bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
Illness perceptions, financial toxicity, symptom burden, and survival in cancer clinical trial (CCT) participants.
Authors: Perni Subha , Azoba Chukwuma , Gorton Emily , Park Elyse R. , Chabner Bruce Allan , Moy Beverly , Nipp Ryan David
Published: September 2021

160

Background: Patients’ perceptions of their illness are important for treatment decision-making and quality of life. Limited data exist describing associations of illness perceptions with other patient-centered outcomes, particularly in CCT participants. We sought to examine associations among illness perceptions and CCT patients’ financial toxicity, physical and psychological symptoms, and survival. Methods: From 7/2015-7/2017, we prospectively enrolled CCT participants who expressed interest in financial assistance programs (n = 157) and a group of patients matched by age, sex, cancer type, specific trial, and trial phase (n = 103). We assessed baseline illness perceptions (Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire [BIPQ] with scores > 50 indicating negative perceptions), financial toxicity (degree costs of cancer care have been a burden, moderate to catastrophic indicating financial toxicity), physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS]) and psychological (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]) symptoms. We used descriptive statistics to examine associations of BIPQ and sociodemographic/clinical factors, financial toxicity, ESAS, PHQ-4, and overall survival. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate median survival times and Cox regression to assess the association of BIPQ and overall survival. Results: Among 260 patients, 189 (72.7%) completed BIPQ surveys (median age 69 [Range 26 to 83] years, 66.1% female). 68.8% had negative illness perceptions. We found no significant associations among negative illness perceptions and patients’ age, sex, race, education, marital status, performance status, insurance, cancer type, metastatic disease status, self-reported income, trial phase, trial year, or Charlson Comorbidity Index score. Patients with negative illness perceptions were more likely to report financial toxicity (69.8% vs 48.8%, p = 0.006), and had higher ESAS-total (Medians: 44 [Range 0-89] vs 21 [Range 0-78], p < 0.001), PHQ-4 depression (Medians: 2 [Range 0-6] vs 0 [Range 0-6], p < 0.001), and PHQ-4 anxiety (Medians: 3 [Range 0-6] vs 1 [Range 0-6], p < 0.001) scores. Patients with negative illness perceptions had shorter overall survival (Medians: 22 [Range 10-29] vs 42 [Range 28-Not Reached] months, log-rank p = 0.004). Adjusting for receipt of financial assistance, patients with negative illness perceptions experienced higher risk of death (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10-2.48). Conclusions: In this prospective study of CCT participants, we found that patients with negative illness perceptions experienced greater financial toxicity, more symptom burden, and worse survival than those with more positive perceptions, despite comparable sociodemographic/clinical factors. These findings highlight the need to assess and address patients’ illness perceptions and financial burden when seeking to enhance patient-centered outcomes in oncology.
Effect of limited reporting in clinical trials on the ability to guide treatment decisions for real-world patients with cancer.
Authors: Enogela Ene Mercy , Gidwani Risha , Franks Jeffrey , Caston Nicole E. , Rocque Gabrielle Betty
Published: September 2021

18

Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are derived from reviews of clinical trials. Many of these trials have strict inclusion criteria, resulting in trial samples that are not representative of the larger cancer population. We therefore sought to understand how clinical trials, referenced in the NCCN guidelines, report key patient baseline demographics relating to age, race/ethnicity, and country or geographic region. Methods: NCCN guidelines for four cancer types were reviewed: prostate, colon, breast, and lung. We abstracted race/ethnicity, age, country/geographic region, and hazard ratios (HRs) from references indexed in the NCCN Guidelines. Race/ethnicity and age information was obtained from baseline characteristics tables in reported studies. The country/geographic region from which participants were recruited was acquired from each individual trial’s National Clinical Trial (NCT) number, linked to clinicaltrial.gov or the main manuscript. Each study was also assessed for its reporting of survival outcomes based on race/ethnicity, age, and country. Results: A total of 31 studies reporting on 36 regimens were examined for this review. While all studies reported age, only 39% (n=12) included characterization of older adults (60 years or older). 52% provided information on the racial and ethnic makeup of the study sample. Countries where participants were recruited were mostly not reported in the main papers, rather they were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. Also, while 67% of all studies (n=25) included an international sample, only 5% reported the country or geographic location in the main manuscript. Few studies reported efficacy by patient sub-population. 12 of the 31 (39%) manuscripts reported HRs by age. Of the 16 manuscripts reporting race/ethnicity, 16% included HRs by race/ethnicity. Only one study reported efficacy outcomes by country. Conclusions: There is a need to have a standardized system for reporting baseline characteristics as well as trial outcomes for clinical trials. Including information on subgroup-specific baseline and efficacy outcomes in clinical trial results is an inexpensive way of improving the quality of information available to oncologists and will aid them in making evidence-based treatment decisions for the entirety of their patient populations.
Patient-reported care satisfaction and symptom burden in hospitalized patients with cancer.
Authors: Qian Carolyn L. , Vyas Charu , Gaufberg Eva , Kaslow-Zieve Emilia , Azoba Chinenye C. , Wang Irene , Van Seventer Emily E. , Newcomb Richard , Jackson Vicki A. , Ryan David P. , Greer Joseph A. , El-Jawahri Areej , Temel Jennifer S. , Nipp Ryan David
Published: September 2021

