Neoplasms

Urinary Tract, Sexual Organs, and Pregnancy Conditions

All Conditions

Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases

Digestive System Diseases

Gland and Hormone Related Diseases

Nervous System Diseases

Respiratory Tract (Lung and Bronchial) Diseases

Rare Diseases

Prostatic Neoplasms

Breast Neoplasms

Pancreatic Neoplasms

Ovarian Neoplasms

Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial

Head and Neck Neoplasms

Central Nervous System Neoplasms

Carcinoma, Bronchogenic

Endometrial Neoplasms

Uterine Cervical Neoplasms

Carcinoma

Urogenital Neoplasms

Genital Diseases

Urogenital Diseases

Genital Diseases, Female

Female Urogenital Diseases

Pregnancy Complications

Female Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications

Genital Neoplasms, Female

Uterine Neoplasms

Uterine Diseases

Uterine Cervical Diseases

Bronchial Neoplasms

Lung Neoplasms

Respiratory Tract Neoplasms

Thoracic Neoplasms

Lung Diseases

Respiratory Tract Diseases

Pancreatic Cancer

Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian Epithelial Cancer

Cancer patients who have undergone substantial parts of inpatient treatment in a certified cancer centre.

Cancer patients who have not undergone inpatient treatment in a certified cancer centre.

Oncological certification encompasses a variety of criteria such as treatment according to the clinical guidelines, staffing, technical infrastructure, minimum caseloads, and multidisciplinary care.

Oncological certification

Assessment of the effectiveness of care in certified cancer centres for eight cancer entities via a retrospective cohort study based on secondary data from statutory health insurance funds and population-based clinical cancer registries.

Cancer constitutes the second most frequent cause of death in Germany. To maintain a high quality of treatment, the national cancer plan aims at a unified certification of cancer centres.

The project "Wirksamkeit der Versorgung in onkologischen Zentren" (WiZen) investigates effects of treatments in certified cancer centres across large populations and different cancer entities in comparison to hospitals that do not hold a certificate.

WiZen is a retrospective comparative cohort study that analyzes incident cases of eight types of cancer diagnosed within 2009-2017 based on nationwide health insurance data provided by WIdO (the AOK research institute) and data from regional clinical cancer registries (CCR) for the period 2006-2017. These eight types of cancer are colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, breast cancer, gynecologic tumors, lung cancer, prostate cancer, head and neck tumors and neuro-oncological tumors.

Effectiveness of Care in Certified Cancer Centres in Germany

Wirksamkeit Der Versorgung in Onkologischen Zentren

Survival after first hospitalization due to cancer

1- and 5-year survival after first hospitalization due to cancer

30-day mortality after first hospitalization due to cancer

2-, 3-, 4-year survival after first hospitalization due to cancer

Recurrence-free survival after cancer diagnosis

Cumulative recurrence rate after cancer diagnosis

1. Fractions of entity-specific surgery techniques
2. For head-neck-tumours: aspiration pneumonia due to swallowing dysfunctions

Fraction of patients in certified centres and in non-certified hospitals over time

Differences across outcomes in different counties or federal states

Differences in demographic characteristics, disease severity and risk factors across certified centres/non-certified hospitals

Patient's treatment pathways among general practitioners, specialists, and hospitals w.r.t. certification

Deduction of cancer severity levels through linkage of health insurance and cancer registry data

Tumorzentrum Regensburg, Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Versorgungsforschung, Universität Regensburg

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tumorzenten e.V., ADT

Wissenschaftliches Institut der AOK (WIdO)

Technische Universität Dresden

Prof. Dr. med. Jochen Schmitt, MPH

Symptoms and General Pathology

Death

Patients randomized into the intervention will be assigned a lay patient navigator who will provide information regarding early advance care planning, documentation of goals of care, and coordinating home-based care. The intervention arm will also receive usual care as provided by their local oncologists.

The control group will receive usual care as provided by their local oncologists.

Patients randomized into the intervention will be assigned a lay health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention. The intervention includes: education on early advance care planning and documenting goals of care.

