bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
Improving documentation of cancer staging at an academic cancer center utilizing an EMR-based system with public accountability.
Authors: Zhou Jade , Kane Shelly , Curtis Carl , Ramsey Celia , Akhondzadeh Melody Ann , Banerjee Ananya , Califano Joseph A. , Gold Kathryn A.
Published: October 2020

197

Background: Accurate TNM staging of malignancy is essential to quality care of cancer patients but maintaining consistent documentation of appropriate staging remains a challenge. We identified documentation of TNM staging at our institution to be below target levels. We sought to improve documentation of staging in all patients at our cancer center with a diagnosis of malignancy by implementing both automated and manual reminders through our electronic medical record (EMR) software (Epic), as well as by using team accountability. Methods: We defined an expectation that all patients seen at UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center with a billing diagnosis of malignancy would have TNM staging documented in the EMR within 1 month of their initial visit. The project started in 1/2016, with a phased rollout to individual teams, including education and outreach prior to the start of performance tracking. We used the AJCC staging module in Epic and focused on all new patient visits with a billing diagnosis of malignancy. Providers were asked to add this diagnosis to the problem list and then document the stage using the AJCC staging module in EPIC. We tracked compliance by individual provider and by team and emailed performance reports to all providers on a monthly basis. To facilitate compliance, we initiated automatic Epic messages to providers for an unstaged cancer diagnosis on the problem list and followed up with a personal email from administrative staff if documentation was not completed in a timely manner. Results: At the initiation of this project, there was no standardized documentation of cancer staging. The project was phased in with the skin cancer and head and neck cancers teams in phase I. Compliance in the initial month of measurement was 28%. Within 3 months of implementation of the project, compliance was over 50%, and within 27 months, over 90%. Compliance has remained > 90% since. For 3/2020, 368 patients were eligible for staging and 98% were staged within a month of their visit. Conclusions: Documentation of TNM staging of malignancy was significantly improved by both automated and personal reminders with a vital component of team accountability. Further efforts to improve the current practice and culture of documentation for diagnosed cancer patients remains a crucial aspect of quality and safety.
Treatment navigation to reduce emergency room (ER) visits in cancer patients.
Authors: Fernandes Henrique Zanoni , Pinto Carlos Frederico , Navarro Loiola Fernanda , Coelho Stela Maris , Felix Michele , Gomes Laura ,   Instituto de Oncologia do Vale
Published: October 2020

199

Background: The practice of conventional oncology has undoubtedly changed in the last 15 years, becoming more efficient, but also more complex and expensive. This complex care needs significant coordination. In the last 2 years in half of the continuing development of our care coordination working in the "Navigation Treatment" domain, the impact on reducing ER visits was, in media, 75%. Methods: In 2015 IOV developed a patient-centered Navigation System based on Kanban (board and visual signals-KNS) for managing the treatment plan of our patients that was successful. In 2016 with support of an educational grant from QTP-ASCO, we extended this system to manage pain to others cancers and treatment-related symptoms, education, resource referral or Coordination of multi-disciplinary care. This study addresses only decreased ER visits between Dec 15 and May 20 by all patients monitored by Nurses navigators. We measured the proportional reduction of ER visits related to pain to the total ER visits in three successive periods: development of the NKS (dec15-jul16), pilot phase (aug16-oct17), and as an adopted best practice (oct17-until today). The KNS comprises a set of standardized procedures and successive checks for patients in treatment based on three procedures: (a) standardized treatments prescriptions to pain and symptoms controls; (b) standardized follow up in 24 and 48 hours, 1, 2 and 4 weeks; and (c) manage side effects of opioids or other emerging problem (constipation, confusion, mucositis, diarrhea, fever, etc.). Any patient initiating opioid use is included in the KNS until opioid is discontinued. Once pain is adequately controlled, the frequency of checks become wider up to once a month if no toxicity is identified. Any new condition (will restart the 24-48 hours loop. The KNS is managed by oncology nurses using phone or video calls, messaging, and appointments; Mon-Sun from 6 AM to 8 PM. Results: The KNS managed a median of 204 (table*) patients per month during the last 32 months (Oct 17 to May 20). Patients with pain, symptoms, or side effects that were effectively managed by the team avoided an unwanted visit to the ER, in media by 75%. Pain represents 20% of ER visits generally; in pilot phase 15% of ER visits, and actually 4% of ER visits, an 80% reduction in pain-related ER visits. ER visits represent patients with uncontrolled pain and not effectively managed by the KNS. Conclusions: The development of a system to deliver more effective care patients resulted in a 75% reduction of ER visits and adequate pain control in our practice.
The effect of body mass index (BMI) on survival in patients with breast cancer and obesity-associated conditions.
Authors: Caddell Keenan B. , Ren Yi , Sampathkumar Anuyuga , Almond Chandra A. , Ladipo Oluwatomi L. , Champ Colin E. , Rosenberger Laura Horst , Greenup Rachel Adams , Plichta Jennifer Kay , DiLalla Gayle , Menendez Carolyn S. , Tolnitch Lisa , Hwang Eun-Sil Shelley , Hyslop Terry , Fayanju Oluwadamilola Motunrayo
Published: October 2020