180

Background: Hospitalized patients with cancer often experience a high symptom burden, which may impact care satisfaction and healthcare utilization. However, research describing these patients’ care satisfaction, symptom burden, and health care use is lacking. We sought to investigate relationships among care satisfaction, physical and psychological symptom burden, and hospital length of stay (LOS) in hospitalized patients with cancer. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with cancer and unplanned hospitalizations from 9/2014 to 4/2017. Upon admission, we assessed patients’ care satisfaction (FAMCARE items: satisfaction with care coordination and the speed with which symptoms are treated) as well as their physical (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]) and psychological (Patient Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4]) symptoms. We used regression models to identify factors associated with care satisfaction, and we also examined associations of care satisfaction with patients’ symptom burden and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: Among 1,576 participants (median age = 65.0 years [range:19-96], 46.3% female, 70.9% with incurable cancer, 58.4% admitted to a dedicated oncology service), most reported being “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with care coordination (90.1%) and the speed with which symptoms are treated (89.0%). Older age (care coordination: B < 0.01, P = 0.022, speed with which symptoms are treated: B = 0.01, P = 0.001) and admission to a dedicated oncology service (B = 0.20, P < 0.001 for each) were associated with higher care satisfaction. Higher satisfaction with care coordination was associated with lower ESAS-physical (B = -1.28, P = 0.007), ESAS-total (B = -2.73, P < 0.001), PHQ4-depression (B = -0.14, P = 0.022), and PHQ4-anxiety (B = -0.16, P = 0.008) symptoms. Higher satisfaction with the speed with which symptoms are treated was associated with lower ESAS-physical (B = -1.32, P = 0.003), ESAS-total (B = -2.46, P < 0.001), PHQ4-depression (B = -0.14, P = 0.014), and PHQ4-anxiety (B = -0.17, P = 0.004) symptoms. Greater satisfaction with care coordination (B = -0.48, P = 0.040) and the speed with which symptoms are treated (B = -0.44, P = 0.041) were both associated with shorter LOS. Conclusions: Hospitalized patients with cancer report high care satisfaction, which correlates with older age and admission to a dedicated oncology service. Significant associations among higher care satisfaction, lower symptom burden, and shorter hospital LOS highlight the importance of improving symptom management and care coordination in this population.
Perioperative sleep disturbance following mastectomy: A longitudinal investigation of the relationship to pain, opioid use, treatment, and psychosocial symptoms.
Authors: Azizoddin Desiree Rachel , Soens Mieke A. , Beck Meghan , Flowers Kelsey Mikayla , Edwards Robert R. , Schreiber Kristin L.
Published: September 2021

192

Background: Sleep disturbance negatively impacts quality of life and recovery. Our objective was to evaluate the relationship between individual patient factors (demographic, surgical, pain, opioid use, and psychosocial factors) and greater sleep disturbance. Methods: In this prospective longitudinal study, patients completed validated measures regarding their sleep disturbance, pain, opioid use, and psychological symptoms preoperatively and then 2 weeks, 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Objective pain sensitivity measures were evaluated at baseline using quantitative sensory testing. Univariable and multivariable generalized estimating equations (GEE) evaluated demographic, surgical, pain, and psychological predictors of sleep disturbance during the first year after surgery for breast cancer. Results: Female patients (n = 259) reported varying degrees of sleep disturbance, which were longitudinally associated with pain, psychosocial factors such as anxiety, depression, and affect. While the mean degree of sleep disturbance did not change substantially over time, the link to pain severity appeared to strengthen over the first postoperative year. Independent preoperative predictors of worse sleep disturbance on multivariable longitudinal GEE included younger age (B = -.09, p =.006), opioid use (B = 3.09, p =.02), higher pain (B =.19, p = <.001) and anxiety (B =.45, p = <.001) at baseline. On the other hand, higher basline positive affect (B = -.14, p = <.012) and the surgical category total mastectomy without reconstruction (B = -2.81, p = <.006) were indepently associated with lower sleep disturbance. Those with worse baseline sleep required more opioid analgesics during surgical recovery, and continued use of opioids at 2 weeks post-surgery was associated with disturbed sleep. Conclusions: Sleep disturbance in the first year following surgery for breast cancer varied substantially between individuals. Certain demographic, psychosocial, and pain factors explained more of this variance than surgical procedure, with the exception of total mastectomy without reconstruction that was associated with lower sleep disturbance. Sleep disturbance was associated with increased need for opioids in the perioperative period, and a propensity for more prolonged postoperative opioid use. Pre-surgical interventions in high risk individuals such as anxiety management, boosting positive affect, and controlling pain that have been shown to improve sleep quality could enhance postoperative recovery and decrease opioid use following breast surgery.
Improving lung cancer screening in community oncology programs.
Authors: Sutton Linda , Sperling Heather J
Published: September 2021