Lay Navigator Intervention

Usual care as provided by local oncologists

Usual Care

The purpose of the Team Based Advance Care Planning CAREPLAN program is to understand if a trained lay navigator who engages with patients with advanced stages of cancer can help patients in advance care planning, improve patient activation, satisfaction, quality of life, and the quality of end of life cancer care while also ensuring goal concordant cancer care at the end of life.

Stanford Cancer Institute plans to implement and evaluate several critical elements to be in alignment with the mission of the organization to provide high value care to their patients. The CAREPLAN (Coaches Activating, Reaching, and Engaging Patients in Their End of Life Care Plan) intervention is an innovative program aimed to strengthen provider-patient relationships and facilitate whole person care about matters important to patients diagnosed with advanced stages of cancer and important to patients' support network and family. The project is intended to help establish patients' Goals of Care Plan with appropriate documentation, develop, deploy, and evaluate a model of care for patients with cancer that is intended to improve clinical outcomes and their experiences with their cancer care. The intervention provides patients with lay navigators who assist them and their families in formulating and discussing their goals of care with their health care teams in hopes to engage in shared-decision making for goal concordant care. The goal of the project is to demonstrate that there is improved documentation of goals of care, patient experiences, patient activation, quality of life, and quality of care and communication and that the program helps to improve goal concordant care receipt at the end of life.

As part of usual care, patients with cancer are assigned to services by a lay navigator and this will be the control group.

For patients in the intervention, they will be assigned to the usual care lay navigator but will receive services by a lay navigator who is trained to engage patients in advance care planning.

Coaches Activating Reaching and Engaging Patients

CAREPlan: Coaches Activating, Reaching, and Engaging Patients in End-of-Life Care Plan

Goals of Care documentation for each patient will be abstracted by electronic medical record chart review for each patient at 12 months after enrollment.

Emergency Department Use for each patient will be assessed by electronic health record abstraction from time of enrollment to 12 months after patient enrollment

Hospitalization Visits for each patient will be assessed by electronic health record abstraction from time of enrollment to 12 months after patient enrollment

Palliative care use for each patient will be assessed by electronic health record abstraction from time of enrollment to 12 months after patient enrollment

Hospice for each patient will be assessed by electronic health record abstraction from time of enrollment to 12 months after patient enrollment

Stanford University

Assistant Professor

Behaviors and Mental Disorders

Recurrence

Endocrine Gland Neoplasms

Ovarian Diseases

Adnexal Diseases

Endocrine System Diseases

Gonadal Disorders

Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial

Neoplasms by Histologic Type

Quality of Life

Questionnaires

Mark Rietveld, M.D. Msc.

Nelleke Ottevanger, M.D. PhD

Ovarian cancer is a major cause of cancer related death among women. The disease is usually advanced at diagnosis, because specialist referral is delayed due to vague nature of presenting symptoms. Primary treatment is successful, but most patients experience recurrence. Complaints due to disease and therapy overlap. Furthermore treatment schedules are similar in response rate and survival rates. Toxicity of therapy as scored by the physician is best documented, but varies depending on type of chemotherapy. Moreover most knowledge is acquired in clinical trials and not in daily practice. Patient reported outcome (PROs) concerning effects on symptoms, velocity of relief and quality of life (QoL) by the different regimens is sparce. Also it is unknown which symptoms are best relieved. Most trials take into account progression or survival as primary endpoint but not often symptom relief, which is especially important for patients with recurrent disease, without no chance of cure anymore. Knowledge on rating of problems and needs of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) to support them in the course of their disease is needed to come to an evidence based and patient centered treatment of choice together with the patient. Physicians most frequently use the Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) scale for grading of side effects of treatment, but discrepancies with patient experiences is high. Routine collection of PROs may therefore improve patient expectations and management. In this project the investigators intend to augment knowledge by PROs of different chemotherapy schedules for recurrent ovarian cancer in order to improve shared decision making with the physician.

Objective: primary objective of this project is to explore the relief of symptoms due to ROC, the speed with which this occurs by different chemotherapy schedules and development of complaints due to the regimen of chemotherapy. Secondary the investigators intend (1) to assess preferential symptom relief by patients, (2) to correlate toxicity and symptoms of disease to tumor assessed response to chemotherapy and (3) to correlate symptom relief by psychosocial context.