203

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated an association between body mass index (BMI) and survival after breast cancer diagnosis, but the direction and strength of this relationship is inconsistent. Comorbidities that are more common in patients who are obese (BMI≥30) – including diabetes (DM), hypertension (HTN), and hyperlipidemia (HLD) – are often conflated with obesity with regard to their effects on breast cancer outcomes. We sought to determine the effect of BMI on overall survival (OS) among women with breast cancer after controlling for obesity-associated conditions. Methods: Women≥18y diagnosed with stage 0-IV breast cancer at an academic institution from Jan 2014-Jul 2016 and with known BMI at diagnosis were identified. χ2 and ANOVA tests were used to compare intergroup differences. BMI was categorized as normal (<25), overweight (25-29.9), class 1 obesity (30-34.9), and class 2/3 obesity (≥35). Unadjusted OS by BMI class was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association of BMI with OS after adjusting for covariates including obesity-associated conditions. Results: 1027 patients were included (median follow-up 46.8 mos): 296 (28.9%) were overweight, 227 (22.1%) had class 1 obesity, and 207 (20.2%) had class 2/3 obesity. Non-Hispanic (NH) black women were overrepresented among obese patients, making up 25% (n=257) of all patients but 37.5% of obese patients. Rates of DM, HTN, and HLD increased with increasing BMI (all p<0.01). Unadjusted OS differed significantly by BMI class, with overweight women having the worst 5-year OS (log-rank p=0.02). After adjustment, BMI continued to be associated with OS, with overweight women having significantly worse OS vs normal-weight women, but there was no significant association between obesity and OS (Table). Conclusions: Despite higher rates of DM, HTN, and HLD with increasing BMI, a diagnosis of obesity was not associated with worse OS in women with breast cancer but being overweight was, suggesting the need for a more nuanced understanding of body composition, obesity-associated conditions, and their respective potential impact on breast cancer outcomes. [Table: see text]
Knowledge and evaluation of geriatric assessment (GA) domains among U.S. community oncologists/hematologists (cOH).
Authors: Gajra Ajeet , Fortier Stephanie , Jeune-Smith Yolaine , Feinberg Bruce A.
Published: October 2020

206

Background: GA is a multidisciplinary assessment consisting of the following domains: physical function, comorbidity, cognition, mood, social support, nutrition and medication review. Conducting a GA with validated instruments to assess these domains has been shown to improve outcomes in older adults with cancer [Soo, et al ASCO 2020]. The utilization of validated GA tools and its domains versus use of other surrogates from history and physical exam (HPE) for risk-stratification in older adults in the community practice setting is unclear. In this survey-based study, we assessed the knowledge of GA and the methods used to evaluate GA domains among cOH. Methods: Questions pertaining to GA and the care of older adults with cancer were developed by two medical oncologists (AG and BAF) and presented to cOH with diverse US geographic representation at live meetings and via web-based questionnaire between September 2019 and March 2020. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 173 participants surveyed, 59% reported performing no GA, while 13% and 28% reported performing GA on all and selected older adults, respectively. When presented with a list of daily living activities, over half of cOH were unable to correctly identify all activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (56% and 70%, respectively). The top 2 methods used by cOH to assess physical functional were the ECOG performance status (82%) and HPE (42%). For assessment of cognition, most cOH used HPE (78%) or the Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE; 12%). Social support was assessed via HPE (44%) or GA (27%). cOH reported that medication review is performed by an office staff (medical assistant 31%, nurse 12%, pharmacist 5%), with the physician signing off on the information reported in the chart irrespective of who entered the medication information (50%). Regarding chemotherapy dosing in older adults with cancer, only 7% utilized GA to inform chemotherapy dose; 48% reported starting at a lower chemotherapy dose with intent to escalate, while 33% reported starting at the standard dose with intent to de-escalate if toxicity is encountered. Lastly, 27% stated that oncologists are not adequately equipped to care for older adults with cancer given the complexity involved. Conclusions: Many cOH do not utilize validated instruments to assess the domains of GA. There also appear to be knowledge gaps regarding individual domains of GA. There is a need to further the education of cOH regarding the components and value of GA in older adults with cancer.
A pilot study of risk stratification and outreach to hematology/oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Authors: Osterman Chelsea K. , Triglianos Tammy , Winzelberg Gary , Nichols Angela , Rodriguez-O'Donnell Julia , Bigelow Sharon M , Van Deventer Hendrik , Sanoff Hanna Kelly , Ray Emily Miller
Published: October 2020