197

Background: Lung Cancer Screening provides a mechanism to detect lung cancers at stages more amendable to curative resection. Nonetheless, data suggests Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) is underutilized as a screening tool; preventing medically eligible patients from diagnosis at earlier stages; leading to reduced treatment options and, ultimately, decreased survival. The Duke Cancer Network (DCN) consists of 12 affiliated cancer programs in 5 states. As several affiliates shared a common goal of improving the uptake of LDCT screening in the community, the DCN created a platform for process improvement in LDCT screening, individualized for participating sites. Methods: DCN-developed surveys for patients and providers explored attitudes toward LDCT screening, and identified targetable access issues and barriers to LDCT screening at DCN-affiliated community cancer centers (aCCC). Armed with the survey data, five aCCC self-selected to work with an experienced Quality/Process Improvement coach to develop individualized projects focusing on one or more aspects of the LDCT screening process. The Q/PI coaches utilized Bite-Size-QI software to facilitate the project and train participants in the QI/PI process. Results: Information from 312 patient and 28 of 50 surveyed providers identified numerous targetable LDCT screening barriers: lack of knowledge about and educational materials to address the benefits of LDCT and tools/analytics to track patients following LDCT screening. Additional, more systematic, barriers identified included: lack of consistent national guidelines for screening, variable insurance coverage and limited availability of smoking cessation programs. Five aCCC self-selected to create individualized process improvement activities were matched to experienced Q/PI coaches. Four sites completed the yearlong project. Three of the aCCC were able to realize improvement in LDCT screening rates with 38%, 27% and 8% increase in rates, respectively, despite overlap with COVID-19 driven shutdowns. Conclusions: An assessment of current state linked to formal Q/PI activities improved uptake of LDCT screening in the majority of participating community cancer programs despite limited resources. Geographically variable COVID-19 required closures did compromise the outcomes. The process led to creation of a number of tools and process improvements to increase awareness of LDCT screening through education and foster collaboration among providers with streamlined referral processes and improved mechanisms of tracking patients. Funding: Provided by AstraZeneca in collaboration with the Duke Cancer Network. Keywords: lung cancer, screening, community, oncology, improvement process, barriers.
Patient and caregiver’s satisfaction with multidisciplinary vs. serial lung cancer care in a community setting.
Authors: Shao Huibo , Faris Nicholas , Taylor Meghan Brooke , Fehnel Carrie , Patel Anita , Weller Samantha , Berryman Courtney , Akinbobola Olawale , Pacheco Alicia , McHugh Laura , Debon Margaret , Smeltzer Matthew , Ray Meredith , Robbins Todd , Ward Kenneth Daniel , Osarogiagbon Raymond U.
Published: September 2021

200

Background: Few existing studies examined lung cancer patients and caregivers’ satisfaction with the team-based multidisciplinary care (MD) in comparison to the usual serial care (SC). We hypothesized that MD, by providing early and concurrent input from key specialists collaborating as a team with patients and caregivers to develop a consensus care plan, can improve patients and caregivers’ satisfaction with care, compared to SC, in which multiple specialists independently screen, diagnose, and treat patients through a fragmented sequence of referrals. Methods: Data on newly diagnosed lung cancer patients, enrolled in a prospective matched cohort comparative effectiveness trial of MD or SC between Oct. 9th, 2014 and July 5th, 2017 in a Mid-South community hospital system, were collected at baseline, 3- and 6-month periods to assess patient and caregiver’s satisfaction with these two care-delivery models. Measures of satisfaction were adapted from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. Multivariate mixed linear models were used to examine the cross-group differences, the time-related variances, and how the interaction between groups and time-periods influenced patients’ and caregivers’ satisfaction. Results: Compared with SC (N = 297), patients in MD (N = 159) were older (66 vs. 69 years), more in an early cancer stage (33% vs. 41% in stage I or II), and lower in performance score (35% vs. 45% asymptomatic). Demographic and social-economic characteristics of caregivers in MD (N = 97) and SC (N = 122) were not significantly different. Patients and caregivers in MD were more likely than those in SC to perceive their care to be better than that received by other patients (p =.003 and p <.001 respectively). Greater satisfaction with their treatment plan at 6-month was observed among the MD patients (p =.004). Also, MD patients reported better overall satisfaction with team members (p =.038). Consistent with the findings among the patients in MD, caregivers in MD were more satisfied with the quality of care (p <.001) and with care received from team members (p <.001) than that reported by caregivers in SC. Conclusions: Coordinated MD care improved patients and caregivers’ satisfaction with lung cancer care in a community healthcare system. Further research will compare the quality of life and financial burden on patients in the MD and SC treatment models to provide more evidence for stakeholders to refine cancer care models.
Minimizing the risk of Clostridium difficile infection as an early complication of autologous stem cell transplantation.
Authors: Van Galen Joseph , Maldonado Samuel , Volodin Leonid , Keng Michael Kenneth
Published: September 2021