Improving Quality of Care for Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

PharmaMar

Radboud University Medical Center

Blood and Lymph Conditions

Immune System Diseases

Skin Neoplasms

Sarcoma

Lymphoma

Gastrointestinal Neoplasms

Digestive System Neoplasms

Urologic Neoplasms

Gastrointestinal Diseases

Male Urogenital Diseases

Urologic Diseases

Skin Diseases

Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Lymphosarcoma

Patients who are assigned to intervention will be contacted by a navigator who will explain and offer their services to the patient. Navigators focus efforts on supporting patients in self-management and in supporting non-medical needs.

Lay Navigation

Steve Asch, MD

The Stanford Cancer Center is undertaking a Transformation Initiative in order to improve the quality of care and care coordination across the continuum of care. The newest innovation is to introduce lay navigators to specified high-need patients. The larger goal of the project is to assess whether lay navigators can address non-clinical patient needs in a timely fashion and appropriately connect them with their clinical team when warranted. It is expected that proactive interaction with patients will decrease patient anxiety/stress related to their cancer and facilitate higher patient engagement and improved management of physical, social,and emotional health. For the pilot project, the smaller goal is to understand: how lay navigator time is used; the types and frequency of issues brought up by patients; resources that patients are given or referred to; type and frequency of mode of contact with patients; and patients' acceptance of navigators based on refusal. An electronic intake form will be used to collect this information so that data can be analyzed regularly to inform changes to the navigator program as needed.

The Stanford Cancer Institute is undergoing a 5-year Transformation Initiative that began in 2013. One of the goals of this initiative is to increase patient engagement. The underlying premise is that engaged patients will be more likely to attend all their visits, receive all their treatments, and understand ways to manage treatment side effects so that they are less likely to go to the emergency room (ER) or be admitted to the hospital. An approach being tested is to use lay navigators to help identify patient issues and help them address the issues through a combination of direct supportive activities (e.g., calling clinical team for the patient) and activities that help the patients help themselves (helping them understand when side effects warrant a call to their clinical team that they make themselves).

Information including patient acceptance/refusal of navigator services; number and types of contacts with patients (phone, in-person, email); types of issues discussed (financial, social, educational, physical, emotional, etc); referrals made; and time spent with patients for each encounter will be routinely entered by the navigators for each patient contact. The data entered will be evaluated regularly to closely monitor navigator activities and better understand cancer patient issues/needs. This information will be used to inform possible training needs of navigators, educational needs of patients,needs for better referral support,help predict navigator case-load, and other issues.

Eligibility Criteria:

All new biopsy positive cancer patients that have a treatment plan to receive at least 2 treatment modalities: surgery, chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy at Stanford are eligible. Because there will be more patients eligible than the navigators can manage, only patients with an even MRN will receive a navigator for the pilot. The overall purpose of the pilot is to learn which patients benefit most and which services navigators are able to best help with. The investigators expect the pilot to last 6-12 months. Mixed methods will be used to evaluate the navigators and will include existing patient experience surveys, unscheduled hospitalizations, ER visits, interviews with patients, staff (including navigators), and physicians regarding their experience with and perceived value of navigators.

There will be 12 groups in each arm which reflects the 12 different cancer types.

Effectiveness of Lay Navigators in Meeting Cancer Patients' Non-Clinical Needs: A Pilot Study

Pilot Project to Better Understand Non-Clinical Needs of Cancer Patients

Difference in topbox scores from apriori selected questions from the transformation evaluation in navigated vs not navigated patients.

Comparison of rates of unplanned hospitalizations and ER visits among eligible patients in the navigated group vs. un-navigated patients.

Comparison of the proportion of navigated patients that used non-treatment-related cancer services to those not navigated. Examples of services include palliative care, supportive care, nutrition, etc.

Clinical Associate Professor

Stomach Neoplasms

Melanoma

Glioblastoma

Neuroectodermal Tumors

Neuroectodermal Tumors, Primitive

Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal

Neoplasms, Nerve Tissue

Pancreatic Diseases

Astrocytoma

Glioma

Neoplasms, Neuroepithelial

Stomach Diseases

Stomach Cancer

Neuroepithelioma

Oncologists trained using OncoTalk to have Goals of Care discussions.