211

Background: Cancer patients have many medical and psychosocial needs, which may increase during the coronavirus pandemic and may be difficult to identify or address in the absence of in-person patient visits. We sought to (1) risk stratify hematology/oncology patients using general medicine and cancer-specific methods to identify those at high risk for acute care utilization, (2) measure the correlation between risk-stratification methods, and (3) perform a phone-based needs assessment with intervention for these patients. Methods: Patients were risk-stratified using a general medical health composite score (HCS) embedded in the electronic medical record, and a cancer-specific risk (CSR) stratification based on disease and treatment characteristics. The correlation between HCS and CSR was measured using Spearman’s correlation. A multi-disciplinary team developed a focused needs assessment script with recommended interventions for patients categorized as high-risk by either method. The number of patient needs identified and referrals for services made in the first month of outreach are reported. Results: 1,421 patients were risk stratified, with 15% high-risk using HCS and 21.2% high-risk using CSR. Overall correlation between HCS and CSR was modest (r = 0.39). During the first month of the pilot, 287 patients were called for outreach with 245 contacted (85%). Commonly identified needs were financial difficulties (17%), uncontrolled symptoms (15%), and interest in advance care planning (13%), resulting in referral for supportive services for 33% of patients. Conclusions: There is a high burden of unmet medical and psychosocial needs in hematology/oncology patients during the coronavirus pandemic. A phone-based outreach program results in identification of and intervention for these needs, however additional cancer-specific risk models are needed to improve targeting to high-risk patients. This process can serve as a framework for other institutions wishing to implement similar outreach programs during this pandemic. [Table: see text]
Combining two implementation strategies to increase reach for tobacco treatment with cancer patients: Ask-Advise-Connect and closing care gaps.
Authors: Wolf Terri , Tong Elisa , Stewart Susan L , Chen Moon
Published: October 2020

242

Background: Tobacco treatment is an important component of cancer care, and pragmatic strategies are needed. The University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center (UCD CCC) was selected to join the National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (NCI C3I) to integrate tobacco treatment with cancer care. As a matrix cancer center, UCD had tobacco treatment workflows established in primary care, with Health Management Education group classes and a quitline order, but less so in cancer care. Methods: We use the RE-AIM framework for our study evaluation. During the two-year study period (1/2018-12/2019) patient data were reported in 6-month periods to NCI C3I from core Cancer Center clinics including medical, surgical, and radiation oncology. Three strategies were implemented serially and in convergence. Strategy #1 involved cancer provider and staff education and training, Strategy #2 initiated the Ask-Advise-Connect workflow with medical assistants assessing and referring within the clinic encounter, and Strategy #3 conducted Closing Care Gaps outreach to contact “unassisted” smokers outside of the clinic encounter. Stakeholder perspectives for implementation readiness across units were engaged at least bi-monthly by multidisciplinary members of the Cancer Committee, led by the physician-in-chief. Implementation strategies were developed in partnership with clinic management and Health Management Education staff with monthly rapid feedback reports for referral orders. Results: Our project Reach improved tobacco assessment from 83.6% to 96.4% and tobacco treatment program orders and outreach by 6-fold (from 40 to 254) over the four NCI C3I 6-month reporting periods. For tobacco treatment program Effectiveness, among 118 patients who engaged in treatment (January 2018-June 2019), past-week abstinence at 6 months was 22.9% (missing data assumed to be smoking) Adoption and Implementation of tobacco treatment program referrals were highest in medical (5-10 fold) and surgical oncology (3-fold) annual increases. In contrast, radiation oncology referrals remained low due to a different clinic workflow and electronic health record module. Booster trainings have helped to Maintain referrals in the clinic. Conclusions: A matrix cancer center can rapidly adopt and implement tobacco treatment strategies that are internal and external to the clinic visit, with the goal of offering tobacco treatment and maximizing reach to all cancer patients who smoke.
Impact of increased understanding of personal and family health history on patients.
Authors: McCain Lynn A. , Hulswit Bailey , Milliron Kara J. , Cook Amanda , Keren David , Schroeder Lee , Merajver Sofia , Tippie Jerry
Published: October 2020

256

Background: The InheRET personal and family health history survey was administered to 384 patients at three Michigan Medicine Clinics (2 primary care (11% of patients) and one breast and ovarian cancer risk clinic (89% of patients)) between October 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019. Since family history alone misses ~30% of those with deleterious germline mutations, this study follows these patients to determine what, if any, impact completion of the histories had on patients’ lifestyle choices, cancer prevention screenings, and risk-reducing therapies adopted based on perceived risk status: Meeting or not meeting NCCN Guidelines for referral to genetics for further evaluation. Methods: One year after patients completed their health histories, a follow-up survey was emailed to patients inquiring into actions taken following completion of the InheRET health history form. Anonymous responses were automatically collected into a Google Datasheet and analyzed. Results: As of June 16, 2020, 61 patients had returned their surveys; 37 (60.7%) reported being referred to a genetics specialist, of whom 92% kept their counseling appointments and 100% of these were recommended to be tested. At the time of survey completion, 29 patients had been tested and 32 patients had not been tested. We analyzed the actions taken between these two groups and discovered that 75% of patients who did not meet NCCN Guidelines and were not recommended for counseling and testing (population risk patients) still made lifestyle changes to improve their health and engaged in at least one cancer screening activity in the past year to reduce their cancer risk. The only preventive medical treatments received by this group were Tamoxifen (12.9%) and Hormone Replacement Therapy (3.2%). Among patients meeting NCCN Guidelines and tested (4 positive, 17 negative, 8 inconclusive/VUS/unknown results), 58.6% made positive lifestyle choices, 86.5% engaged in one or more cancer screening activities, and 34.5% sought additional medical interventions such as chemoprevention, hormone replacement and/or prophylactic surgery. Conclusions: By learning more about their personal and family health histories, patients who did not meet referral guidelines and were not referred for counseling and testing were proactive in taking actions to improve their overall health and reduce their cancer risk. This demonstrates the importance of knowing and understanding one’s family health history, even for those not meeting NCCN referral guidelines.
Utilization of telemedicine to meet the demand throughout the COVID-19 pandemic at a community oncology practice.
Authors: Bilbrey Larry Edward , Frailley Susan A , Poole Stacey L , Crouse Cheryl , Trader Amanda , Blakely L. Johnetta , Frailley Luke , Dickson Natalie R.
Published: October 2020