219

Background: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is one of the most important affecting patients immunocompromised by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), and can be associated with increased morbidity and length of stay. One precipitating factor for index CDI cases in the ASCT population is heavy antibiotic exposure, which often includes prophylaxis. A retrospective review identified 11 cases of CDI (17%) in the 30-day period following ASCT performed at the University of Virginia Medical Center (UVAMC) between about June 2016 and July 2017. Various institutional and multicenter studies have reported incidence rates in this population ranging from less than 5% to more than 10%. Methods: To decrease CDI rate, a multidisciplinary team comprised of oncology and infectious diseases physicians, pharmacists, and nurses was formed. The group used quality improvement principles to identify and target areas of greatest significance. A first PDSA cycle was conducted between approximately July 2017 and June 2018, during which time administration of standard-of-care ciprofloxacin prophylaxis between T+0 and count recovery was suspended. A second PDSA cycle was executed between approximately May 2018 and July 2019, incorporating UV light equipment into existing post-discharge cleaning practices. Data were analyzed using process control charts with 3-sigma limits for ASCT length-of-stay (LOS) and 30-day post-transplant CDI incidence. Results: Suspension of prophylactic antibiotics did not have a significant effect on CDI incidence in our first PDSA cycle. In our second improvement cycle, most of which elapsed after prophylactic ciprofloxacin had been re-implemented, CDI incidence was almost halved, from 17 to 9%. A numerical decreased in LOS was observed in each subsequent PDSA cycle. Conclusions: Our multidisciplinary team applied quality improvement methods to drive a clinically significant reduction in the 30-day CDI incidence after ASCT at UVAMC. This outcome should be associated with an improved patient experience. Future PDSA cycles are scheduled and may include other cancer patients, beyond those receiving stem cell transplantation.[Table: see text]
Myocardial injury after gynecologic oncology surgery in septuagenarians and octogenarians: Is there a role for routine postoperative cardiac biomarker monitoring?
Authors: Anpalagan Tharani , Huang Kathy , Marcucci Maura , Mah Sarah , Walker Millie , Carlson Vanessa , Eiriksson Lua Ruhiyyih , Jimenez Waldo , Reade Clare , Nguyen Julie My Van
Published: September 2021

220

Background: Accumulating evidence correlates myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), even when asymptomatic, with increased cardiac and non-cardiac morbidity and mortality. There is no literature on MINS specific to Gynecologic Oncology. We sought to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of MINS in patients aged ≥70. Methods: Elective laparotomies between 01/2016-09/2020 for patients aged≥70 at a tertiary hospital in ON, Canada, were reviewed using prospectively-collected National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data. MINS was defined as peak serum high-sensitivity troponin-T concentration ≥0.04ng/mL within 30 days postoperatively. Logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: In this cohort of 258 patients, of 242 (93.8%) who underwent postoperative troponin screening, 40 (16.5%) experienced MINS without exhibiting ischemic symptoms or ECG changes. The diagnosis of MINS led to a prescription or optimization of cardiovascular medications for 35 patients (87.5%). On univariate analysis, Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) of 3-5(p = 0.002), history of coronary artery disease (p = 0.003) or insulin-dependent diabetes (p = 0.006), preoperative use of antiplatelets (p = 0.009), beta-blockers (p = 0.02), ACE-inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB)(p = 0.002) and frailty as defined by the NSQIP modified frailty index-5 (p = 0.02), were associated with greater risk of MINS. Factors reflecting surgical complexity including surgical complexity score, operative duration, blood loss and advanced oncologic stage were not predictive. Multivariable analysis using backward selection procedure identified elevated RCRI and preoperative ACE/ARB as significant risk factors (OR 5.93, 95% CI 1.52-24.31, p = 0.01 and OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.18-5.06, p = 0.02). Conclusions: One in 6 patients in our cohort experienced asymptomatic MINS irrespective of surgical complexity. Our analysis highlights a possible opportunity to optimize cardiac risk factors and to potentially improve perioperative patient safety by reducing morbidity. Routine preoperative cardiac risk-stratification and postoperative cardiac biomarkers monitoring should be considered in elderly patients with gynecologic malignancies.[Table: see text]
Use of the Pallia 10 score in patients enrolled in phase I trials at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center.
Authors: Ouali Kaissa , Mateus Christine , Laparra Ariane , Pavliuc Elena , Martin Romano Patricia , Sampetrean Anda , Varga Andrea , Champiat Stéphane , Verlingue Loic , Geraud Arthur , Marabelle Aurelien , Hollebecque Antoine , Gazzah Anas , Bahleda Rastilav , Postel-Vinay Sophie , Ribrag Vincent , Soria Jean-Charles , Scotte Florian , Massard Christophe , Baldini Capucine
Published: September 2021

