bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
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.
Feasibility of a child life specialist program for oncology patients with minor children at home: Qualitative analysis.
Authors: Lysecki David , Bainbridge Daryl , Akitt Tracy , Georgiou Georgia , Meyer Ralph M. , Sussman Jonathan 
Published: September 2021

30 Background: Up to 24% of adult oncology patients have minor children at home, who may experience negative short- and long-term health outcomes as a result. Typical support networks often fail to meet the needs of these families. To address this, an innovative Child Life Specialist (CLS) program was embedded within the psychosocial support team at a tertiary oncology center. The program provided direct consultation to families (adults and children) including guidance on talking with children, provision of resources, diagnostic teaching, end-of-life support, grief support, and emotional expression. Methods: To understand the feasibility of this program (including acceptability, demand, implementation, practicality, adaptation, integration, expansion, and preliminary measures of impact), we collected 360-degree feedback from impacted stakeholders. At least two months following an encounter with the CLS, families were offered participation in a semi-structured interview (via purposive selection to capture multiple perspectives, including patients, non-patient parents/family members, and children aged 10-17). At the end of the pilot, two focus groups were held consisting of clinicians who engaged with the program. A thematic analysis was completed from the interview/focus group discussion transcripts. Results: 15 interviews were completed with adults (ten with patients, five with non-patient parents/other family members). Emergent themes were: Establishing comfort, Allaying parent apprehension, Coaching and reassurance, Value added, Integration, Impact of Covid-19, and Areas for development. In three interviews with children, the emergent themes were: Building rapport, Developmentally appropriate approaches, Understanding and managing emotions, Improving communication, and Areas for development. The first focus group included the CLS and two clinical leads of the psychosocial support team. Emergent themes from this discussion were: Promotion of the program, Accessibility, Role of social work, Impact of Covid-19, and Adopting a virtual approach. The second focus group consisted of three inpatient social workers, and the emergent themes were: Expertise, Accessibility, Allaying parent apprehension, Value added, Impact of Covid-19, and Areas for development. Synthesis of data identified five overall key themes: Awareness, Integration, Value added, Family-centered care, and Impact of Covid-19. Conclusions: This study conducted qualitative analysis of 360-degree feedback on the CLS pilot program. The analysis demonstrated that program was felt to add value, integrate well with current systems, and represent high-quality, family-centered care. This pilot occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic, the impacts of which were represented in this study.
Care at the end of life during the COVID-19 pandemic: A CancerLinQ Discovery (CLQD) analysis.
Authors: Rocque Gabrielle Betty , Riffon Mark , Paskett Electra D. , Jazieh Abdul-Rahman , King Jennifer C. , Potter Danielle M. 
Published: September 2021

310 Background: For patients with cancer approaching end-of-life (EOL) during the COVID-19 pandemic, the changes in service availability and transition to telehealth may impact care delivery. Little is known about how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted EOL encounters with the healthcare system, particularly for vulnerable patient populations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with cancer who died from 1/2019-9/2020 in the CLQD electronic health record-based dataset. Descriptive statistics were generated for demographic characteristics and for clinical encounters (telehealth/in person/no encounter) in the last 3 months of life (EOL) among patients deceased in the year. Results were stratified by age, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. Results: Among the 49,688 deceased patients, 27% were under 65, 29% were 65-74, and 44% were 75+. The majority were Non-Hispanic White, with 5% Hispanic, 12% Black. In 2020, patients who were age 75+, White, Non-Hispanic, and/or living in the Midwest or Northeast had lower rates of in person encounters and higher rates of no encounter at EOL than those <65, Black, Hispanic, and/or living in the South (Table). Telehealth use at EOL increased from 2019 to 2020, with highest use amongst those in the West and Hispanic patients (Table). Conclusions: During the pandemic, telehealth use was limited at EOL compared to the 14% reported use for all cancer patients (data not shown). Black and Hispanic patients had slightly higher provider encounters at EOL, which may be due to differences in intensity of EOL care or death capture within the database. Further research is needed to evaluate the quality of EOL care and to assess opportunities to leverage telehealth where patients are unable to access outpatient services.[Table: see text]