263

Background: A large community oncology practice in Tennessee participates in value-based payment arrangements, the success of which depends on close patient monitoring. Telemedicine as an innovative solution was initiated in 2017. The service was limited, due to regulation, licensure requirements, and lack of reimbursement, to survivorship visits, clinical trial consent visits, rural hospital consults and genetic counseling. During the COVID pandemic and loosening of restrictions, telemedicine services were expanded. Methods: We identified a cloud-based platform that allowed patients to use any device with a camera and microphone and required no software downloads. On-line training sessions were provided to clinical staff. All training and workflow implementation were completed in a 2-week time frame. Telemedicine was expanded to include surveillance, urgent care, psychology, palliative care and post-BMT visits as well as new patient consults for medical, radiation and gynecologic oncology patients. Patient satisfaction surveys were administered. Results: Our telemedicine visits increased weekly beginning March 1, peaking in the month of April with an average of 77 scheduled telemedicine visits per day across the practice. During the month of April, our practice saw a record clinical trial accrual in our Phase-1 Drug Development Unit with a 22% increase over the previous average. Patients who responded to a satisfaction survey were highly satisfied with the telemedicine visit with a 73% positive response rate. Nearly half of our eligible patients did not have the technology or broad-band access to be able to participate in telemedicine. Conclusions: Our prior experience with telemedicine, though limited, facilitated the development of an infrastructure that provided adequate number of devices and internet bandwidth capacity to support rapid expansion of telemedicine. We were able to maintain high quality care and access to clinical trials during the pandemic and see the value of this service long-term. We hope to add tele-pharmacy and care coordination services. Political leadership and patient advocacy groups should explore ways to ensure that all patients may benefit from this technology, especially those in under-served areas.
Real-world clinical outcomes in avelumab-treated patients (pts) in the United States (U.S.) from SPEAR-Merkel: Study informing treatment pathway decisions in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC).
Authors: Bhanegaonkar Abhijeet , Liu Frank Xiaoqing , Kim Ruth , Boyd Marley , Fulcher Nicole , Krulewicz Stan , Kasturi Vijay , Cowey Charles Lance
Published: October 2020

269

Background: MCC is a rare, aggressive disease associated with poor prognosis. Avelumab, a fully human anti–PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, was the first immune checkpoint inhibitor approved by the FDA for the treatment of metastatic MCC (mMCC). In the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (Clinical trial information: NCT02155647), avelumab resulted in durable responses and a high objective response rate (ORR) in pts with mMCC. This retrospective descriptive study assessed real-world clinical outcomes in avelumab-treated pts with locally advanced MCC (laMCC) and mMCC in a US community oncology setting. Methods: This study included data on avelumab-treated laMCC and mMCC pts from 1/1/17 to 3/31/19 within The US Oncology Network. Study data were captured through 9/30/19 using structured fields and chart review of iKnowMed electronic healthcare records. Real-world ORR was assessed. Duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 33 pts initiated treatment with avelumab (laMCC n = 11; mMCC n = 22) and were followed up for a median of 10.9 months (range, 0.5-27.2 months). Median age was 77 years (range, 44-90+ years), 78.8% of pts were male, and the majority (84.8%) of pts were treated in the first-line setting. During treatment, 27.2% of pts had emergency department visits and 39.4% were hospitalized; 1% and 23.1%, respectively, were treatment related. Clinical outcomes are reported in the table. Conclusions: This is the first study to examine pts with laMCC treated with avelumab in a real-world setting. Although the sample population is small, results suggest the clinical benefits in the real world in pts with mMCC treated with avelumab are consistent with benefits reported in the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial. [Table: see text]
Real-world evidence for U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved oncology products, 2015 to 2020.
Authors: Arondekar Bhakti , Duh Mei Sheng , Bhak Rachel , DerSarkissian Maral , Huynh Lynn , Wang Kelsey , Davis Eric , Wornson Bryon
Published: October 2020