23

Background: Early phase clinical trials usually include patients (pts) with advanced disease who have failed to standard therapies. Early palliative care (EPC) for these pts has shown to improve quality of life and even survival. Pallia 10 score (from 1 to 10) is a tool developed by the French Palliative Care Society to identify the best time to introduce palliative care. Methods: We assessed the Pallia 10 score and other prognostic factors (age, ECOG, Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) score, LDH and albumin levels, number (nb) of prior systemic treatments and metastatic sites) in pts enrolled in phase I trials (P1CT) prospectively during 2 periods of time (cohort 1 (C1) and 2 (C2)). A double-blind assessment of the Pallia 10 score was done during 15 days by a member of the palliative care unit in C2. A Pallia 10 > 3 motivated a dedicated palliative care consultation. Results: From 01/07/2018 to 01/11/2018 (C1) and from 01/12/2020 to 16/04/2021 (C2), a total of 85 pts were assessed in C1 and 302 in C2. Gastro-intestinal (23%), hematological (14%) and lung (11%) cancer were the most frequent tumor types. Pallia 10 score and prognostic factors were similar between both cohorts (Table). On C1 and C2, 12% and 4% of pts had a dedicated palliative consultation with median time of referral of 18 and 2 months (m) after the P1CT onset (p = 0.003), with a median Pallia 10 score of 1.5 and 2 (p = 0.65), respectively. Overall, 75% and 76% of pts in C1 and C2 were still alive beyond 3m after discontinuation of the P1CT (p = 0.91), followed by at least one subsequent treatment in 56% and 54% of pts. In C2, assessment of Pallia 10 score was significantly different between palliative care physician (median 5, range 3-8), phase I physician (median 1, range 1 -6) and phase I nurse (median 3, range 1-8) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Only a few patients included in P1CT were referred to the palliative care unit. Median Pallia 10 score was low when assessed by the phase I physician which suggests the need for a better tool to implement EPC in clinical practice and trials.[Table: see text]
Improvement in time to oral anticancer agent follow-up.
Authors: Johengen Emily , Davidson Arielle , Beekman Kathleen W. , Hecht Kelly , Mackler Emily R.
Published: September 2021

235

Background: Use of oral anticancer agents (OAAs) for cancer treatment continues to grow and creates a need for oncology practices to adapt their ambulatory infusion model of care to one that supports patients taking anti-cancer treatment at home. Historically, our practice has had success with care managers supporting infusion treatment patients. A recently published randomized trial has shown considerable benefits of dedicated pharmacist follow-up for patients taking OAAs. As a result, our practice added a dedicated oncology pharmacist to provide education and follow-up for our OAA patients. Methods: This is a single-center, retrospective evaluation of time to first follow up for patients taking OAAs pre-intervention (11/1/20 - 2/28/21) versus post-intervention (3/1/21 - 4/30/21). The intervention consists of structured symptom and adherence monitoring by a dedicated oncology pharmacist as part of our care management team for all patients prescribed an OAA. In the pre-intervention group, OAA monitoring was divided between care team members without a dedicated OAA program. The population consists of 139 patients newly started on OAAs over the 6-month period. “On-time” follow up defined by our practice is follow up that is <10 days from the OAA start date. There were 20 patients (10 per group) excluded from data analysis due to being deceased before follow-up could be assessed (n= 3), transferring oncology care elsewhere (n= 5), or never starting the OAA (n= 12). Results: Pre-intervention, initial follow up occurred via pharmacist or nurse care manager visit (n=47), provider visit (n=29), or unplanned admission (n=3). Post-intervention, all but two initial follow up visits were performed by the designated oncology pharmacist, and there were no unplanned admissions prior to first follow up. The median time to first follow up visit was 8 days (range 2 to 31 days) in the pre-intervention group (n=79) and 7 days (range 3 to 15 days) in the post-intervention group (n=40). Follow up visits occurred within 10 days of OAA initiation for 67.1% of patients in the pre-intervention group and 95% of patients in the post-intervention group (p=<0.001). Follow up occurred within 14 days of initiation for 82.3% of pre-intervention patients and 97.5% of post-intervention patients (p=0.018). Conclusions: Post-intervention assessment showed improvement in the time to follow up for patients taking OAAs. Future analyses will include outcomes, such as interventions at the time of follow-up, length on therapy, and unplanned admissions.
Use of the Delphi method to develop a guideline-based geriatric oncology gap assessment.
Authors: Plotkin Elana , Dale William , Loh Kah Poh , Dotan Efrat , Burhenn Peggy , Presley Carolyn J , Nightingale Ginah , Oyer Randall A. , Ginex Pamela , Karuturi Meghan Sri , Lichtman Stuart M. , Boehmer Leigh ,   ACCC Geriatric Oncology Advisory Committee
Published: September 2021

236

Background: Older adults are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than their younger counterparts. Because the underlying health status of older adults with cancer is generally heterogeneous, geriatric assessment (GA) is helpful for uncovering age-related vulnerabilities and guiding subsequent care planning. GA provides multidimensional, multidisciplinary evaluations of pertinent health domains. When used to evaluate an older adult with cancer prior to initiating therapy, GA and screening tools can help oncologists differentiate between fit and frail patients and tailor their treatment accordingly. Methods: The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) conducted a 4-round Delphi method to achieve expert consensus (≥75%) related to 9 domains of geriatric oncology care from a multidisciplinary perspective. A survey was conducted with 70 international clinicians working in geriatric oncology to assess perspectives on guideline-recommended GA tools in clinical practice. Facilitator led focus groups were conducted to review the results in a large group format and come to consensus. Aggregated results were shared back with the group to ensure effective capture of group discussion regarding validated clinical practice tools to include as resources in the gap assessment instrument. Results: A 32 question geriatric oncology gap assessment was developed in an online survey platform. This tool was beta tested by 30 individuals at cancer programs of various types and regions across the US. A final version was published and made accessible for multidisciplinary teams to self-assess care delivery for older adults with cancer in 9 domains: Functional Status; Cognition; Comorbidities; Decision Making: Screening, Life Expectancy, Chemo Toxicity; Pharmacy/Medication Management; Psychological Health; Nutrition; Patient Goals and Needs; and Communication and Workforce Training. Within each domain, respondents select the level (see Table) that most closely represents the practice(s) at their institution. A personalized report is generated. Sample Question. Conclusions: The ACCC geriatric oncology gap assessment offers cancer programs a validated way to evaluate care delivery for older adults with cancer. To optimize workflow, cancer programs should consider utilizing gap assessment results to develop and advance scalable quality improvement programs at their institution, taking into consideration resource level and infrastructure.[Table: see text]
Physician decision-making on use of treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in later lines: What drives preferences?
Authors: Batchelder Laurie , Philpott Stephanie , Divino Victoria , Boytsov Natalie , Maiese Eric M , Hogea Cosmina , Buckingham Trudy , Chen Chi-Chang , Rodriguez Ana Maria
Published: September 2021