Training of oncologists using OncoTalk to conduct Goals of Care discussions and measure impact on patient satisfaction.

GoC intervention

Nina Bickell, MD, MPH

The goal of this study is to increase and improve Goals of Care discussions for advanced cancer patients by training medical oncologists to conduct these discussions. The investigators will evaluate the GoC discussion's effects on patient satisfaction, receipt of treatment in line with preferences, use of aggressive treatment, and oncologist communication skill.

Among advanced cancer patients, discussions about prognosis, goals of care (GoC) and end-of-life preferences improve quality of life of patients and reduce rates of hospital and ICU admission. Yet, few patients know their chemotherapy treatments will not cure their disease despite nearly all wishing to receive information- good \& bad. Currently, 37% of advanced cancer patients have GoC clarifying discussions and when they do, it is often in the last 2 months of life when symptoms are uncontrollable and oncologists have no other treatments to offer. These discussions do not usually happen with the patient's personal oncologist. Current efforts to teach oncologists such skills are impractical, requiring a lot of time away from their office practice and do not take into account job pressures.

The goal of this study is to increase and improve GoC discussions for advanced cancer patients by training medical oncologists to conduct these discussions and evaluate its effects on patient satisfaction, receipt of care in line with preferences, aggressive care utilization, and oncologist communication skill.

The investigators will recruit 280 patients of which half will come from intervention doctors and the other from the control doctors. The investigators will train randomly selected oncologists to conduct GoC discussion. Patients will be surveyed at baseline within days of their GOC visit and at 6 months. Oncologists will be audio-taped at baseline and after training is complete to assess practice and skill to conduct GoC discussions.

Primary outcomes include patient reported conduct of and satisfaction with GoC discussion. Secondary outcomes include oncologist communication skills, feasibility of performing GoC in the outpatient setting, receipt of care in line with preferences, use of hospice, chemotherapy or ICU in the last 30 days of life.

Improving Goals of Care Discussion in Advanced Cancer Patients

Improving Advanced Cancer Patient-Centered Care by Enabling Goals of Care Discussions

Number of patient's perceptions that goals of care discussions were increased occurred as measured by GoC qualitative patient survey.

Number of Patient's satisfaction with the discussion of improved goals of care as measured by GoC qualitative patient survey.

Oncologist's communication skills are tested and rated between 1 and 7, with higher number indicating the oncologists were more comfortable in demonstrating communication skills while having the Goals of Care discussion with their patients.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Adverse events were not monitored/assessed

Patients given OncoTalk GoC intervention

GoC intervention: Training of oncologists using OncoTalk to conduct Goals of Care discussions and measure impact on patient satisfaction.

Patients - GoC Intervention

Prospective control group where no intervention was given.

Patients - Usual Care

Oncologists - GoC Intervention

Oncologists not trained using OncoTalk to have Goals of Care discussions.

Oncologists - Usual Care

Total

Age, Continuous

Sex: Female, Male

Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)

Race (NIH/OMB)

Data was collected for patient participants only

Radhi Yagnik

Oncologist - GoC Intervention

Data from patient participants only. Data not collected from Oncologists

Number of Participants Who Perceived Increased Goals of Care Discussions

Patients given OncoTalk GoC intervention.

GoC intervention: Training of oncologists using OncoTalk to conduct Goals of Care discussions and measure impact on patient satisfaction.

Data collected for patient participants only

Number of Patients Perception of Improved Goals of Care Discussions

Oncologists trained using OncoTalk to have Goals of Care discussions.

GoC intervention: Training of oncologists using OncoTalk to conduct Goals of Care discussions and measure impact on patient satisfaction.

Participants represented are the oncologist's. Data collected for the oncologists only.

Communication Skills Training

Overall Study

This arm is the control group. They will receive usual oncology care from their regular oncologist and care team with no change in their care plan or treatment as a result of the intervention. Outcomes will be assessed at each of the following times: baseline, 3-months, 6-months, and 12-months.