280

Background: Since the 21st Century Cures Act, there has been growing interest in using real-world evidence (RWE) to support regulatory filings for new drugs and indications. The goal of this study was to provide a comprehensive source of RWE use cases of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for oncology products. Methods: A systematic review of FDA new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics license applications (BLAs) from 1/2015-2/2020 for approved oncology products was performed. Data on the RWE study were extracted (data source, study design, statistical methods, results), and corresponding FDA comments were synthesized to identify patterns of the FDA’s review. Results: We identified 102 NDAs and BLAs, 8 (8%) of which included RWE, all post-Cures Act (see Table). RWE supporting avelumab, axicabtagene ciloleucel, and avapritinib were received positively and used by the FDA in their approval decision. RWE results were used to provide contextualization to the pivotal trial, rather than statistical comparison. Common data sources included Flatiron (38%) and chart reviews (38%). FDA critiques included lack of a priori study protocol, incomparability with the pivotal trial population and endpoints, and uncontrolled confounding. Conclusions: There have been few examples of RWE in oncology submissions, and most served to complement clinical trial results. To meet FDA standards, RWE studies should be clearly designed and discussed with the FDA and include robust methods to minimize bias. [Table: see text]
A geriatric assessment (GA) intervention for older patients with advanced cancer: Secondary outcomes from a University of Rochester cancer center NCI community oncology research program cluster randomized controlled trial (CRCT).
Authors: Mohile Supriya Gupta , Mohamed Mostafa , Xu Huiwen , Patil Amita , Culakova Eva , Ramsdale Erika E. , Loh Kah Poh , Magnuson Allison , Flannery Marie Anne , Gilmore Nikesha , Dunne Richard Francis , Obrecht Spencer , Plumb Sandy , Lowenstein Lisa M , Mustian Karen Michelle , Morrow Gary R. , Hopkins Judith O. , Gaur Rakesh , Berenberg Jeffrey L. , Dale William
Published: October 2020

33

Background: GA evaluates aging-related domains (e.g., function) known to be associated with cancer treatment toxicity. We found that providing a GA summary with management recommendations to oncologists reduces clinician-rated toxicity in older patients (pts) with advanced cancer receiving high risk treatment (presented @ASCO2020). Herein, we report secondary outcomes on the effects of the GA intervention on aging-related outcomes. Methods: Pts aged ≥ 70 with incurable solid tumors or lymphoma and ≥ 1 impaired GA domain starting a new treatment regimen were enrolled. Community oncology practices were randomized to intervention (oncologists received GA summary/recommendations) or usual care (none given). Secondary analyses examined effects of the intervention on functional outcomes (patient-reported falls, instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), short physical performance battery (SPPB), geriatric depression scale (GDS), and medications [total and prescription]). Outcomes were analyzed using linear mixed effects model, logistic or Poisson regression adjusted for baseline values, time, and site effects as appropriate. Results: From 2013-19, 718 pts were enrolled from 41 practices. Age (mean 77 yrs), sex (43% women), number of impaired GA domains (median 4/8), and treatment type (chemotherapy 88%) were not different by arm. More pts in intervention were black (12% vs 3%, p<0.01), had GI cancer (38% vs 31%, p<0.01), and had prior chemotherapy (31% vs 23%, p=0.02). Overall, 16.4% of all pts had one new fall over 3 months; patients in the intervention arm were significantly less like to fall over 3 months (11.7% vs 20.7%; Risk Ratio 0.58; 95% CI 0.40-0.84, p=0.004). There was no difference in the total number of medications (mean 5.86 vs 5.79, p=0.80) and prescriptions (mean 4.26 vs 4.20, p=0.70) at baseline. More medications (adjusted mean 0.23 vs 0.09, p=0.03) and prescriptions (0.19 vs 0.07, p=0.05) were discontinued during intervention, although there was no difference at 3 month follow up. There were no significant between-arms differences in IADL, SPPB, and GDS. Conclusions: Providing GA information to oncologists reduces the proportion of older pts who experience a fall over 3 months and improves polypharmacy; both of these endpoints are of clinical importance to older adults with aging-related conditions and advanced cancer undergoing palliative treatment. Funding: R01CA177592, U01CA233167, UG1CA189961. Clinical trial information: NCT02054741 .
Health care coach support in reducing acute care use in patients with cancer.
Authors: Patel Manali I. , Smith Kim , Sisay Etsegenet , Park David J.
Published: October 2020

4

Background: Lay health workers (LHWs) who are trained to proactively discuss goals of care and assess patient symptoms have improved value-based cancer care among Veterans and a Medicare Advantage population. Little data exists regarding the effect of integrating LHWs into community oncology care among commercially insured populations. In this study, we implemented an LHW intervention to assist with goals of care and symptom management in collaboration with a private community oncology practice among patients with advanced cancer. This randomized controlled trial evaluates the effect of the intervention on acute care use and secondarily on goals of care documentation and patient satisfaction. Methods: Newly diagnosed patients with advanced stages of solid and hematologic malignancies were randomized from 8/11/2016 through 6/5/2019 into the intervention and control groups. All patients were followed for 12 months or death, whichever was first. Patients reported satisfaction with care using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey at time of enrollment and 9 months follow-up. We compared risk of death using Cox Models and compared rates of acute care, palliative care and hospice use using generalized models adjusted for length of follow-up. Results: A total of 104 patients were randomized with 52 in the intervention and 52 in the control. In both groups, the mean age was 67 years; 70% were non-Hispanic white, 25% Asian Pacific Islander, 1% Native Hawaiian, 1% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 3% multiple races/ethnicities. There were no differences in cancer diagnoses or stages. There were no differences in rates of survival between the two groups. Intervention patients as compared to the control had lower mean emergency department visits (0.80 +/- 0.17 versus 1.9 +/- 0.46, p = 0.02) and hospitalizations (0.67 +/- 0.19 versus 1.49 +/- 0.37, p = 0.04), greater rates of goals of care documentation (92% versus 33% p = 0.002) and no differences in palliative care (88% versus 77% p = 0.16) or hospice use (27% versus 21% p = 0.45). At 9 months follow-up as compared to baseline, patients in the intervention experienced greater improvements in satisfaction with their care (difference-in-difference: 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.60, p < 0.001). Conclusions: An LHW intervention significantly reduced acute care use and improved patient experiences with cancer care as compared to a control group. This intervention may be a solution to improve care delivery and experiences for patients after a diagnosis of cancer in community oncology settings. Clinical trial information: NCT03154190 .
Improving patient outcomes with oncology hospital at home: A program model.
Authors: Titchener Karen Alexandra , Coombs Lorinda A , Shepherd Shannon , Ward John Harris , Ameloot Karen , Dumas Kimberly , Beck Anna Catherine , Mooney Kathi
Published: October 2020

