bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Comparison of clinician and model estimates of risk for hospitalization during systemic therapy for advanced cancer.
Authors: Emery Lukas P , Muralikrishnan Sivraj , Tosteson Anna , Schrag Deborah , Brooks Gabriel A. 
Published: June 2021

1530 Background: Patients receiving treatment for advanced cancer are at substantial risk for unplanned hospitalization. A validated two-variable risk model can identify patients at increased risk for hospitalization. However, little is known about how model-based estimates of hospitalization risk compare with assessments of treating clinicians. Methods: We identified patients initiating a new line of systemic therapy for advanced non-hematologic cancer. For each patient, we assigned three categorical estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk. The first risk estimate was generated by a validated two-variable risk prediction model with inputs of pretreatment plasma sodium and albumin (PMID: 30995122); continuous risk scores were converted to risk tertiles. We solicited a second risk estimate by real-time survey of a treating oncology clinician; clinicians were instructed to estimate hospitalization risk as low, intermediate, or high, as compared with other patients. A third hybrid risk estimate retained the highest risk category from either the clinician or model risk assessment. We describe the agreement of clinician and model-based estimates of 30-day hospitalization risk, and we compare the sensitivity and specificity of clinician, model, and hybrid high-risk assessments, using McNemar’s test. We compared discrimination of the three risk estimates via the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Results: We identified 104 patients with valid clinician and model hospitalization risk estimates and complete 30-day follow-up. The most common cancer type was lung cancer (27%), the median age was 68 years, and 62% of patients were male. 30-day hospitalization occurred in 21 patients (20.2%). There was moderate to poor agreement between clinician and model categorical estimates of hospitalization risk (weighted kappa = 0.245). The proportion of patients identified as high-risk by the clinician, model, and hybrid assessments was 15.4%, 26.0%, and 33.7%. Sensitivity and specificity of the high-risk categorization for 30-day hospitalization were 38% and 90% for the clinician assessment, 57% and 82% for the model assessment (NSS for comparison with clinician assessment), and 76% and 77% for the hybrid assessment (greater sensitivity [p = 0.008] and lesser specificity [p = 0.001] than clinician assessment). The AUC values for the clinician, model, and hybrid assessments were 0.674, 0.757, and 0.764, respectively. Conclusions: Compared with the estimate of a treating clinician, a two-variable risk model exhibited similar sensitivity and specificity for 30-day hospitalization risk. A hybrid risk assessment incorporating information from the risk model significantly improved on the sensitivity of the clinician risk assessment. Future research should test strategies to prevent hospitalizations by targeting interventions to high-risk patients.
Choosing unwisely: Low-value care in older adults with a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome.
Authors: Mukherjee Sudipto , Dong Weichuan , Stange Kurt C , Cullen Jennifer , Markt Sarah C. , Sekeres Mikkael A. , Koroukian Siran M. 
Published: June 2021

1532 Background: In tandem with the Choosing Wisely initiative, ASCO’s Cost of Care Task Force has proposed a list of low-value (LV) procedures and therapies that may be of limited benefit to patients. Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) is the most common myeloid malignancy in the US. A complete diagnostic evaluation (CDE) of MDS requires a bone marrow biopsy, fluorescence in situ hybridization and chromosomal analysis. As a potential LV procedure, we evaluated receipt of CDE in MDS patients with isolated or no cytopenias and no transfusion dependence. Methods: Using national 2011-2014 Medicare data, we identified fee-for-service Medicare patients 66 years of age or older with an MDS diagnosis, one or no cytopenias, and no blood transfusions in the 16 weeks before or after an MDS diagnosis (n = 16,779). We examined the following variables that may have provided a clinical context to (or not to) pursue CDE – demographics (age, race, sex); number of Elixhauser comorbid conditions ( < 5 vs >5); nursing home status, prior history of lymphoma, myeloma, MGUS and other cancers; chronic kidney disease (CKD); colonoscopy; and therapies received including erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs), hypomethylating agents (HMAs) or lenalidomide. We conducted Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis, a machine learning approach to identify combinations of factors in patients with little clinical justification for CDE, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to compare survival outcomes between those with or without CDE. Results: Over half of our study population (51%) received CDE. Of those, 46.6% were 80 years of age or older, 4.8% were nursing home residents; and 33.6% had 5 or more chronic conditions. Results from CART analysis showed that among patients with an isolated cytopenia (e.g., isolated anemia), 46.0% of patients >80 years (n = 860), and 57.7% (n = 1,156) of those in the 66-79 age group underwent CDE in the absence of CKD, colonoscopy, HMA, or ESA. Among those with no cytopenia (n = 3890), 866 patients received CDE in the absence of HMA, ESA, or history of lymphoma or progression to leukemia. In adjusted analyses, no survival benefit was associated with receipt of CDE (p = 0.24). Conclusions: A substantial number of patients with an MDS diagnosis, isolated or no cytopenias, and no transfusion dependence received a CDE in the absence of other diagnoses, procedures, or therapies that may have explained the clinical decision to perform CDE. These procedures entail costs, pain and anxiety, but do not appear to yield useful information to guide clinical management, as evidenced by the comparable survival outcomes between patients who did and did not undergo CDE. To promote patient-centered care, careful patient selection that reduces unnecessary CDE in MDS patients should be a priority in clinical decision-making.
The impact of COVID-19 on clinical cancer care: An individual-patient level analysis.
Authors: Drewett Lynsey M , Pugh Sian Alexandra , Kieran Rosalind , Nair Binu , Attia Hossameldin , Sabar Muhammad Iftikhar , Milne Isabel , Saunders Sharon , Bragg Jennie , Whitehorn Deborah , Lay Jonathan , Rueda Oscar M , Harris Fiona , Welsh Sarah Joanne , Doherty Gary , Basu Bristi , Abraham Jean , Beddowes Emma , Corrie Philippa Gail , O'Carrigan Brent 
Published: June 2021