This arm is the treatment group. Patients randomized into the intervention will be assigned a community health worker who will contact the patient to begin the intervention. They will receive usual oncology care from their regular oncologist and care team but will also receive supplemental support and health education from a community health worker. The lay health worker will assist patients in ensuring that patients discuss the following with their cancer care teams: 1) precision medicine 2) cancer diagnosis and treatment plan 3) adherence to treatments and 3) goals of care and 4) symptom burden. Outcomes will be assessed at each of the following times: baseline, 3-months, 6-months, and 12-months.

For those in the experimental group, a community health worker will provide health education and support as described in the Community Health Worker Intervention arm.

Community Health Worker Support

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to evaluate whether a trained community health worker (CHW) who engages with newly diagnosed patients after a diagnosis of cancer can effectively improve knowledge and receipt of evidence-based precision medicine cancer care services among low-income and minority patients.

The goal of this study is to reduce cancer disparities by improving the knowledge and delivery of evidence-based precision medicine for cancer care. We plan to randomize newly diagnosed patients and those currently under cancer care to either a control arm (usual cancer care alone) versus an intervention arm (layered on top of usual cancer care alone) where patients are assigned to a community health worker who will assist patients in ensuring the following discussions with their care team: 1) precision cancer care 2) cancer diagnosis and treatment plan 2) adherence to treatments and 3) goals of care and symptom burden. A total of 55 participants per study group (total 110) will be recruited in Monterey County from Pacific Cancer Care.

This will be a parallel two-arm randomized controlled trial with the following two arms: (1) usual oncology care or (2) usual oncology care + supplemental community health worker intervention. All participants who consent to the study will be randomized 1:1 into the usual oncology care arm versus the intervention arm. Patients randomized into the intervention arm will be assigned a community health worker who will begin the intervention. Each arm will include 55 participants (total for the study n=110).

Community Health Workers and Precision Medicine

Reducing Cancer Disparities Through Innovative Community-Academic Partnership to Advance Access and Delivery of Precision Medicine in Monterey County

Study data will not be shared with researchers outside of this project.

Using 7 multiple choice items adapted from an 8-item survey tool, Knowledge and Purpose of Molecular Profiling, by Davies et. al., 2020, we will assess knowledge of precision medicine (molecular profiling and tumor testing) for cancer care. All questions are multiple choice. For example one question asks 'tumor testing is helpful for making decisions about future cancer risks,' with answer choices: always, frequently, sometimes, rarely, never, or I don't know. Answers will be scored as number or percent correct.

Adapted from the following paper: Davies, G., Butow, P., Napier, C. E., Bartley, N., Juraskova, I., Meiser, B., ... \& Best, M. C. (2020). Advanced Cancer Patient Knowledge of and Attitudes towards Tumor Molecular Profiling. Translational Oncology, 13(9), 100799.

Each patient will receive a validated patient activation survey using the "Patient Activation Measure" at enrollment and 3 months after study enrollment. This is a validated measure from Insignia Health. Responses are: disagree strongly, disagree, agree, agree strongly with higher activation correlated with responses of agree and agree strongly. Each item is rated on 4-point scale (1 strongly disagree to 4 strongly agree, with additional "not applicable" option). Higher scores indicate greater patient activation. For the PAM-10, minimum score is 0 (if all not-applicable) and maximum is 40. Raw scores are converted into activation levels per the scoring guidelines by Insignia Health for: level 1 Disengaged and Overwhelmed, level 2 Becoming Aware but Still Struggling, level 3 Taking Action and Gaining Control, level 4 Maintaining "Behaviors and Pushing Further. Scores for each group will be averaged at 3 months after study enrollment.

Each patient will receive a validated patient activation survey using the "Patient Activation Measure" at enrollment and 6 months after study enrollment. This is a validated measure from Insignia Health. Responses are: disagree strongly, disagree, agree, agree strongly with higher activation correlated with responses of agree and agree strongly. Each item is rated on 4-point scale (1 strongly disagree to 4 strongly agree, with additional "not applicable" option). Higher scores indicate greater patient activation. For the PAM-10, minimum score is 0 (if all not-applicable) and maximum is 40. Raw scores are converted into activation levels per the scoring guidelines by Insignia Health for: level 1 Disengaged and Overwhelmed, level 2 Becoming Aware but Still Struggling, level 3 Taking Action and Gaining Control, level 4 Maintaining "Behaviors and Pushing Further. Scores for each group will be averaged at 6 months after study enrollment.