5

Background: Hospital at Home provides acute hospital level care to patients in their homes, diminishing the need for inpatient care or emergency department (ED) use. It has been evaluated for a variety of acute and chronic conditions but not in adult oncology. Results from program evaluations have demonstrated equivalent or improved outcomes with lower health care utilization and costs and high patient satisfaction when compared to usual care. The first evaluation of an oncology Hospital at Home program in the United States, Huntsman at Home (HH) was launched in 2018 to provide acute level care after hospitalization and address emergent symptoms that arise in the home between clinic visits. We describe the structure and patient profile of HH over the first 15 months of service. Methods: We compiled data for the 169 cancer patients admitted to HH between 8/2018 and 10/2019. We examined patient characteristics, the reason for referral, team structure, services provided and provider visit pattern. Results: The 169 patients referred to HH were predominately female (62%), white (83%), with metastatic disease (79%) and an average age 62 years. The most common diagnoses were GI, lung, GU and GYN cancer. All required acute level medical care and were referred by their oncology or inpatient provider after hospitalization. The HH multidisciplinary team was led by 9 nurse practitioners (NP) partnering with palliative care hospitalists, and the patient’s oncology team. Registered nurses (RN) and other home health personnel were provided by a community-based home health agency. The most common reasons for referral were acute pain, dehydration and electrolyte imbalance, infection, unstable symptoms, failure to thrive and post-surgical needs. The most common interventions provided by HH were: assessment and management of symptoms, medication monitoring and titration, monitoring lab chemistries, intravenous management and administration of medications and fluids, and wound, drain and line assessment and care. Home visits varied based on need; generally, there were 3 NP visits with 5 RN visits in the first week. Health care utilization and cost outcomes were recently reported at the ASCO Virtual Scientific meeting and demonstrated HH patients had fewer hospitalizations, shorter length of stay, decreased ED use and lower costs than the comparison group. Conclusions: HH has proven to be an effective and efficient way to successfully manage a variety of oncology acute care needs in patients’ homes averting further hospitalization or ED use. Hospital at home shows promise as an oncology care delivery model.
Effects of COVID-19 on an academic breast oncology center in New York City.
Authors: Prigoff Jake , Hillyer Grace , Bell Fletcher , Accordino Melissa Kate
Published: October 2020

51

Background: The influx of patients to the healthcare system due to COVID-19 impacted healthcare practices including the care of breast cancer patients. Our aim is to describe the impact this pandemic had on breast cancer care delivery at an academic center in NYC to inform policy and procedure for future crises that limit patient access to on-site facilities. Methods: A survey was sent to physicians involved in the care of patients with breast cancer at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in May 2020. Participants were asked about practice structure and changes to breast cancer care. The primary outcome was the degree that providers believed breast oncology patients’ clinical outcomes were significantly impacted by COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included changes in diagnostic and management approaches and advice for future providers faced with a similar pandemic. Results: The response rate was 65.4% (17/26). This included physicians from medical oncology (n = 7), radiology (n = 4), breast surgery (n = 3), radiation oncology (n = 2), and plastic surgery (n = 1). Seventy-six percent of physicians somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed that oncologic outcomes may be significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly half (47%) of respondents reported delays in the workup of patients due to COVID-19 with 50.0% for mammograms, 47.5% for bone scans, 46.0% for ultrasounds, 43.8% for PET scans, and 43.3% for biopsies. Eighty-two percent reported delays in overall oncologic management. Delays to systemic therapy were: intravenous/targeted therapy (37.9%), intramuscular/subcutaneous endocrine therapy (28.3%), oral chemotherapy/targeted therapy (22.9%), and oral endocrine therapy (12.8%). Delays to local therapy were: surgery (64.4%) and radiation therapy (44.6%). Almost two-thirds (64.7%) reported it necessary to use alternative oncologic management strategies. The most common piece of advice our providers offered was to increase testing capacity to all patients, especially when coming to a healthcare facility. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruption to breast cancer practices. Breast oncology physicians reported delays in management in over 80% of patients, and the need to use alternative management strategies in over 60% of patients. Effects of these disruptions on oncologic outcomes are unknown, but over 75% of our physicians believe this will significantly impact breast oncology patients’ outcomes. There's a need for policies and procedures to structure patient care should there be a future crisis that limits patient access to oncologic care.
Geriatric assessment-driven interventions among hospitalized older adults with cancer (GAIN-HOSP): A prospective pilot study.
Authors: Chien Leana , Sun Can-Lan , Kim Heeyoung , Uranga Carolina , Soto Perez De Celis Enrique , Burhenn Peggy , Charles Kemeberly , Vazquez Jessica , Roberts Elsa , Yu Wai (Kim) , Kim Jae Y. , Lau Clayton , Sentovich Stephen , Dorff Tanya B. , Sedrak Mina S. , Katheria Vani , Hurria Arti , Dale William , Li Daneng
Published: October 2020