1533 Background: At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns for the safety of patients receiving anti-cancer treatment coupled with pressures on healthcare services prompted review of standard clinical care pathways in the UK. Revised consensus treatment guidelines were generated. Individual patient-level data regarding actual treatment modifications implemented in clinical practice are lacking. Methods: All anti-cancer treatment plans of patients with breast, lung, renal, hepatopancreatobiliary, CNS cancers and melanoma attending a single academic cancer centre in the UK between 16 March and 31 May 2020 were reviewed and any modifications to standard practice were documented. The effect of patient (age, ECOG performance status [PS], sex) and cancer (site, stage, treatment intent) characteristics on likelihood of treatment modifications were analysed using univariable and multivariable models. Results: Treatment plans for 925 patients were reviewed: median patient age was 63 (range 19-97); 66% were female; 73% were PS 0-1; 45% were on a curative pathway. Overall, 47% of all patients had one or more modifications made to their treatment plans: 53% of surgeries (primarily being delayed); 41% of radiotherapy (primarily reduced fractions delivered); 39% of systemic therapy prescriptions. 96-100% of all systemic therapy modifications resulted in treatment de-escalation, excluding endocrine therapy used as a bridge to defer primary breast cancer surgery. Biological therapy was predominantly interrupted (49%), immunotherapy was mostly omitted entirely (36%), and chemotherapy varied between interruptions (39%) or omissions (31%). Relative to the likelihood of modification to chemotherapy, surgery was significantly more likely to be modified (OR 1.69 95%CI 1.20-2.38). Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, biological therapy and immunotherapy were all modified to a similar degree. Multivariate analysis identified PS ≥2 (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.18–2.75), but not patient age, as a predictor of treatment modification. Some tumour types were less likely to undergo any modification: stage 1-3 lung (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.04-0.37), stage 4 lung (OR 0.26 95%CI 0.24–0.60) and stage 4 renal cancer (OR 0.22 95%CI 0.09-0.52). Conclusions: This single centre analysis demonstrated almost half of cancer patients had their treatment modified, the overwhelming majority resulting in treatment de-escalation. The impact of the treatment modifications on overall cancer patient outcomes remains to be determined.
Patterns in cancer management changes for patients with COVID-19 in northern California.
Authors: Glover Michael , Wu Julie , Kwon Daniel H , Zhang Sylvia , Henry Solomon , Wood Douglas , Rubin Daniel , Borno Hala , Small Eric Jay , Schapira Lidia , Koshkin Vadim S , Shah Sumit 
Published: June 2021