239

Background: Physicians consider many factors when selecting third line or greater (3L+) treatments for RRMM, such as patient age and treatment- and disease-specific factors. A greater understanding of preferences that drive treatment decision-making in RRMM in later lines is important. This study assessed treatment preferences of US hematologists/oncologists and oncologists (HemOnc/Oncs) for RRMM patients in 3L+. Methods: A targeted literature review informed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey aimed at identifying treatment preferences. Qualitative interviews with HemOnc/Oncs and a pilot DCE survey were then administered to test the validity of the study attributes. The three versions of the final survey varied in presented patient profiles (3L; 4L; 5L). Participating HemOnc/Oncs were presented with 20 DCE choice tasks; in each task, they were asked to choose between pairs of hypothetical treatments including varying levels for each attribute: overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), keratopathy (corneal epithelium changes with/without symptoms), thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, steroids, preparations, mode of administration, and drug regimen frequency of administration. DCE data were analyzed using multinomial logit regression (MLR) to estimate treatment preferences for each profile; 4L and 5L data were combined (4L+) because patient profiles were comparable. Mean relative importance of the attributes were estimated. Results: The DCE survey was completed by 227 HemOnc/Oncs (N=227); 3L (n=83), 4L (n=73), or 5L (n=71). For 3L and 4L+, as predicted, OS had the highest mean relative importance of the attributes relative to other attributes (3L: 38.1%; 4L+: 36.5%) (Table); the lowest relative importance was whether the treatment required additional preparations for administration (3L: 1.3%; 4L+: 2.1%). Results of the MLR showed that physicians preferred treatments with decreased Grade 3/4 keratopathy risk of 0% compared to 25% (3L: odds ratio [OR] 1.22, p < 0.0001; 4L+: OR 1.12, p < 0.01); physicians also preferred treatments with decreased Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia risk of 21% compared to 60% (3L: OR 1.16, p < 0.05; 4L+: OR 1.11, p < 0.05). For 4L+, physicians preferred a subcutaneously administered treatment (OR 1.10, p < 0.05). Mean importance of attributes relative to other attributes when selecting patient treatments. Conclusions: In assessing treatment preferences, HemOnc/Oncs placed higher relative importance on OS, PFS, ORR, and preferred a decreased risk of Grade 3/4 keratopathy and thrombocytopenia when choosing later line therapies for RRMM.[Table: see text]
Trends in end-of- life (EOL) systemic oncologic treatment in contemporary clinical practice: Insights from real-world data.
Authors: Canavan Maureen , Wang Xiaoliang , Ascha Mustafa , Miksad Rebecca A. , Showalter Timothy N , Calip Gregory Sampang , Gross Cary Philip , Adelson Kerin B.
Published: September 2021

253

Background: Among patients with cancer, receipt of systemic oncolytic therapy near the end-of-life (EOL) does not improve outcomes and worsens patient and caregiver experience. Accordingly, the ASCO/NQF measure, Proportion Receiving Chemotherapy in the Last 14 Days of Life, was published in 2012. Over the last decade there has been exponential growth in high cost targeted and immune therapies which may be perceived as less toxic than traditional chemotherapy. In this study, we identified rates and types of EOL systemic therapy in today’s real-world practice; these can serve as benchmarks for cancer care organizations to drive improvement efforts. Methods: Using data from the nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived de-identified database we included patients who died during 2015 through 2019, were diagnosed after 2011, and who had documented cancer treatment. We identified the use of aggressive EOL systemic treatment (including, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and combinations thereof) at both 30 days and 14 days prior to death. We estimated standardized EOL rates using mixed-level logistic regression models adjusting for patient and practice-level factors. Year-specific adjusted rates were estimated in annualized stratified analysis. Results: We included 57,127 patients, 38% of whom had documentation of having received any type of systemic cancer treatment within 30 days of death (SD: 5%; range: 25% - 56%), and 17% within 14 days of death (SD: 3%; range: 10% - 30%). Chemotherapy alone was the most common EOL treatment received (18% at 30 days, 8% at 14 days), followed by immunotherapy (± other treatment) (11% at 30 days, 4% at 14 days). Overall rates of EOL treatment did not change over the study period: treatment within 30 days (39% in 2015 to 37% in 2019) and within 14 days (17% in 2015 to 17% in 2019) of death. However, the rates of chemotherapy alone within 30 days of death decreased from 24% to 14%, and within 14 days, from 10% to 6% during the study period. In comparison, rates for immunotherapy with chemotherapy (0%-6% for 30 days, 0% -2% for 14 days), and immunotherapy alone or with other treatment types (4%-13% for 30 days, 1%-4% for 14 days) increased over time for both 30 and 14 days. Conclusions: End of life systemic cancer treatment rates have not substantively changed over time despite national efforts and expert guidance. While rates of traditional chemotherapy have decreased, rates of costly immunotherapy and targeted therapy have increased, which has been associated with higher total cost of care and overall healthcare utilization. Future work should examine the drivers of end-of-life care in the era of immune-oncology.
National benchmarks and practice level variation on eight cross cutting quality measures.
Authors: Spinks Tracy E. , Bandini Lindsey , Cook Amie , Gao Hong , Jennings Nicholas , Lu Ranyan , Mentel Michelle , Malin Jennifer
Published: September 2021