52

Background: Older adults with cancer often have age-associated vulnerabilities and challenges, especially during hospitalization. Geriatric assessment (GA) can help identify such vulnerabilities, generate recommendations, and guide the choice of interventions. Recently, GA-driven interventions have been shown to decrease chemotherapy toxicity among older adults with cancer in the outpatient setting. However, few studies have examined its role in the inpatient setting. Our purpose was to evaluate the feasibility of GA-driven interventions among hospitalized older adults with cancer. Methods: Hospitalized patients, age 75+, with a solid tumor malignancy were eligible. Each patient completed a GA while hospitalized at T1 (Timepoint 1) and one-month post discharge T2 (Timepoint 2). An Advanced Practice Nurse (APN) reviewed the T1 GA, provided targeted care utilizing GA results and implemented interventions based on predefined triggers built into the GA’s various domains. An APN also completed follow-up visits by phone at 1 week and 1 month post discharge. The primary outcome was feasibility, defined as the percentage of participants who received GA-guided interventions and was pre-specified as successful if > 80% were given recommendations. A secondary outcome of the study was to capture unplanned readmissions within 1 month post discharge. Results: Between 9/19/2017 and 5/3/2019, 49 patients were eligible and 40 were enrolled, an 82% participation rate. The median age was 80.5 years (range 75-88), 58% male, 63% Non-Hispanic white, 18% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 70% > a high school education, 73% married/partner, and 48% had stage IV cancer. Most common cancer types: GI (28%), GU (23%), lung (20%). All 40 patients (100%) had ≥ 1 predefined trigger in the GA generating interventions and completed ≥ 2 follow-up visits with the APN. In total, 857 interventions were recommended, and the mean number of interventions generated per patient was 11. The top 4 interventions were Occupational Therapy/Physical Therapy (n = 66), Social Work (n = 52), Nutrition (n = 39), and Pharmacy (n = 36). Overall 89% of GA-guided interventions were implemented. Unplanned hospital readmission was low with only one patient readmitted within 30 days (3%). Conclusions: Among hospitalized adults over age 75 with cancer, using GA to identify vulnerability, and provide GA-driven multidisciplinary interventions is feasible. Further studies are warranted to examine the impact of GA-driven interventions on outcomes among hospitalized older adults with cancer.
Outcomes from a multidisciplinary thoracic oncology conference (MTOC) versus serial care (SC) in a community healthcare system.
Authors: Smeltzer Matthew , Ray Meredith , Faris Nicholas , Meadows Meghan , Fehnel Carrie , Akinbobola Olawale , Jackson Bianca M , Foust Courtney , McHugh Laura , Signore Raymond S. , Robbins Edward T. , Osarogiagbon Raymond U.
Published: October 2020

55

Background: Lung cancer care delivery is complex, with disparate quality and outcomes. Prospective multidisciplinary case planning is a recommended but poorly validated solution. We conducted a prospective comparative effectiveness trial to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary care on care processes and long-term survival in a large community-based healthcare system. Methods: We previously reported primary objective results comparing patients in the multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) with those not cared for in the MDC i.e. usual, SC. However, a subset of the SC subjects (and all MDC subjects) were discussed at a weekly MTOC. In this secondary analysis, we compare all subjects who were prospectively discussed at MTOC (with or without MDC) with ‘true’ SC (TSC). Subjects were frequency matched by age range, race, insurance, performance status, and initial clinical stage. We compared the thoroughness of staging, use of guideline-concordant treatment, and survival. Models were stratified by frequency matched variables and adjusted for age, sex, and histology as covariates. Statistical methods included chi-square, logistic regression with adjusted Odds Ratios (aOR), and Proportional Hazards models with adjusted Hazard Ratios (aHR); both with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Of 526 subjects enrolled, 246 (47%) were discussed at MTOC. MTOC patients were older (median age 68 v 66, p = 0.03), less intense smokers (p = 0.03), and more commercially insured (p = 0.02). Fewer MTOC subjects were clinical stage IV (33% v 45%, p = 0.01). The MTOC patients had significantly greater odds of bimodal staging (aOR: 2.2 [1.3, 3.8]), trimodal staging (2.6 [1.8, 3.8]), invasive stage confirmation (2.6 [1.7, 3.9]), and mediastinal stage confirmation (2.4 [1.6, 3.6]; all p < 0.01). The additional stage confirmation resulted in more patients who were up- or down-staged in MTOC (44% v 33%, p = 0.03). MTOC patients were twice as likely to receive National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-concordant treatment (aOR: 2.0 [1.3, 3.2]). Despite more thorough care, time from initial lesion detection to treatment was similar (mean: 2.86 vs. 2.83 months, p = 0.71). Health-related quality of life measures did not differ between the two arms (P = 0.07 to 0.99). We found no difference in overall (aHR: 1.1 [0.9, 1.4]) or disease free survival (aHR: 1.1 [0.9, 1.3]) between MTOC and TSC. Conclusions: MTOC improved the thoroughness of care and delivery of appropriate treatment, without delays in treatment initiation or survival improvement.
Ovarian cancer patients’ perspectives on facilitators and barriers to accessing financial assistance.
Authors: Liang Margaret Irene , Simons Janice Leahgrace , Herbey Ivan I. , Wall Jaclyn , Rucker Lindsay , Ivankova Nataliya V. , Pisu Maria , Huh Warner King
Published: October 2020