Each patient will receive a validated patient activation survey using the "Patient Activation Measure" at enrollment and 12 months after study enrollment. This is a validated measure from Insignia Health. Responses are: disagree strongly, disagree, agree, agree strongly with higher activation correlated with responses of agree and agree strongly. Each item is rated on 4-point scale (1 strongly disagree to 4 strongly agree, with additional "not applicable" option). Higher scores indicate greater patient activation. For the PAM-10, minimum score is 0 (if all not-applicable) and maximum is 40. Raw scores are converted into activation levels per the scoring guidelines by Insignia Health for: level 1 Disengaged and Overwhelmed, level 2 Becoming Aware but Still Struggling, level 3 Taking Action and Gaining Control, level 4 Maintaining "Behaviors and Pushing Further. Scores for each group will be averaged at 12 months after study enrollment.

Each patient will receive the validated 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) at 3 months after study enrollment. Responses are "completely disagree, strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree, or completely agree," with 1=completely disagree and 6= completely agree. Higher scores indicate greater levels of satisfaction. Minimum score is 9, maximum is 54. Responses for each group will be assessed at 3 months after study enrollment. The measure is adapted from: Holmes-Rovner, M., Kroll, J., Schmitt, N., Rovner, D. R., Breer, M. L., Rothert, M. L., ... \& Talarczyk, G. (1996). Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Medical Decision Making, 16(1), 58-64.

Each patient will receive the validated 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) at 6 months after study enrollment. Responses are "completely disagree, strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree, or completely agree," with 1=completely disagree and 6= completely agree. Higher scores indicate greater levels of satisfaction. Minimum score is 9, maximum is 54. Responses for each group will be assessed at 6 months after study enrollment. The measure is adapted from: Holmes-Rovner, M., Kroll, J., Schmitt, N., Rovner, D. R., Breer, M. L., Rothert, M. L., ... \& Talarczyk, G. (1996). Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Medical Decision Making, 16(1), 58-64.

Each patient will receive the validated 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) at 12 months after study enrollment. Responses are "completely disagree, strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree, or completely agree," with 1=completely disagree and 6= completely agree. Higher scores indicate greater levels of satisfaction. Minimum score is 9, maximum is 54. Responses for each group will be assessed at 12 months after study enrollment. The measure is adapted from: Holmes-Rovner, M., Kroll, J., Schmitt, N., Rovner, D. R., Breer, M. L., Rothert, M. L., ... \& Talarczyk, G. (1996). Patient satisfaction with health care decisions: the satisfaction with decision scale. Medical Decision Making, 16(1), 58-64.

Medical record review for quantity of use of any palliative care, any hospice, any chemotherapy, any radiotherapy, or any surgery.

Each patient will the validated "Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey (FACT-G), " which is a 27-item survey with response options including: not at all, a little bit, somewhat, quite a bit, or very much. Five items also allow for a response of 'prefer not to answer.' Scoring for the FACT-G will be done in accordance with the FACT-G Scoring Guidelines (Version 4), available here: https://www.facit.org/measures-scoring-downloads/fact-g-scoring-downloads . In summary, scoring is for four subscales included within the survey, including (1) Physical Well-Being (score range: 0-28), (2) Social Family Well-Being (score range: 0-28), (3) Emotional Well-Being (score range: 0-24), and (4) Functional Well-Being (score range: 0-28). A total score is created from the sum of the subscale scores and has a minimum of zero and maximum of 108, where a higher score indicates greater quality of life. We will measure the change in quality of life at baseline to 3 months.