255

Background: While there is increased attention on the importance of quality measurement in oncology, especially with the rise of value-based payment, limited data exist on national averages and practice level variation for proposed quality measures to establish benchmarks and targets for quality improvement initiatives or value-based contracts. Methods: UnitedHealthcare (UHC) developed peer comparison reports for eight cross cutting quality measures for practices with an active contract for at least one of its commercial, Medicare or Medicaid health plans and ≥1 provider from the following specialties: gynecologic oncology, hematology/oncology, pediatric hematology/oncology, radiation oncology, or surgical oncology. Adherence to the quality measures below was calculated using a mix of claims data, clinical data from a prior authorization for cancer therapy, and CMS MIPS data. Patients were attributed through an algorithm that selected the most probable physician responsible for the patient’s care - responsible prior authorization provider, servicing provider or most recent visited provider prior to the treatment, varying by each measure. Dates of service differ by measure, ranging from 1/1/2019 through 12/31/2020. Results: We identified 5,828 unique tax identification numbers (TINs) with UHC members with cancer attributed to them during 2019-20. The number of practices included in the measurement cohort per measure varied significantly from 301 to 4,120 (tobacco screening and performance status, respectively). 2,422 TINs met the minimum patient count for at least one measure (≥10 patients or events). Overall performance ranged from 13.5% to 77.3% (hospice admission and PS documented) for measures where higher adherence reflects better quality of care. For measures where lower scores represent higher quality of care the range was 11.4% to 22.6% (hospice < 3 days and ED admission, respectively). Observed adherence was statistically better than expected for 0.5%-5.8% and statistically less than expected for 0.9%-5.6% of TINs in UHC’s network; however, more than half of the practices had insufficient sample size to make a determination. Conclusions: We observed substantial variation in quality across a national cohort of oncology practices. However, even for a large national payer, small sample sizes limited the assessment of a substantial number of practices.[Table: see text]
Primary anti-infective prophylaxis during routine treatment of lymphoma in the United States: A large real-world cohort analysis.
Authors: Di Mengyang , Soulos Pamela R. , Huntington Scott F.
Published: September 2021

268

Background: While infectious complications contribute to considerable morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer, most scenarios lack evidence to guide optimal anti-infective prophylaxis (AIP). We evaluated a large real-world dataset to identify baseline utilization and factors associated with AIP in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treated in the US-community setting. Methods: Using the nationwide Flatiron Health de-identified electronic health record-derived database (from ≈ 280 US cancer clinics), we selected patients treated prior to 7/1/2020 with 1) R-CHOP for DLBCL, 2) bendamustine and rituximab (BR) for CLL/SLL, or 3) ibrutinib for CLL/SLL. We limited our analysis to patients treated by providers with documented prescribing of guideline recommended anti-viral prophylaxis (ppx) during proteasome inhibitor administration to ≥1 multiple myeloma patient. Our main outcome was the documented use of primary AIP defined as anti-viral and/or pneumocystis jiroveci (PJP) ppx within +/- 14 days of treatment initiation. We also report the delayed documented AIP use from day 15 to 60. We applied separate multivariable logistic regression models to each setting to examine the associations of patient-level characteristics with primary AIP (including age, sex, race, region, insurance, ECOG, year of treatment initiation). Results: A total of 3,142 (R-CHOP for DLBCL), 2,180 (BR for CLL/SLL), and 3,590 (ibrutinib for CLL/SLL) patients were included, with median age of 69, 69, and 72 years, respectively. Primary AIP was most common during BR for CLL/SLL, with 16.8% receiving any AIP (antiviral 15.6%, PJP 7.3%). Primary AIP was used in 10.5% of DLBCL patients initiating R-CHOP (antiviral 7.6%, PJP 5.6%), with the lowest utilization of AIP during ibrutinib for CLL/SLL (any 6.4%, antiviral 5.6%, PJP 2.6%). In the delayed setting, an additional 4-6% and 2-5% received viral and PJP ppx, respectively. Across all three of our multivariable analyses, higher provider rate of anti-viral ppx during proteosome inhibitor administration in MM, residing in the Midwest (vs. Northeast), and more recent treatment initiation were associated with greater odds of AIP. Other patient characteristics (age, race, ECOG) were less consistently associated with AIP across models. Furthermore, C-statistics were <0.7 in all three models (0.660-0.685), suggesting suboptimal discrimination for AIP based on patient-level characteristics alone. Conclusions: We observed low utilization of primary AIP during treatment in three common NHL settings that lack clear consensus on AIP. Variation was not well explained by measured patient characteristics, and future studies should consider provider and system attributes. Ultimately, robust evidence generation (e.g. pragmatic clinical trials) and quality improvement measures are needed to optimize ppx during routine lymphoma management.
Virtual psychosocial services for the adult population in a large community oncology practice.
Authors: Broussard Stephanie Broadnax , Pearcy Emily , Dunham Vanessa , Burke Kendra , Castillo Jackeline , Clinton Rebecca , DeCou Penelope , Espinosa Kelsey , Flores Maribel , Garza Tara , Hansard Maygen , Jordan Heather , Newton Debbi , Jurecek Brandi , Paxton Jenn , Saenz Sandra , Wright Vicki , Celestino Isis , Mikan Sabrina Q. , Puckett Sarah
Published: September 2021