64

Background: Our aim was to obtain ovarian cancer patients’ perspective on accessing financial assistance programs. Methods: We recruited ovarian cancer patients receiving systemic therapy who screened positive for financial distress using Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity <26. Two interviewers conducted 45-minute interviews on the costs of care, which were recorded and transcribed. Three coders used inductive thematic analysis to identify themes. Results: There were 18 of 22 interviews currently evaluable. Median age was 57 and 68% of participants reported income <$40,000. Facilitators and barriers to accessing financial assistance are shown in the table below. Conclusions: Patients’ reliance on existing support systems and cancer organizations highlight a need for health systems to leverage these relationships and improve organized efforts to provide information related to financial assistance. Proactively asking about financial needs and providing resources to all patients, regardless of income, may mitigate patient reported barriers to accessing financial assistance. [Table: see text]
Adolescent and young adult cancer patients' health insurance experiences, expectations, and literacy.
Authors: Waters Austin R. , Mann Karely , Warner Echo L. , Vaca Lopez Perla L. , Kaddas Heydon K. , Ray Nicole , Tsukamoto Tomoko , Fair Douglas Beaty , Lewis Mark Andrew , Perez Giselle K. , Park Elyse R. , Kirchhoff Anne C.
Published: October 2020

65

Background: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients (15-39 years of age) often report health insurance concerns and financial toxicity due to their life-saving treatment. AYAs often have limited experience with healthcare prior to their diagnosis, which may limit their understanding of health insurance concepts, coverage, and costs. To describe AYA health insurance experiences, expectations, and literacy, we conducted semi-structured interviews with AYA cancer patients and survivors. Methods: Eligible participants were 18-39 years, diagnosed with cancer, and insured. Participants were recruited through an AYA cancer navigation program in Utah from 10/2019-03/2020. Participants were purposively sampled to achieve equal age strata (18-25 vs. 26-39), as patients under 26 often remain on their parents policy. Individual interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Inductive qualitative analysis was conducted to describe their experiences with and understanding of their insurance. We calculated descriptive statistics of demographics and the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM), a continuous measure ranging from 0-84 (higher scores indicate higher comfortability and literacy). Associations of age (18-25 vs. 26-39) and policy holder (yes vs. no) with HILM score were evaluated with t-tests. Results: AYAs (N = 24) were nearly even by gender, female (58%), primarily heterosexual (92%), Non-Hispanic White (79%), and had at least some college (92%). Less than half of participants were policy holders (41.7%). Three themes emerged from analysis: 1) Lack of knowledge and experiential learning throughout treatment, 2) Unclear expectations of health insurance, and 3) Difficulties navigating coverage and the complex systems. Most AYAs were unaware of the specifics of their coverage and how their insurance plan impacted their costs. Most AYAs were surprised at the lack of coverage and high costs they encountered during treatment. Most AYAs experienced substantial difficulty navigating coverage issues, particularly the appeals process. The mean HILM score was 55.63 (SD = 10.06), no differences by age group or policy holder status. Conclusions: AYAs with cancer report substantial difficulty navigating the complex health insurance system and demonstrate low levels of health insurance literacy. Health insurance education focusing on insurance concepts (e.g., cost-sharing mechanisms) may help AYAs better manage costs and enable them to make informed health insurance decisions despite being at higher risk for financial toxicity.
Exploring the three domains of financial hardship experienced by ovarian cancer patients.
Authors: Liang Margaret Irene , Simons Janice Leahgrace , Herbey Ivan I. , Wall Jaclyn , Rucker Lindsay , Ivankova Nataliya V. , Huh Warner King , Pisu Maria
Published: October 2020

71

Background: We sought to obtain ovarian cancer patients’ perspective on the 3 domains of financial hardship (psychological response, material conditions, and coping behaviors). Methods: We recruited ovarian cancer patients on systemic therapy who screened positive for financial distress using Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) <26. Two interviewers conducted 45-minute interviews about patients’ experiences dealing with the costs of care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded by 3 analysts using inductive thematic analysis to identify common themes. Results: 22 patients completed interviews with 18 available for analysis. Median age was 57 years old, 36% were black, and participants had a median COST of 12 (range 0-23). We identified themes within each domain (Table). Conclusions: Ovarian cancer patients predominantly experienced financial hardship through psychological response and negative impact on their material conditions. These require increased provider awareness and targeted interventions. Patients did not report negative health-related coping behaviors as they prioritized their health care over immediate cost concerns. [Table: see text]