Each patient will the validated "Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey (FACT-G), " which is a 27-item survey with response options including: not at all, a little bit, somewhat, quite a bit, or very much. Five items also allow for a response of 'prefer not to answer.' Scoring for the FACT-G will be done in accordance with the FACT-G Scoring Guidelines (Version 4), available here: https://www.facit.org/measures-scoring-downloads/fact-g-scoring-downloads . In summary, scoring is for four subscales included within the survey, including (1) Physical Well-Being (score range: 0-28), (2) Social Family Well-Being (score range: 0-28), (3) Emotional Well-Being (score range: 0-24), and (4) Functional Well-Being (score range: 0-28). A total score is created from the sum of the subscale scores and has a minimum of zero and maximum of 108, where a higher score indicates greater quality of life. We will measure the change in quality of life at baseline to 6 months.

Each patient will the validated "Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Survey (FACT-G), " which is a 27-item survey with response options including: not at all, a little bit, somewhat, quite a bit, or very much. Five items also allow for a response of 'prefer not to answer.' Scoring for the FACT-G will be done in accordance with the FACT-G Scoring Guidelines (Version 4), available here: https://www.facit.org/measures-scoring-downloads/fact-g-scoring-downloads . In summary, scoring is for four subscales included within the survey, including (1) Physical Well-Being (score range: 0-28), (2) Social Family Well-Being (score range: 0-28), (3) Emotional Well-Being (score range: 0-24), and (4) Functional Well-Being (score range: 0-28). A total score is created from the sum of the subscale scores and has a minimum of zero and maximum of 108, where a higher score indicates greater quality of life. We will measure the change in quality of life at baseline to 12 months.

Study title	NCT ID	Conditions	Interventions	Eligibility	Organization
Effectiveness of Care in Certified Cancer Centres in Germany	NCT04334239	Colorectal Canc... Breast Cancer Ovarian Cancer Cervix Cancer Endometrial Can... Bronchial Cance... Prostate Cancer Head and Neck T... CNS Tumor Pancreatic Canc...	Oncological cer...	18 Years -	Technische Universität Dresden
Coaches Activating Reaching and Engaging Patients	NCT03856463	Cancer End-of-Life	Lay Navigator I... Usual Care	18 Years -	Stanford University
Improving Quality of Care for Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Cancer	NCT02809339	Ovarian Neoplas... Quality of Life	Questionnaires	18 Years -	Radboud University Medical Center
Effectiveness of Lay Navigators in Meeting Cancer Patients' Non-Clinical Needs: A Pilot Study	NCT03245788	Breast Cancer Gynecologic Can... Neck Cancer Head and Neck C... Gastrointestina... Thoracic Cancer Cutaneous Tumor Urologic Cancer Neurologic Canc... Lymphoma Sarcoma Bone Marrow Tra...	Lay Navigation	18 Years -	Stanford University
Improving Goals of Care Discussion in Advanced Cancer Patients	NCT02374255	Primary Stage I... Esophageal Colorectal Canc... Glioblastoma Cancer of Stoma... Cancer of Pancr... Melanoma Head or Neck Ca... Stage III Stage IV Lung Cancers Pancreatic Canc...	GoC interventio...	21 Years -	Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Effectiveness of Care in Certified Cancer Centres in Germany	NCT04334239	Colorectal Canc... Breast Cancer Ovarian Cancer Cervix Cancer Endometrial Can... Bronchial Cance... Prostate Cancer Head and Neck T... CNS Tumor Pancreatic Canc...	Oncological cer...	18 Years -	Technische Universität Dresden
Community Health Workers and Precision Medicine	NCT04843332	Cancer Tumor	Community Healt...	18 Years -	Stanford University
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for Ambulatory TURBT	NCT05905276	Bladder Cancer	ERAS Protocol Standard of Car...	18 Years -	Johns Hopkins University
Improving Quality of Care for Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Cancer	NCT02809339	Ovarian Neoplas... Quality of Life	Questionnaires	18 Years -	Radboud University Medical Center
Improving Goals of Care Discussion in Advanced Cancer Patients	NCT02374255	Primary Stage I... Esophageal Colorectal Canc... Glioblastoma Cancer of Stoma... Cancer of Pancr... Melanoma Head or Neck Ca... Stage III Stage IV Lung Cancers Pancreatic Canc...	GoC interventio...	21 Years -	Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Coaches Activating Reaching and Engaging Patients	NCT03856463	Cancer End-of-Life	Lay Navigator I... Usual Care	18 Years -	Stanford University

Spots Global Cancer Trial Database for quality of care