283

Background: Psychological and social supports are essential to address the emotional impact of cancer. The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated emotional distress for patients with cancer and impeded many of the traditional service delivery models for supportive services. An increase in patient reported distress from routine distress screenings highlighted the need to transition to virtual Social Work (SW) services. Methods: Patients were referred to virtual SW services three ways: self-referral, distress screenings, and clinic staff. A virtual support group registration site was created to increase awareness which was promoted by our marketing team. Three different SW facilitated virtual support groups were offered: Stronger Together, Empower Your Recovery: A Program for Healing and Growth for Living Beyond Cancer©*, and Paving the Way for Your Journey: A Cancer Support Program (PTW). Of note, the PTW six-week psychoeducation support group curriculum was developed by six employed SW facilitators. Groups included closed and open formats with scheduled frequencies. In addition to virtual support groups, standard social support including, psychosocial assessments, Advance Care Planning, virtual counseling visits were offered virtually with patients via the VSee telemedicine platform. Results: Social Work referrals increased by 154% from 949 in 2019 to 2413 in 2020 due to positive distress screening. From March 2020-21, 14,948 patients received SW services which was an increase from 10,208 seen from March 2019-20. Of these, 372 received virtual psychosocial telemedicine services from March 2020-21. There were 4092 unique webpage views to the support group information and registration website. Total number of all virtual registrants in the 3 groups from May 2020 to February 2021 was 326. Conclusions: The COVID19 pandemic required us to use, technology and virtual tools to ensure continued patient access to psychosocial services and expand access to support groups, in addition to the in-person SW services that remained. Limitations of virtual support groups and telemedicine included lack of internet access felt to be from socioeconomic barriers. Further research is needed to evaluate the benefits of providing structured psychoeducational virtual support groups to patients with cancer. Virtual counseling and support groups may continue to benefit patients with cancer.
Adoption of telemedicine (Telemed) by medical oncologists/hematologists (mO/H) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Authors: Jeune-Smith Yolaine , Malisanovic Gorica , Feinberg Bruce A. , Gajra Ajeet
Published: September 2021

285

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted access to and delivery of healthcare in the U.S. At the height of the pandemic, many practices began initiating or increasing telemed visits to meet care demands in a quarantined environment. The objective of this descriptive study was to assess mO/H perceptions of benefits and barriers to current and post-pandemic use of telemed in oncology. Methods: Web-based surveys were fielded to mO/H before virtual meetings held between September and November 2020. Participants submitted their demographic information and responses to questions about pandemic impacts on their practice and patients. Responses were aggregated and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 259 mO/H across the U.S. completed the survey; 73% practice in a community setting; 44% identify as hospital employees. The participants spend a median of 90% of their working time in direct patient care, have a median of 18 years of clinical experience, and see a median of 20 patients per day on clinic days. Before the pandemic, 92% of the participants’ practices had telemed capabilities but of those, 77% were not utilizing telemed for any visits. During the pandemic, almost all the participants’ practices were offering telemed, with 97% reporting some patient visits being conducted via telemed. Most (78%) anticipate continuing to offer or conduct some patient visits via telemed. Two-thirds stated that up to 25% of their patient visits could be converted to telemed outside of a pandemic environment. The types of visits that most believe are suitable for telemed include reviewing test/lab results, routine surveillance of chronic conditions, and survivorship care visits. Most (60%) stated that their patients view telemed favorably. About half reported a positive overall experience with telemed, with 47% reporting a better-than-expected experience. Most (79%) estimated that pivoting to telemed equates to a revenue loss of up to 50% for that visit; 53% feel that telemed has had an overall negative financial impact on their practice. Two-thirds have experienced challenges getting reimbursed for telemed claims. The most common challenges with telemed reported were reluctance or inability of patients to participate in telemed (39%) and technology challenges (37%). The most common benefit of telemed reported was safety, i.e., less potential exposure to COVID-19 for providers and staff (65%). Conclusions: Telemed use was infrequent before the pandemic, but utilization has dramatically increased during the pandemic. Despite favorable experiences with telemed, mO/H expect telemed use to decline significantly post-pandemic. This prediction may be driven by the perceived loss of revenue when an in-person visit is converted to telemed visit. Further research is needed in identifying factors that may allow for the long-term adoption of telemed for appropriate patients.