likelihood of long-term survival. Conversely, patients with advanced disease have a poor prognosis and are recommended for asparaginase-based chemotherapy followed by consolidation with autologous transplantation as a potentially curative approach. Progress often has been hampered by the rarity of this disease. However, discovery of common genetic alterations in pathways that promote growth and inhibit apoptosis, and actionable markers such as CD30 (among others), have begun to broaden the availability of novel drugs (eg, targeted therapies). There is also cautious optimism about immunotherapies, such as checkpoint blockade and novel cellular therapies that target Epstein-Barr virus. Advances in treatment and understanding of the genetic landscape of this disease offer hope for improved treatment outcomes.