1535 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic affected oncology practice in ways that are still evolving. In particular, COVID-19 has led to changes in cancer treatment for patients (pts) infected with COVID, which may have long-term implications for both COVID and cancer-related outcomes. In this retrospective analysis, we describe changes in cancer management over time for cancer pts diagnosed with COVID-19 at two academic institutions in Northern California. Methods: Adult and pediatric pts diagnosed with COVID-19 receiving active cancer management, defined as therapy/surgery/diagnostics within 3 weeks of COVID diagnosis, were identified through the EMR. Patients whose care was affected by COVID-19 were identified and analyzed for significant intra-group differences with regards to management type, treatment intent, and the time of COVID-19 diagnosis (“early” was defined as March to June 2020 and “late” as July 2020 to January 2021). The duration and characteristics of such changes were compared across subgroups. Chi-squared test was used to compare the incidence of delays between subgroups. Results: Among 134 COVID-positive pts on active cancer management, 83 (62%) had significant changes in management that consisted primarily of treatment delays. More delays were identified in patients treated with curative intent earlier in the course of the pandemic compared to later (OR 4.1, p=0.022). This difference was not seen among pts treated with palliative intent. In addition, pts on oral (PO) therapy were significantly less likely to have treatment changes than those on IV/IM therapy (OR 0.32, p=0.005). This difference was driven by a decrease in management changes for those on PO therapy in the later time period (OR 0.27, p=0.026). Pts diagnosed later were more likely to have delays due to clinical reasons rather than institutional policy (OR 6.2, P<.005). The median delay in both time frames was 21 days. Comparison of subgroups is shown in the table. Conclusions: We found significant changes in management of cancer pts with COVID-19 that evolved over time. Oncologists have become increasingly willing to continue therapy for cancer pts treated with curative intent and pts on oral therapy. Changes in cancer therapy have become more frequently related to patient clinical status, and less so due to institutional policies. It will be important to analyze how these changes in management are ultimately reflected in cancer outcomes in order to equip patients and oncologists to react to the next pandemic.[Table: see text]
The HOLA COVID-19 study: Evaluating the impact of caring for patients with COVID-19 on cancer care delivery in Latin America.
Authors: Bernabe Ramirez Carolina , Velazquez Manana Ana I. , Olazagasti Coral , Bergerot Cristiane Decat , Soto Perez De Celis Enrique , Corona-Cruz Jose Francisco , Riano Ivy , Adaniel Christina , Ramirez Francisca , Anampa Mesias Jesus Del Santo , Cajina Carmen , Mena Evelin , Gracia Elias , Menendez Alvaro G. , Idrobo Henry , Bezares Raimundo , Castillo Fernandez Omar Orlando , Duque Duran Liseth , Bergerot Paulo Gustavo , Duma Narjust 
Published: June 2021

1537 Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome 2 (SARS-cov-2) virus causing COVID-19 has brought great challenges to global health services affecting cancer care delivery, outcomes, and increasing the burden in oncology providers (OP). Our study aimed to describe the challenges that OP faced while delivering cancer care in Latin America. Methods: We conducted an international cross-sectional study using an anonymous online survey in Spanish, Portuguese, and English. The questionnaire included 43 multiple choice questions. The sample was stratified by OP who have treated patients with COVID-19 versus those who have not treated patients with COVID-19. Data was analyzed with descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests. Results: A total of 704 OP from 20 Latin American countries completed the survey (77% of 913 who started the survey). Oncologists represented 46% of respondents, followed by 25% surgical-oncologists. Of the respondents, 56% treated patients with COVID-19. A significant proportion of OP reported newly adopting telemedicine during COVID-19 (14% vs 72%, p=0.001). More than half (58%) of OP reported making changes to the treatments they offered to patients with cancer. As shown in the table, caring for patients with COVID-19 significantly influenced practice patterns of OP. Access to specialty services and procedures was significantly reduced: 40% noted significantly decreased or no access to imaging, 20% significantly decreased or no access to biopsies, 65% reported delays in surgical oncology referrals, and 49% in radiation oncology referrals. A vast majority (82%) reported oncologic surgeries were delayed or cancelled, which was heightened among those treating patients with COVID-19 (87% vs 77%, p=0.001). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected the way cancer care is delivered in globally. Although changes to healthcare delivery are necessary as a response to this global crisis, our study highlights the significant disruption and possible undertreatment of patients with cancer in Latin America that results from COVID-19.[Table: see text]
Bridging the gaps between tertiary and community care networks: Results from a southern California survey research analysis.
Authors: Chehrazi-Raffle Alex , Salgia Nicholas , Hsu Joann , Zengin Zeynep Busra , Salgia Sabrina , Chawla Neal , Malhotra Jasnoor , Dizman Nazli , Muddasani Ramya , Meza Luis A , Cianfrocca Mary E. , Gong Jun , Anand Sidharth , Chiu Victor Yundeh , Yeh James Jen-Chi , Pal Sumanta K. 
Published: June 2021

1538 Background: Although many tertiary cancer centers offer access to myriad research protocols, the majority of patients nevertheless receive treatment at community practices. We sought to examine the barriers that hamper clinical collaboration between tertiary and community practice environments in Southern California. Methods: A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists using REDCap, a browser-based electronic data capture system. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge pertaining to clinical trials, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices. Results: The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it in full. The most common institutional affiliations were City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center (58%), University of California, Los Angeles (10%), and Cedars Sinai Medical Center (8%). In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for pt referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners as compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Of note, while a majority of tertiary center providers (52%) described the primary value of community practices to be a source of referrals for clinical trials, most community oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers. Conclusions: Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients’ access to clinical trials.
Dedicated clinical trial tissue tracking database to improve turn-around time at high-volume center.
Authors: Blankenship Peter , DeLaRosa David , Burris Marc , Cusson Steven , Hendricks Kayla , Earwood Christopher , Jones Suzanne Fields , Hamilton Erika P. , Johnson Melissa Lynne , Burris III Howard A. , Bendell Johanna C. , McKean Meredith 
Published: June 2021

1543 Background: Tissue requirements in oncology clinical trials are increasingly complex due to prescreening protocols for patient selection and serial biopsies to understand molecular-level treatment effects. Novel solutions for tissue processing are necessary for timely tissue procurement. Based on these needs, we developed a Tissue Tracker (TT), a comprehensive database for study-related tissue tasks at our high-volume clinical trial center. Methods: In this Microsoft Access database, patients are assigned an ID within the TT that is associated with their name, medical record number, and study that follows their request to external users: pathology departments, clinical trial coordinators and data team members. To complete tasks in the TT, relevant information is required to update the status. Due to the high number of archival tissue requests from unique pathology labs, the TT has a “Follow-Up Dashboard” that organizes information needed to conduct follow-up on all archival samples with the status “Requested”. This results in an autogenerated email and pdf report sent to necessary teams. The TT also includes a kit inventory system and a real-time read only version formatted for interdepartmental communication, metric reporting, and other data-driven efforts. The primary outcome in this study was to evaluate our average turnaround time (ATAT: average time from request to shipment) for archival and fresh tissue samples before and after TT development. Results: Before implementing the TT, between March 2016 and March 2018, we processed 2676 archival requests from 235 unique source labs resulting in 2040 shipments with an ATAT of 19.29 days. We also processed 1099 fresh biopsies resulting in 944 shipments with an ATAT of 7.72 days. After TT implementation, between April 2018 and April 2020, we processed 2664 archival requests from 204 unique source labs resulting in 2506 shipments (+28.0%) with an ATAT of 14.78 days (-23.4%). During that same period, we processed 1795 fresh biopsies (+63.3%) resulting in 2006 shipments (+112.5%) with an ATAT of 6.85 days (-11.3%). Conclusions: Oncology clinical trials continue to evolve toward more extensive tissue requirements for prescreening and scientific exploration of on-treatment molecular profiling. Timely results are required to optimize patient trial participation. During the intervention period, our tissue sample volume and shipments increased, but the development and implementation of an automated tracking system allowed improvement in ATAT of both archival and fresh tissue. This automation not only improves end-user expectations and experiences for patients and trial sponsors but this allows our team to adapt to the increasing interest in tissue exploration.
Oncology patient and provider preferences regarding rapid radiology result release to online portals.
Authors: Bleeker Jonathan , Wernisch Jan , Tronier Shawn , Terstriep Shelby A. 
Published: June 2021

1544 Background: Spurred by changes in legislation and technology, rapid patient access to medical results has never been higher. Many health systems now release results of radiology tests within 24 hours of completion, meaning patients may see results before being able to discuss them with the ordering provider. Generally, surveys have demonstrated that patients are in favor of rapid result availability, but research on rapid result release to oncology patients with distinct concerns is scant. Methods: Starting in February 2020, oncology providers throughout Sanford Health, a multi-site primarily rural integrated practice in the upper Midwest were invited to complete an online survey regarding their opinions on rapid result release. Starting in February 2020, oncology patients were invited to complete a similar survey. This survey was open until August 2020, when 100 patients had completed the survey; both surveys contained both categorical and narrative results. Results: Oncology providers had a generally more negative opinion of rapid radiology result release to online portals compared to patients. 65% of patients believed radiology results should be released within 24 hours of resulting; only 12% of providers shared this view. 66% of providers shared that they did not feel comfortable with patients’ ability to interpret radiology results and only 13% felt that “normal” results should be released immediately to an online portal; this number decreased to 3% when results were “abnormal”. Patient opinions on appropriate result release were impacted by test results as well. For “normal” radiology results, 50% of patients favored initial communication be via online portal without discussion with a provider; for “abnormal” results, this number decreased to 28%. 43% of patients had learned of an “abnormal” result via online portal before discussion with a provider; 66% of these patients felt that this was a positive which allowed them to process information prior to the visit; 33% felt that it created undue anxiety. 94% of providers reported having a patient contact them regarding a test result prior to a planned visit, with 60% providers sharing this happens at least once weekly. When asked what improvements could be made to the system currently in place at Sanford, 80% of providers suggested holding radiology results until direct communication with the provider can occur; only 8% of patients suggested the same intervention. Conclusions: Rapid result release is generally a patient satisfier, although oncology patients do distinguish abnormal from normal results in terms of rapid release. It is a dissatisfier for providers both due to concerns regarding patients’ ability to interpret results and due to excess work created by rapid release. Ongoing work should focus on ways to allow patients to access resources to make medical results more interpretable if reviewed prior to provider visits.